Is our new environment Minister anti-large dams?

The Indian Express , writing on July 9, 2016 about the new Union Minister for Environment and Forests, Shri Anil Dave, made a statement which  left many people rather bewildered:

"Having been part of the Narmada campaign, it is hardly surprising that Dave is opposed to dams and big irrigation projects."

Shri Anil Dave, part of Narmada Campaign? And opposed to big dams?!

I find this difficult to believe. 

A protest action against the 400 MW Maheshwar project on the Narmada, at Mandleshwar, Madhya Pradesh. File Photo: Courtesy NBA.

As I have been a full-time activist with the Narmada struggle (the Narmada Bachao Andolan) for many years, and have spent several more years in the Narmada valley as a resident, I would surely have come across Anil Dave’s campaigns on opposing the dams on the Narmada. I don’t recall any action or statement by Shri Dave that could be construed as a protest against these dams. To make sure that in the unlikely event that  I had missed something, I also search on the internet to see if I could see Shri Dave’s involvement in the Narmada campaign challenging dams. But I could not find anything.

His profile on the Ministry’s website describes him, among other things, as a “river conservationist”. This may be due to the International Narmada Utsav(s) (Narmada Festival) that were organised for a few years running, on the banks of Narmada, near Hoshangabad, by the NGO Narmada Samagra founded by Dave and where he is the Secretary.  Since I was in MP during the time some of these were organised, I remember them well. They were big affairs, with lot of talk about protecting Narmada. But not a word was spoken about the dams that are being planned and built on the river. Considering that the Utsavs were held in Madhya Pradesh, Dave is from the state, and the state is building 29 large dams, 135 medium ones and more than 3000 "small” dams in the Narmada basin as a part of the Narmada Valley Development Project, this silence was somewhat puzzling. It implied that the organisers did not believe this massive dam construction came in the way of conserving the Narmada. Or maybe it was because there was a friendly government (led by BJP) in power in the state which was strongly pushing these dams, and there was no point criticising it. 

This was around 2007, 2008, and it was a time when there were very intense and strong mass movements around many of these dams in the Narmada valley, led by the Narmada Bachao Andolan and supported by many others. These dams, the displacement of lakhs of people, the destruction being caused to the river etc. were everyday news in the state, and even many times in the country. Yet, the Narmada Utsavs were mum on these dams. 

During one of these Narmada festivals, people’s movements and struggles in M.P., several of them involved with the struggles around Narmada dams, brought out a leaflet posing many questions to the organisers of the Narmada Utsav. 

The title of the Hindi leaflet was “How will the Narmada be saved? How will the civilisation of rivers be  saved”? And the first question in the leaflet was “Festival of Death of Rivers?”  This first question raised the issue that while the documents related to the festival listed 13 different topics and issues for the festival, there was no mention of the dams being built on the river, and the destruction and displacement being caused by them. There was no reply to the questions raised by the groups. A copy of the leaflet can be found here.

Given all this, it is difficult to believe that the new Minister Shri Dave is really against large dams. It’s also not clear what would his vision of river conservation be, if it allows cascades of large dams to turn flowing rivers into a series of stagnant reservoirs.

A dam under construction on the Himalayan river Teesta. Photo: Author.

In any case, all this is of academic interest. What is relevant, what counts, is what Shri Dave will do now, as Minister of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change. While any major results will need time, there are a few things where immediate action can demonstrate the approach of the new Minister to the issues of environment protection. Some of these are offered as suggestions:

1. In an ongoing case in the Supreme Court dealing with dams in the upper Ganga basin, the MoEF has been reluctant to impose constraints of maintaining adequate environmental flows in the rivers – its suggestions are based on a 100 year document and not on any scientific analysis. On the contrary, the Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) is not only arguing for a more scientific approach to e-flows, but also suggesting that several of the dam projects be scrapped, and that rivers Bhagirathi, Alaknanada and Mandakini should be allowed to flow unfettered.  It would be most appropriate if MoEF were to revise its submission to the Supreme Court and support the MoWR.
2. The MoEF has recently brought out a draft notification that will allow those who have started and continued work on their industries and operations without the legally mandatory environmental clearance, that is, clearly violated the law, to get away and get their entities regularised.  This draft has been widely criticised for allowing violators to get away with impunity. There have been calls to withdraw this notification in-toto. Interestingly, a recent article has exposed that this draft legislation is an almost word-by-word copy of a US law. MoEF should immediately withdraw this draft to show that it supports the rule of law, and would not allow violators to get away. 
3.  Last but not the least, there is an urgent need for the MoEF to strongly defend its work and itself, and not be reduced to an apologist. MoEF has in the recent years been criticised for being a “road-block” ministry, as an “obstructer” to development.  While these allegations don’t stand scrutiny, the problem is that the MoEF has itself internalised this criticism, and has been devaluing its own work and role. It would be very important for the new Minister to come out unequivocally in defending the role that the MoEF plays, and stand up strongly for the right of the Ministry to question and challenge reckless development, to question development that destroys the environment.

We look forward to the work of MoEF under its new leadership and hope that it can really work for sustainable development and conservation and protection of the environment.

Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change: A Promise and A Problem

On the occasion of World Environment Day, June 5, 2016, this blog post looks at one big potential or promise of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC), and its one big problem. 

Before going onto the theme, one clarification. This blog does not attempt any comprehensive review of the MOEFCC over the last two years. It does not attempt to critically evaluate important developments like introduction of new regulations, or the consistent dilution of many regulations and practises. This post deals with only one promising development at the MoEFCC and one serious problem.

Potential – Focus on Compliance 

In several interviews and press releases in the last week of May 2016, on and around the occasion of completion of two years of the NDA government, Shri Prakash Javdekar, Minister of State (Ind. Charge), MoEFCC has repeatedly stated that for the next three years, his focus will be on compliance of environmental laws. (See for example, ‘Focus Over the Next Three Years will be on Compliance of Laws’: Javadekar’, Press Release of MoEFCC/PIB, 23 May 2016).  

This is a most welcome focus, and has the potential to transform the environment of the country. India has some good environmental laws, but compliance is pathetic. Many laws are blatantly violated, and action is rarely taken. This has created an atmosphere of impunity and an ethos where non-compliance is the norm. Compliance (rather, lack of it) is one of the biggest problems and one of the biggest challenges in the country.

For example, one of the biggest menaces in the country is the ash which is produced when coal is burnt. Yet, last year (2014-15), some 82 million tons of it was just dumped in form of slurry in massive ash ponds, or in dry dumps or just discharged into rivers. (See Figures 1 and 2, for example).

Figure 1: Fly ash dumped in the open near people’s houses. Odisha. Photo, Shripad Dharmadhikary, Manthan.

Figure 2: Google satellite image. Fly ash dumped into Kesla River (Dengur Nallah) which meets the Hasdeo river. Korba, Chhattisgad.  

Thus, an emphasis on ensuring compliance could be a game changer.

The most important means of achieving compliance seems to be technology driven.  MoEF’s document titled “New Initiatives and Efforts 2014-16” says:

“In  a revolutionary decision, highly polluting industries were mandated to install 24x7 air/effluent monitoring devices. This has ensured constant monitoring and its tracking.

“Out of 3400 polluting industrial units identified, more than 2400 industries have already installed the mechanism and the results are encouraging. If pollution norms for any parameter are exceeded continuously for more than 15 minutes, SMS alert is generated and sent to all concerned individuals/ regulatory agencies.

“650 industries have been closed down based on these inputs.”

The same document also claims that industrial pollution in the Ganga has gone done by 35%. 

These figures, if true, indicate not only very high levels of fulfilment of required environmental instrumentation, but also a demonstration of strong political will. Both would be welcome changes in the Indian law enforcement experience. But a given our historical legacy, the common person can be allowed a certain amount of scepticism, and hence it would be important for media and other independent organisations to confirm these levels of compliances.

Supporting this will be a new legislation that is to bring in more stringent punishments for violations of environmental laws, though there are reports that it is already being diluted, even before it has gone to the cabinet.

Further, there are a few points to be noted in this regard.

1.  The emphasis seems to be overwhelmingly on use of technology, and to some extent officialdom to ensure compliance. This can be very limiting. It is imperative that the common people, the affected populations and concerned citizens be also involved in the process. To this end, full transparency in the matter is an important first step.
2. To ensure transparency, it is necessary to make available all the data from the continuous monitoring devices to the public. This can be done best by putting all the data on a publicly accessible website.
3.  SMS alerts of non-compliance can be sent to local community representatives, sarpanch etc. apart from officials and regulators.
4. It is critical that the locations of the monitoring points (along with their latitude-longitude coordinates) should also be made public. This will have several benefits. For one, local people will be able to clearly identify the discharge points of emissions and effluents, and hence any illegal discharges. (For example, see Figure 3,). Second, knowledge of the locations of monitoring points will allow juxtaposing all such points in area and help achieve synergies in monitoring as data from multiple points will be available in an area.
5. Another important point is that compliance cannot be only about pollution and hence 24x7 Continuous Effluent/Emission Monitoring Systems can only be one part of ensuring compliance. There are many conditions given as a part of environmental clearances which do not pertain to pollution – for example, ensuring environmental flows in rivers below dams – and different mechanisms to ensure compliance in such cases will be needed. 

Figure 3: Showing a discharge from the back wall of a power plant, north of Chennai, to mangroves and wetlands. This is likely an illegal discharge point since the Environmental Clearance clearly mandates another discharge point. If the discharge locations of the plants are made public, then it would be easy to identify whether such discharges are legal or illegal. Photo: Jinda Sandbhor, Manthan.

The most important component of any compliance mechanism remains political will. This is what the MoEFCC is actually promising when it says it will focus on compliance during the next three years. Possibly one test of this would be  whether MoEFCC is able to clean up some of the most polluted areas in the country (many of them part of MoEFCC’s own designated Critically Polluted Areas) including areas like Korba, Ennore, Dhanbad, to name a few.

We see the promise of compliance as one of the biggest potentials / promises of the MoEFCC.

The Problem – Skewed Understanding of Environment, Downplaying  its Importance

The biggest problem with the MoEFCC – and that predates this government, though it has possibly been aggravated in the tenure of the current regime – is the attitude of the MoEFCC to environment. One is that the MoEFCC has internalised the criticism that it is blocking “development”. The second is that again and again, MoEFCC betrays a lack of understanding what “environment” and “environmental protection” really means.

It is ironical that the ever since the NDA government has come in, the achievement that  the MoEFCC itself considers as its most significant one is that it is no longer a “road block” ministry. On the occasion of completion of two years of the government too, MoEFCC’s statements have focused on how in the last couple of years it has significantly brought down the time taken for clearance (from 600 days to 190) without compromising on environmental norms, how it has given 2000 clearances unlocking investments of Rs. 10 lakh crores, and how it is no longer called the “obstruction ministry”. 

Of course, it is no one’s case that the MoEFCC – or any other ministry for that matter – should become an obstruction in the process of development. But at the same time, no ministry should devalue its own agenda. The problem is that the MoEFCC has internalised the propaganda that any caring for environment means working against development, that environment protection is essentially only the formality of clearances and that protection of the environment does not need time and effort. 

No one will complain if a bank takes its time to evaluate a project to decide whether to finance it or not. If a large project takes several years for its engineering design to be finalised, it’s called due process. Yet, if environmental assessments take time, then it is seen as obstruction. Indeed, given the quality of current environmental impact assessments, what is needed is more diligence, and possibly more time for assessments, not less. Further, in many cases, the time taken by the environmental clearance process comes due to the bad quality of assessments. So, while by all means environmental clearances should be expedited, there is a limit beyond which the process cannot be compressed.

The MoEFCC now wants to reduce the time for environmental clearances (EC) to 100 days (See, for example, Interview of Shri Javdekar to Business Standard, 17 May 2016).  It is not clear whether this time is measured from the date that all assessments and other procedures like public hearing and submissions of final EIA are completed. If this is the case, there is nothing new in the announcement. The EIA Notification 2006, which governs the environmental clearance process, already requires that the Expert Appraisal Committee complete its appraisal within 60 days of receiving the final EIA, and place the recommendation to the MoEFCC for final decision within next 15 days of this.  The MoEFCC has to take a decision within 45 days of this. Thus, as such, even now, the decision on environmental clearance has to be taken within 120 days of the final EIA being submitted. So MoEFCC is promising to cut down all of 20 days. 

However, if it means that the EC will be given within 100 days of application – then it is a worrying sign. As such, impacts areas of major projects should be studied for at least one full year, to ensure baseline and other studies covering the full cycle of all seasons.  There could also be cumulative impact assessments needed if more than one project is coming up in an area. Then there needs to be the public hearing, and consideration of the issues raised by public and their incorporation into the EIA. Thus, even if the entire process is carried out with full efficiency, it would need considerably more time than 100 days. Any cutting down on these times would mean a compromise on  environmental norms.

So the MoEFCC needs to clarify what it means exactly when it says it shall reduce the time of granting EC to 100 days.

The problem is that by being so defensive about the time it takes to give environmental clearances, the MoEFCC is directly and indirectly supporting the mindset which sees environmental clearance as a mere formality and environment protection as an add-on at best.

On the contrary,  one expects the MoEFCC to fight fiercely to ensure that everything needed for environmental protection is given its rightful place. 

Another – and related – issue is that the MoEFCC view of environment does not seem to go beyond the issue of “clearances”. It needs to have a broad framework and understanding of what environmental integrity means. It needs an understanding that rivers need to flow, that forests and habitats needs to be contagious, that we can interfere and extract from the environment only to a certain extent and not more. It needs to distinguish between faux environmental protection and genuinely maintaining and restoring environmental integrity. 

This is illustrated best by how it views what constitutes forests. In the interview to Business Standard published on 17 May 2016, Minister Javdekar says:

“You have only 21% forestland. That won’t grow. But our target is 33% forest cover. So tree cover outside the forest has to grow. So a major thrust is on agro-forestry and making tree cover outside the forests. We have already partnered for growing forests along the highways. … I see forest growing along all highways, railways tracks and Ganga even in agro-forestry in next 10 years because we are guaranteeing that any density of plantation you do and tree cover you grow that will not be declared as forests – that is the only promise I am making – they can harvest they can do movements.”

In other words, the Minister equates road side plantations – and moreover, plantations which can be “harvested” anytime – with forests. Literally a case of missing  the woods for the  trees!

With such skewed way of looking at environment, even the best of efforts of the Ministry will not lead to environment protection. Rather, we may end up with facades of good “environment” – like roadside plantations!

There is an urgent need for the MoEFCC to internalise a more ecological and people-oriented view of what is environment, and come out defending that more strongly. Not doing so is the biggest problem and drawback to the Ministry’s efforts in the coming years.

The Curious Case of Surplus Electricity in India

Not Enough Takers

The last year has seen a somewhat strange series of news items. A country that has for years known only power shortages and load shedding is witnessing reports about many thermal power plants idling because there is no demand for the electricity they can generate. For example, a report in Indian Express dated 24 June 2015 talked about “57 thermal power units across the country that are shut down due to lack of demand despite the onset of peak summer”.

Apparently, the reason is that the electricity distribution companies – or DISCOMs – do not want to sign long term power purchase agreements (PPAs) with power generation companies, as their (DISCOMs’) financial position is under huge stress. As DISCOMs are forced to supply power at a price less than cost to agriculturists and domestic consumers, they face losses. These are only partly covered by subsidies from the government and cross-subsidy from customers who are charged higher than cost.  Since DISCOMs are not buying power, there is less off-take, and capacity running into several thousand megawatts is being forced to idle. 

A July 2015 report[1] by CRISIL Ratings, a credit rating agency, says that at least 3000 MW capacity is idle because of no demand or absence of PPA, and indicates that if PPAs are not signed by 2016, 15% of private capacity or 10,000 MW would be exposed to a similar risk. More recent news reports indicate even higher capacities may be idle because of lack of demand, in spite of improved supply of domestic coal and falling prices of imported coal. Some time back, coal shortages were also among the factors responsible for power plants not being  able to generate power, but power plants continue to generate less in spite of these factoring being tempered. Another indication of the demand being less is the sharp fall in price of electricity in the short-term market on the power exchanges.

Need Exists, But Not Demand

This trend raises an important question. Let us leave aside consumers like industries - who are charged power at higher-than-cost prices and the issue of why the DISCOMs are not buying all this idle power to supply to them. May be their demand is fully satisfied, or may be, as is being discussed, the industrial demand itself is not growing as expected. However, there certainly exists huge latent demand in the agriculture and domestic categories, given the fact that several hundred million people do not yet have any access to electricity, and millions more have poor quality, irregular supply. DISCOMs are reluctant to buy power at higher cost and supply it to these consumers at lower cost. On the other hand, these consumers appear to be unable or unwilling to pay higher costs for electricity, for otherwise the DISCOMs would have been happy to supply to them. Thus, there is ‘surplus’ electricity, but it’s too costly for those who need it. So, there is a huge need for electricity, but not a proportionate or equivalent market. Or, in other words, there is a need, but not demand – where ‘demand’ is ‘need’, backed by willingness and ability to purchase, expressed on the market.

Some Food For Thought

This reminds one of a very similar situation, in a sector equally, or possibly more critical: food. It may be recollected that about a decade back, newspapers were full of stories about how godowns were overflowing with foodgrains. There were stories of grains needing to be stacked in open grounds as there was little space anywhere. There was huge production of foodgrains – India is ‘self-sufficient’ since some time – but somehow, people were not able to buy these foodgrains as they could not afford the cost. It wasn’t anybody’s case that at that time, foodgrains were rotting in the godowns because people’s cupboards and stomachs were full. Far from it, millions were going hungry then (and even now).

Our analysis of the situation at that time[2] showed that the root causes of this situation included some fundamental systemic elements. Primary among them was the fact that the approach adopted to increase food grain production was inherently a high cost one. This was of course, the green revolution model, with high external inputs, which increasingly needed to be purchased. At the same time, the model was based on centralising, or at least concentrating, high production on a limited land area – with the result that fewer farmers and farm workers shared the profits, or benefitted from employment. This meant less purchasing power in the hands of large number of people. Costly production and less purchasing power was the deadly combination that led to overflowing godowns and a hungry population. Such a situation has persisted since then in various forms even if not manifesting so dramatically.

For example, in a paper published in 2010, the then Chief Economic Advisor to Government of India, Kaushik Basu commented on the  situation of high food prices combined with the huge food stocks with the Government. He said[3]:

“…in December, 2009, with food-price inflation above 20%, it was decided to release wheat. Ever careful not to cut deeper into the government’s coffers, it was decided to set the price of wheat above the Minimum Support Price (MSP) at which the Food Corporation of India (FCI) had acquired the wheat, with some add ons for storage and transportation. There are no surprises in the fact that there was no demand for the wheat thus put on sale; the sales in Delhi were actually zero. Evidently, the strategy used for releasing foodgrains has scope for improvement.”

In other words, the need for food was there, but there were no buyers for it as the price was too high.

Common Threads

Can we draw parallels between what happened in the food sector with what is happening in the power sector today? A common question is – are these a transient phenomenon, an unusual occurrence as the economy moves from a low production, scarcity dominated state to a high production, high consumption state? Are these a result of a temporary imbalance between demand and supply? Or do these represent a more fundamental attribute? Is it that in attempting  to meet the scarcity (of food or electricity), we are pushing up production, but the very process adopted for increasing production is putting the commodity out of hands of people as it is inherently high cost? And is the process of production itself concentrating and cutting down employment opportunities, resulting in lesser purchasing power in the hands of the masses?

One very interesting example that vividly extends the analogy of overflowing godowns and rotting foodgrains to the power sector is from Gujarat. The Gujarat State Electricity Corporation (GSEC) had recently filed a petition with the Gujarat State Electricity Regulatory Commission, requesting that the Commission order the central procurement agency, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam to mandatorily buy power from its (GSEC’s) coal based generating stations. The Nigam was not buying  this power because it was more expensive than other, more modern, coal based plants. While the merits of the case are not relevant for us here, what is interesting is that the Gujarat State Electricity Corporation states that it is forced to partially shut down its plant as the power is not being purchased, and laments that[4]:

“Due to the backing down/Reserved Shut Down of the generating stations, huge stocks of coal have accumulated without much use…

“The coal management is becoming extremely difficult and critical for the petitioner, as the coal looses (sic) its heating value with time due to oxidation and spontaneous coal burning which cannot be quantified or measurable”.

In other words, an accumulating pile of coal that is rotting!

In Conclusion

I am not an expert in food production and food security issues, nor in power generation and distribution. But as India continues to face challenges in providing food and energy to millions of people, a layperson’s instinct makes me feel that it may well be worth exploring these rather strange similarities in two very different sectors.

---------

(I would like to thank Ashwini Chitnis and Ann Josey for some very interesting discussions on this topic, during the course of which they provided many insights and lot of useful information, particularly on the power sector related sections.)

A follow up blog post, titled “Coal Assets at Risk of BeingStranded?”, takes off from some points in this post.

---

[1] Crisil Insight: Current Worries; July 2015, by Crisil Ratings.

[2] This was a part of our (Manthan Adhyayan Kendra) study of agriculture in Punjab  and Haryana, which in turn was a component of our study of the impacts of the Bhakra Nangal dam and irrigation project. The study was published in 2005 under the title Unravelling Bhakra.

[3] Kaushik Basu (2010): The Economics of Foodgrain Management in India, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, new Delhi. Downloaded from http://finmin.nic.in/workingpaper/Foodgrain.pdf

[4] Order of the Gujarat State Electricity Regulatory Commission, dated 4.1.2014, in Petition 1343 of 2013.