Note: Following the submission of this letter, Joanna and Raghu sent a message stating that the decision to grant environmental clearance to the project in question has again been deferred. The message also communicated, "May I just point out one thing. In your comments about the amount of reserve that will be submerged. In fact the under-reporting is even worse since the 4141hectares and 5803 hectares refer only to the core area of the Tiger Reserve. As you know since Tiger Reserves were given a legal entity int he 2006 Amendment, the Reserve actually consists of core and buffer. With this in mind you will find that all of the submergence area falls within the Panna Tiger Reserve; all but a tiny bit of non included revenue land midst the buffer. Park officials have opined that around 200 sq ams will be lost to the reservoir and other works. What is certain is that the submergence area will not only flood some of the best vulture nesting sites but totally bifurcate the park and cut off any corridor to forests to the west leaving no viability for a tiger population to survive in the Park whatever bits they suggest adding into core from the buffer which of course depends on the agreement of those villagers living there who have no idea of such a plan."
To
Chairman & Hon’ble Members,
Experts Appraisal Committee (EAC) on
River Valley Projects,
Union Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan
Jorbagh Road
New Delhi-110003
2nd June, 2016
Subject: TWA’s concerns about Ken Betwa Project on EAC’s
agenda for Environment Clearance for meeting on June 2-3, 2016
Sir,
This is with reference to the meeting of the EAC which is
to consider the proposal of interlinking for Ken and Betwa rivers inside the
Panna Tiger Reserve.
Pursuant to our earlier communications with the ministry
in this regard, we wish to make the following submissions for your
considerations:-
·
In violation of
the orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC) which requires that all
documents be available in public domain at least ten days in advance of the
meeting. There is no new document available on the EC website. This implies
that that all those who are concerned with the issue are ignorant about the reasons
for the reconsideration by the EAC. It does not disclose the progress since the
last meeting on February 8-9, 2016.
·
The Minutes of
the 91st meeting of EAC held on February 8-9, 2016 notes, “The
committee observed that the Landscape Management Plan (LMP) is being prepared
by WII, Dehradun in absence of a plan, the committee cannot examine the
proposal. EAC also mentioned, after completion of plan, obtaining a second
opinion on the LMP from external expert the project will be reconsidered again
for EC and also handed over 4 representations received from NGOs/
Environmentalists including that of former Secretary, Government of India Shri
EAS Sarma to project proponent for compliance.” The LMP being prepared by WII
is not available, nor has there been any independent expert evaluation of the
LMP. Thus, the project cannot be considered because it would tantamount to violation
of EAC’s own decision.
·
The minutes of
91st EAC recorded: “The committee was informed by the project
proponent that the project has been approved by the State Wildlife Board. The
committee noted that the director of the Panna tiger reserve had not
recommended the project, as per the agenda of the Board meeting and the board
had over-ruled him and approved the project without recording detailed reasons
for such rejection.” It remains unaddressed. The clearance of the State Board
of Wildlife is not legally valid.
·
The Minutes of
the 91st EAC further noted: “Comments of HS Kingra Vice Chairman and
member of the Committee are as follows: The matter related to the effect of the
Ken-Betwa project on Panna Tiger Reserve (PTR) and the breeding ground for
vulture was discussed in the 91st meeting of the EAC. It was seen that
submergence of 4141Hact of the PTR is a serious issue and need to be studied by
some independent expert committee and the findings of such committee be placed
before the MP State Wild Life Board (MPSWLB) and NBWL. The agenda related to
the clearance by MPSWLB was perused and it was noted that in the agenda notes
the then director PTR did not recommend in favour of submergence of huge area
of PTR and loss of breeding habitat for the vultures. State Chief Wild Life
Warden (SCWLW) Mr. Ravi Kumar IFS also agreed with the views of the then
Director PTR and endorsed his views without any modification. How and what
expertise the MPSWLB had over and above the technical advice rendered by
Director PTR and SCWLW of MP is not clear from the minutes or agenda notes place
before the MPSWLB. It is understood that as per convention and the extant Rules
of Business of the State Government the SCWLW must be the chief technical
advisor to the Government of MP on matters related to Wild Life. How the board
overruled the advice of SCWLW is not properly recorded in the minutes of the
Board meeting. It is therefore opined that an independent committee of three
experts be constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate
Change in consultation with the EAC to give specific recommendations related to
submergence of PTR Core area and the habitat loss for breeding of vultures. It
is then only that the project can be considered for Environment Clearance.”
o
This decision
of the EAC dated February 2016 has not been implemented.
·
The 91st
EAC meeting concluded: “After detailed deliberations, the EAC accepted the
views expressed by the Mr. H.S.Kingra, Vice-Chairman and member of the
committee and considered the compliance report submitted by the project
proponent and decided that the project will be considered for Environmental
Clearance (EC) only after wildlife clearance of the project is obtained from
NBWL in the manner proposed by Mr. Kingra. The project proponent may submit
again the proposal for EC along with the decisions of NBWL.”
·
As per the
minutes of the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee (SC) of the
NBWL held on 26th February, 2016 dated March 15, 2016, it was decided
to set up a subcommittee that was to visit the project area and report back to
NBWL-SC before taking any decision. It has now come to light that the NBWL-SC
recommended wildlife clearance to the project without having the report of the
sub-committee based on site visit. It is noteworthy that the minutes of the 38th
meeting of NBWL SC held on 10th May, 2016 or the site visit report
of the subcommittee of NBWL-SC are not there either on the MoEF’s website or on
Environmental Clearance website. It is also noteworthy that the letter from
MoEF giving wildlife clearance to Ken Betwa project is not in public domain.
The wildlife clearance to the project by NBWL-SC is legally unsound because it violates
the decision of the NBWL-WC taken in the previous meeting.
·
It has been
admitted that the required study of impact of the project on vulture habitat
has been done nor has the mitigation been planned which should have been part
of the EIA-EMP and cannot be done post approval/ launching of construction. The
minutes of EAC dated Aug 24-25, 2015 noted: “There is no threat to Vulture
population because only 3% habitat of vulture will be submerged and 97% of
habitat will be more than 100 m above HFL.” Contrary to this the minutes of
NBWL-SC meeting of 26 February, 2016 admits that there will be “50% loss of
existing unique habitat of highly endangered Vulture spp.” This creates a
compelling logic for EAC to take note of the misrepresentation that NWDA and
AFCL has been telling the EAC on this issue and take immediate action against
them. It creates a rationale for suspension of consideration of the project
till this issue is adequately addressed.
·
The minutes of
the 37th NWBL-SC meeting dated 26 February, 2016 makes it clear that KBLP will
submerge 5803 ha of PTR, against 4141 Ha that the EIA and NWDA submissions to
EAC mention. This is massive 30% under reporting of submergence area of PTR by
NWDA and AFCL. Besides this 10523 ha of Core Tiger Reserve area will be lost
due to “fragmentation and loss of connectivity, displacement of 10 villages
etc” says the NBWL SC minutes. The EIA does not mention this impact. The EAC
should immediately suspend consideration of the KBLP.
·
It has been
noted by experts that KBLP will impact the Ken Ghariyal Sanctuary as one of the
barrages of KBLP is to be constructed inside the Ken Ghariyal Sanctuary, as
mentioned in the latest Detailed Project Report of KBLP. The minutes the 26th
February, 2016 meeting of NBWL-SC has recorded concerns of Dr R Sukumar about
the KBLP’s impact on Ken Ghariyal Sanctuary and hope now such impacts will be
properly assessed. The EAC, in its meeting in May 2016 recommended Environment
Clearance for the Lower Orr Project in Madhya Pradesh, which is actually part
of the full Ken Betwa Link Project. Lower Orr project becomes viable only if
Phase I of the Ken Betwa link project is viable, since without transfer of
water from Ken to Betwa, upper Betwa basin will have no water to spare for
additional project. Since Phase I of the Ken Betwa project is yet to get all
the clearances and also achieve implementation agreement between participating
states (UP and MP), there is no guarantee of the viability of the Lower Orr
Project in Upper Betwa basin. Given the fact that EAC recommended clearance to
a project whose hydrological viability itself is uncertain, EAC should suspend
its decision about Lower Orr Project. The EAC minutes of May 2016 meeting states
that the EIA of the project did not include full command area of the Lower Orr
project and that it will be considered separately. This is completely against
the basic tenet of considering all impacts of the project simultaneously and
not in piecemeal manner as EAC has done. A rational and scientific approach
creates a compelling logic for EAC to consider the full Ken Betwa Project and
its cumulative impact with all its components.
·
It is strange
that so far EAC has not also examined all the existing, cleared and proposed
projects in Ken and Betwa basins by undertaking cumulative impact assessment in
both basins instead of considering each project separately. It is evident from EAC’s
agenda for June 2-3, 2016 meeting that it includes another project in Panna
district.
·
It is evident
that the KBLP is facilitating transfer of water from Ken basin (Bundelkhand) to
Upper Betwa Basin (outside Bundelkhand). Therefore, claim of KBLP benefitting Bundelkhand
is flawed and misleading. Such claims are misplaced.
·
The fact is
that the hydrological viability of the Ken Betwa project is far from
established. The hydrological figures are not in public domain, NWDA water
balance studies are out dated and not peer reviewed or in public domain, and
EAC should not be taking any decision about the project in such a situation,
till all NWDA water balance studies and hydrological data is in public domain
and an independence review of them is possible. This hydrological non viability
got further reinforced during the current drought when Ken was dried up several
locations and Betwa was flowing, and there was proposal to take train loads of
water from Betwa to Ken Basin.
·
The MOU for DPR
for interlinking of Ken Betwa rivers was signed in August 2005, but there is no
progress so far after that in terms of interstate agreement. Its EIA shoddy and
the public hearings involved violations.
·
Academicians
and economists like Prof. Kanchan Chopra of Institute of Economic Growth have
also questioned the rationale of the Ken-Betwa link. Even Prof. Y K Alagh,
former Union Minister has written how Ken Betwa project has been allowed
because government is giving in to a loud lobby although it’s a terrible
project to be signed. It needed examination by an independent committee. While
looking at benefits the interest of both the rivers and their ecosystem also
needs to be factored in. Under the circumstances, EAC should not even be
considering this project.
·
The detailed
dissenting note submitted by Field Director of Panna Tiger Reserve and a member
of 4 member committee set up by the NTCA in 2013 to review the Ken Betwa
Proposal. It would not be proper for the NBWL to consider the proposal without
consideration of this detailed dissent note by these official agencies and
satisfactory response. It is noteworthy that Shri H S Panwar, Padma Bhushan,
former director of Project Tiger (1981-85) & former director of WII
(1985-1994) has written a detailed note why this project should not be
considered till there is a proper and credible Environmental Impact Assessment.
He has inferred that the current EIA is not credible at all. We submit
that J Van Gruisen and R.S. Chundawat of Baavan – bagh aap aur van has
written a detailed note explaining how poor, and flawed the EIA is. Their
conclusion is valid for NBWL too. The current EIA has failed to adequately
assess the impact of the project on the Panna Tiger Reserve or the Ken Ghariyal
Wildlife Sanctuary.
·
It is quite
shocking that according to the project DPR of April 2010, one of the components
of the project is "A 850 m long barrage with crest level of 181 m across
Ken River about 1.0 km d/s of existing Bariyarpur pick up weir". This is
from the NWDA's latest available DPR. But instead of relying on it the
EIA only mentions the DPR of 2008, which did not include this proposal. This
clearly establishes that the EIA is based on an outdated DPR and does not
even consider full project components.
·
This creates a
logical compulsion to order fresh EIA for the project in question. Given the
fact that Interlinking of Rivers (ILR) project is a cumulative project, isn’t
it logically compelling to undertake cumulative environment and forest impact
assessment prior to seeking clearances? The practice of seeking “environment
and forest clearances” admittedly “for individual link Project” shows deep
insensitivity towards environment and forests. Thus, it is deeply flawed.
·
The project
proponent fails to adopt river basin approach because it strikes a balance
between the existing natural functions of the river system and societal
expectations for livelihoods, industry, recreation, nature management, and
agriculture. This approach maximizes the economic and social benefits derived
from water resources in an equitable manner while conserving and, where
necessary, restoring freshwater ecosystems. It factors in doctrine of riparian
rights that emphasizes recognition of equal rights of water use by all owners
of land subject to non-interference with rights of other riparian owners and the
territorial integrity theory or theory of natural water flow wherein every
lower riparian is entitled to natural flow of river without interference from
upper riparian. It adopts the doctrine of community of interest implying that a
river passed through states is deemed to be one unit and should be developed as
such. The approach of seeking “environment and forest clearances” admittedly
“for individual link Project” is quite parochial, dated and is caught in a time
warp.
·
The project
proponent cannot even attempt to defend the indefensible without the cumulative
impact assessment of the ILR project. So far it has completely failed to do so.
It is relevant to recall that a partial, unsuccessful and biased attempt was
made to undertake cumulative impact of assessment of hydropower projects in
Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins. For the ILR project, cumulative impacts must
assess changes in sedimentation at various points within project, at various
points within a day, season, year, over the years and cumulatively across the
basin and impacts thereof. It should assess cumulative impact on aquatic and
terrestrial flora and fauna across the basin due to ILR project. It should
assess cumulative impact on hydrological flows, at various points within
project, at various points within a day, season, year, over the years and
cumulatively across the basin and impacts thereof. This should include impacts
on various hydrological elements including springs, tributaries, groundwater
aquifers, etc. This assessment must provide a picture of what is the situation
before undertaking the ILR project and what would be the situation. After
the implementation of the project. It should account for cumulative green house
gas emissions. It should assess the cumulative impact of mining of sand,
boulders, coarse and fine granules etc required for the ILR project. It should
assess the cumulative impact of blasting of so many tunnels. It should assess
cumulative impact of improper and proper muck dumping into rivers. It should
assess cumulative impact of silt laden water into the river channel downstream
from the dam, and how this gets accumulated across the non monsoon months and
what are its implications. It should assess cumulative impact of release of
silt free water into the river downstream from the power house and impact
thereof on the geo morphology, erosion, stability of structures etc. It should
assess cumulative impact of differential water flow downstream from power house
in non monsoon months, with sudden release of heavy flows during peaking/ power
generation hours and no releases during other times. It should assess
cumulative impact of all the project components (dam, tunnels, blasting, power
house, muck dumping, mining, road building, township building, deforestation,
transmission lines, submergence etc) for the ILR project. This should be done
for the periods during construction, operation and decommissioning phases of
the projects.
·
The contention
of the project proponent that “the ILR projects are green projects and these
link projects under ILR Programme have been formulated by exercising all
caution and considering all engineering parameters required for the project”
ignores the glaring fact of South Asia’s biggest ecological crisis due to
construction of embankments in Kosi basin in Bihar and Nepal. These misplaced
engineering interventions have created unprecedented drainage congestion crisis
even as NWDA and its sister organizations keep claiming that it was “formulated
by exercising all caution and considering all engineering parameters required
for the project.” Its contention ignores the lessons from the drying up of Aral
Sea, the world biggest ecological catastrophe because of diversion of Siberian
rivers in former USSR.
·
Some 60 years
ago Aral Sea basin was a richly forested eco-system fed by two of the longest
rivers in Asia. It stretched 266 miles from its northern port, Aral'sk, to the
port on its southern delta, Muynak. The lake was fed in the north by the
Syr-Dar'ya River, flowing from its headwaters in Kyrgyzstan through Uzbekistan
and Tajikistan, then north through Kazakhstan into the lake. The Amu-Dar'ya
River begins near Khyber Pass in Afghanistan, flowing along the border between
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan before forming a delta at the southern end of the
Aral Sea. After the collapse of USSR, Kazakhstan borders the Aral Sea in the
north, while Uzbekistan lies on the south shore. After the collapse USSR,
scientists discovered that the Aral Sea was missing. At present the Aral Sea
has lost three-fourths of its former volume and two-thirds of its former
surface area. The water level has dropped by almost seventy feet, and the
salinity of the lake is triple the level of forty years ago. The former sea has
split into two parts with a diminishing trickle of water between them. There
are projections about its complete disappearance in near future.
·
Quite like the
proposed ILR project, Soviet government had launched a massive irrigation
project. In late 1930s when it was decided to drain the rivers of the Aral
basin to irrigate wide expanses of desert disregarding the advice and
prediction of Soviet scientists about its adverse consequences for the Aral Sea
and its ecosystem if the Amu-Dar'ya and Syr-Dar'ya were exploited as planned,
but their advice was ignored. As a result, water from the two rivers stopped
reaching the sea much of the time, and not at all in dry years. The Amu-Dar'ya
stopped reaching the sea due to drought, and water from the Syr-Dar'ya did not
reach the sea during the summer when needed for irrigation, coming instead in
the winter and causing floods, exacerbating the ecological situation. The sea
began drying up within years after introduction of the plan, but the USSR
government argued that "the disappearance of the sea would be good,
because then more cotton fields could be planted on the seabed." The
desertification of the Aral Sea was not a natural process; it was deliberate
process akin to the proposed ILR project.
·
What Shri
Mikhail Gorbachev, formerly President of the USSR said in this regard merits urgent
attention. He said, “After the extent of the Aral Sea tragedy became known, we
stabilized the unsustainable irrigation schemes which were cutting off the
water supply to the Aral Sea, and halted a project which had been planned by
engineers to divert two major Siberian rivers.” He added, “The most important
lesson is that the developments in science and technology of the past century
bring with them not only huge benefits, but also great responsibility, as human
mistakes or mismanagement can now cause irreversible damage to the environment,
immeasurable human suffering and threaten the very habitability of large parts
of our precious planet.”
·
The claim of
the project proponent that “The ILR projects will provide boost in every sphere
of life including job creation, greenery, tourism and ultimately helps in food
production and thus increase food security of the nation” is an exercise in
empty posturing. It does not provide any figures for such claims. It does not
disclose the quantum of agricultural land that will be submerged and how much
of such land will be put to non-agricultural purposes while making
unsubstantiated claims about “food production” and “food security”. Unless it
provides figures for how food production will suffer and impact food security
due to submergence and diversion of agricultural land such claims are
manifestly misleading.
·
The proposed
Interlinking of Rivers (ILR) project will kill the rivers and their basins. It
will destroy groundwater recharge system. The fact is that surface water
projects are not delivering, they only seem to involve scandals.
·
A book ‘Free
the CBI’ by Late Shri B R Lall, former Joint Director, Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) wherein there is a reference author’s letter to Shri K
Vijaya Rama Rao, the then Director, CBI in August 1995. In this letter he
mentions that he strove for complete investigation into the power sector, which
is draining the country. In the book it is mentioned that kickbacks may be 3 to
10 % of the project cost, but up-valuation is anything between 40 to 100 % of
the real project cost. He had sent a report on Chamera project to Director, CBI
where against an estimated cost of Rs 1393 crores in 1992, the negotiations for
allotment are on for Rs 3300 to 3600 crores i.e.@ Rs 12 crores per MW whereas
world over rate of only around Rs 6 crores per MW is considered
reasonable for hydro electric projects. In the letter it is reasoned that even
if this figure were to be Rs 2000 crores for 300 MW Chamera project, shouldn’t
it be examined when Rs 1000 to 1500 crore of the nation is being squandered for
kickbacks of Rs 100 crore. The Director CBI never permitted this probe.
·
There is a need
for a high level probe in the hydro power and irrigation sector before pursuing
the ILR project which entails such projects as well.
·
As per the
Planning Commission’s Tenth Plan document, there are 383 ongoing major and
medium projects awaiting completion, 111 of which are pending since pre-fifth
Plan period i.e. more than 26 years. All these can be completed within five to
eight years, yielding an additional potential of about 14 million hectares at a
cost of Rs 77,000 crore as estimated by the plan task force, now raised to Rs
100,000 crore.
·
The second
component listed in the Plan is development of minor irrigation, mostly in the
eastern and northeastern regions. The total potential assessed is 24.5 million
hectares with a total investment of Rs 54,000 crore, of which the government is
expected to provide only Rs 13,500 crore, the balance coming from beneficiary
farmers and institutional loans. The cost per hectare is only Rs 20,000 and
gestation period almost nil, against a cost of Rs 100,000 and 12 years'
gestation in case of major and medium projects.
·
The third
equally beneficial scheme mentioned in the Plan is the groundwater recharge
master plan prepared by the Central Ground Water Board needing Rs 24,500 crore
to trap 36 billion cubic metres of water annually. These measures are quite
clearly better than the project of networking of rivers. The concerned judges
would serve the ecological interest of the subcontinent better if they could
pay heed to these proposals of the Plan document. Judges at all levels have, by
and large, justified the confidence reposed in them. But there is scope for
improvement in several spheres and it is up to the judiciary itself to rectify
the defects in its role and prove to the public that as long as there is an
efficient, impartial, independent and incorruptible judiciary, democracy in
India will be safe from the tyranny of the executive and also the judiciary.
·
The proposal of
networking Peninsular and Himalayan rivers emerges from a lack of rigorous
evaluation of the ecological impacts which would prove disastrous not only to
the fishery, but also to the biodiversity and biotic processes that have
evolved over the past hundreds of millions of years.
·
We must
remember if water scarcity is the perennial question, there better answers like
the groundwater recharge master plan available with the government. Water can
be made to “Reach to All Homes, Farms and Factories” by adopting this plan as
well at a minimal cost. It submitted that whenever there is conflict between
financial gains and rivers, the latter must get priority over monetary
benefits because by any yard stick economic value of a free flowing river is
bigger than dammed and mutilated rivers. The capitalist, communist and
colonial legacy of treating rivers as material flow that flow through pipelines
must be abandoned and rivers must be treated as living beings that nourished
our civilization for centuries and can nourish all the coming generations if
cannibalistic tendency of diverting waters in bottles, dams and banks is
stopped.
·
We submit that
the project proponent is under structural compulsion to push these ecologically
destructive projects envisaged in 1970s to justify their continued existence.
NCAER, NWDA and their promoters remain trapped in pre-climate crisis era
wherein “taming of rivers”, dams were temples and not outcome of disease of
gigantism and conquest over nature was considered part of scientific temper
with which rivers could be murdered with impunity.
·
We submit that
in 1715 India accounted for 25 % of world industrial output. India’s share in
the world’s industrial output became possible without engineering the landscape
and replumbing the river valleys of the sub continent which is already
demonstrably earth quake prone.
·
We submit that
project proponent seems to suffer from a gross materialist and technocentric
bias wherein water flow is deemed material flow alone and not the flow of life
that sustains life. They must appreciate the pearls of wisdom from Mahabharata
that describes the Divine Being saying, “The mountains are his bones. The earth
is his fat and flesh. The oceans are his blood. Space is his stomach. The Wind
is his breath. Fire is his energy. The rivers are his arteries and veins. Agni
and Soma, otherwise called the Sun and the Moon, are called his eyes. The
firmament above is his head. The earth is his two feet. The cardinal and subsidiary
points of the horizon are his arms,” the government should reject the idea of
“inter-linking of rivers based on feasibility”. This is narrated by Bhishma in
conversation with Yudhishthira while referring to the reply of sage Bhrigu to
sage Bharadwaja. This verse occurs in the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata. The
project proponent fails to recognize that Interlinking of rivers project is an
exercise in delinking because it entails mutilation of the veins and arteries
of the divine nature. Rivers shape the terrain and lives of people by its
waters which are always in a dynamic state. Breaking this dynamic would unleash
forces of uncontrolled change and invite the ‘law of unintended consequences’.
In view of the recent earth quakes, unpredictable
rainfall and changing weather pattern, there is a logical compulsion to recognize
the ecosystem in question as a living entity whose integrity should not be
violated for the sake of sanity, humanity and for all the living beings of
present and future generations in both the basins. We are hopeful that EAC will
factor in the above mentioned facts before making any decision.
We would be happy to meet you as a delegation and share
relevant documents in this regard.
Thanking you in anticipation
Thanking you in anticipation
Yours faithfully
Dr Gopal Krishna
Director
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb:
09818089660, 08227816731
+ comments + 1 comments
Hi,
Thanks for sharing such a great article with us. This surely helps me in my work.Thanks a lot if you want company registration cost bangalore company registration online bangalore click on it
Post a Comment