PDA

View Full Version : Will Konkan turn into a waste land?



ketaki narkar
17-12-2009, 05:46 PM
Few days ago I came across this article in Tehelka that made worried about the bio diversity rich Konkan coast of Maharashtra.... It talks about power plants coming up along the Konkan coast which are going to turn the bio diversity rich Konkan coast into a waste land.

Another Nandigram?
Prerna Singh Bindra
SEVENTY-YEAR-OLD MURLIDHAR Sadashiv of Nandivade in Jaigad taluk of Maharashtra’s Ratnagiri district begins his morning by worshipping the earth. It’s a tradition he inherited from his forefathers, along with the orchard that nurtures him and his family. But it’s a legacy he won’t pass on to his grandchild, scampering up a mango tree nearby. “Come back in a decade, and this will be wasteland. None of this will remain – not the land, not the trees,” he says bitterly. He’s referring to the JSW Energy’s 1,200 MW thermal power plant in Jaigad. Nandivade is no exception in the region. In what is the largest concentration of its kind in India, a nuclear power plant and seven thermal power plants are proposed – on just 120 km of land. These plants stretch from Ratnagiri to Hanakon in north Karnataka.

In Ratnagiri, a notable casualty will be the prized Alphonso mango, which is very susceptible to air pollution. A study by scientists from the Lucknow-based Industrial Toxicology Research Centre has found that sulphur dioxide — a common pollutant from coal-fired thermal plants — affects the quality and yields of mangoes. This will hit more than seven lakh people in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg who depend on horticulture, mainly mangoes, cashew and coconuts.

Pradeep Parulekar, a lawyer based in Ratnagiri, questions the logic of thermal plants in a region that, in 1997, was declared a horticulture zone. Encouraged by subsidies and special packages, farmers poured their savings into mango crops. Those trees — and their investments — are finally bearing fruit. Exports of Alphonso to Japan and Europe began last year. Not for long, since, “stringent quality controls specify that there should not be any coal-burning industry near the mango crop,” says Vivek Bhide, president of the Ratnagiri Zilla Jagruk Manch, an organisation leading the campaign against the power projects.

The reversal of policy is even worse in the case of Sindhudurg. In 1997, it was declared an eco-sensitive area and specially designated tourist destination, given its pristine beaches and forests and historical forts. In January, a resolution allowing thermal power plants and mining in the district was passed by the government. More than 20 villages along the Sindhudurg-Goa border have been zoned for mining aluminium ore.

The Jaigad power project threatens fishermen as well. Fly ash and hot waste contaminants raise water temperatures, killing fish. Dhamankhol is one of 50-odd fishing villages nestled in Jaigad creek. On a good day, a rich catch of mackerel, lobster, pomfret and shrimp might fetch up to Rs 4,000. These days, the dinghies and catamarans return almost empty. “Continuous dredging around the jetty changes the composition of the water and the seabed,” explains fisherman Bashir Sangre. If just a jetty can have such harmful consequences, what will happen once hot toxic waste is spewed into the sea? The locals of Dhamankhol are bitter. “Motha masa chotya mashala khato (Big fish eat smaller fish),” says Yunus Mohammed, grimly.

“The Konkan coast is strategically ideal for power generation from imported fuels – in this case, coal,” points out a senior official from the Ministry of Power, who requested anonymity. But is there anything like clean coal? “It’s like dry water – it doesn’t exist,” says the official. Anil Razdan, former power secretary warns, “We must achieve a balance between the imperative for power and environmental concerns. Power plants must follow environmental norms.” Realistically, few do, given that the plants were founded on deception. JSW’s mandatory Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Jaigad plant has omissions that would be hilarious in any other context. Rather than list the myriad flora and fauna of this biodiversity hotspot, it says that the animals endemic to the region are: “dog, cat, pig, cow and buffalo.” It ignores the existence of reserve forests, mangroves and corals. It goes against the law and omits mention of any alternative site. And yet, this assessment breezed through the portals of the Ministry of

Environment and Forests (MoEF) and was even passed by the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA). Hearing an appeal against the NEAA’s decision, the Delhi High Court recognised the shoddy manner in which the EIA was dealt with and has directed that the clearance be re-examined.

IN THE case of Ind-Barath’s Hanakon power plant in North Karnataka, intense local opposition and political pressure have won a temporary reprieve and clearances are under review. Ind- Barat’s EIA also brushes aside the potential impact on agriculture, fisheries and coconut, cashew and mango orchards – mainstays of livelihood in the region. There is also no word on how proposed dredging in the Kali river will affect local ecology and health. It also lies about its proximity to the Catigao Wildlife Sanctuary in Goa (five km away) and the Dandeli- Anshi tiger reserve (12 km away), clearly violating MoEF rules against such projects within 25 km.
All attempts to get in touch with both JSW Energy Limited and Ind-Barath (Hanakon) proved futile.
In neighbouring Raigad district in Maharashtra, five thermal power plants barely eight to 10 km apart are planned. The area is already under stress from heavy chemical industries. Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State for Environment and Forests, says, “It is important to assess the cumulative impact of these power projects and isolated studies draw an incomplete picture.”

He understands the need for electricity — after all, he was a minister for power — but asserts: “while the demand for power must be met, the how is critical. Any decision cannot have only megawatts as the objective but must take into account environment and ecological costs and livelihood issues. Environmental concern cannot be removed from economic development. The two must be integrated at every stage.”

But, there are no easy integrations or easy solutions. Maharashtra currently faces a massive 5,000 MW deficit, while Karnataka has a 4,000 MW deficit. Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg require a mere 167 MW, the proposed power plants will generate 30,003 MW, an astounding 180 times the actual requirements of the region.

“We won’t reap any benefits. Why must we then bear the burden of ‘development’? What is the ‘greater common good’ that is destroying our life and livelihood?” asks Sadashiv Jog, who refused to part with his land. It is now being acquired and three transmission towers and a railway line for coal will run through his flourishing orchard. A groundswell of popular protest is building. In Pawas in Ratnagiri, villagers protested with a hunger strike and have also taken legal recourse. The women of Karwar interacted with women in Bhatinda to understand the impact of power plant emissions on their children’s health and farm produce. In Niweli, in Jaitapur taluka, villagers refused to accept compensation from the state government for their land for the nuclear plant, which, say officials, will then be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. But the villagers are adamant and say they will fight till the bitter end. Like in Nandigram.
“Growth must be in sync with Konkan’s fragile ecology,” stresses Jayendra Parulekar, who is part of the Save Konkan Movement, “and the future is in horticulture and tourism.” Bhide agrees and gives the example of Ganpatipule. Ten years ago, the gram panchayat of this tiny village had an annual budget of Rs 15,000. Then, tourism came in, drawn by the unspoilt beaches and the ancient Ganesh temple. Local business expanded. People opened guest houses, small eateries, shops selling souvenirs and taxi services. Today, the gram panchayat has a Rs 12 lakh annual budget.

Yet, it cannot be denied that India needs power. Razdan points out that the country suffers from a power shortage of 1,18 lakh MW. “This shortfall must be bridged, especially if we are to meet our targeted growth rate of 8 to 9 percent. Our current per capita is 600 MW, and we need to increase this to 1000 MW.”
“The energy deficiency argument won’t suffice. Energy — coal or hydel — comes at a heavy cost to health (radiation, respiratory diseases), agro-horticulture, fish, diversity, ecology and tourism. This should be communicated to the affected people, who must then be made part of the decision-making process, not have projects thrust upon them. Is that democratic?” argues Ritwick Dutta of The Access Initiative, a group promoting environ mental democracy.

Senior conservation scientist Ullas Karanth insists that ‘nogo areas’ — critical biodiversity hotspots covering 5 to 10 percent of India’s landmass — be identified and mapped on an urgent basis through a scientific exercise.

He agrees that the energy shortfall must be met, especially for rural areas where the deficit is high. “One possible alternative is a rational mix of nuclear power generated the modern way and gasbased energy. Both, of course, come with their own share of risks, which must be minimised with the best available technology,” says Karanth.
There are no easy answers, only tough questions. Perhaps the Delhi High Court said it best, in its September 18 judgement: “Economic growth and environment protection is a fine balancing act. Public interest requires protection and care of the environment. Public interest also requires economic growth... It has been accepted that ecological damage and prevention thereof for the sake of life and future generations should take precedence over other public interest.”

Source article:
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main43.asp?filename=Ne211109another_nandigra m.asp

Sabyasachi Patra
19-12-2009, 08:39 PM
This is unfortunate.

I agree that power is required by all of us. It drives modern civilization. However, there is a huge lack of understanding about the road we should take to meet our energy needs. Let us look at

India currently has about 1.8 lakh Megawatts of power generation capacity. The transmission loss of 30% amounts to 60,000 mega watts of power. This is equivalent to 15 Ultra mega power projects of 4000 MW size each. If we consider that each MW of capacity creation costs about 4 crores of rupees, the total amount saved can run upto 240,000 crores. A leaking ship requires the hole to be plugged rather than thinking of building another ship. Unfortunately, the proponent of this simple truth is likely to be branded as anti-development and thus anti-people and the opinion would be trashed with impunity. These mega power projects leave a huge environmental foot print. Each power plant requires several thousand acres of land, some of those being wetlands or forest lands, agricultural lands etc.

The devastation caused by these power plants is enormous. The loss of vegetation means, less of moisture released to the atmosphere. This leads to less of rainfall and the consequent increase in temperatures. The fly ash released from these thermal power plants lead to diseases among the people, drives away the birds, pollutes the fresh water sources etc. The list is endless…

It is also better to increase the efficiency of our existing plants, plug leakages and seriously consider renewable energy solutions. The present Government at the Centre seems to be serious in pushing for renewable energy. At present, there are no takers for renewable energy in India, as the power generated from the hydel and thermal power plants are highly subsidized. If the hidden subsidies are removed from these, than the alternate energy sources like solar etc would start appearing competitive in terms of cost.

As mentioned in the article, the environment clearance for most of these mega projects is a sham. In the name of infrastructure creation, the power lobby pushes through these projects and people are made to believe that sacrificing environment is the only way for development.Infact, when scientists like Dr Ulhas Karath talk about "rational mix..." or when the High court talks about balancing economic growth and environment, we realise that there is a huge lack of understanding about the road we should take for meeting our energy needs.

The educated people have a huge responsibility of awakening the masses. I think it is our duty to tell the true story.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

ketaki narkar
20-12-2009, 12:08 PM
Thanks Sir for the insight that you gave about the issues with power generation in India and the need for the use of renewable energy.

I studied about the provisions in the Land Acquisition Act,1894 as part of my course. It says that private land can be acquired for a purpose which is in larger interest of the nation/public.
After reading this article , the thing that bothers me the most is that the people of the coastal villages are being asked to sacrifice their lands in "public interest". Now they say public interest is to generate more and more power and ensure that there is no shortfall of power. If this is "public interest" then protecting the environment so that our present as well as future generation also survives, is that not a “public interest”? Rather, I feel ,it is a public interest for a number of generations to come. If the law can ask the poor villagers to part with their land and livelihood for a short term public interest such as generating power for the present generation's unending demands, with the same authority should not the law also be asking the power generating companies to part with their profit for the “long term public interest”?

i would be glad to hear thoughts about this....

regards,

Ketaki

Sabyasachi Patra
20-12-2009, 02:01 PM
Ketaki,

Good idea about the long term public interest. However, in India our Urban planners have failed us. The growth of towns and cities are happening by accident and without any design. Hence, you find that the same area is being given to polluting industries, where people were earlier encouraged to grow mangoes.

If you look at the history, the "victims" of land acquisition were treated badly. A number of people who were affected by the Hirakud Dam in Orissa are yet to get compensated even though nearly half a century has passed. It’s a tragedy.

In India, the plight of people affected by the Land acquisition act was highlighted after the policy of Special Economic Zones was enacted. The violent agitations against land acquisition in various parts of the country, gained prominence primarily due to the issue being considered close to the powerful farmer lobby.

Also, the media today has evolved and the reach is enormous, hence the Government sits up takes notice.

The pressure from the farmer lobby, resulted in instructions being passed that agricultural land won't be acquired. Unfortunately, the environmentalists have not been able to put enough pressure and hence the environmental aspect goes unnoticed.

Does the common man know about the benefits of our wetlands, forests etc and the harmful effects of environmental degradation and climate change? It is mentioned that only wastelands and non-agricultural land can be acquired for Special Economic Zones. The term wastelands is vague and all the wetlands are classified as wastelands and filled up with mud and debris for use by industry or for housing colonies etc. It is unfortunate that people don’t understand the importance of wastelands for carbon sequestering.

The people who are going to be worst impacted have no clue about it. The voters don't know about it. Anything that is not going to sway the voters tend to be neglected. I agree with you that projects like the ones in Konkan area are against the long term interests of the masses. Our survival is at stake. However, this is yet to be clearly understood by the majority, including the law makers, law enforcers, judiciary and the press. Unless we are able to bring these issue to the top of mind of all, things will go on as before. So I agree that environment should be treated as long term public interest.

As far as parting with the profits are concerned, I agree that a model needs to be worked out where a person losing his land is compensated with some cash upfront and a continual monthly/quarterly payments in future. However, the companies should do more rather than just parting with some amount that would go to the Govt. For eg. they cut away lot of old growth trees and say that they have planted saplings to compensate. A sapling will never be similar in terms of its capacity to store carbon as a old growth tree.

As far as polluting companies are concerned, they ought to pay. Whether from profit or before profits is another question. The reason is, a multi national company can always repatriate more in lieu of their licence fees. It is a tricky subject. More thought needs to go on this issue.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

Ranbir Mahapatra
22-12-2009, 01:49 PM
Sabyasachi as usual has lucidly described the hypocrisy we are facing.

About the monetizing aspect of conservation; recently scintists calculated that the capital required to cycle the carbon in the atmosphere, produce oxygen is around USD 25 trillion a year.

Obviously that is done for free by the trees on our planet.

Here is the interesting deal:
The total GDP of the world is near about that figure!

So, if all the economies of the worlds were to invest all their resources into recycling carbon in the atmosphere to oxygen they would hardly have any capital left for the "luxuries" that they are used to!

I disagree with the view that environment protection is a long term benefit. The environment is like a huge ship braking - positive and negative changes take a long time to come to effect - probably decades and centuries.

The process has to start now.