There is solid scientific evidence to demand the cancellation of several upcoming and approved hydroelectric projects.
Under normal circumstances, when a mistake is recognized and suffered, one learns from it and does not repeat it. Unfortunately, this is not true of policy makers who are bent on allowing projects and massive infrastructure in the already fragile and vulnerable Ganga-Himalayan basin. Recurring disasters in the state of Uttarakhand over the past decade have been studied and analyzed. And in every disaster, increasing anthropogenic pressure in the region has been found to be a direct or indirect contributor. the most recent example is Rishi-Ganga Valley Disaster, which in February this year claimed over 200 lives As the river turned into a flood, which contained a large amount of silt and debris and destroyed hydroelectric projects in its path. While science and logic tell us to go ahead with conservation and protection in these sensitive areas, our government has decided to go in the dangerous and opposite direction.
background
A recent affidavit filed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) in an ongoing case in the Supreme Court of India has recommended the construction of seven partially built hydroelectric projects in the Uttarakhand Himalayas. This essentially goes against the ministry’s original mandate – which is to preserve the country’s natural environment – and one of the government’s key election promises, the rejuvenation of the Ganga, one of the country’s major rivers. after Kedarnath tragedy of 2013, In suo moto Taking cognizance by the Supreme Court, an expert body (EB-I) was constituted to examine whether the “mushroom of hydroelectric projects” in the state of Uttarakhand was linked to the disaster. In its findings, the EB-I stated that these dams had a “direct and indirect effect” in exacerbating the disaster. Paving the way for the projects, the ministry constituted committees till the approval for these projects with some design changes.
This August 17 affidavit shows that the government is inclined to build 26 more projects, as recommended by the expert body (EB-II; BP Das Committee). The findings of the earlier expert body (EB-I), chaired by Ravi Chopra, which identified the countless environmental risks of such structures, have been conveniently bypassed and overwritten by the EB-II, whose mandate is to provide pathways to all projects. To pave. Some design change modifications. Despite dire warnings of the dangers of climate change and environmental challenges, politicians are bent on pursuing such projects for short-term monetary gains in collaboration with private developers. It should be noted that Latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change It is of particular importance in the context of fragile mountain ecosystems.
dangerous vicissitudes
The above affidavit submitted by MoEFCC has suppressed the Ministry’s own observations and the confession made in its earlier affidavit dated 5 May 2014. Acknowledged that hydroelectric projects exacerbated the 2013 floods. Interestingly, the recent affidavit has also hidden the minutes of the meeting and decision in this regard by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) on February 2, 2019. Minutes of this meeting took a policy decision to have “no new hydroelectric projects” on the Ganga, as well as cancel projects that have not reached 50% of its construction. This in itself is a strange demarcation because on the one hand there is an acknowledgment of the disastrous effect of dams (and the decision not to have more), while on the other, there is still a push to pursue them over the unfounded logic of money. have been spent on them. Should we continue or rectify our mistake?
The sustainability of dams in the long term is highly questionable as hydropower depends entirely on the high availability of water. Climate change models are clear about the wide-ranging effects of global warming trends on Himalayan glaciers – the main source of water in the region that maintains the drainage network within the mountain range. Temperatures across the region are projected to increase by an average of 1°C to 2°C by 2050. The retreating glaciers and alternate phases of floods and droughts will affect the seasonal flow of rivers.
editorial | A Fine Line: On Evolution and Conservation
The most important aspect is the existence of sediment hotspot paraglacial zones, which contribute enormous amounts of debris and silt to the river at the time of cloudburst, increasing the volume and devastation downstream of the river. The flash floods in these Himalayan valleys do not contain water alone; They also carry a huge amount of debris. This was pointed out by EB-II with its recommendation not to build any 2,000 meters. projects of over or north of the MCT, or the Maine Central Thrust (this is a major geological fault). The existing fully operational dams in the region are already indicative of the fact that these highly capital intensive undertakings have negatively affected the local communities and their livelihoods. The time has come for MoEFCC to prepare a written position on climate change adaptation with respect to the hydropower sector after extensive public discussion.
‘Risky artifacts’
Emily Huber, a political ecologist who has done extensive research on hydropower development in Northeast India, says that the dams in mountainous regions that are exposed to earthquakes, floods, excessive rainfall, avalanches and landslides are “Risky Artifacts” . The prominently clichéd discourse on hydropower as a renewable source of green energy, encouraged by the dam lobby, deliberately ignores controversial externalities such as social displacement, ecological impact, environmental and technological risks.
factors of climate change
These discourses are of great importance in the Himalayan regions as these projects increase the ecological vulnerability in a region which is already in a precarious state. Intensive anthropogenic activities associated with the spread of hydroelectric projects in these precarious areas intensify the intensity of flash floods, avalanches and landslides. The added element of climate change makes these scenarios even worse. About 15% of major earthquakes (of magnitude greater than 8) of the 20th century occurred in the Himalayas, and many of its segments are likely to see periods of intense seismic activity in the future, studies suggest. NS 2015 Nepal earthquake There is a case. Several dams were damaged in that incident, destroying a third of Nepal’s hydroelectric power.
Recent events like Rishi Ganga tragedy and disasters 2012 (Flood), 2013 are examples of how hydroelectric projects that come in the way of high-velocity flows exacerbate a disaster and should be considered as a warning against such projects in the disaster-prone Uttarakhand river basins. The spread of dams is not limited to Uttarakhand. As of 2007, Sikkim had entered into a contract with private public sector players for development of 5,000 MW and Arunachal Pradesh had signed a Memorandum of Understanding for 40,000 MW in 2010. As Ms. Huber points out, “these agreements thrive on speculative investment and political brokerage … private companies … often partner with public companies – courier and have minimal accountability or experience in logistics, real estate, steel fabrication, and so on. tourism sector”.
She cites the example of the 510 MW Teesta V Hydroelectric Plant in Central Sikkim commissioned in 2008. Local communities have been complaining about the sinking of mountain slopes, drying up of springs, development of cracks and increasing incidents of landslides. The construction and maintenance of an extensive network of underground tunnels carrying water to power stations contributes to the failure of mountain slopes.
many people in Tapovan Vishnugarh Hydroelectric Project They were washed away earlier this year, while scores were buried under the debris of the 2013 floods triggered by Kedarnath Valley’s Phata-Byung and Singoli-Bhatwari hydroelectric projects. Many lives and livelihoods were lost in the 2012 Ukhimath floods, where the Kali-Ganga and Madmaheshwar dams are located. The dangers of impending earthquakes or flash floods are rampant in the highly vulnerable Chamoli region where Vishnugad-Pippalkoti is located. We already know about the massive impact of Tehri Hydroelectric Project, if some unfortunate calamity strikes this massive structure.
the river should flow free
These are projects that have been approved by the government, with no science backing them, but many scientists seeking to quash the truths. A lot of money is being wasted in building these dams which will always operate far below their capacity, causing loss of water and forests and making the area fragile. By the time these are manufactured, the cost of the electricity generated will also be very high and there will be no buyer for it. Considering the environmental and cultural importance of these areas, it is imperative that the government refrain from overzealous construction of economically challenging hydroelectric projects and declare the upper reaches of all major streams of the Ganges as eco-sensitive zones. It should allow the river to flow freely and freely.
Mallika Bhanot is a member of Ganga Aawan, a citizen’s forum working towards the conservation of the Ganga and the Himalayas. CP Rajendran is Assistant Professor at National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru
.