Why agency like WAPCOS cannot be given EIA work for river link proposals

Expert opposes nomination of in-house agency for river links study

A member of the Expert Committee of the Inter-Linking of Rivers (ILR) has
opposed the government’s move to nominate its in-house agency for conducting
an environment impact assessment (EIA) for the Par-Tapi-Narmada and
Damanganga-Pinjal links.

Seeking “urgent attention” before the next ILR meeting on March 5, the
expert, Himanshu Thakker, who heads the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers
and People, questioned the awarding of the work to m/s Water and Power
Consultancy Services (India) Pvt. Limited (WAPCOS), a government enterprise
under the aegis of the Ministry of Water Resources.

The norm is to hire an independent agency for EIA to avoid a conflict of
interest and get an independent and competent assessment.

Quoting from the discussion papers for the forthcoming meeting, Mr. Thakker
has written to the Water Resources Secretary and the chairman of the
Committee of Environmentalists, Social Scientists and other Experts on
Interlinking of Rivers voicing his concern.

“The work of the EIA study should be an independent assessment of the
environment impact of the proposals, and the study is supposed to include a
‘No project’ option, listing of ‘unacceptable impacts,’ and the possible
option of concluding that the project is ‘not viable.’ Such independent
assessment cannot be done by an in-house organisation like WAPCOS, which is
a part of the same house as the Water Resources Ministry and the National
Water Development Agency,” Mr. Thakker said.

According to Mr. Thakker, WAPCOS has done surveys and investigations
justifying river links and other such projects in the past.

“It has done such studies for river linking projects [the Pranhita Chavella
link, for example] for Maharashtra and Gujarat, including projects like the
Damanganga and Sardar Sarovar that have direct involvement in projects under
discussion. An organisation in the business of doing such works cannot be
entrusted to take up an EIA work as that is in direct conflict with other
businesses of the organisation,” he said.

*‘No opportunity’*

Emphasising the “track record” of the company/agency selected to do the EIA,
Mr. Thakker said the expert committee on ILR appointed by the government was
not given an opportunity to apply its mind in the selection of the
consultant for EIA studies even for the Ken-Betwa link, which is against its
Terms of Reference (TOR) of the expert panel.

“If this committee is to do justice to the TOR given to it, it must get
opportunity to apply its mind to issues of relevance…I urge the chairman to
take urgent action to ensure that an inappropriate organisation like WAPCOS
does not get EIA work for any river links, leave aside the two under
discussion,” he said.

The expert committee was appointed after the United Progressive Alliance
government dismantled the Task Force on the Inter-Linking of Rivers. While
the Water Resources Secretary is the chairman, the committee has as members
the Director-General of the National Water Development Agency, water expert
Vijay Paranjpaye, waterman Rajinder Singh, Mala Kapoor, Former secretary Z.
Hasan and Mr. Thakker, among others.

Gargi Parsai

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article111742.ece

Ecologically Disastrous Inter-linking of rivers project scrapped

Note: Since September 2002, WaterWatch Alliance has been campaigning against this project and arguing for saner, safer and truly sustainable alternatives to this mega initiative that has set alarm bells ringing both within India and among neighboring countries. The logical end of the campaign lies in the rewriting of water, agriculture, industrial and hydro-power policies.

Gopal Krishna

River inter-linking project too costly, scrapped: Water Resources Minister

The UPA government has scrapped its predecessor NDA government’s ambitious river inter-linking project, Water Resources Minister P K Bansal told Lok Sabha on December 2, 2009. Inter-linking Himalayan rivers with peninsular rivers would require Rs 4.4 lakh crore, which Bansal said, was “beyond the capacity of the Centre”.

“Inter-linking Himalayan and peninsular rivers is a huge task. It involves a massive expenditure of Rs 4.4 lakh crore and such kind of money is not available to us,” Bansal said.

Bansal’s announcement of scrapping the project comes about two months after Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi said inter-linking the rivers was a bad idea and would lead to an environmental disaster.

However, peninsular and Himalayan rivers would be linked separately, Bansal said, though the projects would have a long gestation period.

Bansal said five projects of inter-linking peninsular rivers were on the Centre’s priority list and it was “pursuing it in the right earnest after taking consent of the concerned state governments and environmental and rehabilitation issues”. “At present only 5 of the 14 projects of inter-linking peninsular rivers are on the government’s priority list. It will involve expenditure of Rs 33,000 crore and would take around 9-10 years for completion,” Bansal said. Kane-Betwa inter-linking project involving Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh is one of the five priority projects.

Allaying fears of members from Orissa and Chhattisgarh that inter-linking Kane and Betwa would submerge several areas in these states, Bansal said none of the projects would be taken up without the consent of states and that he would like to have a meeting of chief ministers of the concerned states to take them “on board for speedy implantation of the projects”.

Union Ministry of Water Resources

Inter-linking of rivers

RAJYA SABHA

Most of the States are supportive of the concept of the interlinking of rivers project; provided the project can some how ensure a “win-win” situation for all States. However, the State of Kerala, has passed a resolution in the Kerala Assembly to drop the proposal of Pamba-Achankovil-Vaippar link. The Central Government has taken note of it and has decided not to treat it as a priority link for consensus building purpose at present.

An outlay of Rs. 32.44 crore has been approved of the preparation of Prefeasibility/Feasibility/Detailed Project Reports of river link proposals under National Perspective Plan, preparation of Prefeasibility/Feasibility Reports of Intra-state links and other studies in this regard by NWDA during current year.

69 Schemes with a total cost of Rs. 163.63 crore from Orissa have been included under Flood Management Programme (FMP) for providing central assistance amounting to Rs. 122.72 crore. First installment of central assistance amounting to Rs 45.90 crore for these 69 schemes was released during financial year 2008-09.

Further, there is a provision of Rs. 900 crore during financial year 2009-10 for the whole scheme “Flood Management Programme” for providing central assistance to all the states after approval of the proposals by the Empowered Committee on FMP under the Secretary (Expenditure), Ministry of Finance. As such, there is no provision for allocating funds on yearly basis to specific state under FMP. .

This information was given by the Minister of State for Water Resources, Shri Vincent H. Pala in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha on 26 November, 2009.

---------------------------------------

Union Ministry of Water Resources

Review of inter-linking of Rivers

Lok Sabha

The Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR) (erstwhile Ministry of Irrigation) formulated a National Perspective Plan (NPP) for Water Resources Development in 1980 envisaging inter-basin transfer of water from surplus basins to deficit basins/areas which comprises of two components, namely, Himalayan Rivers Development Component and Peninsular Rivers Development Component. National Water Development Agency (NWDA) was set up under the MOWR in 1982 for carrying out various technical studies to establish the feasibility of the proposals of NPP and to give concrete shape to it. Based on various studies conducted, NWDA has identified 30 links (16 under Peninsular Component & 14 under Himalayan Component) for preparation of Feasibility Reports (FRs). Out of these, FRs of 14 links under Peninsular Component and of 2 links (Indian Portion) under Himalayan Component have been completed. Detailed Project Report (DPR) of one priority link namely Ken – Betwa has also been completed. Further, NWDA has taken up the DPRs of another two links after concurrence of the concerned states, namely Par – Tapi – Narmada & Damanganga – Pinjal which are planned to be completed by December, 2011. Godavari (Polavaram)- Krishna (Vijawada) link is part of the Polavaram project of the Andhra Pradesh. Planning Commission has given investment clearance to the Polavaram Project and the Government of Andhra Pradesh has taken up the above project including link component as per their proposals. Further, NWDA has received 31 proposals of intra – state links from 7 States out of which Pre Feasibility Reports (PFRs) of 7 intrastate links have been completed.

The activities of NWDA are reviewed on Plan to Plan basis. The Government has reviewed the activities of NWDA while finalizing its outlay for XI Plan. A provision of Rs. 182.80 crore has been kept in Eleventh Five Year Plan for the preparation of (PFRs) / FRs / DPRs of river link proposals under NPP, preparation of PFRs/ FRs of Intra-state links proposed by states and other studies in this regard by NWDA. NWDA has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 271.44 crore from 1982-83 upto October, 09 for carrying out above works.

The Government of India has constituted a Committee of Environmentalists, Social Scientists and other Experts on 28th December, 2004, under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources to advise the Government on the environmental and socio-economic issues involved in inter linking of rivers programme. Seven meetings of this Committee have been held so far.

This information was given by the Minister of State for Water Resources, Shri Vincent H. Pala in a written reply in the Lok Sabha on 25 November, 2009.

Also take a look at the following statements in the recent past:

1 Inter-linking of rivers (PIB 26-11-2009)
2 Review of inter-linking of Rivers (PIB 25-11-2009)
3 Study on Inter-Linking of Rivers’ Programme (PIB 17-2-2009)
4 14 Water Resources Projects declared as National Projects (PIB 23-12-2008)
5 Availability of Water (PIB 17-3-2008)
6 Utilisation of Water (PIB 17-3-2008)
7 MoUs of three river water links to be signed soon (PIB 31-1-2008)
8 Inter-Linking of rivers in India (PIB 27-11-2007)
9 Inter-Linking of Rivers (PIB 20-11-2007)
10 Inter-linking of river and flood water (PIB 28-11-2006)

debating the climate debate: Beyond Copenhagen

debating the climate debate

Beyond Copenhagen

(Public discourse-cum-discussion organized by People Development and d-sector.org)

Is the world heading towards a logjam on emission reduction targets? Are negotiations heading towards a geo-strategic arm-twisting? Are national interests being compromised on ‘shared but differentiated’ framework? Is the world heading towards yet another Kyoto II?

These and many more, public discourse on the compelling concerns on climate change have either remained amidst closed doors or between column inches. Between the two, the social space has been usurped by co-opted parties in the disguise of civil voices.

There is more to climate change as the issue oscillates between myth and reality, between negotiation and submission and between targets and technology. Has the geopolitics not undermined the science of climate change? Is the world heading towards a new climate order or will the poor be the victims of the new climate hegemony? Will population reduction become the new global agenda?

If these and other questions concern and baffle you, you are welcome to be part of the public discourse-cum-discussion on Oct 6, 2009 at the Constitution Club, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110001. The discourse will start at 5 PM with a moderated panel steering a debate. The distinguished panelists are:

Prof. Pratap Bhanu Mehta*, President, Centre for Policy Research

Mr. Surya P. Sethi, former Principal Adviser (Energy) to the Planning Commission

Prof. Sudipto Mundle, Emeritus professor with the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy and former Director, ADB

Mr Anupam Mishra, renowned environmentalist with the Gandhi Peace Foundation

Mr Gopal Krishna**, researcher and coordinator of WaterWatch Alliance

Dr Sudhirendar Sharma, environmentalist and columnist, will lead and moderate the discussion

The discussion will be followed by dinner. Kindly confirm your participation to the undersigned to help us better arrange the logistics.

*confirmation awaited

**Being present in Bangkok, Mr Krishna will provide first-hand account of the progress on the inter-ministerial deliberations on climate change.

TERI sits on decision regarding dubious award to NHPC

TERI sits on decision regarding dubious award to NHPC

The jury panel of The Energy Resources Institute (TERI) for the environment excellence award 2009 may have decided to withdraw the award given to NHPC Ltd on June 5, 2009 for environment excellence, we have learnt. A number of persons and organisations, including Senior Supreme Court lawyer Shri Prashant Bhushan (Ph: 09811164068) and South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (SANDRP) had written a letter to the jury on August 17, 2009, arguing that NHPC did not deserve the award for its performance in the specific project (URI hydropower project in Jammu & Kashmir) that was mentioned in the award citation. Moreover, the NHPC also did not deserve an environmental excellence award considering the abysmal track record of the company on social & environmental issues.

The letter, objecting to the award to NHPC was written only after a detailed study of the NHPC performance in URI HEP and also the case study prepared by NHPC and TERI on this issue, as also other official documents, including a review of the assessment done by the Swedish International Development Agency, which provided funds for the projects. Let us know if you would like to get a copy of the letter we wrote to TERI jury. Concerned TERI persons are: Mr RK Narang: 91-11-24682100, 41504900 x:2455; Prateek Ghosh: x:2520; M: +91 9810259265. TERI weblink regarding the awards: http://www.teriin.org/awards/winner_excellance.htm; NHPC web-link on the award: http://www.nhpcindia.com/English/Scripts/PressRelease.aspx?VId=154, NHPC company secretary contact no: 0129-2278421

On the world environment day this year (i.e. June 5, 2009), in a well publicized event, the President of India conferred the TERI awards to various winners for environment excellence and corporate social responsibility. In presence of India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, the Jury of the awards headed by former Chief Justice of India J S Verma and TERI Director General Dr R K Pachauri, NHPC received the first prize for category III (companies with annual turnover above Rs 1000 crores). The award was supposed to be given for the “NHPC’s case study entitled Post Construction Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Study of 480 MW Uri Power Station in Jammu and Kashmir.”

Subsequent to our letter, we have learnt that the jury panel met and examined the response from TERI and from NHPC to the issues raised in the letter. It appears that the Jury panel may have decided to reconsider the decision to give the award to NHPC. Sources within TERI tell us that the jury also expressed unhappiness at the inappropriate way the NHPC had used the award in public domain. It may be recalled that in the advertisements leading to the NHPC’s issue of Initial Public Offer, the company had used this award to in misleading way to give the wrong impression that the company has been awarded for its overall excellence in environment protection.

Unfortunately there is no public statement from TERI on this issue so far. TERI has not yet (till Oct 1, 2009) responded to our letter (dated Aug 17, 2009) to them, except acknowledging (on Aug 21, 2009) receipt of the letter and promising detailed examination.

We see that not only NHPC has provided misleading picture to claim the award, but it is guilty of bringing disrepute to the jury panel and the award. Since the President of India conferred this award, NHPC is also guilty of dragging that high office and all those involved in the award ceremony into controversy. Similarly, TERI is also guilty of not doing adequate due diligence and misleading the jury panel. In fact the TERI case study of NHPC put up on its website shows how shoddy work TERI did even in understanding the timing, relevance and details of the various claims made by NHPC and TERI staff seems to have unquestionably accepted all the claims of NHPC. There is also the issue of conflict of interest, since TERI has received over Rs 1 crore of funding from NHPC in recent years. This conflict of interest is not relevant to the independent jury members, but it is certainly relevant in the context of the TERI persons sitting on Jury Panel and also the TERI persons doing due diligence. However, as we write this, TERI has not yet removed NHPC’s name from the list of award winners on its website, we hope TERI will do that soon.

Since the matter is of significant public interest, and the matter was raised by us a month and half ago, it is important the TERI make a clear public statement immediately on this issue, clarifying the status of the dubious Award given to NHPC.

Rahul Gandhi opposes interlinking of rivers

Note:The opposition to ecologically disastrous projects like Interlinking of Rivers is the litmus test for sanity. It required political spine of likes of Rahul Gandhi, Jairam Ramesh, Kerela and Punjab Assembly to respond to an populist but unsound project of networking of rivers being promoted by people like APJ Kalam, Mukesh Ambani, Karunanidhi and Advani aided by the misplaced enthusiam of judiciary. The project is an exercise in environmental terrorism. Similar river diversion plans led to the Aral Sea disaster engineered by the former Soviet Union.

The gulf between the views of Indian National Congress and the government led by the party is illustrated by the policy pronouncements of its concerned minister. on June 28, 2009 Pawan Kumar Bansal, Water Resources Minister in the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government was asked at the Idea Exchange Programme of Indian Express: Is this government going to pursue the interlinking of rivers project? Bansal had responded, "Thirty systems that could be linked have been identified. Feasibility reports have been prepared for 16 of those 30. But water is a state subject, so the Centre cannot impose anything. It acts as a facilitator and a catalyst to promote judicious use of water." Indian Express has been biased in favour of the project.

On July 9, 2009, replying to supplementaries during Question Hour in the Rajya Sabha, Bansal reiterated, 30 river links were identified for inter-linking. The government is considering five river-linking projects for diversion of surplus flood water to water deficient areas. "Based on preliminary studies, 30 links with aggregate irrigation potential of 35 million hectare have been identified and National Water Development Agency has been assigned the responsibility of preparation of feasibility report and the detailed project reports," he said. Of these, five projects have been prioritised and detailed feasibility reports are being prepared.

Earlier, in April, 2009 even the National Water Mission's Comprehensive Mission Document (Revised Draft)under National Action Plan on Climate Change refers to "expeditious formulation of river interlinking projects by March 2012". This document has been endorsed by the Prime Minister's Office as well.

There seems to be some powerful groups at work who are compelling the Prime Minister's Office and its Water Resources Ministry to undertake catastrophic rewriting of geography through networking of rivers.

Can one now expect that the political wisdom of Indian National Congress and UPA (barring DMK) will translate into the policy pronouncements of the UPA government and rectify its apparent double speak on Interlinking of Rivers project?.

Gopal Krishna

Rahul Gandhi opposes interlinking of rivers

Chennai, Sep 10 : AICC General Secretary Rahul Gandhi today said he was strongly opposed to the idea of interlinking of rivers nationally.

When pointed out at a press conference here that the proposal of interlinking of rivers had not yet materialised, Mr Gandhi said ''my personal opinion is that such a move will be disastrous''.

"Enviornmentlaly it is extremely dangerous...playing with environment is not a good idea," he added.

He, however, said it was his personal opinion.

Asked about late Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Rajasekhara Reddy's working on the idea of linking Godavarai and Krishna rivers as part of the 'Jalayagyam programme', Mr Gandhi said ''at the local level, interlinking of rivers may have prospects of increase in irrigation.'' ''But it will be a disaster at the national level,'' he added.

--UNI

CIC asks MWR not to consider River flow data secret

Water Resources Ministry directed to make the Ganga Basin studies public

In order that is likely to have far reaching implications on water governance in India, the Central Information Commission(CIC) has directed the Union Ministry of Water Resources (MWR) that “any study about water-flow in the river systems of the country must be made available to the general public for its information and education. It is not open to the public authority to hold secret critical information with which lives of millions may be related. Publication of this data informs the people about how the public authority is discharging its appointed functions and whether it was acting accountably about a matter so critical as the nation’s water resources in general and the river systems in particular.” Following an appeal by SANDRP, the CIC has asked the MWR make public the reports of the Central Water Commission & National Institute of Hydrology on the impacts of the hydropower projects on Bhagirathi River in Uttarakhand and for portions that the ministry decides not to make public, “Reasons for holding these parts of the information confidential will have to be recorded, which should be open to scrutiny.” This entire task is to be completed in three months.

The CIC order dated June 8, 2009 (the order is available on CIC website at: http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AT-08062009-09.pdf which became available to SANDRP today, was following a hearing at the CIC on June 2, 2009, where Himanshu Thakkar and Swarup Bhattacharya represented SANDRP. Shri Vinay Kumar Sr. Joint Commissioner (Policy & Planning) (Ph: 23719503 (O), 26173251(R), PBX: 373) represented the MWR. The concerned Appellate Authority is Comm. (PP) M.E.Haque (Ph: 23711946 (O) 26186522(R)).

Facts of the case On October 15, 2008, Swarup Bhattacharya from SANDRP had filed an RTI application with the MWR on the issue of the impacts of the Hydropower Projects on the Ganga River. The MWR accepted that the Central Water Commission (CWC) and the National Institute of Hydrology (NIH) were asked on July 9, 2008 to submit reports in one month on the impacts of the hydropower projects on the hydrology and ecology of the river and the hill areas. The MWR had asked these reports following a letter of concern from UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi to the then Union Minister of Water Resources. However, MWR refused to provide copies of these reports, first saying “the reports have not been accepted by the Ministry and these are under examination of MWR.” On appeal, the appellate Authority gave a new reason for not making the reports available: “Since the specific reports submitted by NIH and CWC to the Ministry include classified data of Ganga Basin, it would not be possible to make available copies”.

This was indeed a very shocking state of affairs. The Ministry should have taken up studies on impacts of so many hydropower projects on any river, on its own. It did not do that. When this becomes an issue of public concern following serious impacts of the projects on the people, river and the ecology, it still does not take any action. Then when Mrs Sonia Gandhi writes to the minister, the MWR does ask for the studies, but does not make them public on its own and refuses to make them public even under RTI. Considering the seriousness of the issue, SANDRP approached CIC. Following an appeal to the CIC on Feb 19, 2009, the CIC heard the case on June 2, 2009 and made the above mentioned order.

CIC critical of the MWR At the hearing on June 2, ‘09 before the Information Commissioner Shri A N Tiwari, the MWR officials could not even say “what was being done to ensure that the river systems that sustain much of the life of the country should not run dry”. Thus, CIC observed in the order, “However, they were unable to state what part of that inter-ministerial responsibility befell on the MWR.”

In fact, one of the questions in the above mentioned RTI by Swarup Bhattacharya from SANDRP was, “What action has Ministry of Water Resources taken in the past to ensure that rivers in India have fresh water all round the year?” The MWR response in this regard exposed the Ministry, “Water Resources projects are planned, implementation (sic) and operated by the respective State Governments.” What this reply said was that the MWR was doing nothing to ensure that rivers in India have freshwater all round the year. On top of this, the MWR is not even making the basic information of water flow in rivers in India public.

It is hoped that following this CIC order, the MWR will review its information disclosure policies and proactively make available all information about river flows on its website and in other forms.

Climate Change Position of Government of India

Validity of “principle of historical responsibility” indisputable and incontrovertible but a document titled “THE ROAD TO COPENHAGEN: India’s Position on Climate Change Issues” published by Public Diplomacy Division, Union Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India dated February 27, 2009 with a foreword by Shyam Saran is questionable. It states, “subjecting national aspirational efforts to an international compliance regime may result in lower ambitions” and “inability to reach a certain target for renewable energy use under a national plan, would have very different consequences than a similar legal obligation under an international agreement. The two cannot be equated.”

Clearly, the National Action Plan for Climate Change that the Prime Minister unveiled on June 30, 2008 with its eight missions including National Water Mission that finds mention even in the Congress Party’s manifesto is just a statement of voluntary action, intent and aspiration. It is not mandatory for any agency, be it governmental or corporate to act according to the action plan and thus it does not constitute what the manifesto of the Indian National Congress promised as “credible actions” within any framework.

It is a well-known fact that even the reports brought out by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more of a politically acceptable scientific survey rather than a purely scientific study. The latter would have called for more radical measures with regard to steps required to stop ongoing dangerous interference with the atmosphere due to current model of industrialization and urbanization that is highly inconsistent with thousands of years of human wisdom. In such a scenario, when a consensual scientific document based on broader political unanimity calls for reversal in business as usual practices it would have seemed natural for countries like India to act not because of some international requirement but because it is in one’s own supreme national interest. It is inconsequential for citizens whether some international humanitarian law is being followed in letter or not, what is of consequence is whether or not its governmental actions factor in the spirit behind a law that will have ramifications not only for the present generation but also for the future generations. The response of Government of India neither follows the former nor the latter even when Chapter 10 (page no. 493), Working Group II Report "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability", IPCC Fourth Assessment Report states, “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005). The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases. The relatively high population density near these glaciers and consequent deforestation and land-use changes have also adversely affected these glaciers. The 30.2 km long Gangotri glacier has been receding alarmingly in recent years. Between 1842 and 1935, the glacier was receding at an average of 7.3 m every year; the average rate of recession between 1985 and 2001 is about 23 m per year (Hasnain, 2002). The current trends of glacial melts suggest that the Ganga, Indus, Brahmaputra and other rivers that criss-cross the northern Indian plain could likely become seasonal rivers in the near future as a consequence of climate change and could likely affect the economies in the region. Some other glaciers in Asia – such as glaciers shorter than 4 km length in the Tibetan Plateau – are projected to disappear and the glaciated areas located in the headwaters of the Changjiang River will likely decrease in area by more than 60% (Shen et al., 2002).”

Despite this and in spite of its own National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem, Government of India in its wisdom feels that the fate of “About 15,000 Himalayan glaciers which supports perennial rivers such as the Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra”, which remains “the lifeline of millions of people in South Asian countries (Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, India and Bangladesh)” merits only non-serious, unaccountable, irresponsible and even nationally legally non-enforceable responses to combat an ecological crisis that is bound to turn into a humanitarian crisis. In its frozen passivity and insensitivity, it is promoting only insincere paper work although Ganga basin alone is home to 500 million people and they are already facing great distress due to multiple ecological problems emerging from blind industrialization and urbanization. In the absence of any legal obligation to conserve biodiversity, forest cover, and other ecological values in the Himalayan region, for instance, the projected recession of glaciers that are a major source of India’s water supply cannot be prevented.

Does capital intensive thermal and nuclear energy based households make any sense when transmission and distribution (T&D) losses of the state electricity boards & distribution firms are almost 55%? T&D losses for the country as a whole are estimated to be in the range of 35%–45%, according to Planning Commission's Eleventh Five Year Plan 2007-12. In such a situation, decentralization of energy generation seems to be the way forward.

But nothing mentioned in documents being manufactured by the government shows that their current action factors in how climate change creates a compelling logic for conservation measures and policy reversals. Even key ministries like Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj have not been consulted at any stage but like Panchayats even their ministry is dismissed indeed reflecting “a major lacuna” in what the Panchayati Raj Ministry wanted to do “to mitigate the adverse impact of climate change on local communities”. It surprising that pre-occupied with some elitist concerns they even failed to demonstrate that Union Water Resources Ministry as a nodal Ministry is incapable of undertaking any environment friendly measures because it is beyond its mandate in the same way as they were not successful in ensuring that the Union Ministry of Science and Technology did not get away by saying “it would be difficult to involve panchayats or local communities” at this stage.

Notably, even the National River Conservation Directorate and the recent Ganga River Basin Authority is under the Union Ministry of Environment & Forests. Continuing its unhealthy legacy of bulldozing rivers, flood plains, forests, biodiversity, natural drainage etc, it is not inconsistent that even ministries such as Union Ministry of Panchayats have not been deemed relevant for engagement, let alone citizens.

Not only the issue of water resources even National Mission on Sustainable Habitat that calls for incentives for the use of public transportation is remains a non-starter. The World Bank’s six-sector yet to be published study Low Carbon Growth in India says: “The active promotion of car ownership, coupled with their currently low variable operating cost, are likely to cause these growth forecasts to be exceeded unless policies are enacted to promote fast and efficient public transport over private alternatives, and corresponding infrastructure is developed.” Almost of all the global cities have committed blunders with their transport policies under the influence of car industry, while it is a fine stance for India at the global negotiating table to say that if all other countries own cars, India too has a right aspire for new cars but domestically if the National Action Plan indeed promotes public transportation there is no visible movement in that direction. No one can dispute that it would serve India’s public interest and environment better if it can resist the tremendous influence of the car companies in India.