Underlying Principles

1. EIA PROCESSin LARGE Hydro Power ProjectsCritical environmental and social issuesKey weaknesses and public concerns

2. Underlying Principles • EIA process should be considered a part of the decision making process and not one box to be ticked, as is the case currently • Currently, the public hearing process provides the only opportunity for the local community and others to have some role in the whole project cycle. This is not a desirable situation. • The only document the enables informed participation by the local community and the others is EIA-EMP, but that is not available in the language they can understand.

3. Dishonest EIA-EMP-1 • Most EIAs fall in this category, unfortunately. • Some of the EIA agencies involved in such EIAs include: NEERI, ERM, E&Y, TERI, WAPCOS, North Bengal University, TBGRI, NCAER, ADB. • There is no process of punishing an agency for doing a dishonest EIA-EMP. • Bias for the project/ project developers • Wrong claims (KWP to operate as peaking station) • Development = Dams (e.g. NEERI for KWP) • Exaggerate the Power Demand and certify that the project if green, clean, renewable, etc.

4. Dishonest EIA-EMP-2 • Lift paragraphs and sentences from other documents without citing sources. [in some cases whole EIAs are plagiarised.] • Contradictory information • Inconsistent information and analysis • Poor knowledge of the project area: (ADP EIA says Kol dam is in Beas basin) • Use outdated figures when latest figures are available. • References for facts and figures in the EIA not given, so you cannot cross check them.

5. Incomplete EIA-EMP • Impact study across the year not done. • Incomplete surveys: Non assessment of impacts due to a number of project components like roads, colonies, transmission lines, etc. • Unsubstantiated statements like: “no endangered or rare species”, “no common property resources affected” • Impact with respect to land slides, flash floods, peak precipitation, not assessed. • Arbitrary demarcation of EIA study area (e.g. KWP EIA says 5 km on both sides of the river)

6. Key Problems with EIA-EMP-1 • Even if the EIA-EMP is done in all sincerity, (a rare occurrence), there are fundamental flaws in the documents. • Little role for the local communities and others in preparation of EIA-EMP. • Options assessment is completing missing. It is now there, but only in the name sake. One reason is that there is little role for options assessment in our entire planning and decision making cycle. • Compliance is another important that is totally missing. We are possibly too used to making promising, without any intentions of keeping them. But this is too serious a issue to be neglected.

7. Key Problems with EIA-EMP-2 • Downstream impacts & ensure minimum flows • Safe dumping of muck • Disaster Management Plans • Examine track record and ensure addressing outstanding issues, river basin wide or state wide, particularly with respect to the developer in question. • Cumulative Impact Assessment is completely missing • Carrying capacity studies: not well understood • Impact of Climate change • There is no lifecycle approach in the EIA. What would be the situation when the project has completed its useful life should also be part of EIA.

8. Social issues in EIA-EMP-1 • The first principle of National R&R Policy (highly inadequate though it is, Feb ’04): “To minimize displacement and to identify non-displacing or least-displacing alternatives.” No EIA_EMP even attempts to show that they have tried to achieve this. • No R&R plan with full land availability, housing sites • No role for affected people in deciding R&R package or plan or locations. • Impact of blasting on: • houses: is it due to project or not? • drinking water sources: is it due to project or not? • Landslides and impacts thereof on people

9. Social issues in EIA-EMP-2 • Impact on Agriculture due to dust and air pollution: is it due to project or not? • Schedule Areas provisions not including in the EIA or in the decision making process • Cultural issues totally neglected • Gender issues totally neglected • Big influx of outsiders leads to many problems.

10. Key problems with PH process-1 • Its not sufficient to give notices in newspapers: We have repeatedly found that people do not know about the public hearing till we go and tell them about it. A notice to each panchayat at least a month in advance should be must. • The EIA reports are not available at designated places. • When available, the officials do not know about the reports and what to do with them. • They won’t allow you to take it for photo copy, unless you are ready to bribe them. • Its not available in the language that people can read or understand.

11. Key problems with PH process-2 • In most cases local people do not know what is this whole process, its significance, the role of various players, their rights and responsibilities. • The Public hearing panel also does not know what is their role, nor had they got a copy of EIA-EMP or a chance to go through the same. • The report of the public hearing is also most of the time written without their knowledge and sent off without their consent. • The presence of big govt officials (even a DM or SDM or tehsildar or MLA is a big man for the local people) is not conducive for the PH. • The project authorities or the EIA consultants should not be allowed have much say at the PH, except responding to the issues raised by people.

12. Key problems with PH process-3 • Many of the issues raised by the people at the PH remains unanswered. • People do not know what happens to the issues raised by them, nor do they know if the issues raised are reflected in the PH report that goes to MEF, as this report is not in public domain. • The project authorities assume that people do not understand EIAs, so they see PH process as advt for the R&R measures and benefits of the project to the local people. • If the unanimous or majority view is that the EIA is fundamentally in adequate or the project as it stands is not acceptable, would that affect the decision about the project? Would the EIA redone and then PH conducted again?

13. Key problems with Post PH process • Nobody (outside govt) knows if and how the PH is reflected in the PH report or the EC deliberations or Env clearance decision or env clearance conditions. • People do not know what happens to the EMP, to what extent it is implemented or not and what happens when it is not implemented. • When people face problems due to the project during project implementation or operation, they have no forum that they can go to. • People do not know what happens if the conditions of env clearance are implemented or not, or what happens when they are not adhered to.

14. What would help-1 • EIA-EMP be made available in local language, a copy to each of the gram panchayat, to be made available in the panchayat office for public consultation • A process of explaining the contents of the EIA-EMP and the Public hearing and clearance process & the role of various stakeholders there in should be taken up before the public hearing. • The public hearing should be conducted by an independent panel that would have the confidence of all concerned. No govt high officials or political heavy weights should be present at the public hearing. • The PH panel should give a report (which should be immediately be in public domain) giving their view about the issues raised at the PH and how far the response from the project authorities addressed the issues raised and what needs to be done to address unaddressed issues. The panel report should be binding for all.

15. Is that Feasible? • YES • Some elements of these have been implemented in Allain Duhangan HEP in HP • Fewer in case of Karcham Wagtoo HEP in HP. • DID IT HELP? • It did help to some extent. It would have helped much more if all the elements were implemented honestly. • HOW WAS IT POSSIBLE? • The usual way…..

16. What would help-2 • State level Monitoring & clearance process where the state committee (with at least 50% non govt members) looks at the EIA & the PH report and makes recommendations before the project goes for central clearance. The recommendations of the state should be included in the central clearance letter. • The date when the Expert Committee (EC) of MEF examines the project should be declared in advance so that if any one wants to make any representation before the EC, can do it. • EC, in its recommendation for the project must say if the EIA is adequate, if EMP is adequate, if the PH has been properly held and so on. The report must refer to the representations it received and how the issues therein have been addressed.

17. What would help Ensure Compliance • A standing project level committee to monitor and ensure implementation of EMP • The committee must have at least half the members from local areas or those selected by local communities • The committee must have power to inspect all project related documents and project sites • The committee should have power to order stoppage of work when the EMP is not being implemented pari passu with the project • The standing committee would continue to function during project operation to ensure compliance with the EMP during operation.

18. Why this is in the interest of the projects • Full, proper and participatory appraisals would help identify problems at the outset. • It could also help identify unviable projects and same can be rejected at the outset. • It could help get crucial inputs from the local people. • For example had there been proper appraisal of Nathpa Jhakri project, they would have known the kind and quantum of silt to expect in the river, kind of flash floods that visit Sutlej. • If there were proper dumping of muck by the upstream projects like Baspa, Karshong and KWP now, NJP would face less silt problem. • Had there been full CAT for Baspa and NJP before commissioning of the project, there could be less silt problem at NJP, less losses. • Remember that NJP is a World Bank funded project.

19. WCD Recommendations • Demonstrable Public acceptable of key decisions is essential for equitable and sustainable development. • Acceptance emerges from recognising rights, addressing risks and safeguarding entitlements of all groups of affected people, particularly the vulnerable groups: Adivasis, Women, dalits. • Informed Participation • Free, Prior, Informed consent of tribals where they are affected. • Comprehensive Options Assessment, Addressing outstanding issues, Ensuring Complaince

20. I know we are heading in the other direction • The Ministry is changing EIA notification • The DM now may decide if appropriate situation does not prevail for public hearing • NGOs, others not belonging to local area may not be allowed to participate in the PH • There are other retrograde elements in the new notification • The business and the World Bank are surely driving this process • So much for the democracy….

21. What we can ensure • Local people know the EIA and PH process and their role therein, well in advance of the PH • The EIA-EMP and project summary are available as required under the law • When not available, people write to the authorities, demanding rescheduling of the PH • People get to understand the contents of the EIA-EMP and their inadequacies • People participate in the PH in large number to raise necessary issues • Invite credible media persons at the PH • Video record the PH and write to the concerned about the violations therein • Challenge the clearance in the NEAA and courts when it is given in spite of violations • People should continue to monitor the project…

22. Thank you • South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People • cwaterp@vsnl.com • www.sandrp.in • September 2006