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