PRESS NOTE 12th December 2014: People of Kinnaur challenge Satluj basin impact study as “biased” and “pro-hydro” : Panel silenced by questions raised at Public Consultation

On 8th and 9th December 2014, the Directorate of Energy organised Public Consultations in Rekong Peo and Pooh (Kinnaur District) on the Cumulative Environment Impact Assessment Study conducted for the Satluj River Basin. The study, which had the mandate to assess the over all cumulative impacts of the ongoing and proposed hydropower development in the Satluj River basin, has been conducted by the Indian Council of Forest Research and Education with several other institutes.

More than 500 people from the area participated in both these consultations making written and oral submissions on the report. People were severely critical of the report and challenged the contents as being incomplete and incorrect. The submissions challenged the fact that the report had failed to include in the study the impacts of the three major projects, namely, Nathpa Jhakri, Karchham Wangtoo and Baspa HEPs which would have brought out the major issues being faced as a result of hydropower development. To study the impact of hydropower projects on forests and water sources the report had no baseline data. “It is unclear as to how the consultants arrived at any conclusions without availability of baselines” said Prakash Bhandari of Himdhara, Environment Research and Action Collective. The panel was also questioned that the study did not look at very critical issues for instance the impacts of tunnelling for these projects.

The study has completely overlooked the impact that the already constructed HEPs have had by way of damage to houses situated in the vicinity of the areas where blasting operations were undertaken. This is despite the fact that 67% of the respondents during focus group discussions for under construction projects have reported damage to houses due to blasting operations for HEPs construction. This damage to houses is also substantiated by official studies conducted for the project proponents.

The study panel was also questioned on the absence of the mention of issues like impacts of massive muck dumping and air pollution due to dust during the construction period. The panel responded by saying that this was not part of their Terms of Reference given to them by the state government through the DOE.R.S Negi of Him Lok Jagriti Manch who has been studying the impacts of these projects for many years raised several pertinent issues with relation to the process of public consultations. He said that in the 18 month long study period no consultations were conducted to get the local point of view on projects and their impacts. He also highlighted that Public Hearings and consultations have been reduced to a sham and none of the recommendations that are given in these meetings are addressed or taken up by the government and departments.

Critiquing the recommendations of the study he said, “The study has been done with an ecosystems approach by dividing the Satluj basin in three zones – upper, middle and lower. But the recommendations that the committee has made has not taken into account specific zones and their characteristic features. The blanket recommendations fail to address the complexities and differences in each of these zones”.

But the recommendation which came out as most controversial was on the “no-go areas for Hydropower”. The study report mentions in the end about declaring certain areas as “no-go” zones for hydropower projects given the biodiversity, impact on fish fauna and the fragility of the transHimalayan region. But this point in the report has been deliberately kept ambiguous and not put under the section titled “recommendations”. Representatives from Hangrang Valley in Upper Kinnaur insisted that this be included as a recommendation else they would boycott the entire proceedings. Shanta Kumar, representative of the Hngrang Ghati Bachao Sangharsh Samiti said that there was severe opposition in the valley to hydropower projects. “We are very clear that the experience of the project affected villages in the lower Kinnaur and other areas in the river basin has been negative. If the government calls this ‘development’ they need to prove it first by making the local opinion in the areas where projects are operational as favourable. “Otherwise in a sensitive border area such forced development that goes against the people will lead to serious anti- state sentiments”, he added.

Two other important issues were environment flow in the river after project is built and the distance between two projects. The study report has made recommendations that also were strongly questioned by the people. On e-flows the study recommends 20 to 30% flow. The study also recommends atleast 500 metres distance between two projects. Critiqued Parmeshwar Negi from Shongton, “On what basis have they arrived at 30% as the e-flow required. The question is that will it be implemented when the mandatory 15% e-flow is not being followed by any of the projects right now, how will 20-30% e-flow be ensured? Any recommendation will have to be implemented on existing projects first.”

On the issue of distance between two projects, R.S Negi said, that the many values of a free flowing river need to be recognised and how will a 500 metre distance between projects allow the river to rejuvenate itself and maintain its identity as a river. The study also does not assess how the distance of 500 metres between projects will affect the capacity and location of the planned upcoming projects which have not even maintained this much distance.

Subodh from Spiti Valley raised the fact that the report fails to make any statement on the fact that upper zone was a Scheduled V area and the various legislations like Forest Rights Act 2006, PESA and others that protect the rights of the people on the local resources. “We have already submitted our Panchayat and Gram Sabha resolutions stating that we do not want any hydropower development in the area, the report has completely overlooked these”.

Submission after submission said that hydropower development in the region had failed to benefit the local people and had instead disrupted the lives and livelihoods of the area. The Nichar block was repeatedly given as an example to illustrate this. The failure of mitigation measures like compensatory afforestation and rehabilitation measures were also spoken of by many. The over all mood in both the consultations was one that rejected the report and demanded a complete and unbiased assessment. “We feel that the report has been made in favour of hydro projects and failed to present and assess the real situation”, objected the local people.

The panel was tongue tied and unable to respond to many of the questions raised. The District Collector who chaired the meetings also stated that the reports seemed incomplete and a lot of work needed to be done for them to be satisfactory.

News Links :
http://www.dailypost.in/regions/himachal-j-k/39867-kinnaur-residents-raise-question-mark-over-sutlej-basin-impact-study

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/himachalpradesh/tribals-in-kinnaur-reject-report-on-hydel-projects/article1-1296205.aspx

http://hillpost.in/2014/12/pushing-hydro-in-kinnaur-could-turn-people-anti-state-tribals/101825/

Post Author: Admin

1 thought on “PRESS NOTE 12th December 2014: People of Kinnaur challenge Satluj basin impact study as “biased” and “pro-hydro” : Panel silenced by questions raised at Public Consultation

Comments are closed.