- Topics
- Feature
- Opportunities & Events
- Data
- Hindi Portal
- Topics
- Feature
- Opportunities & Events
- Data
- Hindi Portal
Recently, a Public Hearing for the World Bank funded Luhri Hydro Electric had to be cancelled after public protests making it clear that the environmental and social impacts of Hydropower projects as well as the increasing gap between their promise and performance, especially in the Himalayan region have become issues of serious concern. And yet these projects continue to be promoted in the garb of renewable and clean energy. So much so that governments are borrowing millions of rupees from international banks and financial institutions to fund these so called 'green' projects.The four ADB financed hydro power projects being constructed by HPPCL include the 195 MW Integrated Kashang Stage I, II and III and the 402 MW Shongtong-Karccham in Kinnaur. The other two projects are the 111 MW Sawara-Kuddu hydropower projects in Shimla district and the 100 MW Sainj hydropower project in Kullu District.
A report titled 'In the Name of Clean Energy' by Him Dhara, Environment Research and Action Collective and South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People presents a critique of ADB's investment in the Hydropower sector in the state. The report puts together field observations on the violations of norms and legislations that are supposed to protect the livelihood interests and environmental rights of the project affected communities. The report looks at the environmental and socio-economic impacts of each of the projects. ADB in its project documents and policies has consistently insisted on safeguard mitigation measures on three fronts – social, environmental and public or 'stakeholder consultation. The objective of this study was to look at the implementation of these on the ground.
One of the key findings of the report has been that despite ADB's long drawn out list of claimed safeguards on social and environmental accountability; there is little difference between hydroprojects projects in Himachal funded by ADB and those where a comprehensive safeguard framework like ADB claims does not exist. The performance of both sets of projects is equally pathetic on all counts.
The report points out that all four ADB project locations are eco-fragile in nature. All four are coming up in heavily dammed basins where there has been no credible cumulative impact assessment or carrying capacity studies, where rivers have been destroyed several times over and the performance of the past projects have been pathetic on benefits, costs and impacts. All four are in seismic zone IV, being built on catchments of glacial rivers, some so close to the glaciers that the projects are likely to accelerate the melting of glaciers. The integrated Kashang project area falls in an alpine zone (altitude varying from 2000 to 3150 meters above msl.) where the ecological foot prints of any activity is going to be huge and permanent. The Sainj project is in close vicinity to two very important sites from conservation point of view – the Great Himalayan National park and the Sainj Wildlife Sanctuary. Similarly, adjacent to the Kashang Project area is the Lippa Asrang Wild Life sanctuary. All four projects also involve diversion of forest land, the total area of forests to be officially diverted coming up to 221.54 hectares and actual impacts could be much greater, going by past experience. The nature of these forests is also diverse ranging from alpine pastures to temperate forests of deodar and chilgoza and from pine monocultures to mixed forests.
Further the report goes on to point out that these projects are not coming up in isolation but are part of a cascade of projects within a river basin and none of the Environment Impact Assessment studies bring out the gravity of the cumulative impacts of all projects related activities, including dams, blasting, mining, tunnelling, road construction, townships construction, dumping of muck and other related construction activities. “It is surprising that the ADB's environmental safeguard policies failed to identify the cumulative threats and basin wide impacts of the Hydro-projects it is financing” the report states. The EIA report of the Kashang Integrated project fails to mention the fact that on the same mountain side, at different altitudes, two more tunnels are planned, one for construction of Jungi-Thopan 960 MW project and the other for NH-22. In Toto, there would be three tunnels in a single mountain which is severely under threat of sliding down.
“ADB would have steered clear of projects in ecologically sensitive areas and sites that are important from the conservation point of view, like Kinnaur and Sainj, if its commitment towards a cleaner environment and climate justice was real” the report states. “The ADB loans for Himachal Hydro projects are reflective of its economic interest in the energy sector and giving it the 'green' colour amounts to a serious lack of ethics”.
The report is severely critical of the role played by HPPCL as the executing agency. The report states that the company has had a high handed and casual attitude, and instead of following basic norms of transparency, participation, social and environmental accountability, has adopted an adhoc approach to dealing with local impacts. “The most stark indicators of this are - the use of section 17/4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for forced acquisition of private agricultural land; a complete non recognition of the impacts on people's rights on common property resources; the non compliance to the Forest Rights Act 2006 and severe inadequacies in the EIA reports which when pointed out during the public hearings met with justifications and counter claims rather than a genuine concern for people's views or respect or facts”.
The inadequacy of the state government's policy regime, in terms of its Hydropower Policy, has been overlooked by the ADB. Instruments like CAT (Catchment Area Treatment) and LADA (Local Area Development) have not been studied critically for their ineffectiveness as mitigation mechanisms before being accepted, adopted and hailed as the be all and end all solutions in the Environment Management and Rehabilitation Plans. No proper mechanisms have been put in place for compliance or grievance redressal and that is obvious from the fact that local communities have turned to the judiciary or taken resort to public actions or protest to make their voice heard in the case of the Kashang-I as well as Sawra Kuddu Projects, both in advanced stages of implementation. HPPCL's response has come in only after public agitations or protests and it has found increasing cash compensation as the only means to quieten protest to allow project work to continue.
Most of the issues mentioned in the report do not find space in the ADB compliance and mid term evaluation reports which attempt to maintain the image that progress on the projects has been smooth. This report is also being forward to the ADB demanding withdrawal from projects, stopping construction where work has not yet commenced and an immediate, credible, independent review of the projects under construction with fair public consultations.
While our focus in this study has been on the ADB funded projects, we are also concerned about the state and central government's lack of response to the very serious concerns that have been raised by its own people. That the state government is relying on loans from an international bank and in the process selling out its precious natural resources for unjustifiable hydro projects is unacceptable.
For more details, please contact:
Prakash Bhandari, Him Dhara 9816089920
Himanshu Thakkar, SANDRP, 9968242798
R.S Negi, Him Lok Jagriti Manch, 9418002562