[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DAM-L LS: The Hindu: A Message to the Judges (fwd)
----- Forwarded message from owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net -----
From owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net Fri Dec 1 22:12:26 2000
X-UIDL: e238963b5e11230ad4b584eae1c39cd2
Return-Path: <owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net>
Received: from DaVinci.NetVista.net (mjdomo@mail.netvista.net [206.170.46.10])
by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA02926
for <dianne@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:12:25 -0500 (EST)
From: owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net
Received: [(from mjdomo@localhost)
by DaVinci.NetVista.net (8.10.0/8.8.8) id eB22UK625326
for irn-narmada-list; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:30:20 -0800 (PST)
(envelope-from owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net)]
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200012020230.eB22UK625326@DaVinci.NetVista.net>
subject: LS: The Hindu: A Message to the Judges
Sender: owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net
Precedence: bulk
The Hindu, November 28, 2000
A message for the judges
By Kalpana Sharma
PERHAPS OUR Supreme Court Justices should have waited a
couple of weeks before passing their final orders in the Narmada
case. For if they had, they would have been privy to the important
perspectives contained in the report of the World Commission on
Dams, released in London on November 16. The WCD report might
not be the last word on dams. But it is important for a number of
reasons. It is the first comprehensive survey of large dams. It presents
a balance-sheet of the benefits and adverse impacts of these
capital-intensive infrastructure projects. And it sets out criteria that
could govern future decisions on large dams.
Even if one were to dismiss some of the suggestions of the WCD as
being unworkable within the political context that governs so many
developmental decisions in many countries, including India, as a
document that assesses the record of large dams it is invaluable. This
is particularly so because of the composition of the WCD. This is not
a bunch of anti-dam NGOs who are picking faults with existing dams
and those still under construction. This is a Commission made up of
people in Government, such as the Chair, Prof. Kader Asmal, South
Africa's Education Minister, Mr. Goran Lindahl, President and CEO
of Asea Brown Boveri (ABB), one of the largest private sector
infrastructure developers, and Mr. Jan Veltrop, a former president of
the pro-large dam body, the International Commission on Large
Dams (ICOLD). The Commission also had its share of critics of large
dams, pre-eminently Ms. Medha Patkar of the Narmada Bachao
Andolan but also Ms. Joji Corino representing the issues concerning
indigenous peoples and Ms. Deborah Moore, until recently senior
scientist with the U.S.- based NGO, Environment Defense Fund
(EDF).
In balance, what emerges from the report is not a happy picture. The
45,000 large dams worldwide have displaced 40 million to 80 million
people, affected 60 per cent of all rivers, have fallen short of their
irrigation targets, have failed to recover costs, have had extensive
negative impacts on rivers, watersheds and aquatic systems, many of
them irreversible. Further, mitigation measures, where they have been
taken, have usually proved ineffective. In other words, even if one
argues that large dams are necessary and that the damage that they
do can be minimised by taking adequate measures, the record
suggests that this is not always possible. At the same time, large dams
have contributed to the spread of irrigation, generated hydro power,
have been useful for flood management and have been very useful for
urban water supply. The question that always arises then is: is the cost
worth the ostensible benefits?
The WCD has argued that a cost-benefit calculation is insufficient in
the context of large dams because of the nature of the costs. It
suggests instead a rights and risks approach that accommodates the
rights of those who will be adversely affected and takes into account
the risks to the environment and to future generations. Such an
approach necessarily requires an open and transparent
decision-making system, a process that is based on full consultation
with the affected groups.
This, of course, does not mean that countries should not build large
capital-intensive infrastructure such as large dams. What it does mean
is that the process should allow the voiceless to have a voice, that
there should be fairness and justice in the way the affected
communities are treated, and that if giving them the best possible
compensation is not possible, the project is reviewed. In other words,
the cost to the people who get no benefits from projects should not
be so high that a project cannot pay it.
If one were to apply these criteria to existing projects, including those
such as the Sardar Sarovar which are still under construction, they
would fail miserably. There is too much evidence to suggest that in the
initial design of the project, these human and environmental costs
were not accommodated. And today, it is more than evident that the
project cannot mitigate them in its present design. The tragedy is that
despite innumerable committees - and Madhya Pradesh's recorded
admission that it has no land to accommodate all those who will be
affected by the SSP - there has been no serious attempt to rework
the project to minimise the damage. Instead, the Supreme Court has
virtually closed the door on any further discussion.
In fact, a section in the WCD report makes a point of acknowledging
that ``dams in the pipeline'' constitute a special case. It suggests that
evidence from its survey, which covered almost 1,000 large dams
worldwide, demonstrates that ``it is never too late to improve
outcomes. On this basis, the Commission proposes an open and
participatory review of ongoing and planned projects to ascertain the
extent to which project formulation can be adapted to accommodate
the principles outlined in this report''. The SSP authorities should take
note of this.
Further, it suggests to Governments that they use the opportunity of
reviewing such dams that are already under way to assess the plans
they have for water and energy options. ``This can serve to launch a
process of internal review and modification of existing policies and
legislation, and reinforcement of appropriate capacity that will
facilitate implementation of the Commission's recommendations in the
future.''Is that too tall an order? Considering the enormous cost over-
runs of projects such as the SSP because there was resistance to any
suggestion that environmental and social costs had not been covered,
and given that now few projects can hope to get international finance
without accounting for these costs, it makes eminent sense to stop
and think before proceeding further.
Unfortunately, neither common sense nor open-ness and
transparency are the hallmarks of Governments in this country, at the
Centre or in the States. Large dams involve a $ 2 trillion investment
worldwide. Everyday, somewhere in the world, a new dam is being
commissioned. Most of these are in developing countries. Yet despite
conventions on the environment, on human rights, and the
international movement for the rights of people affected by large
infrastructure projects, most Governments proceed with an outdated
set of values and criteria that try and sneak past any need to listen to
the voices of those who will be affected. The result, repeatedly, has
been resistance from people, and delay in an already costly project.
This alone should make Governments such as ours consider
alternative approaches. It would be cost- effective, apart from being
the only decent and humane way of conducting business.
The real stumbling block, however, is not just absence of logic and a
refusal to face the evidence, but the benefits that accrue to a few from
such large projects. As the WCD aptly points out in its report, ``As a
development choice, the selection of large dams often served as a
focal point for the interests and aspirations of politicians, centralised
Government agencies, international aid donors and the dam-building
industry and did not provide a comprehensive evaluation of available
alternatives''. This statement comes from people who know how the
system works.
So, to come back to the beginning, would our Supreme Court judges
have paused if they had read the WCD report before they ruled in the
Narmada case? The report makes a compelling case for a different
approach to decision-making about large dams, and about
developmental infrastructure as a whole. Its arguments are
reasonable, placed within the context of internationally-endorsed
environmental and human rights conventions. It argues not that no
dams should be built, but that such a step should only be taken if the
criteria that include social and environmental costs are fully met. If we
accept even some of the criteria set out in the report, the SSP would
need to be drastically modified even if it cannot be abandoned
altogether. At the very least, our apex court could have thrown the
project back on the drawing board. However, even if it thinks the
case is over, in fact it remains wide open. The controversy over large
dams will not die that easily.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to majordomo@netvista.net
with no subject and the following text in the body of the message
"unsubscribe irn-narmada".
----- End of forwarded message from owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net -----