| Laxmi Paudel |
Posted
on 19-Oct-00 11:50 AM
Thought this would be of interest to some of you who are in support or against of Arun project.
As you know, Sardar Sarovar dam construction operation in India was halted for a brief period due to outcry of environmentalists. However, Indian supreme court has allowed the operation to restart again. This is a blow on face to environmentalists. Can we learn any lesson from this?
Laxmi paudel
India Court Ruling a Blow to Dam Protesters
BOMBAY, India, October 18, 2000 (ENS) - By a majority of two to one, India's
Supreme Court has allowed work on the half finished Sardar Sarovar Dam to
continue, rejecting calls for an environmental survey to be carried out.
Sardar Sarovar dam before
the level was raised to its
current height of 88 meters.
(Photo courtesy Sardar Sarovar
Project)
The US$5 billion gravity dam on
the Narmada River in the
western state of Gujarat is part
of the Narmada Valley
Development Project scheme.
The Indian government plans to
build 30 large, 135 medium and
3,000 small dams to harness the waters of the Narmada and its tributaries.
It is estimated that more than 300,000 people will have to be resettled from land
to be flooded under the project, which will supply water for hydropower, irrigation,
and municipal and industrial water supply.
The Sardar Sarovar Dam currently stands at 88 meters but will rise to 163
meters when finished. Proponents of the dam claim that it will provide large
amounts of water and electricity which are desperately needed to develop a poor
area.
Opponents question the basic assumptions of the Narmada Valley Development
Plan. They believe the displacement of so many people living in poor and
underprivileged communities is an abuse of human rights. They claim the plan
rests on false and unfounded assumptions of hydrology and seismicity in the
area.
They argue that water and energy can be provided to the people of the Narmada
Valley, Gujarat and other regions through alternative technologies and planning
processes, which can be socially just and economically and environmentally
sustainable.
Medha Patkar, a commissioner of the World Commission on Dams, called
today's verdict by the Indian Supreme Court "illogical, dangerous and
anti-people."
Medha Patkar. (Photo courtesy World Commission on Dams)
"The Supreme Court has violated the spirit of the constitution
of India and democratic governance," she said. "The court
has totally neglected the fundamental rights of the most
vulnerable section of our society and also the serious issues
raised regarding the propriety of the dam.
"Instead, it has provided a weapon in the hands of the power
holders to indiscriminately displace the project affected people and crush their
rights."
Patkar vowed to fight the judiciary and its decision "tooth and nail."
"We call upon the people of India who value democracy and constitution to
challenge this decision and ask the court to restore the people's rights in the
Narmada valley."
The court case was brought by the foremost campaign group, Narmada Bachao
Andolan (Save The Narmada Campaign). Its lawsuit filed in the public interest
alleged that the dam's impact studies were incomplete and environmental and
other conditions unfulfilled.
One of the three judges, Justice S.P. Bharucha, wanted all construction
activities at the dam site to stop so that a detailed environmental survey could
be carried out. But he was outvoted by Chief Justice A.S. Anand and B.N.
Kirpal, who said they were satisfied by the relief and rehabilitation measures
taken by the state authorities.
Their decision means that the dam can be raised by two meters, to 90 meters.
But the judges ruled that to raise the dam beyond 90 meters would need
approval from an environmental authority appointed to undertake the task.
In a joint statement, Venu Govindu and Subramaniam Vincent of the Friends of
River Narmada, expressed solidarity with Narmada Bachao Andolan, and echoed
calls for the campaign against the dam to continue.
Determined village women
march to the Narmada River at
Domkhedi last August. (Photo
courtesy Friends of Narmada)
"The design and planning process
of the Sardar Sarovar Project has
been inherently unjust, without an
iota of people's participation," the
said.
"The different state governments
and the Union of India has exhibited a singular lack of interest and concern
towards the welfare of the poor and underprivileged people whose lives would be
devastated by this project.
"Moreover, there is a heap of evidence that lays bare the fundamental flaws
inherent to the cost benefit analysis of the entire Narmada Valley Development
Plan. In the face of such remarkable evidence, the Supreme Court judgment
delivered today on the project is a mockery of justice and egalitarianism in a
democratic society."
In the early 1990s, the World Bank commissioned its first ever independent
review of a World Bank financed project to investigate problems associated with
the Sardar Sarovar dam. The resulting review, known as the Morse Report after
its leader, Bradford Morse, concluded that numerous violations of the Bank's
environment and resettlement policies had occurred and the Bank should "step
back" from the project.
In 1993, the government of India requested that the World Bank withdraw its
support for the project. The Supreme Court halted work on raising the height of
the dam in January 1995. But last year, it lifted a four year moratorium on the
dam's construction, allowing work to raise the dam wall from 80.3 meters to 88
meters.
The decision sparked numerous protests by villagers and activists who vowed to
drown in the rising waters behind the dam, rather than move from their homes.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 19-Oct-00 03:13 PM
I wish somebody as knowledgeable about the issue
as Laxmi would also post his/her ORIGINAL
comments on the article . . .
Anyway,
Several groups in Nepal opposed the Arun III
hydropower project in 1994/1995 on different
grounds.
I think it's important to understand who
opposed what on which grounds.
A group calling itself Alliance for Energy made arguments based primarily on economics (arguing,
among others, that the proposed project, financed
by loans, cost much more than what the available
money could deliver).
When the World Bank, the major donor decided to
cancel its proposed loans, it did so on economic grounds.The World Bank, after all, is a bank, NOT
a charity organization.
On the other hand, then, activists such as Gopal
Chintan Siwakoti and others were more vocal
against Arun III on environmental grounds.
Chintan is a colorful man, a maverick
who mixes passion, logic and brilliance to make
his points in public. Driving his opponents
crazy, he gets easy press in Nepal. [On a personal
note, I rather like the guy, though I DISAGREE
with his core beliefs. Chintan was, after all, enormously helpful to make some strategies for
the success of the Kamaiya Mukti Andolan]
And so, my own guess is that in the battle
for and against the Arun III project, what most newspaper-reading people remember vividly is
Chintan and his group's passionate
anti-Arun/anti-World Bank stands on
environmental grounds.
As far as most newspaper-reading Nepalis are
concerned, it's the "goddamn environmentalists"
who killed the Arun III.
Given that background, suppose:
A group of PRIVATE investors/entrepreneurs
come forward.
And suppose that they say that they
want to revive the Arun III project.
If so, would there be any compelling
reason to oppose Arun III?
My answer: No.
Why?
Because it's their money; and they're free to
invest or squander it as they see fit.
oohi
ashu
>Thought this would be of interest to some of
>you who are in support or against of Arun
>project.
>
>As you know, Sardar Sarovar dam construction
>operation in India was halted for a brief
>period due to outcry of environmentalists.
>However, Indian supreme court has allowed
>the operation to restart again. This is a
>blow on face to environmentalists. Can we
>learn any lesson from this?
>
>Laxmi paudel
>
>
>India Court Ruling a Blow to Dam Protesters
>
> BOMBAY, India,
>October 18, 2000 (ENS) - By a majority of
>two to one, India's
> Supreme Court
>has allowed work on the half finished Sardar
>Sarovar Dam to
> continue,
>rejecting calls for an environmental survey
>to be carried out.
>
> Sardar Sarovar
>dam before
> the level was
>raised to its
> current height
>of 88 meters.
> (Photo courtesy
>Sardar Sarovar
> Project)
>
> The US$5 billion
>gravity dam on
> the Narmada
>River in the
> western state of
>Gujarat is part
> of the Narmada
>Valley
> Development
>Project scheme.
> The Indian
>government plans to
> build 30 large, 1
>35 medium and
> 3,000 small dams
>to harness the waters of the Narmada and its
>tributaries.
>
> It is estimated
>that more than 300,000 people will have to
>be resettled from land
> to be flooded
>under the project, which will supply water
>for hydropower, irrigation,
> and municipal
>and industrial water supply.
>
> The Sardar
>Sarovar Dam currently stands at 88 meters
>but will rise to 163
> meters when
>finished. Proponents of the dam claim that
>it will provide large
> amounts of water
>and electricity which are desperately needed
>to develop a poor
> area.
>
> Opponents
>question the basic assumptions of the
>Narmada Valley Development
> Plan. They
>believe the displacement of so many people
>living in poor and
> underprivileged
>communities is an abuse of human rights.
>They claim the plan
> rests on false
>and unfounded assumptions of hydrology and
>seismicity in the
> area.
>
> They argue that
>water and energy can be provided to the
>people of the Narmada
> Valley, Gujarat
>and other regions through alternative
>technologies and planning
> processes, which
>can be socially just and economically and
>environmentally
> sustainable.
>
> Medha Patkar, a
>commissioner of the World Commission on Dams,
> called
> today's verdict
>by the Indian Supreme Court "illogical,
>dangerous and
> anti-people."
>
>
>Medha Patkar. (Photo courtesy World
>Commission on Dams)
>
> "
>The Supreme Court has violated the spirit of
>the constitution
> of
>India and democratic governance," she said. "
>The court
>
>has totally neglected the fundamental rights
>of the most
>
>vulnerable section of our society and also
>the serious issues
>
>raised regarding the propriety of the dam.
>
> "
>Instead, it has provided a weapon in the
>hands of the power
> holders to
>indiscriminately displace the project
>affected people and crush their
> rights."
>
> Patkar vowed to
>fight the judiciary and its decision "tooth
>and nail."
>
> "We call upon
>the people of India who value democracy and
>constitution to
> challenge this
>decision and ask the court to restore the
>people's rights in the
> Narmada valley."
>
> The court case
>was brought by the foremost campaign group,
>Narmada Bachao
> Andolan (Save
>The Narmada Campaign). Its lawsuit filed in
>the public interest
> alleged that the
>dam's impact studies were incomplete and
>environmental and
> other conditions
>unfulfilled.
>
> One of the three
>judges, Justice S.P. Bharucha, wanted all
>construction
> activities at
>the dam site to stop so that a detailed
>environmental survey could
> be carried out.
>But he was outvoted by Chief Justice A.S.
>Anand and B.N.
> Kirpal, who said
>they were satisfied by the relief and
>rehabilitation measures
> taken by the
>state authorities.
>
> Their decision
>means that the dam can be raised by two
>meters, to 90 meters.
> But the judges
>ruled that to raise the dam beyond 90 meters
>would need
> approval from an
>environmental authority appointed to
>undertake the task.
>
> In a joint
>statement, Venu Govindu and Subramaniam
>Vincent of the Friends of
> River Narmada,
>expressed solidarity with Narmada Bachao
>Andolan, and echoed
> calls for the
>campaign against the dam to continue.
>
> Determined
>village women
> march to the
>Narmada River at
> Domkhedi last
>August. (Photo
> courtesy Friends
>of Narmada)
>
> "The design and
>planning process
> of the Sardar
>Sarovar Project has
> been inherently
>unjust, without an
> iota of people's
>participation," the
> said.
>
> "The different
>state governments
> and the Union of
>India has exhibited a singular lack of
>interest and concern
> towards the
>welfare of the poor and underprivileged
>people whose lives would be
> devastated by
>this project.
>
> "Moreover, there
>is a heap of evidence that lays bare the
>fundamental flaws
> inherent to the
>cost benefit analysis of the entire Narmada
>Valley Development
> Plan. In the
>face of such remarkable evidence, the
>Supreme Court judgment
> delivered today
>on the project is a mockery of justice and
>egalitarianism in a
> democratic
>society."
>
> In the early 1990
>s, the World Bank commissioned its first
>ever independent
> review of a
>World Bank financed project to investigate
>problems associated with
> the Sardar
>Sarovar dam. The resulting review, known as
>the Morse Report after
> its leader,
>Bradford Morse, concluded that numerous
>violations of the Bank's
> environment and
>resettlement policies had occurred and the
>Bank should "step
> back" from the
>project.
>
> In 1993, the
>government of India requested that the World
>Bank withdraw its
> support for the
>project. The Supreme Court halted work on
>raising the height of
> the dam in
>January 1995. But last year, it lifted a
>four year moratorium on the
> dam's
>construction, allowing work to raise the dam
>wall from 80.3 meters to 88
> meters.
>
> The decision
>sparked numerous protests by villagers and
>activists who vowed to
> drown in the
>rising waters behind the dam, rather than
>move from their homes.
|
