The Dam Debate - The bias of the Forest Advisory Committee
- Part 1 -

Chabungbam Amuba Singh *

The 'forest area displaced' is not an indicator used in World Bank documents. It is a term churned out by the FAC for its own purpose. It can/should not be used as an indicator for assessment of a dam because of the simple reason that the distribution of the forest is highly uneven, globally and nationally. The size of forest area submerged by a man-made reservoir obviously would depend on the location.

India as a whole has a poor forest cover of 20.05 % of its geographical area; yet, within it the North East and the Western Ghats are thickly forested regions (which have been identified as bio-diversity hot-spots of the world). Barring the North East which has 66.07% forest cover, the rest of India has only 17.15% forest cover. Within the North East also, if Assam and Sikkim are excluded the remaining six states together have 80.5% forest cover.

It is then quite natural that a hydro-project located in the North- East will have much larger proportion of forest area submergence/diversion than the national average.

It is not fair to judge a hydro-project in a region having 80.5% forest cover by comparing it with ones located in regions having only 17.15% forest cover on the issue of 'forest area submergence'? If at all a comparison is necessary, it is apt to compare Tipaimukh with the Shravathy H. E. project located in the Western Ghats which has rich forest cover like the North-East.

DISCRIMINATION OF THE NORTH-EAST REGARDING HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT

Look at the following table:

Table-2 : Status of Hydro Electric Potential Developed - Region Wise
(In terms of Installed Capacity - Above 25 MW)
As on 31 March 2012

These are figures at the end of the 11th Five Years Plan, given by INDIA-WRIS Water Resource Information System, India. As per report of the Central Electricity Authority of India, as on 30 June 2013 there are only 184 completed large hydropower stations in the country. ( A hydro power station with a capacity above 25 MW is termed 'large'). Of these, only 10 are in the North-East generating just 1242 MW which is just about 3 % of the country's total hydro power generation. Thus the North-East has 40 % of the country's hydro power potential but generates only 3 % of the country's hydro electricity.

It is evident that the North-East is dismally lagging behind in harnessing the hydro power potential. To make it worse, there is this apprehension that - if the discriminatory 'logic' of the Forest Advisory Committee is accepted the North-East will never be able to harness its huge hydropower potential.

If the North-East is denied the opportunity to harness its hydropower potential, what is left for the development of the region?

(Manipur has the distinction of having the lowest per capita electricity consumption in the country . Source: written statement in the Lok Sabha on 18 May 2012 by MOS K. C. Venugopal.)

SUMMING UP

1. The Indira Sagar Dam project has flooded 91 hectares/MW (submerging 41 hectares of Forest/MW) and displaced 81 people/MW. Forest clearance was given in 1987.

2. The Sardar-Sarovar Dam project has flooded 26 hectares/MW (submerging 9 hectares of Forest/MW) and displaced 140 people/MW. Forest clearance was given in 1985.

3. The Shravathy Hydro-Electric project has flooded 24 hectares/MW (submerging 20 hectares of Forest/MW)

In comparison, The Tipaimukh Multi-Propose project will flood 16 hectares of Forest/MW and displace less than 2 people/MW.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

1. Concern for conservation and protection of forest is always appreciated. However, the contextual anti-NE bias of the FAC needs to be condemned. It smacks of a colonial attitude.

2. As for conservation of forest, it should be noted that Manipur consumes 2.5 million tonnes of wood annually as kitchen fuel (Forest Survey of India report 2011). This much wood is equivalent to about 200 - 300 sq km of forest. The estimate is on the basis of information on 'forest cover' and 'growing stock' given in ISFR-2011. This might not result in outright depletion of forest area, - but certainly leads to massive degradation. The 'loss' is annual and has cumulative effect.

Therefore, a non-linear way to save the forest is to generate more hydroelectricity and make adequate power available to the poor villagers to replace 'the fuel' by electricity. Remember that generating thermal power will defeat the very purpose of saving the forest because a thermal power emits much more GHG than can be absorbed by the saved forest.

3. Without prejudice to the arguments in favour of the Tipaimukh project from the point of view of development of the state, we pose the following question which assumes a unique significance in the Dam debate:

Why should the people of the State bear the environmental cost (all development projects have environmental cost, light or heavy) just for a tiny share of the benefit in the form of 12 % power royalty? Just because we are a poor state who cannot afford the financial cost of the project?

We are made to understand that the 12% royalty is the 'national norm'. That is not very convincing. It does little to assuage the adverse feeling of 'being exploited'.

Perhaps the answer lies in facilitating the state to find an agency who would finance the project on terms endowing the ownership right to the State . The enabling first step for the facilitation is to accord the mandatory clearances. For, once a prospective financing agency comes to know that a mandatory clearance has been denied it would not even consider the proposal.

THE BOTTOM LINE: The Tipaimukh Dam is a good dam by the World Bank norms. The mandatory Forest clearance should be provided to enable the State Government to look for funding by a suitable agency like the World Bank/Asian Development Bank.

Concluded...