The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) proposes to construct a hydro-electric dam across Chalakudy River in Trichur district, Kerala to generate 163 MW of power (233 Mu firm energy) to meet the deficit during the peak hours from 6 pm to 10 pm. The revised estimated cost as per the 2004 PWD schedule is about Rs. 385.63 crores,currently it is estimated at 650 cr..
In May 1996 KSEB appointed Tropical Botanical Gardens and Research Institute (TBGRI) to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) without going for limited quotations and asks for report submission within 8 months of the date of order. In October 1996, the KSEB sent the TBGRI EIA report to MOEF claiming that the study has taken almost one year while the study had commenced only after May 1996.
The Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India gave environmental clearance on 20.1.1998 and forest clearances on 22.12.1997 (Stage I - Forest Clearance) and on 16.12.1999 (Stage II Forest Clearance).
In response to three Public Interest Litigations, protesting the irregularities in the procedure followed for tendering and the clearance of the dam by the MoEF (violating the Environmental Protection Act), the honourable High Court of Kerala suspended the above sanction and asked the KSEB to re-examine the procedure. It directed the Central Government to withdraw the sanction and conduct a public hearing in accordance with the EIA notification of the MoEF (1994) and the amendment to it dated 10.4.1997 (Kerala High Court judgment dated -17.10.2001) and only then reconsider the grant of Environmental Clearance.
Accordingly, a public hearing was conducted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board on 6.2.2002 at Trichur. It was attended by around 500 people who summarily rejected the project. It was convincingly brought out that the EIA was incomplete. The report submitted by the Public Hearing Panel asked for a second comprehensive EIA that included inter alia consultations with local bodies, various departments of the government and the local communities of the river basin.
In March 2004, the media reported that the KSEB has already got the second EIA done through the Water and Power Consultancy Services (India) Ltd. (WAPCOS), and that the KSEB was trying to approach the MoEF for final clearance.
Inquiry with the public in the proposed project area, local bodies and various departments of the government revealed that they were not aware of any such studies and that nobody had had any discussions with them.
The Chalakudy River Samrakshana Samithi, one of the petitioners to the High Court, approached the Kerala State Pollution Control Board through legal channel and obtained a copy of the report.
It was found that this second EIA report was not comprehensive either, and that the methods followed for the biodiversity studies were unscientific and unacceptable. There was a conscious effort to suppress vital information to support the project. There was no indication that the WAPCOS had any consultation with the agencies suggested by the Public Hearing Panel. (Comments on the EIA).
However, the KSEB went ahead with the move to obtain the clearance from the MoEF. This clearance was granted by the MoEF on 10.2.2005, not withstanding the numerous flaws in the EIA. It may be noted that though it was only on the demands of the public that the second EIA was conducted, the report was not made publicly available.
Immediately, another PIL was filed by the Athirappilly Grama Panchayath and the tribals, possibly the most impacted sufferers of the proposed dam, challenging the sanction accorded by the MoEF on the grounds that the second EIA report was not publicly circulated or made available, and that there was no public hearing on the findings of the second EIA report.
The honourable Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala by its order dated 23 March 2006 overturned the Environmental Clearance given by the MoEF and asked the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to conduct a Public Hearing after “publishing the environmental assessment report stated to have been prepared by the KSEB”.
Thus, the second Public Hearing on the proposed Athirappilly hydro-electric dam was conducted on 15 June 2006 at Chalakudy, Trichur. More than 1200 people attended the Public Hearing. Only 63 people could speak. Except an employee from the KSEB who presented the project, none spoke in favour of the project. Not only that, all of them vehemently opposed the project on various grounds. The entire audience approved each point raised by each speaker against the project.
Moreover, in the 252 written representations submitted to the Public Hearing Panel, the ratio for and against the project was 1:9 respectively.
It is conspicuous from the minutes of the Public Hearing Panel that the members were not in agreement with the draft minutes. Three of the members dissented and two of them jointly submitted another report. And these two happened to be the Presidents of the Athirappilly Gram Panchayath and the Chalakudy Block Panchayath; representatives of the people of the two panchayats who would be affected directly by the construction of dam.
Therefore, it is beyond any doubt that the local people are totally against the project
A thorough analysis of the EIA report prepared by the WAPCOS shows that the EIA is a total farce. Even the duration of the study is doubtful. It is stated that the EIA was conducted from January to December 2002. But the demand for the second EIA was made only at the Public Hearing held on 6 February 2002! Moreover, no data on biodiversity have been given showing monthly or seasonal variations.
Although the methodology used in the EIA for documenting the biodiversity is totally unacceptable, the statistically unacceptable smallest ever samples reported in the EIA also show how unique the area is in terms of endemic and threatened species. Had WAPCOS followed standard methods, these would have been several times more.
One is at a loss to understand the reasons for:
a) the KSEB to get the second EIA done by the WAPCOS in such a secret way; even without the knowledge of the tribals who live inside the project area;
b) the MoEF to accept such an incomplete, unscientific report;
c) granting permission for the project even with out having the mandatory Public Hearing on the second EIA;
d) WAPCOS failure to have consultations with the local scientific institutions and bodies, concerned government departments and local communities; (even the forest department was not consulted)
e) ignoring the unanimous view of the Public against the project as expressed at the Public Hearing ,
f) observations made by the Public Hearing Panel against the unanimous apprehensions of the public (I understand it was beyond the mandates of the Public Hearing Panel.) and, finally
g) the unusual way the minutes of the Public Hearing Panel got signed from the members. The signatures are in 5 sheets; the Member Secretary and the District Collector have signed in all the sheets. Others put their signature in different sheets! One member, the Additional Secretary to Government of Kerala, (Power Department) has not signed in any of the five sheets.
On the EIA, even the Honourable High Court, in its judgment mentions that “the EIA stated to have been made”. Why was such an EIA not rejected by the Expert Committee for River Valley Projects of the MOEF is a matter of serious concern.
We now understand that the Expert Committee of the MOEF on the River Valley Projects met on 15 November 2006 and has recommended the project with some conditions.
We urge you, as a responsible citizen, to consider these points (also see “What will be the loss due to the dam?”) and play an active role to save this ecologically sensitive ecosystem from the impending disaster. Click here to see how you can contribute.