Sunday, November 28, 2010

Serious Governance Issue Raised by MoEF Clearance to Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant


The Ministry of Environment and Forests has today (28 nov 2010) accorded the environmental clearance to the 9900 MW Jaitapur Nuclear power plant in Ratnagiri district in coastal Maharashtra, against intense local and national opposition.

While declaring this decision, the Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh has stated “I tried to balance four objectives: the amount of energy required to sustain a growth rate of nine per cent; the proportion of fuel mix; strategic diplomacy, especially after the Civilian Nuclear Deal; and the environmental concerns raised by a large number of groups,” (The Hindu, 29 Nov 2010, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article919959.ece?homepage=true )

I find the decision to accord the clearance complete wrong, but I do agree with the above principle articulated by the Minister, that there is a need to balance several objectives. (I would add a few more to them including equity, displacement etc.). The issue is whether the MoEF is the competent authority to do this balancing. It is a serious problem with our project planning, regulation and governance systems that we do not have appropriate procedures and agencies to ensure such a balancing. The sector ministries (power, water, atomic energy etc.) look to only push their own sector’s growth – which they equate with national interests. Since they are the ministries deciding on the “need” and “desirability” of projects, the conflict of interest in balancing with regards environment, social impacts, equity etc are clear.

Ramesh, in his press note dated 28 Nov 2010 has stated at one point that he is “not the competent authority to pass judgment on matter related to the need, economics and safety of nuclear power plants.” Yet, he goes on to give strategic, economic and energy related objectives as the main justifications for according the clearance. In the absence of a mechanism to do the “balancing”, the MoEF cannot appropriate this process, though to be fair, so far it has been appropriated by the line / sector ministries, with disastrous environmental, social and equity impacts, and some pathetic shows on the performance front too. Unfortunately, the MoEF has ended up according clearance to an environmentally destructive project, for the reasons that it acknowledges it has no competence, nor the mandate to examine.

There are many detailed and specific criticisms of the MoEF order, which will surely be brought out by others. I want to mention only one more point here, and that is: Even if one accepts the MoEF’s argument that India desperately needs more electricity, the mere requirement of electricity at the national level cannot automatically translate into a justification for specific power plant.

Moving on to some other issues emerging from this clearance order, one must, in spite of several disagreements on specific orders of the MoEF, put on record the appreciation for making public its logic and reasoning through detailed explanatory notes (even though the logic may be often flawed!). The Minister needs to be commended for this.

Secondly, the press note related to the Jaitapur clearance makes a statement “India must get used to the concept of carrying capacity and cumulative impact assessment studies.” This is really critical and is most welcome. We would expect and hope that the Ministry puts this in place as a pre-requisite to clearing individual projects. And not leave it to the states as a voluntary effort, as is indicated in the press note.

(Image: People Protesting against the Jaitapur Plant: Photo Courtesy Lokayat http://lokayatpune.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/people-rise-up-against-jaitapur-nuclear-power-plant-and-destructive-projects-in-konkan/)

Environmental Clearance to Navi Mumbai Airport – A Dangerous Precedent?


The Ministry of Environment and Forests finally accorded Environmental Clearance to the proposed International airport at Navi Mumbai on 22 November 2010. (Image from CIDCO website)

The MoEF press note of 22 Nov 2010, signed personally by the Minister Shri Jairam Ramesh, states that “a good agreement has been obtained to the optimal satisfaction of all sides concerned”. In principle, it is to be appreciated that optimality is the important goal in such matters, for any human action is certain to have an impact on the environment. As we cannot have zero human activity, we need to create a balance (optimality) between any developmental activity and the impacts on environment.

In this case, leaving aside for time being the question of whether all sides are really satisfied, it is important to note a serious problem with how this optimality has been achieved.

The MoEF press note states that “By August 2010, it was clear that, for various technical and non-technical reasons, the Navi Mumbai location has become a fait accompli.” With the Minister accepting the fait accompli “in good faith”, the clearance was as good as given. The only thing left was the matter of negotiating the conditions.

Considering a project for environmental and social clearance under the situation of fait accompli is nothing but pure arm twisting. It is a way of saying that no matter how high these impacts, the project has to go through because it is now irreversible. Unfortunately, this is a norm for many projects in India.

The MoEF press note implies the creation of the fait accompli in two ways. One, by arguing that there is absolutely no other alternative to the project. The MoEF press note describes how several other locations have been suggested but found unsuitable for the airport. Hence, the Navi Mumbai location is the only option left. However, this at best can make the location a fait accompli, but the location is conditional to the airport being established as necessary in the first place. Otherwise, this principle would necessarily make several projects like dams, mines fait accompli, as there are few alternatives regarding their locations. (You can have a mine only where there is a mineral or metal deposit!)

In other words, it is not sufficient for there to be no other alternative location, it is also necessary that the project itself is absolutely indispensable and that its overall benefits far outweigh any adverse impacts. The MoEF press note states that “With the constraints operating at the existing airport, the urgent need for a second airport for Mumbai, a public infrastructure, is obvious.” One hopes that this statement is figurative, for “obviousness” is subjective, and hardly evidence that something is necessary. The necessity of a project does not also automatically follow from the mere fact of it being a public infrastructure.

As I am not familiar with the studies assessing the need for the Navi Mumbai airport, I will accept that they would have been carried out in a comprehensive, transparent manner with ample opportunity for inputs from various stakeholders and stakelosers. However, it is a fact that many projects like dams and power projects are deemed as necessary on the basis of superficial studies, with the argument that the need for water and power is “obvious”, the “national interest” is “obvious”. Once the project is considered as indispensable, then the social and environmental clearances are considered as mere procedural hurdles. This is the case of a project being conceptually a fait accompli as it has to go ahead, no matter what.

The second way in which a project is rendered fait accompli is when work has been done, land has been acquired, money has been spent, or commitments have been made so that it is not possible to go back on the project. In case of Navi Mumbai airport, this factor also seems to be operating. The Government of India had even amended the CRZ Notification 1991 to allow for an airport at Navi Mumbai. The TORs for the Environment Impact Assessment were issued only after this amendment. Many projects in India fall in this category. In the state of Arunachal Pradesh, for example, the state government is taking huge sums of money from private hydropower developers as advances to “allot” projects to them. With such advances, it is difficult for the projects to be later rejected. Another important case is when projects are cleared piecemeal. For example, consider a coal based thermal power project. If the plant is given clearance without the coal mine being cleared, the work on the plant can go ahead, money can be spent and this creates tremendous pressure to accord clearance to the mine. It is learnt that MoEF has just brought out a circular saying that a thermal power plant or steel plant will not be cleared unless the mine is given clearance first. This is a welcome initiative, but needs to be extended to all such projects. Most notorious recent cases have been the Vedanta case where the refinery was functioning but the mine (Niyamgiri) had not been accorded the clearance, and the case of POSCO Steel Plant where the port and steel plant have been given clearance but it is not sure if the other components like the iron ore mines have been given clearances.

In sum, it is clear that while any developmental activity needs a balance between human intervention and environmental impact, such a balance cannot be reached under the condition of fait accompli. Unfortunately, forcing social and environmental clearances under the pressure of fait accompli has been the practice rather than exception in India.

As the processes related to the Navi Mumbai airport had been underway much before Shri Jairam Ramesh became the Minister for Environment and Forest, we can take his acceptance of fait accompli as an honest admission. We only hope that it does not set a dangerous precedent, but rather, the open admission signifies the recognition of a problem and leads to measures to root out such practises.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Program to Mark 25 Years of NBA - A Missed Opportunity

The program to mark 25 years of the Narmada Bachao Andolan starts today (22 Oct 2010) with a rally and public meeting at Dhadgaon. Several thousand people in the valley are expected to assemble at Dhadgaon and on 23 Oct at Badwani. And several hundred are likely to reach there from rest of the country. In the last 10 days or so, anyone that one talks to or emails generally has been asking one another - are you going?

25 Years of the Narmada struggle! It is on one hand a very proud moment for all of us that the struggle has gone on for this long with determination and tenacity; at the same time, it is immensely sad that people have had to struggle so long. It is an important occasion for all those who have been involved to meet and share. However such an occasion cannot be a mere celebration. Therefore, it is was good to see that NBA had decided to call the program "Reflections from the Narmada: 25 Years and Beyond." Undoubtedly, the occasion of the struggle completing 25 years is the right occasion to come together, share, celebrate and also reflect.

However, the actual program came as a disappointment to me. The way the program is structured, there will be little time for any reflections, and little energy - physical as well as mental - as people get tired from the rallies, public meetings, travel from Dhadgaon to Badwani, and various other programs. These two days packed with event after event are certainly not conducive for reflections, though they will surely be exciting and stimulating in their own way. Of course, there will be opportunities for people to speak from the stage, but that is not really the best way to reflect and share the highs and the lows of the struggle.

In terms of meeting people and spending time together too, days packed with travel, rallies and public meetings are the least appropriate occasions. A more relaxed event where people come together and spend 2 or more days together would have been much more useful for this purpose.

Therefore, this will be one more occasion of an opportunity missed. It is a chance lost for all of us involved in the Narmada struggle to come together and recollect the joyous and the difficult times, and do some honest reflections, so that the struggle can become stronger and even more of an inspiration for others.

May be there is a feeling that the NAPM meeting that is to immediately follow will serve as a platform for some reflections. If this is the case (and I am not saying it is), it would be unfair to both NBA and NAPM. For all their common threads and people, NBA and NAPM are distinct entities, with different processes and identities. The NAPM meeting would certainly have its own agenda and its priorities, so it cannot be a forum for NBA's reflections. The agenda of the NAPM meeting also reflects this. Also, there are many people who have been intensely involved with NBA but not with NAPM. So a process of reflection around the 25 years of Narmada struggle needs its own platform, of the NBA.

This was also a time for inclusiveness. It was an important occasion to bring together (literally and metaphorically) all those who have been involved in NBA in the last two and half decades, leaving out those few who have lost the way and gone on to indulge in corrupt practices. Therefore, it would have been nice if senior activists of the Andolan who are still active in the valley in struggles around Narmada dams - like Alok, Silvi, Bhagwanbhai - who have also worked for many years in the struggle around Sardar Sarovar, the Bargi activists etc. had also been involved in the planning and organization of the program and they were also among those inviting people to the valley.

While I am not going for the program due to some work here that cannot be adjusted, there is no hiding the fact that these two things had already affected my enthusiasm for the program. However, it was worse when I saw that some senior local activists of Gujarat had not even been informed about the program. Nandini's email of 19th Oct about it is self-explanatory and I am giving it below. This is simply not done when emails and phones were being made far and wide. Nandini's email:

One disturbing incident concerning the 23rd 24th NBA program at Dhadaon and Badwani has prompted me to say something of immediate importance concerning the program.

While I was booking my tickets for the program today (19th Oct 2010), I wanted to coordinate my visit with the local senior leaders/activists of Gujarat, who have worked in most adverse of circumstances to build the struggle in an extremely hostile State, around the SSP Empire, in and around the very dam itself. I therefore called today two of the senior most local leaders and activists of Gujarat and in whose house the NBA karayalaya functioned and whose entire family has withstood incomprehensible State pressure on a daily basis for years (I need not dwell more on their contribution because that would be an embarrassment) Prabhubhai Tadvi and Kapilaben of Waghadia. I called them just to know when they were reaching for the program. I was shocked when Prabhubhai asked me "What program? Where? When?" Even Kapilaben did not know anything about the program. These key activists/local leaders whom I am sure everyone, even those remotely concerned with NBA would know, had no idea of the program at all, till I called them today! I was disturbed all the more because they are not an exception. Rasikbhai Gajanan and Bhima Tadvi, other senior activists who had been NBA full timers for a very long period in Gujarat also had no idea of the program till last night when I called them up to know of their travel plans for the program.

This is a serious matter since it is not the question of these 4 senior oustee activists/leaders alone. Since these senior local people of NBA in Gujarat do not know of the program, it is likely that the second line of local leadership, activists and Andolan karies of Kevadia colony and many R&R sites have also been left out. This is painful because while NBA invites people from far and wide, it has chosen to ignore those very oustees of Gujarat who not only built this Sangathan, but whose Sangathan it actually is! And these are people who built the andolan against an extremely hostile state and in the times when NBA was being beaten and bruised. Once again I need not dwell on the significance of the Sangathan in Gujarat that they lead collectively, with many others.

And let us not forget that Narmada has been a witness to a struggle by its communities right from the year 1961 when the lands for Kevdia Colony were first acquired and many tribals who fought their dispossession then were jailed. Few of them like Muljikaka still survive to tell the story of how they fought against all odds 50 years ago and still continue to struggle.

See you all in Badwani. - Nandini

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Monday, August 30, 2010

My article on India's energy policy, raising the issues of energy for what and whom, and the issue of sustainabililty - and whether there will be any limits to how much energy we can consume, has appeared in the July-August issue of the Movement of India. You can access it at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36657717

Thursday, August 5, 2010

See my latest article in the appointment of Rakesh Nath as Chair of the Expert Appraisal Committee of the Ministry of Environment and Forest.

REGULATION
Appointment without perspective

The Chair of the EAC should necessarily have an overarching environmental perspective, as s/he is supposed to ensure the environmental sustainability of projects that come to the committee. Shripad Dharmadhikary reports.

http://indiatogether.org/2010/aug/env-eac.htm

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Lomborg – Right Analysis, Wrong Conclusions

Economic Times carried an article by Bjorn Lomborg on 3rd August 2010. This is my response to it, sent to ET, but I am not sure if they will carry it or not.
-------------------------------------------------

Bjorn Lomborg’s Affordable Green Energy (Guest Column, ET 2 August 2010 http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6246302.cms) correctly brings out the seriousness of the climate change problem and the enormous difficulty of tackling it. He points out how we would have to build many nuclear plants, several hydro power plants the size of Three Gorges and a vast array of other generating stations every year to replace the carbon emitting power generation by “clean” power.

While his analysis is correct, his prescription is widely off the mark. His advocacy of investing money to bring down prices of solar and other renewables is by itself faultless. However, the underlying assumption that is that this (ultra) cheap solar energy will allow us to replace the coal based electricity and maintain the same level of energy consumption. This is the fatal flaw in his prescription. The reality is that any energy source has an ecological (and livelihood) footprint. Any energy source – over its life cycle – will have an impact on the environment. In some cases this will be terribly destructive, and in other cases, it would be more benign. However, the cumulative impact of millions of benign cases can itself add up to be terrible. A small hydro plant is far less impacting than a massive dam, but if one builds a thousand small hydro in a single basin, the ecology of the basin and livelihoods of the people there would be severely impacted.

The same will hold at the global level for energy sources like solar. For example, a huge solar array say in the desert (a typical scenario often advanced) could suck up the energy in that locality, creating an “energy vaccum” or a “energy depression”. This could lead to changes in the atmospheric pressures, wind directions, speeds etc. We don’t know the consequences yet of large scale disruptions to the global solar energy flux.

So even if Lomborg’s idea of making solar ultra cheap is realised, we may escape the impact of climate changing carbon emissions, but are sure to end up with other, hitherto unforeseen impacts. The simple logic is that while the planet’s environment - a complex and till a few centuries back, a balanced system – can take relatively small interventions without losing the equilibrium, interventions on a massive scale can destabilise it.

This is not to argue against making solar and other sources cheap. This is indispensable in any case. But the real – and only solution is to cut down on the total consumption of energy – and then also have cheap and more benign sources like solar. If we want that countries like the US continue with electricity consumption of 13,000 KWH per capita per year (India is 550) and 7800 kg oil equivalent of total energy per capita per year (India 439) – already the burden on the environment is unbearable. If we want others (India, Asia, Africa) to have a chance to better their levels of energy consumption, then we can only imagine the huge amounts of generation that will be required. Even if these were to come from solar, it would still cause massive disturbances to the environment. In sum, we cannot move towards a solution to the climate crisis until the countries like US and others cut down their consumption (remember, billions of their fellow human beings are living with much lesser consumption of energy, minerals, metals etc), in the process creating space for others to move a little higher up on the scale, but still keeping in mind that they too would have to set limits to how much energy they can consume. Only when this fundamental restructuring is in place will other solutions like cheap solar be meaningful.

Monday, June 7, 2010

Bhopal Judgement A Slap in the Face of Victims

The judgement of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, in the gas tragedy-mass murder case comes more as a reminder of the abject helplessness, timidity and lack of political will at best - and collusion at worst - of the Indian state in its readiness and ability to make Corporates accountable, than any sense of justice rendered.

Victims have rightly called it a "slap in our face".

It is one more indication of how Corporates can get away with the worst environmental crimes, especially if they come from the great land of US of A, which particularly makes the Government of India **** in the *****

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Maoists Deny Involvement

It is now emerging that the Maoists are not behind the gruesome incident of the Gyaneshwari Expresss. Both the CPI(Maoist) and the PCAPA have denied any involvement. Apparently, on Friday night, the following statement was issued on behalf of the CPI(Maoist) WB State Committee. “We are in no way involved in this incident. We did not carry out any explosion in the railway line. Killing innocent people by sabotaging railway line is not our agenda. When we carry out any action, there are always some specific reasons behind. We also acknowledge responsibility for that. Whenever we commit mistakes we admit it. However, responsibility is being placed on us now for an incident in which we are in no way involved”.

The Hindustan Times of 29 May 2010 also carried a small mention of the denial by PCAPA (http://www.hindustantimes.com/special-news-report/News-Feed/78-die-in-train-crash-Naxals-blamed/Article1-549604.aspx) but the denial has been mostly unreported in the media.

While officials continued to blame the CPI (Maoists) and the PCAPA ( See Hindustan Times of 30th May 2010 http://www.hindustantimes.com/Victims-kin-hunt-for-bodies-Mamata-for-votes/H1-Article3-550507.aspx) the FIR registered on this incident does not mention the involvement of the Maoist.

So what’s the truth? The country needs to know the real perpetrators of this incident. Can we hope for an honest, quick and competent enquiry into this incident?

Friday, May 28, 2010

Support Naxals and Face Punishment says PC

Our dear HM has recently issued dire threats to civil society for "supporting" the Maoists. To him, anyone who even hints at the gross injustice, years of exploitation and complete abdication of its duty by the state in the tribals areas as being the underlying cause for the growth of the Maoist movement is a supporter of the Naxals. The Times of India wrote recently (7th May 2010 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Support-Naxals-face-punishment/articleshow/5900678.cms)

"NEW DELHI: Toughening its stance against Naxalites, the Centre on Thursday warned Maoist sympathizers — including members of civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — found supporting the ultras by propagating their ideology or by any other means to be ready to face severe punishment. "

Of course, this is utter nonsense. If one reads what the Home Affairs Ministry has to say, one would think that the civil society is more of a threat than the Maoists themselves.

Wonder what PC would say to those who said this:

"... the Naxalite movement has to be recognised as a political movement with a strong base among the landless and poor peasantry and adivasis. ....Though its professed long term ideology is capturing state power by force, in its day to day manifestation it is to be looked upon as basically a fight for social justice, equality, protection and local development. The two have to be seen together without overplaying the former..."

Would he arrest them under the UAPA?

It is a quote from the report of the Expert Committee set up by the Planning Commission of India on Development Challenges in Extremist Affected Areas, published by the Government of India in April 2008.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Ugly occupations cannot produce beautiful resistances

"The US is now learning that ugly occupations cannot produce beautiful resistances." Raza Naeem, reviewing Fareed Zakaria's book The Post-American World, in Frontline.
When will the Indian establishment realise that the same holds for structural violence, gross injustice and extreme inequity?