Is Uttarakhand Paying The Price Of Hydropower Projects?
October 9, 2021
INTRODUCTION:
The developmental discourse has been dominated by the narrative of building infrastructure to provide better services to people. Construction of hydro power plants to generate electricity is one such important developmental project for the State. However, at the heart of this discourse lies the debate of pros and cons associated with such ventures. On one hand, where the proponents of these projects justify them by citing mostly their economic benefits, on the flip side, others argue against such ventures citing its often-neglected consequences on the environment and ‘development induced displacement’ for the local people.
Over the years with rapid industrialization and population growth, there has been extensive pressure on the existing natural resources, especially on our riverine landscapes. And to meet the ever-increasing demands of the population, State and International Financial Institutions (IFIs) deemed dam construction to be the best solution. To put things into perspective on the global front, India stands third in the world just after United States of America and China in terms of building dams. And if figures were to tell a story, then since 1800 BC approximately 45,000 dams have been constructed around the globe in the bid to meet human requirements. India in the beginning of the 20th century just had 42 large dams which increased to 450 by the time of independence and since then, approximately 4000 large dams have been constructed taking the tally to more than 5700 active dams with a few in the pipeline (NRLD, 2017).
The politics of Hydro power projects
Dam industry and by extension hydro power projects have become a very profitable industry with influential stakeholders ranging from International Financial Institutions to business houses to developed countries, etc. These stakeholders dictate the narrative of the construction of these dams as synonymous with development in developing and under developed countries. For India, which is dubbed as “developing country with high growth potential”, such projects offered solutions for issues such as electricity generation, irrigation, water supply, navigation and flood control. Since these projects were promoted as ‘single most effective intervention’ to meet the water and energy requirements, the industry flourished in India with financial support readily available from IFIs. The benefits of these projects were very well publicized by the state by dubbing them as “Temples of Modern India” and “Symbols of Prosperity” while majorly toning down the side effects of the same.
By painting a positive picture of hydro power plants as a clean source of energy, they are being projected as an indispensable component our country’s development strategy. As Hill observes: “Accelerating the construction of hydro-power in the Himalayas becomes portrayed as something akin to a geo strategic imperative, with the effect that some commentators demand the silencing of dissent and the scrapping of due process around the social, environmental and economic impacts of planned projects within their borders. Discussion over the appropriate courses of action to counter the perceived “illegal” or “unjust” construction taking place on the other side of the international border (China) tends to have a singular focus on technocratic supply-side solutions of building more large-scale dams and empowers those with expertise in that domain at the expense of other visions of what development could or should entail.” (Hill 2015, 733).
A very prominent example of politics of dam construction is the Tehri dam project. The water from this project was mainly supposed to be supplied for the people of New Tehri and people from other affected area with remaining water to be redirected for irrigation purposes in the state and some water was to be directed to New Delhi. However, as it turns out, most of the water is being supplied to the capital with water schemes for people of the affected area not being fully functional. Another example can be, that Uttarakhand claims to be an energy surplus state but still most of its rural areas suffer from power shortage and long power cuts. 1,814 of 15,591 villages lack electricity connections. This politics is seen at international level also where the people who had given up their lands for hydro power plant construction are the ones to receive the least benefits. Our neighboring country Bhutan produces surplus energy and earns revenues by selling it to India when only 40% of their rural areas and 60% of their urban areas have electricity.
On one hand where the developmental benefits yielded because of hydro power projects can’t be ignored, what also needs to be critically assessed is, it is the development for whom, at the cost of whom and do we really need that kind of development? All these questions around the costs of construction become even more prominent when one evaluates if dam construction has been successful by the measure of the objectives that were laid for it on its inception. A 2008 study by Thakkar of SANDRP about performance assessment of hydro power and dams in India, suggests that for most of the dams, the plants never met its objectives. Of 208 projects, 184 of them were below the design energy which in terms of energy generation amounts to under-performance by 82% of the entire capacity. The increasing number of the hydro power projects are being justified with the sole merit of power generation which now needs to be urgently re-examined.
THE DAM DIALOGUE OF THE NORTH
Most of the hydro power potential of India lies in the Himalayan state (after Arunanchal Pradesh) as it is the place of origin for some of the main river systems in the country making it a suitable site for small, medium and large dams if not for the limitations posed by its geographical landscape. Despite the topography and the environment of Uttarakhand being unfavorable for such loaded constructions, in the name of harnessing resource for the larger public, the state with the single point agenda of creating wealth (Chopra, 2013) carried out dam construction and “dam induced development”. According to Chopra Committee report (2013), the government is planning to construct close to 450 hydro power plants which would potentially harness approximately 27,000 MW of hydro power. If the said number of proposed projects spread out on 28 major river valleys becomes a reality, then for every 32 kms of river channel we will have one dam, making Indian Himalayas one of the highest dam density places in the world. At present we have 92 commissioned projects with installed capacity of close to 3624 MW and ~38 more are under construction.With so many on-going projects and many more in the pipeline, the arguments against their construction can be narrowed down to three major positions in the dam industry in India. First one being, why should the huge social costs be borne by certain section of the society (those who live near the banks) and the benefits be enjoyed by another section in urban areas. Second that even though we need dams but environmental damage mitigation should be done accordingly, which the policy planners haven’t considered in equal measures. And lastly that there is nothing wrong in dam construction but what should be the process of dam construction needs to be determined (S. K. Singh 1990). In the next section we will explore these positions by monitoring in detail the environmental and human consequences of these heavy budgeted hydro power projects.
COSTS OF THE HYDRO POWER PROJECTS
a) Environmental Costs:
The Government of India, since the beginning of the century has been on what can be called a fast-track dam building mission in order to be electricity sufficient for world’s largest electricity deprived population of 400 million people. GOI has commissioned the construction of total 292 dams in order to double the current hydro power capacity and for contributing 6% to the projected national energy needs by 2030 (Grumbine & Pandit, 2013). If the said number of dams would be constructed then the Indian Himalayan range will be one of the highest dam density places of the world. The implications of building these dams, especially the newly commissioned 292, on the riverine ecosystem have been widely recognized as these lie on the zones of highly rich biodiversity areas. Subtropical and temperate forests in the Indian Himalaya are most vulnerable to species losses driven by land-use changes, especially with activities like dam building. Yet more than 88% of proposed dams in India are located in these ecosystems. Dense, relatively undisturbed and pristine forests would house more than half of these proposed dams. It is estimated that more than 22 angiosperms and more than seven vertebrate taxa could extinct by 2025 due to forest loss as a result of direct submergence and habitat degradation from dam building (Grumbine & Pandit, 2013).
The Himalayan Mountain range is the youngest mountain range and is extremely fragile. Of the proposed hydro power projects 22 are in paraglacial zones planned above 3000m elevation, 44 are between paraglacial and winter snow line planned between 3000m and 2500m and 54 are around the winter snow line planned between 2500m and 2000m which lie in seismically active zones. In addition to lying in the seismic zones IV and V, research has also indicated that higher Himalayan region are more prone to mega floods making much of the terrain potentially risky for heavy infrastructure work. Construction of hydro power projects further pressurises the earth and adds on to the Uttarakhand disaster potential. The memories of the recent washing away of the Rishi Ganga Power Project due to floods in Rishi Ganga in February 2021 are a fresh reminder of how building such infrastructure on risky or risk prone areas can wreck a havoc on not only the set up but also on the lives of locals. In Uttarakhand, with the construction of Tehri dam in the old Tehri city, nearly 80,000 people from 105 village got displaced. 1000 hectare of cultivable land and 2000 hectare of grazing land got submerged with the construction of the dam. The dam construction not only submerged the city or a village, it also submerged an idea of the people (Dogra 1990).
The hydro power projects have also brought much attention to the reservoir induced seismicity which increased the likelihood of generating additional seismic risks and causing earthquakes. Tehri dam for instance is built on one of the most hazardous areas in the world from earthquake perspective with higher chances of being hit by an earthquake of 8 or greater magnitude. A study mentions that “reservoir impoundments for hydroelectricity generation, due to their large size and associated water load, may cause measurable deformation and are considered to have triggered strong earthquakes”.
The situation on the global level is also very alarming. More than 60% of the world’s river basins are fragmented and their natural courses have been altered. These dam constructions along with changing the upstream and downstream characteristics of the river, have also changed many coastlines and major deltas across the world. 77% of the total discharge from 139 largest rivers are affected by blockages caused by dam construction and river embankments. Likewise, construction of dams, especially the large ones also caused a permanent loss of more than 40,000 sq. km of forest and wetland ecology (McCully 2001). Damming of rivers also changes the very basic nature of river – it turns the running water into a stagnant water, which often leads to massive algal bloom and contaminates the water. This happens mainly due to change in the chemical, thermal and physical properties of water store in the reservoirs for a long period of time which leads to the deterioration of water quality, temperature, nutrients, turbidity, dissolved gases and minerals.
Damming of rivers have also had serious impact on flora and fauna biodiversity. Aquatic species and fishes have been the worst affected by damming which leads to the fragmentation of river and depletion in water quality. Often due to fragmentation of rivers not only its eco-system is altered but due to the blockage of their traditional migratory routes, various species of fishes have been impacted eventually becoming extinct over the years. Though fish ladders are built in many of the dams but such ladders do very little for the natural thriving of fish species (McCully 2001). Many studies suggest that a number of fish species of the Himalayan rivers are on the verge of extinct due to extensive damming in the region. Other than the impacts on the life within water bodies, the hydro power plants also threaten some serious geological impacts due to raising and lowering of water levels which cause slope instabilities leading to landslides. Tunnelling which is an important part of the damming process, often leads to slope instability and causes disruption in underground water availability which makes livelihood difficult for local people.
b) Human Costs:
There have been numerous debates around dam construction mostly pertaining to big versus small dams; hydro power energy versus alternative source of energy; project’s benefit versus project’s affected people; have versus have lots of large industrial projects environmental protection versus development for larger benefits etc. However, what is missing from all these conversations on developmental projects is engagement of local people and understanding the issue from bottom-up perspective. Involvement of public has been very limited and has mostly been from an instrumental point of view in order to gain their consent with minimum hurdles which equals to nothing more than “public informing”.
This debate further gets polarized when stakeholders find more merit in the argument which emphasises over the socio-economic development while neglecting the voices over issues of impoverishment, livelihood losses, displacement and equal sharing of costs and benefits. These ‘rebel’ voices are often labelled as disruptive faction who allegedly attempt to stall progress of minority groups against the bigger picture of national development. Review of literature shows that these projects are planned at macro level without addressing the micro level issues. The terminology of “project beneficiary” is also reflective of the passive role assigned by the state to the “project affected people” in the decision-making process.
Development induced displacement is the front running issue affecting the people during the construction of any developmental project, in this case hydro power plant. Displacement refers to the involuntary or forced relocation of people, a term which is closely followed by concepts of resettlement and rehabilitation. Approximately 40 to 80 million people globally have been displaced because of reservoirs created by mega dams (McCully, 1996) which was revised to 15 million people a year by Cernea in 2009. Planning commission estimates that between 1951 and 1990 around 21.3 million people were displaced which according to other reports could be as high as 40 million people. These figures are at best an estimation of only those households or lands which were affected because of reservoirs however, there must be multiple individuals who were displaced because of other dam related reasons such as canals, powerhouses, etc which have not been accounted for. In India, large population resides near the river basins to make use of the highly fertile land in that region. The average population density in India’s Gangatic River basin is 375, which shows that due to dam related constructions, a very sizable population of the area which depends of farm and non-farm-based employment opportunities in the area get impacted and eventually displaced (Revenga et al, 1998).
The process of marginalization of the local people happens not just after the hydro power plant starts to function in their full capacity but since the inception of its idea. It starts from acquiring land from the locals for such construction purposes. This land acquisition deeply impacts the displacement prospects of the local community. The farmers/ land holders receive monetary compensation in lieu of expropriation of their land which on the face of it seems a fair deal but it is not, because the monetary compensation is calculated not on the basis of the replacement rate but on arbitrary level which leaves them with peanuts share of amount leading to forever landlessness for some of these farmers. The people who are most affected by this displacement are usually the tribal people and the marginalized groups who over the years have formed a socio-cultural bond with their immediate environment. These people lose not only their sources of livelihood but also in large parts lose their support system as a result of such land acquisitions for developmental projects.
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION FOR DISPLACEMENT, RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION
After being displaced the demands of resettlement and rehabilitation became rife during the Narmada Bachao Aandolan in 1980s and eventually spread to all the parts where development induced displacement affected people’s lives and livelihood. It took nearly three decades for the formulation of National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2007 which makes families eligible for benefits only when 400 or more families of the area are impacted. The policy does not give any directives to what happens when the displaced population is less than 400 families. It also makes the families eligible for the benefits only if they have inhabited the place for more than 3 years without specifying the clear time frame of the rehabilitation that they will receive. While the policy mentions social impact assessment, it fails to explain how it will be carried out or by whom, at what stage of the project cycle and what impact it will have in project decision-making.
To address the lacunas of the 2007 policy, The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill (2011) was introduced. The Bill lays down institutional structures which would ensure Social Impact Assessment of such projects to determine if they fulfil the public purpose criteria (Sarma, 2011). The SIA also requires discussion at the Gram Sabha level, as a part of the consultation process. However, this does not inspire public confidence mainly because the committees that form part of this are full of government officials, practically with no local representation. The New Bill also requires that at least 80% of the project-affected people have given their consent through a prior informed process. Strangely, the need for obtaining the consent of 80% of the affected families does not seem to apply to the lands that would be acquire by the government for its own use (Sarma, 2011). Though the government tried to address several issues concerning dams, there still remain multiple structural issues with the policy such that it limits its practical applicability and also limits the scope of actual participation of the local people in the decision-making process of such large infrastructural projects. To address the lacuna and loopholes of the 2011 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR) 2013 was introduced.
LARR, 2013 came 119 years after Land Acquisition Act (LAA) 1894. It was the first time that it addressed the issues of displacement in combination with resettlement and rehabilitation. But what is interesting to note is that despite this act being a measure in the direction to address the displacement woes of the local people, it simultaneously acted as a tool for corporate sector to make land acquisitions easier than was possible in LAA. Despite this, the act was a huge progress from the past policies because it rested on five pillars of people’s consent (70% in public-private partnership, 80% in private partnership, no consent in PSUs), social impact assessment, resettlement and rehabilitation, compensation (four times the market value of rural land and two times the market value of urban land) and significantly reduces governments power to take away private land. However, this act has now been diluted with the ordinance brought by the present government on the pretext of “act being cumbersome, time-consuming and cost- escalating, making its implementation difficult”. Under the new ordinance, the land acquisition has now become easier and most state governments are switching to this because the previous act was procedure heavy and curtailed powers of the government to acquire land. This has again left the locals exposed and at the whims and fancy of the external stakeholders.
Way ahead:
The dams since inception have been propagated as the desired developmental strategy but now it’s time for the State to identify more sustainable and energy appropriate alternative to large dams. The alternative resource of energy production, especially renewable energy sources should be developed and promoted by the state and a decentralized system or small local system should be brought into place to reduce the burden of large-scale development. Another crucial issue that needs to be urgently addressed is that of improved transparency, accountability and public participation in the planning of water and energy projects. For the locals to not just be a passive recipient, but an active participant in the entire process. Most of the programs currently are planned at the macro level without considering the micro economic situations or repercussions which results in alienation of project affected people from the decision-making process. The significance of prior project consent by potentially affected groups should stringently be taken into account by the government as suggested by the rehabilitation and resettlement policies. Along the same lines, there is an urgent need to adopt recommendations made by the Ravi Chopra Committee to make the hydro power projects more socially, culturally and environmentally sound for all the stakeholders involved.
Please visit CNPR best featured blog on public policy for further details.
