Credit: DH Photo/Pavan Kumar H
Bengaluru: Wildlife conservationists and experts presented a list of alleged illegalities to members of the National Board of Wildlife (NBWL) over the procedure followed to obtain clearances for the pumped storage project in the Sharavathi Valley Lion-tailed Macaque (LTM) Sanctuary.
The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) proposal, which seeks diversion of 131.81 acres of forest land in the valley to build a powerhouse between two dams, has attracted widespread criticism.
Acting on a direction from the NBWL Standing Committee, a three-member panel, including board members H S Singh and Raman Sukumar, visited the site and received grievances from conservationists and experts at a meeting held in Sagar.
Five major concerns
Activist Akhilesh Chipli said there were five major concerns, ranging from procedural illegalities to deliberate obfuscation.
Referring to information obtained under the Right to Information Act, he said KPCL was creating a fait accompli by not disclosing the requirement of an additional 58.8 hectares (145.29 acres) of forest land to build transmission lines.
As per rules, disclosure of the full scope of a project is an essential part of the clearance process, as it helps assess its overall impact.
“Power evacuation is not part of the present project and will come as a separate project subsequently. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dated July 6, 2011, in the Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt Ltd case (Writ Petition (Civil) 202 of 1995), this proposal will lead to a fait accompli, as the transmission lines and the power plant are two essential parts of a single power project,” Chipli noted.
Secondly, he said, KPCL had inflated the project’s cost-benefit (CB) ratio to 2,643, which was later revised to 75 after questions were raised by central authorities.
Even the revised figure, he said, was based on “irrational considerations”, as KPCL calculated only the cost of forest land. “Considering the project cost and the water pumping cost, the actual CB ratio will be less than one, which suggests the project is economically not viable,” he said.
Thirdly, Chipli said the degradation of the forest would affect its carbon sequestration capacity, an aspect that had not been adequately considered. The fourth and fifth concerns related to the failure to examine alternatives to the project and the potential destabilisation of the Sharavathi valley.