After two expert bodies submitted reports to environment ministry and to the apex court warning about possible ecological impacts of hydroelectric projects (HEPs) in the Ganga basin in Uttarakhand, the ministry has now formed a new 10-member body asking them to study the cumulative of impact of multiple HEP projects.
Following the 2013 Uttarakhand disaster, the apex court had asked for a review of HEPs proposed in the upper reaches of Ganga River. The first expert body had submitted a scathing report on the impact of HEPs on the 2013 disaster and even the Centre had to submit those findings before the Supreme Court.
But, it asked the SC's permission to form another expert body of four members. This four-member body, headed by Vinod Tare of IIT-Kanpur, also found that the HEPs would have an adverse impact on the river basin, but, the Centre shied away from mentioning this to the SC in its affidavit and gave a clean chit to six controversial projects.
The promoters of the six projects – NTPC (Lata-Tapovan-171 MW), NHPC (Kotlibhel IA-195 MW), THDC (Jhelum Tamak-108 MW), GMR (Alaknanda-300MW), Super Hydro (Khironi Ganga-4 MW and Bhyunder Ganga-24 MW) -- claim to have all the necessary environmental clearances.
Protesting the ministry's decision, environmentalists and activists such as Bharat Jhunjunwala and Prashant Bhushan – who are intervenors in the SC case -- have written to environment minister Prakash Javadekar and water resources minister Uma Bharti, alleging that the decision is in violation of the Centre's own submission in court.
The Centre had submitted that the second expert body, headed by Tare, would be expanded to include seismologist, a social scientist, a climatologist and a glaciologist. The expanded body was to focus on seismological vulnerability of the region, glacial movement and likely impacts on HEP structures, cloud burst phenomenon and identification of 'no-go' areas with respect to HEP constructions.
Besides, it was also to study micro-climate changes. The letter from the activists states, "it is clear, Mr Javadekar, that till such time you do not get a report that gives a green signal to these HEPs, you will continue to form one committee after another regardless of the reality on the ground."
The ministry has now given the same terms of references to the new expert body. Ironically, three members of the first expert body also figure in the newly-formed expert body.
Some of the members of the new body comprise civil engineering and hydrology expert BP Das, who was part of the first body, seismology expert professor SS Rai, social science expert Unmesh Patnaik from Tata Institute of Social Sciences, AV Kulkarni, a glaciology expert from Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru. The expert body has been asked to submit its report with six months. It has, however, been asked to submit its report on the six specific projects within three months.
Following the 2013 Uttarakhand disaster, the apex court had asked for a review of HEPs proposed in the upper reaches of Ganga River. The first expert body had submitted a scathing report on the impact of HEPs on the 2013 disaster and even the Centre had to submit those findings before the Supreme Court.
But, it asked the SC's permission to form another expert body of four members. This four-member body, headed by Vinod Tare of IIT-Kanpur, also found that the HEPs would have an adverse impact on the river basin, but, the Centre shied away from mentioning this to the SC in its affidavit and gave a clean chit to six controversial projects.
The promoters of the six projects – NTPC (Lata-Tapovan-171 MW), NHPC (Kotlibhel IA-195 MW), THDC (Jhelum Tamak-108 MW), GMR (Alaknanda-300MW), Super Hydro (Khironi Ganga-4 MW and Bhyunder Ganga-24 MW) -- claim to have all the necessary environmental clearances.
Protesting the ministry's decision, environmentalists and activists such as Bharat Jhunjunwala and Prashant Bhushan – who are intervenors in the SC case -- have written to environment minister Prakash Javadekar and water resources minister Uma Bharti, alleging that the decision is in violation of the Centre's own submission in court.
The Centre had submitted that the second expert body, headed by Tare, would be expanded to include seismologist, a social scientist, a climatologist and a glaciologist. The expanded body was to focus on seismological vulnerability of the region, glacial movement and likely impacts on HEP structures, cloud burst phenomenon and identification of 'no-go' areas with respect to HEP constructions.
Besides, it was also to study micro-climate changes. The letter from the activists states, "it is clear, Mr Javadekar, that till such time you do not get a report that gives a green signal to these HEPs, you will continue to form one committee after another regardless of the reality on the ground."
The ministry has now given the same terms of references to the new expert body. Ironically, three members of the first expert body also figure in the newly-formed expert body.
Some of the members of the new body comprise civil engineering and hydrology expert BP Das, who was part of the first body, seismology expert professor SS Rai, social science expert Unmesh Patnaik from Tata Institute of Social Sciences, AV Kulkarni, a glaciology expert from Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru. The expert body has been asked to submit its report with six months. It has, however, been asked to submit its report on the six specific projects within three months.
DNA
No comments:
Post a Comment