hydropower projects the story of the high costs, under performance, violations and inequity south...
TRANSCRIPT
Hydropower Projects
The story of the high costs, under performance, violations
and inequity
South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People
Advocacy for large hydro• There is strong push for
large hydro projects today, as if large hydro projects are good in themselves.
• In fact installed capacity of large hydro has increased at a compound growth rate of 4.35% per annum during 1991-2005, HIGHER than all other power sub-sectors.
• There is little attempt for credible assessment of performance of large hydro. How have they performed?
18000
19000
20000
21000
22000
23000
24000
25000
26000
27000
28000
29000
30000
31000
Installed Capacity
Diminishing Returns from Large Hydro• As can be seen from the
chart here, the Million Units energy generated from large hydro projects has been almost continuously falling over the last eleven years.
• The fall from 1994-5 to 2004-5 is huge 31%.
• There are many reasons for this, use of increasing large hydro to provide peaking capacity is surely not one of them to the best of our information.
3.46
3.16
8
3.40
4
3.69
3.38
3
2.95
7
2.89
3
2.39
5 2.55
1
2.74
3.97
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
1994
-95
1995
-96
1996
-97
1997
-98
1998
-99
1999
-00
2000
-01
2001
-02
2002
-03
2003
-04
2004
-05
Generation-MU/MW
Monsoon was above normal in majority of these years
Year Monsoon Rainfall
1994 110 %
1995 100 %
1996 103 %
1997 102 %
1998 105 %
1999 96 %
2000 92 %
2001 91 %
2002 81 %
2003 105 %
2004 87 %
Big Ones: Nathpa Jhakri – 1500 MW• At 1500 MW, this is the biggest operating HEP in India. What’s
been the performance?• Huge cost over runs, Time over runs• Deaths, destruction during construction• Frequent shut downs during operation. Due to high silt content
in the Sutlej, due to various break downs, the latest ongoing one due to water entering the underground section due to pipe burst
• CVC charges for over payments to contractors• Non implementation of CAT• Possible submergence of Sanjay Bhaba HEP• Q: Was it not known that Sutlej is a high silt carrying, prone to
high flash floods?• Generation was 47.13% of the projected generation in 2003-4,
81.87% in 2004-5 and 60.33 % in 2005-6 (till Sept 15).
Big Ones: Baglihar: 900 MW• Local people very unhappy
• Labour unrest, unsafe conditions
• Huge time over runs, cost over runs
• Landslides
• Blocking of diversion tunnel 1, then blocking of BOTH the diversion tunnels and water overflowing from top of the dam
• Substandard construction work
• Project work starts without financial closure
Big Ones: Sardar Sarovar: 1450 MW• Huge time over runs, cost over runs
• Interstate disputes
• Long agitation by affected people
• Violations of R&R policy, NWDT award, Supreme Court orders and Environment clearance conditions
• Flooding of underground power house, geological problems
• Even now generation far from what was expected at current height of the dam
Big Ones: Indira Sagar: 1000 MW• Submergence and Displacement of over a lakh
of population without resettlement
• Displacement from Harsud under threats
• Human rights violations
• Deaths due to sudden release of water from the dam
• High Court intervention
• Violations of Environmental norms
• Large scale deforestation
• Downstream Impacts
Big Ones: Lower Subansiri: 2000 MW• Poor Quality EIA
• Violations in Public Hearing process
• Supreme Court interventions
• Violations of Supreme Court Orders
• Local people very unhappy with PA
• Downstream communities fearful of consequences
• Arunachal state govt. is unhappy with NHPC
• Workers trapped in tunnel
• Controversy over contract awards
Big Ones: Karcham Wangtoo 1000 MW• Very Poor quality EIA
• Public hearing violations
• Inadequate provisions for muck disposal, for downstream releases
• Local people sidelined, angry
• EIA had to be changed, public hearing had to reconducted, but violations continue
• Project likely to face strong agitations in future
• No attempt to learn lessons from Sutlej basin experience
Big Ones: Parbati-2• Death of 20 labourers due to negligence• Dumping of silt into the river, roads gets
washed away, villages cut offPARBATI-3• Violations in Public hearing• Sidelining of local people, who are angry now• Managing Environment Clearance without
concurrence of state government• Poor quality EIA• Inadequate provision for downstream releases,
safe muck dumping
Big Ones: Chamera-1, 2• Displacement without resettlement, people are
still struggling, though numbers are smaller compared to other big projects
• Deaths due to accidents, sudden release of water
• Cost over runs, time over runs
Chamera-3
• Poor quality EIA
• Serious violations in public hearing process
• Managing Environmental Clearance without consent of the state government
Baspa: 300 MW• No provision of downstream releases
• Sudden release of water leads to destruction of roads, a small hydropower project, gharats and other community infrastructure, villages cut off, land slides
• Local administration and state government demands huge compensation
• Affected people unhappy
Allain Duhangan: 192 MW• Local people side lined• Untruths used to get the project pushed,
cleared• Poor quality EIA• Violations in public hearings• Inadequate provision for downstream releases• Lack of concern for livelihood impacts • Lack of concerns for safety• Lack of concerns of women’s issues• Violation of FCA• Lack of concern for cultural feelings
Many more projects, problems can be listed
• Athirapally, Polavaram, Siyom, Pare, Kameng, Tipaimukh, Omkareswar, Maheshwar, Pala Maneri, Loharinaga Pala, Pala Maneri, Teesta Projects, Koel Karo, Tehri, Tapovan Vishnugad, …
• The List of projects given here is illustrative, not exhaustive
• The list of problems listed for each project are illustrative, not exhaustive
Nature of problems• Inadequate appraisal• Lack of transparency, accountability, participation• Very little in the name of regulation• Poor quality EIAs• Side lining of local people• Violations in public consultation processes• Use of various unacceptable means to get various clearances• Lack of implementation of EMPs• Proper resettlement and rehabilitation not achieved• Local Communities GAIN little, if any• Local Communities Suffer almost all the adverse impacts• Lack of concern for long term, beyond project concerns• Time over runs, cost over runs• Lack of concern for safety of workers• Gap between promises and performance• DIMINISHING RETURNS
A word of Caution• CLIMATE CHANGE In years to come this issue is going to
impact the performance of large hydro in many ways. Some of it is already visible.
A word on options• Smaller Hydro projects have far less impacts, can be completed
much faster, at much less costs and with much less resistance from local communities
• Its far less expensive to ensure that existing hydro capacities perform optimally, are used to provide peaking power to the maximum extent possible. (There is a large gap between potential and achievement here.)
• Its far more useful to do proper appraisal, public consultation, EIAs, EMPs, proper operation and implementation with due respect for law and sense of responsibility
• Why is there so less enthusiasm for these?A word on the session title• May be the title should be: Achieving Social AND Economic
Development, rather than Balancing Costs and Gains? Its not supposed to be zero sum game? Do the Social Costs and Gain have to counter balance each other?
Plea for “Balanced View”
Is there hope for the future?• JUST ONE EXAMPLE:• Report of the World Commission on Dams: The report was a result of an exercise in which majority of commissioners were supporters of large projects. This was the first ever and most transparent, open, inclusive process to assess thedevelopment effectiveness of large dams and it cameout with a unanimous report in November 2000. TheReport offers a framework for decision making processon Large projects and options.• There can be many ways for a better future, status
quo is not one of them…..
