Analysis of MoEF's EAC on River Valley Projects The Expert ... · Contact : Himanshu Thakkar, Parineeta Dandekar, Ganesh Gaud Dams, Rivers and People C/o 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar

Contact :Himanshu Thakkar, ParineetaDandekar, Ganesh GaudDams, Rivers and PeopleC/o 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar BaghDelhi - 100 088, India.Ph: + 91 11 2748 4654/[email protected]:www.sandrp.inwww.facebook.com/sandrp.in

1

Working for water resources development as if democracy, people and environment matter

Vol 10| Issue 12|January 2013 Rs15/-

Index Analysis of MoEF's EAC on River Valley Projects

The Expert Approval Committee haszero rejection in six years

Introduction Following the imple-mentation of EIA notification of Sept2006, the Ministry of Environment& forest (MoEF) has consti-tuted different committeesfor the appraisal of variousdevelopmental projects in-cluding River Valley & Hy-droelectric projects. Thecommittees are called as Ex-pert Appraisal Committees(EAC). The EAC for RiverValley & Hydroelectricprojects has had 63 meetingstill date from the date of con-stitution of Committee inApril 2007 to the latest meet-ing in Dec 2012. The commit-tee generally recommends for anyRiver Valley projects, at first stagethe Terms of Reference (TOR) for theEnvironment Impact Assessment

(EIA) to be carried out for the pro-posals along with permission for preconstruction activities or works re-lated to survey and investigation.

Model TOR The MoEF has also putup what the Ministry calls “Model

TOR for River Valley and Hydroelec-tric Projects”, but when you click onthe link1, it opens into a document

that is titled, “Model TOR for Hydro-power Projects”, it does not evenclaim to be a model TOR for any other

river valley projects. This is abig lacuna, since over 95% ofIndia’s large dams are irriga-tion projects2, not hydropowerprojects. Moreover, substantialproportion of the projects com-ing before the EAC is irrigationprojects, including river linkingprojects. Not having a ModelTOR for such projects is a biggap. This does not mean that

the Model TOR given on the MoEFwebsite is adequate or comprehen-sive. Only to illustrate, the ModelTOR does not look into the impactsof the various integral components ofthe hydropower projects like colonies,

1 http://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/Form-1A/HomeLinks/Model.htm

2 See Central Water Commission’s National Register of Large Dams, 2012:http://www.cwc.gov.in/main/webpages/NRLD%20FORMAT%202012.pdf

Contrary to the impression given bysome including the Prime Minister(talking about license raj), PMO (see-ing MoEF as road block to developmentand investment) and others spreadingthe impression that MoEF is GreenTerror, road blocking developmentprojects, this analysis highlights thatreality is completely contrary to this: that the EAC and MoEF have been proprojects, pro private developers, at thecost of ecology and local communities.

Figure 1: Stage 1 clearance figuresacross India

Analysis of MoEF’s ExpertApproval Committee 1

TOR and EC status inNorth India 15

State wise, river basinwise overview of projectsin North India 17

TOR and EC status inNorth East India 18

State wise, river basinwise overview of projectsin North East India 21

TOR and EC status inEast India 22

State wise, river basinwise overview of projectsin East India 23

TOR and EC status inWest India 24

State wise, river basinwise overview of projectsin West India 26

TOR and EC statusin South India 27

State wise, river basinwise overview of projectsin South India 28

Reject EnvironmentClearance to Luhri: Letterfrom 60 to MoEF and EAC 29

New Publication fromSANDRP 32

2

Dams, Rivers & People January, 2013

roads, mining, blasting etc that the hydropower projectsinvariably have. Model TOR does not look at the social,environmental, economic or cultural services that a riverprovides. On downstream impacts, the model TOR saysunder Impact Prediction, “Downstream impact on water,land & human environment dueto drying up of the river in thestretch between dam site and pow-erhouse site.” This completely ne-gates the impacts that the projectwould have either on the upstreamor in the river downstream fromthe power site or along the tribu-taries both upstream and down-stream of the projects. Nor does itmean that these grossly inad-equate Model TOR is followed bythe developers. Even the ministryor the EAC does not bother tocheck if the EIA submitted to themfollows either the specific TORgiven to the project or the ModelTOR on the MoEF website.

Environment Clearance At the next stage, the EACconsiders the projects for the Environment Clearance(EC), at this stage the EIA is supposed to have beenconducted as per the approved TOR and the public hear-ing is also supposed to have been conducted as per thenorms set in the EIA notification of Sept 2006. The EIAnotification is issued under the Environment ProtectionAct, 1986. We have tried to analyse the recommenda-

tions of the EAC from the minutes of 63 meetings forthe period April 2007 to Dec 2012.

The EAC members The reconstituted EAC in April 2007was headed by Shri P Abraham, former Power Secretary.Over the years, EAC included members like Dr Sanchita

Jindal, Dr A R Yousuf, Dr OPSisodia, Dr Dinesh Kr Alva, Dr.Dulal Goswami, Prof D K Paul,Dr (Mrs) Usha Bhat, Dr BithinDatta, Dr Pushpam Kumar, Dr.Devendra Pandey (chairman ofEAC from Aug 2009 to April 2010,current Chairman took over aschairman during 38th meetingheld on June 30, 2010), none ofthem are members of the EAC forRVP currently. The member rep-resenting Central Water Com-mission in the EAC included R KKhanna, R K Singh, N Mukherjeebut has been changing over theyears and full list of their namesis not available. Shri P Abraham

resigned following our letter to the then Union Ministerof State for Environment and Forests (IndependentCharge) Shri Jairam Ramesh, showing the conflict of in-terests involved in he being on the board of a number ofhydropower companies whose projects came up for clear-ance before the EAC chaired by him.

The current composition of EAC for RVP is as follows(as per MEF website3 as on Jan 30, 2013):

3 http://environmentclearance.nic.in/report/compositions.aspx?RIV

In fact MoEF has a greater role inselection of the chairman and mem-bers of the EAC, deciding whatprojects should be put on the agenda,what happens after the EAC recom-mendations, ensuring that all the re-quired information about the projectson the agenda is available and is inpublic domain, encouraging EAC toinvite to EAC meetings individualsand groups who have written to EACand MoEF on substantial aspects,and otherwise setting the policies andnorms for the EAC and projects.

3


In addition to the above, Dr P V Subba Rao (Scientistfrom MoEF) is listed as EAC member in the minutes ofthe meetings. Interestingly, he, Dr B P Das and Dr A KBhattacharya seem to be constant members of the EACthroughout the period under study.

Role of MoEF All the comments about the EAC hereapply equally to the Union Ministry of Environment andForests as two officials of the ministry have always beenpart of the EAC, including the member secretary of theEAC. In fact MoEF has a greater role in selection of thechairman and members of the EAC, deciding whatprojects should be put on the agenda, what happens af-ter the EAC recommendations, ensuring that all therequired information about the projects on the agendais available and is in public domain, encouraging EACto invite to EAC meetings individuals and groups whohave written to EAC and MoEF on substantial aspects,and otherwise setting the policies and norms for the EACand projects. The MoEF performance has been pathetic.Even now it’s not possible to even know the status ofthe clearances of the projects from the MoEF website,even though it is statutory requirement for MoEF (un-der EIA notification 2006) to display the clearance let-ters on its website. In Feb 2012 Central InformationCommission (CIC) directed MoEF under the Right toInformation Act 2005 to put all the documents submit-ted by the project developers for clearance, at least tendays before the projects are considered by the EAC.When this was not followed, SANDRP wrote to CIC andCIC issued notice to MoEF. This is still to be followed byMoEF fully. Now some of the documents are put up onthe website before the EAC meetings, this is not thecase even for the 63rd and 64th meetings of EAC. TheEAC, in spite of repeatedly writing to them on this vio-lation of the CIC directions, did not take steps to ensurethat CIC directions are fully complied with for theprojects that come up before the EAC.

Even though MoEF may be equally if not more respon-sible for the various violations listed here, that does notreduce the responsibility of the EAC members. Oncesomeone is selected as EAC member, he or she has theduty to ensure basic norms in functioning of the EAC.Evidence presented here shows if the EAC members

have succeeded in achieving even basic norms in gover-nance of EAC.

Results and Analysis

The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests’ (MoEF)Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) on River Valley andHydroelectric Projects (RVP) has considered a total of262 hydropower and irrigation projects in close to sixyears since April 2007 when the new committee was setup to its latest, 63rd meeting in December 2012. It hasnot rejected any project in this period. Even in case ofthe two projects that it declined to recommend clear-ance for the Terms of Reference (TOR) of their Environ-ment Impact Assessment (EIA), it has basically askedthe developers to come back with reformulated propos-als. It seems the committee is actually an Expert Ap-proval Committee, since it seems to have expertise inapproving rather than appraising the projects objec-tively.

EAC has strong pro project and anti people biasThe Committee has shown its strong bias for the projects.Many groups from all over India have sent hundreds ofsubmissions to the EAC over these years. The commit-tee has never called any of the groups for the meetingswhere the specific projects on which groups have sentsubmissions. The EAC has never even acknowledged anyof such submissions in the minutes of the meetings. Incase of some of the recent submissions from SANDRPand others, the chairman of the EAC wrote back sayingthat this will be discussed in the next meeting, but therehas been no mention of such submissions in the min-utes of the EAC meetings. The EAC has shown its strongbias against people, environment and all those who rep-resent the interests of the local communities and envi-ronment. In February 2012 some of us were invited fora discussion with the EAC, but we saw little impact ofour discussions on the functioning of the EAC.

Opposition to Dams on Teesta, many of which are clearedby the EAC Photo: Affected Citizens of Teesta

The Union Ministry of Environment and For-ests’ (MoEF) Expert Appraisal Committee(EAC) on River Valley and HydroelectricProjects (RVP) has considered a total of 262hydropower and irrigation projects in close tosix years since April 2007 when the new com-mittee was set up to its latest, 63rd meeting inDecember 2012. It has not rejected any projectin this period.

4


The table below gives an overview of the situation ofTORC (Terms of Reference Clearance) and EC (Envi-ronment Clearance) for the projects cleared by the EACon RVP between April 2007(when the then newly con-stituted EAC met for thefirst time) to its 63rd meet-ing as in December 2012.The table shows that theEAC has not rejected any ofthe projects for EC. Asagainst the 211 projects con-sidered by the EAC forTORC, it (only temporarily)rejected TORC for twoprojects. Hence its rejection rate for TORC is less than1%. EAC’s rejection rate of environment clearance is nilas it has never rejected any project that has come to itfor environment clearance. It seems the EAC for RVPhas been basically rubber stamping approval for everyproject that comes their way. The EAC was expected todo much better than that, as it clear from the reading ofEIA notification of Sept 2006, following which the EACwas set up.

Temporary rejections for two TORC Only twoprojects were rejected TORC. Among these, for the 420MW Kameng Dam, the EAC rejected the proposal fromKSK Ltd, since the submergence area was just 350 mfrom Pakke Tiger Reserve. The EAC however, said, “TheCommittee suggested that possibilities of locating a suit-able site on Kameng River, upstream of confluence ofBichom & Kameng may be explored.” So the project islikely to come back to EAC. It is surprising, however,that another project in the same basin, namely the 1120MW Kameng I on Bhareli / Kameng River in EastKameng district in Arunachal Pradesh came before theEAC during its first meeting in April 2007. The min-utes of the EAC meeting clearly says about this project,“A part of the submergence area falls under the PakkeTiger Reserve.” And yet the EAC gave TOR clearance to

the project! Inconsistency seems to be the first name ofthe EAC.

Similarly the 200 MW BaraBangahal HEP in Kangradistrict in HimachalPradesh was accorded TORclearance in 21st meeting ofEAC in Dec 2008, even asthe minutes recorded, “Theproject is located within thewildlife sanctuary.” Simi-larly the 76 MW Rambaraproject on Mandakini Riverin Rudraprayag district in

Uttarakhand, just 6 km from Kedarnath, was given TORapproval in the 19th EAC meeting in Oct 2008 even asthe minutes noted, “The whole project is locatedwithin Kedarnath Musk Deer Sanctuary.”

Similarly while rejecting the TORC for the 300 MWPurthi HEP in Lahaul and Spiti District in HimachalPradesh, the EAC said, “The Committee concluded thatthe project proponent and Govt. of Himachal Pradesh

Overview of Clearance status across India

Thousands of Monks opposing dams in Tawang, Arunachalcleared by the EAC Photo: Seven Sisters Post

The EAC has not rejected any of the projectsfor EC. As against the 211 projects consideredby the EAC for TORC, it (only temporarily) re-jected TORC for two projects. Hence its rejec-tion rate for TORC is less than 1%. EAC’s re-jection rate of environment clearance is nil asit has never rejected any project that has cometo it for environment clearance.

5


may review and revise theproposal in the light of theabove observations for re-consideration.” So it is clearin this case too that the re-jection is temporary. In re-ality, the EAC has rejectednone of the projects thatcame to it for clearance.

Massive hydropower ca-pacity cleared The EACfor RVP basically considershydropower projects havinginstalled capacity over 50 MW, projects of 25-50 MWgoing to the state Environment Impact Assessment Au-thorities and those below or requiring any environmentclearance under EIA notification 2006. The table belowshows that in less than 6 years, the EAC has recom-mended TORC for hydropower projects proposed withinstalled capacity of 49458 MW, which is about 25% morethan what India has installed in about 66 years sinceindependence.

During the period, the EAC has recommended EC forhydropower capacity of 16084.5 MW, which is aboutthree times the hydro capacity of 5544 MW added dur-ing the just concluded 11th five year Plan. EAC has rec-ommended all these clearances without giving any con-sideration to carrying capacity, cumulative impact as-

sessment, democratic deci-sion making, sustainabledevelopment criteria, fulland proper social and envi-ronment impact assess-ment or desirability of suchcapacity addition, includingfrom climate change per-spective.

Zero rejection for irriga-tion projects The EAC forRVP considers irrigationprojects with Cultivable

Command Area (CCA) above 10 000 Ha. In the tablebelow are the region wise details of the TORC and ECrecommended by EAC for the Cultivable Command Areafigures of the major and medium irrigation projects.

During the period under study (Apr 2007 to Dec 2012),EAC has given TORC for 3.28 million ha of CCA andEC for 1.59 million Ha of CCA. Here we should notethat since 1991-92, there has been no addition to the

net area irri-gated by majorand medium ir-r i g a t i o nprojects at allIndia level as

In less than 6 years, the EAC has recommendedTORC for hydropower projects proposed withinstalled capacity of 49458 MW, which is about25% more than what India has installed inabout 66 years since independence. During theperiod, the EAC has recommended EC for hy-dropower capacity of 16084.5 MW, which isabout three times the hydro capacity of 5544MW added during the just concluded 11th fiveyear Plan.

Status of clearance for Hydropower Projects

Figure 2: Zone wise status of Environment ClearanceOpposition to 775 MW Luhri Project

cleared recently by EAC Photo: Himdhara

4 See for example graph on page12 in this document: http://sandrp.in/wtrsect/Water_Governance_in_India_Himanshu_Thakkar_IWMI_Tata_Meet_December2012.pdf

6


per Govt of India figures4. Inlight of that fact and consid-ering the overcapacity al-ready built into a number ofbasins across India already,such clearances by EAC arehighly questionable.

Land requirement Fulldetails of the land required

for the projects are never properly assessed by the EIAs.The EAC minutes reflect only indicative figures of landrequirement of some of the projects considered by theEAC as mentioned in the EIAs.

Following table gives an over view of land requirementfor some of the projects as mentioned in the EAC min-utes. Based on available figures, the Highest land re-

quirement in a state is forAndhra Pradesh, at45913.26 ha the secondrank state is ArunachalPradesh with land require-ment of 35485.3 Ha.Arunachal being smallerand hilly state and most ofthe land being required areforested and close to the riv-

ers, the impact in Arunachal Pradesh would be muchgreater. Based on above information, for the projectedland requirement for the 262 projects considered by theEAC during the period under study would come to over

325995 Ha. However, these land re-quirement figures are gross under es-timates and too much need not be readinto them.

The flawed functioning of EAC Ithas not mattered to the EAC that theEIAs of the projects that come to it areshoddy, dishonest, cut and paste jobs.The Committee has not rejected asingle EIA, even through evidence wasrepeatedly presented to the commit-tee about shoddy nature of the EIAs.

It has not mattered to the committee that there has beenno credible public consultation process and there havebeen serious anomalies in public hearing processes. The

The EAC has not bothered to look at the de-clining generation performance of the existingprojects, evidence of which was sent to the EAC,nor the poor performance of existing hydroprojects, as against the promised generationperformance. It also never looked at the issuesof compliance of even the environmental andsocial measures by the projects already cleared.

Status of clearance for Irrigation Projects

Figure 3: Zone wise status of Stage 1 clearances (TORC)

Land required for the projects considered by EAC

7


committee did not order fresh public hearings even whenevidence was provided to it about serious violations inpublic hearing processes.

Even when the committee asked for fresh studies or sig-nificant changes in EIA, it did not ask the project pro-

ponent to go back for fresh public hearing. It has notmattered to the committee that EIAs of the projects itcleared did not have full year round ground level sur-veys, did not have full social impact assessment, did nothave downstream impact assessment, did not have op-

tions assessment to establish that the proposed projectwas least cost option, did not have assessment of im-pacts due to blasting of tens of kilometer long tunnels,did not have proper flora or fauna studies, did not in-clude impact of the project on rivers and the services

provided by the river or impact on downstream projectsor flood plain use, or had used flawed, false or inconsis-tent data base.

SANDRP had put together a detailed submission5 andmobilized endorsements of large number of concerned

Figure 4: Zone wise figures of TORC and EC given for hydropower installed capacities

5 http://sandrp.in/rivers/MoEF_EAC_Submission_Fisheries_Nov2012.pdf

Figure 5: Zone wise figures of TORC and EC given for irrigated area CCA in lakh Ha

Figure 6 Overview of State-wise installed capacities of HEPs considered by EAC in North India

8


groups and individuals, including over ten eminent sci-entists on World Fisheries Day on Nov 21, 2012 and sentto EAC, raising issues concerning riverine fisheries infunctioning of the EAC and suggesting specific measuresto improve the same. The chairman of the EAC wroteback to SANDRP that this will be discussed in the nextmeeting of EAC, but therewas no mention of it in theminutes of the EAC, nor anyconcrete action taken by theEAC after that. Earlier inNovember 2012, SANDRPhad organized a side eventon issues related to riverinebiodiversity in India at theHyderabad Conference ofParties of Convention onBiodiversity. Consideringthe importance of the issuefor the functioning of theEAC, we had invited the members, including the Chair-man and member secretary for the side event. No onecame.

No appreciation of Cumulative Impacts It has notmattered to the committee that there has been no Cu-mulative Impact Assessment (CIA) when large numberand bumper to bumper hydropower projects are proposedon number rivers including Bhagirathi, Alaknanda,Mandakini, Sutlej, Ravi, Beas, Chenab, Teesta, Lohit,Tawang, Siang, Subansiri, Narmada, to name only a few.It does not matter to them that there is no flowing riverbetween two projects, it has recommended clearance toLuhri HEP most recently with zero flowing river lengthwith both immediately upstream (Rampur HEP) andimmediate downstream (Kol dam) projects.

Even in few cases that the EAC has asked for CIA, ithas asked the CIA to be done by an agency like WAPCOSLtd that has an abysmally poor track record in doingsuch studies and it has serious issues of conflict of in-terests since the agency is also involved in feasibility

studies and detailed project reports as part of its busi-ness model. But EAC has never understood these con-cerns. Nor has the EAC really bothered to look at thequality of the CIA. Most significantly, the EAC refusedto wait for the CIA report of a basin before consideringindividual projects in such basins, showing its complete

lack of understanding of theimportance of CIA.

Section 9 of the Form I (thedeveloper is supposed toapply for stage I clearancewith this form duly filled in,as per Para 6 of the notifi-cation)) prescribed in An-nexure 1 of the EIA notifi-cation of Sept 2006 is sup-posed to be about “Factorswhich should be considered(such as consequential de-

velopment) which could lead to environmental effectsor the potential for cumulative impacts with other ex-isting or planned activities in the locality”. Section 9.4under this reads: “Have cumulative effects due to prox-imity to other existing or planned projects with similareffects”. So even legally the EAC and MoEF are sup-posed to look at the cumulative impact assessment is-sues under the EIA notification, both at scoping at ap-praisal stage, which they are clearly not doing.

Here it may be noted that recommending Environmentclearance without first undertaking carrying capacityand cumulative impact assessment is in violation ofSupreme Court order in “Karnataka Industrial Areas ...vs Sri C. Kenchappa & Ors on 12 May, 2006” which hassaid:

A. “The pollution created as a consequence of envi-ronment must be commensurate with the carryingcapacity of our ecosystem. In any case, in view ofthe precautionary principle, the environmentalmeasures must anticipate, prevent and attack thecauses of environmental degradation.”

Figure 7 Basin-wise overview of number of Hydro Projects considered by EAC in North India

Even in few cases that the EAC has asked forCIA, it has asked the CIA to be done by anagency like WAPCOS Ltd that has an abysmallypoor track record in doing such studies and ithas serious issues of conflict of interests sincethe agency is also involved in feasibility stud-ies and detailed project reports as part of itsbusiness model. But EAC has never understoodthese concerns. Nor has the EAC really both-ered to look at the quality of the CIA.

9


B. “…the preventive measures have to be taken keep-ing in view the carrying capacity of the ecosystemoperating in the environmental surroundings un-der consideration.”

C. “The pollution created as a consequence of devel-opment must not exceed the carrying capacity ofecosystem.”

Without knowing carrying capacity of a basin it cannotbe ascertained if the proposed project is “commensuratewith the carrying capacity of our ecosystem”, ecosystemin this context is the river basin.

EAC’s double standards While EAC itself has not re-jected any of the proposals that came to it, few, rareenvironment friendly recommendations that have beenmade by other committees have also been rejected bythe EAC, without any convincing reasons. To illustrate,when the carrying capacity study of the Teesta basinrecommended that no projects should be taken upstreamof Chungthang in North Sikkim, the EAC in its meet-ing overturned this decision and decided to consider allsuch projects. Similarly, the recommendations of theGanga Basin Cumulative Impact Assessment study bythe Wildlife Institute of India, suggesting that at least24 hydro projects proposed in Ganga basin be droppedand much higher environment flows than those directedby EAC should be mandated, were all rejected by theEAC.

The recommendations of the Western Ghats EcologyPanel headed by Prof Madhav Gadgil were also rejectedon grounds such as inadequate studies. Overturning therecommendations of the WG Ecology Panel report, theEAC recommended clearance to the controversialGundia hydropower project in Western Ghats inKarnataka. If the standards applied by the EAC whilerejecting the recommendations of all these committeeswere to be applied to the EIAs and CIAs based on whichthe EAC approved the projects, than none of the projectsapproved by the EAC would merit clearances. But theEAC has very lax standards for its own work, and for

the EIAs and CIAs that favour projects, but differentones for the reports that recommend rejection of projects.This contradiction is highlighted here only for illustra-tion of double standards of the EAC and it does not meanthat the EAC decisions in rejecting any recommenda-tions of any of these committees have any merits.

It may be noted that the previous chairman (formerpower secretary Shri P Abraham who chaired EAC tillJune 2009) had serious conflict of interest issues withhe being on board of several power companies whoseprojects came up before the committee and the currentchairman has had no back ground on environment is-sues. It has not mattered to the committee whether theEnvironment Management Plans that accompany theEIAs that it clears are implemented or not, or if there is

Figure 8 Overview of Basin-wise installed capacity of HEPs that EAC considered in North India

Figure 9 State wise overview of installed capacity of HEPs considered by EAC in North East India

10


any credible mechanism and legally empowered processin place to ensure its implementation. The EAC has noteven shown concern for legal norms that the TOR clear-ances are valid only for two years. MoEF has recentlyissued a notification dated Oct 30, 20126 that said thatproject for which the proponents have not come backwith the requested addi-tional information for morethan six months should bedelisted. Luhri project thusshould not have been con-sidered by the MoEF frommore than one legal pointview. MoEF and EAC haveyet to follow such notifica-tions of the ministry.

The minutes of many of theEAC meetings make pa-thetic reading, if read care-fully. One can find contradictions, inconsistencies, plainwrong facts being mentioned in the minutes of the EACmeetings7, which are all approved by the EAC. Evenwhen such errors are pointed out, the EAC has not evenbothered to correct the mistakes or review its decisions.

Cleared by EAC, Rejected by others Many of theprojects cleared by the EAC have faced serious roadblocks for the shoddy appraisal done by the EAC. Forexample, the then Union Environment Minister him-self decided not to clear the Renuka dam project clearedby the EAC. The Rupsiabagar Khasiabara projectcleared by the EAC could not get forest clearance, for

many reasons, including the fact that the EIA of theproject was found to be so shoddy and wrong, that anyother committee would have considered this an insultto its work. The Kotlibhel 1B and Kotlibhel 2 projects,cleared by this committee have been rejected clearancesby the Forest Advisory Committee, following recommen-dation of the Wildlife Institute of India.

Athirapally hydropower project in Chalakudy basin inKerala was recommendedEnvironment Clearance bythe EAC for the third time(earlier two clearanceswere quashed by the KeralaHigh Court) in May 2007,but the project again cameback to the EAC in March2010, following KeralaHigh Court directions. Ear-lier on January 4, 2010, fol-lowing directions from thethen Union EnvironmentMinister of State Shri

Jairam Ramesh, Dr S Bhowmik, than director in MoEF,issued show cause notice under Environment Protec-tion Act, 1986, to the developer agency, Kerala StateElectricity Board, to show cause in 15 days as to whythe environment clearance granted to the project shouldnot be revoked and why the direction of closure of theproject not be issued. It is not clear if the MoEF took thenext step hinted in the notice. Its strange that the EAC,in which the same Dr Bhowmik was member secretary,did not mention the issuance of this notice in the EACmeetings when the EAC discussed this project betweenMarch and July 2010. There is no mention of the MoEF

Western Ghats Expert Ecology Panel assessing Ecosystems to beaffected by Gundia HEP. EAC recommended clearance to this

project despite rejection by WGEEP Photo: India Together

If the standards applied by the EAC while re-jecting the recommendations of all these com-mittees were to be applied to the EIAs and CIAsbased on which the EAC approved the projects,than none of the projects approved by the EACwould merit clearances. But the EAC has verylax standards for its own work, and for the EIAsand CIAs that favour projects, but different onesfor the reports that recommend rejection ofprojects.

Figure 10 State wise overview of number of projectsconsidered by EAC in North East India

6 http://moef.nic.in/assets/ia-30102012.pdf

7 SANDRP had written to EAC about the glaring errors in the minutes of the 60th and 61st meetings of the EAC, pointing out the errors incapacities, names of places and even names of river in the minutes, but the EAC neither acknowledged the letter or errors, nor bothered tocorrect them.

11


show cause notice in the minutes of the EAC meetingsheld during the period.

Several projects cleared by the EAC stand challengedin the National Green Tribunal, some of them (e.g.Renuka dam) have got a Stay Order. The World Banktoo finds the EIAs based on which the EAC cleared theprojects so poor that it has asked for fresh EIAs for theprojects it wants to fund (e.g. Rampur and VishnugadPipalkoti hydropower projects).

Climate Change It is well known that the worst im-pacts of climate change is going to be felt in terms ofimpacts on water resources. It is also well known thatthe natural resources like the biodiversity, forests, riv-ers, wetlands, fertile flood plains and riverine lands are

some of the important resources that would help us adaptto the climate change impacts. Hydropower and damsthat the EAC considers adversely affect all of these natu-ral resources. It is well established that large sectionsof people of India who depend on such natural resourcesare the poorest and most vulnerable to climate changeimpacts and when the resources that these vulnerablesections depend on are destroyed by the hydropowerprojects and dams that the EAC appraises, the commit-tee would be expected to consider the climate changecontext. Consideration of climate change context is thusimportant from several angles while appraising the rivervalley projects. It’s also well established now that pastis not the best guide while estimating river water flows.Research over the last two decades have also establishedthat reservoirs in a tropical country like India wouldalso be source of methane and CO2 emissions, methanebeing about 21 times more potent in global warmingterms than CO2. In view of all this, one would have ex-pected elaborate discussion of climate change issues inthe functioning of the EAC. One would expect the EACto mandate the EIAs and CIAs to look at these issuescomprehensively.

Unfortunately, we are disappointed on every one of thesecounts. We find little mention of climate change issuesin the work of the EAC. In fact the model Terms of Ref-erence for the hydropower projects put up on the MoEFwebsite8 does not have the word “climate” in it, leaveaside “climate change”.

E-flows For Hydroelectric and River valley Projectswhich dewater and divert rivers entirely or partially andchange its natural hydrograph, EAC has now9 been ar-bitrarily recommending release of 20% of average leanseason flow for lean months, between 20-30% e-flows(short for Environmental flow) for non-lean, non-mon-soon months and 30% average monsoon flow for mon-soon flows. This standard is entirely arbitrary, withoutany scientific, ecological or sociological basis, blanketfor all rivers from Himalayan to peninsular.

Athirappilly Water Falls at the proposed AthirappillyHEP site Photo: Southernsojourns

Figure 11 Basin wise overview of number of projectsconsidered by EAC in North East India

Large sections of people of India who dependon natural resources are the poorest and mostvulnerable to climate change impacts and whenthe resources that these vulnerable sectionsdepend on are destroyed by the hydropowerprojects and dams that the EAC appraises, thecommittee would be expected to consider theclimate change context.

8 http://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/Form-1A/HomeLinks/Model.htm

9 EAC has remained on rather steep learning curve on a number of issues, including on Environmental flows. It first questioned the wisdomor need for e-flows, than graduated to recommending 10% of minimum lean season flow, than 15%, later changing to 20% and now it has alittle more detailed norms, still far from asking for actual assessment for each river stretch.

12


This too has happened not suo motto, but after hugepressure from civil society and various other commit-tees. And when the proponent says it cannot releasethese inadequate flows, EAC is actually ready to nego-tiate, which is acceptable between the EAC and the pro-ponents (like in the case of 300 MW Alaknanda HEP byGMR Energy). Like any negotiation in a fish or vegetablemarket. While taking these decisions, EAC has neverrecommended that a more holistic and participatorymethod for assessing e-flows needs to be developed. Orthat certain rivers needs to be left undammed. Evenwhen other committees like the Wildlife Institute of In-dia have recommended higher e-flows, the EAC or MoEFhas refused to follow such recommendations.

Biodiversity Violating the National Biodiversity Actof 2002, EAC does not ask for Biodiversity Impact As-sessment of projects, does not think twice while recom-mending clearances to projects affecting severely threat-ened, endemic and endangered biodiversity and RET(Rare Endangered Threatened) species. This has had

disastrous impacts for critically endangered fauna likeBlack Necked Cranes, Red Pandas (780 MWNyamjangchu HEP), Several endemic species includingGundia Indian Frog (200 MW Gundia HEP), Snow Leop-ard (Projects in Upper Ganga including 300 MWAlaknanda HEP), Gangetic Dolphin (Upper Ganga andBrahmaputra Projects), Bengal Florican (1750 MWLower Demwe Project), Fish like Golden Mahseer, SnowTrout (most dams in Himalayas and North East) to namea very few.

Even while noting in the 56th meeting of EAC, whilediscussing the 775 MW Luhri HEP on Sutlej river inHimachal Pradesh, that as per the EIA of the project,“However, 21 species are listed in the Red data book ofIndian plants”, the EAC does not even bother to en-quire about which are these plants and why decide tosacrifice their loss. While discussing ShongtongKarcham hydropower project, the EAC noted in theminutes of the 30th meeting of EAC, “Considering thepresence of 51 species of fish in the upper reaches ofSutlej, it is reported (in EIA) that only three species offish were found in the study area”. But amazingly, theEAC has no qualms in accepting such fundamentallyflawed EIA. Two of these species are simply humanintervention.

In case of the Rupsiabagar Khasiabara Hydro PowerProject in Uttarakhand10, the EIA report prepared bythe WAPCOS to obtain Environment Clearance for theRKHPP reports presence of only 8 bird species. TheEAC actually gave clearance to the project without rais-ing any issues of the flawed EIA. The Inspection Reportof the Sub-Committee of the Forest Advisory Commit-tee to assess wildlife values and ecological impact of theproject, led by Dr Ullas Karanth makes interesting read-ing.

Figure 12 State wise overview of number of Projectsconsidered by EAC in East India

Figure 13 Basin wise overview of number of projectsconsidered by EAC in East India

Dibru Saikhowa National Park and its endangered species arethretened by the 1750 MW Lower Demwe Dam on Lohit cleared

by EAC Photo: assam Portal

10 See for details: http://sandrp.in/hydropower/Ruspiabagar_Khasiabara_HEP_Ulhas_Karanth_Com_Report_Extracts_Nov2012.pdf

13


The Inspection Report noted, “However, as per the ex-isting literature a total of 228 bird species in 30 familiesand 118 genera, representing more than 45% of thebreeding bird diversity of the Western Himalaya and

nearly 55% of breeding bird species of the kumaonHimalaya are recorded in the region. Ten species ofpheasants are found in the area, including Himalayanmonal, and the Koklass pheasant, and several other al-titudinal migrants. This assemblage represents 6 out ofseven West Himalayan endemics found in Kumaon.” Butthe EAC did not even note any of these flaws of the EIAand obediently cleared the project. The project currentlystands cancelled after the sub committee recommendedthat the project be rejected forest clearance. All thisshows how little significance is of biodiversity for theEAC and MoEF.

Regional and detailed analysis These conclusions arebased on analysis of the agenda and minutes of 63 meet-

ings of EAC spread over close to six years from April2007 to December 2012, done by South Asia Network onDams, Rivers & People (www.sandrp.in)11 in light ofother related information and experiences. SANDRP hasbeen monitoring the functioning of the EAC over theyears, has been writing to the EAC about its concernsand also those of partner organisations about specificprojects and general functioning of the EAC. This analy-sis is based on this experience and we hope it will beuseful for all concerned.

Figure 14 State wise over view of number of projectsconsidered by EAC in West India

Figure 15 Basin wise overview of number of projects considered by EAC in West India

Figure 16 Basin wise overview of CCA of IrrigationProjects considered by EAC in West India

11 Both the documents authored by Himanshu Thakkar and Bipin Chandra Chaturvedi, Bipin has done the detailed compilation for the twodocuments. Thanks are due to Parineeta Dandekar (for all the charts in addition to valuable comments), Dr Latha Anantha, ShripadDharmadhikary and Neeraj Vagholikar for some very useful comments and suggestions.

In case of the Rupsiabagar Khasiabara HydroProject in Uttarakhand, the EIA by theWAPCOS to obtain Environment Clearance re-ports presence of only 8 bird species. The FACsub-committee’s Inspection Report for the sameproject noted, “However, as per the existing lit-erature a total of 228 bird species…” But EACdid not even note any problem in the EIA.

14


In what follows we have given region wise status andanalysis of the project wise clearances recommended bythe EAC for RVP for the five regions of India, namely:North, North East, East, West and South. The tablesfor each region give state wise list of projects with somebasic features of the projects. An overview of number ofprojects and their capacities is given in tables that givestatus wise, state wise and river basin wise figures forthe projects that EAC considered in these six years.

In an accompanying document12, also from SANDRP, wehave given more details for each project and date-wise

decisions of the EAC for each of the projects on EACagenda. We are hopeful that these two documents willbe helpful in giving clear picture about functioning ofthe EAC to all concerned.

We should add here that these two documents are onlylimited to giving a picture about functioning of theExpert Appraisal Committee on River Valley Projects.There are many other equally serious problemsplaguing the environmental governance of RiverValley Projects in India, they will require separatework.

12 See: http://sandrp.in/env_governance/EAC_meetings_Decisions_All_India_Apr_2007_to_Dec_2012

Figure 17 State wise Overview of hydropower installed capacities considered by EAC in South India

Figure 18 Overview of Irrigation Projects: CulturableCommand Area (CCA) of Projects in South India

On downstream impacts, the model TOR saysunder Impact Prediction, “Downstream im-pact on water, land & human environment dueto drying up of the river in the stretch betweendam site and powerhouse site.” This com-pletely negates the impacts that the projectwould have either on the upstream or in theriver downstream from the power site or alongthe tributaries both upstream and down-stream of the projects.

15


Following table gives project wise information about basic features and clearance status for the projects that came toEAC from North Indian states of Jammu and Kashmir, Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Delhiand Uttarakhand. The maximum no of projects are (34) from Himachal Pradesh among all states, Uttarakhandcoming second with 25 projects. Jammu and Kashmir has less no of projects at 11, but the proposed installed capacityof the J&K projects is highest at 7573 MW. The land requirement is also highest in J&K among North India states atover 10170 Ha. Among all regions, the EAC has given the highest number of environment clearances in North India.

NORTH INDIA

TOR & Environment Clearance status in North India

16


Purpose: H- Hydropower; I- Irrigation; M- Multipurpose.; NA- Not available

17


State-wise Overview of Projects in North India

Basin-wise overview of projects in North India

Overview of Status of clearance of projects in North India

From the above tables it is clear that while largest number of projects from North India came from Ganga Basin at33, the installed capacity of projects proposed in Chenab basin is highest at 9733 MW.

18


NORTH EAST INDIA

TOR & Environment Clearance status in North-East IndiaThe region comprises of eight states including Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Sikkim,Tripura and Nagaland. The Highest number of projects (99) has come to EAC from the North East region, and thehighest number of first stage clearances at 70 have been given by EAC from this region. Within the North East Region,by far the highest number of projects (69) have come to EAC from Arunachal Pradesh. The EAC has the highestapproval % in Arunachal Pradesh, every project has been given approval. Only for the 420 MW Kameng HEP of KSKLtd, the EAC asked the developer to come back with reformulated proposal, rest were all given approval by the EAC.Over 35000 MW of hydropower projects have come to EAC from Arunachal Pradesh alone, by far the highest in thecountry for any state. Maximum no of projects that came to EAC among all river basins is from Siang basin at 21,though in terms of installed capacity, the highest installed capacity has come from Lohit basin at 10250 MW, among allthe sub basins in the region. It was amazing to see the EAC promptly clearing the controversial Tipaimukh projectway back in 2008, but the project is yet to get forest clearance and is unlikely to be able to start work in near future.

19


20


13 Clearance sought for adding the third 42 MW unit to the existing 84 MW project.

14 The project is listed here since it came back before the EAC in Feb 2010 as it had yet to get NBWL clearance.


21


State-wise Overview of Projects in North-East India

Basin-wise overview of projects in North East India

Overview of Status of clearance of projects in North East India

22


EAST INDIA

TOR & Environment Clearance status in East IndiaThe region comprises of Bihar, W Bengal, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Orissa. Among all regions, the least num-ber of projects came to EAC from Eastern region at 20. Interestingly, not one project from Jharkhand has come tothe EAC in this period. However, TOR clearance given for the 16.54 lakh CCA in this region is highest among allstates and total proposed CCA among all regions is second highest for the Eastern region. This highest contributionfor this large CCA from the Eastern region is coming from the proposed Saptakoshi High Dam at 15 lakh Ha (ofwhich 9.76 lakh ha is supposed to be in India), the project also has the highest proposed installed capacity (3000MW), but that project is supposed to come up in Nepal and there is little likelihood of the project going ahead in nearfuture.


15 The TOR clearance was only for the irrigation component in India, the main dam, barrage and headwords will all be in Nepal, which isbeyond the jurisdiction of EIA notification 2006 of India.

23


State-wise Overview of Projects in East India

Basin-wise overview of projects in East India

Overview of Status of clearance of projects in East India

24


WEST INDIA

TOR & Environment Clearance status in West India49 projects came to EAC from this region (comprising of states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthanand Goa), most of them were irrigation projects, unlike the situation in North and North East India where mostprojects that came to EAC during the study period were hydropower projects. Out of these, land availability figuresare available only for 14 projects, the least % of the total projects compared to all regions. Land availability figurefor none of the 20 projects of MP is mentioned in the EAC minutes. Within the region, highest number of 21 projectscame from Maharashtra and close second was Madhya Pradesh. Maharashtra incidentally has the largest number(10) of giant lift irrigation schemes coming for approval before the EAC. Two of the biggest projects came up beforethe EAC were from Gujarat, the Kalpsar (Gulf of Khambat Development Project) and Par Tapi River Link Project.It was strange to see the EAC clearing the Par Tapi Narmada and the Ken Betwa Phase 1 river link proposals, bothfor TOR clearance. Both are facing strong opposition. Stranger it is to see the EAC noting in a latter meeting thatthe MoEF has conveyed to NWDA that the Ken Betwa Phase I link proposal cannot be cleared due to huge submer-gence it will entail in the Panna Tiger Reserve. Why did the EAC not review its decision regarding the TOR clear-ance in that case? Parwan irrigation project in Chambal basin in Rajasthan is another project that is facing massiveopposition on ground, but the EAC has recommended it for final clearance. Even more shockingly, in its meeting onNov 20, 2008, EAC opined that the Damanganga Pinjal link (involving several massive dams) does not require anyenvironment clearance since it is a drinking water project. Its clear from these decisions how callous has been thetreatment of the EAC to such massive projects.

25


16 Part of Ken Beta Link River Link project phase II

Purpose: H- Hydropower; I- Irrigation; M- Multipurpose.; NA- Not available, LIS: Lift Irrigation Scheme; DWS: Drinking Water Scheme

26


State-wise Overview of Projects in West India

Basin-wise overview of projects in West India

Overview of Status of clearance of projects in West India

27


17 The Polavaram project got Environment Clearance in Oct 2005, however, came back to EAC for clearance of the embankments in Orissa andChhattisgarh as these were not part of the proposal cleared by EAC. The Ministry of Environment and Forests had asked the projectauthority to get these components cleared and hence the embankment portion came to EAC for clearance. The EAC noted that there has beenno public hearings conducted in Orissa and Chhattisgarh as required under EIA notification and asked project authorities to come back toEAC after conducting the public hearings. The project authorities have yet to comply with this requirement and hence the clearance to theproject is yet to be recommended by the EAC.

18 The Athirapally project, following directions by Kerala High Court to KSEB (the MoEF show cause notice of Jan 4, 2010 could also be afactor, but there is no mention of that in the EAC minutes), came back before EAC in March 2010 and was again discussed in April 2010 andJuly 2010, till when no conclusion could be reached by EAC and EAC had asked for more information and clarifications. There is no mentionof the project in any of the subsequent minutes of meetings.

SOUTH INDIA

TOR & Environment Clearance status in South India


28


State-wise Overview of Projects in South India

Basin-wise overview of projects in South India

Overview of Status of clearance of projects in South India

29


January 28, 2013To:1. Smt Jayanthi Natarajan, Union Minister ofState for Environment and Forests (IC), Ministryof Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, NewDelhi 32. Secretary, Union Ministry of Environmentand Forests, Govt of IndiaParyavaran Bhawan, New Delhi 33. Chairman and Members,Expert Appraisal Committee on River Valley Projects,Ministry of Environment and Forests,Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi 3Sub: Reject Environment Clearance for the pro-posed 775 MW Luhri hydropower project on SutlejRiver in Himachal PradeshRespected Minister, Chairman and Members of EAC,1. We would like to draw your attention to the decision

of the Expert Appraisal Committees (EAC) on RiverValley Projects to recommend environment clearance(EC) to the proposed 775 MW Luhri Hydropowerproject on Sutlej river in Himachal Pradesh. The EACtook this decision in its meeting in November 2012,the minutes of the meeting were available only inlast week of December 2012.

2. Sutlej was known to be already an over developedbasin when the Luhri project came up for first stageclearance before the EAC in April 2007 (see for Sutlejbasin map: http://www.sandrp.in/basin_ maps/Hydro_Electric_Projects_on_Sutlej_River_in%20HP.pdf or attached file). The EAC should haverefused to consider the project then without an inde-pendent credible cumulative basin level study look-ing into the carrying capacity with respect to vari-ous aspects. Such a credible cumulative impact as-sessment of the Sutlej river basin, including the car-rying capacity is not available.

3. Here we would like to draw your attention to the factthat recommending Environment clearance withoutfirst undertaking carrying capacity and cumulativeimpact assessment is in violation of Supreme Courtorder (see attached) in “Karnataka Industrial Areas... vs Sri C. Kenchappa & Ors on 12 May, 2006” whichhas said:A. “The pollution created as a consequence of envi-

ronment must be commensurate with the carry-ing capacity of our ecosystem. In any case, in viewof the precautionary principle, the environmen-tal measures must anticipate, prevent and attackthe causes of environmental degradation.”

B. “…the preventive measures have to be taken keep-ing in view the carrying capacity of the ecosystemoperating in the environmental surroundings un-der consideration.”

60 persons and groups write to EAC and MoEF:

REJECT ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE TO LUHRI HYDRO PROJECT

C. “The pollution created as a consequence of devel-opment must not exceed the carrying capacity ofecosystem.”

Here it should be noted without knowing carryingcapacity of the Sutlej basin it cannot be ascertainedif the proposed project is “commensurate with thecarrying capacity of our ecosystem” and ecosystemin this context is the Sutlej basin. Hence the EACdecision is in violation of this SC order.

4. The minutes of the EAC meeting in April 2007, wherethe Terms of Reference (TOR) of EIA came up forapproval for the Luhri project, says that the projectis going to have 45 m high dam affecting a maximumof 45 project affected families and 13 villages. Nowfrom the EIA it is clear that dam height is not 45 but86 m, the project will affect not 45 families but 2337land owners and 9674 persons, Luhri project will af-fect not 13 but over a hundred villages including 78village along the world’s longest Head Race Tunnel.Any competent body would have questioned thesevery serious nature of changes in basic project pa-rameters of the project from TOR to EC stage, butEAC did not. The EAC did not even ask the projectpromoter for an explanation for these changes.

5. Even legally, the TOR clearance is supposed to bevalid only for 2 years. When the project first came upfor final environmental clearance before the56th meting of EAC towards the end of March 2012,it was almost five years since the TOR was cleared.TOR clearance was no longer valid than, but the EACignored the legal norms too.

6. The legally mandatory Public hearings for the projectwere held in May and August 2011, but the EIA madeavailable a month before the public hearing as re-quired underthe EIA notifi-cation did nothave the basici n f o r m a t i o nabout thenames and im-pacts on the 78villages alongthe path of thetunnels of theproject. The lo-cal groups hadwritten to theministry, thePollution Con-trol Board thatis supposed toconduct thehearings and

30


the EAC about these and other issues. But the EACdid not even take note of such serious legal lapses.Even just on this count of violations in the publichearing process the MoEF should not have forwardedthe proposal and the EAC should have refused to con-sider the project. But EAC did not even discuss thisissue!

7. In repeated representations to the EAC, theHimachal Pradesh based groups Sutlej BachaoSangharsh Samiti and Himdhara have been bring-ing to the notice of EAC that there has been no com-pliance with the Forest Rights Act for the forest landrequired for the project and the local administrationhas been indulging in manipulations and pressuretactics to get the mandatory gram sabha resolutionsfor the FRA compliance, as also reported in the me-dia. In fact these groups have been sending repre-sentations to the EAC on all these issues since Octo-ber 2011 and has already sent five representations,but the EAC has never even acknowledged, leaveaside discussing any of these representations in itsmeetings. In fact the EAC should have invited thepeople who sent such representations and heard themand also allowed them to be present when the projectis discussed in the EAC. This behaviour of the EACis also in violation of the Delhi High Court order inUtkarsh Mandal case where the High Court has ex-pressly asked the EAC to show that it has applied itsmind to each representation it receives and the deci-sion it takes in that regard.

8. The Environment Impact Assessment itself has soserious inadequacies that even the EAC notes in theminutes of the March 2012 meeting that “the EIA/EMP report is inadequate”, consultant has presented“poor quality of material”. The EAC minutes recordsmany of the serious deficiencies of the EIA in itsMarch 2012 meeting. The minutes of the 56th meetingof EAC saying about this project:

“The Committee also expressed its concern over thelong stretch of river of about 50 km getting dry due toa long HRT, large reservoir length and large numberof people getting affected due to the submergence. TheCommittee felt that the TORs of the project were de-cided during April-May 2007 when the water envi-ronment issues were not as conspicuous or serious asthey are in the current times. Otherwise, such a longdiversion of river water through the HRT which wouldaffect continuous river length of 46 km would havebeen objected at that time. The Committee felt thatthe consultant/s to the project who have been inter-acting with the MoEF/EAC in various presentationswith respect to other projects should have advised theProject Proponents and alerted them regarding therecent criteria of the EAC. Also, the SJVN who havebeen interacting with MoEF/EAC with respect toother projects should have been more cautious. Theonly remedy now available is to consider mitigatingmeasures such as larger environmental flows, reduc-ing the dam height, reducing the HRT length etc. TheCommittee strongly felt that the Project Proponent

should explore the various possibilities of all miti-gating measures.”

Here the non-consideration of the crucial issues high-lighted here at the TOR stage cannot be a reason fornot rejecting the project in present form. The implica-tion that once the TOR clearance is given, the projectwith all its parameters becomes fait accomplice is com-pletely uncalled for, unjustified and wrong. In any case,there was enough grounds for the EAC to reject thatconsideration also considering the significant changein the project parameters from the TOR proposal andTOR clearance having already lapsed as highlightedabove in para 4 and 5 above.

9. The EIA was so inadequate, full of contradictions andmisrepresentations that the EAC should have re-jected it and asked for fresh EIA while recommend-ing black listing of the consultant. None of those is-sues were resolved till Nov 2012 when EAC next dis-cussed the project. By than EAC had also receivedrepresentations from affected people, issues raisedin which too remained unresolved. And yet, the EACdecided to quietly recommend environment clearanceto the project without referring to its own observa-tions or those of the representations and getting theissues raised therein resolved.

10.The response of the developer and consultant in re-sponse to the issues raised by the EAC in March 2012meeting was supposed to be made available at leastten days before the November 2012 EAC meetingwhen EAC next considered the project, as per theorders of the Central Information Commission (CIC)in Feb 2012 and CIC notice to MoEF followingSANDRP appeal in May 2012. Violating the CIC or-ders, the responses were not in public domain.

11.The project violated the EAC’s own norms, but EACdid not even discuss it, let us see how. The Full Res-ervoir Level of the Luhri dam is 862.9 m and the tailwater level of the immediate upstream Rampurproject is also 862.9 m, which means there is zerodistance of flowing river between the two projects.This is incomplete violation of the recommendationof the Avay Shukla (former additional Chief Secre-tary of Himachal Pradesh) Committee appointed bythe HP High Court and also the reported recommen-dation of the BK Chaturvedi Committee appointedby the Prime Minister headed National Ganga RiverBasin Authority. Both the committees’ recommenda-tions are for minimum of 5 km distance of flowingriver between any two projects. Even EAC has beenfollowing the recommendation of at least 1 km dis-tance between two projects. But EAC did not evendiscuss this issue and cleared the project violatingits own norms.

12.Similarly, the full reservoir level of the downstreamKol dam is 642 m, whereas the invert level of theTail Race Channel of Luhri dam is 1 m below thisthat is 641 m, which means again there is zero lengthof flowing river between the two projects. The EAC

31


again violated the recommendations of Avay ShuklaCommittee and its own norm. Why did the EAC noteven discuss this issue? Why did the developer SutlejJal Vidhyut Nigam and the EIA consultants, whowere familiar with the EAC norm did not raise theseissues for both upstream and downstream situation?Why did the MoEF officials who are part of EAC andknew the importance of these issues did not raisethese issues? This collective silence on such a crucialissue raises too many questions for anyone’s comfort.

13.Here it should be noted that the Luhri project hashead race tunnel length of 38.14 km, which is thelongest in the world. As the EAC itself noted, thetunnel will bypass over 50 km length of the river, inaddition to the 6.8 km long reservoir. So the projectwill destroy close to 60 km length of the mighty, al-ready over-dammed Sutlej River. To see the calloustreatment the EAC has given to suchunprecedentedly impactful project is shocking.

One possible option left for the EAC to clear the air isan urgent, transparent review of this decision. We urgeEAC to do that soon and cancel its recommendationfor approving environment clearance for the project.

We urge MoEF to reject the recommendation of theEAC and reject the proposal to clear the Luhri HEPurgently.

Thanking you and looking forward to early response,

Yours sincerely,

Endorsed by: 1. EAS Sarma, Former Secretary, Govt of India, Visakhapattanam

[email protected]. Prof. M.K.Prasad, Kerala Sasthra Sahitya Parishad, Cochin,

[email protected]. Ashish Kothari, Kalpavriksh, Pune, chikikothari@ gmail.com4. Alok Agarwal, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Khandwa, Madhya

Pradesh. [email protected]. Souparna Lahiri, All India Forum of Forest People, Delhi.

[email protected]. Madhu Bhaduri, former Ambassador of India, Delhi,

[email protected]. Debi Goenka, Conservation Action Trust, Mumbai, [email protected]. Dr. Mohinder Slariya, Environmental Sociologist, Himachal

Pradesh, [email protected]. Arundhati Dhuru, National Alliance of People’s Movements,

Lucknow. [email protected]. Sandeep Pandey, Socialist Party, Lucknow. [email protected]. Praful Bidwai, Columnist, Delhi. [email protected]. Ravi Chopra, People’s Science Institute, Dehradun,

[email protected]. Ramaswamy R. Iyer, former secretary, Govt of India, Delhi,

[email protected]. Rahul Banerjee, Dhas Gramin Vikas Kendra,

Indore [email protected]. Ravindranath,River Basin Friends(NE), Dhemaji, Assam,

[email protected]. Vimal Bhai, Matu Jansangathan, Uttarakhand. [email protected]. Sharachchandra Lele, Centre for Environment & Development,

ATREE, Bangalore. [email protected]. Dr Sudhirendar Sharma, Ecology Foundation, Himachal Pradesh,

[email protected]. Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala, Columnist, Uttarakhand. [email protected]. Samir Mehta, International Rivers and River Basin Friends,

Mumbai, [email protected]

21. Prof Rohan Dsouza, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi,[email protected]

22. Rohit Prajapati, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, Baroda,[email protected]

23. Manoj Misra, Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, Delhi. [email protected]. Bharat Mansata, Vision Acres - Vanvadi, Maharashtra.

[email protected]. Vinita Mansata, Earthcare Books, Kolkata

[email protected]. Nitya Jacob, Centre for Science and Environment, Delhi,

[email protected]. Soumitra Ghosh, NESPON, Siliguri, W Bengal,

[email protected]. Joe Athialy, BIC Trust, New Delhi, [email protected]. Jitn Yumnam, Committee on the Protection of Natural Resources in

Manipur, Imphal [email protected]. Renuka Huidrom, Centre for Research and Advocacy, Imphal,

Manipur, [email protected]. Dr. Nilesh Heda, SAMVARDHAN, Washim, Maharashtra,

[email protected]. Sujit Patwardhan, Parisar, Pune, [email protected]. Ram Wangkheirakpam, Imphal, Manipur [email protected]. Radha Gopalan, Rishi Valley Special Development Area, Chittoor,

AP, [email protected]. Pushp Jain, EIA Resource and Response Centre, Delhi,

[email protected]. Nachiket Kelkar, Nature Conservation Foundation, Bangalore,

[email protected]. Gopal Krishna, Toxics Watch Alliance, New Delhi,

[email protected]. Paramjeet Singh, Peoples Union for Democratic Rights,

Delhi, [email protected]. Shardul S. Bajikar, Mumbai. [email protected]. Tarun Nair, Madras Crocodile Bank Trust, Bangalore

[email protected]. Ajay Mahajan, New Delhi, [email protected]. Samantha Agarwal, Activist, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

[email protected]. Chaoba Takhenchangbam, North East Dialogue Forum, Manipur

Secretariat, Imphal, [email protected]. Soumya Dutta, Bharat Jan Vigyan Jatha, Delhi.

[email protected]. Prasad Chacko, Social Activist, Ahmedabad [email protected]. Janak Daftari, Jal Biradari, Mumbai, [email protected]. Shankar Sharma, Power Policy Analyst, Karnataka,

[email protected]. Swathi Seshadri, EQUATIONS, Bangalore,

[email protected]. George Monippally, Bharat Jan Andolan, Jharkhand,

[email protected]. Ms Malika Virdi, Himal Prakriti, Uttarakhand,

[email protected]. Mr E Theophilus, Himal Prakriti, Uttarakhand,

[email protected]. K. Ramnarayan, Save the Rivers Campaign, Uttarakhand,

[email protected]. Dr. Latha Anantha, River Research Centre, Kerala,

[email protected]. Dr V Rukmini Rao, Gramya Resource Centre for Women,

Secunderabad, [email protected]. Manshi Asher, Himdhara, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh,

[email protected]. Kisan Mehta, President, Save Bombay Committee, Mumbai,

[email protected]. Priya Salvi, Prakruti, Mumbai. [email protected]. Parineeta Dandekar, SANDRP, Pune, [email protected]. Pervin Jehangir, Narmada Support Group, Mumbai.

[email protected]. Himanshu Thakkar, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People

(www.sandrp.in), 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi [email protected]

32


RNI No DELENG/2003/09562

New Publication from SANDRP: Book Review

RIVER BAGMATI: BOUNTIES BECOME A CURSE

by Dr D K MishraPublished in: August, 2012Published by: SANDRP and Peoples Science InstitutePages:196 + xii (8.5”x11” size)

Reviewed bySudhirendar Sharma(www.d-sector.org 30 Nov 2012)

The resolute perseverance with which Dinesh Kumar Mishra haschronicled major rivers, flowing through the flood plains of Bihar,during past three decades makes one realise if this civil engineercould have been anything but a ‘river biographer’. Meticulouswith details, ranging from mythology to hydrology, the narrativeweaves people as victims of hydrological madness. Multiple voicesand divergent perspectives only testify what Voltaire had longsaid: ‘The progress of river to the ocean is not as rapid as that ofman to error.’ The story of Bagmati is no different!

While the river has preserved its status of a free-flowing drainin Nepal, caging it between embankments has forced the river toroar occasionally in Bihar. Largely unnoticed, the embankmentshave breached no less than 58 times over last 35 years. Notableaspect of this rather familiar story across major river basins inthe subcontinent is that ‘neither have lessons been learnt norare there any intentions.’ Not surprising, therefore, that thenarrative reflects author’s pain and anguish in equal measures.

Mishra’s relentless documentation on rivers may not have gone unnoticed but it has not been able to capturepopular imagination as yet. Bereft of detailed prescription, the diagnostic narrative has seemingly remained restrictedto researchers and academics. Being critical of structural development along river course and the consequencesthereof, his books have remained on the periphery of political discourse on flood plain management. Like hisprevious biographies, River Bagmatimay not be a game changer yet but has essential elements to challenge history.

One may well argue that the world is not at the tipping point for a change in managing our rivers yet. Should thatbe so, these river biographies have surely been written ahead of their times. However, the time is not far for the‘businessas-usual’ scenario of (mis)managing the rivers to transform. It is then that wise, witty, patient, persistentand persuasive anthology by Dinesh Kumar Mishra will merit serious consideration.

For copies of the book, contact [email protected]/ [email protected]/[email protected]. Price Rs 595/- + Rs. 60/- (for postage). Pl send a check or demand draft to SANDRP, C/o 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi -110 088, Ph: 011-2748 4654/55.

Information on other publications of SANDRP could be accessed at sandrp.in/pubindex

Edited, Published, Printed & Owned by Himanshu Thakkar at 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi - 88.Printed at Sun Shine Process, B -103/5, Naraina Indl. Area Phase - I, New Delhi - 110 028

Dams, Rivers & People The annual subscription for the DRP is Rs 125/-. Please send a DD in favour of “Dams, Rivers &People”, payable at Delhi, to our address (DRP, c/o 86-D, AD block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 110 088). Or, you can send bybank transfer, contact SANDRP for details. Subscriptions can be sent for multiple years at the same rate. The DRP is alsoavailable in electronic versions and can be accessed at www.sandrp.in/drpindex.

Documents

Analysis of MoEF's EAC on River Valley Projects The Expert ... · Contact : Himanshu Thakkar, Parineeta Dandekar, Ganesh Gaud Dams, Rivers and People C/o 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar