Kudankulam lesson: Educate and involve the local people

The global anti-nuclear lobby, environmental activists, development sceptics, local politicians, those dissatisfied by land acquisition and rehabilitation policies and those unhappy with the nuclear regulatory processes, as also perhaps international commercial nuclear interests, all used KK to vent their concerns.

This episode should be used to draw appropriate lessons to avoid such instances in the future as the country moves ahead with its nuclear power programme. Both the government and the nuclear establishment should address relevant issues at two levels --- the tactical level by engaging liberally with the local populace on the ground; and the strategic level by explaining and discussing wider issues of nuclear energy and energy security to the nation.

The construction and operation of a nuclear power plant is a major activity for the local population of an area. It directly affects the lives and livelihoods of all whose land is acquired and their concerns need to be handled with utmost sensitivity.

While monetary incentives need to be tempting and the latest Land Acquisition Bill 2011, ensures this, it is equally important that the emotional connect with the project affected people is built and nurtured so that a situation of ‘us vs them’ can be averted. 

This can be done by providing employment opportunities to the local people at the plant site, thereby giving them a stake in the project.  An arrangement of profit sharing akin to the proposal in the draft Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Bill 2010 can also be explored.

Secondly, the nuclear power plant must become the centerpiece of general economic growth and development of the area. In fact, the ten point proposal for Kudankulam by President Kalam reflects this approach by suggesting a range of socio-economic projects besides the nuclear plant. General economic wellbeing will make the local population appreciate the benefits of the plant, which may otherwise seem abstract and distant.

For instance, KK may add 2000 KWe to the electricity grid, of which nearly half is promised to Tamil Nadu, but this offers no tangible gain to the local inhabitant. Initiatives aimed at bettering his life will enable greater acceptance of the plant.  Such an approach will obviously require different government agencies at the national and local levels to adopt a cooperative and synergistic approach for planning, implementation and cost sharing. In fact, where the plants will be built with foreign collaboration, an arrangement of ‘offsets’ akin to the policy used in the defence industry can be used to ensure wider development opportunities.

Clarify doubts and fears

Thirdly, education of the local populace on matters nuclear is extremely important. The NPCIL must be proactive in continuously engaging with the local NGOs, schools and colleges, panchayats, etc to explain the working of the plant. The people should be encouraged to clarify their fears and doubts and representatives of the nuclear establishment must be available close at hand to address these issues. In fact, this may require the NPCIL or the DAE to train/engage a cadre of effective communicators who can convey scientific information in layman’s terms. Being dismissive or patronising is very harmful, as the KK experience clearly illustrates.

A strategy at the national level requires initiating a vigorous national debate to engage the public mind on four key subjects – one, the connection between availability of stable, reliable electricity and economic growth and development given that modern societies are electricity driven; two, the limitations of the current power generation sources available to India; three, the role that nuclear energy must play in the national electricity mix given that India has to install new generation capacities, and it is only prudent that it does so from sources that do not raise environmental and health costs; four, the issues related to nuclear safety.

Obviously, Fukushima has shaken public confidence. But, the general public has mostly internalised the events at Fukushima without understanding the unique specificities of the incident. Even more disturbing is the distortion of perceptions by an inadequately informed media. For instance, explosions and evacuations at Fukushima have been assumed to have caused huge radiation exposure and deaths. It is little known that there has been not a single radiation fatality at Fukushima. A few workers who died at the plant were victims of the tsunami that actually claimed thousands of lives. Public perception of nuclear safety, however, tends to assume otherwise.

To abandon nuclear power would deprive the nation of a mature and environmentally friendly energy source.  But to pursue it effectively calls for forging a broad political consensus on the country’s energy policy so that future nuclear plans can be undertaken as a national enterprise, with no scope for play of politics. This is essential since coalition governments will be the future of Indian democracy. A consensus on the basic issue that a national nuclear power programme is necessary would not only help raise confidence of the people in nuclear power and provide clear direction and motivation to the national nuclear establishment, but also provide the right signals to the investors abroad.

(The writer is a senior fellow at the Centre for Air Power Studies, New Delhi)