climate initiatives must not include large hydropower projectsvol 13 | issue 8-10 | sept-oct-nov,...

Contact :Himanshu Thakkar,Parineeta Dandekar,Bhim Rawat,Ganesh GaudDams, Rivers and PeopleC/o 86-D, AD Block,Shalimar BaghDelhi - 100 088, India.Ph: + 91 11 2748 4654/[email protected]://sandrp.wordpress.com/,www.facebook.com/sandrp.in,http://sandrp.in

1

Working for water resources development as if democracy, people and environment matter

Vol 13 | Issue 8-10 | Sept-Oct-Nov, 2015 Rs. 15/-

Index Climate Initiatives Must Not Include LargeHydropower Projects

In a global manifesto released at COP21on Dec 3, 2015, a coalition of more than300 civil society organizations from 53countries called on governments and fin-anciers at the Paris climate talks to keeplarge hydropower projects out of climateinitiatives such as the Clean Develop-ment Mechanism, the World Bank’s Cli-mate Investment Funds, and greenbonds.

Large hydropower projects emit massiveamounts of methane, make water andenergy systems more vulnerable to cli-mate change, and cause severe damageto critical ecosystems and local commu-nities. Including them in climate initia-tives crowds out support for true climatesolutions such as wind and solar powerwhich have become readily available, canbe built more quickly than large damsand have a smaller social and environ-mental footprint.

“Particularly in tropical regions, hydro-power reservoirs emit significantamounts of greenhouse gases, compa-rable to the climate impact of the avia-tion sector”, said Peter Bosshard, interimExecutive Director of International Riv-ers. “For environmental, social and eco-nomic reasons, large hydropowerprojects are a false solution to climatechange.”

“Large hydropower projects have seriousimpacts on local communities and oftenviolate the rights of indigenous peoplesto their lands, cultural integrity and free,prior informed consent”, said JoanCarling, Secretary General of the AsiaIndigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP). “The re-sistance of dam-affected communitieshas often been met with egregious hu-man rights violations.”

“Hydropower dams make water and en-ergy systems more vulnerable to climatechange,” said Himanshu Thakkar, thefounder of the South Asia Network onDams, Rivers and People (SANDRP).“Dam building has exacerbated flood di-sasters in fragile mountain areas. At the

same time more extreme droughts in-crease the economic risks of hydropower,and have greatly affected countries thatdepend on hydropower dams for most oftheir electricity.”

“Wind and solar power have becomereadily available and financially com-petitive, and have overtaken large hy-dropower in the addition of new capac-ity,” said Astrid Puentes, co-ExecutiveDirector of the Interamerican Associa-tion for Environmental Defense (AIDA).“The countries of the global South shouldleapfrog obsolete dam projects and pro-mote energy solutions that are gentle toour climate, our environment and thepeople that depend on it.”

Background: Large hydropowerprojects are often propagated as a “cleanand green” source of electricity by inter-national financial institutions, nationalgovernments and other actors. Theygreatly benefit from instruments meantto address climate change, including car-bon credits under the Clean Develop-ment Mechanism (CDM), credits fromthe World Bank’s Climate InvestmentFunds, and special financial terms fromexport credit agencies and green bonds.The dam industry advocates that largehydropower projects be funded by theGreen Climate Fund, and many govern-ments boost them as a response to cli-mate change through national initia-tives. For example, at least twelve gov-ernments with major hydropower sectorshave included an expansion of hydro-power generation in their reports on In-tended Nationally Determined Contribu-tions (INDCs). Support from climate ini-tiatives is one of the main reasons whymore than 3,700 hydropower dams arecurrently planned and under construc-tion around the world.

The Civil Society Manifesto for the Sup-port of Real Climate Solutions:

Ten Reasons Why Climate InitiativesShould Not Include Large Hydro-power Projects

Climate Initiatives Must NotInclude Large HydropowerProjects 1

Chennai Floods: Cities today,countryside tomorrow? 3

Kinnaur in crisis; SheerNegligence in hydro projectsclaiming lives. 5

Sorang Hydropower disaster:Will we learn any lessons? 7

India Rivers Day Celebratedin Delhi, Pune and elsewhere 9

Yamuna River Story 11

Dams and Equitable WaterDistribution 15

Pulse Farmers: Our RealClimate Heroes 19

India’s INDC, like its NAPCC,will increase the problems ofthe vulnerable 22

Open Letter to NBWL onKen Betwa River LinkProposal 25

Godavari Krishna RiverLinking 27

Green Signals: In search ofa Middle Ground 32

2

Dams, Rivers & People Sept-Oct-Nov, 2015

Large hydropower projects are often propagated as a “cleanand green” source of electricity by international financial in-stitutions, national governments and other actors. They greatlybenefit from instruments meant to address climate change,including carbon credits under the Clean Development Mecha-nism (CDM), credits from the World Bank’s Climate Invest-ment Funds, and special financial terms from export creditagencies and green bonds. The dam industry advocates forlarge hydropower projects to be funded by the Green ClimateFund, and many governments boost them as a response toclimate change through national initiatives. For example, atleast twelve governments with major hydropower sectors haveincluded an expansion of hydropower generation in their re-ports on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions(INDCs).

Support from climate initiatives is one of the reasons why morethan 3,700 hydropower dams are currently under construc-tion and in the pipeline. Yet large hydropower projects area false solution to climate change. They should be keptout from national and international climate initiatives for thefollowing reasons:

1. Particularly in tropical regions, hydropower reservoirs emitsignificant amounts of greenhouse gases. Accordingto a peer-reviewed study, methane from reservoirs accountsfor more than 4% of all human-caused climate change –comparable to the climate impact of the aviation sector. Insome cases, hydropower projects are producing higheremissions than coal-fired power plants generating the sameamount of electricity.

2. Rivers take about 200 million tons of carbon out of the at-mosphere every year. In addition, the silt that rivers likethe Amazon, Congo, Ganges and Mekong carry to the seafeeds plankton and absorbs large amounts of carbon. Hy-dropower projects and other dams disrupt the transport ofsilt and nutrients and impair the role of rivers to actas global carbon sinks.

3. Hydropower dams make water and energy systemsmore vulnerable to climate change. Unprecedentedfloods are threatening the safety of dams and alone in theUS have caused more than 100 dams to fail since 2010.Dam building has exacerbated flood disasters in fragilemountain areas such as Uttarakhand/India. At the sametime more extreme droughts increase the economic risksof hydropower, and have greatly affected countries fromAfrica to Brazil that depend on hydropower dams for mostof their electricity.

4. In contrast to most wind, solar and micro-hydropowerprojects, dams cause severe and often irreversibledamage to critical ecosystems. Due to dam building andother factors, freshwater ecosystems have on average lost76% of their populations since 1970 – more than marineand land-based ecosystems. Building more dams to pro-tect ecosystems from climate change means sacrificing theplanet’s arteries to protect her lungs.

5. Large hydropower projects have serious impacts on lo-cal communities and often violate the rights of in-digenous peoples to their lands, territories, resources, governance, cultural integrity and free, prior informed con-sent. Dams have displaced at least 40-80 million peopleand have negatively affected an estimated 472 millionpeople living downstream. The resistance of dam-affected

communities has often been met with egregious humanrights violations.

6. Large hydropower projects are not always an effectivetool to expand energy access for poor people. In con-trast to wind, solar and micro-hydropower, large hydro-power dams depend on central electric grids, which arenot a cost-effective tool to reach rural populations particu-larly in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Himalayas. Large hy-dropower projects are often built to meet the demands ofmining and industrial projects even if they are justified bythe needs of the poor.

7. Even if they were a good solution in other ways, large hy-dropower projects would be a costly and time-consum-ing way to address the climate crisis. On average largedams experience cost overruns of 96% and time overrunsof 44%. In comparison, wind and solar projects can be builtmore quickly and experience average cost overruns of lessthan 10%.

8. Unlike wind and solar power, hydropower is no longeran innovative technology, and has not seen major tech-nical breakthroughs in several decades. Unlike with solarpower, climate funding for large hydropower projects willnot bring about further economies of scale, and does notencourage a transfer of new technologies to Southern coun-tries.

9. Wind and solar power have become readily availableand financially competitive, and have overtaken largehydropower in the addition of new capacity. As grids be-come smarter and the cost of battery storage drops, newhydropower projects are no longer needed to balance in-termittent sources of renewable energy.

10. Hydropower projects currently make up 26% of all projectsregistered with the CDM, and absorb significant supportfrom other climate initiatives. Climate finance for largehydropower projects crowds out support for real solu-tions such as wind, solar and micro hydropower, and cre-ates the illusion of real climate action. Including large hy-dropower in climate initiatives falsely appears to obliter-ate the need for additional real climate solutions.

For these reasons, the undersigned organizations and indi-viduals call on governments, financiers and other insti-tutions to keep large hydropower projects out of theirinitiatives to address climate change. Outside climateinitiatives, such projects should only go forward under a fullassessment of all options as well as strict social and environ-mental conditions such as those recommended by the WorldCommission on Dams.

Amazon Watch – Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact –Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del

Ambiente – Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation– Carbon Market Watch – International Rivers –

Jeunes Volontaires pour l’Environnement Interna-tional – Oxfam International – South Asia Network on

Dams, Rivers and People – Urgewald

Further information:

1 The civil society manifesto, Ten Reasons Why Climate Ini-tiatives Should Not Include Large Hydropower Projects:www.internationalrivers.org/node/9204.

2. The new video, A Wrong Climate for Damming Rivers:https://vimeo.com/147261951.

3


CHENNAI FLOODS: Cities today, countryside tomorrow?Chennai is going through the same hell today thatMumbai did in July 2005, Surat in August 2006, Ambalaand Moradabad in 2010 and Srinagar and Guwahati inSeptember 2014. High rainfall event and the waters’ in-ability to leave the city harmlessly, flooding houses (manybuilt by the state housing boards), offices, commercialestablishments, roads, railway lines and even the air-port and the resulting misery for residents, travelers,industry, commerce and the tourists alike.

Notwithstanding the quick response for succor by thedisaster management teams, and the units of the NDRFand the armed forces and nerves of steel exhibited bythe people in distress, question that begs answer is howdid this happen and why does the nation continue tosuffer likewise, repeatedly.

While answers are not far to seek in terms of faulty ur-ban planning coupled with deep seated corruption in-volved in construction approvals, the root cause lies morein absence of appropriate land use planning and catego-rization in the country. While urban master plans at hugecosts are now indeed being made, but the fact remainsthat their violation and subsequent regularisation areroutine and dime a dozen. There are examples galore inthe national capital Delhi and the NCR (national capi-tal region) townships of such violations and subsequentchanges in the master plans, as in many other cities ofIndia.

Another is the manner in which the natural water bod-ies including lakes, streams and rivers that criss-crossedour cities and countryside have been seen more as empty

lands awaiting ‘development’ (sic) than as part of essen-tial and appropriate land use necessary to ensure thecity and regions’ water security, natural environs andflood mitigation1. The fact that there is hardly any legalprohibition in place to safeguard the flood plains andcatchments of our water bodies including rivers has madethe task of exploiters that much easier. It is a commonsight in our cities and now more and more in rural settle-ments when such exploitation begins with a public facil-ity like a school, a temple, a bus stand, a hospital, a firestation, a police station etc splitting and invading thenatural spread of a water body or the flood plains of astream or a river and then is followed by shops, build-ings and even residential colonies draining out and thentaking over the said water body.

For example, the construction of Akshardham, Metrodepot and Commonwealth games village in the river bedand the rampant concretisation and covering of the stormwater drains in Delhi and the encroachment and con-cretization of the Sabarmati river bed in the name ofriverfront development in Ahmedabad are an invitationto trouble and possible disaster for the cities in ques-tion.

Thus tragic but no wonder why Chennai having lostmajority of its 650 wetlands to such insidious encroach-ments and conversion to alternate uses, is facing such adeluge.

Two cases in point are the Chennai international air-port at Meenambakkam, which went under deep wa-ters and the MIOT hospital with reportedly flood induced

1 http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-india-flooding-20151203-story.html

Chennai International Airport & the Adyar river

4


deaths of patients which are making the most news.While the airport spread over the active flood plains ofriver Adyar (one of the two life-line rivers of Chennai)with one of its air strips actually cutting right throughthe river’s channel is a classic example of faulty landuse and planning, it being a perfect sitting duck in floodsituations, the hospital is not only located in the activeflood plain but has also obstructed a major storm waterdrain of the city (see the google images) suffering in-undations, reported breakdown in its power backup gen-erators and resulting death of critically ill patients. Whyand how such constructions in active flood plain werepermitted is anybody’s guess. Dig deeper and one mayfind the usual story of compromised experts lookingunder political pressures the other way while giving agreen signal. It is unfortunately now typical of the func-tioning of our Expert Appraisal Committees, Environ-mental Impact Assessments, and the compromised en-vironmental governance by the Ministry of Environmentand Forests and the concerned state level agencies.

We at the Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan and many likemindedfriends have been consistently appealing since the year2007 to various relevant authorities including the of-fices of the Prime Minister and the Union Minister ofEnvironment & Forests for the promulgation of the longpending (since 2002) River Zone Regulation (RRZ) noti-fication under the Environment Protection Act, 1986which once in place could place legal restriction on suchirresponsible and dangerous misuse of the river’s floodplains in the country.

It is our understanding that the latest draft of the RRZis sitting in the MoEF&CC awaiting final nod of theHon’ble Environment Minister for its publication invit-ing public comments. It is ironical that the same UnionMinister who is mighty busy at the COP21 parleys inParis could not find time to approve a draft RRZ withimmense implications for the nation’s ability to adapt tothe adverse impacts of Climate Change of which thedeluge in Chennai is being cited as a prime example?He was even quick to relate Chennai flooding to climatechange and pinned the blame onto the developed na-tions, with no bother of defaults in his own ministry in-discriminately clearing projects after projects, while sit-ting over the RRZ notification? It was good though, tosee Ms Maneka Gandhi from the same cabinet makingit clear in an interview to NDTV that India is a majorculprit whose actions on climate have led to the Chennaifloods.2 Today, “India is one of the main players in de-stroying the climate”, she said.

While climate change is going to bring high intensityrainfall more frequently to our shores, the damage weare doing within our cities and countryside to their natu-ral resources is hugely increasing the proportions of cli-mate change induced disasters. Sooner we understoodthis and put our environment governance on the rightpath, and may be begin with promulgating the RRZ no-tification better it will be for ourselves.

Manoj Misra([email protected])

2 http://www.firstpost.com/politics/maneka-contradicts-modi-says-chennai-flood-is-because-india-is-destroying-climate-2532536.html

MIOT Hospital in active flood plain of river Adyar and sitting over a storm water drain

5


Kinnaur in crisis; Sheer Negligence in hydro projects claiming lives. Who is accountable?

In the last two weeks a half a dozen lives have been lostin the Kinnaur region alone in three separate incidentsthat have one thing in common – accidents at hydro-power project sites. The first event took place in Burangvillage on the 18th November 2015 where a penstock pipeburst of the 100 MW Sorang Hydro-electric project ledto the death of three people. On 29th November, twolabourers died in blasting operations in the 450 MWShongthong Karchham project, some others were seri-ously injured. And on the same day in the Bhabha Val-ley, a young teacher lost her life in a landslide that oc-curred in the area next to a hydropower project.

Even now more lives are at stake - Four days after theSorang project disaster on 22nd November, a massivelandslide occurred in Chagaon Village, located on thealignment of the Karchham Wangtoo project’s tunnel.While houses and property was damaged, fortunatelythere were no fatalities. More of the area is vulnerableto slide. Residents of Panvi Panchayat from Kinnaurcarried out a demonstration last week at Shimla pro-testing the cracks in their houses due to the undergroundconstruction by the 9 MW Ralla-Taranda project.

It is time that the Himachal & Union governments wakeup from their long slumber, because these events arenot freak accidents, they are the result of sheer negli-gence in the construction of hydropower projects in thestate. This negligence is evident at two levels – firstlythe failure in ensuring compliance to environmental andsafety norms by project authorities and the government.The second, is the negligence towards the very impacts

of unregulated hydropower development. In both casesthe project authorities have shown sheer callousness,continuously ignoring the issues raised by local peopleand environmentalists.

Now the geological, ecological and hydrological impactsof these projects, especially in fragile zones like Kinnaurare clearly emerging. The government has not just over-looked these impacts but justified each and every projectmaking excuses and even trying to cover these impacts.For instance, the issue of slope destabilisation and land-slides in Kinnaur has been blamed on rainfall fluctua-tions, floods or other natural factors without conductingany independent studies. The project authorities havegone to the extent of saying that these landslides areoccurring naturally in the area. If that is the case, is itnot all the more reason that the construction in theseregions has to be controlled and regulated rather thanallowing disastrous projects like Karchham Wangtoo tocome up here?

As far as issues of safety regulations and monitoringgoes, there are ample number of incidences vis-a-vis hy-dropower projects that have occurred in the last coupleof years apart from the ones that happened in the lasttwo weeks in Kinnaur. The seepage in the Chamera IIIproject that washed off Mokhar village’s habitations, thereservoir of the Aleo-II project in Kullu in its first test-ing, burst washing off the labour camps; the seepages inthe Karchham Wangtoo tunnel which were noticed in2011 - are indicators of a disaster waiting to happen.Despite it being mandatory as per the Hydropower Policy

2006 that there will bea safety monitoring au-thority in the statethat will look into thesafety and qualitymonitoring for hydro-power projects, no suchauthority existed tillrecently. As late as Au-gust 2013, the Depart-ment of Power andMPP issued a notifica-tion about the creationof such an authority.Now the governmentshould immediatelymake public all thework that has beendone by this authorityin the last two years.The people have a

Cracks on link road Chagaoun

6


right to know, how often thiscommittee convened its meet-ings, which are the projects ithas monitored and what actionhas been taken in the cases ofnegligence and accidents. Hasany punitive action been takenagainst power companies fornegligence?

It needs to be put on record, inthe context of the 100 MWSorang Hydro-Electric Projectthat the villagers had brought tothe company’s notice that therewere leakages in the penstockpipe at an earlier date on 8th May2015. This indicates that therewas some technical fault in theproject despite which the testingwas carried out. Further, itneeds to be noted that on thenight of the testing (when the ac-cident occurred) no warning wasissued by the project authorities while carrying out thetesting of the penstock pipe.

Today, the Burang village is nothing less than a dangerzone with rock and debris just hanging above heads ofthe residents. We wonder how the company even hadthe audacity to carry out construction in an area wherethere was habitation – even if temporary/ for part of theyear. In event of heavy rains or tremors of any sort there

will be additional damage and fatality which should beavoided at any cost. All families who are residing inBurang need to be protected so that they do not becomevictims of yet another accident which could happen dueto sheer negligence of the company as well as the ad-ministration, who are now responsible for the safety ofthe people.

The failure is of the central and state monitoring andregulatory authorities who haveignored the several incidents oflandslides, massive erosion, dry-ing up of water sources, suddenreappearance of water sources,deforestation leading to soil ero-sion, illegal muck dumping etc.Despite the impact of these onthe horticulture, local vegetablecultivation, day to day life andsafety of the people, the govern-ment has not taken any actionwhatsoever on project propo-nents and have been blind to theissues raised by the affectedpeople time and again.

(Manshi Asher, PrakashBhandari and Sumit Mahar,

Himdhara EnvironmentResearch and Action Collective

89882 75737,[email protected])

House is sliding Burang, Shorang HEP

Penstock of Sorang HEP

7


Sorang Hydropower disaster: Will we learn any lessons?

A burst in penstock pipe of 100 MW Sorang hydro powerproject (HEP) in Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh haveplayed havoc with the lives and livelihoods of people ofBurang and surrounding villages. On surface it may looklike an accident. But deeper look raises doubts aboutmany systemic loopholes that allowed the siutation thatled to the disaster. Let us see the shortcomings and neg-ligence exercised by project proponent and state gov-ernment which finally resulted in the fatal accident. Weurge the Central government, the Himachal PradeshGovt. and other governments where such projects arecoming up, to constitute a monitoring cell to inspectquality of construction of ongoing HEPs in the State andform adequate safety standards and enusre their strictimplementation to prevent such mishaps from becom-ing a norm.

Some detail of Sorang HEP & Developing Compa-nies The 100 (50X2) MW Sorang HEP is a run-of-the-river project. It is located on the Sorang Khad a SatlujRiver tributary in Kannuar district 170 KM from Shimla.The cost of the project was estimated Rs 568 crores andHimachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEB) hasauthorised the Himachal Sorang Power Private Limited,(HSPPL) for implementation of the project. The Envi-ronment Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project wasdone 2006. In 2007, Nagarjuna Construction CompanyLimited (NCC) and Infrastructure Leasing and Finan-cial Solutions (IL&FS) company entered a Special Pur-pose Vehicle (SPV) with HSPPL to develop the project.The company had 40 years concession to operate andmanage the project.

The project missed 2012 completion timeline. Meanwhilein January 2012 Abu Dhabi based Energy CompanyPJSC (TAQA) and Jyoti Structures Ltd. (JSL) formingTAQA Jyoti joint venture initially acquired 5% stake inSorang HEP and planned to progressively purchase100% stake in the project. In February 2013, NCC alsosold its entire SPV equity in HSPPL to TAQA. Sincethen TAQA was the main company responsible for de-veloping and running the project.

Details of the Sorang HEP mishap Burang is locatedin Bhava Nagar sub-division of Kinnaur districts inHimachal Pradesh. The power station of the Sorang HEPlies close to the village on eastern side. From the powerhouse a 500 meter long penstock pipe is connected withproject tunnel located uphill.

On 18 Nov. 2015, the Borang villagers, Kinnaur,Himachal Pradesh were just retiring to bed for a peace-ful sleep. They had no idea that the night will turn outto be a nightmare in their lives. Around 08:30 PM abursting sound occurred in the penstock pipe. Before theycould make out anything, water started flooding the vil-lage. In no time the deluge washed away homes, cattleshades and village farms leaving behind at least 3 peopledead, four missing, several injured and hundreds of live-stock washed away.

Damage caused As per the latest report, three peoplehave died in the incident and four others are missingafter the deluge. Several persons could save their livesby clinging to pillars. Six homes are destroyed fully

Google image of the project area

8


and many others have received partial damage. The floodstruck down several cattle shelters washing away morethan 240 sheep and mules. Many farm lands were alsodestroyed by water currents. The main bridge of the vil-lage has been blown away. In a whole the accident havecost losses of crores to Burang villagers.

Who is responsible for the disaster? Villagers hadspotted a leak in the penstock pipe long time back andcomplained about it many times to the company and dis-trict administration. But neither company nor adminis-tration paid any heed to it.

As per the rule NCC could not sell its equity before Com-mercial Operating Date (COD) of Sorang HEP. TheProject is still under-construction then how could NCCmanaged to do that is a matter of inquiry.

Also in the Sorang HEP is still under construction. Theincident happened during a trial run. But the owner com-pany TAQA has officially announced selling energy fromit even before the trial run is over or is successful. Thisshould also be investigated. This was the fourth andthe biggest accident involving Sorang HEP. Earlier threein last two years were grossly overlooked by project pro-ponent and concerned govt. agency.

On 14 June 2015 too, in a similar incident, the inlet valveof 2MW Rongtong HEP in Spiti valley blasted killingthree engineers. The project was under construction andscheduled to be inaugurated a week later by Chief Min-ister Himachal Pradesh.

HPESB had then set up a four member committee toinquiry into the matter. As a preventive measureHPESP could have extended its inquiry to all un-der- constructional HEP in the state at that time.

Presently in India there is no credible mechanism inplace to continuously monitor the quality of construc-tion of ongoing HEPs and put the monitoring report inpublic domain. This loophole is an invitation to such ac-cidents. It becomes even more relevant when companiesthat have no experience in building such projects or pri-vate companies that are out to cut corners are involvedin building such projects. The situation becomes evenmore problematic since the companies know that theycan get away with such practices and nobody will beheld accountable.

This was also exposed earlier when the surge shaft ofthe 1000 MW Karcham Wangtoo HEP was accidentlyfound to be heavily leaking, in the same Kinnaur dis-trict in Himachal Pradesh. In Uttarakhand flood disas-ter in June 2013, the wrong operation of Vishnuprayagand Srinagar HEPs increasted the downstream disas-ter hugely, as Ravi Chopra Committee concluded.

Government also lacks standard safety measures andthe implementation of existing ones inspires no confi-dence. Central Electricity Authority, the highest tech-nical body in power sector in India, who is tasked withmonitoring and ensuring proper construction, is clearlyfound to be wanting and the authrotiy is completely nontransparent in these respects. It is supposed to getmonthly and quarterly reports from under construcitonhydropower projects in India, but none of them are everput in public domain. CEA used to put up monthly sum-mary of monitoring reports for under construction hy-dropower projects, but it has stoped doing that for morethan year now.

HEP developers, like in case of Sorang HEP enter andexit a project suiting to their financial interests, with-out the state government or central government agen-cies looking to the capacity of these compenies or check-ing adequacy of what is happening on ground. This againis an invitation to such disasters. This is applicable tooperation (e.g. Larji disaster in Himachal Pradesh inJune 2014) and construction of the projects.

Conclusion Burang Villagers are still in shock and willtake months to return to their normal lives. Districtadministration has announced monetary compensationand police has lodged an inquiry. The investigation willgo on for months and final recommendations will neverbe out in public domain and mostly remain only on pa-per. The incident will be forgotten until a new one strucksome other hilly village. How long will this continue?Why are there no reforms to prevent such avoidable man-made disasters?

Prima facie it is a clear example of negligence done byconstruction Company, project developer, State Govern-ment of Himachal Pradesh, Central Electricty Author-ity and Union Power Ministry. It is high time that theHimachal Pradesh Govt. learnt lessons from past acci-dents and take corrective measures. It should set up aconfidence inspiring and independent work-qualitymonitoring panel to periodically inspect the quality ofconstruction of HEPs in Himachal. The State Govt.should also form adequate safety standards and ensureproper implementation of all theses. For this disaster,an independent committee should be set up and reportput in public domain. The project should not be allowedto do any further work till this inquiry is over. The projectshould also be asked to submit their report as to whatled to the disaster. CEA also needs to put its house inorder and also put in public domain the monthly reportsfor each hydropower project under construction as alsoreports of independent monitoring.

Bhim Singh Rawat([email protected]) SANDRP

9


INDIA RIVERS DAY CELERBRATED in Delhi, Pune and elsewhereBhagirath Prayas Samman Awards given to four for exemplary work on river conservation

Delhi Water Minister Kapil Mishra: “Delhi does not need Renuka dam, Sharda Yamuna River linkor any new external source of water”; Minister in dialogue with school kids

Anupam Mishra gives Iyer Memorial lecture: “Change the mindset to conserve rivers”

At a well attended India Rivers Day 2015 function heldat the INTACH auditorium, New Delhi on 28th of No-vember, 2015, Delhi Water Minister Kapil Mishra de-clared that he personally takes the responsibility forensuring that Yamuna will have bathing quality waterin three years. He also made it very clear that Delhidoes not any more water from external sources likeRenuka dam or Sharda Yamuna River link. He also saidthat his government has asked Delhi Jal Board to shelveits Rs 20 000 Crore Delhi Sewerage master plan and instead work on decentralized sewage treatment and re-cycle plan and welcomed suggestions from all concerned,how to make this possible.

The India Rivers Day Function brought together sev-eral individuals and organisations who have been work-ing on the issues of river conservation in the country.Following the success of last year’s first ever India Riv-ers Week held from 24-27 November 2014, the consor-tium of NGOs including WWF-India, INTACH, SANDRP,

Toxic Link and Peace Institute came together to celebrateIndia Rivers Day on Nov 28, 2015. They have also orga-nized an exhibition on the occasion that showcased thepast, present and (desirable) future of the river Yamuna,the exhibition was inaugurated by Shri Kapil Mishra.

Anupam Mishra speaks on Science of Rivers Inmemory of late Sri Ramaswamy R. Iyer, formerHonourable Chairman, Organizing Committee of theIndia Rivers Week 2014, a lecture on “Science of Rivers”was delivered by Sri Anupam Mishra, Gandhi PeaceFoundation, who is well known for his advocacy on pru-dent use of our water resources through numerous ways,including his most famous books: Aaj Bhi Khare HaiTalaab and Rajasthan Ki Rajat Bunde. Sri Mishra spokeon the value of time-tested systems of water manage-ment and the need to promote the use of indigenousknowledge to solve water problems instead of giganticand destructive schemes like interlinking of rivers. Inhis speech Mishra said, “It is important to acknowledge

Winners of Bhagirath Prayas Samman 2015

10


that rivers have the right to flow and live. We need tochange our attitude towards rivers. Yamuna as a riveris supposed to flow and our society needs to start appre-ciating the role Rivers play in our lives.”

Bhagirath Prayas Samman The Organizing Commit-tee of the India Rivers Day have continued the givingaway of Bhagirath Prayas Samman Awards this year. A5 member jury headed by Shri Anupam Mishra selectedthis years’ winners based on the criteria and work of thenominees for their work in working towards protectingand rejuvenating the rivers. Bhagirath Prayas Sammanwas constituted in 2014 to honour outstanding, sustainedefforts/contributions (prayas/tapasya) of river warriorstowards protection and conservation of rivers. The em-phasis is on inspirational efforts/ prayas/ initiatives (cam-paigns, advocacy, legal discourse) and sustained passionto conserve rivers. This year’s Bhagirath PrayasSamman awards were conferred on the following extraor-dinary individual/ organisations:

Save Mon Region Federation for their exemplarywork to safeguard the integrity of the River Tawang andNyamjangchhu (Arunachal Pradesh). The land withseven rivers and home to the ethnic Monpa tribe was offlate being threatened by 15 proposed hydropower damsto develop 3500 megawatts (MW) power, the main onesbeing 600 MW Tawang 1, 800 MW Tawang 2 and the780 MW Nyamjangchhu projects. The project clearanceshad been expedited at the cost of social, cultural andenvironmental needs. Buddhist Lamas (monks) led theprotests against the destructive projects under this Fed-eration to protect the river at great risk and repression.Lobsang Gyatso, General Secretary, SMRF received theaward on behalf of Save Mon Region Federation.

Sachidanand Bharati, of Doodhatolli Lok VikashSansthan (Uttarakhand) was awarded for his dedicatedwork on rejuvenating river Gad Ganga. Bharati, an emi-nent environmental crusader, had been organizingwomen into groups of green police, the Mahila MangalDals, to create and protect forests. He had also workedon reviving River Gadganga by combining people’sknowledge of traditional water management systemthrough construction of over 20000 chaals and khaals.

Sambhaav Trust for their work on revival of RiverNanduwali in Alwar under which a group of 17 villagesdecided to focus on conservation of forest, land, waterand livestock and through the effort rejuvenatedNanduwali rivers, which was once dry. The work is now,for over last five years, being sustained through thesteam of the people, without any funding.

Emmanuel Theophilus was awarded for his work onprotecting the integrity of River Mahakali inUttarakhand. He had recently done an epic voyage alongthe Ganga where he travelled nearly 2000 kilometers of

the river. He had recently worked on a report forSANDRP titled ‘Headwater Extinctions’ which lookedat impacts of hydropower dams in Upper Ganga and BeasBasins on fish and riverine ecosystems.

A noteworthy part of the meeting this year was partici-pation of children from three different schools of Delhi,who asked Minister Kapil Mishra questions about thestate of Yamuna River and what the government is do-ing about it. Mr Mishra answered the questions of theschool children and also other participants andemphasised that it is only when people get connected tothe river that it will be possible rejuvenate Yamuna. Heunderlined the role of children in this effort. He wel-comed the celebration of India Rivers Day, though ex-pressed worry that this shows how bad is the state ofour Rivers.

Shri Shashi Shekhar, secretary, Union Water ResourcesMinistry, who was to preside over the meeting, couldnot come due to ill health, but has sent a message wel-coming the efforts of the organizing committee andwished the meeting all the success.

“Rivers shows us a reflection of our cities. The time hascome. Mindsets are changing, governments are chang-ing in accordance. A changing Yamuna is therefore boundto reflect changes in the city. It is not an easy task butwe are ready to take risks. Likeminded people havestarted to run the show now and I truly believe thattogether all this positive energy is sure going to bringabout a positive change and will help us save theriver” said Shri Kapil Mishra, Minister of Water,Tourism, Art, Culture and Gurudwara Election,Government of NCT, Delhi. He also made it clear thatSabarmati is not an example of river front developmentor river rejuvenation.

The organizing committee has ensured that they wouldlike to continue this annual effort and will welcome sug-gestions from all concerned about the meeting and alsoabout the nominations for future BPS awards. The housewas addressed by the following speakers from amongstthe Organising Committee: Manoj Misra (Yamuna JiyeAbhiyaan), Jayesh Bhatia (PEACE Institute), SureshBabu (WWF-India), Manu Bhatnagar (INTACH), RaviAgarwal (Toxics Link) and Himanshu Thakkar(SANDRP).

(Suresh Babu (WWF-India);9818997999; [email protected], Manu Bhatnagar(INTACH); 9810036461; [email protected],

Ravi Agarwal (Toxics Link); 9810037355;[email protected], Manoj Misra (Yamuna JiyeAbhiyan); 9910153601; [email protected],

Jayesh Bhatia (Peace Institute CharitableTrust) [email protected], Himanshu Thakkar

(SANDRP); 9968242798; [email protected])

11


Yamuna River StoryRiver Yamuna is fifth longest river of India. For pastmany centuries it has been sustaining means of liveli-hoods to millions and thousands in pursuit of spiritualinspiration venerate it. But at present, the river is morein news for its highly polluted state. In this article I at-tempt to presents a picture of the River Yamuna Basin.

Introduction River Yamunaoriginates from frozenChampasar Lake lo-cated in BandarpoochGlacier at a height of6387 meters (380 592 N780 272 E) located inHar-Ki-Doon mountainrange of Uttarkashi,Uttarakhand. It runsthrough series of snowcapped and forested val-leys in Himalaya before entering the Indo-Gangeticplains of north India. After traversing for 1376 km fi-nally the river merges into River Ganga at Allahabad,UP.

Scared places along River Yamuna The origin pointof River Yamuna is famously known as Yamnotri shrine.It is the first place to be seen during Char Dham pil-grimage and thousands of pilgrims annually visit theshrine. Entire Yamuna valley is full of many sacredshrines and mythological sites devoted to saints and leg-ends of ancient era. Kindly visit SANDRP blog link(https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/yamuna-river-story/) to explore the list of prominent holy shrines andmythological sites located along River Yamuna.

Besides this there are many historical places and monu-ments not fully known about but present inseparableconnection betweenRiver Yamuna and theera they belong to.Kindly visit SANDRPBlog to see the detail ofhistorical places andmonuments relatedwith River Yamuna.

Religious signifi-cance of River Yamuna According holy books Yamunais daughter of Lord Sun and sister of Yamraj (God ofDeath) and Shani (God of punishment). Hence it is be-lieved that taking a bath in Yamuna absolves one ofworldly sins. Yamuna River is also called Jamuna andKalndi at different places along its course. The life ofLord Krishana is profoundly related to River Yamuna.

Before Sangam, Ganga is believed to be meeting Yamunathrice in Uttarkhand. Some scriptures mentions River

Yamuna purer than River Ganga and prescribe sip ofYamuna water and dip in Ganga water (Yamuna Pan,Ganga Snan) to be highly sanctifying.

In Pustimarg Yamuna River has three forms: spiritual,physical and of a goddess and without worshippingYamuna rituals are considered incomplete. Lord Krishna

is the chief deity of thesect and Yamuna is wor-shiped as his fourth con-sort (chaturth Patrani).

Every year on the sixthday of summerNavratra, the birthdayof Yamuna is celebratedas “Yamuna Jayanti” inMathura. The festival ofBhaiya Dooj is also de-voted to the love of

Yamraj and Yamuna River. Besides this thousands ofpeople every month take dip in Yamuna River at vari-ous places on occasion of full moon and no-moon nightsand during Sunday and Saturday seeking Yamuna’sblessing to outdo worldly woes.

Yamuna Basin profile River Yamuna accounts for 7.10% of the total geographical area of the country and pro-vides sustenance to about 57 million people throughoutits course. The river annually carries 10,000 cubic billonmeters (CBM) of water of with 4400 cbm is used for irri-gation.

Yamuna River passes through 4 agro-climatic and 3 agro-ecological zones which are inhabited by diverse commu-nity groups. The famous towns along the river Yamunainclude Karnal, Panipat, Faridabad (HR), Saharanpur,

Gaziabad, Virandavan,Mathura, Agra, Kanpurand Allahabad (UP) in-cluding the nationalcapital Delhi.

Over 70 rivers feedRiver Yamuna. Manysmaller streams havenot been included in the

list. Most of Yamuna’s tributaries are now dry or pol-luted, except Ken, Sind, Betwa, Chambal and few oth-ers which revive River Yamuna in lower segment. Mostof the larger tributaries also emanate from Rajasthanand Madhya Pradesh but joins the river in UP region.

Aquatic and Riparian wildlife in Yamuna Basin The pisciculture is neither practiced on large scale norundertaken in organized manner in the river Yamuna.However, the entire river stretch and tributaries arebeing utilized for fishing in unorganized manner. In

Before Sangam(Allahabad), River Ganga is believedmeeting Yamuna thrice at Gangani, Gangnani(Uttarakashi) and Gautam Rishi Ashram(VikasNagar) in Uttarkhand. Some scriptures mentionsRiver Yamuna purer than River Ganga and prescribesip of Yamuna water and dip in Ganga water(Yamuna Pan, Ganga Snan) to be highly sanctifying.

Over 70 rivers feed River Yamuna. Many smallerstreams have not been included in the list. Most ofYamuna’s tributaries are now dry or polluted, ex-cept Ken, Sind, Betwa, Chambal and few otherswhich revive River Yamuna in lower segment.

12


States SN Name Length KM

Uttarakhand 1 Hanuman Ganga 10*

2 Badyar Gad 25*

3 Kamal Ganga 20*

4 Burni Gad 15*

5 Aglar 20*

6 Asan 50*

Himachal Pradesh 7 Tons 120*

8 Giri 100*

9 Bata 30*

Haryana 10 Somb 40*

Delhi 11 Sabi 30*

Uttar Pradesh 12 Maskara 50*

13 Katha 60*

14 Hindon 400

15 Karwan 80*

16 Gambhir 288

17 Chambal 960

18 Sind 415

19 Betwa 590

20 Ken 427

21 Sengar 304

22 Sasur Khaderi 40

Table-3: Important Tributaries of Yamuna

*Approximate length

Himalaya stretch the Aglar River, Nain Bagh is locallypopular for its fish varieties and numbers.

For next 200 km between Hathini Kund Barrage (HKB)Haryana and Wazirabad Barrage Delhi (WBD), RiverYamuna has turned into a seasonal flow for most nonmonsoon months in a year. Lack of flow in river has se-verely impacted the river, including the aquatic diver-sity.

Downstream of Delhi, upto Etawah for about 600 km

SN State Wildlife sanctuaries/ DistrictProtected areas/National Parks

1 Uttarakhand Govindpur Pashuvihar Uttarkashi

2 Himachal Churdhar Sanctuary Sirmaur

3 Uttarakhand Raja Ji Sanctuary Dehradun

4 Haryana Kalesar National Park YamunaNagar

5 Rajasthan Sariska National Park Alwar

Ranthambore SawaiNational Park Madhopur

Bharatpur BirdSanctuary Bharatpur

National Chambal Bharatpur,Ghariyal Sanctuary others

6 Madhya Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary SheopurPradesh Panna National Park Chhatarpur

National Chambal MorenaGhariyal Sanctuary

Ken Ghariyal Sanctuary Panna/Chhatarpur

7 Uttar Soor Sarovar BirdPradesh Sanctuary Agra

Lion Wildlife Safari Etawah

Agra / Etawah

Table-4: Wildlife sanctuaries/ protected areas/national parks in Yamuna basin

River Yamuna remains highly polluted and rarely sup-ports aquatic life except few water birds and turtles. AtEtawah River Chambal with adequate flow and rela-tively clean water joins the River Yamuna. As a resultDolphin, Ghariyal, Turtles, several numbers of aquaticbirds and fishes are easily visible downstream ofChambal-Yamuna confluence, upto Allahabad.

Barrages on Yamuna Presently there are six existingbarrages on River Yamuna. All these barrages are in first

Devotees on the way to Yamnotri Shrine in June 2015 A view of Bandarpunch Glacier

13


All these barrages have damaged the natural integrity ofthe river. Despite that all the riparian states are planningto build more barrages. Katapathar Barrage,Uttarakhand, Panipat Barrage (Haryana) and Agra Bar-rage, UP are the three new barrages being discussed byrespective states govt. Delhi is also discussing a barrageat Palla. The ITO barrage in Delhi is no longer servingany useful purpose and needs to be decommissioned atthe earliest.

700 km stretch of RiverYamuna. Dakpathar bar-rage (Uttarakhand) is thefirst barrage on Yamunaand diversion of riverwater by the HathniKund Barrage (HR) is thereason behind a dryYamuna in lean season.Delhi in a span of 22 KMhas built 3 barrages(Wazirabad, ITO, Okhala)on it. Gokul BarrageMathura is the latest bar-rage on River Yamuna.

All these barrages havedamaged the natural in-tegrity of the river. De-

spite that all the riparian states are planning to buildmore barrages. Katapathar Barrage, Uttarakhand,Panipat Barrage HR and Agra Barrage, UP are the threenew barrages being discussed by respective states govt.Delhi is also discussing a barrage at Palla. The ITO bar-rage in Delhi is no longer serving any useful purposeand needs to be decommissioned at the earliest.

Major Challenges faced by River Yamuna From thethreats point of view River Yamuna can be divided intofour segments and every segment is facing its own dif-ferent kind of chal-lenges and threats.

Himalayan Segment(Yamnotri to HKB,200 km) SANDRP hasmentioned in its June2015 Blog thathow built and ongoingdams and hydroprojects are biggestthreat to RiverYamuna in hilly statesof Uttarakhand.

SANDRP also has highlighted how even so called smallhydro projects are playing havoc with the River Yamunaand dependent communities. There is no effort to regu-late such projects or re-think in govt. policies so far.

Kindly explore SANDRP Blog links given below to knowmore about the threats on River Yamuna in Himalayansegments1. https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/yamuna-fighting-ex-

istential-battle-in-the-homeland-as-govt-speeds-up-construction-of-dams/

2. https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/kharadi-small-hy-dro-unleashing-big-destruction/

Upper Segment (HKB to WBD, 200 km) River Yamunahere struggles to survive in absence of adequate flowdownstream of HKB, HR. For next 200 km no key tribu-tary meets the river and illegal sand mining is rampant,further aggravating ecological problems. Meanwhile in-dustrial & urban pollution from Yamuna Nagar, Karnal,Panipat & Sonipat the adjoining HR districts is disposedrelentlessly in the river by drain number 8 and 6 in turn.Kindly read SANDRP detailed blog (https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/blow-by-blow-how-pollu-tion-kills-the-yamuna-river-a-field-trip-report/) on this.

Middle Stretch (Wazirabad Barrage to Etawah,about 600 km) The stretch is heavily polluted. Delhialone, with 2% of river length causes almost 70% of to-tal pollution to River Yamuna. After Delhi, downstream

cities of Noida,Faridabad, Mathura andAgra dump all sort of in-dustrial and domesticwaste water in Yamuna.Moreover many UP dis-tricts like Saharanpur,Shamli, BaghpatGaziabad, Merut etc lo-cated in catchment areadispose all their pollutedwater into Yamuna viaHindon and Karwan Riv-ers.

Yamuna River personified asGoddess Sri Yamuna Ji

Pachnada (Fiver Rivers) is a special place inEtawah where five rivers meet

Aquatic Birds and Ghariyal on Chambal River bank

14


Lower Stretch (Etawah to Allahabad, about 500km) In this stretch many big tributaries such asChambal, Sind, Ken, Betwa falls in Yamuna. As a resultDolphins, Ghariyals, Turtles and many fish species arefound inhabiting the stretch. However, use of poison andblasting in fishing, sand mining, levelling of ravine ar-eas have started impacting the revived river.

Moreover ongoing work of 3300 MW Bara and 1980 MWKarchhana thermal power plants in Allahabad districtis presenting newer threats to River Yamuna and localpeople. The power plants are being built by Jaypee Groupand Prayagraj Power Generation Company respectively.They will source water from Yamuna River which in sum-mers sustains low flows. Local people are protesting butthe State Govt. is going ahead with the plans. Sourcesreveal that these power plants would render key lift ir-rigation projects defunct in turn impacting the liveli-hoods of over 1 lakh people.

The proposed KenBetwa River Link, iftaken up, will havehuge adverse impactson not only Ken andBetwa rivers, but alsoon Yamuna. Amid this,one more 2400 MWthermal power plant isplanned at Chitrakootdistrict by Bajaj PowerGeneration. This project too will source water fromYamuna and in turn render the local lift irrigation projectat Bargah village in Mau useless.

Summing up River Yamuna has been elevated to the

status of a divine mother for the thousands of country-men and has been nurturing and developing the Indiancivilization for centuries. Yamuna River is the largesttributary to River Ganga and at the same time, the mostpolluted river of India.

Its banks are still inhabited by several religious, mytho-logical places, historical sites all along the course. De-spite grossly polluted, it continues to sustain millions ofpeople with livelihoods.

Due to dams, hydro and other projects on Yamuna, therehas been great loss of aquatic flora and fauna. In thecatchment, water resources are gradually shrinking. In-creased diversion of water to meet the growing demandis costing the river dearly. During lean season the uppersegment of the river remains dry. The middle part of theriver is heavily polluted and devoid of ecological func-tions. The level of pollution has in many ways begun toimpact the health and livelihood of people living close toor dependent on it.

Several pollution control interventions worth Hundredsof crores of rupees have yielded no result. Most of thetributaries of the river are also suffering from lack offlow and pollution. It is the lower portion of the river

which is still alive andclean. But construction ofprojects like the Bara,Karchanna super ther-mal power plants hasposed newer threats toeven this stretch. Theproposed Ken BetwaRiver Link, if taken up,will have huge adverseimpacts on not only Kenand Betwa rivers, but

also on Yamuna. Under such circumstances the futureof Yamuna remains bleak.

Bhim Singh Rawat, ([email protected]) SANDRP

It is the lower portion of the river which is still muchalive and clean. But construction of projects like the Bara,Karchanna super thermal power plants has posed newerthreats to even this stretch. The proposed Ken Betwa RiverLink, if taken up, will have huge adverse impacts on notonly Ken and Betwa rivers, but also on Yamuna. Undersuch circumstances the future of Yamuna remains bleak.

Yamuna Basin Map (SANDRP) showing existing and proposedpower projects and dams on Yamuna River

Sujavan temple Ghoorpur Allahabad

15


Dams and Equitable Water Distribution:Learnings from Maharashtra

While largely unheard of in the country, bitter intra-state water conflicts are now routine in Maharashtrasince the past few years.Come November or De-cember, just as the statewearily puts behind amostly deficit monsoon,newspapers start carry-ing pictures of desperatefarmers standing insidecanals challenging damauthorities to release wa-ter. Politicians are quickto use this opportunity todeepen schisms between the regions within the state.

As a country, India is not new to interstate water shar-ing conflicts. We have fiercely contested water sharingissues in rivers like Krishna, Cauvery, Narmada, Tpaiand Godavari. Internationally too, skirmishes aroundwater-sharing raise their heads in transboundary riv-ers like Indus (Pakistan), Left Bank Ganga Tributaries(Nepal), Ganga and Teesta (Bangladesh) and recentlyBrahmaputra (China).

However, the emerging conundrum of conflicts within asingle state of Maharashtra is new, disturbing and pointstowards a worrisome future. Since 2012, various authori-ties in the state have been ordering water releases fromupstream dams for the downstream area dams. This con-flict is concentrated in the most-dammed corner of the

State, around Jaiakwadi Dam in Aurangabad, which isthe gateway of Marathwada and Ujani Dam in Solapur,

also borderingMarathwada. Waterrelease directions havebeen met with dissat-isfaction, uproar andsharp protests from theupstream (because anyrelease of water fromupstream dams is seenas their loss) as well asthe downstream (be-cause they think water

released is too meager than rightful share of downstreamarea dams).

For now, water sharing conflicts in Maharashtra circlearound its prosperous, powerful regions in Godavari andUpper Bhima Basins. The intensive agriculture, indus-trial estates and urban areas in these regions dependheavily on these rivers.

Maharashtra is the most dammed state in the country.It has built dams wherever it can. Engineers and ad-ministrators agree in private that there are hardly anydam sites left in the state to build new dams! As ex-posed by dam scam and other experiences, many of thesedams are purely pork-barrel projects, pushed for politi-cal-engineer-bureaucrat lobby and contractor benefits.But these pork-barrels have intercepted lifeline of the

state many times over, creatingprosperous islands of urban cen-ters, industries and sugarcaneamidst a sea of scarcity and rain-fed agriculture.

Nashik and Nagar Districts havebuilt several dams on tributariesof Godavari, including Mukane,Mula and Nilvande Dams.Nilvande or Upper Pravara Damon Pravara River, built inAhmednagar still does not haveTechno-Economic clearance fromthe Central Water Commission.In its recent 126th meeting in July2015, the CWC sent this proposalback to Maharashtra for lack ofsufficient information. CWC doesnot seem to know that the damis already blocking Pravara forseveral years! More seriously, the

Protest against any water release to dams in Marathwada by upstream districts like Ahmednagar

The emerging conundrum of conflicts within a singlestate of Maharashtra is new, disturbing and pointstowards a worrisome future. Since 2012, various au-thorities in the state have been ordering water releasesfrom upstream dams for the downstream area dams.The conflicts are intense, sometimes violent and al-most always political.

16


project does not have statutory Environmental Clear-ance and violates the Environment (Protection) Act too:a punishable offense.

Maharashtra has beentrying to address the re-current conflicts thoughsome institutionalmechanisms. The effortis interesting and itdeals with understand-ing and operationalizingprinciples of fairnessand deficit sharing, atthe heart of equitablewater distribution. Therecent processes andevolution of this mechanism would be of interest for any-one who is following the water discourse in the country.

The institutional mechanism trying to addresswater sharing issues is the Maharashtra Water Re-sources Regulatory Authority (MWRRA). MWRRAitself is riddled with several serious flaws, but for nowfunctions as an appellate authority in adjudicating wa-ter releases from upstream projects to the downstreamin times of scarcity. This year, the Godavari MarathwadaIrrigation Development Corporation (GMIDC) decidedto release 12.85 TMC (Thousand Million Cubic Feet) ofwater from upstream dams in Nashik and Nagar Dis-trict in October for Jaiakwadi dam which had barely 5%of its live storage then. GMIDC used an order issued byMWRRA in September 2014 for this decision.

Since 2012, such water release orders have been issuedby various bodies, but it has never been this early in the

year, so soon after themonsoon. Volume wisetoo, 12.85 TMC is thehighest release directedso far. All of the earlierrelease decisions werealso highly contested,resulting in cases filed inHigh Court and evenSupreme Court (2013).Reasons of why so muchwater, why from thisparticular dam, whynow, etc., were never in

open domain. But this year, with MWRRA orders beingput out on its website, we can see the nuts and bolts ofhow water sharing issues have been dealt with. And al-though a welcome move in itself, there are several basicproblems which need to be addressed while addressingissues of Equitable Water Distribution.

Until recently, as late as in 2013, MWRRA was dysfunc-tional (no members!) and could not take any water shar-ing decisions. When a farmers group from Mohol, Solapurfiled a case against the Principle Secretary (Water Re-sources), GOM (Government of Maharashtra) andMWRRA in March 2013 for releasing water to Ujani damfrom the upstream dams in Pune District, the High Courthad to note in its order that “unfortunately, the Author-ity specifically constituted for this function is not func-tional”. The High Court (HC) itself ordered immediate

release of water from upstream dams toUjani but the process through which WRD(Water Resources Department) decided theamount and dam from where water wasreleased remains unknown till date.

In 2013, parties like Marathwada JanataVikas Parishad and Aurangbad-based MLA(Member of Legislative Assembly) filed acase in Bombay HC about releasing waterfrom upstream dam to Jaiakwadi. Here too,the MWRRA came in the ring only afterseveral orders of the High Court, facilitat-ing mode and purpose of water release. Fi-nally when MWRRA considered the appealin May 2014 in its office, the Jaiakwadiwater release case had, in addition to peti-tion and respondents, 5 Representations,7 caveats and 4 interventions to contendwith!

Left: Map of Jaiakwadi Dam Catchmentincluding upstream Dams Source: GodavariMarathwada Irrigation Development Corpora-tion, Government of Maharashtra

Maharashtra is the most dammed state in the coun-try. It has built dams wherever it can. Engineers andadministrators agree in private that there are hardlyany dam sites left in the state to build new dams!Many of these dams are purely pork-barrel projects,pushed for political-engineer-bureaucrat lobby andcontractor benefits. But the same unplanned damshave also fueled regional water conflicts.

17


The strongest parties objecting water release from theupstream ( in case of Ahmednagar) as well as thosedemanding water releases from the downstream ( likeSolapur) are sugar industry lobbies. In a bid to op-pose water release to parched Marathwada, the Nagarlobby hired Mr. Kapil Sibbal to argue their case inthe Supreme Court.

While some of the representors argued before MWRRAfor release of water for Marathwada from upstreamdams, other representors from Ahmednagar district, in-cluding Sugar factories (Padmashri Vikhe Patil SahakariSakhar Karkhana(SSK)/Sugar Mill and PravaranagarSSK , Ahmednagar), op-posed this release sitinghistorical block irriga-tion privilege accordedby British. They statedthat dead storage ofJaiakwadi (bigger thancombined live storagesof all upstream dams) isitself enough to quenchdrinking water needs.The petitioner and in-terveners from Marathwada including Y. R. Jadhav, him-self an erstwhile expert Member of MWWRA, firmlystated that primary duty of MWRRA is equitable watersharing under Section 11 and 12 and it should imple-ment these sections in letter and spirit.

The MWRRA on its part stated then that as committeddrinking and industry water demand of Jaiakwadi com-mand can be met with the storage water & there is noprovision for hot weather irrigation in Jaiakwadi Project,no water should be released looking at meager storagein upstream dams.

After this order for 2013-14, the Authority heard the pe-titioners and others for five times in July and Aug2014. They heard the Joint Secretary and Executive Di-rector (ED) of GMIDC. Data put forward by water re-lease supporters and the Government of Maharashtra,Water Resource Department (GOM WRD) stated thatwhen Jaiakwadi was planned in 1965, 196.5 TMC wasconsidered as the virgin yield at dam site, of which 115.5TMC was reserved for upstream use and 81 TMC wasreserved for Jaiakwadi to irrigate 2.78 Lakh hectares.But the upstream areas have built dams which take upabout 160 TMC of water. The water yield of Jaiakwadiitself has been recomputed and the dam has been foundto be water deficit. The Central Design Organization ofthe WRD found that Annual Virgin Yield of Jaiakwadi,assumed to be 196.5 TMC is in fact just 157.2 TMC, ashortfall of 39.3 TMC! In addition the upstream utiliza-tion has increased by 28.97 TMC, thus the total deficitis 68.27 (39.3 + 28.97) TMC. So the yield for Marathwadais just 12.73 (81 – 68.27) TMC!

After all this discussion, MWRRA considered the issue.While considering the problems, MWRRA states thatpublic policy issues about water need to follow basic prin-ciples of holistic and integrative approach, equity andsocial justice. It should also follow Constitutional normthat operation of an economic system does not result inconcentration of wealth in the hands of a few. About the

historical permission for irrigating perennial block,MWRRA states that though the Act protects all old per-missions, this does not apply when it is considering eq-uitable water distribution in time of scarcity.

While considering watersharing principles,MWRRA states that up-stream basic needs haveto be met before any re-lease for downstreamcan be done, releaseshave to be made in mon-soon season so that riverbed is saturated and isprone to less losses. Ifwater is to be released inmonsoon itself, possibil-

ity of returning monsoon rainfall in Jaiakwadi catch-ment and in Marathwada has to be considered.

According to MWRRA:

• Water is to be made available in all reservoirs in abasin for drinking water and maximum 2 roundsfor food crops in the command and 80% industrialrequirement. Jaiakwadi provides for Sorghum andGram rotations.

• If level of water at Jaiakwadi is more than 65% infirst fortnight of October, there is no question ofrelease from upstream.

• In the upstream projects, monsoon irrigationthrough canals, Kharif irrigation outside the com-mand, filling up of tanks, farm ponds etc., is to bedone only after Jaiakwadi Dam reaches its designedcapacity. These operating principles are to be moni-tored every year and GMIDC ED (Executive Direc-tor) will be responsible for operating all upstreamreservoir accordingly.

• The role of canal advisory committee will begin af-ter equitable water distribution in dams is com-pleted. Share of tail-enders should be decided firstat the canal committee meeting and the minutes ofthis meeting should be put up on the website.

• Canal systems should be well maintained.

• Orders of the govt issued in Aril 2004 banning anynew projects upstream of Jaiakwadi should bestrictly followed. All perennial crops in the upstreamshould be under drip. Unauthorized backwater lift-ing from Jaiakwadi should be controlled as soon aspossible. GOM should delineate command ofJaiakwadi project and form WUAs within 8 weeksof MWRRA’s order.

• The GMIDC had to operationalise this order im-mediately in 2015. And the 2015 release order has

18


been for the earliest and largest release so far. Thiswas pushed due to huge resentment and protestsin Marathwada.

As was expected, this was strongly contested by Nagarand Nashik Leaders. Marches, protest meetings wereorganised in these cities. Farmers protested at Damslike Gangapur. Just before water could be released, par-ties moved to High Court, demanding a stay on this or-der. The High Court onthe other hand sup-ported this decision andthe sugar factory ownersappealed before the Su-preme Court, asking fora stay. In the SC, coun-sel for 7 such sugar fac-tories and farmer groupsfrom upstream wasformer Union Ministerand Congress leader Kapil Sibal! But the SC too upheldMWRRA’s order and allowed release.

Similar is the case of Ujani where the MWRRA has or-dered a release of 10 TMC from upstream dams in PuneDistrict. While the order seems justified, the Authorityhas not even considered the diversion of water by theTata Hydrpower Dams to the water rich Konkan in itscalculation of water storage in upstream dams and hasaccepted Tata Dams offer of releasing 1 TMC as if Tata’sare doing “public service.” Nothing can be further fromtruth as Tata Dams transfer water from Bhima Basininto Konkan for running their business of generatingelectricity even during drought when even drinking wa-ter is scarce. This is totally wrong and unacceptable fromequity, social justice or even optimum use of availableresource point of view and MWRRA and GOM must re-consider and reverse this. Similar is the case of waterdiversion by Koyna dam from Krishna basin.

To conclude, alongwith largest number ofdams, Maharashtra alsohas thriving and uniquewater sharing conflictsand an institution nowattempting to decidewater shares, suppos-edly equitably. This is astep forward. This sortof open-domain conflict-resolution mechanism was sorely needed in the state. Ithas put in public domain the issues and documents likethe Godavari Study Group report or the fact that wateravailability at Jaiakwadi has dropped by a whopping 40TMC. Disagreements between upstream and down-stream could not have got a platform.

However, all said and done, equitable water distribu-tion does not mean only having comparative equal pro-portion of water in upstream and downstream reservoirsby October. Just like dams in Upstream are unplanned,dams in Marathwada are unplanned too, like theGodavari Barrages. If Nilwande in the upstream doesnot have Techno Economic Clearance (TEC), LowerTerna in Marathwada does not have TEC either. If Up-stream Nagar grows sugarcane, Marathwada too has a

dense concentration ofsugar and sugar indus-tries. Ujani in Solapursupports more than 1.5lakh ha of sugarcanewhen it was not sup-posed to irrigate ANYperennial crop and isdesigned as an 8monthly project! And

now water from upstream Bhama Askhed Dam whichhas not provided any irrigation to the farmers in its com-mand will go to sugar industries around Ujani only be-cause water levels in Ujani are low. And Tata Dams areallowed to divert water from the water scarce Bhimabasin to high rainfall Konkan region even in this seasonof drought.

This is not equitable water sharing. This is a manipu-lated calculation without taking the context into account.MWRRA needs to work on Integrated State Water Plan,Integrated Basin Plans, take on the responsibility ofCommunity driven bottom up Groundwater governance,ensure environment flows, stop unjustified diversionsby Tata & Koyna Dams, etc., before it is able to justifyits role in ensuring equitable, just and sustainable wa-ter sharing. The Irrigation Act which has been withoutRule and hence largely un-implementable for the past37 years needs to have rules. Equitable water sharingcan be operationalized and be equitable only when we

account for all sources,all uses and all users,including the environ-ment.

All in all, a beginninghas been made throughwhich upstream damsrelease water for thedownstream and don’tindulge in most blatant

hydro-hegemony. But this is not equitable water distri-bution or management. Maharashtra will have to put inmuch more efforts for that. Maharashtra’s experiencealso underlines that large unplanned dams are not onlydens of corruption and skewed power equations, but theycreate, fuel and push conflicts between the regions too.

-Parineeta Dandekar

Any decision about water release from the upstream,be it from the Chief Minister or a Court of Law or theMWRRA is strongly contested by entrenched interestsin the upstream. The downstream too does not alwaysuse its water judiciously. Equitable Water Distributionhas become contentious and confusing in Maharashtra.

In the latest move, things have become so serious thatthe Technical Member of MWRRA Shri Suresh Sodalresigned from the Authority, after serving the Author-ity since its inception. Parties opposing relelase of wa-ter for Ujani Dam in Solapur raised an issue aboutShri Sodal’s conflict of interest.

19


Pulse Farmers: Our Real Climate Heroes

Even as the COP 21 Negotiations are over and the worldis trying to understand whether we have taken a stepforward or backwards, Pulse (Daal) prices are raging inIndian markets. If benefits of this price hike were toreach the farmers, itwould have been someconsolation. But for now,as Pulse farmer AshokPawar from Osmanabadtells me, the Tur (Arhar/Pigeon Pea) that is inthe market is last year’s.It was sold to the middlemen and market com-mittee at a low rate lastyear and the productionthen was also dismaldue to late rains anddrought followed byunseasonal rainfall.

Same is the story told by Sachin Gavali, a young farmerand student who had planted Udad and Moong in partof his field in the drought-struck Latur district ofMaharashtra this year. He received low price for hisUdad even this year as he sold early and because theproduction was low.

Due to the severe drought, pulse production has fallento such an extent that from an acre, Ashok Bhau gotonly 1-1.5 Quintals of Udad, which can be sold at Rs11,000 now. Although Rs 11,000 is much higher than theMSP, it does not help much as the production is extremelylow. Sachin is sadder be-cause he could not makeeven that much. He hadto sell at Rs. 8000 perquintal in early October.

Both have sugarcane ontheir fields too andAshok Bhau says he willcontinue to irrigate sug-arcane, a 100% irrigatedcrop, even if that meansless production of Tur orthe remnant Udad andMoong in his field. Peracre, sugarcane will givehim assured Rs 20,000as profit when profitfrom pulses is about Rs7000-8000 per acre.

While pulses, in the form on split dals or legumes arethe primary source of protein for Indians when about

80% Indians suffer from insufficient protein intake, pulseproduction has recorded less than one percent annualgrowth during the past 40 years. This is less than half ofthe growth rate in Indian human population (India’s

Pulse Scenario, Na-tional Food SecurityMission). The productiv-ity rise is not spectacu-lar either. Per capita netpulse availability hasdeclined from around 60grams per day in the1950s to 40 grams in the1980s and further toaround 35 grams perday in 2000s (NFSM).

Decline in Pules pro-duction According tothe 4th Agricultural esti-mates brought out by

the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Pulseproduction in 2014-15 has come down to 17.2 milliontons as against the target of 19.5 million tons. In 2013-14 it was 19.25 Million Tons. Even in the drought of 2012-13, the production was more than this year at 18.34 tons.Main reasons behind the decline are drought in pulse-growing zones, affecting Kharif Pulses (mainly Udad andMoong) and unseasonal rains affecting Rabi pulses likeMasur and Gram. More than 80% area under pulses inIndia does not have protective irrigation cover and va-garies of rainfall are catastrophic, especially for Kharif

pulses, which have ashort growing season.India’s pulse productionis nowhere close to itsdemand. Imports ofpulses are increasingyear after year, at ahuge cost.

India is the biggest pro-ducer of pulses account-ing for 24.5 per centshare of pulse produc-tion in the world. State-wise area and produc-tion Major pulse-produc-ing Indian states are theones which face maxi-mum droughts and de-pend heavily on rain fedagriculture. Within the

states, pulses are grown on rainfed, light soils with mea-ger irrigation cover. For example in Maharashtra, which

Although pulses are hardy crops and need little wa-ter, they do need water in times of stress. With in-creasing droughts and more farmers diverting irri-gation to crops with assured returns, how will pulseproduction grow? Without incentives to the farmer,any growth in pulses at this time will be at the cost ofthe farmer, who has been subsiding urban customersalready. Even as pulse prices rage around us, the factthat farmers are not secure with pulses points to anumber of serious issues.

When Nitrogen-rich fertilizers are applied to soils,some nitrogen converted to nitrous oxide, which has298 times the global warming potential of carbon di-oxide and is a potent Greenhouse gas. Pulses need nonitrogen application, on the other hand, they fix at-mospheric nitrogen into the soil! While doing so notonly do they save further nitrous oxide emissions andfix nitrogen, but enrich the soil with nitrogen for thenext crop. They need less processing and very littlewater. Pulses and Pulse Farmers are hence contrib-uting not only to protein security, but also towardsClimate Security!

20


is one of the leading producers, Vidarbha region has 40%area & production, followed by Marathwada which ac-counts for 35% area & production of pulses. Most of thisarea is rain-fed. (Kelkar Committee Report 2013)

Import of Pulses Because of largest consumption anddecreased production, India is the largest importer ofpulses too. The imports increased from 2.2 million tonsto 3.8 million tons in 2012-13. In value terms, the im-ports of total Pulses have increased from US $ 0.7 bil-lion in 2001-02 to US $ 2.3 billion in 2012-13, around Rs12,000 Crores! (Commission for Agricultural Costsand Prices (CACP) Report, 2014-15)

Why are pulses still risky? So if pulses need littlewater, little processing, fetch such great prices, are al-ways in demand and if we are losing so much of foreignexchange on importing pulses, why are farmers notplanting more of pulses? Why is area and quantity ofsugarcane produced increasing in leaps and bounds,when it needs huge amounts of water, fertilizers and itsnot even a food crop and whose production exceeds ourneeds, but production of pulses is declining and area un-der pulses is growing at a snail’s pace? Why is it thatsugar, a hugely water intensive product, both in cultiva-tion and processing, costs about Rs 35/ kg in market,but gives the farmer an assured return of about Rs20,000/ acre, when pulses, which do not need water orintensive fertilisers, are processed only primarily andcost about Rs 150/Kg still give the farmer a paltry Rs7000-8000/acre? How can any radical shift to pulses hap-pen in such circumstances?

These are some perplexing questions, with no easy an-swers. But look at it from the prism of climate change,water resources, low-input, sustainable agriculture andmarginal farmers, and you cannot have a better mascotof sustainability than pulses.

Climate Change and Nitrogen Connection Most ofthe cash crops receive NPK fertilizers, in which N standsfor Nitrogen. These fertilizers are produced mainly fromNatural gas and their production is energy intensive witha high carbon footprint, they are also subsidized. WhenNitrogen-rich fertilizers are applied to soils, soil micro-organisms convert some of this nitrogen to nitrous ox-ide, a gas which can escape to the atmosphere. Nitrousoxide is a powerful greenhouse gas; with 298 times theglobal warming potential of carbon dioxide. India is thethird largest Nitrous Oxide emitter in the world, follow-ing China and United States. However, Pulses need nonitrogen application as they themselves fix atmosphericnitrogen into the soil! While doing so not only do theysave further nitrous oxide emissions, but fix atmosphericnitrogen too and enrich the soil with nitrogen. Thesenitrogen-fixing benefits can be passed on, ranging upto31-97 kg/ha to the soil for next crop.

Even in terms of processing, Pulses need only de-husk-

ing and separation into dals, a primary process which isless energy intensive, than say, sugar factories, whichnot only consume power but also consume and pollutewater resources. The husk is a valuable cattle feed, tellsAshok Bhau.

Because of their low in-put nature, pulses arethe crop of marginalfarmers who are notable to appropriate ei-ther subsides or waterfrom the system andsave thousands ofcrores rupees per year.But what is the supportthat they are gettingfrom our welfare state?

Before the Paris Cli-mate Change Negotia-tions, India publishedits Intended NationallyDetermined Contribu-tion (INDC) in tacklingchallenges of ClimateChange. There is nomention of Pulse ordryland farmers in thedocument. While pro-moting newer, and supposedly “cleaner” technologies,we continue to neglect the strong contribution that dry-land farmers, forest dwelling communities, fisher-folkhave been making for years while eking out a very mod-est living. We are willing to spend thousands of croresin the name of some fancy Climate Friendly technolo-gies, but are not ready to acknowledge, incentivise andencourage these groups.

Water: Pulses need limited water, about 20 times lessthan sugarcane. Almost all area under pulses in India israin fed. For example, in Maharashtra, pulses are grownover 16.8% of the Gross cropped area, but only 3.8 Lakhhectares of this area is irrigated, which takes just 3.4%share in irrigation water. Compare this with sugarcanewhich is grown over just 4% area, but is 100% irrigatedand takes 71.5% of irrigation water in the state.

While pulses do not need excessive irrigation, they de-pend on monsoon rainfall and some winter rains. Wateris crucial in branching, flowering and pod forming stages,absence of which directly hits production. Ashok Bhauhas got only 1 quintal of udad per acre this year, as rainsdid not come when his crop needed it. Being short dura-tion crops, they are susceptible to gap in monsoon andextreme weather events. Is there no way out from this?

Protective Irrigation: Marathwada grows sugarcaneon 2.3 lakh hectares of land. If 50% of this is converted

Dwarfed Pulses in Marathwada,hit by water scarcityPhoto: Ashok Pawar

21


into drip or other hardycrops, it would spare2161.2 MCM water,which if supplied to pro-vide protective irriga-tion to pulses, will mean21.6 lakh hectares addi-tional to area under ir-rigated pulses. Even ifwe assume that thisarea was already underrain-fed Tur withrainfed yield of 750 kg/ha, the net additional production possible with this irri-gation is 1.6 Million Tons or additional income of Rs70,500 million. This will also help achieve the target ofincreasing pulse production by 2 million tons under theNational Food Security Mission. (http://www.nfsm.gov.in)

To enable this shift, drip has to be supported. But it willalso require better groundwater legislation, better Cli-mate Change Action Plan, robust and honest Crop In-surance to guard farmers against losses in time of ex-treme weather events. That will not happen unless thegovernment recognises the invaluable services that pulsefarmers are providing, & reward them for the same. Thefertiliser, power and irrigation subsidy that state pro-vides to a sugarcane farmer is more than Rs 10,000 percapita per year and government needs to seriously con-sider such subsidy to the pulses farmer too.

According to Former CACP Chair Mr. Ashok Gulati, thecapital cost of irrigating one ha of land in Maharashtralie somewhere around Rs 6.6 Lakh (they would be muchhigher realistically, thanks to multiple cost escalations).

Pulses need limited water, about 20 times less thansugarcane. Almost all area under pulses in India israin fed. Marathwada grows sugarcane on 2.3 lakhha. If 50% of this is converted into drip or other hardycrops, it would mean 2161.2 MCM water available,which if supplied to provide protective irrigation topulses, will mean 21.6 lakh ha additional area un-der irrigated pulses.

Rain-fed pulse farmersdo not get a part of theirrigation funding, norhave the privilege of theelectricity subsidy. Bynot being a part of these,they save huge amountsof public money, whileproducing the most im-portant protein source.It will be smart move bythe government to pro-vide direct incentives to

pulse farmers, not limited to the measly MSP (MinimumSupport Price), which though increased over the years,never reaches the farmer and is not enough in the firstplace.

Is the MSP reaching farmers? According to 2014-15CACP report, although MSP of pulses have been raisedon paper, it is meaningless as hardly any procurementhappens from farmers. Two of most important procure-ment agencies of the Government of India namely FCI(Food Corporation of India) and NAFED (National Ag-ricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation) were setup with the main objective of procuring notified com-modities at MSP have failed in achieving any substan-tial procurement of pulses. And this is indeed worryingwith Agri-GDP (Gross Domestic Product) likely to postjust 1.1 percent growth in 2014-15 compared to 3.7 per-cent achieved in 2013-14.The impact of this fall on farmeconomy is proving to be disastrous.

In conclusion, problem of Pulses is not only a problemof raging market prices, storage issues, hoarding and

economics. Perhaps bigger problem is the deepmalaise in our system towards low input, sus-tainable agriculture which takes less water andis practiced by vulnerable groups, not belong-ing to any lobby. Only allowing more import ofpulses (which will ironically mean lesser pricefor our Tur farmers like Ashok Bhau) or in-creasing MSP of pulses on paper will not help.If indeed we want to increase our domesticpulse production, then the pulse farmer needsto be given the respect she/he deserves, theyare not only contributing towards protein se-curity of the nation, but are self-sufficient, uselesser water and enrich soil. By fixing atmo-spheric nitrogen and being “light footed onenergy”, pulse farmers are our real ClimateHeroes. But for now, this frugality itself seemsto be the bane of the farmers, with a systemtilted towards favoring high input cash crops.

Parineeta DandekarRainfed Tur (Pigeon Pea) on Left. Irrigated Tur on right

Photo: Ashok Pawar, Osmanabad.

22


India’s INDC, like its NAPCC, will increase the problems of the vulnerableOn water front, plans will increase water insecurity for the poor

No one can deny that the current Indian government isstrong in one aspect: Symbolism. So they did release theIndia’s INDC1 (Intended Nationally Determined Contri-bution) on 2nd Oct (India time), the birth anniversary ofMahatma Gandhi. opening lines of the government inits public statement while releasing INDC reads: “OnGandhi Jayanti, India has submitted it’s (INDC).The ap-proach of India’s INDC has been anchored in the visionof equity inspired by theFather of our NationMahatma Gandhi’s fa-mous exhortation:“Earth has enough re-sources to meet people’sneeds, but will neverhave enough to satisfypeople’s greed””.

India’s INDC alsoclaims, “The INDC document is prepared with a viewto… a sustainable lifestyle and climate justice to protectthe poor and vulnerable from adverse impacts of climatechange.” Unfortunately, after reading through the INDCdocument, one finds that there is nothing in the entireINDC2 that inspires any confidence that the governmentindeed cares for the poor, tribals, farmers, women, moun-tain people, fisherfolk or the dalits, all of who inciden-tally are also the most vulnerable to the climate changeimpacts. In fact, like India’s National Action Plan on Cli-mate Change (NAPCC) of 2008, INDC does not makeany sincere attempt even to identify who are the vul-nerable due to the climate change impacts.

INDC, as the name suggests, was supposed to be Na-tionally Determined, but Union Ministry of Environ-ment, Forests and Climate Change’s claim that it“adopted an inclusive process for preparation of India’sINDC” notwithstanding, there was no transparent, par-ticipatory process. Unless one agrees that a handful ofbureaucrats, ruling politicians and some committeemembers constitute the nation, it cannot be said to beNationally Determined since there was no national pro-cess to determine India’s intended contribution, not theleast involving the people on ground. INDC, here sharesthe blame for non-transparent process with NAPCC3 andthe state action plans on climate change4.

INDC is also largely business as usual collection of plans.So much so that CAMPA money, which has been collectedas compensation for deforestation (undisputedly likelyto worsen the climate change), as determined by the ju-diciary, is now counted among the adaptation measuresin INDC! In this context, it is also concluded by others5

that India’s forest plans in INDC are like Growing for-ests in the air: “India’s intended contribution on foreststo mitigate climate change ignores the rich history oflandscape management practices and is uninformed ofthe impact of the growing energy sector on forests. With-out both these, India’s INDCs will not create any forestswith roots on the ground.”

Coming to the water sec-tor, there is no aspect inthe docume

climate initiatives must not include large hydropower projectsvol 13 | issue 8-10 | sept-oct-nov,...

Documents