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
Sunday, 13 September 2009
Friday, 26 June 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
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.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Narendra Modi accuses centre of obstructing linking of rivers
The BJP led National Democratic Alliance presented a united face at a ‘Maha Rally’ in Ludhiana on 10 May. The alliance presented as many as eight chief ministers on the same platform and brought leaders of Gorkha Janmukti Morcha from Darjeeling, Telengana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) leader K Chandrashekhar Rao and Assam Gana Parishad (AGP) on the same platform.
The five-hour rally, held in scorching heat, lasted from 11 am to 4 pm and barring the star attraction Narendra Modi, all other leaders sat through the speeches. As many as four chief ministers present at the rally, of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, were left out in the cold and did not get a chance to address the rally.
Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar said centre had asked Bihar to return the Rs 1000 crore flood relief fund, while Modi accused the centre of obstructing linking of river waters.
Chander Mohan Patowari, chief of Asom Gana Parishad, Narendra Modi and even Advani spoke of linking all national rivers for water sharing and taking national water resource to each farmer of the country. This caused lot of embarrassment to Punjab Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal, who has declared that Punjab has not a single drop of water to be shared with Haryana or Rajasthan.
The five-hour rally, held in scorching heat, lasted from 11 am to 4 pm and barring the star attraction Narendra Modi, all other leaders sat through the speeches. As many as four chief ministers present at the rally, of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, were left out in the cold and did not get a chance to address the rally.
Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar said centre had asked Bihar to return the Rs 1000 crore flood relief fund, while Modi accused the centre of obstructing linking of river waters.
Chander Mohan Patowari, chief of Asom Gana Parishad, Narendra Modi and even Advani spoke of linking all national rivers for water sharing and taking national water resource to each farmer of the country. This caused lot of embarrassment to Punjab Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal, who has declared that Punjab has not a single drop of water to be shared with Haryana or Rajasthan.
Saturday, 18 April 2009
Regressive Steps of National Water Mission?
At a civil society meeting on the National Water Mission (NWM) of India's National Action Plan on Climate Change in the conference room of Church of North India, New Delhi. The meeting was organized by the Indian Network on Ethics in Climate Change (INECC) on April 18, 2009 to comprehend the reasons for the autocratic and non-transparent drafting of the document without any democratic engagement with the citizen groups.
It appears to the Union Water Resources Ministry that the entire wisdom of the citizens rests with three organisations namely: The Energy Resources Institute, International Water Management Institute and Centre for Science and Environment, which have failed to note that climate change creates a compelling logic for conservation measures and policy reversals which the Ministry is incapable of undertaking and its beyond its mandate. It is noteworthy that 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.
The Prime Minister unveiled the National Action Plan for Climate Change on June 30, 2008 wherein eight missions including National Water Mission were launched. Other missions include (a) National Solar Mission, (b) National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency, (c) National Mission on Sustainable Habitat, (d) National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Eco-system, (e) National Mission for a Green India, (f) National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture, and (g) National Mission on Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change.
Second volume of the National Water Mission document notes that Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that of UNFCCC, which defines climate change as, “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”.
This Report is formed for the Sub-committee on Policy and Institutional Framework as established by the High Level Steering Committee of the National Water Mission headed by Secretary (Water Resources). The Report does not take any position about the causes and certainty of the climate change. However, the possible range of effects on Water Sector is culled out from other expert opinions. On this basis, the possible mitigative
measures and the new strategies required for such mitigative measures are outlined and the programmes.
The High Level Steering Committee of the National Water Mission has set-up six Sub-Committees as follows:
• Policy and Institutional Framework
• Surface Water Management
• Ground Water Management
• Domestic and Industrial Water Management
• Efficient Use of Water for various Purposes
• Basin Level Planning and Management
The Policy and Institutional Framework Sub-Committee has to deal with the issues brought out by the other five Sub-Committees and then discuss the policy related issues. This would also include institutional and legal issues, regulatory structures, entailment and pricing, etc. The Surface Water Management Sub-Committee also deals with a large number of issues with considerable overlaps with the coverage of the other four Sub-
Committees. The Sub-Committees on Ground Water Management, Domestic and Industrial Water Management, Efficient use of Water for various purposes and Basin level management, deal with more pinpointed issues.
First volume of the National Water Mission document identifies the strategies and methodologies in respect of (a) Assessment of Impact of Climate Change; (b) Changes in Policy, Practices and Institutional Framework; (c) Measures for Mitigation; as well as (d) Measures for Adaptations. Appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanism have also been proposed.
Outlining the objectives of Water Mission in the National Action Plan for Climate Change, it says, “A National Water Mission will be mounted to ensure integrated water resource management helping to conserve water, minimize wastage and ensure more equitable distribution both across and within states. The Mission will take into account the provisions of the National Water Policy and develop a framework to optimize water use by increasing water use efficiency by 20% through regulatory mechanisms with differential entitlements and pricing. It will seek to ensure that a considerable share of the water needs of urban areas are met through recycling of waste water, and ensuring that the water requirements of coastal cities with inadequate alternative sources of water are met through adoption of new and appropriate technologies such as low temperature desalination technologies that allow for the use of ocean water. The National Water Policy would be revisited in consultation with States to ensure basin level management strategies to deal with variability in rainfall and river flows due to climate change. This will include enhanced storage both above and below ground, rainwater harvesting, coupled with equitable and efficient management structures. The Mission will seek to develop new regulatory structures, combined with appropriate entitlements and pricing. It will seek to optimize the efficiency of existing irrigation systems, including rehabilitation of systems that have been run down and also expand irrigation, where feasible, with a special effort to increase storage capacity. Incentive structures will be designed to promote water neutral of water positive technologies, recharging of underground water sources and adoption of large scale irrigation programmes which rely on sprinklers, drip irrigation and ridge and furrow irrigation.”
It also describes the procedure for implementation of the Mission saying: “These National Missions will be institutionalized by respective ministries and will be organized through inter-sectoral groups which include in addition to related Ministries, Ministry of Finance and the Planning Commission, experts from industry, academia and civil society. The institutional structure would vary depending on the task to be addressed by the Mission and will include providing the opportunity to compete on the best management model.
Each Mission will be tasked to evolve specific objectives spanning the remaining years of the 11th Plan and the 12th Plan period 2012-2013 to 2016- 2017. Where the resource requirements of the Mission call for an enhancement of the allocation in the 11th Plan, this will be suitable considered, keeping in mind the overall resources position and the scope for re-prioritization.
Comprehensive Mission documents detailing objectives, strategies, plan of action, timelines and monitoring and evaluation criteria would be developed and submitted to the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate change by December 2008. The council will also periodically review the progress of these Missions.
State Governments would be requested to set up Monitoring Committee under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary / Secretary in charge of Water Resources. The State Government would also be requested to create Climate Change Cell at appropriate level. In case of States with considerable potential for water resources development, the cell should be headed by an officer in the grade of Chief Engineer whereas in smaller States, it would be headed by a Superintending Engineer.
Draft Comprehensive Mission Documents for National Water Mission under National Action Plan on Climate Change are available on the website of Union Ministry Water Resources.
The two volume report of NWM is available on the following URLs on the website of Ministry of Water Resources:
:
Draft Comprehensive Mission Documents for National Water Mission - Volume I
Draft Comprehensive Mission Documents for National Water Mission - Volume II
While the a civil society view of the above document has been published categorically asserting that the document “lacks proper perspective, urgency and sincerity” because only lip-service has been paid to conservation of wetlands, ground water recharge, irrigation efficiency along with big dams, interlinking of rivers. Efforts are underway to seek its complete rewriting because its approach is fundamentally flawed. Overall, it ends promoting business as usual.
It appears to the Union Water Resources Ministry that the entire wisdom of the citizens rests with three organisations namely: The Energy Resources Institute, International Water Management Institute and Centre for Science and Environment, which have failed to note that climate change creates a compelling logic for conservation measures and policy reversals which the Ministry is incapable of undertaking and its beyond its mandate. It is noteworthy that 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.
The Prime Minister unveiled the National Action Plan for Climate Change on June 30, 2008 wherein eight missions including National Water Mission were launched. Other missions include (a) National Solar Mission, (b) National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency, (c) National Mission on Sustainable Habitat, (d) National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Eco-system, (e) National Mission for a Green India, (f) National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture, and (g) National Mission on Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change.
Second volume of the National Water Mission document notes that Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that of UNFCCC, which defines climate change as, “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”.
This Report is formed for the Sub-committee on Policy and Institutional Framework as established by the High Level Steering Committee of the National Water Mission headed by Secretary (Water Resources). The Report does not take any position about the causes and certainty of the climate change. However, the possible range of effects on Water Sector is culled out from other expert opinions. On this basis, the possible mitigative
measures and the new strategies required for such mitigative measures are outlined and the programmes.
The High Level Steering Committee of the National Water Mission has set-up six Sub-Committees as follows:
• Policy and Institutional Framework
• Surface Water Management
• Ground Water Management
• Domestic and Industrial Water Management
• Efficient Use of Water for various Purposes
• Basin Level Planning and Management
The Policy and Institutional Framework Sub-Committee has to deal with the issues brought out by the other five Sub-Committees and then discuss the policy related issues. This would also include institutional and legal issues, regulatory structures, entailment and pricing, etc. The Surface Water Management Sub-Committee also deals with a large number of issues with considerable overlaps with the coverage of the other four Sub-
Committees. The Sub-Committees on Ground Water Management, Domestic and Industrial Water Management, Efficient use of Water for various purposes and Basin level management, deal with more pinpointed issues.
First volume of the National Water Mission document identifies the strategies and methodologies in respect of (a) Assessment of Impact of Climate Change; (b) Changes in Policy, Practices and Institutional Framework; (c) Measures for Mitigation; as well as (d) Measures for Adaptations. Appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanism have also been proposed.
Outlining the objectives of Water Mission in the National Action Plan for Climate Change, it says, “A National Water Mission will be mounted to ensure integrated water resource management helping to conserve water, minimize wastage and ensure more equitable distribution both across and within states. The Mission will take into account the provisions of the National Water Policy and develop a framework to optimize water use by increasing water use efficiency by 20% through regulatory mechanisms with differential entitlements and pricing. It will seek to ensure that a considerable share of the water needs of urban areas are met through recycling of waste water, and ensuring that the water requirements of coastal cities with inadequate alternative sources of water are met through adoption of new and appropriate technologies such as low temperature desalination technologies that allow for the use of ocean water. The National Water Policy would be revisited in consultation with States to ensure basin level management strategies to deal with variability in rainfall and river flows due to climate change. This will include enhanced storage both above and below ground, rainwater harvesting, coupled with equitable and efficient management structures. The Mission will seek to develop new regulatory structures, combined with appropriate entitlements and pricing. It will seek to optimize the efficiency of existing irrigation systems, including rehabilitation of systems that have been run down and also expand irrigation, where feasible, with a special effort to increase storage capacity. Incentive structures will be designed to promote water neutral of water positive technologies, recharging of underground water sources and adoption of large scale irrigation programmes which rely on sprinklers, drip irrigation and ridge and furrow irrigation.”
It also describes the procedure for implementation of the Mission saying: “These National Missions will be institutionalized by respective ministries and will be organized through inter-sectoral groups which include in addition to related Ministries, Ministry of Finance and the Planning Commission, experts from industry, academia and civil society. The institutional structure would vary depending on the task to be addressed by the Mission and will include providing the opportunity to compete on the best management model.
Each Mission will be tasked to evolve specific objectives spanning the remaining years of the 11th Plan and the 12th Plan period 2012-2013 to 2016- 2017. Where the resource requirements of the Mission call for an enhancement of the allocation in the 11th Plan, this will be suitable considered, keeping in mind the overall resources position and the scope for re-prioritization.
Comprehensive Mission documents detailing objectives, strategies, plan of action, timelines and monitoring and evaluation criteria would be developed and submitted to the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate change by December 2008. The council will also periodically review the progress of these Missions.
State Governments would be requested to set up Monitoring Committee under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary / Secretary in charge of Water Resources. The State Government would also be requested to create Climate Change Cell at appropriate level. In case of States with considerable potential for water resources development, the cell should be headed by an officer in the grade of Chief Engineer whereas in smaller States, it would be headed by a Superintending Engineer.
Draft Comprehensive Mission Documents for National Water Mission under National Action Plan on Climate Change are available on the website of Union Ministry Water Resources.
The two volume report of NWM is available on the following URLs on the website of Ministry of Water Resources:
:
Draft Comprehensive Mission Documents for National Water Mission - Volume I
Draft Comprehensive Mission Documents for National Water Mission - Volume II
While the a civil society view of the above document has been published categorically asserting that the document “lacks proper perspective, urgency and sincerity” because only lip-service has been paid to conservation of wetlands, ground water recharge, irrigation efficiency along with big dams, interlinking of rivers. Efforts are underway to seek its complete rewriting because its approach is fundamentally flawed. Overall, it ends promoting business as usual.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
What are the biggest threats to Ganga basin?
Initiating a structured discussion on the Ganga river basin-covering parts of Nepal, India, Tibet and Bangladesh- wherein approximately one in twelve people in the world live, WaterWatch invites considered submission of 400/500 words from a holistic perspective to comprehend and articulate the crisis that has emerged from the current fragmented and fractured approach of the governments, academia, civil society and corporations of commerce and religion.
Being a moderated discussion, participants are expected to stay focused around the lead questions:
What is Ganga River Basin approach? Does it apply to only 79% of Ganga basin, which is in India? Will it include 13 % of Ganga basin that is in Nepal, 4 % in Bangaldesh and 4 % in Tibet? What is its relationship with the river systems and with the composite Ganga-Brahmputra-Meghna basin and its consequences?
How does it affect the policies of Industry, Power, Agriculture, Urban Development, Health and Environment by the central government, the governments of eleven states (Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttranchal, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal), the neighboring countries and industry bodies like CII/FICCI/ASSOCHEM/PHCCI?
What is the relevance of Ganga River basin approach when the river channel has been amputated from the flood plains besides the amputation of the river channel itself?
Will the Third Phase of Ganga Action Plan (GAP) or the proposed the Ganga River Basin Authority which is to consider its formation in a meeting likely to be held on January 15 and its proposed river basin approach affect the quality of surface water, ground water and the survival of natural flow of the rivers in the basin? (The GAP-I which was to be completed by March 1990 was extended till March, 2000 when it was declared complete but Phase I of the Plan is not yet fully complete and GAP-II which was to be completed in 2001 was extended till December 2008. This too remains incomplete)
What is the meaning of the official ceremonial and ornamental status being accorded to Ganga just prior to the upcoming parliamentary elections?
Which among the following are the biggest threats to Ganga basin?
a. National Interlinking of Rivers project of NDA & UPA,
b. UP’s Ganga Expressway project,
c. Uttarakhand’s Bhairon Ghati, Loharinag-Pala, Pala Maneri and Maneri Bhali hydro-projects
d. Some 191 heavily polluting industries in the Ganga basin states
e. West Bengal’s Farraka Barrage
f. Bihar’s Interlinking of Rivers project or Kosi High Dam
g. Pollution from “Religious” Activities
h. Corporate funding of political parties
i. Co-opted NGOs
What is required is not yet another Authority but genuine basin approach to overcome these threats.
Given the significance of the discussions, general submissions to the list will be held back (only most important submissions will get posted).
Being a moderated discussion, participants are expected to stay focused around the lead questions:
What is Ganga River Basin approach? Does it apply to only 79% of Ganga basin, which is in India? Will it include 13 % of Ganga basin that is in Nepal, 4 % in Bangaldesh and 4 % in Tibet? What is its relationship with the river systems and with the composite Ganga-Brahmputra-Meghna basin and its consequences?
How does it affect the policies of Industry, Power, Agriculture, Urban Development, Health and Environment by the central government, the governments of eleven states (Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttranchal, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal), the neighboring countries and industry bodies like CII/FICCI/ASSOCHEM/PHCCI?
What is the relevance of Ganga River basin approach when the river channel has been amputated from the flood plains besides the amputation of the river channel itself?
Will the Third Phase of Ganga Action Plan (GAP) or the proposed the Ganga River Basin Authority which is to consider its formation in a meeting likely to be held on January 15 and its proposed river basin approach affect the quality of surface water, ground water and the survival of natural flow of the rivers in the basin? (The GAP-I which was to be completed by March 1990 was extended till March, 2000 when it was declared complete but Phase I of the Plan is not yet fully complete and GAP-II which was to be completed in 2001 was extended till December 2008. This too remains incomplete)
What is the meaning of the official ceremonial and ornamental status being accorded to Ganga just prior to the upcoming parliamentary elections?
Which among the following are the biggest threats to Ganga basin?
a. National Interlinking of Rivers project of NDA & UPA,
b. UP’s Ganga Expressway project,
c. Uttarakhand’s Bhairon Ghati, Loharinag-Pala, Pala Maneri and Maneri Bhali hydro-projects
d. Some 191 heavily polluting industries in the Ganga basin states
e. West Bengal’s Farraka Barrage
f. Bihar’s Interlinking of Rivers project or Kosi High Dam
g. Pollution from “Religious” Activities
h. Corporate funding of political parties
i. Co-opted NGOs
What is required is not yet another Authority but genuine basin approach to overcome these threats.
Given the significance of the discussions, general submissions to the list will be held back (only most important submissions will get posted).
Tuesday, 23 December 2008
Drainage Crisis of Kosi
Abstract: Kosi is an international river and all interventions must show utmost sensitivity that does not bring a bad name to our country. The onus is the central government to avoid a situation, which makes North Bihar a case study for mismanagement of rivers. It has emerged from the field study undertaken by a Fact Finding Team that a list of "what not to do in Kosi basin" must be prepared before relying on the suggestions of retired or serving officials. Why Kosi has been flowing at a level higher than its adjoining mainland is a statement on the poverty of common sense. The reduced cross-section of the river due to embankments was expected to facilitate the dredging of its bed. Instead, the Kosi offloaded silt into the river and raised the level of its bed. That the Kosi is among one of the highest silt-laden rivers in the country makes matters worse. Had the river been free to meander, it would have deposited fertile silt, collected from the slopes of Mount Everest and Kanchenjunga, across the plains of north Bihar. But that was not to be, as most of the silt carried over the years lies trapped between river banks, reducing the stream flow on the one hand and making the embankments vulnerable to breach on the other. People of Kosi basin are victims of development and the arrogance of governmental knowledge that are used to scare common people into silence and submission by their declarations such as "I Know the facts". All proponents of “solution” must be made to solve the drainage crisis and adopt Ganga basin approach before undertaking any further intervention.
Introduction
Kosi is one of the major tributaries of Ganga synonymous with the history, culture of not only Mithila but whole of the Indian sub-continent. One cannot think of the Indian sub-continent without thinking about Ramayana (Sita) and Mahabharata (Karna). Ramayana and Mahabharata cannot be even imagined in the absence of Mithila. The structural solutions have already distorted the landscape of the Kosi-Mithila region, structural solutions like Kosi High Dam would turn out to be a monument of foolishness for generations to come. Like the villains of embankment proposal, all the kosi high dam proponents must be identified and dealt with by something like a Kosi Parliament.
Nearly 33.55 lakh people in five districts of north Bihar were affected by the devastation caused by the Kosi deluge due to the breach in the embankment at Kusaha in Nepal on August 18.
After Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, Bihar too is initiating the misplaced project of linking rivers even as it is being predicted that "Ganga would soon become a seasonal river-flooded in monsoons and dry in the summers." Out of the 30 links in the controversial National Interlinking of Rivers project that includes 14 links in the Himalayan component, 6 river-link canals are directly related to Bihar. It is noteworthy that quite like Tamil Nadu, Bihar too is proposing its linking of rivers projects as independent of the national project. Unmindful of the global ecological changes and river basin approach Uttar Pradesh has already launched Ganga Expressway Project in 2007 to construct a 1047 km access controlled eight-laned expressway running along the Ganga river to provide connectivity and as a flood control measure although the catastrophe brought about by such measures is quite evident.
Continuing the same trend, Bijendra Prasad Yadav, Bihar's Water Resources Development Minister informed the Bihar Legislative Council on 4, December, 2008 that inter-linking of rivers could rid the state of perennial problems of flood and drought. Replying to a special debate on drought like situation prevailing in many districts of south Bihar, Yadav said "unless and until rivers are inter-linked the twin problems can not be solved." Yadav said the inter-linking of Bihar rivers would cost more than Rs 4,000 crore. Stating that 26 percent area of the state are drought-hit, Yadav informed the Vidhan Parishad that the state did not have any reservoir which was crucial for irrigation. It was either in Nepal or in Uttar Pradesh. Replying to a debate on perennial problem of flood in the state he referred to the devastation caused by the Kosi deluge and the probe by judicial commission underway.
The Centre has constituted a high level committee, consisting of three representatives of the Centre, two from Nepal and five from Bihar government, for the repair and maintenance of the embankment.
In the aftermath of Kosi deluge, such ecologically disastrous engineering projects have been dismissed as a "solution". Most recently, even 'development' advocates like Suman K Bery, Director General of New Delhi-based National Council of Applied Economic Research advised the governments to forgo its mega public private partnership projects and concentrate on strengthening the existing infrastructures in the light of the crash of US and the European markets as a response to the upheavals in the world economy.
Sterile Discourses
At a talk and a day long Panel Discussion in Patna on "Kusaha Breach and Thereafter", heated exchanges between pro-"Kosi high dam" engineers and proponents of "living with floods" ended with an apparent conclusion that high dams & embankments are less of an engineering interventions and more of a political intervention. On 17 October, on the eve of two months of the Kosi breach, the talk was delivered by Dr Dinesh Kumar Mishra, a well known voice of sanity with regard to Kosi crisis. Failure of dams as flood control structures has been demonstrated in Orissa, Gujarat, Maharasthra and Jharkhand.
A white paper was demanded, while sharing the Hindi version of the Fact Finding Report on Kosi “Kosi “Pralay”: Bhayaavah Aapada Abhi Baaki Hai” sought accountability of Kosi High Level Committee (KHLC) and provide a remedy for the drainage crisis in North Bihar as was promised by the UPA government's Common Minimum Programme. All the activities of KHLC should be put in suspension till the time their liability is fixed and Justice Rajesh Balia Judicial Commission of inquiry set up on September 9, 2008 is completed. The commission’s recommendations must not meet the fate of several dozens of committees and it must recommend criminal charges against acts of omission and commission.
It is noteworthy that Union Water Resources Department Secretary, in a letter to the Bihar Irrigation Secretary on September 24, 2008 has questioned the locus standi of the judicial commission. The letter read: “The Kosi agreement is a bilateral agreement between two sovereign states, India and Nepal, and Bihar is not a party to either 1954 or the 1966 agreement. ”Water and Power Consultation Services, a central government’s public sector undertaking has provided technical inputs to the Bihar government on possible ways to plug the breach at Kusaha in Nepal.
Participants included victims of embankments who expressed their anguish at the Delhi, Kathmandu and Patna centric deliberations and decision making. They called for a movement against Kosi High Dam, embankments and changing the current course of Kosi.
Amid news reports that Kosi's course will be restored by December 15 and the breach would be plugged by March 31, 2009 citing Kosi Breach Closure Advisory Technical Committee chairman Nilendu Sanyal and Ganga Flood Control Commission chairman R C Jha on 14 October, 2008 to finalise modalities on plugging the breach, some participants were opposed to the repair of the breach in Kusaha. Government must hear the views of these people before undertaking repair works.
Meanwhile, central government has sanctioned Rs 40 crore for the project and Bihar Cabinet has sanctioned Rs 197 crore. Bihar Water Resources Minister Bijendra Yadav has said tenders for the breach closure have been invited and bidding will take place after October 21.
Proposed "Sapta Kosi Multi Purpose Project" claims to irrigate 68,450 hectares in Nepal and provide remedy for drought-prone areas measuring 1,520,000 hectares in India. It is claimed that alongwith irrigation and flood control, about 3,500 MW of electrical power would also be generated from water stored in the 269-meter-high reservoir. According to a preliminary impact study, the proposed high dam will displace 75,000 people from about 79 Village Development Committees (VDCs) in nine districts of Nepal alone. About 111 settlements in the 79 VDCs, sprawling over the banks of the Sun Kosi, Tamor, and Arun rivers, will be totally submerged, while 47 settlements will face partial submergence, and 138 will become fractionally submerged.
Opinions available in public domain say, "If the dam is going to cause such upheaval, can the crops produced from the 68,450 hectares of irrigated land in Nepal compensate for this huge loss?" argued the bimonthly magazine, Pro Public/Good Governance, in its report. Estimated losses in the North Bihar are yet to be ascertained. Earlier, the meeting of the Indo-Nepal Joint Committee on Water Resources in Kathmandu on October 2, 2008 agreed to expedite work on preparation of the Detailed Project Report (DPR) on Saptkosi High Dam on the Kosi. Both sides reiterated their commitment to expediting the work on preparation of the DPR of Saptkosi High Dam project during the meeting which concluded on Wednesday in Kathmandu. Nepal assured full administrative support and security to Indian engineers.
After the breach, on August 18-19, 2008 Nepal government had said that Kosi treaty is a "historic blunder" but Nepal government's inconsistent and ambiguous position now on the Kosi High Dam proposal based on the same treaty must be exposed in the Nepali parliament and media.
The Worst is Still to Come
In order to save Kosi region from an ecological and human disaster, Nepali and Indian legislators must take a categorical position based on a referendum on Kosi.
On August 19, 2008, the chairman of the Expert Committee on the Implementation
of recommendations of Rashtriya Barh Ayog, R Rangachari said, “It is my
impression that not much has been done to implement the suggestions made by the
committee’s report.” Rangachari was on the Prime Minister’s Task Force on Flood
Control in 2004.
The National Common Minimum Programme (CMP) of the Government of India made a
solemn pledge to the people of the country in 2004 to undertake “Long-pending
schemes in specific states that have national significance, like flood control
and drainage in North Bihar.” Despite acknowledging the problem, it is shocking
that neither the Central nor Bihar Government conducts any survey to assess the
effect of flood control measures on the socio-economic conditions of society.
On August 20, 2008, after the breach in the embankment at Kusaha in the Kosi
region, Nepalese Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal `Prachanda’, took stock of
the post-calamity situation in the Kosi region and said “Kosi agreement was a
historic blunder. The people are suffering due to this”. The agreement had led
to the construction of embankments and proposals for a high dam.
Following an aerial survey of the flood affected areas of Bihar, the Indian
Prime Minister on August 28, 2008, termed the flood crisis as “a national
calamity”. More than four years have passed since the Indian Prime Minister made
the promise in the CMP. Now, in August 2008 he declared, “A high-level team
would be set up to coordinate matters with the Government of Nepal.” He also
promised protective structures and technical assistance to state government to
prevent further deterioration in the embankments. Such dangling of carrots and
providing band-aid remedies are horribly insincere and it has been going on for
over 60 years.
Bihar’s floods in August 2008 caused the eighth breach in the embankments.
According to the Bihar Government’s own reports, last year 48 lakh people in 22
districts were in need of assistance due to floods. Clearly, it is not the
extent, but the unpredictable intensity of the crisis that makes it a
catastrophe. The primary function of floodwater is to drain out excess water. It
has not been allowed to perform its functions due to engineering interventions.
Hundreds of reports prepared by Commissions of all ilks are gathering dust. At
most, they become election campaign tools. The Commission should recommend
fixing charges of criminal neglect against the members of the Kosi High-Level
Committee, who waited for the calamity despite having information that could
have led to timely evacuation of the people.
The drainage problem has failed to alter the policy regime of the country that
favours structural solutions regardless of the natural drainage it may impede.
Proposals like a high dam on the Kosi are as good as jumping from the frying pan
into the fire, if the experience with embankments is anything to go by. Even
when one chooses to ignore the changing morphology of the river, the estimated
lifespan of a dam and embankment being 25 and 37 years respectively, underlines
the transitory nature of the technocentric interventions. The Union Ministry of
Water Resources misled the Rajya Sabha on March 11, 2008 claiming, “Government
has taken various steps in the direction of water management to stop the flood
in north Bihar coming from the rivers of Nepal.” There has been no significant
shift in the way the Kosi issue was perceived in the 1950s and in 2008.
The issue of the Kosi High Dam, first raised in 1948, has been sold to the
victims as one of the ‘permanent’ solutions to recurring floods. Ironically,
embankments as temporary solutions have become reasonably permanent whereas the
‘permanent’ solution has remained elusive. What is ‘permanent’ and how permanent
is ‘permanence’? It must be acknowledged now that there is a condemnable
insincerity in proposing multi-purpose high dams for flood control, because the
dams are proposed to tap the hydropower potential. Is it not clear that when the
multipurpose — flood control, irrigation and power — dam is talked about, the
real motive of the proposal in question is ignored? Clearly, political parties
hold a stake in such power projects that make them little concernend with the
masses struggling to remain afloat. A few days ago, Nepalese Prime Minister,
Prachanda, conveyed his affirmation for the hydel power project in a meeting
with Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar.
Conclusion
There is a compelling logic behind seeking immediate review of the Indo- Nepal
Kosi Treaty that created the rationale for embankments and dams. Continuing with
it would amount to flogging a dead horse. The congestion in North Bihar and
Nepal is a problem of permanent water-logging that has remained overlooked for
several decades. Floods, earthquakes, hurricanes or tsunamis cannot be
controlled. But the catastrophe they cause can be predicted, anticipated and
prevented. Drainage of the river must remain sacrosanct, besides timely
evacuation of human and animal population and the establishment of robust public
health systems.
Given its distinct geo-morphological features and complicated hydrological
characters, the Kosi is one of the Himalayan rivers that is yet to be
understood in its entirety. It is high time that policy makers gave up their
outdated ‘conquest over nature’ paradigm. We have to learn to live with the
floods, only this time, in far more readiness.
Ecological and futuristic vision based state interventions must treat natural flow of rivers as sacrosanct and natural habitats must not be tampered with, which we must maintain if we want life to exist on Earth. Instead of a gigantic dam, what is needed is a gigantic network of very small scale water management schemes, including a vast network of small dams in Himalayas.
The author is a member of the Fact Finding Mission on Kosi.
Introduction
Kosi is one of the major tributaries of Ganga synonymous with the history, culture of not only Mithila but whole of the Indian sub-continent. One cannot think of the Indian sub-continent without thinking about Ramayana (Sita) and Mahabharata (Karna). Ramayana and Mahabharata cannot be even imagined in the absence of Mithila. The structural solutions have already distorted the landscape of the Kosi-Mithila region, structural solutions like Kosi High Dam would turn out to be a monument of foolishness for generations to come. Like the villains of embankment proposal, all the kosi high dam proponents must be identified and dealt with by something like a Kosi Parliament.
Nearly 33.55 lakh people in five districts of north Bihar were affected by the devastation caused by the Kosi deluge due to the breach in the embankment at Kusaha in Nepal on August 18.
After Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, Bihar too is initiating the misplaced project of linking rivers even as it is being predicted that "Ganga would soon become a seasonal river-flooded in monsoons and dry in the summers." Out of the 30 links in the controversial National Interlinking of Rivers project that includes 14 links in the Himalayan component, 6 river-link canals are directly related to Bihar. It is noteworthy that quite like Tamil Nadu, Bihar too is proposing its linking of rivers projects as independent of the national project. Unmindful of the global ecological changes and river basin approach Uttar Pradesh has already launched Ganga Expressway Project in 2007 to construct a 1047 km access controlled eight-laned expressway running along the Ganga river to provide connectivity and as a flood control measure although the catastrophe brought about by such measures is quite evident.
Continuing the same trend, Bijendra Prasad Yadav, Bihar's Water Resources Development Minister informed the Bihar Legislative Council on 4, December, 2008 that inter-linking of rivers could rid the state of perennial problems of flood and drought. Replying to a special debate on drought like situation prevailing in many districts of south Bihar, Yadav said "unless and until rivers are inter-linked the twin problems can not be solved." Yadav said the inter-linking of Bihar rivers would cost more than Rs 4,000 crore. Stating that 26 percent area of the state are drought-hit, Yadav informed the Vidhan Parishad that the state did not have any reservoir which was crucial for irrigation. It was either in Nepal or in Uttar Pradesh. Replying to a debate on perennial problem of flood in the state he referred to the devastation caused by the Kosi deluge and the probe by judicial commission underway.
The Centre has constituted a high level committee, consisting of three representatives of the Centre, two from Nepal and five from Bihar government, for the repair and maintenance of the embankment.
In the aftermath of Kosi deluge, such ecologically disastrous engineering projects have been dismissed as a "solution". Most recently, even 'development' advocates like Suman K Bery, Director General of New Delhi-based National Council of Applied Economic Research advised the governments to forgo its mega public private partnership projects and concentrate on strengthening the existing infrastructures in the light of the crash of US and the European markets as a response to the upheavals in the world economy.
Sterile Discourses
At a talk and a day long Panel Discussion in Patna on "Kusaha Breach and Thereafter", heated exchanges between pro-"Kosi high dam" engineers and proponents of "living with floods" ended with an apparent conclusion that high dams & embankments are less of an engineering interventions and more of a political intervention. On 17 October, on the eve of two months of the Kosi breach, the talk was delivered by Dr Dinesh Kumar Mishra, a well known voice of sanity with regard to Kosi crisis. Failure of dams as flood control structures has been demonstrated in Orissa, Gujarat, Maharasthra and Jharkhand.
A white paper was demanded, while sharing the Hindi version of the Fact Finding Report on Kosi “Kosi “Pralay”: Bhayaavah Aapada Abhi Baaki Hai” sought accountability of Kosi High Level Committee (KHLC) and provide a remedy for the drainage crisis in North Bihar as was promised by the UPA government's Common Minimum Programme. All the activities of KHLC should be put in suspension till the time their liability is fixed and Justice Rajesh Balia Judicial Commission of inquiry set up on September 9, 2008 is completed. The commission’s recommendations must not meet the fate of several dozens of committees and it must recommend criminal charges against acts of omission and commission.
It is noteworthy that Union Water Resources Department Secretary, in a letter to the Bihar Irrigation Secretary on September 24, 2008 has questioned the locus standi of the judicial commission. The letter read: “The Kosi agreement is a bilateral agreement between two sovereign states, India and Nepal, and Bihar is not a party to either 1954 or the 1966 agreement. ”Water and Power Consultation Services, a central government’s public sector undertaking has provided technical inputs to the Bihar government on possible ways to plug the breach at Kusaha in Nepal.
Participants included victims of embankments who expressed their anguish at the Delhi, Kathmandu and Patna centric deliberations and decision making. They called for a movement against Kosi High Dam, embankments and changing the current course of Kosi.
Amid news reports that Kosi's course will be restored by December 15 and the breach would be plugged by March 31, 2009 citing Kosi Breach Closure Advisory Technical Committee chairman Nilendu Sanyal and Ganga Flood Control Commission chairman R C Jha on 14 October, 2008 to finalise modalities on plugging the breach, some participants were opposed to the repair of the breach in Kusaha. Government must hear the views of these people before undertaking repair works.
Meanwhile, central government has sanctioned Rs 40 crore for the project and Bihar Cabinet has sanctioned Rs 197 crore. Bihar Water Resources Minister Bijendra Yadav has said tenders for the breach closure have been invited and bidding will take place after October 21.
Proposed "Sapta Kosi Multi Purpose Project" claims to irrigate 68,450 hectares in Nepal and provide remedy for drought-prone areas measuring 1,520,000 hectares in India. It is claimed that alongwith irrigation and flood control, about 3,500 MW of electrical power would also be generated from water stored in the 269-meter-high reservoir. According to a preliminary impact study, the proposed high dam will displace 75,000 people from about 79 Village Development Committees (VDCs) in nine districts of Nepal alone. About 111 settlements in the 79 VDCs, sprawling over the banks of the Sun Kosi, Tamor, and Arun rivers, will be totally submerged, while 47 settlements will face partial submergence, and 138 will become fractionally submerged.
Opinions available in public domain say, "If the dam is going to cause such upheaval, can the crops produced from the 68,450 hectares of irrigated land in Nepal compensate for this huge loss?" argued the bimonthly magazine, Pro Public/Good Governance, in its report. Estimated losses in the North Bihar are yet to be ascertained. Earlier, the meeting of the Indo-Nepal Joint Committee on Water Resources in Kathmandu on October 2, 2008 agreed to expedite work on preparation of the Detailed Project Report (DPR) on Saptkosi High Dam on the Kosi. Both sides reiterated their commitment to expediting the work on preparation of the DPR of Saptkosi High Dam project during the meeting which concluded on Wednesday in Kathmandu. Nepal assured full administrative support and security to Indian engineers.
After the breach, on August 18-19, 2008 Nepal government had said that Kosi treaty is a "historic blunder" but Nepal government's inconsistent and ambiguous position now on the Kosi High Dam proposal based on the same treaty must be exposed in the Nepali parliament and media.
The Worst is Still to Come
In order to save Kosi region from an ecological and human disaster, Nepali and Indian legislators must take a categorical position based on a referendum on Kosi.
On August 19, 2008, the chairman of the Expert Committee on the Implementation
of recommendations of Rashtriya Barh Ayog, R Rangachari said, “It is my
impression that not much has been done to implement the suggestions made by the
committee’s report.” Rangachari was on the Prime Minister’s Task Force on Flood
Control in 2004.
The National Common Minimum Programme (CMP) of the Government of India made a
solemn pledge to the people of the country in 2004 to undertake “Long-pending
schemes in specific states that have national significance, like flood control
and drainage in North Bihar.” Despite acknowledging the problem, it is shocking
that neither the Central nor Bihar Government conducts any survey to assess the
effect of flood control measures on the socio-economic conditions of society.
On August 20, 2008, after the breach in the embankment at Kusaha in the Kosi
region, Nepalese Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal `Prachanda’, took stock of
the post-calamity situation in the Kosi region and said “Kosi agreement was a
historic blunder. The people are suffering due to this”. The agreement had led
to the construction of embankments and proposals for a high dam.
Following an aerial survey of the flood affected areas of Bihar, the Indian
Prime Minister on August 28, 2008, termed the flood crisis as “a national
calamity”. More than four years have passed since the Indian Prime Minister made
the promise in the CMP. Now, in August 2008 he declared, “A high-level team
would be set up to coordinate matters with the Government of Nepal.” He also
promised protective structures and technical assistance to state government to
prevent further deterioration in the embankments. Such dangling of carrots and
providing band-aid remedies are horribly insincere and it has been going on for
over 60 years.
Bihar’s floods in August 2008 caused the eighth breach in the embankments.
According to the Bihar Government’s own reports, last year 48 lakh people in 22
districts were in need of assistance due to floods. Clearly, it is not the
extent, but the unpredictable intensity of the crisis that makes it a
catastrophe. The primary function of floodwater is to drain out excess water. It
has not been allowed to perform its functions due to engineering interventions.
Hundreds of reports prepared by Commissions of all ilks are gathering dust. At
most, they become election campaign tools. The Commission should recommend
fixing charges of criminal neglect against the members of the Kosi High-Level
Committee, who waited for the calamity despite having information that could
have led to timely evacuation of the people.
The drainage problem has failed to alter the policy regime of the country that
favours structural solutions regardless of the natural drainage it may impede.
Proposals like a high dam on the Kosi are as good as jumping from the frying pan
into the fire, if the experience with embankments is anything to go by. Even
when one chooses to ignore the changing morphology of the river, the estimated
lifespan of a dam and embankment being 25 and 37 years respectively, underlines
the transitory nature of the technocentric interventions. The Union Ministry of
Water Resources misled the Rajya Sabha on March 11, 2008 claiming, “Government
has taken various steps in the direction of water management to stop the flood
in north Bihar coming from the rivers of Nepal.” There has been no significant
shift in the way the Kosi issue was perceived in the 1950s and in 2008.
The issue of the Kosi High Dam, first raised in 1948, has been sold to the
victims as one of the ‘permanent’ solutions to recurring floods. Ironically,
embankments as temporary solutions have become reasonably permanent whereas the
‘permanent’ solution has remained elusive. What is ‘permanent’ and how permanent
is ‘permanence’? It must be acknowledged now that there is a condemnable
insincerity in proposing multi-purpose high dams for flood control, because the
dams are proposed to tap the hydropower potential. Is it not clear that when the
multipurpose — flood control, irrigation and power — dam is talked about, the
real motive of the proposal in question is ignored? Clearly, political parties
hold a stake in such power projects that make them little concernend with the
masses struggling to remain afloat. A few days ago, Nepalese Prime Minister,
Prachanda, conveyed his affirmation for the hydel power project in a meeting
with Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar.
Conclusion
There is a compelling logic behind seeking immediate review of the Indo- Nepal
Kosi Treaty that created the rationale for embankments and dams. Continuing with
it would amount to flogging a dead horse. The congestion in North Bihar and
Nepal is a problem of permanent water-logging that has remained overlooked for
several decades. Floods, earthquakes, hurricanes or tsunamis cannot be
controlled. But the catastrophe they cause can be predicted, anticipated and
prevented. Drainage of the river must remain sacrosanct, besides timely
evacuation of human and animal population and the establishment of robust public
health systems.
Given its distinct geo-morphological features and complicated hydrological
characters, the Kosi is one of the Himalayan rivers that is yet to be
understood in its entirety. It is high time that policy makers gave up their
outdated ‘conquest over nature’ paradigm. We have to learn to live with the
floods, only this time, in far more readiness.
Ecological and futuristic vision based state interventions must treat natural flow of rivers as sacrosanct and natural habitats must not be tampered with, which we must maintain if we want life to exist on Earth. Instead of a gigantic dam, what is needed is a gigantic network of very small scale water management schemes, including a vast network of small dams in Himalayas.
The author is a member of the Fact Finding Mission on Kosi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)