ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE OF DAMS IN INDIA :
THE USE OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
A CASE STUDY
KALPAVRIKSH ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP[1]
1. Introduction: Environment Governance of Dams in India and RTI
A country like India continues to view dams as of a modern and developing country. The trend began in the country in the first five year plan period (1951-59) soon after independence, when many irrigation projects were started to harness the country’s river basins. These include Bhakra Nangal, Hirakud and the Mettur Dams. This was in tune with a global trend towards the construction of such projects.
It was the social and environmental movements around the conservation of Silent valley in Kerala, the Tehri in Uttarakhand and the Narmada that proved to be a watershed as they changed the dams discourse in the country. However, after a brief period of a slow-down in large dam building, the old vision is clearly back on the planning tables of departments of states and the centre. .
Today, most hydro electric projects (Hips), especially the large number that are proposed to come up in ecologically fragile mountainous areas including the Himalayas, are primarily for power generation. The Ministry of Power, Government of India has prepared a comprehensive Blueprint for Power Sector development with an integrated strategy for the sector development with the objectives of sufficient power to achieve GDP growth rate of 8% along with reliability and quality of power.[2]
At the same time, the environmental and social impacts of these projects are not unknown today. Infact they are a major arena of concern for people’s movements, civil society organizations and sensitive environmental engineers as well. Like many others, these projects also require to go through a mandatory process of environment clearance as prescribed in the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. This requirement gets even more critical and imperative when dams are proposed in ecologically sensitive areas like the Himalayas, Western and Eastern Ghats, Central Forest Belt and so on.
The environment clearance (EC) process is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), where the protection of the environment is the primary mandate. This and other legislations enacted by Parliament have been placed under the jurisdiction of the MoEF and it has even been granted powers to enact ‘delegated legislations’ such as the EIA and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications. However these have been tampered with to such an extent to suit interests of various lobbies and investor groups that the full proof implementation of these notifications in the spirit in which they were drafted is lost on the concerned departments and ministries.
Another disappointing reality is functioning of institution like MoEF where public consent and direct participation is denied or ignored. This reality trickles down to the decision making vis a vis dams as well, where most assessments don’t render themselves as being honest steps in the environmental decision-making. Many of the dam projects which are being granted clearance are today facing strong opposition from local to national levels by people affected. In these struggles, there is a constant need for information to strengthen arguments, media advocacy, local awareness as well as litigation. The Right to Information (RTI) becomes a critical tool through which information can be procured and used. Data procured through RTI can also feed into assessments and research related to the working of existing projects as will be evident in the examples pointed below.
This case study aims at looking at the experience of the use of the RTI Act with respect to environmental decision making of Teesta Low Dams 3 and 4 HEP (West Bengal), Teesta V HEP (Sikkim) Athirappily HEP (Kerala), Tipaimukh HEP (Manipur), Lower Subansiri and Kameng HEPs (Arunachal Pradesh), Parbati Stage II project (Himachal Pradesh) and Pala Maneri HEP (Uttarakhand) projects. In each of these instances information was sought for a different purpose, and used to support struggles at varied levels. These RTIs[3] can be clubbed under different subject categories. The case study primarily based on process of information collection trough RTI applications, which has been supported by individual experiences with nature of information and ground realities.
There are number of cases which reveal that in recent past MoEF has been facilitating projects that are destroying the environment. This new role of MoEF is come into light as the efforts to expose the ground realities (of the implementation of laws) by local people and civil society organisations. The access to information through RTI has played an important role in access to information and highlighting the critical loopholes. At the same time, It has also allowed for the decision making in the as soon as government agencies realized that this RTI is major obstacles for them then they had started to show their unhealthy attitude towards their role, which comes from Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. TRACING THE ISSUE: Dams, Environment Clearance and RTI:
Kalpavriksh has filed RTIs for eight dam projects. The names of these projects have been specified in the section above. As part of this study one has aimed at covering each project separately as well as understanding overall observations and trends. Information related to dam projects has also emerged from another set of RTI filed for the number of projects granted and rejected environment clearance. The present case study also discusses the relevance of the same.
a) Project Specific RTIs
§ Teesta Low Dams 3 and 4 ( West Bengal ):
On 14.06.07 an application was filed before MoEF to get information on Monitoring and Compliance reports[4] of Teesta Low Dam Stages 3 and 4 projects. The information was provided without any delay or appeal process. Once the information was accessed it was critical to contrast it with the realities at the project site level. This is because very often the reporting carried out either in the documents provided by the project authorities or monitoring of the MoEF don’t reveal violations of the conditions and other laws. This was the case in the current instance as well where actual on-site observations and local people’s concerns were not reflected in the report. In one of the compliance reports of the MoEF’s regional office dated 16.07.2003 there is a mention that 9 families of the 2 villages of Geli Khola and 29th mile , comprising total 51 persons will be affected by the project. However, civil society groups working in the area assessed this to be incorrect.
When the Teesta Low Dam 3 project was granted clearance, there was evidence that the EIA was not complete. Section 10.4 of the Executive Summary of the EIA clearly stated that the ‘environmental impacts…. is being studied’. Further, very critical information had been dropped from the final EIA report. This was ‘Report on the geological and geotechnical investigations’ carried out by the Geological Survey of India, Kolkata, as part of the EIA. The EIA not only excluded vital information but in subsection 8.5 says there will be ‘no land environment impact during the operational phase’ of the project. The Entire Section 8 of the EIA (titled ‘summary of environmental impacts’) contains no information on geological/geomorphologic impacts, as if such impacts do not exist). Even the Environment Management Plan or EMP was not available for study before the Public Hearing. Given this was the situation, the environment clearance letter dated 16.7.2003 laid down some conditions.
One condition identified an area of 12022.43 ha. as highly degraded catchment area, the treatment (CAT plan) for which needed to be completed in five years. This needed to be strictly complied with. Accessing the Monitoring Report dated 13/14.04.06 brought to light that only a committee for the CAT plan has been constituted but after three years of the clearance a plan for the Catchment Area Treatment had not been approved by the concerned nodal officer when the entire process of treatment needed to be completed within 5 years. The monitoring report also mentioned, “This CAT plan has certain deviation and is not in line with that of EIA/EMP report of the project. The CAT plan prepared by the State Forest Department has not yet been approved by the Nodal Officer and may take some more time because the total estimate cost for the Cat plan is exceeding the limit of the Budget provisions of that of the EIA and EMP report.” This information was analysed and shared with the local groups.
The contrast between two sources of information have brought to light that neither assessments nor compliance of conditions has taken place adequate. This could only be done once the documents could be officially procured through RTI. Till early 2008, MoEF did not upload these reports on their website and neither were they openly available to the public for scrutiny.
§ Athirapi l ly Hydro Electric Project (Kerala)
On 21.07.08 an RTI application had filed before MoEF to get information on forest clearance and compensatory afforestation for proposed Athirapilly Hydro Electric Project in Kerala. This was done to assist the local group in Kerala who has been central in the struggle against the dam project. Timely access to this information could have revealed some points which could help this group in their legal and media actions. The response from PIO on this matter indicates that assessment for the project is incomplete. There is no information on the actual volume of trees that will be felled or submerged. The assessment report also lacks highlighting the uniqueness of the riverine vegetation, the importance in maintaining the continuity of the similar vegetation, down stream and up stream, rarity of such vegetation in that particular region; it adds under each heading that construction of the dam will not affect the particular vegetation/flora/fauna.
The Athirapilly struggle has been strong and one based on substantial evidence and facts. In 1998, the MoEF approved the Athirapilly project which would use the tail end waters of the existing Poringalkuthu dam (constructed across Chalakudy River in Thrissur district in Kerala State). Subsequently, the Govt. of Kerala gave clearance in February 2000 for the diversion of 138.60 hectare of forest land for the construction of the dam. The project required the diversion of over 130 ha. of forest land which will sever the only link between the Peechi Vazhani Sanctuary and the Idamalayar basin of the Periyar river. The vital elephant corridor between the Parambikulam Sanctuary and the Pooyamkutty forests will also be affected. These tiger and leopard forests are home to the Great Indian Hornbill, Nilgiri Langur, Liontailed Macaque and the rare Cochin Forest Cane Turtle. The environment clearance process was challenged thrice in the High Court of Kerala since the very beginning. The EIA was carried out twice but did not look at the whole range of impacts on rich biodiversity of the area.
The present RTI was part of Kalpavriksh’s effort to support the ongoing campaign against the project The documents received through RTI were immediately passed on to the local groups prior to the court hearing in Kerala.
§ Pala- Maneri Hydro Electric Project (Utt a rakhand):
Two RTIs were filed related to the Pala-Maneri Hydro Electric Project in Uttarakhand which is likely to have massive impacts on the Himalayan ecology and also the people of the area. The project is coming up on Bhagirathi river at Uttarkashi district of Uttarakhand. Due to this project 53.5315 ha. of forest will be lost for 480 MW power generation. There were several discrepancies in the EIA report and other related processes like the public hearing. All this had been challenged before the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) in New Delhi. Kalpavriksh had been assisting the local groups on the issue at the time the case was filed. The RTIs were filed in consultation with struggle and advocacy groups asking for strategic information Member of Kalpavriksh had filed two RTIs related to all correspondence related to the forest clearance and environment clearance of Pala Maneri HEP. In response to the first RTI (dated 8.2.2006), information was received only from the Forest Division related to the environment clearance. The Impact Assessment division responded to say that the information sought is not specific so cannot be provided. The applicant did not pursue this further as the order for the case at the NEAA had already been passed. At a later stage on 13.11.2007, the information was sought only on the environment clearance. The PIO asked for the payment for providing that information. At this point it was discussed with the advocate challenging the NEAA petition whether this information will be relevant. It was indicated that the project is not being challenged further. Based on this discussion, the RTI application was withdrawn as it would not be of substantive use by the time the information was received.
§ Parbati _II Hydro Electric Project (Him a chal Pradesh)
Parbati II hydro electric project is being constructed by the National Hydro Power Corporation in Kullu District of Himachal Pradesh. The environment clearance (EC) for the project was granted on 4th June 2001. While granting EC, the nodal impact assessment agency i.e. the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) puts down a set of conditions based on which clearance is granted.
Several RTI applications were filed along with the local partner organisation, Lok Vigyan Kendra (LVK) in Himachal Pradesh. The application was filed before the Northern regional office in Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh State Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board, Himachal Pradesh Forest Department. Kalpavriksh and LVK were in the process of jointly doing a comprehensive study on the compliance of the environmental clearance conditions of this project. The questions were jointly drafted, resources raised and the representative of LVK locally filed the RTIs in Himachal Pradesh. The information was received without any delay or hesitation by any of the agencies.