Meera Bhardwaj:
The Sharavathi PSP gets in principle Central approval despite rejections, disapprovals and protests by power experts, activists, environmentalists, and forest officials. On June 26th, in the 84th meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife (NBWL), it was decided to give ‘in principle’ approval for the 2000 MW Sharavathi PSP project to be implemented inside a “protected area” in the Western Ghats.
Once this ecologically disastrous project gets all approvals, the Sharavati Pumped Storage Project (PSP) will be implemented inside the Sharavathi Valley Lion Tailed Macaque (LTM) Sanctuary (as also its buffer zone) which is the last remaining refuge for critically endangered LTM found only in the Western Ghats.
However, as per the Minutes of the Meeting, the Member Secretary clarified that the processes of Wildlife Clearance, Forest Clearance and Environment Clearance are going on parallelly. Site Inspection has been carried out in this project proposal for forest clearance. As per the guidelines issued by the Ministry, forest clearance proposal will be considered upon receipt of wildlife clearance if the project is proposed inside a protected area as this project is.
Further, the Chairman suggested that the proposal may be placed again for the consideration of the Standing Committee upon its forest clearance. The proposal may be recommended in-principle with the conditions for mitigations suggested by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Karnataka.
POPULATION OF LTM – 730
As per latest reports, the Sharavathi Valley LTM Sanctuary has the highest number of Lion Tailed Macaques about 730 in any protected area. With 41 groups, each has about 15-20 endangered macaques. With the critically endangered LTM found only in the fragmented section (of Tamil Nadu, Kerala) and non-fragmented section of Western Ghats (in Karnataka), they may gradually become extinct with the in principal approval by the NBWL.
Further, these arboreal mammals living only on the canopy of trees in Sharavathi Valley LTM Sanctuary and hardly ever coming to the forest floor, they may be seriously impacted by the felling of a whopping 15,000 trees and diversion of pristine habitat for this eco-disastrous project.
KPCL’S NEED FOR 55 HA OF PRISTINE FORESTS
The Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd (KPCL) proposes to use 42.51 ha (hectare area) of forest land and 60.534 ha non-forest land from Sharavathi Valley LTM Sanctuary and 11.645 ha forest land and 28.074 ha non-forest land from Eco-Sensitive Zone around the sanctuary for construction of Sharavathi PSP Project in the districts of Shivamogga and Uttara Kannada. Earlier, the proposal was recommended by Chief Wildlife Warden, the Karnataka State Board for Wildlife and the State Government.
Shockingly, the Chief Wildlife Warden, Karnataka further has informed NBWL that the pumps, turbines, tunnels would be constructed underground. In his recommendations, he has stated that even the road should be constructed underground. Activists question the CWW and say, “Will digging the forest floor for underground construction, felling of 15000 trees for building roads inside the sanctuary and diversion of almost 55 hectares of pristine forests in the Sanctuary and ESZ not impact which is a critical habitat for LTM?”
IS A PROTECTED AREA REALLY PROTECTED?
Now what is the use of declaring a forest area as a “protected area” for Lion Tailed Macaques and go in for expansion of the PA if this sanctuary is allowed to be plundered for implementing a power project that is neither economical, cost effective nor ecologically feasible. In regard to felling of 15,000 trees, will these 700 LTMs have to wait for another 20-30 years or more for new trees for their survival in this so-called exclusive habitat of theirs?
NBWL Standing committee member and former PCCF H S Singh said, “This project would not be economical, & a lot of ecological damage would be caused. The project may first be approved under Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980. Thereafter, it should be examined by the Standing Committee and a committee should be constituted for site inspection before it is recommended by the SC.”
BOWING TO PRESSURE
Shankar Sharma, Power and Climate Policy Analyst opines, “I am utterly disappointed with the proceedings of the NBWL. Should NBWL depend entirely on KPCL notes, and on the fact that Chief Wildlife Warden has simply recommended it? Should there be no field visits? How will the submissions by civil society be considered? Who and how will the scores of conditions for mitigation be monitored and controlled for compliance?”
The Director, Wildlife Institute of India outlined that the sanctuary is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. So, certain comments have been sought from the Chief Wildlife Warden, Karnataka through the C2C Centre of WII as per observations of the World Heritage Site.
ECOLOGICAL LOSSES
As per Chief Wildlife Warden, Karnataka, the Sharavathi PSP is a green project which will not have much ecological impact on the area. The road which is being constructed will affect the trees, however, sufficient mitigation measures specially canopy bridge has been proposed to avoid any restriction on the movement of the LTM.
Standing Committee member Dr R Sukumar said, “Sharavathi Valley LTM Sanctuary is a densely forested area. It houses the maximum population of LTM in the entire Western Ghats. The proposal does not provide full details of the ecological loss in terms of the loss of forest cover, the number of trees that would be cut and type and number of species that would be affected by the project construction activities, road, tunnels, etc. The proposal should be carefully examined in detail. There should be thorough environment impact assessment for the project.”
NO VALUE FOR SITE INSPECTION REPORT?
Shankar Sharma further questions, “Should the site inspection report by DGIF, MoEF & CC, Bengaluru not be a primary consideration? Can NBWL afford to completely ignore this report? If so, what is the very need for such a site inspection report by the field unit of MoEF & CC, if approval has to be given without considering the site inspection report? What is Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, as mentioned in “The project proposal shall be placed before the Standing Committee for its appraisal upon its approval under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980.”? And how is it relevant here?”
Looking at the 28 conditions laid down for ‘in principle’ approval for the Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project inside the Sanctuary and its ESZ, it seems it is better to hand over the protected area to KPCL and declare it as a revenue land. If this project gets all the required approvals, the day is not far off for the extinction of LTM from the Western Ghats.