GUWAHATI, April 19? Several environmental groups and activists have expressed apprehension over the way in which development projects, especially hydro-electric units, are getting clearance in the North East without having the least regard for ecological and biodiversity concerns. The 10th Plan also envisages setting up of 12 hydel projects in the region. The environmentalists feel the projects should be cleared only when they are found to be strictly adhering to the environmental and social norms. Expressing concern over the casual manner in which dams are being cleared by the Government, Bibhab Talukdar, the secretary general of Aranyak Nature Club, said it is necessary to integrate the environmental and social concerns into these projects while they are being planned and before they get clearance. This necessitates greater sharing of information about these projects and participatory decision making with the people of the North East, he added. The North East being an ecologically fragile area and also one of the 25 biodiversity hotspots in the world, this becomes all the more important, he felt.
Under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification of the Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1986, it is mandatory to evaluate the environmental and social implications of development projects. But more often than not, Talukdar said, EIA reports tend to suppress information which may go against the projects concerned. For example, the EIA report on NEEPCO?s Kameng hydro-electric project recorded 15 species of birds in an area bordering the Pakhui Wildlife Sanctuary and Tiger Reserve in Arunachal Pradesh. But the checklists for this area show 245 species of birds, and it has also been identified as an Important Bird Area (IBA), as a site of international significance for bird conservation.
A very important provision under the EIA notification is public hearing which presents a legitimate opportunity for locals and other concerned citizens to present their suggestions and opinions about the project to the public hearing panel that is headed by the Deputy Commissioner or his representative. Commenting on the casual approach taken by the project authorities on such an important procedure, Talukdar said that at the public hearing for the Lower Subansiri project, the person who had been formally asked to do a critical analysis of the EIA report of the project by the Assam Pollution Control Board (APCB) found the biological information of the submergence area, to be highly inadequate. He raised concerns abut the manner in which the information was collected as the EIA consultants (WAPCOS, New Delhi) surveyed only one km upstream of the dam site and extrapolated the data for the 18 km of submergence area upstream. The consultants publicly admitted that they had collected the data in this manner.
Moreover, Firoz Ahmed, an environment activist said, at the Lower Subansiri Public hearing held at Gerukamukh at the project site that the information was shared with the local people in English and then in Hindi. Again, the executive summary in this particular case did not carry any information on the environmental impact of the projects, and hence the people were left in the dark as to the impact. Pointing out how project authorities go about their work in clear violation of the law, Ahmed said that for the Lower Subansiri project, the NHPC had gone ahead with the massive construction of housing colony on the left bank of the Subansiri river on 131 hectares of forest land illegally occupied by them whereas they had been granted only the first-stage site clearance under the EIA notification, 1994. Thus the construction by the NHPC is a violation of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. (The first-stage clearance has been revoked since November 2001), he pointed out.
Besides, the NHPC does not have the forest clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, for the construction, thereby violating that Act also, he said. Manju Menon of Kalpabriksh said that the project authorities tend to treat the important legal procedures as mere formalities. They assume that the project is inevitable irrespective of its environmental feasibility and that the environmental and forest clearance will be granted in any case. However, as per law, a project can be rejected on environmental grounds.
Menan further said several dams constructed in the region without taking into account the EIA reports have resulted in displacement of human habitats and wildlife. Again, in many cases, the EIA reports are prepared by incompetent authorities and they often overlook the possible negative impacts of construction of dams. ?As the North-east is situated in a highly-seismic zone, construction of dams without scientific survey may spell disaster in case of an eventuality like an earthquake,? she warned.
Dr Walter Fernandes, Director of the North Eastern Social Research Centre, said construction of dams has resulted in displacement of 50 million people since 1950, out of which only one-third has been resettled. On the Ranganadi hydel project at Arunachal, Talukdar said if it is not designed sensibly, then the ecosystem and the people living downstream will suffer the adverse consequences. The water from the Ranganadi is diverted to Dikhrong through a channel of 8.5 km and this has resulted in reduction of water that flows downstream of the Ranganadi channel. During summer, there is hardly any water to sustain fish or the water needs of the people living downstream. Again, it has increased the volume of water in the Dikhrong posing increased chances of flooding downstream areas during the monsoons.