Gundia hydel project: Is it worth the ecological cost?

In this background, the ability of the MoEF to prevent the harm to the already devastated Western Ghats will be severely tested by the 2x200 MW Gundia hydel project being proposed by the Karnataka Power Corporation in Hassan district.

This project proposal to utilise its installed capacity for only 32 per cent of the time is probably one of the least beneficial hydel projects to our society because of the huge socio-environmental costs associated. The total land requirement of more than 973 hectares, including 754 hectares of thick evergreen forests, will have a major impact on the bio-diversity rich Western Ghats.

There are many endangered and endemic species of flora and fauna in this area, which may not be effectively rehabilitated. It is very unfortunate for the peninsular India that the concerned authorities have ignored the fact that Western Ghats is one of the few bio-diversity hotspots in the world.
No analysis of various costs and benefits of the project have been carried out in an objective way to determine whether the project is in the overall interest of the society. At a time when global warming has become an existential issue for the humankind and for a densely populated country of ours, the proposed destruction of thick rainfall forests of Western Ghats will only exacerbate global warming. Additionally, the National Forest Policy target of 33 per cent forest and tree cover can never be achieved if we continue to destroy the natural forests of highest ecological value.
Because of the irrational set of procedural issues needed to get clearances this project had no objective analysis of pros and cons to the society. The severe opposition to the proposed Gundia project and the irrefutable evidence of potential harm to the nature has largely been ignored by the concerned authorities of the Union and state governments.
The systemic weaknesses in according clearances to such high impact projects are so many and so pervasive that state governments seem to be convinced that getting environmental clearance is only a matter of time and that it is just a political game.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report for Gundia project contains many misrepresentations and false claims, but the approval process does not allow these to be brought to the notice of the ministry because only the project proponent is allowed to make presentation. Very often the minutes of the public hearing contain gross misrepresentations and generally fail to record the issues objectively, basically to favour the project proponent.
Environmental clearance
Unless the people opposing the project on socio-environmental grounds are given adequate opportunity to explain their viewpoints, and unless such views are taken into objective account, the process of environmental clearance can at the best be termed as a charade.
There is no scope for the public to know how far the benefits outweigh the costs in Gundia project proposal. The Detailed Project Report (DPR) has recorded direct costs only to the project proponent without even mentioning the societal costs. Additionally, the DPR has not discussed the various options available to meet the stated objective of generating electricity.
It is sad to know that the DPR has no mandate to assure the public that all the alternatives available are discussed and that the best option in society’s interest is chosen. In the case of Gundia hydel project, no other alternative to get 400 MW or its equivalent is discussed. In such a case how does the project proponent demonstrate to the public that it is the best option available?

The benefits to our society from the ecological services of 754 hectares of bio-diversity rich forests alone can be many times more than the meagre benefit from the proposed project. There are many benign options such as replacing the inefficient incandescent lamps by energy efficient CFLs, reducing the T&D losses, energy conservation and demand side Management to get more than 400 MW of equivalent power.

The people have a right to know as to how the proposed Gundia hydel project is less harmful as compared to the Bedthi hydel project proposal in Uttara Kannada district, which was shelved in 1980s due to massive opposition on environmental grounds. As an integral part of our democracy all stakeholders should be consulted effectively and the authorities concerned should demonstrate to them that such a high impact project is essential.

Without an objective analysis of all related issues and without taking the support of the stakeholders to continue with such a ghastly project will be a serious setback to the welfare of our society and a mockery of our democracy.