The economic, environmental and
social impacts of ILR are interrelated, enormous, and in some cases
irreversible.
Economic Impacts: The official
cost of the project is estimated at Rs.5,60,000
crores ($120 billion), which the Task Force has admitted might go
up to Rs.10,00,000 crores. Given that in the past, actual costs of large
projects have been 562% more than the estimated costs, ILR could be as
expensive as Rs.28,00,000 crores
($ 622 billion). Incomplete large irrigation projects themselves
need as much as Rs.77,000 crores to
be completed. India Aral Sea case, $1.25-2.5 billion has been
lost every year.
Environmental
Impacts: Impacts on the environment affect the
populations who are directly dependent on natural resources for their lives and
livelihoods i.e. farmers, artisans and fisherpeople. ILR would obstruct the cleansing function of rivers. Reduction of
freshwater flow into the sea would lead to saline water intrusion into the coastal
ground water table, making it unfit for use. ILR will prevent fresh water
inflow into estuaries and destroy them. Sunderbans, the world's largest
mangrove forests and a World Heritage site, already affected by the Farakka
Barrage, would be destroyed. Hilsa (an anadromous fish), which forms
almost 33% of Bangladesh
fish production and is the source of livelihood for 3 million fisherpeople in Bangladesh India
Social Impacts: It has been estimated that since independence, about 30 million people have been displaced in this way without being resettled adequately or being resettled at all. It is estimated that one million people might be displaced by ILR. Given that revised displacement in past projects has been as much as 6 times higher, the number could go up to six million. Apart from those who would be displaced, ILR would result in the loss of livelihoods of millions of farmers and fisher people, when estuaries, floodplains and deltas are destroyed.
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
Exorbitant
Project Costs
The
official cost of the project is estimated at Rs.5,60,000 crores ($120
billion).
In
its Action Plan - II submitted to the government in September 2003, the Task
Force said that the initial estimate of Rs.5,60,000
crores by NWDA did not envisage yearly inflation, inclusion of State
Governments in their programmes of implementation and costs relating to
ecology, environment, wildlife, resettlement and rehabilitation of displaced
people.[1] According to the Task Force,
the cost including all these components could go up to Rs.10,00,000 crores.
Considering that in the past, the final cost
of 156 major irrigation projects has been 562% more than the estimated cost[2], ILR could turn out to be as expensive as Rs.28,00,000 crores ($ 622
billion) even as a conservative estimate.
Rs.
28,00,000 crores is
- 1.2 times
- 12.5 times our annual
tax collection
- 9.8 times our foreign
exchange reserve
Existing projects do not have funds to be completed
Many large irrigation projects started in India
Huge Maintenance costs
Corporate Control of water resources
Suresh Prabhu is reported to have said in a public
meeting "Contracts will be given to foreign agencies, but not control of
water"[5]. Our past experiences tell
us that contract and control go together when it comes to water resources.
In 2003 a contract was signed between
the Government and M/s Radius Water Inc. for 26-km long stretch of Shivnath River
If Radius Water Inc. could gain
control over water resources for an investment of just Rs.9 to 10 crores, much
of which came as a loan from a government corporation (M.P. Industrial
Development Corporation), the kind of control that MNC water corporations with
an annual turnover of billions of dollars could be much more severe.[7] Here is
an example of such an experience in Bolivia
In 1999, Cochabamba , a city in Bolivia Bolivia Bolivia Bolivia
Economic Loss
It
is estimated that huge economic losses would result from ILR. In the Aral Sea
case, where Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers were diverted from reaching the sea
to provide water to arid areas, it is estimated that $1.25 to $2.5 billion has
been lost every year, which are just costs related to human health, tourism,
agriculture.[9]
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Environment
- People are interconnected
Environmental impacts should not
be seen as separate from social and economic impacts. Humans depend on nature
for all their needs (food, water, clothing, shelter) and a deterioration of
environment would mean deterioration of human health and wellbeing.
Environmental deterioration threatens the very survival of people whose lives
and livelihoods directly depend on the land and water, i.e. farmers, artisans
and fisher people.
Obstruction
to natural flushing
Natural floods flush out the salt, toxins and other
unnecessary growth from the river basins to the sea. ILR would obstruct this
cleansing function of rivers.
Saline water intrusion
Reduction of freshwater flow into the sea would lead
to saline water intrusion into the coastal ground water table. Coastal areas
around Aral Sea suffer from highly saline ground
water due to river diversion.
Destruction of estuaries and fisheries
River water flowing into the sea sustains estuaries,
the second most productive ecosystems, which support fisheries and other useful
and important plants (mangroves) and animals (crabs, oysters, prawns, etc.) ILR
will prevent fresh water inflow into estuaries and destroy them. There is the
danger of the Sunderbans, the world's largest mangrove forests and a World
Heritage site, already affected by the Farakka Barrage, being destroyed if ILR
is implemented.[10]
Dams
replace naturally silt-laden, turbulent and seasonally warm water flow (which
is essential for fish life to thrive), with less silted, slow-flowing and
colder waters, not suitable for fish life. Moreover, some fish are 'anadromous',
that is they migrate upstream from the sea for several kilometres for spawning
and during winters. Dams prevent fish from travelling upstream and have
resulted in dwindling of fish and in some cases, even their extinction.
Hilsa
(Clupeidae Tenualosa Ilisha), an anadromous fish which forms almost 33% of Bangladesh fish production and is the source of
livelihood for 3 million fisher people in Bangladesh
In
the USA, Hoover Dam on Colorado river, and dams on Colombia river have led to a
near extinction of the bony tail, razorback sucker and the salmon, considered
delicacies. When the large Tellico Dam was nearing completion, the courts
ordered that the project be abandoned in spite of huge expenditure, because the
river was home to small dart fish not present anywhere else. In the Aral sea,
diversion of Amu and Syr Darya rivers flowing
into the sea, has reduced the number of fish species from 20 to five, and fish
catch from 40,000 tonnes per year to almost zero.
After
the Pak Mun Dam was built in Thailand ,
all 150 fish species that had inhabited the Mun River Egypt
Danger in linking rivers with different properties
Rivers
have different water properties (hardness, softness, mineral content, extent of
aeration, transparency, electro-chemical properties, and healing power)
depending on their sources, catchments and their basins as a whole. Linking
rivers with different properties is like linking veins with different blood
groups.
Loss of soil fertility
Natural
floods deposit fertile silt on the floodplains, replenishing the soil every year
to make sustainable agriculture possible.
“… where 'normal' floods have been eradicated by dams, there have been high costs to farmers, fisher people and other dependent on floodplain resources.”
- World Commission on Dams report
ILR
would obstruct natural floods and the silt deposition leading to a depletion of
soil fertility. Farmers would then have to resort to using chemical
fertilizers, which further pollute the land and reduce its fertility. Over a
few decades ago, the silt carried by the Indus River (with its fifth highest
sediment rate in the world) has reduced from 600 to 36 million tons annually,
and has shrunk the Indus deltas from 350 sq. km. to 25 sq. km.[12] Aswan
Dam traps 98% of the natural, black silt, which the farmers depended on for millennia.
This is being substituted by about a million tons of chemical fertilizer every
year.
Water logging and salinisation
Almost all major irrigation projects have poor drainage leading to water
logging of the land. Waterlogged lands eventually become saline in the
following way. All
irrigation water carries dissolved salts. On evaporation of water from the dry
surface of the soil, these salts are left behind in a crusty layer.
50%
of all canal - large dam irrigated land in the world is saline to the extent
that it can affect production.[13] No
viable technology has been invented to reverse the process of salinisation,
leaving us with no choice but to abandon these lands forever.
According
to the Sixth Plan, 13 million hectares of land have become waterlogged or
saline. 175-200 million hectares (about 70%) of agricultural and cultivable
land were degraded in 1985. Ukai Dam project, Chambal Project and
other projects in the water-deficit areas are classic examples of irrigation
projects being converted into costly reclamation projects.
Pollution
When
more polluted rivers mix with less-polluted ones, pollution would become
uncontainable. This also means that it would be impossible to hold any one
industry or institution accountable for the pollution. According to World Water
Development Report of the UN, 'the linking of world's worst polluted rivers may
spread disease and misery amongst the unsuspecting population.'[14]
Submergence of Forests
The
accelerated rate of deforestation around the world and their impacts on
climate, water and oxygen availability, soil health and wildlife are well
known. According to the Task Force website, ILR will submerge 43,139 hectares
of forest land around just the 16 peninsular links. It is yet to be estimated
for the Himalayan links.
SOCIAL
IMPACTS
Major
irrigation projects displace people living in the areas submerged by the
reservoirs. It has been estimated that since independence, about 30 million
people have been displaced in this way without being resettled adequately or
being resettled at all.
“The WCD Case Studies show that the direct adverse
impacts of dams have fallen disproportionately on rural dwellers, subsistence
farmers, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, and women.”
- World Commission on Dams
"Let
it not be said of India
-
Former President
K.R.Narayan, 26 Jan, 2001
According
to the Task Force website, about 5 lakh people would be displaced by ILR by
just the 16 peninsular links. The official number for the entire project is
expected to go up to a million.
Revised
displacement in past projects has been 6 times higher
The
following table gives the ratio of initial estimate of oustees to its revised
estimate of large water projects in the past.
Project
|
Initial
estimate (Year)
|
Revised
estimate
(Year)
|
No.
of times higher
|
AP
Irrigation - II
|
63,000
(1986)
|
1,50,000
(1994)
|
2.5
|
Gujrat
Medium Irrig - II
|
63,600
|
1,40,370
(1994)
|
2.2
|
Karnataka
Irrigation
|
20,000
(1978)
|
2,40,000
(1994)
|
12.0
|
M.P.
Medium Irrigation
|
8,000
(1981)
|
19,000
(1994)
|
2.4
|
Sardar
Sarovar
|
33,000
(1985)
|
3,20,000
(1993)
|
9.7
|
8,531
|
16,080
(1994)
|
1.9
|
Source: Vandana
Shiva, 2003; “Sujalam”
On
an average, the revised estimate has been six times higher than the initial
one. Applying that to ILR, we could be displacing as many as six million
people.
Dismal history
of resettlement
“Little or no meaningful participation of affected
people in the planning and implementation of dam projects - including
resettlement and rehabilitation - has taken place…”
- World Commission on Dams
Loss of livelihoods and more poverty
Apart from the millions of people who would be displaced by ILR, several more millions would lose their livelihoods directly dependent on natural resources to be affected by ILR. For instance in Aral Sea , the large-scale diversions created an ecological and human disaster. Increasingly saline solid reduced agricultural productivity resulting in some of the worst poverty in the region. 3 million fisher people in Bangladesh Coromandel Coast will be affected.
[3] M P Jain; Financial
Express, July 31, 2000
[4] S.Selvarajan,
‘Sustaining India
[6] Vandana Shiva, Captive Water; Resurgence –
July/Aug 2003; www.resurgence.gn.apc.org/issues/shiva219.htm
[9] Biksham Gujja and Hajara Shaik, January 2004’: Linking
of Rivers: Lessons from the Past; River Linking: A Millennial Folly?
[10] Dr.Jamal Anwar, January 2004; India-Bangladesh: 21st
Century Battle for Water Sharing; [River Linking: A Millennial Folly?]
[13] Food and Agricultural Organization: www.fao.org/DOCREP/x0262e/x0262e01.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment