An appraisal panel of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has virtually thrown the Madhav Gadgil Committee report on the Western Ghats out of the window. The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of the ministry has favoured environmental clearance for the contentious 200MW Gundia Hydroelectric Power Project in Hassan and Dakshina Kannada districts.
The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), which had been asked to specifically look into the Gundia project apart from its widely-known mandate of making recommendations about the ecological conservation of the Western Ghats, had categorically spoken out against the implementation of the project.
The EAC, which met in New Delhi in July, has jumped the gun by rubbishing the WGEEP report. The WGEEP report itself is still under consideration of the MoEF which recently constituted another high-level nine-member group to be headed by Planning Commission member K Kasturirangan to review the report and bring out an implementable action plan out of it. The meeting, the minutes of which made it to the public domain only late last week, has overridden the new committee as well.
According to Latha Anantha of the River Research Centre, who was a member of the 14-member WGEEP, “The decision to grant environmental clearance to Gundia at this stage is a dangerous trend from both the MoEF and the EAC.This would have far-reaching implications for the larger sectoral recommendations in the WGEEP report. The EAC minutes reveal that the (committee’s)decision needs to be challenged and revoked. The EAC has tried to project that the recommendations of the WGEEP are not based on scientific assessment or field verification but based on armchair research.”
Parineeta Dandekar of the South Asia Network of Dams, Rivers and People, which has made a submission to the MoEF on the EAC decision, said, “It is ironic to see the EAC being so concerned about the scientific rigour of the WGEEP report and its recommendations against Gundia, when it did not even mention the detailed study done by Indian Institute of Science (IISc) at the invitation of WGEEP on Gundia biodiversity.”
“The same EAC has been recommending clearances to projects whose EIAs have been extremely shoddy and cut-paste jobs. It only indicates the bias of the EAC against the WGEEP report and its pro-dam stance. The EAC has thrown precautionary principle to the winds while recommending clearance to Gundia,” Dandekar said.
Hottest of hotspots
The Gundia river basin is reckoned to be one of the hottest of the Western Ghats hotspots in terms of biodiversity. The EAC, however, dismissed the contention. The committee, in fact, asserted, “It is evident that there is no endemic species specifically of Gundia HEP region and there is no any species for which mitigation methods are not available. The damage due to submergence of flora and fauna of the area is mitigable (sic).”
Dandekar contended, “It is clear from the discussion of the committee that enough data to base their decision is ‘not’ available. At the same time, we have burgeoning literature about biodiversity of the region, its endemism, community conserved areas, etc . There is also no detailed cost-benefit analysis and options assessment in place to show the true costs of the project to the society and prove that it is in fact the most cost effective, sustainable and efficient option as compared to any other options (like solar).”
Himanshu Thakkar, also of SANDRP, said. “As per the committee’s recommendation, ‘One more floristic and faunal survey covering all the different seasons may be carried out and submitted to the ministry, before starting construction of the project. The EAC itself concludes, ‘both the reports seem incomplete’ (EIA and WGEEP report). After such conclusions and EAC’s statements, the EAC should clearly not go on to give clearance to the project and an ecological study must be conducted before granting an environmental clearance and not after.”
TV Ramachandra, Centre for Ecological Sciences of the IISc , too has shot off a letter to the EAC. Ramachandra, who has carried out a comprehensive study on the biodiversity of the Gundia river basin, wrote, “It is deplorable on the part of EAC to accord approval to Gundia HEP. I wonder whether the EAC really looked at all aspects (sensitiveness of the region, people’s livelihood, etc.) or just cleared the file like any other project.”
Shimoga-based power policy analyst Shankar Sharma remarked, “Keeping in view the minuscule benefits from the proposed hydel project (at 32 per cent plant load factor-PLF), huge ecological costs and very many credible alternatives, it can be said that it will be criminal to give a go ahead for this hydel project.”
Sharma said, “A cursory look at the costs mentioned in the original detailed project report (DPR) indicates that the costs are very high compared to the meagre benefits of 400 MW of peak load and annual energy of 1,136 MU at a very low annual load factor of 32.42%. The costs of forest destruction and that of rehabilitation of the project-affected families, which have not been included in the cost estimate, themselves may push the overall cost of the project to a high level.”
