Environment Support Group ®
Parisara Samrakshana Kendra
S-3,
Rajashree Apartments, 18/57, Hulemalgi
Building, Chowkimath
1st
Main Road, S. R. K. Gardens, Sirsi
(Uttara Kannada Dt.),
Jayanagar,
Bannerghatta Road, Karnataka 581401
Bangalore
560 041. INDIA Tel:
91-8384-25139
Telefax:
91-80-6341977 Fax:
91-8384-27839
Email: [email protected]n Email:
[email protected]
05
December 2000
TERI produces
EIA for Dandeli Dam Project in no time
Efforts on to
rush environmental clearance for MPC project
During
August-September this year, we had exposed, in what we called the "worst
case of fraud in environmental decision making history in India", the fact
that Ernst and Young, an international consulting firm, "completely plagiarised the Rapid Environment
Impact Assessment of the Tattihalla Augmentation Scheme prepared by Institute
for Catchment Studies and Environmental Management, Bangalore”, thus presenting
Dandeli as being in Tattihalla. Ernst
and Young was presenting an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Rs. 180
crore hydel project proposed by Murdeshwar Power Corporation (MPC) across the
Kali River in the environmentally sensitive Uttara Kannada district of the
Western Ghats. All that Ernst &
Young had "cared to change" was the name of the dam, DMH (Dandeli
Mini-Hydel Scheme) for TAS (Tattihalla Augmentation Scheme).
Despite this expose',
widely covered by the media both within India and abroad, the Karnataka State
Pollution Control Board proceeded to hold the Environmental Public Hearing on
21 August 2000 on the basis of this plagiarised report. During the Hearing, hired thugs representing
the developer threatened those who questioned the validity of the process, with
dire consequences. Even a month after
the Hearing, the Government of Karnataka remained tight-lipped on what action
would follow, refusing to accept demands that the entire episode must be
thoroughly investigated by a judicial officer. Covertly, however, it seems to
have advised Murdeshwar Power Corporation to get another EIA done for the
project so that the project, which has received high political patronage, could
be put through the clearance process without further controversy.
Tata Energy Research
Institute (TERI: www.teriin.org), India’s famous NGO research
agency, collected the contract for salvaging the reputation of the Government
of Karnataka and MPC, and produced what it claimed to be an Environment Impact
Assessment, by October 2000.
Shockingly, TERI claims the “study was carried out for a period of one
month utlising 375 man days (September to October 2000)”, thus suggesting that
15 people worked for a period of 25 days.
Environment Impact
Assessments of projects in biodiversity rich and inaccessible forests of
Western Ghats require detailed and repeated observations over different seasons
to arrive at what can be considered to be reasonably accurate predictions of
the adverse impacts of the project.
Considering that the period was “September to October”, when rain lashes
this high rainfall region, it is very difficult to access the region, let alone
do any study reasonably well. This
especially when the preparation for the field study, conduct of the study,
analysis of data and writing of the report is all to be done in less than a month. Quite apart from whether 15 people actually
did the field-work, local people confirm that the TERI team was in the Dandeli
area for the period of a week.
That even the month
long work claimed has not been done is revealed in the “EIA” prepared by
TERI. Dr. Ranjit Daniels (formerly with
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science), who is an
authority on the biodiversity of the region and a person with extensive field
experience of the area, reviewed the study for us and found the ecological data
presented in the study: “secondary and
spurious”. He concludes that “recommendations
based on these can't be taken seriously”.
Questioning the credentials of those who have conducted the study, Dr.
Daniels’ notes that “the statement that the forests here record "very less
species per unit area" (Sec IV – 19 of the TERI EIA) is "absurd” for “such forests are the
richest in biodiversity in Uttara Kannada". And charges TERI of copying species information “without
acknowledgement” and without relevance to the project area. Dr. Daniels note reviewing the ecological
information in the TERI “EIA” is enclosed.
We note with concern
that based on such “spurious” information and based on a study format that is
not in compliance with standard EIA guidelines, TERI rushes to the conclusion
that “taking into account the economic development and social upliftment in the
area, via-a-vis the minimal (emphasis
ours) environmental impact, overall the proposed project may be said to be
beneficial”. And this when not
providing any economic and social information to justify this generic approval
of the project.
Given Ernst and
Young's plagiarised EIA attempt to push the MPC project clearance earlier, one
would have expected any subsequent study to be twice guarded in coming to a
conclusion on the impacts of a dam in this region. That TERI has stooped to such low levels as to doctor an
"EIA" within a month, claiming “375 man days” of effort, is a most
distressing and condemnable development.
To say the least, such an effort was not expected from an organisation
that claims high ethical standards for its research efforts, and most certainly
not to enable a project that has been controversial for violating the
fundamental precepts of Indian Environmental Legislation in its proposal to
locate a dam in an ecologically fragile region.
We
thus demand:
1.
That
TERI must withdraw this "EIA" report immediately
2.
The
Environmental Public Hearing to be held on 7th December 2000 at
Dandeli, on the basis of the TERI "EIA", should be postponed
indefinitely.
3.
The
MPC project application must be rejected in accordance with the Environment
Impact Assessment Notification for producing wrong and fraudulent EIA's, not
once, but twice, within a five month period.
4.
And
reiterate our earlier demand for a judicial inspection into why the MPC project
has been provided such zealous attention by the Government of Karnataka.
Only a thorough and
independent investigation will reveal if the political proximity of the project
developer, Mr. R. N. Shetty, to Karnataka’s Industries Minister, Mr. R. V.
Deshpande, who represents the Dandeli constituency, has anything to do with the
project receiving such acute attention from the Government. This particularly when we risk losing yet
another valuable patch of the fast dwindling spread of Western Ghats forests.
Leo F.
Saldanha/Bhargavi S. Rao Pandurang
Hegde/Balachandra Hegde
Environment Support
Group Parisara
Samrakshana Kendra
Bangalore Sirsi
·
More information on
the history of the Dandeli Dam proposal can be sourced online at http://web.estart.com/~esg/
Dr. Ranjit Daniels' Comment on the TERI EIA
(Comments in parenthesis are by
ESG)
I am qualified only
to comment on the ecological aspects having worked in the Dandeli area during the
late 1980's. From a perusal of the TERI
EIA it is obvious that the person who has done the flora/fauna is not a
qualified biologist. Statements,
such as, the forests here record "very less species per unit area"
(Sec IV - 19) is absurd. Judging by the species (listed in the
TERI EIA study), the forest is clearly a mosaic of deciduous and evergreen
forests. Such forests are the richest in biodiversity in Uttara
Kannada. Forest working plans
published in 1993 (and used as basis of the TERI EIA study) might have been
prepared years ago and hence with outdated information on plants and
animals. To base species list on this
is unwise.
Names of species are
erroneous, sometimes outdated and even non-existent in reality. Plant
names are full of spelling and classification errors. List of fishes of River Kali is dubious.
Sole (Cynoglossus lingua Ham.) is a marine estuarine species and it can
hardly exist in the proposed site. There are no lung fishes in India! (as claimed to exist in Sec IV - 34 of TERI EIA).
Crocodiles in Kali River? Where
exactly? This is news! Source has
not been provided for bird List Karwar-Haliyal area even when there are
specific lists for Dandeli prepared by a student of Univ. of Karnataka in
Dharwar, (perhaps) in 1989. There are
not more than 150 species of birds in the area and the list is copied
without acknowledgement. (In
contrast to the TERI EIA claims that 233 bird species are found in the Dandeli
Dam Study Area). Gallus gallus: Red Jungle Fowl, is not known from the State of
Karnataka (as claimed to exist in Dandeli vide Table 4.14; Sec. IV - 35 of the
TERI EIA). New records of species (as
claimed to have been the result of the TERI EIA study), indicated with *, are
well known in the district even 100 years ago!
Further, there cannot be many of these species in the study area. Such
compilations don't help.
Too few
butterflies. Many common butterfly
species missed out.
There are no 'herds' of elephants, in Dandeli (as claimed in the TERI EIA). 10-12 years ago there was
one herd with less than 20 individuals around Haliyal. And, there are no foxes! Snake list consists of only the most common
species (while the area has) many more.
For eg. Even the more commonly occurring Pit Vipers are not listed?
Amphibian data is spurious.
Ansonia
ornata, Bufo microtympanum are not known
from the district. (as claimed to exist in Dandeli in Table 4.17, Sec IV - 43
of the TERI EIA)
In general, the ecological data presented is secondary and
spurious. And thus, recommendations
based on these can't be taken seriously.