Penang Forum gesa panel bebas untuk meneliti EIA

0
Are more highways the way forward for Penang?

[ENGLISH VERSION BELOW] Penang Forum telah menghimpunkan satu pasukan terdiri daripada 31 profesional termasuk 20 penyumbang dengan ijazah PhD dan sarjana untuk meneliti EIA yang tersebut di atas.

Kami telah menyerahkan hasil penelitian itu kepada Jabatan Alam Sekitar (JAS), dan salinannya kepada menteri MESTECC dan ketua menteri Pulau Pinang.

Kesimpulan kami bahawa EIA itu pada asasnya cacat dan perlu ditolak atau dilakukan semula sepenuhnya atas sebab yang berikut:

1. Ia tidak memenuhi ketetapan Akta Kualiti Alam Sekitar 1974 yang memerlukan penyelesaian alternatif dikaji atau dijelaskan untuk mewajarkan bahawa projek itu akan memberikan kesan yang sedikit kepada alam sekitar. Dalam perkataan lain cadangan alternatif yang berdaya maju bagi penyelesaian yang lebih murah, cepat, lebih mampan bagi alam sekitar dan kurang memusnahkan bagi menangani mobilit pengangkutan dan kesesakan lalu lintas tidak dipertimbangkan atau dinilai.

2. Analisis manfaat-kos (cost-benefit analysis) yang lebih sempurna tidak dilakukan dengan mengambil kira kos pada masa kini dan masa depan dan luaran termasuk ekonomi, alam sekitar, sosial, kesihatan dan kos lain.

3. Kajian EIA gagal untuk mewajarkan keperluan bagi pembinaan PIL1 kerana penemuannya sendiri mendapati bahawa menjelang 2030 (antara lima dan tujuh tahun selepas projek siap) lebuhraya itu akan mencapai paras kesesakan. Dalam perkataan lain, PIL1 bukanlah jangka sederhana, apatah lagi jangka panjang, penyelesaian kepada masalah, bahkan tidak dapat menyelesaikan masalah.

4. Janji keaslian laporan tercela oleh insiden ciplak di mana data dan maklumat diambil kata demi kata daripada Penang Monthly tidak diakui.

5. EIA juga tidak menangani dengan secukupnya kos ketara dan luaran projek.

a. Kos kesihatan – kesan pencemaran udara dan bising kepada pelajar sekolah berdekatan lebuhraya tidak disiasat. Nilai ramalan dan latar belakang pencemaran udara diremehkan dan tidak realistik.

b. Kos sosial – gangguan kepada komuniti dalam kawasan penerima yang sensitif terutama sekali di dua taman penting yang paling banyak digunakan di Pulau Pinang (Taman Belia dan Taman Jajar di Sungai Ara) tidak ditangani dengan secukupnya. Komuniti yang terjejas adalah daripada sekolah, kawasan kediaman, institusi keagamaan dan tapak warisan mengadu bahawa mereka tidak dimaklumkan atau kebimbangan mereka tidak dipertimbangkan dengan serius. Penilaian kesan sosial yang lebih sempurna meliputi sampel perwakilan kumpulan terjejas juga tiada.

READ MORE:  Tiada justifikasi untuk membazirkan jutaan ringgit membina laluan bawah tanah (Malay/English)

c. Kos ekologi – hakisan tanah, kehilangan pokok matang, tanah runtuh dan banjir akan terhasil akibat pemotongan bukit kurang menonjol. EIA menyarankan langkah pencegahan standard. Tetapi rekod pemantauan dan penguatkuasaan oleh pihak berkuasa kerajaan amatlah lemah sepertimana yang ditunjukkan oleh kemerosotan alam sekitar yang serius daripada projek pembinaan jalan dan kediaman di Paya Terubong dan Tanjung Bungah.

d. Kos keselamatan – EIA mendedahkan risiko geologi dan geoteknikal terowong melalui retakan batu dan zon sesar, dengan nilai kesan sebagai sederhana kepada berisiko tinggi. Paling membimbangkan ialah pembinaan terowong dan jambatan kira-kira 350 meter daripada Empangan Air Itam (kapasiti 2.5 juta liter) pada satu bahagian dan Kuil Kek Lok Si pada satu bahagian, berdekatan garis sesar. Malah tidak terdapat siasatan lengkap geologi dan hidrologi untuk mengukur risiko dan faktor keselamatan.

e. Maklumat mengenai jumlah bahan letupan yang akan digunakan, lokasi simpanan, pengangkutan dan risiko operasi melalui kawasan padat penduduk, keselamatan pekerja, pelupusan sampah dan sebagainya amat kurang.

Sehubungan dengan perkara di atas, kami menyimpulkan bahawa laporan EIA itu kekurangan standard profesional dan seharusnya tidak diluluskan.

Kami menggesa Jabatan Alam Sekitar supaya:

  1. memberikan pertimbangan kepada pandangan kami dan menilainya secara profesional dan atas dasar saintifik, dan tanpa pertimbangan politik. Ini selaras dengan arahan perdana menteri supaya kakitangan kerajaan menjalankan tugas mereka dengan “menurut amanah dan bukan menurut arahan”.
  2. melantik jawatankuasa kajian semula teknikal yang bebas dan profesional, tanpa penyertaan daripada penyokong projek, untuk menilai EIA serta maklum balas berhubung EIA.
  3. mendedahkan kepada orang ramai hasil penemuan oleh jawatankuasa kajian semula dan JAS.

English version

Penang Forum calls for independent panel to review EIA

Penang Forum assembled a team of 31 professionals that included 20 contributors with PhD and Master’s degrees to review the environmental impact assessment (EIA) on phase one of the Pan Island Link highway (PIL1).

READ MORE:  Tiada justifikasi untuk membazirkan jutaan ringgit membina laluan bawah tanah (Malay/English)

We have submitted the review to the Department of the Environment, and given copies to the minister of energy, science, technology, environment and climate change and the Penang chief minister.

Our conclusion is that the EIA is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected or completely redone for the following reasons:

1. It does not fulfil a stipulation of the Environment Quality Act 1974 that requires alternative solutions to be studied or described to justify that the project will result in the least environmental impact. In other words, viable alternative proposals for cheaper, faster, more environmentally sustainable and less destructive solutions to tackle transport mobility and traffic congestion have not been considered or evaluated.

2. A proper cost-benefit analysis has not been conducted taking into account present and future costs and externalities including economic, environmental, social, health and other costs.

3. The EIA study has failed to justify the need to for the PIL1 because its own findings reveal that by 2030 (between five and seven years after project completion) the highway will reach congestion level. In other words, the PIL1 is not a medium-term, let alone a long-term, solution to the problem it sets out to resolve.

4. The report’s pledge of originality is discredited by incidences of plagiarism where data and information lifted verbatim from Penang Monthly has not been acknowledged.

5. The EIA has not adequately addressed significant costs and externalities of the project.

a. Health costs – the impact of air and noise pollution to thousands of school children close to the highway has not been investigated. The background and predicted values of air pollutants are underestimated and unrealistic.
b. Social costs – disruption to communities in sensitive receptor areas particularly in two of the most used and important parks in Penang island (the Youth Park and the Sungai Ara Linear Park) has not been adequately addressed. Members of affected communities from schools, residential areas, religious institutions and heritage sites have complained that they were not informed or their concerns seriously considered. A proper social impact assessment covering representative samples of affected groups is missing.

READ MORE:  Tiada justifikasi untuk membazirkan jutaan ringgit membina laluan bawah tanah (Malay/English)

c. Ecological costs – soil erosion, loss of mature trees, landslides and flooding that will result from hill-cutting have been underplayed. The EIA recommends standard mitigation measures. But the track record of monitoring and enforcement by government authorities is extremely poor, as shown by the serious environmental degradation from road and residential construction projects in Paya Terubong and Tanjong Bungah.

d. Safety costs – The EIA highlights geological and geotechnical risks of tunnelling through fractured rocks and fault zones, rating the impact as medium to high risk. Of particular concern is the tunnel and viaduct construction about 350 metres from the Air Itam Dam (capacity 2.5 million litres) on one side and the historic Kek Lok Si Temple on the other, near fault lines. Yet there are no detailed geological and hydrogeological investigations to quantify the risk and safety factors.

e. Information on the amount of explosives to be used, location of storage, transport and operational risks through densely populated areas, workers’ safety, disposal of debris, etc is seriously lacking.

In light of the above concerns, we submit that the EIA report falls short of professional standards and should not be approved.

We urge the Department of Environment to:

  1. Give due consideration to our submissions and evaluate them purely on professional and scientific grounds, and without political considerations. This is in line with the prime minister’s directive that civil servants carry out their duties “menurut amanah dan bukan menurut arahan”.
  2. Appoint an independent and professional technical review committee, without participation from project proponents to assess the EIA as well as the feedback on the EIA.
  3. Make public all the above findings of the review committee and the DoE.
Thanks for dropping by! The views expressed in Aliran's media statements and the NGO statements we have endorsed reflect Aliran's official stand. Views and opinions expressed in other pieces published here do not necessarily reflect Aliran's official position.

Our voluntary writers work hard to keep these articles free for all to read. But we do need funds to support our struggle for Justice, Freedom and Solidarity. To maintain our editorial independence, we do not carry any advertisements; nor do we accept funding from dubious sources. If everyone reading this was to make a donation, our fundraising target for the year would be achieved within a week. So please consider making a donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB Bank account number 8004240948.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments