6 years, 2 rejections later, India’s largest hydro project cleared

PMO steps in, MoEF makes FAC clears Dibang hydel 

The Indian Express, 24 September, 2014

Six years after Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister laid its foundation stone and twice denied environmental clearance, the 3000 MW Dibang hydel project in Arunachal Pradesh has been cleared by the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), subject to a reduction in the dam height by 20 m from the originally envisaged 288 m.

This clearance for India’s largest hydro project and the world’s tallest concrete gravity dam came after a September 3 letter from Nripendra Mishra, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, to the Environment Secretary to “clear the project expeditiously” as per the decision of the Cabinet Committee on investment.

This despite the fact that on August 28, the MoEF wrote to the Arunachal Pradesh government rejecting the proposal for diverting more than 45 sq km of forest land to National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) for the project.

A day after Mishra’s letter, the Ministry revived the project by writing to the “project proponent that sensitivity analysis of reduction of dam height up to 40 m may please be submitted for further consideration”.

Incidentally, of the six FAC members whose meeting ended today, four were also part of the panel that had unanimously rejected the project in April 2014. It is not immediately clear if any of the six members registered any dissent to the clearance.

The 16,000-crore Dibang Multipurpose Project envisages a 288-metre-high dam that will submerge 40 sq km, with the reservoir extending to 43 km in Dibang river and its many tributaries. The project was rejected twice by the FAC – the original proposal in 2013 and a revised proposal with a 10-metre reduction in dam height this April.

According to a ministry note, NHPC held that it was “not in a position to reduce the height of the dam any further, as it would significantly affect power generation.” The project was first submitted for forest clearance to the MoEF in August 2011. After repeated site inspections by local forest authorities and much deliberation, the project was first rejected in July 2013 by the FAC on the ground that the ecological and social costs of diverting such a vast tract of forest land which is a major source of livelihood for the state’s tribal population would far outweigh the benefits likely to accrue from the project.

In August 2013, it was decided in a meeting between Power and Environment secretaries that the user agency would explore the possibility of reducing the requirement of forest land and a revised proposal would be submitted for forest clearance. In December 2013, the issue was discussed in the Cabinet Committee on Investment which decided that the MoEF “may grant the requisite clearance for diversion of forest land expeditiously”.

In February 2014, the Arunachal Pradesh government resubmitted the proposal by cutting the requirement of forest land from 5057 to 4578 hectare, a reduction of less than 9%. This new plan would reduce the power generation capacity by 2.3% and require felling of 3.24 lakh trees instead of 3.55 lakh estimated in the original proposal.

The FAC, however, rejected the revised proposal in April 2014, saying such a marginal reduction in the requirement of forest land would not reduce the adverse impact on such a biodiversity-rich, mature forest eco-system to make the project environmentally as well as socio-economically viable in the forest-dependent tribal society of Arunachal Pradesh.

Accordingly, the MoEF wrote to the state government on August 28 that “the ministry, after examining the recommendations of the FAC, has rejected the proposal”. The Power Secretary, however, had already written to the Environment Secretary in June to review the FAC’s decision and accord Stage-I forest clearance to the project.

The project was also discussed at a meeting attended by Ministers and Secretaries of Mine, Steel, Coal and Environment ministries the same month. On June 24, the Power Ministry submitted a two-page report on the implications of a 20-m reduction in dam height.

In the margins, a hush hush recall to Beijing

The Indian Express, 19 September, 2014

A day before President Xi Jinping’s grand ceremonial entry into Ahmedabad, there was an unceremonious exit — in his Embassy in New Delhi.

In a highly unusual departure ahead of a state visit, Beijing quietly recalled its ambassador to New Delhi, Wei Wei, without saying where he was headed.

Wei Wei was replaced by Le Yucheng, China’s ambassador to Kazakhstan, barely 20 months after he took charge of the mission here.

Reached by The Indian Express for comment, Chinese embassy spokesperson Xie Liyan said: “I have no information.”

The sudden exit has left diplomatic circles guessing, some suggesting that Wei Wei was recalled to face “charges” in an “old” case, others saying it was another unexplained recall to Beijing. Sources said that plans to get  Wei Wei out were in place late last month and could be related to the current crackdown against some top officials in the party and government.

Ma Jisheng, China’s Ambassador to Iceland from 2012 until January this year, and his wife, Zhong Yue, left Reykjavik suddenly and are now said to be in Chinese custody. In this case, too, Beijing remained mum.

On September 16, a day before Xi Jinping set out for India, state-run news agency Xinhua quoted a press release from the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) to announce that Le Yucheng had replaced Wei Wei. Le Yucheng served as Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2011 to 2013 before moving to Kazakhstan.

A career diplomat and a law post-graduate, Wei Wei served as ambassador to Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ethiopia, Brunei and Singapore before being sent to India in January 2013.

Wei’s predecessor Zhang Yan had served for four years in India and was appointed Executive Director of the Asia-Europe Foundation after his stint in New Delhi.

On foreign fund trail, Karnataka asks NGOs for agitation records

The Indian Express, 14 September, 2014

Karnataka’s Congress government has asked all NGOs in the state to provide details of the source and utilisation of funds received from abroad, and of the NGOs’ “involvement in agitations during the last five years”.

A detailed 33-point checklist prepared by the Internal Security Department (ISD) of the state police also seeks information on the NGOs’ “role in development”, and on their involvement in issues concerning forests, wildlife, tribal communities, and e-waste in Bangalore.

On July 10, Congress MLA and former Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar claimed in the Karnataka assembly that since 2006, NGOs in the state had received Rs 1,069 crore from abroad, and that many were using the money to stall or disrupt developmental activities such as nuclear, hydroelectricity and irrigation projects.

A month before Kumar’s intervention in the assembly, The Indian Express had first reported on a dossier that the Intelligence Bureau had submitted to the PMO on June 3, in which it had claimed that disruptions caused by NGOs was impacting GDP growth to the tune of “2-3 per cent per annum”.

Kumar, who cited intelligence sources for his information, also alleged that conservationist Dr Ullas Karanth had become a “tiger expert” after “having killed 13 tigers” in the Nagarhole tiger reserve.

Kumar was strongly backed by K G Bopaiah of the BJP, also a former Speaker of the assembly, who alleged that several NGOs in his home district of Coorg were “making money” in the name of tribal welfare. Congress MLA from Tarikere (Chikmagalur), G H Srinivasa, too alleged “malpractices” by NGOs in his constituency.

In response, Home Minister K J George announced that the state police ISD would investigate the funding of all NGOs for possible violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. He promised to table the ISD’s report in the next session of the assembly.

The police, however, seem to have gone further in their scrutiny of the NGOs. Besides the routine questions on foreign funding, expenditure and audits, the ISD has sought detailed information on:

# Participation by NGOs in agitations over the last five years

# Role of NGOs in development

# Activities of NGOs in Coorg and Chikmagalur

# Role of tiger expert Ullas Karanth

# NGOs involved with issues of women’s protection, the forest department, wildlife board, evacuation/rehabilitation of tribals, devdasi children and Bangalore-based IT companies generating e-waste

# Investigation/inquiry by the CBI on NGOs’ activities

An official in the ISD claimed the form had gone out to the NGOs by mistake. “It was meant for the ISD’s internal use, and listed the areas we would focus our probe on. Only financial details were to be sought but, somehow, the entire list was sent out to some NGOs,” the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said.

ISD head Amar K Pandey, ADGP, Karnataka Police, however, confirmed that the scope of the probe extended beyond the NGOs’ financial dealings. “Our mandate comes from the legislature, and we have sought information (from the NGOs) on the issues raised in the assembly debate. It is up to the NGOs how much they will disclose, say, about participating in agitations or a certain individual’s role. Our investigation is on,” Pandey said.

Praveen Bharghav of Wildlife First, a Bangalore-based NGO that does not accept foreign or government funding, said, “Under the Constitution, NGOs and citizens have wide-ranging rights and freedom to peacefully campaign against government policy and decisions, including petitioning courts. While NGOs do have to comply with regulations on funding, they cannot be intimidated on the pretext of financial scrutiny.

Some NGOs in Kodagu and Chikmagalur, including Wildlife First, have been relentlessly fighting corrupt officials and other vested interests involved in mining, tree felling etc., exposing losses of several hundred crores to the exchequer.”

Bopaiah told The Sunday Express that he was not aware of the information sought by the state government. “I supported Ramesh Kumar’s call for a probe after he furnished some documents in the assembly suggesting wrongdoings by certain NGOs,” he said.

Kumar said he could not comment immediately. “I raised the issue based on media reports and some homework in July. I am travelling, and need some time to look up those facts again before commenting,” he said.

Home minister K J George could not be reached despite repeated attempts. Ullas Karanth declined to comment.

The six minds that will look afresh at India's 5 green laws

The Indian Express, 12 September, 2014

The government has handpicked three civil servants, a judge and a lawyer for a six-member committee that will review and draft amendments to the five key laws that protect India’s environment, forest, wildlife, air and water. The “high level committee” has just two months to do this while the MoEF has given “stakeholders” a month and 1,000 characters each to send in their inputs.

The chairman of the panel is T S R Subramanian, former cabinet secretary who recently led a group of former civil servants at the Supreme Court seeking administrative reforms. A student of mathematics and economics, he will lend his administrative experience and expertise to the panel.

Of the two other IAS officers in the panel, one is Vishwanath N Anand, former MoEF secretary (1997-2000). His post-retirement tenure at the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) as vice chairman during 2002-2005 was described by the Delhi High Court as “a one-man show” in the absence of a chairman and three technical members of the authority.

Very few appeals were admitted by Anand during his three-and-a-half-year stint at NEAA. In the Lohardang Pala case, he drew sharp criticism from the Delhi High Court for “adopting a very hyper-technical approach in rejecting the petitions” and overlooking “that these petitioners deserve to be heard on merits”. The court quashed Anand’s order and reinstated the appeal.

Anand studied economics, history and psychology and attended a two-week management course at IIM-Ahmedabad in 1970. He also did a four-month course on technology transfer at Sussex in 1976.

The other IAS member is an ex-officio secretary in the panel. Bishwajit Sinha, a joint secretary at the MoEF, is from the Kerala cadre and was the personal secretary of Dayanidhi Maran in the union textile ministry before serving as additional resident commissioner at Delhi’s Kerala House. Sinha is a student of geography and has successfully completed two one-week courses on social policy and governance and urban development since 2011.

A second ex-officio secretary in the panel is from Gujarat. Hardik Shah, member-secretary of GPCB, is a Giorgio Ruffolo research fellow in the sustainability science program at Harvard. He is credited with bringing down the annual number of PILs over pollution from over 50 to a dozen since 2010 and reducing the time taken by GPCB to issue no-objection certificates to industries from 140 to 80 days. A case filed by slain RTI activist Amit Jethwa challenging his appointment as GPCB member-secretary was disposed of after Jethwa’s death by the Gujarat High Court.

The other two members of the panel bring the legal perspective. Justice A K Srivastava retired from Delhi High Court in 1999. An MA from Lucknow University, he is secretary general of the Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts of India. He is a regular speaker on environmental issues at Lucknow’s City Montessori School.

There is also K N Bhat, senior SC lawyer and former additional solicitor general of India, who has been in the news all through the Lokpal controversy. He represented “Ram Lalla” as senior counsel in the Ayodhya litigation in Allahabad High Court.

“You have to ask the ministry about the composition (of the committee) because I was not consulted,” T S R Subramanian told The Indian Express. “But I think the ministry was very careful in its selection as this is a contentious issue that is bound to stoke passions one way or the other. While I agree that the time limit is quite short, we don’t need to review entire laws but the relevant areas and it should be doable.”