Can India be firm with China on Brahmaputra basin dams?

India and China share rivers and much more…

Can India be firm with China on Brahmaputra basin dams?

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s forthcoming India visit (15-17 Dec 2010) provides another useful opportunity for India to be firm and forthright with China on India’s concerns about Chinese dam and hydropower projects on the shared rivers, including in the Brahmaputra basin. The importance of this issue cannot be underscored considering that this issue has been raised in the Parliament several times, even the Prime Minister has had to make clarifications in the recent past, the people and governments of several states, including Assam and Arunachal Pradesh have been agitated about this. India’s Planning Commission, Environment, Water Resources and Power Ministries have also been raising these concerns.

Unfortunately, India has been less than firm and forthright with China on these issues in the past. For example, the Indian government has informed the Parliament in the past that China has not disclosed the reasons for floods in Himachal Pradesh in August 2000 and in Arunachal Pradesh in June 2000, when the floods in both cases originated from China. Both floods created huge devastations in India.

China started the construction of the 510 MW Zangmu Hydropower project on the Yarlung Tshangpo (as Siang, the main tributary of Brahmaputra is known in Tibet see the location map above) on Nov 12, 2010. India reacted to that only after the Indian media picked up the news from international media reports. Worryingly, the report from the China’s news agency Xinhua said the US$ 1.2 billion project “can also be used for flood control and irrigation”. For a project to be useful for irrigation and flood control it needs to store and divert water. But even without these features the Zangmu and the numerous other hydropower projects that China plans will have adverse downstream impacts. The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei did clarify to media that China took "full consideration of the potential impact on the downstream area."

But note that this clarification really says nothing either about the downstream impacts or what consideration they have given to such impacts. Should Indian government complain about this? The trouble is, when Indian government responds to downstream countries about the dams and hydropower projects it builds or when India responds to even its own people, Indian government response is almost in same ambiguous, escapist and almost insulting language and manner. To illustrate, when an Indian Union Minister responded to a question in Parliament about impact of Arunachal Pradesh hydro projects on downstream Assam, the answer was, “No specific information is available regarding threats to existing identity of indigenous people of Assam by mega dams proposed in the NER”. Should not the water resources ministry be more forthright about the adverse impacts that Assam people are sure to face due to the existing and proposed Arunachal projects?

As a matter of fact, Indian, Arunachal and Assam governments have often justified the expeditious clearance and building of big dams in the North East, saying that it will establish first user right. The trouble is, firstly there is no international law or mechanism where such a right can be defended against actions of upstream countries. Such a defence would be possible if there was a treaty on sharing the common rivers, like the Indus Treaty that India has with Pakistan. But no such treaty exists between India and China on any of the rivers that the two countries share. And India has not used its substantial leverage (The delegation accompanying the Chinese premier includes 400 business people and five years back too Wen went back from India after a successful business trip) to push any such treaty.

The only international convention in this regard, the UN Convention on Non navigational uses of international watercourses was approved in 1997 by a vote of 104-3. Interestingly, China was one of the only three nations that voted against the convention. India did not do it a great favour by abstaining from voting. The convention in any case it yet to come to force since sufficient number of countries are yet to ratify it. But even when it gets ratified, as noted by a task force report from India’s defence think tank IDSA (Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses), such laws are “difficult to implement and often contradictory”. No effective international court exists for such conflict resolution. Unfortunately, the IDSA report ends up with a rather problematic suggestion, “As a counter-measure to China's plan for the diversion of the Yarlung-Tsangpo, India should propose a south Asian-China-ADB power project with international support on the Great Bend.” Such a suggestion would be seriously counter productive since it will justify the worst feared of the proposals China has of building a 38 000 MW hydropower project on Brahmaputra and diverting it to the Northern part in phase two. In fact, China has multiple projects lined up on Tsangpo, as can be seen from the map above.

China’s track record, however, is far from encouraging in this regard. What is going on in the Mekong basin is a good guide. There exists an international Mekong Commission including countries like the Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, and the commission is backed by powerful Japan and the Asian Development Bank. But China, which is not part of the commission, has been building hydropower projects which are affecting the downstream existing projects adversely, but the downstream countries could do nothing about the Chinese projects. The downstream countries can at best request China to make amends. What happened to such requested in Mekong basin? This is what an editorial in major Thailand dialy, Bangkok Post wrote on March 10, 2010, “But those requests have gone in one Beijing ear and out the other for years.” This completely demolishes the first user principle argument that supporters of dams in Arunachal Pradesh, including environment minister Jairam Ramesh are using to push such projects.

That said, we also need to look at the track record of Indian governments in this regard. When it comes to sharing even basic information about the plans of the government in North East India, the Water Resources Ministry refuses to provide basic information to the people of the North East Region. The Ministry refused to provide such information to South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People even under the Right to Information Act. Ultimately SANDRP had to file appeals to the Central Information Commission and the ministry had to provide basic information under the CIC orders. But this and the earlier quoted answer in Parliament from the minister show how callously Indian government deals with these issues. Indian government ensures no proper environment impact assessment, has absolutely no will or capacity to implement environment management plans of the projects and has no law that requires proper participation of affected people in planning and decision making in water resources development or management. India needs to fundamentally change its ways of dealing with the issues related to rivers and dams. Indian government needs to improve its own credibility through more responsive, transparent and environment friendly treatment of rivers and people.

The need of the hour is a comprehensive treaty with China on the river basins that the two countries share. This is also urgently important since the rivers that India shares with China are fed by glaciers, most of which are located inside Tibet. Our knowledge base of these lifelines is very poor and better cooperation is also useful for India in the context of climate change. This has been rightly emphasised by Shri Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister. The best way to go forward for India, China, Bangladesh (a downstream country along the Brahmaputra) and even the rest of the world would be to set up a multilateral river basin level mechanism involving not just the governments but the people of three countries to share not just the water of the rivers that India and China share, but also the mountains, the glaciers, the forests, the biodiversity and the associated lives and cultures that also get shared. The Report of the World Commission on Dams provides a very useful starting point for such a mechanism. Interestingly, both Indian and Chinese governments were involved in the work of the WCD so both are familiar with the WCD recommendations.

The Indian and Chinese premiers have an unprecedented historical opportunity to create a river basin management mechanism on these lines for sharing the international rivers. It will not only help the two countries for generations to come, but it has the potential to create a remarkable example for the rest of the world. Such a mechanism can help keep the Brahmaputra basin rivers in the natural state over large parts. Brahmaputra, the fifth largest river in terms of water it carries and second largest in terms of the silt it carries, remains relatively less disturbed among the rivers of the world and provides ideal platform for this. Will the Indian government show the firmness, forthrightness and foresight to propose this to the visiting Chinese Premier?  It can only strengthen Indian government hand in dealing with its bigger neighbour. It will also give huge strength to the fragile bilateral relations that the Chinese ambassador to India referred to on Dec 13, 2010 in Delhi.

Himanshu Thakkar (ht.sandrp@gmail.com)                                                         December 15 2010

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (www.sandrp.in) 

Environment Ministry needs to take urgent systemic actions

Why the MoEF needs to urgently take up

some systemic tough actions

A completely wrong impression is being created, largely by vested interest lobbies that Union Ministry of Environment & Forests under the leadership of Shri Jairam Ramesh is over reacting in recent months. The situation is exactly the opposite. The Ministry needs to take up some tough systemic actions rather soon if India’s Environment and Forests to have any hope. Fact of the matter is that the Ministry is yet to really start performing the role for which the ministry is created. To illustrate:

• Our rivers continue to remain what the World Bank describes as fetid sewers. The MoEF has the mandate and power to ensure that rivers are not polluted. The Ministry has been empowered with the laws like the Water Pollution Control Act, the Environment Protection Act and so on. It has been provided with huge institutions and sufficient financial resources in terms of thousands of crores, and yet the ministry is yet to achieve a single clean river in the country. Right in the National Capital, the river flowing through it is a gutter as described by many editorials in National papers, but the ministry is unable to take any action to fix that problem.
• The ministry every month continues to give hundreds of clearances under EPA (1986), Environment Impact Notification (2006) and Forest Conservation Act. (1980) accompanied by Forest Rights Act. Each such clearance is accompanied by an Environment Impact Assessment, Environment Management Plan and conditions of clearances. The MoEF has neither the capacity nor the will to ensure compliance with the conditions under which such clearances are given. It does not even know what is going on at project sites. Its field offices do not do any surprise visits to the project sites to ensure if the projects are following the laws of the land. A recent review by the additional Chief Secretary of Himachal Pradesh following a High Court order showed that everyone of the reviewed projects were violating the laws or management plans. But there are practically no consequences for such violations. A recent RTI response from the ministry revealed that over five years after getting environment clearance in Oct 2005, the Polavaram dam in Andhra Pradesh has not submitted a single compliance report when it supposed to submit such reports every six months. No consequenes. Even when the reports submitted to it by the developers (e.g. Karcham Wangtoo hydropower project) or by committees appointed by the ministry (e.g. Sardar Sarovar Project) or by non government organisations (e.g. Tehri Dam and Rampur Hydropower project) show violations, there are still no consequences. And if the ministry does not know what is going on, what action can it take?
• It is an open secret that the EIAs submitted to the ministry are routinely plagiarised,  are cut and paste, and dishonest, seriously compromised jobs, including for the Jaitpur nuclear power plant most recently cleared. But the MoEF has not taken any measures against any of the EIA consultants for filing fraudulent EIAs, even after media has reported and when these issues have been brought to the notice of the ministry one way or the other.
• The ministry still does not have clearly defined norms that only persons with back ground in environmental issues should be selected for the Environment Appraisal Committees appointed by the ministry for scrutinising the applications for clearances. So we have Rakesh Nath heading the EAC for River Valley projects, without having absolutely any background on environmental issues. He was appointed during Mr Jairam Ramesh’s regime, incidentally.

These just a few BIG systematic issues one can highlight, on which urgent action is required if we are to have any semblance of governance on environmental issues. But there is not even a move in that direction.

There is no doubt that Mr Jairam Ramesh has started taking some steps in right direction in some projects. The developers have become used to have an MoEF that is not doing its job, but working as an agent of environment destruction. In such a situation the developers are suddenly crying that there is over reaction from the ministry. However, if one looks at closely, almost in each of the instances where the ministry has taken action, one can see that the action was long over due and that in many cases the action was taken only after people working on ground have high lighted the problems or cases have been filed  in the courts. This is true in case of Lavasa, Vedanta, Posco, Polavaram dam, Maheshwar hydro projects, Renuka Dam, among others. In fact for each such case, one can show dozens of others where action is over due from the MoEF, but the ministry have not yet taken the required action. There are other instances (e.g. SUVs, western life styles being bad for environment or that the National Action Plan on Climate Change should have been formulated in participation with the people at grass roots) where Mr Jairam Ramesh has made statements, but action is still awaited. Actions that can bring systemic change in environment governance so that non compliance invites consequences is still awaited. The Ministry is clearly under reacting.

Himanshu Thakkar (ht.sandrp@gmail.com)                                                 December 6 2010

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (www.sandrp.in)

An edited version published at: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/isenvironment-ministry-over-reacting/417440/

The Revised Cost Clearance for SARDAR SAROVAR PROJECT

The Pro dam lobby arm twists Planning Commission to take a U turn

The title sounds too juicy. Is that possible in a democracy? Let us look at the facts.

The Planning Commission of Government of India gave investment clearance to the Sardar Sarovar Project in October 1988 for a cost of Rs 6406 crore at 1986-87 prices. The project is still far from complete. The Project applied for over six fold increase in cost of the project earlier this year. This is a narration of what happened to that application in Planning Commission. 

However, let us see what happened at Central Water Commission/ Union Ministry of Water Resources before that in March 2010. 

Water Resources Ministry and CWC So on 11 March 2010, when the application for revised cost approval came before the 103^rd meeting of the Advisory Committee on Irrigation Flood Control and Multi Purpose projects, the note prepared by the Project Appraisal Organisation of the Central Water Commission claimed the Benefit Cost ratio for India’s most controversial large dam was 1.63 even at the revised cost of Rs 39240.45 crores (2008-09 price level). Acting more like a lobby for big dams, the Central Water Commission did not raise any uncomfortable or critical questions about the claims of the Gujarat Government. At the meeting, in response to some questions by the chairman (who is also secretary, Union Ministry of Water Resources), the project authorities gave some factually wrong information. For example, as per the summary record of discussions (all information in this article is obtained under RTI) of the meeting, the project authorities said that among the reasons for delay was, “Besides, stay order from the Supreme Court in May 1995 till Oct 2000 halted physical progress of works although, dam height of 110 m was already attained by May 1995.” Now it is a matter of fact that the dam reached the level of 110 m only in June 2004 and in May 1995 when the stay was given, this author was in the Supreme Court chamber and the dam height then was 80 m. But for SSP authorities, the CWC and the Union Ministry of Water Resources, Kuch bhi chalata hai (anything goes).

The summary record of the meeting accepts that the Command Area Development plan is yet to be approved. Incidentally, that plan was supposed to be completed by 1989. The summary record also notes the claim of the project authority that the project will be completed by March 2014, even though the attached data sheet mentioned the schedule stretching to 2016-17. About Benefit cost ratio calculations, there were many issues. The manipulations done by the project authorities were apparent.

For example, the document was completely silent on the issue of cost of debt the project authority has incurred and will have to incur, it was also completely silent about the CAG reports that showed that the project had diverted, mis-managed the funds and there were also big issues about corruption and poor quality of the work done so far. The project authorities also did not find it fit to explain as to why the canal network was delayed so much, when neither the court stay order nor the agitation against the project stopped them from building the canal network. But such small issues won’t deter the big people from going ahead with big decisions. So the advisory committee “accepted the proposal.” It is clear from the available records that there was little application of mind on the part of either the Central Water Commission or the Union Ministry of Water Resources or any members of the advisory committee before approving a 500% increase in project cost.

The ball then went to the court of Planning Commission through a letter from the Ministry of Water Resources on March 19, 2010. The brief chronology of events in the Planning Commission in this regard is as follows:

·   March 22 2010 PC asks about status of compliance of earlier PC clearance and about R&R.

·   March 24 2010 GOG replies, which is found unsatisfactory by PC.

·   April 7, 2010 A letter goes from PC to Gujarat government raising a series of 19 questions.

·   April 27 2010 The note in the Planning Commission file shows that the answers of GOG are not satisfactory.

·   May 10, 2010 Member (Water Resources), Planning Commission writes following note in the file:

“There are three issues with the SSP:

1.       Environment Compliance

2.       R&R Compliance

3.       Command Area Development

On the first, the MoEF has set up a High Level Advisory Committee on 28^th April 2010 for ascertaining pari passu compliance.

On the second, the Union Minister of State for Water Resources stated in the written reply in the Rajya Sabha on 6^th My that approval from the R&R sub group of the NCA is yet to be obtained.

On the third issue which is of primary concern to the Planning Commission, while providing investment clearance, it has to be emphasised that by all accounts the progress has not been satisfactory and business as usual will not work. A major change is required. I would suggest the GOG set up an Expert Group for advice on how best a PIM approach could be adopted in the SSP Command to improve farmers’ access to water and water use efficiency.”

“In view of the recent damaging observations of the CAG in its report tabled in the Gujarat assembly on 30^th March 2010 (which suggests that only 18.64% of CCA has been developed and that utilised CCA is only 6.56% of envisaged CCA, it is imperative that a considered view be taken on the way forward and a wide range of experts be consulted on how performance can be radically improved.

The GOG should submit the report of the expert group to the Planning Commission By then the first interim report of the YK Alagh Committee on environment compliance set up by the MoEF should also become available and the clearance by the R&R subgroup of NCA obtained.”

·   May 13, 2010 A letter is drafted for GOG following the above note.

·   May 17, 2010 Member (WR) suggests changes in the draft mentioned above and puts a note on the file:” Please note changes I have made in the draft. I just saw CM’s letter to DCH. He may be apprised of our view.”

Thus a draft of the letter from Planning Commission to GoG was prepared stating that the Planning Commission will be guided by the report of the High Level Advisory Committee, the report of the NCA R&R sub-group and the report of the expert committee as suggested above, before according investment clearance for SSP’s revised cost. This did not seem to address all the outstanding issues on SSP, nor was it particularly radical, but it was at least attempting to find a middle ground as a way forward.

But this was clearly unacceptable to the pro dam lobby.

The events moved fast between May 17 and May 20, 2010 and on May 20, the Planning Commission issued the investment clearance without following the steps suggested by the Member (WR) as noted above. The recommendations of the Member (WR) were clearly brushed aside to push ahead with the project. Mr Avinash Mishra, Deputy Advisor (WR) in the Planning Commission, who signed the May 20 clearance letter joked how they took a U turn.

So what happened between May 17 and May 20, 2010? Superficially, a letter from Gujarat Chief Minister to the Prime Minister dated May 1, 2010, urging the PM to expedite the Planning Commission investment clearance for SSP was forwarded to the PC on May 12, 2010. That letter gets mentioned in the May 17, 2010 noting by Member (WR). Very interestingly, the next noting on the file is from MS Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission dated May 20, 2010, which reads: “Discussed the issue with Member (WR) and Member Secretary today. Draft Investment Clearance is put up for approval.” The same day, the investment clearance for over six fold higher cost of SSP was issued by the Planning Commission, brushing aside the more reasonable approach suggested by Member (Water Resources) Shri Mihir Shah. 

But the file notings give only ostensible picture. It is clear that the lobby in favour of the project was working behind the scenes to scuttle the moves that Member (WR), Planning Commission was suggesting. What, how, who and when of these events are unknowns and only one of the players involved in these events can unearth further truth. The only other possibility is that the Prime Minister and the deputy chairman of Planning Commission took the decision to bypass the recommendation of more reasonable, though not the most radical appropriate option available in the situation, suggested by Member (WR). That however, raises even more disturbing questions. Are the Prime Minister and the Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission part of the big dam lobby?

The sad reality is that such lobby is so easily able to brush aside suggestion for slightly objective consideration even for a Rs 40 000 crore decision.

When we released this note, Medha Patkar of Narmada Bachao Andolan sent a prompt response, which also said:

Your Note may also include the fact that while the clearance to the SSP was only for Rs. 6406 crores (until 2010), GoG had spent upto Rs. 30,000 crores (illegally), without any approval of the revised costs.

The cost of the dam as on 2007, as estimated by the Working Group on Water Resources of the XI Plan of Planning Commission is Rs. 45,000 crores, while the same may shoot upto 70,000 crores by 2010.

It is more than obvious that even the Ministry of Water Resources did not, but should have included the agenda to review the Benefit-Cost ration. Pointing out such large scale unaccountability on the usage of public funds and multiplication of costs, such a need for review was also indicated by the Comptroller and Auditor General (In 2004).

The issue is not just about ruling out Mihir Shah’s suggestion, but the Planning Commission making such a shocking U-Turn neither to review the SSP from the angle of economic viability nor even take any action against such 6-time increased in spending without approval.

More questions, but where are the answers?

Himanshu Thakkar

Why is Jairam Ramesh bending over backwards to allow this blot called Polavaram on his record?

POLAVARAM DAM: OPEN LETTER TO SHRI JAIRAM RAMESH

Why are you bending over backwards to allow this blot on your record?

On September 2, 2010, I sent the following letter to India’s Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests (independent charge) Shri Jairam Ramesh, highlighting how his claim that the controversial Polavaram project will not submerge or affect any people Orissa and Chhattisgarh was factually wrong. The letter also highlighted the contradictions in the Environment and Forest clearances to the project given by his ministry, how the impact assessment for the embankments proposed to be constructed in Orissa and Chhattisgarh does not have environment impact assessment, clearance (as recommended by the Expert Appraisal Committee of the Ministry), consent from the affected people or the state governments, among many other issues. Subsequently, on September 26, 2010, a letter was sent to him with resolutions of gram sabhas of six of the affected tribal village in Andhra Pradesh, stating that the Forest Rights of the affected tribals of the villages as required under the Forests Rights Act are yet to be settled and hence the Forest Clearance given to the project o July 28, 2010 is illegal. We have received no response from the minister on either of these letters, except an acknowledgement of receipt in November 2010.

Respected Jairam Ramesh Ji,

I have just seen your letter dated Aug 18, 2010 to Orissa Chief Minister on the above subject, uploaded yesterday on MEF website. 

1. Your letter says that the Forest Clearance has been given to the Polavaram Project on July 28, 2010 is subject to the condition, "... no submergence and displacement of people including STs take place in Orissa and Chhattisgarh...". However, this condition is in complete contradiction with the environment clearance given by your ministry on Oct 25, 2005, which says in para 2, "Total 1,93,35 persons are likely to be affected by this project, out of that 1,75,275 persons in Andhra Pradesh and 6,316 persons from Orissa and 11,766 are from Chhattisgarh." It is clear the condition of no submergence and displacement on Orissa and Chhattisgarh, stated in your letter, in the Tribal Development Ministry's condition, and in the forest clearance letter is in complete contradiction with the environment clearance given by you. One of them have to be cancelled due to this contradiction, we would like to know, which one would be cancelled. 

2. This condition of no submergence or displacement in Orissa or Chhattisgarh is based on the proposal to construct embankments along the respective rivers in Orissa and Chhattisgarh. However, the proposal to construct these embankments was not part of the project that was given clearance by your ministry on Oct 25, 2005. This change in scope of the project came to light when the project went for CWC clearance (given on 23.01.2009 following flawed in principle forest clearance given by your ministry on Dec 26, 2008). Following a letter from MEF, the Govt of AP applied for concurrence of the MEF for building embankments on 29.01.2009. The issue came up for discussion in the meeting of EAC of River Valley committee on Feb 16-17, 2009. Prior to this EAC meeting, we had sent a detailed letter on 13.02.2009 to the EAC, explaining the implications of the proposal, lack of EIA or public consultation process, how this changes the scope of the project and so on, the same is attached.

It is clear from details of this letter that hundred of ha of land would be required in Orissa & Chhattisgarh for the building of embankments, for mining of materials for embankments, for leaving land on the banks of the river on both sides, for building approach road, for building cross drainage channels and so on. A very large portion of this land would be forest land and it would also imply displacement of the people and their livelihoods. This itself is sufficient ground to show that MOTA condition, Orissa HC condition, your condition and FC condition of no submergence and displacement in Orissa and Chhattisgarh is impossible to adhere to, and this should again be sufficient ground to cancel both the preliminary and final FC given by your minister. 

3. After the EAC meeting of Feb 16-17 2009, the EAC decision was, "The EAC therefore directed the project proponent to initiate suitable action requesting the appropriate authorities in Orissa & Chhattisgarh for conducting public hearings in the respective states of Chhattisgarh & Orissa in respect of embankment proposal and report back to the committee." This decision of the EAC implies that the project needs fresh clearance for this component and since project without this component would violate the various legal norms and conditions the project also cannot go ahead without that. However, the project is yet to take these steps and if it were to take these steps it would violate your conditions of no submergence and displacement in Orissa and Chhattisgarh. It is clear that your condition of no submergence and displacement in Orissa and Chhattisgarh is impossible to adhere to and hence the FC of the project has to be cancelled. 

4. Here we would like to add that the EAC decision in Feb 16-17 2009 meeting was flawed since it is clear that the proposal to build embankments in Orissa and Chhattisgarh was changing the scope of the project cleared earlier. So EAC should also have asked that the earlier EC be cancelled till this decision is followed. 

5. The Forest clearance given by your ministry, incidentally, has a condition, namely no (x), which says, "The project authority shall maintain flow of water in the down-stream course of river equal to the normal flow of water existing in pre-dam condition". I am at a loss to understand if this condition is to be adhered to how can the dam be built or operated at all? It seems there has not been sufficient application of mind while according the final FC dated 28.7.2010, which is sufficient reason for its cancellation. 

These objections to the final FC and narration of the contradictions in your letter actually gives an opportunity to revisit the project  and look for better options in achieving the irrigation and water supply in project areas. Hope you will take necessary steps in that direction after canceling the flawed Environment clearance of Oct 25, 2005 (which was also quashed by NEAA in Dec 2007) and the forest clearances of Dec 26, 2008 and July 28, 2010. 

Letter on Sept 26 2010 Subsequently, on Sept 26, 2010, a second letter was sent to Shri Ramesh, with copies of resolutions of following seven gram sabhas:

1. Village Kotarugommu (Gram Panchayat: Jodiguppa, Mandal: Vara Ramachandra Puram, Division: Bhadrachalam); 2. Village Pochavaram (GP: Tummineru, M: Vara Ramachandra Puram, Division: Bhadrachalam; 3. Village Gommukoyagudem (GP: Gommukottagudem, M: Bhadrachalam, D: Bhadrachalam); 4. Village Pusugudem (GP: Kondrajupeta, M: Kunavaram, D: Bhadrachalam); 5. Village Regulapadu (GP: Regulapadu, M: Kunavaram, D: Bhadrachalam); 6. Village Venkatayapalem (GP: Venkatayapalem, M: Kunavaram, D: Bhadrachalam); 7. Village Mulagala Gudem (Polavaram Mandal, W Godavari district)

All the gram sabha resolutions said that the Forest Rights of these villages to be submerged by the Polavaram dam in Andhra Pradesh has not yet been settled as required under the Forest Rights Act and hence the Forest Clearance given was illegal and must be cancelled. These resolutions of the Gram Sabhas have also been sent to the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. It’s based on the recommendations of this committee, set up under the Forest Conservation Act (1980) that the ministry accords forest clearance to the projects.

Attached with this second letter to the minister was a letter from Gramya Resource Centre for Women, dated Sept 20, 2010, addressed to the FAC and it included the first two of the Gram Sabha resolutions listed above. The Gramya President Dr V Rukmini Rao stated in the letter, “These are only indicative of the overall violations in the area. Due to the flood situation in Bhadrachalam region, the communities could not send all their resolutions but are in the process of gathering and forwarding the same to you. The State Government has misrepresented facts and therefore we request you to immediately cancel the permission to go ahead with the Polavaram dam. As in the case of Niyamgiri Hills, we request you to immediately form and send a fact finding committee who can assess the ground situation and report the reality back to the Ministry.”

We have not received any response from the ministry to either of these letters, nor have we seen any action by the Ministry in this regard. The MoEF has clearly violated all the norms in according environment & forest clearances to the Polavaram Dam. It is not clear what is the driving the ministry towards these violations.

The letter has evoked quite a lot of interest in Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. The Orissa government has woken up to the reality of how the project will adversely affect the people of the state. But the Orissa and Chhattisgarh state governments have not previously used the various opportunities to raise their voice against the project.  Now the Orissa government has also filed a suit against the clearances to the project.

ht.sandrp@gmail.com

Indian Express Campaigns FOR big hydro in the North East India

Should a newspaper be allowed to twist facts for its misguided advocacy?

Starting from Oct 8, 2010, Indian Express (IE) ran a campaign AGAINST Jairam Ramesh and FOR big hydro projects in Arunachal Pradesh. Here is a brief account about that campaign, including critical comments. The only other newspapers that carried some such stories and edits during the period were the Jansatta and Financial Express, both being Express group publications.

Oct 8, 2010

Title: In note to PM, Jairam takes on Govt, puts question mark on N-E projects

 

This opening salvo from Ravish Tiwari starts straight with direct attack: “In unprecedented distancing from the government by a key minister and questioning its development works in the strategic North-East (NE) and Bhutan, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh…”. These opening lines show that this is NOT a news story but a pandering of misguided & pro vested interest views. There was nothing unprecedented, nor distancing from the govt (what Ramesh was doing through the letter is exactly what a government functionary should be doing and his concern for environmental issues is exactly about his job as an environment minister), nor were these necessarily development works (past record of performance of such projecs show this), but that does not bother IE.

 

Typically, then the story goes on to quote unnamed ministers, if at all these are quotes from the ministers, there is nothing in these quotes to that a minister would be ashamed or afraid to be named.

 

The story even speaks for the government, listen, “What’s worrying for the government is that Ramesh has already made some assurances that could impact the pace of progress.” This part of the story is not even a quote from some minister. So Indian Express equals the government? No doubt what is progress can only be defined by IE and no one else!

 

It is interesting that the IE reporter also has access to the minutes of the hydropower task force for NE that is denied under RTI (Right to Information Act) to SANDRP (South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People), hear this: “It is recorded in the minutes of a recent meeting of the task force on hydro power development.”

Oct 9, 2010

Title: Jairam got facts wrong on N-E projects: Engineers

Next day, Mr Tiwari again quotes unnamed engineers, “But hydro-power project engineers associated with the Central Water Commission (CWC) of the Ministry of Water Resources expressed surprise, saying most of the 135 hydel projects in Arunachal, with a few exceptions, are of small capacity. In fact, 77 are less than 100 MW capacity and unlikely to cause much downstream impact in terms of riverine ecology.” There is no doubt that CWC and MWR (Ministry of Water Resources) are essentially lobbies for large dams and large hydropower projects. Mr Tiwari and the un-named engineers he is quoting are pretty ignorant or are acting pretty ignorant when suggesting that projects less than 100 MW are “unlikely to cause much downstream impact in terms or riverine ecology”. The riverine ecology is a an organic whole from upstream to downstream and a large dam (and most of these projects involve huge dams) in fact any dam would break that the organic link between upstream and downstream and thus have far reaching impact on the ecology, but Mr Tiwari and his unnamed sources do not seem to have anything to do with science of riverine ecology or hydrology.

His next para further illustrates his ignorance or attempt in that direction, “These engineers pointed out that barring a few, all the projects there are run-of-river projects without the capacity to hold more than a day’s waterflow upstream. Run-of-river projects store water during the day to release it during a specified period, called peaking hours, to generate power. The entire cycle is usually repeated every 24 hours, thereby not storing water to choke the flow downstream.” Mr Tiwari also does not seem to know that Run of the river projects involve Long tunnels, upto 40 km long, and the water comes back to river only after coming out from such tunnels.

He makes another shocking misleading statement in next para, “The projects there will generate power close to the dam site, unlike many other run-of-river projects that divert water through tunnels to generation units several kilometres apart. In the latter case, reduction in waterflow can be felt before the water is again brought to the river several kilometres downstream from the dam. This is not the case with almost any of the projects in the North-East.” He should have found out before making such completely false statements that (to illustrate), the length of the tunnel for Teesta 3 project is 13.52 km, for Teesta 4 it is 6.65 km, for Teesta 5 it is 17.106 km and for Teesta 6 it is 11.5 km, all in Sikkim, which incidentally is part of NE India and he was talking about projects in NE in the above line. But facts for IE have never been particularly sacred, thus violating one of the basic principles of journalism.

Nor is he bothered if the existing hydropower projects in India actually generate peaking power or not. For his kind information, there is no existing assessment to show how much of the current generation from hydropower projects is generated during peaking hours, such an assessment has never been done.

Mr Tiwari scales new heights in pandering new knowledge about rivers when he says, “The Lower Subansiri and Lower Demwe projects singled out by Ramesh are run-of-river projects. What has amused engineers is the talk of adverse downstream impact on Jorhat and Sibsagar because of the Lower Subansiri project — the towns are on the southern bank of the Brahmaputra while the project is on the north side.” From NOW on, the north and south banks of rivers must behave differently, as desired by Indian Express.

May be, may be, in a report whose title screams that Jairam got his facts wrong should have got its own facts right?

Oct 9, 2010

EDIT: Damming evidence

IE does not believe in holding any punches, so it also put up this edit the same day. The edit starts with a shocking statement: “If there is one focus for the growing concern that UPA-II is characterised by policy incoherence, it could be the Union environment ministry.” This is shocking because the job of the environment ministry is supposed to work towards protecting the environment with as much or greater vigour than what the mining ministry does for mining or power ministry does for power projects. But we all are so used to an environment ministry that also acts as a rubber stamp or worse as an agent for environment destruction, that the current environment ministry that is taking their job slightly seriously, is not liked by the right wing national news paper and is ready to blow punches at its own credibility by writing such edits.

The edit ends with a certificate that has absolutely no merit: “Policy on the development of the Northeast was formulated with care, by an inter-ministerial group”. Pray, sir, please explain what care and democracy was involved in formulating these big dam plans for NE? What was the involvement of people of NE? But IE has no time for such niceties, it seems.

Oct 13, 2010

Title: Arunachal delegation seeks Krishna's help

To keep the fire on, the paper repeats the quotes from an earlier report, this time, with the “news” that an Member of Parliament and two Members of Legislative Assemblies also met the External Affairs Minister. They have not yet bothered to report what the people of Assam, Sikkim, Manipur, Meghalaya or even Arunachal Pradesh feel about the projects, what the Assam Legislative committee has said, what the expert committee has said about Subansiri project and so on. This is worse than biased reporting.

Oct 14, 2010

Title: Arunachal CM rebuts Jairam, sends SOS to PM: national interest at stake

New ammunition is now available in the form of letter of Arunachal Pradesh CM to PM on this issue. Considering the nature of the events, it is a bit surprising that IE got this letter dated Oct 11 only on Oct 13, one assumes, since it is reported on Oct 14. It is though not a surprise that only IE got this letter, as also earlier Jairam Ramesh letter to PM! We are not saying that the PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) is using the IE to beat up their own Environment Minister.

The letter from Arunachal Pradesh CM, the report  claims, “Khandu has rebutted all of Jairam’s arguments regarding basin studies, downstream impact assessment study and dam safety, and highlighted benefits to the downstream area, particularly to Assam.” We have reviewed that letter and this is completely unfounded claim, but facts have never been a hindrance for some IE reporters, it seems. For example, the Arunachal Pradesh CM claims, “It was observed that as in case of Ranganadi HEP (Hydro Electric Project) (405 MW) the projects provide positive benefit to downstream areas.” But the fact of the matter is that people of Assam have been feeling that the dam has accentuated flood disasters in Assam and even Assam CM (Chief Minister) have written to the Prime Minister about this. But more important is the claim about POSITIVE benefits to downstream areas, for which neither the Arunachal CM, nor the IE provides any support. One wished reporters of national newspapers were slightly more discerning in reporting such false claims as facts.

Oct 20 2010

Title: Arunchal CM statement: Hydro projects won't affect downstream areas: Khandu to Jairam This one is by Amitabh Sinha

In terms of pandering unfounded statements as if they were facts, this report takes the cake, or rather the whole bakery: “Khandu informed Jairam that concerns of Assam on the downstream impacts of hydropower projects in Arunachal were highly exaggerated since only two of the projects in his state actually involved construction of dams. The rest were run-of-the-river projects which offered no threat to people downstream.” It seems the reporter Mr Sinha has no idea what a dam is and that everyone of the 100+ big hydro of Arunachal involves LARGE DAMS as defined by India’s Central Water Commission, International Commission on Large Dams and also the World Commission on Dams. This includes all the run of the river large hydropower projects of the Arunachal Pradesh and each one of them will have very very significant and far reaching social and environmental impacts both in the upstream and downstream of the project sites.

 

Oct 21, 2010

EDIT: All cleared up?

Ok, now we have competition for the award of bakery. The second edit in two weeks in this national newspaper that is increasingly reading more like a lobby for large dams says, “The answers should worry us. For one, the problem is that the environment ministry has been careless and unwise in its approach to the various relatively small projects that have been planned for Arunachal in an attempt to increase the region’s prosperity and integration into the rest of the economy.. it’s a question of India’s political will…” So the newspaper decides to call the projects that involve huge dams, long tunnels, submerging forests, destroying hills, creating millions of cubic meters of muck and drying up rivers and displacing people and also creating massive methane emissions in some cases, as “relatively small projects”. Nehru once called such thinking as megalomaniac, but Shekhar Gupta and company won’t mind that I guess. There are many other misleading and Orwellian assumptions in this edit, but let us not detail them here. Mr Gupta, in true Orwellian manner, does not forget to say that these projects are also important for “human reasons”.

 

Oct 22, 2010

Title: On the backfoot, Ramesh writes to PM again: I am batting for strategic projects

 

This is a back thumping report, using selective quotes from another letter Mr Ramesh is supposed to have written to PM. We of course do not have benefit of reading either this or his earlier letter that IE opened this series on Oct 8, 2010 nor would the IE make them public. IE had done similar campaign against Ramesh in Feb 2010 on the  issue of GM crops. Then they did not get the back thumping opportunity, they claim they have got it this time, we hope that is not the case. Incidentally, it was wrong on the part of Mr Ramesh to expedite clearance for Lower Siang project, as quoted here, since that is not an environment minister’s job. In fact that would go against the job of an environment minister.

 

Himanshu Thakkar (ht.sandrp@gmail.com, www.sandrp.in)

October 25, 2010

(An Edited version of this story has been published at: http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=4901&mod=1&pg=1&sectionId=21&valid=true)