Large dam construction has been a key aspect of India's planning over the last 50 years. But what is the process by which such projects are conceptualised, approved and eventually constructed? What are the mechanisms by which environmental and social rights are safeguarded? This article attempts to address these questions.
Approval of large developmental projects has three clearly separated phases. The techno-economic acceptance works on the technical feasibility and economic costs and benefits with clearly laid out objective parameters. The process of environmental approval is much more complicated as it has to deal not only with costs and benefits to the land and its human and other inhabitants at the site, in the neighborhood and beyond but also has to analyse the likely benefits and costs to succeeding generations. All this has to be done on the basis of scientific tools that are still evolving and have not yet gained wide recognition. The ultimate decision is taken at the political level.
The objectives of ecological security and economic development often make contrasting, even irreconcilable, demands. Since development has more supporters than those seeking to protect ecological security, a democratic polity, with its compulsions of majority support, puts those charged with the task of ensuring environmental protection in the unenviable position of appearing to oppose the demands of the masses. Large developmental projects invariably gain political acceptance at lower levels of the decision-making hierarchy if the number of beneficiaries appears to be significantly larger than losers in the immediate time frame. But at higher levels, the technical, economical and environmental considerations play core roles, often negating political demands. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in India is responsible for combining political decision-making with informed environmental choices.
Nowhere is this of greater importance than in the energy sector. Among the few things that have an all-round political and social consensus in India is the policy decision by the government of India to provide reliable and affordable power supply to all households by the year 2012. To meet this goal, the government aims to double India's current installed capacity of 1,04,917 MW.
Of this installed capacity, 74,429 MW is thermal, 26,261 MW hydro, 2,720 MW nuclear and 1,507 MW is wind-based. Even though India has large coal reserves and the Kyoto Protocol does not bind India to reduce its carbon emissions during the first committment period of 2008-12, sooner, rather than later, India will have to take measures to reduce carbon emissions and forego large coal-based power projects. Many energy experts see an increasing role for hydro power in meeting the energy goals laid down by the government.
Experts place the total hydro power potential of the country at 150,000 MW out of which more than one-third lies in the northeastern part of India.
It is generally presumed that since the government's power policy demands rapid enhancement of power generation capacity, the MoEF is required to grant approval to all power project proposals placed before it. However, the government's committment to environmental security and inter-generational equity also demands that while providing power to the current generation, we must not bequeath a devastated and unliveable India to succeeding generations. This is reflected in the environment and forest policies of India that call for sustainable development and arresting and reversing the decline in forest cover.
All project proposals are examined by the MoEF in the light of legislation such as the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 (EPA) and the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 (FCA). Other laws that also come into play are the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act of 1977, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981, Public Liability Insurance Act of 1991. In the case of hydro power projects, it is the EPA and the FCA that play a central role.
The EPA is an umbrella legislation that seeks to examine all projects for their likely physical, biological and ecological consequences. A basic requirement for all site-specific projects is the site clearance that has to precede even survey and investigation. The idea is to ensure that projects that are proposed on sites too fragile or too valuable should not even be investigated.
Site clearance: Hydro power projects are site-specific and, therefore, require site clearance from the MoEF. The project proponent has to provide basic technological, geological, seismological, topographical, archaeological and demographical information on the project site, the catchment and the command area. These facts are then verified on the ground by a team of officers. In this initial and rather crude examination, important aspects are looked into such as the likelihood of large-scale displacement of people, the effect on wildlife, migratory species, extent of damage to forests and biodiversity, proximity to and effect on important archaeological and religious sites, use and erosion status of catchments and the seismic profile.
Displacement: If the project is seen to disturb too large a population, then it is often not considered worthy of site clearance. In a country like India, it is often impossible to find adequate alternative rehabilitation sites for displaced people. Some years ago, the Brahmaputra Board sought approval for the Lower Subansiri hydroelectric project in the state of Arunachal Pradesh in which the Daporijo and Along townships, both with populations exceeding 5,000 and large by the state's standards, were to be submerged along with scores of other villages. This was found to be unacceptable especially since the national rehabilitation policies stipulate that people must be resettled in keeping with their social and cultural practices. Land requirements for tribal populations are far higher than what is required for urban or other rural people. The project was granted site clearance last year after the dam height was lowered to spare these two townships. This meant a reduction in power generation by half.
Wildlife impacts: If the project is expected to cause submergence of a wildlife sanctuary or national park, it is referred to the Indian Board for Wildlife (IBWL), a body consisting of conservationists and government functionaries. A Supreme Court ruling in the PIL filed by the World Wildlife Fund has made clearance from the IBWL mandatory for any denotification of a sanctuary or national park. A recent example is that of the 337 sq. km. Tale Wildlife Sanctuary in the northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh. The submergence of 0.4 sq. km. on the margins of this sanctuary by the Lower Subansiri hydro power project has meant that the project authorities will need clearance from the IBWL. This is yet to come and may take quite some time because of the nature and thoroughness of the process.
Cultural heritage: Similar procedures are followed when important archaeological or religious sites are involved. When the issue of site clearance of the Upper Siang hydroelectric project in Arunachal Pradesh came up in 2000, it was delayed till the project authorities convinced the MoEF that no harm would come to the ancient Buddhist monastery at Tuting.
Alternate land sites: A crucial issue during the clearance process is the reason for which the project proponent has chosen the site in question. Often, for large projects, the project authorities seek to locate projects on forestland for no reason other than the ease in securing them as they belong to the government and the freedom from the troubles and delays that are caused if human resettlement is involved, which is nearly always the case in non-forestlands. But the MoEF does not permit diversion of forestland except when totally unavoidable. The site clearance thus requires the examination of possible alternate sites and site approval takes into account factors that led to the preference for the proposed site over other alternatives.
Environmental impact assessment: After the project is accorded site clearance, the project authorities are permitted to undertake a detailed survey and investigation based on which techno-economic and environmental clearances are accorded. In order to start the process of environmental clearance, the project proponents have to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report based on data gathered over a period of at least one year encompassing all seasons to brings out the likely impact of the project on the ecology, environment, human and wildlife populations, at the site itself and both up and downstream.
The EIA must contain details about the land, climate, air quality, water balance, rehabilitation plan, labour requirement and risk assessment among other things. The information on the land includes its classification and usage in the catchment and within a radius of 10 km. from the dam site, topography, erodibility classification and the polluting sources within a 10 km. radius. Data such as the water balance on site, lean season water availability, effects on competing users, water navigation, fauna and flora as a result of the impoundment and fish migration and breeding is also important. If a hydroelectric project also aims at providing irrigation, then competing water uses become all the more important as an irrigation project will drastically alter the usage pattern. Current users may lose water and even land, while others may be able to utilise these waters for the first time. This means benefits and losses to different sets of people.
Invariably, those losing their lands due to submergence are marginalised, less numerous and politically weak. Since the submergence areas are invariably forestland, those displaced are often forest-dependent tribals. Before the enactment of the EPA, the biggest losers in power projects used to be tribes who had to surrender their only livelihood for small monetary compensation and temporary menial jobs. Rarely would they benefit from irrigation water or electricity as these resources would flow to faraway towns and cities and to agricultural lands belonging to more numerous and powerful communities in the plains. A number of agitations across the country have changed the situation and today, rehabilitation gets the highest level of consideration under the EPA.
The effects on flora and fauna are assessed systematically. When a sanctuary, national park or significant forest cover is involved, this task is required to be assigned to internationally recognised institutes such as the Wildlife Institute of India. The most severe effect on flora and fauna is often in the area required for submergence and the construction of dams, roads, buildings, etc. Dams have a particularly deleterious effect on fish fauna and mammal migration routes and could even cause some species to become critically endangered.
Risk assessment: In a hydro power project, the greatest risk is the possibility of a dam break. Other risks include dam-induced floods and landslides caused by roads and other constructions. Dam break analysis is an integral part of the project's techno-economic appraisal. A competent EIA examines the possibility of dam break and the likely immediate and long-term effects on the land, fauna and flora. The gravest danger to dams in northeast India are earthquakes as this is a highly seismic zone. Technical approval from the Central Electricity Authority ensures that adequate safeguards are in-built into the dam structure to minimise the possibilities of such a catastrophe and the MoEF essentially goes by that assessment. Other risks are related to defence against external aggression and sabotage by terrorists, for which the Defence Ministry is consulted on the advisability of situating a huge water body in the neighbourhood of sensitive international borders.
Strategies to prevent and deal with such disasters are part of the Disaster Management Plan, which is necessary to obtain technical clearance from the Ministry of Power. The MoEF examines it to gauge whether the project proponents are aware of the environmental consequences of such a catastrophe and whether the project is committed to meeting the financial costs of implementing its plan.
Public health: Large water bodies create breeding grounds for diseases, both human and agricultural. The 210 MW Myntdu-Leshka hydro power project in Meghalaya has a relatively small reservoir being a run-of-the-river project and its demand on forestland was relatively small. It was expected to be cleared easily by the MoEF, but was held up for more than a year as the project proponents had not recognised the need for pre-emptive anti-malaria measures. After much debate and refusal on the part of the project authorities, the state government finally made malaria control a mandatory part of the project, after which clearance was granted.
Environmental management plan: All EIAs require an Environment Management Plan (EMP) for the formulation, implementation and monitoring of environmental protection measures during and after the commissioning of the project. The EMP, once approved, becomes a part of the project and financial committments flow from the same source.
Rehabilitation plan: There has been much debate in this country on the displacement of tribals and other poor people on account of large projects. This was not given due importance till the 1970s, but the EPA accords it such a high priority now that it is unthinkable that a project could get clearance without a satisfactory rehabilitation plan. For large rehabilitations, the resettlement plans have to also get the approval of the concerned administrative ministries. For example, if there is displacement of a tribal village population, then the tribal resettlement plan must also get a nod from the Tribal Welfare Ministry of the government of India before environmental clearance is granted. Over the years, norms that have evolved take great care to ensure that the resettlement plans are in keeping with the social customs of the community and that these receive near consensus approval of the tribal community before the project is approved.
Public hearing: A public hearing is now mandatory for the approval of large projects. The project authorities are required to hold a meeting in which the salient – EIA, EMP and the resettlement plan – are made available to the public and all those wanting to speak are given an opportunity. The views expressed at the meeting are minuted by the state pollution control board and then examined by the appraisal committee of the MoEF.
The instrument of public hearing, however, is still in its infancy in most parts of India. The experience of this writer with public hearings held in the northeast has not been very encouraging. The project authorities usually succeed in revealing as little as possible about the long-term environmental consequences and even about the immediate harm that the project could cause to a section of people or to a part of the land. Flush with funds, they find it easy to mould local public opinion in favour of the project to such a degree that often those who have something even slightly critical to say feel threatened to voice their opinions in the presence of a very large number of vocal supporters of the project. The public hearing for the Lower Subansiri hydro power project in Arunachal Pradesh was held at the dam site and was mostly attended by unemployed youth of the area, attracted by the promise of petty contracts coming their way. This project has several features that demand serious environmental debate as it seeks to submerge thousands of hectares of lush tropical forests, the habitat of a very large number of species, including many that are endangered. With the exception of a few environmental NGOs from Assam, no local dared raise any of these issues.
In the case of the Bairabi project in Mizoram, which will submerge nearly 8,000 ha. of forest to produce a mere 80 MW, the public hearing only generated a unanimous demand for the project as most recent tribal settlers and encroachers in the area expected to reap significant financial benefits during resettlement. Initial opposition was overcome by the state power authorities, who brought in an extremely influential local non-government organisation, the Young Mizo Association, which convinced people that the project will bring them prosperity by way of compensation. The ecological and economic costs were never part of the debate. Till such time as the process of public hearing matures, we may have to take both the public objections to, and adulations for projects, as one of the many inputs in decision-making. Efforts need to be made to make the public hearing process more rigorous through strict guidelines, failure to follow which should disqualify the hearing.
Examination of the EIA and EMP: The EIA, EMP, resettlement plans and the public hearing report are examined in the MoEF by a multi-disciplinary committee led by an outstanding and experienced ecologist, environmentalist or technical professional with members drawn from the disciplines of ecosystem management, air and water pollution control, water resource management, conservation and management of flora and fauna, land-use planning, rehabilitation, project appraisal, ecology, environmental health, subject area specialist and non-government officials from the project area.
This is a statutory committee set up under the provisions of the EPA and is recommendatory in nature. But its statutory nature lends strength to its recommendations and it is extremely rare for the committee's recommendations to be bypassed. This only happens if there are obvious flaws in the reasoning behind the recommendations.
Forest Conservation Act: The Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 is perhaps one of the most effective instruments of forest conservation anywhere in the world. Faced with the rapid diversion of forestlands for non-forestry purposes, the central government first brought changes in the Constitution of India to enable it to legislate in forestry matters, a subject which was, till then, completely left to the states. This was then followed by the enactment of this Act in 1980 by parliament. It allows the diversion of forestlands by state governments only after obtaining prior approval from the central government.
This resulted in the annual diversion of forestlands in the country falling from an average of 1,50,000 ha. to just over 25,000 hectare. The cause for this reduction lies in the underlying principle that forests can be diverted only when unavoidable, unlike in the past when the forests were seen as reservoirs of lands to be used as and when needed. Prior to this Act, demands for forestland used to be several times higher than actual requirements. A hydro power project with 1,000 ha. of submergible area would, on an average, use up anywhere from 1,500 to 2,500 ha. of forest for huge colonies, road networks, townships, future expansions, etc.
Cost-benefit analysis: In examining forest diversion proposals for non-forestry purposes, a cost-benefit analysis is used as a basic tool to find out whether the proposals will yield sufficiently high economic and social benefits compared to the ecological costs. The main parameters for evaluation of forest loss are monetary losses, environmental losses and social costs. The first is by way of the value of timber, firewood, non-timber forest produce, loss of animal husbandry productivity including loss of fodder, cost of forest infrastructure and public facilities located on forestland (which will need to be recreated on forestland elsewhere). Environmental losses include soil losses, effect on the hydrological cycle and on wildlife habitats, microclimate changes and the disruption of the ecological balance. As a thumb rule, the environmental value of one hectare of fully stocked forests is taken as Rs. 12.67 million to accrue over a period of 50 years. This value varies with the density of the forests. Thus for forests of 0.5 density, it works out to Rs. 6.33 million.
The social cost of rehabilitation of oustees on account of a project is worked out as 1.5 times of what an oustee would have earned in two years if he had not been shifted. This is in addition to the monetary cost of providing alternative non-forestland for residence, occupation and social services to the oustee and the cost of training, etc. that may be involved.
Benefits are evaluated as an increase in productivity directly attributable to the project that is expressed in monetary terms, the strength of the population benefited as well as the employment potential of the project. For a project which requires the diversion of one hectare of forestland of 0.5 density, the monetary returns from the anticipated benefits must exceed Rs. 6.33 million, plus the direct monetary losses by way of loss of forest produce, infrastructure and the social costs for the project to be approved.
No cost-benefit analysis is required for projects that need less than five hectares of forestland in the hills and 20 ha. in the plains. These are considered on a case-by-case basis. For defence projects and oil prospecting, the cost-benefit analysis is not required in view of the national priority accorded to these sectors.
As stated earlier, the Forest (Conservation) Act has proved to be the single most potent piece of legislation in favour of forest conservation. And contrary to the widely held view, this has been achieved without affecting development. The voice of protest is largely the voice of those who have been used to seeing forests as reservoirs of land rather than of ecological services. The hopes of the poor and the landless to possess land is understandable, but even if all forestland were to be given away, this desire would not be fulfilled.
In the ultimate analysis, environmental and forest conservation in a developing country is closely linked to its economic development. The model for economic development should be such that it puts not only the least stress on the environment but also actively promotes its protection and regeneration. The experience in India has shown that it is difficult, but possible, to balance these two imperatives. In northeast India, as elsewhere in the country, few projects, large or small, including hydro power projects, have been rejected solely on the basis of environment and forest laws. Economic development is moving apace and the cost to the environment has been contained. The gains, yet, are modest but the path appears clearer than ever.
The author is a senior member of the Indian Forest Service and has served as Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Northeastern Region, MoEF, Shillong.