Procedural violations, unsatisfactory answers, unanswered questions… this is what characterised the public hearing at Gerukamukh. To start with, there were complaints from most of the 400-odd people present that they learnt of the hearing at very short notice. The Assam Pollution Control Board (APCB) did advertise in two newspapers as per the norms, but the people at Gerukamukh do not have access to newspapers. The Executive Summary of the project, the only document that had been made available to citizens at that point, had absolutely nothing about the environmental impacts of the project. NHPC and their EIA consultants, WAPCOS, made presentations about the project in English and Hindi but not in any of the local languages. In this scenario, how are people expected to develop informed opinions on the environmental impacts of the project?
The public hearing panel was incomplete as per the requirements of Schedule IV of the EIA notification. No representative from the Department of Environment (Assam) was present. The panel members had no opportunity to see the EIA report/ DPRs in advance and one of the panel members, Mrs. Pegu, said very clearly that they were not informed about the role that they were meant to play in the hearing and questioned the objective of the exercise in such a scenario. Another member, Progress Medok, of the Bordoibam Bilmukh Wildlife Society did not even know that he was a panel member until he came for the hearing and was called on the dais! Later, when he strongly opposed the dam, he was asked not to do so because he was a panel member!
When we brought to the notice of the NHPC the illegal construction activities in progress in the absence of environmental and forest clearances, they denied any ongoing activities. This was a blatant lie because the entire gathering could clearly see ongoing work on the right bank of the river! This was in the absence of any forest clearances.
We raised several vital concerns in the public hearing regarding the dam's impact on thermal regimes, impact on natural flow regimes, biodiversity, downstream ecological and livelihood impacts, aspects regarding seismicity, siltation, etc., but the answers we got were unsatisfactory to say the least. A few examples of this:
- The consultants, WAPCOS, said that they had surveyed only one kilometre upstream out of a submergence area which extends over 70 km.! We later learnt that there were two additional sampling stations for terrestrial ecology upstream, which had been visited by a team of ecologists who had been sub-contracted these studies by WAPCOS. Considering the large area under submergence, even these sampling stations are totally inadequate. When asked, the consultants agreed that the project will have substantial negative impacts on biodiversity but were unable to justify why they had only surveyed such a small area.
- The project authorities could not explain how they had been able to calculate the performance and life of the dam when they had inadequate or no data from 40% of the catchment area, which lies in Tibet. This is a serious concern. How can one decide the ecological and economic viability of a project costing thousands of crores of rupees based on inadequate information?
- In spite of repeated queries, they provided very little information on the downstream impacts of the project which in this case could be substantial, except to say that the people dependent on riverine and wetland fisheries downstream would not be compensated for impacts on their livelihoods!
The APCB had invited an engineer, Mr. Nripen Das, to review the EIA report and he very clearly indicated the lacunae in it on several fronts including information on landslides and their remedies, biodiversity studies, etc.
Despite all this, at the end of the hearing, the authorities got the people to sign a resolution that there was no opposition to the project as it had no negative impacts! This was done despite comments made by some people that they were not satisfied with the information presented to them. Some participants and even a panel member refused to sign the proceedings, but most people did sign, as they thought this was expected of them as they had attended the hearing! An environmental public hearing under the EIA notification is a forum for all interested parties to state their opinions about the project. It is not a decision-making forum. The objective is to convey the suggestions and objections of the participants as accurately as possible to the Impact Assessment Agency, which would then look into these and how it impacts the viability of the project. This was a clear abuse of authority.
With these violations and anomalies, was this really a valid public hearing? In a communication I sent out to colleagues after I came back from the hearing, I wrote: "I term the hearing as a mockery in the name of environmental protection."