Limitations of World Bank’s Thirsty Energy – Reflections on the Occasion of the World Water Day

World Water Day Focuses on Water Energy Nexus

22 March is world water day, and this year, the global theme for the day is Water and Energy. Global players are focussing on this theme, with UNESCO releasing on 21st March 2014, its latest World Water Development  Report 2014 with its central theme and title “Water And Energy” and the  International Energy Agency (IEA) making available free of charge a chapter titled “Water for Energy: Is energy becoming a thirstier resource?”from its two year old publication World Energy Outlook 2012.

Indeed, since last few years, much of the global water discourse has centred on the so-called “nexus”, that is, the Water-Energy-Food nexus. Continuing this focus, the theme of the World Water Day this year is “Water and Energy”.  

Well before today’s World Water Day, the World Bank has taken the lead in pushing this theme of Water and Energy through its initiative called Thirsty Energy. 

World Bank’s Initiative – Thirsty Energy

The initiative, with a theme of Securing Energy in a Water Constrained World, “aims to help governments prepare for an uncertain future, and break disciplinary silos that prevent cross-sectoral planning. With the energy sector as an entry point, thirsty energy quantifies tradeoffs and identi­fies synergies between water and energy resource management.”

However, there are serious limitations in the way the World Bank is looking at the Water Energy nexus. This is evident from a reading of its own working paper released in June 2013, of the same title, Thirsty Energy.

This document does highlight the large amounts of water needed to produce electricity, particularly coal-fired electricity, but it falls far short of understanding or revealing the full range of impacts of energy production on water. Let us look only at the example of coal fired electricity and water.

Coal and Water

The entire chain of coal based electricity production – from coal mining, transport, power plant and ash disposal – has huge impacts on water. These can be broadly categorised as follows.

(1)    Direct consumption of water for coal mining, thermal plants, ash disposal etc.

(2)    Disruption of both surface and ground water resources (e.g. coal mines will dewater groundwater aquifers around them, impacting local communities)

(3)    Pollution

Unfortunately, Thirsty Energy looks only at item (1) above, and completely ignores impacts of (2) and (3), which can be as big as or even worse than those of (1). 

Direct Use Underestimated

Even in the direct use of water, Thirsty Energy grossly underestimates the use of water by coal plants. It assumes that the biggest use of water in coal power plants is for cooling purposes. It says, “In a coal plant with cooling towers, it is estimated that 90 percent of the water is used in the cooling system and the other 10 percent is used in other processes (DOE, 2009)”. However, this is not true at all in the case of India. In India, in addition to water used for cooling – which is huge, massive quantities of water are used for ash disposal.

Ash Dump of HINDALCO Alumina Company at 

Hirakud, Sambalpur in Odisha.  Note Location Close to water body.

Ash pond of 2340 MW Chandrapur Thermal Power plant. 

The pond is spread over 2600 hectares. It is supposed 

to be lined with impermeable material, as are all ash ponds,

but is not.

Burning of coal leaves behind ash, which is particularly high in India as domestic coal is high in ash content. While ash is supposed to be reused (the various reuses are fraught with risks, an issue we are not dealing with here), vast quantities still are being disposed in the form of dry ash dumps (see photo), or in ash ponds in the form of slurry (see photo). The latter requires massive quantities of water. For example, data obtained by us (Manthan Adhyayan Kendra) under the Right to Information Act showed that in many thermal power plants, water used for ash disposal ranged from 25% to 40% of total water use, and on a per unit basis was between 0.7  to 2 litres per unit (KWh) of electricity generated. But water for this need, for ash disposal, does not figure anywhere in the estimations of Thirsty Energy.

It’s claimed that newer plants will use much lesser water for ash disposal, and any such development will be welcome. But there are serious questions about these claims which still need to be proved on the ground. Till then, ash disposal remains a huge water guzzler in India.

               

Disruption of surface and ground water resources

Coal mines, both open cast and underground, can severely disrupt the groundwater flows, aquifers and also impact surface water. When one digs a coal mine, in essence one is digging a big pit, which cuts across ground water flows. These can lead to drying up of wells and even surface water bodies in the vicinity.

Our visits to various mines in different states show that the impact of groundwater dewatering is felt up to distances of 4-5 km. A study by Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) of the Padampur-Durgapur coal mines in Chandrapur district of Maharashtra noted that effect of mine dewatering was seen upto distances of 3 km.  (See Photo , dry well in Sinala village).

Dry well at village Sinala, near Padampur-Durgapur mine. 

Local people talked about how earlier this and other wells

used to supply water well past the monsoon, but now dry up soon after.

In quantitative terms, the above mentioned CGWB studies note a dewatering of 10.89 million cubic meters (MCM) per year for Kamthi-Inder-Gondegaon mine, and 7.76 MCM per year for Padampur-Durgapur mine. By rough estimates, this amount of water can irrigate 2200 ha and 1500 ha of land respectively. This is the water that is lost to the local communities. Some of this – mine drainage - could potentially be supplied back to the local communities – but this has the risk of being contaminated and would need treatment before returning back. The experience so far of pollution control and proper treatment of water is not at all encouraging in this matter.

It is not only groundwater, but also surface water bodies that are affected. (See photo). This entire aspect, which affects thousands of people from communities in vicinity of coal mines,  is overlooked by Thirsty Energy.

Dried surface pond near coal mines in Angul district in Odisha.  Local people told us that this pond used to supply water to irrigated fields of people till February, but now does not retain any water post monsoon. They link this to the mining activities. Coal mine EIAs mostly do not look at the impacts on surface water resources.

Coal and Pollution

There are many sources of pollution in the coal – electricity chain. For water, some of the important issues are the mine drainage, water pollution due to oil and grease and coal dust, contamination of ground and surface waters with ash, which has presence of heavy metals, overburden draining into water sources etc.

Lahiri Nallah in Lahiri Opencast mine area of
Mahanadi Coalfield in Jharsuguda, Odisha,
contaminated with grease and coal dust.

One of the serious pollutants is acid mine drainage which occurs when mine drainage interacts with sulphides, if any, present in the ore or rock.

The mine drainage, even if not acidic, has other pollutants, mainly in the form of suspended solids, and settling in a settling tank is projected as an adequate method of treating it. We are still studying this aspect. However, our field visits have shown that often mine drainage is discharged onto local water bodies without even this basic treatment.

Another serious source of pollution is the ash. The un-utilised ash is being dumped in fly-ash dumps or fly ash ponds from where risk of contaminating water is very high, through leaching, through spilling and through ash dyke breaches (not to mention illegal discharge of ash into nallahs and rivers). It may be mentioned that it is only in recent years that the authorities are taking some cognisance of the pollution from ash, and are calling for monitoring of heavy metal in ash and also presence of radio-active elements. However, ash continues to be dumped into, and contaminate land and water.

Thirsty Energyignores entirely this aspect of pollution of water, which is a significant part of the (coal) energy – water nexus, and on occasions could be even more of a threat than the large quantities of water which are consumptively used.

Limited Understanding Limits Solutions

Thus Thirsty Energy  reveals a very limited understanding of the  impacts of (coal based) energy production on water. This in turn affects the solutions it offers. It is no surprise then that the solutions presented by Thirsty Energy are mainly technical and managerial in nature – more efficient water use, air cooling, integrated energy-water modelling etc. While all these are important, one critical element that is missing is the participation of local communities – who are the most impacted by the water-energy nexus – in planning, monitoring and regulating the impacts of energy on water.

22 March 2014

Manthan Adhyayan Kendra

 www.manthan-india.org

manthan.shripad@gmail.com

WorldBankSpeak Explained in Simple English: Press Conference of World Bank President on Orissa Power Sector Reforms

On 28 March 2012, World Bank Group President Robert B. Zoellick and Orissa (Odisha) Finance Minister Prafulla Kumar Ghadain held a Press Conference. Among the issues discussed were the World Bank funded Orissa Power Sector Reforms, which have been a gross failure.

Some friends were not able to understand what the Bank President and other Bank officials were saying, because they were speaking a language worldbankspeak. To help them, I have translated the language into plain English.

See below: 1. The extract relating to power sector reforms from the transcripts of the Press Conference as put up on the World Bank site. (http://go.worldbank.org/HES15CGBY0).

2. The same transcripts with my explanatory translations of Worldbankspeakgiven in Red text.

You may skip the Item 1 if you do not want to read the same text twice and go straight to 2.

One: Original Text

REPORTER: Mr. President this is Nageshwar Patnaik from Economic Times. The World Bank in fact has been associated with Odisha now for over a decade, as you said rightly. It initiated reforms process in the power sector, and the other states learnt from it, but today there is a setback in power reforms in Odisha with the distribution sector totally floundering. Will World Bank aid come up with some kind of a plan so that this sector can be fine?

MR. ZOELLICK: I was talking with Roberto Zagha about the power sector reforms as we were driving here, and we think that there has been some important lessons learned, but there are challenges about some of the distribution networks and some of the investors in the scope of their preparation to deal with all the societal aspects.

Mr. Zagha told me that he thought that this was going to be strengthened and improved so that there needed to be further work in this area, but I'll let him add any other points.

MR. ZAGHA: That sums it up pretty well. The power sector is a challenge all over India, and Odisha has been a pioneer in introducing power sector reform which has become a model for the rest of Indianational legislation has been changed as a result. But all over India, there are very few states, can hardly think of any at this juncture, [unclear] where the distribution companies are financially solvent. And once the distribution company is not financially solvable then it backs up transmission, generation and the whole sector becomes incapable of producing itself and expanding. So we think there's a very quick [inaudible]. 

Two: Translated Text

REPORTER: Mr. President this is Nageshwar Patnaik from Economic Times. The World Bank in fact has been associated with Odisha now for over a decade, as you said rightly. It initiated reforms process in the power sector, and the other states learnt from it, but today there is a setback in power reforms in Odisha with the distribution sector totally floundering. Will World Bank aid come up with some kind of a plan so that this sector can be fine?



MR. ZOELLICK: I was talking with Roberto Zagha about the power sector reforms as we were driving here(because I have no idea whatsoever about the important issues of the state, and I was getting a quick briefing so that I can give good sound bites), and we think that there has been some important lessons learned,(meaning, we have screwed up badly, people have been suffering, and we had to say, oops, that looks like something bad)  but there are challenges about some of the distribution networks (basically the problem remains unsolved) and some of the investors in the scope of their preparation to deal with all the societal aspects(when planning their project, the investors planned only on how to increase their profits, they sort of forgot the people and that they had to deliver electricity as a service).



Mr. Zagha told me that he thought that this was going to be strengthened and improved (we messed it up, so we were hoping that some patchwork solutions can be found to cover up things) so that there needed to be further work in this area (I know that when initiating the reforms we had sort of said they were a panacea and THE solution,  and that we had thought of everything, but it does appear that we may not have not done everything that should be done), but I'll let him add any other points (thanks, that's the limit of what I know about this since how much can you know in a few minutes briefing in the car?).



MR. ZAGHA: That sums it up pretty well (I myself don't know too much more, and why should I open my big month and take the blame? Let the boss take the heat). The power sector is a challenge all over India (In spite of all over noises and pressures and conditionalities since 1991, we still have not been able to find solutions) , and Odisha has been a pioneer in introducing power sector reform (it was the state which could not resist us, the other more powerful states did) which has become a model for the rest of India national legislation has been changed as a result (Its a great skill we have at the Bank, even though our basic experiment is a failure, we can persuade governments to scale them up. We are trying the same in privatisaiton of water). But all over India, there are very few states, can hardly think of any at this juncture, [unclear] where the distribution companies are financially solvent (Yes, I say it again, in spite of our efforts sine 1991, we have got any state power systems to work). And once the distribution company is not financially solvable then it backs up transmission, generation and the whole sector becomes incapable of producing itself and expanding (I mean, if there are no profits to be made, why.... should the companies be there? Why should people get the basic services of electricity if there are no profits, even though the power plants use the country’s coal, the country's land, the country's water? ). So we think there's a very quick [inaudible]. (Last resort when you have run out of answers, mumble something and look at the mike quizzically as if it has stopped working.)

Wind Energy, Yes - But Can We Do it Decently?

I do believe that wind energy will be an important part of moving to a sustainable energy supply for India. Yet, it is not binding on us that we do it in as gross a manner as possible. The picture below shows that we are going about it in the same mindless manner that we go about installing conventional power generation capacity. We should not remain in this blissful state of deluding ourselves that just because we are installing wind (or solar) that there will be no impacts.

Photo From MoEF Publication on Sustainable Development

In fact, wind and solar, if installed on the same scale as conventional energy will also have huge impacts. Sure, these may be less serious than drowning hundreds of villages in a dam, or spreading coal ash all over the place, but the key thing is that there will be impacts – social, environmental and others.

Coal Ash Dump in Odisha - Note Location Close to Water Body

So when pushing for sources like wind, we should avoid making the same mistake we have made with conventional sources – go about as if there are no impacts, or worse, don’t bother about the impacts because they are to be faced by some one else, someone who is economically and politically weak. The story of what Enercon Wind Farms project is doing in Kalpavalli region in Andhra Pradesh's Anantapur district is an example of this, and a pointer to what can happen. See the Kalpavalli story in Down To Earth at http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/green-energy-takes-toll-green-cover

India’s Submissions to UN Panel on Sustainability: A Missed Opportunity

The Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), Government of India’s recent submissions to the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel for Global Sustainability, on the occasion of its meeting at Helsinki on 17^th May 2011 “made a strong call for equity and universal energy access by the year 2030 for all.”[i] While the call for equity is welcome, it is a moot question as to why the world needs to wait till 2030 – almost 20 more years – before universal energy access is a reality.

Moreover, India’s detailed proposals to actualize universal energy access lack coherence, and belie the expectations raised by its strong call for equity. This note presents a critical look at the proposal on universal energy access.

MoEF has submitted three notes to back up its call, one on equity and sustainable development, the second on universal energy access, and the third outlining a new indicator to measure sustainable development.

Note on Equity in the Context of Sustainable Development

The note on Equity is a very well written note, outlining comprehensively what equity means, and how sustainability, environmentalism, and sustainable development is inextricably linked with equity. It is unfortunate, then, that this note does not inform the other note on Universal Energy Access (UEA Note). In a sense, it appears that the Minister’s left hand does not know what the right is doing.

Note on Universal Energy Access by 2030

The UEA Note starts with a very interesting statement that

“…the world has enough energy resources to last for centuries. Coal and nuclear can sustain the world energy for over four centuries. Therefore, there is no global energy crisis.”

If this is the case, the natural question is why so many people are without access to energy. (A wrong usage of units causes some confusion here, and even if it is a typo, such errors should be avoided when submitting notes at this level.)

The problem, according to the note, is that we are attempting to satisfy three criteria simultaneously – energy security, economics and environmental compatibility. However, subsequent discussions reduce the environmental problem to essentially that of carbon emissions. This is not only a very narrow view of the environmental impacts, but such an emphasis on the climate angle undermines India’s own stated position[ii] that it is not responsible for the climate crisis and hence the main liability to address it should be of those who have been the main contributors. The long section on Low Carbon Options seems a digression and does not fit into the main theme of the note, namely, universalizing energy access.

The note is problematic in many other ways. First of all, it has not stated explicitly what needs universal energy access is supposed to meet. By inference, we see that the aim seems to be to cover energy for lighting and cooking. Whatever it may be, it needed to be made explicit, as the expectations from universal energy access may be more than this. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many rural and poor households in India deem electricity for running TV sets and cell phone chargers to be as fundamental a need as lighting.

Secondly, there is no explanation as to why it should take 20 years to universalize energy access. Indeed, India should have strongly argued for a much smaller period to achieve this.

Thirdly, the note somehow very easily – and without and logical explanation – slips into the assumption that universalisation of energy access will have to come from decentralized, renewable sources like solar, which are very expensive at this moment. It is true that in some cases, decentralized renewable sources may be the most optimal option, but this need not be always the case. As a recent paper by Prayas Energy Group, Pune shows[iii], there are many steps, including allocation of energy from centralized sources on a priority basis to the poor that can help address this issue.

Fourth is the issue of burdening energy supply to the poor with extraneous considerations.

In his letter to the Chair of the UN Panel, Minister Jairam Ramesh says that

“The challenge before us is to ensure that this [universal energy] access happens rapidly, while ensuring that the sustainability related constraints are not violated”.

The UEA Note makes these sustainability constraints more explicit. It states that

“This [universalizing energy access] is a daunting task in its own right and it is further complicated by the constraint of reducing global CO2 emissions.”

What is puzzling and difficult to understand in this whole argument is why universalizing energy access should be made to shoulder the burden of sustainability related constraints, in particular reducing carbon emissions. We can well understand that local sustainability issues like preservation of forests, rivers etc would be important. But why load the burden of cutting global carbon emissions onto the energy for the poor?

Indeed, the UEA Note says that given the energy aspirations of developing countries (not to mention the heavy energy use lifestyles of the developed countries), coal will continue to remain a major part of world energy mix under any scenario. In other words, the world will continue to burn coal (and oil), emitting green house gases in huge quantities – to run the air conditions of the rich, to drive their automobiles, to light up big malls, run energy guzzling appliances like heaters and so on, but when it comes to meeting the energy for universal energy access, for the most basic needs, we want to insist that it meets the constraint of sustainability and reducing global CO2 emissions. This runs completely contrary to the basic principles of equity, which the other note of the MoEF has very well articulated.

It should be clarified that we are not making a case for continuing with “dirty energy”, nor are we making a case for highly centralized energy supply. We are only saying that it is odd, and highly iniquitous, that we burden the energy supply to the poor with high financial costs (of decentralized options like solar), and with tight constraints of meeting sustainability norms (of global carbon emissions, something that the world’s poor have been least responsible for), all the while allowing the energy use of the rich to come from cheap sources (like coal, cheap also because it externalizes many costs), and not imposing any particular constraints on them for meeting sustainability norms.

It may be mentioned here that the so called low carbon technologies considered in this note include nuclear (and other discussions include large hydro too), so what the note is suggesting is that we opt for low carbon even if we have to pay the price of other impacts. We would argue that for India – at least for the poor in India and globally too – what is more important and more appropriate is a “low impact” portfolio of technologies, rather than a “low carbon” portfolio.

Instead of all this, the note on universal energy access should have taken a firm and unequivocal stand that whatever energy options the global community chooses, the first right and claim on these energy sources must be to meet universal energy access obligations. Moreover, while the energy needed for these obligations should meet the requirements of low local social and environmental impacts, they should not be loaded with extraneous costs like meeting global carbon emissions targets. And last but not the least, India should have argued for a much smaller time period in which to meet the objective of universal energy access.

It is only such a stand that would do justice to the strong call for the equity made by Minister Ramesh at the UN Panel meeting.

It is not known whether there were any broad based consultations – or even peer reviews of the notes prepared on behalf of the Minister for submission to the Panel – before India’s positions were finalized. It is urged that at least for the next round, such consultations should be carried out. This will help India put up coherent positions, and take the lead in pushing critical aspects like equity and justice in global efforts at sustainability.

A longer Version of this note is available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/56354214/India%E2%80%99s-Submissions-to-UN-Panel-on-Sustainability-A-Missed-Opportunity

---

[i] Press note by MoEF

[ii] Low Carbon Growth Report of MoEF

[iii] Electricity for All, Ten Ideas towards Turning Rhetoric into Reality, Prayas Energy Group, 2010.

The Threat to Nuclear Establishments in Japan, and Two Posters

Many years ago, I saw a poster whose message has forever remained etched on my mind. It was a poster on the Chernobyl nuclear disaster with a picture of the nuclear station, and just one brief, terse message. But the message captured many things about the nuclear debate, especially the arrogance of the scientific and engineering community and their utter disdain towards any questions raised by citizens. It was a searing commentary on the supremely confident assertions that everything has been thought of, and taken care of and the brushing aside or even ridiculing any other opinion, particularly using the argument that the common people know nothing and understand nothing in these highly technical matters. And then of course, the attempts to to cover up problems when they occur using the tactics of denial, suppression of information with arguments of national security and playing down the risks of problems that are impossible to deny any longer.

As the threat of a nuclear disaster looms large on Japan, I am reminded once again of that poster. It said, simply “They said it could not happen. It did.”

Repeatedly, this is the scenario we face, not just in case of nuclear, but in several other areas. They – in their supreme arrogance – assure us that it will not happen. And it does, with a monotonous certainty. This is especially true with technologies that are “highly advanced”, so advanced that no one except the scientists, engineers and of course the companies that sell them can know anything about the impacts of these technologies. And we are supposed to take them on faith, place complete trust in their sophisticated knowledge that “it can never happen.” Do we have a choice?

I think we do, but the choice has to begin far more upstream than present. It has to begin at the stage where the directions of the technologies themselves are evolving. In this, I am reminded of another poster message that I have seen. It is about all the old and new and great technologies like nuclear, genetic modification, massive dams in fragile environments and many others where the assertion is made that “this is a fail safe technology”. The poster says, “We don’t want fail safe technologies, we want technologies that can fail safely.”

(Image courtesy: http://topuspost.com/2011/03/12/nuclear-reactor-japan-but-confirms-the-radiation-leakage/)

Clearance to POSCO Project in Odisha: Taking the Nation for a Ride

With the decision on 31st Jan 2011 to grant clearance to the POSCO project, against strong recommendations of its own committees, the Environment Ministry and its Minister stand exposed. Minister Jairam Ramesh has finally shed the last vestiges of any pretence to be a Minister who is serious about implementing environmental laws.

Ramesh had initially shown much enthusiasm for enforcing to some minimum level the environmental and forestry laws, but soon this was seen to be tapering off, raising questions about whether Ramesh really is different from any earlier Environment Ministers.

He has now shown that the only difference is that he initially huffs and puffs, and breathes fire, (where there is fire, there must be smoke, to rephrase a popular saying, and where there is smoke there must a smoke screen) only to then readily hand over the clearances. The earlier ministers did not even bother about the prior pyrotechnics.

The POSCO clearance can only be described as blatant, and its justifications as insults to the intelligence of Indian citizens. For example, the clearance note put up by the Ministry on the web site announces that clearances have been granted with large number of additional conditions. Such “significant” conditions include following the existing National Ambient Air Quality Standards and ensuring that no industrial activity is carried out in the CRZ area other than permissible under the notification. In other words, the project should follow the law of the land.

Another condition is carrying out the study of the sustainability of water requirement – something which should be done before the clearance, not after. And it requires the Project to “voluntarily sacrifice water” in case of a shortfall at the source. This is a rather touching belief in the Company.

In any case, where the MoEF has hardly any capacity to monitor conditions so that it is a case “impose conditionalities and forget them”, when everyone knows that once a project is given clearance, then even if violations of conditions are noted hardy any action is taken, then what is the sanctity of these conditions? And how can the conditions form the justification of the clearance?

As the POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti has stated in its statement “The decision today can be summarised in one sentence: "Repeat your lies, give us promises that we all know are false, and then loot at will."”

The Samiti has also stated that “We repeat: we will not give up our lands, our forests and our homes to this company. It is not the meaningless orders of a mercenary government that will decide this project's fate, but the tears and blood of our people. Through the road of peaceful demonstrations and people's resistance we have fought this project, in the face of torture, jail, firings and killings. If this project comes it will come over our dead bodies.

I express my full support and solidarity to their struggle, and wish them strength and success in this fight.

My latest article is now up on India Together. It talks about the dams that China is planning to build on the Brahmaputra, the likley impacts of these dams in India, how the Government of India views these and the views of the local communities.

http://indiatogether.org/2011/jan/env-brahm.htm

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.

My New Article on Hydropower Industry's Sustainability Protocol

See my latest article, on the on the International Hydropower Association's Hydropower Sustainability Protocol...

http://www.indiatogether.org/2010/nov/opi-protocol.htm

Peter Bosshard too has a great blog piece on this topic at:

http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/blog/peter-bosshard/2010-11-19/putting-hydro-industry%E2%80%99s-fox-charge-henhouse

Putting the Hydro Industry’s Fox in Charge of the Henhouse?

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

My Article on Water as a Human Right

My article on UN recognising water as a human right is now up on India Together. You can read it at

http://indiatogether.org/2010/oct/hrt-water.htm

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

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

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.

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 *****

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 30^th 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?

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.