[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DAM-L LS: TERI produces EIA for Dandeli Dam in no time (fwd)
----- Forwarded message from owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net -----
From owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net Thu Dec 7 21:31:28 2000
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 VAA16889
for <dianne@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:31:26 -0500 (EST)
From: owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net
Received: [(from mjdomo@localhost)
by DaVinci.NetVista.net (8.10.0/8.8.8) id eB81jIU09574
for irn-narmada-list; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:45:18 -0800 (PST)
(envelope-from owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net)]
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200012080145.eB81jIU09574@DaVinci.NetVista.net>
subject: LS: TERI produces EIA for Dandeli Dam in no time
Sender: owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net
Precedence: bulk
Environment Support Group ® Parisara Samrakshana Kendra
S-3, Rajashree Apartments, 18/57, Hulemalgi Building, Chowkimath
1st Main Road, S. R. K. Gardens Sirsi (Uttara Kannada Dt.),
Jayanagar, Bannerghatta Road Karnataka 581401
Bangalore 560 041. INDIA Tel: 91-8384-25139
Telefax: 91-80-6341977 Fax: 91-8384-27839
Email: esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in Email: appiko@vsnl.com
Website: http://www.altindia.net/esg/index.htm
05 December 2000
TERI produces EIA for Dandeli Dam Project in no time
Efforts on to rush environmental clearance for MPC project
During August-September this year, we had exposed, in what we called the
"worst case of fraud in environmental decision making history in India",
the fact that Ernst and Young, an international consulting
firm, "completely plagiarised the Rapid Environment Impact Assessment of
the Tattihalla Augmentation Scheme prepared by Institute for Catchment
Studies and Environmental Management, Bangalore", thus presenting Dandeli
as being in Tattihalla. Ernst and Young was presenting an Environment
Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Rs. 180 crore hydel project proposed by
Murdeshwar Power Corporation (MPC) across the Kali River in the
environmentally sensitive Uttara Kannada district of the Western
Ghats. All that Ernst & Young had "cared to change" was the name of the
dam, DMH (Dandeli Mini-Hydel Scheme) for TAS (Tattihalla Augmentation Scheme).
Despite this expose', widely covered by the media both within India and
abroad, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board proceeded to hold the
Environmental Public Hearing on 21 August 2000 on the basis of this
plagiarised report. During the Hearing, hired thugs representing the
developer threatened those who questioned the validity of the process, with
dire consequences. Even a month after the Hearing, the Government of
Karnataka remained tight-lipped on what action would follow, refusing to
accept demands that the entire episode must be thoroughly investigated by a
judicial officer. Covertly, however, it seems to have advised Murdeshwar
Power Corporation to get another EIA done for the project so that the
project, which has received high political patronage, could be put through
the clearance process without further controversy.
Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI: www.teriin.org), India's famous NGO
research agency, collected the contract for salvaging the reputation of the
Government of Karnataka and MPC, and produced what it claimed to be an
Environment Impact Assessment, by October 2000. Shockingly, TERI claims
the "study was carried out for a period of one month utlising 375 man days
(September to October 2000)", thus suggesting that 15 people worked for a
period of 25 days.
Environment Impact Assessments of projects in biodiversity rich and
inaccessible forests of Western Ghats require detailed and repeated
observations over different seasons to arrive at what can be considered to
be reasonably accurate predictions of the adverse impacts of the
project. Considering that the period was "September to October", when rain
lashes this high rainfall region, it is very difficult to access the
region, let alone do any study reasonably well. This especially when the
preparation for the field study, conduct of the study, analysis of data and
writing of the report is all to be done in less than a month. Quite apart
from whether 15 people actually did the field-work, local people confirm
that the TERI team was in the Dandeli area for the period of a week.
That even the month long work claimed has not been done is revealed in the
"EIA" prepared by TERI. Dr. Ranjit Daniels (formerly with Centre for
Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science), who is an authority on
the biodiversity of the region and a person with extensive field experience
of the area, reviewed the study for us and found the ecological data
presented in the study: "secondary and spurious". He concludes that
"recommendations based on these can't be taken seriously". Questioning the
credentials of those who have conducted the study, Dr. Daniels' notes that
"the statement that the forests here record "very less species per unit
area" (Sec IV 19 of the TERI EIA) is "absurd" for "such forests are the
richest in biodiversity in Uttara Kannada". And charges TERI of copying
species information "without acknowledgement" and without relevance to the
project area. Dr. Daniels note reviewing the ecological information in the
TERI "EIA" is enclosed.
We note with concern that based on such "spurious" information and based on
a study format that is not in compliance with standard EIA guidelines, TERI
rushes to the conclusion that "taking into account the economic development
and social upliftment in the area, via-a-vis the minimal (emphasis ours)
environmental impact, overall the proposed project may be said to be
beneficial". And this when not providing any economic and social
information to justify this generic approval of the project.
Given Ernst and Young's plagiarised EIA attempt to push the MPC project
clearance earlier, one would have expected any subsequent study to be twice
guarded in coming to a conclusion on the impacts of a dam in this
region. That TERI has stooped to such low levels as to doctor an "EIA"
within a month, claiming "375 man days" of effort, is a most distressing
and condemnable development. To say the least, such an effort was not
expected from an organisation that claims high ethical standards for its
research efforts, and most certainly not to enable a project that has been
controversial for violating the fundamental precepts of Indian
Environmental Legislation in its proposal to locate a dam in an
ecologically fragile region.
We thus demand:
1. That TERI must withdraw this "EIA" report immediately
2. The Environmental Public Hearing to be held on 7th December 2000 at
Dandeli, on the basis of the TERI "EIA", should be postponed indefinitely.
3. The MPC project application must be rejected in accordance with the
Environment Impact Assessment Notification for producing wrong and
fraudulent EIA's, not once, but twice, within a five month period.
4. And reiterate our earlier demand for a judicial inspection into why
the MPC project has been provided such zealous attention by the Government
of Karnataka.
Only a thorough and independent investigation will reveal if the political
proximity of the project developer, Mr. R. N. Shetty, to Karnataka's
Industries Minister, Mr. R. V. Deshpande, who represents the Dandeli
constituency, has anything to do with the project receiving such acute
attention from the Government. This particularly when we risk losing yet
another valuable patch of the fast dwindling spread of Western Ghats forests.
Leo F. Saldanha/Bhargavi S. Rao Pandurang Hegde/Balachandra
Hegde
Environment Support Group Parisara Samrakshana Kendra
Bangalore Sirsi
· More information on the history of the Dandeli Dam proposal can be
sourced online at http://web.estart.com/~esg/
--------------------------------------------
Dr. Ranjit Daniels' Comment on the TERI EIA
(Comments in parenthesis are by ESG)
I am qualified only to comment on the ecological aspects having worked in
the Dandeli area during the late 1980's. From a perusal of the TERI EIA it
is obvious that the person who has done the flora/fauna is not a qualified
biologist. Statements, such as, the forests here record "very less species
per unit area" (Sec IV - 19) is absurd. Judging by the species (listed in
the TERI EIA study), the forest is clearly a mosaic of deciduous and
evergreen forests. Such forests are the richest in biodiversity in Uttara
Kannada. Forest working plans published in 1993 (and used as basis of the
TERI EIA study) might have been prepared years ago and hence with outdated
information on plants and animals. To base species list on this is unwise.
Names of species are erroneous, sometimes outdated and even non-existent in
reality. Plant names are full of spelling and classification errors. List
of fishes of River Kali is dubious. Sole (Cynoglossus lingua Ham.) is a
marine estuarine species and it can hardly exist in the proposed site.
There are no lung fishes in India! (as claimed to exist in Sec IV - 34 of
TERI EIA).
Crocodiles in Kali River? Where exactly? This is news! Source has not
been provided for bird List Karwar-Haliyal area even when there are
specific lists for Dandeli prepared by a student of Univ. of Karnataka in
Dharwar, (perhaps) in 1989. There are not more than 150 species of birds
in the area and the list is copied without acknowledgement. (In contrast
to the TERI EIA claims that 233 bird species are found in the Dandeli Dam
Study Area). Gallus gallus: Red Jungle Fowl, is not known from the State
of Karnataka (as claimed to exist in Dandeli vide Table 4.14; Sec. IV - 35
of the TERI EIA). New records of species (as claimed to have been the
result of the TERI EIA study), indicated with *, are well known in the
district even 100 years ago! Further, there cannot be many of these
species in the study area. Such compilations don't help.
Too few butterflies. Many common butterfly species missed out.
There are no 'herds' of elephants, in Dandeli (as claimed in the TERI
EIA). 10-12 years ago there was one herd with less than 20 individuals
around Haliyal. And, there are no foxes! Snake list consists of only the
most common species (while the area has) many more. For eg. Even the more
commonly occurring Pit Vipers are not listed?
Amphibian data is spurious. Ansonia ornata, Bufo microtympanum are not
known from the district. (as claimed to exist in Dandeli in Table 4.17, Sec
IV - 43 of the TERI EIA)
In general, the ecological data presented is secondary and spurious. And
thus, recommendations based on these can't be taken seriously.
--------------------------------------------
Letter Sent to Director of TERI
Dr. R. K. Pachauri,
Director
Tata Energy Research Institute
Darbari Seth Block, Habitat Place,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003, INDIA
Tel. (+91 11) 468 2100 and 468 2111,
Fax: (+91 11) 468 2144 and 468 2145
05 December 2000
Dear Dr. Pachauri,
We write with the deepest disapointment at the manner in which your
organisation has been a party to continuing violation of good standards and
practices of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), and as well law on the
matter. We are particularly referring to the EIA conducted by TERI for the
Dandeli Hydel Project of the Murdeshwar Power Corporation proposed across
River Kali in Uttar Kannada district of Karnataka.
What is most distressing is that your organisation chose to do an EIA for a
project that had not so long ago attempted to secure environmental
clearances by utilising a plagiarised EIA produced by the international
consulting firm Ernst and Young. This most disturbing development was
widely covered in the press, and it should have served as a reminder to
anyone doing an EIA for the project to not once more hedge around the
clearance process.
Shockingly the study done by TERI for Murdeshwar Power Corporation is of
appalling standards, that do not meet even the poor EIA standards of
India. Further, it arrives at conclusions that the dam will not have
significant impact on the Dandeli forests without producing any supportive
evidence whatsoever. Even the ecological information produced has been
found to be "secondary and spurious" by Dr. Ranjit Daniels, an authority on
the biodiversity of the region, who reviewed the EIA on our request.
We have thus had no option but to demand that TERI must withdraw this
report, and consequently cease to be an agent causing environmental
clearance to an highly controversial project, the developer of which has
shown the least regard for the environment and Indian environmental
legislation. It would thus fall upon your shoulders to cause such action
with due dispatch, and accept moral responsibility for this distortive,
fraudulent and highly questionable report.
We are attaching a Press Release made in this regard, which also includes
Dr. Ranjit Daniels' note, for your perusal and records.
Yours sincerely,
Leo F. Saldanha/Bhargavi S. Rao Pandurang Hegde/Balachandra
Hegde
Environment Support Group Parisara Samrakshana Kendra
Bangalore Sirsi
cc:
1) Governing Council Members of TERI
2) Mr. H. V. Dayal, Director, TERI (Bangalore)
"R. K. Pachauri" <pachauri@teri.res.in>,
"H.V Dayal" <teriblr.hvdayal@aworld.net>,
Environment Support Group (R)
S-3, Rajashree Apartments
18/57, 1st Main, S. R. K. Gardens
Jayanagar, Bannerghatta Road
Bangalore 560 041. INDIA
Telefax: 91-80-6341977
Fax: 91-80-6723926 (PP)
Email: esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 -----