Titled “The False Promises of Hydropower: How dams fail to deliver the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals”, signatories to the statement from India include Narmada Bachao Andolan, Himdhara Environment Research and Action Collective, Forum for Policy Dialogues on Water Conflicts in India, Intercultural Resources, Kalpvriksha, Manthan Adhyayan Kendra, Centre for Financial Accountability, Centre for Research and Advocacy, and South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers, and People.

Text of the statement, issued on May 13:

We live in an age of urgency. Scientists have warned that we have little time to act to bring climate change under control and protect the integrity of life on our planet.

Confronting the climate crisis requires creative solutions that both protect nature and respect human rights. Facing these challenges, we cannot remain silent onlookers while corporate profiteers, financiers, and their allies peddle false solutions for addressing climate change and implementing sustainable development.

A flagrant example of such deception is the attempt to portray large hydroelectric dams as a ‘clean and green’ source of energy, as can be seen at the 2019 World Hydropower Congress. Organized in Paris by the industrial lobby of the International Hydropower Association (IHA) in partnership with UNESCO, the conference’s title reads, “Delivering the Paris Climate Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals.”
Such glossy portrayals of hydroelectric dam projects—with an eye toward capturing financial incentives through mechanisms like Climate Bonds and the Green Climate Fund— conveniently ignore a long legacy of social and environmental catastrophes, economic waste and, all too often, massive corruption schemes that are the antithesis of truly sustainable development.

Let’s consider some of the facts:
 

• Large hydropower projects – as well as cascades of smaller dams – have often provoked devastating impacts on highly vulnerable communities, including indigenous peoples. Hydroelectric dams, together with reservoirs and transmission lines, have forced the displacement of an estimated 40 to 80 million people without just compensation or reparations. The social and environmental consequences of hydropower projects extend far beyond these immediate impacts. With giant walls of concrete, hydroelectric dams cause profound impacts on freshwater ecosystems, disrupting the natural flow of water and sediments, impeding movements of migratory fish, deteriorating water quality, eliminating unique habitats and undermining biodiversity—all of which adversely impact the rights of local populations that depend on healthy, free-flowing rivers. It was recently estimated that hydroprojects have compromised the livelihoods of up to 472 million people living downstream from dams.
• Dam construction, especially in frontier areas like the Amazon, Tibetian Plateau, Congo and Siberia, has typically been accompanied by the opening of penetration roads, massive immigration, an escalation in illegal land-grabbing, logging, deforestation, and mining—all associated with increased levels of violence. The recent murders of human rights and environmental defenders like Berta Caceres in Honduras and Dilma Ferreira Silva in Brazil illustrate that extreme violence in rural areas is often directly traceable to dam proponents or linked to socio-environmental conflicts triggered by hydroprojects. Dramatic increases in urban violence and declining social indicators have also become commonplace in municipalities like Altamira, Brazil, heavily impacted by the Belo Monte mega-dam.
• Particularly in tropical regions, hydropower reservoirs emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases, being one of leading sources of human-induced methane emissions, which is much more powerful than carbon dioxide in provoking global warming. In some cases, hydropower projects are producing higher emissions than coal-fired power plants generating the same amount of electricity.
• Dams destroy forests, which serve as one of our planet’s greatest carbon sinks and contribute to the fight against climate change. Recent studies have shown that, due to the effects they have on the hydrological regime, dams also harm trees and other vegetation, even those far away from the dam site itself. In frontier regions, dams open the door to extractive industries like mining, logging and agriculture, further threatening forests.
• Large hydropower projects often destroy cultural and historical heritage sites. Two recent examples include the flooding of the 10,000-year old historical town of Hasankeyf by the Ilisu Dam on Turkey’s Tigris River and the destruction of the ‘Sete Quedas’ waterfalls on the Teles Pires River in the Brazilian Amazon—a sacred place of great spiritual importance for the Munduruku, Apiaka and Kayabi indigenous peoples.
• In numerous cases, large hydroprojects are threatening or already affecting UNESCO World Heritage sites, as in the case of the Gibe III dam in Ethiopia, which is producing disruptive downstream impacts on the Omo River and Lake Turkana in Kenya. The assault on these global natural treasures is illustrated by the fact that at least 20% of natural World Heritage sites are affected or threatened by dams or other water infrastructure projects; this percentage has increased over the last 5 years.

To make matters worse, mega-dams, with their chronic cost overruns and construction delays, have frequently left countries buried in public debt, as in the case of the Coca Codo Sinclair hydroproject in Ecuador, impairing the abillity of governments to invest in transitions to truly renewable energy estrategies.

Meanwhile, technological innovations in solar and wind generation are increasingly undermining the competitiveness of hydropower as an affordable energy source. In fact, hydropower has become the most unreliable of all non-fossil energy options, especially within the context of global climate change, with worldwide annual installations dropping by 50% over the past five years.

Given such fundamental problems, what has allowed for the propagation of destructive hydroelectric projects around the globe? And why have their advocates often benefitted from economic incentives, including carbon credits and ‘clean energy’ finance?
 

• The prioritization of large dam projects within national energy policies typically occurs in centralized decision-making processes. Such processes are characterized by an absence of transparency, citizen participation, and methods of strategic planning that would promote a comprehensive evaluation of energy needs that considers the social, environmental and economic costs and benefits.
• Political decisions concerning the identification of ‘optimal sites’ for dam construction are often based on basin-level inventory studies commissioned by private and state- owned construction companies, in which energy generation potential is essentially the sole criterion, while social and environmental impacts are downplayed or simply ignored. In some cases, basin-wide studies are not conducted at all.
• At the project level, environmental impact assessments are typically conducted and/or financed by dam proponents that systematically underestimate social and environmental impacts while grossly overestimating socio-economic benefits, based on an overriding concern with maximizing profit margins and demonstrating project “viability.”
• Proponents often downplay the extreme vulnerability of hydroelectric projects to a changing climate; the periods of extreme drought and flooding predicted by climatologists, and increasingly apparent in many areas of the world, tend to render many dams useless during much of the year.
• There has also been a tendency to ignore the considerable body of scientific literature demonstrating that dams, particularly those located in the tropics, cause significant greenhouse gases emissions. These dams produce their peak emissions in the years after a reservoir is first filled, vastly hindering our efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius above preindustrial levels, as accorded in the Paris Agreement.
• A recurring characteristic of hydroelectric dam projects has been the absence of processes for free, prior and informed consultation and consent among indigenous peoples and other traditional communities, as guaranteed by ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The lack of such provisions within the IHA’s Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol (HSAP) and other “sustainability tools” is a glaring omission.
• Among corporate actors and financial institutions engaging in hydroprojects at a relatively advanced stage, a chronic problem has been a lack of adequate due diligence in managing social and environmental risks, including vetting projects for records of human rights violations like the absence of free, prior and informed consent among affected communities.
• There has been an absence of robust, independent monitoring of socio-environmental impacts and the effectiveness of legally required mitigation and compensation measures as a basis for improved governance, including as benchmarks for loan disbursements by financial institutions.
• When the dam industry has encountered difficulties in securing environmental licenses for poorly planned high-risk projects, members have frequently used their privileged access to high-level government officials to exercise leverage over key decision makers. Another frequent tactic has involved political interventions within judicial systems to undermine lawsuits that question violations of human rights and environmental legislation. Cooptation, intimidation and criminalization of movements, together with use of armed forces, have been adopted to undermine social mobilization and protests of dam-affected peoples in defense of their rights.
• Massive corruption scandals involving the hydropower industry indicate its central role as a driver of unethical, repressive and illegal behavior to sustain destructive dam projects. Three recent examples include revelations of nepotism, shady property deals and dodgy bidding procedures within the China Three Gorges Corporation, Brazil’s Lava Jato investigations – which revealed extensive bribery by companies like Eletrobras and Odebrecht in dam-building contracts – and the Kirchner and Cerpernic mega-dams in Argentina, authorized as the direct result of under-the-table payments from dam companies to public officials, while impacts on the Perito Moreno glacier, a UNESCO World Heritage site, were simply ignored.
• The hydropower industry, led by the IHA, has resisted the adoption of robust social and environmental standards, such as the rights-based approach of the World Commission on Dams. They have opted instead for the application of voluntary, self- defined ‘best practices’ among a selected number of projects. Notwithstanding other limitations, the IHA’s Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol has been applied and made public for less than 1% of hydroelectric dam projects planned and built within the last ten years.

While illusions of “sustainable hydropower” have been propagated to global audiences through sophisticated communications strategies, key members of the industry have continued to dam many of the world’s most biologically diverse and socially important rivers, including the Mekong, Xingu, Madeira, Teles Pires, Yangtze-Jinshajiang, and Bureya.

Meanwhile, there are active plans to dam many of the world’s last remaining free-flowing rivers: the Congo, Lena, Irrawaddy, Vjosa, Nu-Salween, Amur-Heilongjiang, Selenga, Marañon, Juruena, Tapajós, Beni, Shilka and Karnali rivers, among others. Enough is enough!
A Call for Action

The undersigned civil society organizations call on the members of the International Hydropower Association, governments and international financial institutions to implement the following urgent actions:
 

• Steer priorities, investments and financial incentives away from additional hydroelectric projects and towards energy efficiency and truly sustainable renewable energy options (solar, wind and biomass and, when appropriate, micro-hydro). Special attention should be given to opportunities for technological innovation, decentralized generation and improving energy access among isolated, off-grid communities.
• Eliminate financial incentives for new hydroelectric projects within climate change mechanisms, such as the Green Climate Fund and Nationally Determined Contributions, and within programs to promote implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (with the possible exception of micro-hydro projects).
• Commission independent audits of controversial existing dam projects and basin-wide cascades in terms of their social and environmental consequences, identifying steps to mitigate impacts and ensure just reparations for affected communities, based on direct consultations. When such measures are prohibitively expensive or otherwise inviable, the de-commissioning of dam projects should be undertaken.
• Ensure the alignment of operational procedures for existing hydroprojects with relevant territorial plans at the basin level, such as integrated water resource management and protected areas that ensure key ecological processes and the rights of local communities, based on the concepts and tools of participatory, adaptive management.
• Ensure that renewable energy policies and projects adopt, across the board, robust guidelines to safeguard human rights and environmental protections, such as ILO Convention 169 and the UN Principles on Business and Human Rights. No energy from dam companies to public officials, while impacts on the Perito Moreno glacier, a UNESCO World Heritage site, were simply ignored.

Among the benefits of such a paradigm shift in energy strategies and development planning will be major contributions toward protecting the world’s last free-flowing rivers, vital for climate resiliency, biodiversity conservation and sustainable livelihoods.

Energy companies and governments must halt all efforts to dam the world’s remaining free- flowing rivers and concentrate instead on: i) improving efficiency and the sustainability of existing hydropower projects and cascades; and ii) investing in energy efficiency and truly sustainable renewables.

Moreover, governments must urgently promote the permanent legal protection of the world’s last free-flowing rivers, including transboundary watercourses, with due respect for the territorial rights of indigenous peoples and other traditional communities, who play fundamental roles as the guardians of healthy rivers.

Courtesy: Counter View

The post Prioritization of large dam projects typically occurs in centralized decision-making processes appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: Times of India

We reproduce Dharmadhikary and Oza’s original response in full below from Manthan.

However, here is an update from Shripad:
 

I put my comment in brief, within the allowed 3000 characters, yesterday in the Comments section. Today, it’s gone.
Then, a friend brought to my notice that Swaminathan has written a completely new version of the blog and put it out yesterday. Wonder if he is in the habit of writing different versions of the same blog within a matter of two days! https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/most-of-the-ousted-tribals-are-flourishing-and-loving-it-thank-you-activists/
Have yet to read the new version of his bog properly (am out since early morning), but it appears that he has rewritten it in a way that tries to skirt the response we had given. Now I am planning to write another response to the new blog….but can only do it tomorrow as busy with meetings today.

And now, Dharmadhikary and Oza’s original response in Manthan:

SA Iyers’s piece in Times of India dated 10 Sept 2017, “Why many tribals don’t mind being ousted by dams”, examining the condition of some of the oustees of Sardar Sarovar Narmada dam is a classic case of misinterpretation of data, hiding the more important issues, and conclusions not supported by research findings. Indeed, a proper reading of the article itself shows that unlike Iyer’s assertion, his own figures show that tribals do mind being ousted. Some important points are given below.

Iyer claims that their “surveys showed, unambiguously, the resettled villagers were better off than their former neighbours in semi-evacuated villages.” In support, among the figures given from their survey, they point out that comparing the resettled with their former neighbours who remain in the original areas, the access to drinking water was 45% against 33%, to PHCs was 37% versus 12% and to hospitals 14% versus 3%. Given that the oustees were resettled between 25-30 years ago, and that the Sardar Sardar project has poured in hundreds of crores of rupees for resettlement, these figures don’t speak of oustees being better off, but indeed, point to the pathetic case of the oustees.

After 30 years and massive money being spent, 55% of the rehabilitated people had no access to drinking water, 63% no access to a PHC and 86% no access to hospital. And this is when the oustees have been settled in areas closer to the cities and the former neighbours continue to remain in remote hilly areas. True, cycle and motorcycle ownership was more favourably distributed towards the oustees, but that may be simply because in the hilly areas, these are less useful. In any case, they are less crucial than drinking water, access to health services etc.

While Iyer claims that “Resettled villagers said they adjusted to new conditions…within two years” (something which we, as former activists of the NBA who have lived for years with them, find completely unbelievable), Iyer also finds that in response to the question whether “Would they prefer returning to their old villages, with the same land they had earlier? Around 54% said yes, 30% said no…” This response, after 30 years of resettlement, itself speaks volumes.  Iyer justifies this by saying that “For a majority, nostalgia for ancestral land and access to forests mattered more than greater material possessions.” But it’s not just nostalgia.  The forests, the river, also provided the tribals with substantial economic and livelihoods resources including fodder, fruits and fish. The fact is that the majority of the oustees at the resettlement continue to face multitude of problems like bad quality of land, lack of basic amenities, hostility from original residents etc. and many promises made to them remain unfulfilled. (May be they were just jumlas to get the oustees to move?). That is why to them the original village would still appear a better proposition from even an economic point of view.

This is further substantiated by the response to the question “… if given the oustee compensation package, they would like to be ousted. In semi-evacuated villages, 31% wanted to move, 53% wanted to stay, in interior villages, a majority (52%) wanted to move, 35% wanted to stay…”. While clearly a majority of the former neighbours of the oustees indicated their lack of confidence in the rehabilitation package, the response of the “interior villages” is used by Iyer to make astounding conclusions about majority of tribals wanting to leave the forests. But the “interior villages” are those living near the mines of the GMDC, where mining has impacted them badly, even as it has brought them some access to infrastructure like roads.

Overall, Iyer uses his data to draw some highly unwarranted and astounding generalisations that “it’s entirely possible to implement resettlement packages making tribals materially better off. ..explodes the claim of some activists that modernisation is disastrous for tribals…”

Last but not the least, his concluding line is most revealing. “Many tribals want to leave the forest for a better life.” In saying this, Iyer never raises the fundamental question as to why the tribal have to be evicted from their original village in case they want to have a better life, why is it that they cannot have access roads, drinking water, health facilities etc. unless they leave their original lands, homes and forests. If they did have many of these facilities in their original homes, even the limited advantages which Iyer’s study shows the oustees got, would have vanished.   In deliberately ignoring this fundamental issue, in not articulating what his own survey reveals, and in making sweeping generalisations, Iyer betrays a haste to give an unsupported clean chit to the project’s rehabilitation, the reality of which is far more dismal.

Shripad Dharmadhikary and Nandini Oza were full-time activists with the Narmada Bachao Andolan for close to 12 years.

Courtesy: kafial.online
 

The post Why tribals do mind being ousted by dams appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: Ritu Raj Konwar / The Hindu
 
Three days ago, on May 2, 2016, in an ugly turn of events, two people, namely Monk Nyima Wangdue and Tshering Tenpa, were killed and many injured, while protesting against the arrest of Lama Lobsang Gyatso in Tawang including a young Buddhist Lama. The Victims were protesting for the release of Lama Lobsang Gyatso, one of the most vocal opponents of hydropower projects in the Tawang region and secretary of the Save Mon Region Federation (SMRF), an organization of the Monpa Community in the Mon-Tawang region of Arunachal Pradesh. The NAPAM (National Alliance of People’s Movements) has condemned this brutal police action on peacefully protesting communities and demands immediate action against the responsible officials.
 
Even while the State government continues to remain apathetic to the whole situation, the Modi regime has in a surreptitious manner completely over-turned its electoral promises to stall hydel projects in the region that is seismic sensitive.
 
As far back as September 2014, six year and two rejecteions later, India’s largest hydro project was cleared. The project was rejected twice by the FAC, the original proposal in 2013 and a revised proposal in April.
 
The 3000 MW Dibang Hydel project for which former prime minister, Manmohan Singh laid its foundation stone and which had twice been denied environmental clearance, the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), gae it clearance subject to a reduction in the dam height by 20 m from the originally envisaged 288 m.
 
This clearance for India’s largest hydro project and the world’s tallest concrete gravity dam came after a September 3 letter from Nripendra Mishra, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, to the Environment Secretary to “clear the project expeditiously” as per the decision of the Cabinet Committee on investment. This was the person whom Modi had had a special ordinance passed to enable his appointment.
 
This clearance had raised eyebrows, since on August 28, 2014 the MoEF had written to the Arunachal Pradesh government rejecting the proposal for diverting more than 45 sq km of forest land to National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) for the project. A day after Mishra’s letter, the Ministry revived the project by writing to the “project proponent that sensitivity analysis of reduction of dam height up to 40 m may please be submitted for further consideration”.
 
In 2013, in the run up to the general elections of 2014, as the National Democratic Alliance’s prime ministerial candidate in the 2014 Lok Sabha election, Narendra Modi had given hope to anti-dam activists in Assam when he spoke against the controversial large dams proposed in Arunachal Pradesh. But those hopes were dashed on February 20, when Modi visited Itanagar to attend Arunachal Pradesh's 29th Statehood Day. At an election rally on February 22, 2013 at an election rally at Pasighat in Arunachal Pradesh, Modi had said that he would prefer smaller hydro power projects in the region, honouring the sentiments of the region’s people. A year later and the prime minister had forgotten his promise. He pushed for hydropower projects in the state and said Arunachal Pradesh can light up the entire country.
 
 
Tawang Today
 
While Tawang continues to reel under the shock of police firing, Arunachal Pradesh chief minister Kalikho Pul at a ASSOCHAM forum in New Delhi in a complete insensitive statement has advocated the ‘fast-tracking environmental clearances’ for hydropower projects and also suggested a single window clearance to the hydro project developers.’ This reveals a complete disregard for environmental and people’s concerns.
 
NAPM leaders like Medha Patkar, Prafulla Samantara and others have said that,
“Our experience from struggles against the big dams have shown that, when world over the big dams are being done away with, it is extremely unfortunate that we are till trying to harness the hydro power in the most environmentally sensitive regions, or in densely populated areas, displacing massive populations.  Around 250 hydro-power projects are in pipeline in Arunachal Pradesh only, which would prove fatal for the whole north east and Himalayan region.
 
For a long time now, the Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS) has been opposed to the Lower Subansri Hydroelectric Project, which would threaten the livelihood of more than 5 lakhs of fishworkers, farmers and others dependent downstream. Again, procedures and due process of law have been sidelined or given a backseat: though a eight member expert committee report is awaited the construction on dam has started once again, facing challenge from people.
 
It is a similar story for many of the dams in North East where public hearings have been a complete hogwash and based on half-baked and unscientifically conducted Environmental Impact Assessment keeping communities often in dark. The overall planning of hydro development in the State and Himalyan region needs a thorough examination keeping in mind the people’s interest first, until then put a moratorium on the planned projects.
 
Already Uttarakhand and other states are reeling under an insensitive and callous pattern of growth.
 
“ Our own experience of struggle against the Narmada, Tehri, Waang Marathwadi, Gosi Khurd and other Dams across the country have exposed the false claim of clean energy by hydro power projects. In the process of building big dams, we have destroyed rivers, villages, townships, lives and livelihood of millions. The people are still suffering from the impact on agriculture, livelihoods and the cultural disconnect along with ecological disasters like frequent landslides and loss of forest cover in the areas.Itstime we stopped damming the mountains and bringing ecological destruction.Everywhere these dams and hydropower projects are facing resistance and protests from communities and often govt. has resorted to violence and arrests. This must stop now!

In the Tawang Valley, police forces made complete mockery of the rule of law and killed two of them and opened fire at mere gathering of 200 people who were simply and peacefully demanding release of their leader.All these events suggest a dangerous political motivation to strike down the people’s voices and provide a free hand of destruction to corporate through hydro power projects planned in the state.

In light of these developments, , we strongly condemn the political involvement and misuse of police forces in this matter and demand the following:

1. AP government must constitute an independent judicial commission, under the Commission of Enquiry Act, headed by a sitting or retired judge, to investigate the whole incident including role of police officials, local MLA and other politicians;
2. Suspension of all the involved police officers along with SP, Divisional Commissioner and others until the completion of the enquiry;
3. A moratorium on all the planned hydro power projects until a Comprehensive Scientific Review is conducted, opinion of the communities concerned  taken and consent achieved. This must take a comprehensive look at the serious risk of environmental disasters and geological instability.

 
Background:
Reportedly, 13 of the over 150 hydel projects planned by the state since 2005 are in the Tawang. To stall this spree of dam construction and upcoming ecological devastation, the people from the Monpa Community joined hands with local Buddhist monks in 2011 to form the Save Mon Region Federation (SMRF).

Under Lobsang Gyatso's leadership, SMRF has been advocating socio-culturally and ecologically sensitive development in the Mon-Tawang region. The group has protested against ecologically destructive hydropower projects, demanded accountability in the execution of government schemes and development projects, and exposed corruption.

Their work has been bearing fruit as on April 7, the SMRF saw its first significant achievement. In response to its petition filed in 2012, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) suspended the environment clearance granted by the Union environment ministry for the Rs. 6,400 crore Nyamjang Chhu hydropower project in Tawang’s Zemingthang area. The NGT noted that the project – promoted by the Noida-based steel conglomerate LNJ Bhilwara Group – did not consider its impact on the habitat of the endangered black-necked crane, which is endemic to the region. The bird is rated “vulnerable” in the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s list of endangered species and is listed in schedule 1 of the Wildlife (Prohibition) Act 1972 and also considered sacred to the Buddhist Monpa community, who consider it an embodiment of the 6th Dalai Lama, who was from Tawang and wrote about the bird in his poetry.

Lobsang Gyatso and SMRF have been supporting villagers in recording their objections against other destructive hydropower projects in Tawang too, including Tawang II HEP.However Lobsang Gyatso’s success seems to have made him a target for the local police authorities. Following the events, he was arrested twice last month on charges of disrupting peace in the Gongkhar Village and for alleged critical comments against Guru Rinpoche, the Abbot of Tawang Monastery, in reply of that the Abbot has appealed to find a peaceful solution to the volatile situation but the politicians exploited the issue and filed an FIR  against the leader Lobsang Gyatso after which the protests erupted in the region for his release.

The political motivation is also clear as the SMRF is preparing to file public interest litigation in the Supreme Court against the Mukto Shakangchu hydel project, report sections of the media. Even though over 90 crores rupees were officially spent by the state government on the project, most of what was constructed has been washed away by the river waters within three and a half months of completion of work due to use of sub-standard material.

The post After the Deaths of Two Monks in Police Firing, NAPM Demands a Moratorium on Big Dams in Arunachal Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

From Alaknanda valley, Uttarakhand, Vishnugaad Peepalkoti Dam affected people have sent the message of “River’s health is vital for people’s survival” to communities across the world today. THDC and World Bank alliance has failed miserably in fulfilling the hope of people in Ganga Valley, and now they are also trying to go to other countries like Bhutan. We strongly oppose this in India and appeal to the people of other countries to do the same against the funding by World Bank to Big Dam projects in the name of clean energy.

People from more than 20 affected villages have united and opposed the big dams to save the culture and ecology of Uttarakhand. Bharat Singh (Salood Village) – Voices cannot be subverted; we don’t need energy at the cost of water, forest, River and land. Manvar Singh and Maatwar Singh (Jakhola Village) – Dams are causing climate change. Dinesh Raana (Laanzi village) – Pollution is on rise due to dams on the River Ganga. Jagdeesh Bhandari (Pokhni Village) – Government and THDC has cheated us. Baal Singh (Pokhni Village) – Disaster will happen in future and they kept us unaware from the fact. Rakesh Bhandari (Huen Village) – How will the Ganga culture survive when the river itself is in danger. Ram lal (Durgapur Village) – There are 23 false cases filed against us but struggle will continue. Uma Devi (Dving Village) – We are and will remain anti dams, Ganga will flow incessant. Narendra Singh – Landslides has increased. Vrihansraj Tadiyal (Peepalkoti) – Biodiversity and water is getting diminished from hills because of dams. Dhaneshwari Devi (Pokhari Village) – We will not compromise with our environment at any cost. Rajendra Hatwal (Haat) – Rehabilitation in Haat village was false, we have not left the village. We have been cheated by company and government both. The archeological department has not surveyed the forest of Belpatri and Lakshmi Narayan temple. Vimal bhai, Convener of Matu Jan Sangathan – People’s unity and organization can solve the issues; Big Dams have given only displacement and ecological destruction which is being repeated even after more than five thousand dams in the country. There are more than 80 cases filed in court against people due to the destructive alliance between THDC and World Bank. The work on this dam is going ahead with the help of terror and dictatorship. But we have fought till now and will keep fighting for justice, people’s rights and legal struggles from the land to the water. We believe in the Gandhian principle and will continue the non violent struggles.

On March 14, 2016 the programme was commenced with the beating of drums and local instruments. People brought the soil form their villages and collected near the Peepal tree to remember this as a sign of protest and struggles. Narendra Pokhariyal has moderated the event, who is struggling for more than a decade against the Dams.

“Ganga Chalegi Apni Chaal, Uncha Rahega Uska Bhaal (Ganga will continue to flow with its dignity intact)”, “Dekh Raha Hai Aaj Himalaya Ganga ke Rakhwaalon Ko (Himalaya is looking towards saviours of Ganga)”, the programme has ended with these slogans announcing the course of future struggles.

Narendra Pokhariyal, Ajay Bhandari, Ram Lal, Vimal Bhai
 
 

The post Say No to Big Dams: River Day’ Launched in Uttarakhand appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image for representation purpose only
 
Almost 1735 small dams in the Beed, Jalna and Aurangabad districts of Marathwada are lying under utilised due lack of sanction of a measly from irrigation standards of Rs 171 crores, which has potential to increase the irrigation upto 17453 hectares, this information was provided to the writer and RTI activist Anil Galgali by the Rural Development and Water conservation department recently.
 
This issue and inquiry has been pending for over two years (February 2014 to January 2015) and exposes the seriousness of the state government in making irrigication cheaply and practicably available to the water starved Marathwada region. The writer, RTI activist Anil Galgali had filed an RTI query with the Rural Development and Water conservation dept of the Govt of Maharashtra on September 1, 2015 seeking information about the repairs to the small dams based on the Kolhapur pattern.
 
The Desk officer of the department informed Anil Galgali that, for the repairs and maintenance of the small dams for water conservation, the Chief Engineers office in the Pune has demanded Rs 170 crores 57 lakhs 77 thousand for 1735 small dams situated in Beed, Jalna and Aurangabad which has currently holding a potential for irrigation of 25128 hectares. RTI Application and Detailed Reply can be read here.
 
If these smaller dams, that fall under under the Mini Irrigation (Water Conservation) project are repaired and maintained, there is a potential of increasing the potential of irrigation by 17543 hectares taking it to 42671 hectares.
 
Beed district alone has 575 Mini Irrigation (Water Conservation) projects in need of urgent repairs and maintenance; if undertaken and completed will increase the potential by 4119 hectares, which is currently at 9661 hectares, thereby increasing the potential by 43%.
 
Jalna district similarly has 414 mini irrigation (Water Conservation) projects with the current potential of 4475 hectares, with repairs it is estimated to increase the potential by 2527 hectares.
 
Aurangabad has 746 similar projects pending repair and maintenance which can increase the potential by 10897 hectares, which is currently at 28535 hectares.
 
It is of utmost urgency that these funds be sanctioned immediately to quench the thirst of Marathwada.
 
If urgent attention is paid to the Mini Irrigation (Water Conservation) projects instead of the pet Jal Yukt shivar project of the state government the results would be faster and will save huge revenues for the state government besides, for the longterm, increase irrigation potential of the affected regions.
 
The Maharashtra government should immediately sanction the required Rs 171 crores, which will increase the irrigation potential by 17453 hectares and which measure will go a long way in providing water to the frought-hid Marathwada region.
 
The author has communicated this in a letter to chief minister, Devendra Fadnavis. The delay in taking this decision, resulting in non-repairs of small damns and reduced irrigation potential, has tragically led to the almost 745 farmers giving up their lives in Marathwada alone due to the lack of access to water and irrigation.
 

नज़रिया : किसानों की आत्महत्या रोकने में काम आ सकते हैं ये प्रयोग

नही मिल रही हैं प्यासे मराठवाडा को सिंचाई के लिए सरकारी मंजूरी
 
मराठवाडा के बीड, जालना और औरंगाबाद इन जिला में 1735 लघुसिंचाई को करीब 171 करोड़ रुपए की मांग को मंजूर करने पर 17453 हेक्टर सिंचाई की क्षमता बढ़ेगी। ऐसी जानकारी आरटीआई कार्यकर्ता अनिल गलगली को ग्रामविकास व जलसंधारण विभाग ने दी हैं। फरवरी 2014 से जनवरी 2015 इस दौरान प्यासे मराठवाडा को सिंचाई के लिए सरकारी मंजूरी नही मिलने से महाराष्ट्र सरकार की पोल खुल गई हैं। आरटीआई कार्यकर्ता अनिल गलगली ने ग्रामविकास व जलसंधारण विभाग से दिनांक 01.09.2015 को कोलापूर पैटर्न के तहत बांध की मरम्मत को लेकर जानकारी मांगी थी। ग्रामविकास व जलसंधारण विभाग के कार्यासन अधिकारी ने अनिल गलगली को बताया कि लघु सिंचाई (जलसंधारण) प्रोजेक्ट की मरम्मत और मेंटेनेस योजना के तहत सरकार से मुख्य अभियंता कार्यालय, पुणे ने 170 करोड़ 57 लाख 77 हजार रुपए की मांग की थी। मराठवाडा के बीड, जालना और औरंगाबाद इन जिला के 1735 लघुसिंचाई की वर्तमान सिंचाई की क्षमता 25128 हेक्टर हैं। लघु सिंचाई (जलसंधारण) प्रोजेक्ट की मरम्मत और मेंटेनेस हुआ तो क्षमता में 17543 इतनी हेक्टर की क्षमता बढ़ेगी। जिससे कुल सिंचाई की क्षमता 42671 इतनी हेक्टर होगी। बीड जिला के 575 लघु सिंचाई (जलसंधारण) प्रोजेक्ट की मरम्मत और मेंटेनेस होने पर इस क्षमता में 4119 हेक्टर इतनी सिंचाई की क्षमता बढ़ेगी जो जी वर्तमान में 9661 हेक्टर हैं। यानी करीबन 43 प्रतिशत सिंचाई की क्षमता बढ़ेगी। जालना जिला में 4475 हेक्टर इतनी सिंचाई की क्षमता है जो 414 लघु सिंचाई (जलसंधारण) प्रोजेक्ट की मरम्मत और मेंटेनेस होने पर इस क्षमता में 2527 हेक्टर इतनी वृद्धि होगी। वही ओरंगाबाद जिला के 746 लघु सिंचन (जलसंधारण) प्रोजेक्ट की मरम्मत और मेंटेनेस न होने से इसकी 10897 हेक्टर क्षमता बढ़ाने के लिए सरकार राजी नही होने से इसकी वर्तमान 28535 हेक्टर सिंचन क्षमता हैं। अनिल गलगली के अनुसार प्यासे मराठवाडा को सिंचाई के लिए सरकारी मंजूरी देकर ताबडतोब रकम देना आवश्यक हैं। महाराष्ट्र सरकार की जलयुक्तशिवार की तुलना में लघु सिंचाई (जलसंधारण) प्रोजेक्ट की मरम्मत और मेंटेनेस किया जाता है तो बड़ी रकम बचेगी और सिंचाई की क्षमता और बढ़ेगी। राज्य सरकार ने 171 करोड़ रुपए की मांग को मंजूर कर 17453 हेक्टर सिंचाई की क्षमता बढाए ताकि मराठवाडा की प्यास बुझाने के लिए सरकारी मदद सहायक साबित होगी, ऐसी मांग अनिल गलगली ने मुख्यमंत्री देवेंद्र फडणवीस को लिखे हुए पत्र में की हैं। पिछले एका वर्ष में सिर्फ मराठवाडा में 745 किसानों ने आत्महत्या करने की दर्दनाक सच्चाई सामने होते हुए भाजपा सरकार सिंचाई की क्षमता नही बढ़ाने पर अनिल गलगली ने नाराजगी जताई हैं।
 
 

The post Maharashtra: Repair, Maintain Small Dams, Widen Irrigation Base appeared first on SabrangIndia.