There is enormous hydropower potential in Arunachal Pradesh. But we must also keep in mind that it is the biodiversity hotspot of not only India but the whole world. By building a dam or a hydel project we can ruin the whole ecology. And eventually, if we cannot store water then the whole project will become unviable, stated Suresh Prabhu, former Minister of Power, soon after inaugurating the Kameng hydroelectric project that is proposed to come up in one of the most ecologically rich areas of the country, the West Kameng district of Arunachal Pradesh.
Picture: Bittu Sahgal
Unfortunately, this statement comes late in the day for a region that houses abundant biodiversity, including endangered plants and globally-threatened bird species such as the Rufous-necked Hornbill and the nuthatch. The Kameng hydel project, cleared by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in 2001, involves the construction of two dams – a 96.5 m. high dam across the Bichom river and a 60.5 m. high dam across the Tenga river. Water from the Bichom reservoir will be led to the Tenga reservoir through an 8.75 km. long, 6.70 m. wide (diameter) Bichom-Tenga tunnel. The combined waters will further be diverted to the powerhouse at Kimi through a 5.75 km. long tunnel. The total land requirement for the project is 710 ha., of which 370 ha. will be submerged by the reservoirs. This is all forestland. At least 74 households from two villages – a total of 355 individuals – will be directly affected.
The project's powerhouse is located in the Tenga reserved forest, which is the only reserved forest in the catchment of the Kameng river. All other forests are fall under the unclassified state forest (USF) category, open to use by village communities and with no protection from the state forest department. The proposed site for the powerhouse borders one of India's finest wildlife sanctuaries, Pakke (Pakhui).
The bird checklist for Pakke, compiled by Aparajita Dutta, Pratap Singh, Ramana M. Athreya and S. Karthikeyan, lists a whopping 245 species (this was recently updated and the latest tally is 250). Pakke has also been identified as an Important Bird Area (IBA) under Birdlife International's IBA programme, being conducted by the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS) in India. IBAs are sites of international significance for bird conservation and Pakke Sanctuary has been identified as an IBA under two criteria: A1 (globally-threatened species) and A2 (restricted-range species). Although the Nameri-Pakke Tiger Reserve was formed in 1999-2000 and the Kameng project was cleared in March 2001, there is no mention of the tiger reserve at any stage by the project authorities or the MoEF.
It is important to note that four different alignments for the Bichom dam and five for the Tenga dam were considered and various alternatives were rejected on grounds such as topographic conditions and submersion of vital road links or defence installations. However, such sensitivity was not expressed as far as the biodiversity housed in this hotspot is concerned. The quality of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports on the basis of which clearance was given is extremely poor.
As per the EIA notification, 1994 (issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986) 30 industrial and developmental activities (including hydel projects) have to get environmental clearance from the central government. The establishment and/or expansion of each of these activities or operations need to follow a procedure laid down in the notification, one of them being the preparation of a detailed EIA report.
Picture: Bittu Sahgal
This report (as well as other project documents and No Objection letters, etc.) is then looked at by an impact assessment agency comprising officials of the MoEF before granting or rejecting environmental clearance to the project. The EIA report of the Kameng hydroelectric project prepared by the Agricultural Finance Corporation Limited, Mumbai for North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO) is yet another example of the fact that environmental considerations in project planning are still an administrative formality and the decisions regarding a project are taken on the basis of inadequate and inaccurate assessments.
Describing an area that boasts of a high diversity of bird species, the EIA report states that, the "avifauna was surprisingly poor". The report identifies only 15 species of birds in the area being diverted for the project! This is a gross underestimation to say the least. It also refers to an outdated birdlist for the sanctuary and lists the number of species as 144.
Although the Kimi area is also rich in other wildlife, the EIA's reptilian and amphibian listing is very poor, with the only reptilian fauna recorded being the pit viper and the python. The report contains names of species such as the Monal Pheasant which are not found in the area at all, and mentions red panda, pangolin and porcupine as herbivorous animals!
While the report admits that the area is rich in orchids and medicinal plants, it makes the following recommendations to deal with them in the submergence area: "It may be worthwhile recovering orchids from felled trees and transporting them to the nearby Tipi Orchid Centre of the forest department or to a new field orchidarium to be opened in the semi-evergreen forest close-by. Rare medicinal plants, if any, may receive similar treatment." The sheer impracticality of this suggestion (the total submergence zone of the two reservoirs is 370 ha.!) makes one wonder how such a plan of action can be seriously suggested. Even if the authorities presumed that such an exercise were humanly possible, the project reports make no mention of how they planned to accomplish this.
The report further says that "as the activities of the powerhouse will be confined to an area of 0.45 sq. km., as against the vast sanctuary area of 861 sq. km., no disturbances are expected as the animals will naturally relocate themselves in suitable habitations in the deeper part, out of their instinct." On what basis has this conclusion been reached? There is no mention of carrying capacity studies of the forests having been conducted before arriving at such a conclusion. Besides, the possibility of such migration is unlikely for smaller animals such as amphibians, which have highly localised habitats.
It is well-known that in an eco-sensitive region, the worst damage occurs during the project's construction. After his visit to the Tenga dam site in April 2002, Bittu Sahgal wrote "The hill sides have been set on fire, there are huge mudslides. Incredible damage has been done already. There is no one to supervise 'conditions' (of environmental clearance). NEEPCO is the law". The development of the 28 km. road from Khuppi to Kimi and the labourers' camps will be a major threat to the surrounding forests and wildife. One of the authors who has travelled this region extensively, found that labourers were already trapping Red Junglefowl, Kaleej Pheasant, Peacock Pheasant, Rufous-throated Hill Partridge and Common Hill Partridge with crude snares. Serow and muntjac are also hunted. The road development also includes felling and it is not uncommon for labourers to fell extra trees for sale in nearby markets. Although in a number of projects, labour camps are provided with LPG so that they do not cut forests for fuelwood, due to poor on-site monitoring of environmental safeguards, damage is invariably done. The EIA report substantiates this fact as it states that large-scale damage to adjacent forests by floating labour populations and the movement of vehicles and machinery is commonly noticed at project sites. Here, it is likely to be greater because the forests around the dam sites are USFs with no government protection. It is also common for authorities posted on-site to have no information about environmental stipulations laid down by the ministry or the forest department.
One of the conditions in the letter issued by the MoEF granting environmental clearance to the project is: "A study on biodiversity and habitat conservation with reference to the submergence zone should be undertaken to obtain information on micro flora and fauna. Efforts should also be made to identify migratory routes of wildlife in the vicinity. An Environmental Management Plan should be prepared for conservation and the report on flora and fauna requires updating. The updated report should be submitted to the Ministry and any additional mitigation measures would be stipulated by the Ministry."
The purpose of the EIA is to identify likely environmental consequences early enough for the knowledge to influence decisions. Commissioning studies after the project has been cleared defeats their intended purpose!
Shifting cultivation which is held by many as an important reason for biodiversity loss in the northeast is insignificant in the Kameng catchment area as per the reports of the project authorities. Land-use mapping revealed that the entire catchment area is densely forested to the extent of being under 66% forest cover. The researchers on the EIA team have found that plots that were earlier being cultivated have good growth of grasses on them and the Divisional Forest Officer even mentioned that shifting cultivation is on the decline. Permanent settled agriculture takes place only in 1.4% of the Bichom catchment area out of a total area of 2,277 sq. km and 8.4% is currently under shifting cultivation while 5.5% is abandoned jhum lands. The EIA report identifies that settled cultivation is difficult and may be possible only in the easy slopes and good land in the vicinity of the rivers and springs. Further, the report contradicts its own observation about the difficulty of terraced cultivation in the area when it recommends terracing to stabilise shifting cultivation. Despite having realised that the possibility of settled culivation in the area is limited, the project was cleared on a committment from NEEPCO that jhum culitivation will be replaced by settled cultivation on a huge area of 36,830 ha. in a phased manner in consultation with the state government.
What will these families do for a living if land for settled cultivation is limited and jhumming is not allowed so as to protect the catchment area? The EIA report recommends horticulture on these lands. However, it needs to be confirmed at the outset whether the people practising subsistence cultivation through jhumming will benefit from this move or whether they will lose even the little that they presently have.
The Kameng project is only one of the many large projects that are to come up in the northeast region in the coming years. The Central Electricity Authority has identified 149 projects for the northeast and ranked them on the basis of reform and restructuring aspects, international aspects, inter-state aspects, potential of the scheme, type of scheme, height of dam, length of tunnel/channel, accessibility to site, status of the project and status of upstream or downstream hydro development. However, impacts on the biological diversity of the region due to the project have been given no consideration whatsoever in this process.
This coupled with the decision-making authorities' total apathy towards seeking at least a realistic assessment of the biological impacts and a serious attempt at mitigating most of them, leaves little scope for the protection of this biological wonderland in the years to come.
Dr Anwaruddin Choudhary, Honorary Chief Executive of the Rhino Foundation has been working on the wildlife of the northeast region for two decades and is member of several IUCN Species Specialist Groups. Manju Menon is a member of Kalpavriksh Environment Action Group.