The NBA, the court and the SSP

By A. Vaidyanathan

THE SUPREME Court verdict in the Sardar Sarovar case has understandably disappointed the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) and those who support its stand. Many (like myself) who do not subscribe entirely to the NBA viewpoint also feel disappointed at the court's rejection of the plea for an impartial review of the project as currently conceived, allowing resumption of construction to raise the dam height to 90 metres and granting contingent permission for increasing it even further as per the Governments' plan, subject to weak and fuzzy conditions on rehabilitation of displaced persons.

The NBA and Ms. Medha Patkar have made a truly praiseworthy contribution, focussing attention on several important issues relating to the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP), and by extension, to all largescale development schemes. However, the NBA's stance and strategy in respect of some key aspects call for comment.

The early phases of the movement, predating the NBA, saw a well- documented and wide-ranging critique of several features of the SSP. The consequences of submergence of vast areas especially for the number of people likely to be displaced, the adequacy and fairness of measures to rehabilitate them and serious doubts about their implementation figured prominently in the debates. At the same time, they also raised questions about the rationale of the project, the assumptions about water availability, economic viability and problems of financing the huge investment.

However, over time, the NBA narrowed the focus of its protests to the issues of environment and displacement. It took the position that large dams were unnecessary and that their adverse consequences for environment, displaced people and sustainability far outweighed their benefits.

The NBA's media campaigns and public protests evoked sympathy and support both within and outside the country. But the Governments of India and of Gujarat refused to even discuss, much less set up a credible forum to examine independently and on merit, the issues raised by the NBA and several other critics. The issue was then taken to the Supreme Court. The petition challenged the basis on which the project was given technical, economic and environmental clearances, pointed to serious lacunae (in terms of transparency and objectivity) in the mechanisms and procedures for making these decisions, and documented the defects and inadequacy of the proposed rehabilitation measures and the lack of any credible mechanism for remedying these defects and ensuring effective implementation.

However, the NBA's argument that large dams are not necessary to increase production and that their contribution (indeed the contribution of irrigation generally) to increased production is meagre is questionable. In fact, on an average, a hectare of irrigated land produces three to four times as much as a hectare of rainfed land. And practically the entire increase in production in recent decades has come from an expansion of irrigated area and rising yield from irrigated lands; there is hardly any increase in the yield from rainfed lands.

Given our climate, the possibility of substantially increasing crop yields and more intensive cropping depends crucially on augmenting water supply from local rainfall and making it available for a longer period and with greater assurance. This cannot be done unless surplus rainfall in the rainy season, and in areas with high rainfall, is stored for use in the dry seasons and regions. One can readily agree that much more attention should be given to a more effective use of local rainfall through integrated watershed development; and that more should be done to improve and extend tanks, ``bhandaras,'' diversion of local streams and such smallscale, so-called minor irrigation works. But these can go only a limited way. The total capacity of all minor surface works in the early 1950s is estimated at 15 billion cubic metres (BCM) and that of large storages, about 18 BCM. Since then we have added more than 200 BCM, all from large storages. While certainly there is scope for extending and improving small works, they cannot provide a storage of this magnitude. Sizable surface and underground storages cannot be avoided. They should not be seen as alternatives; we should instead look at ways in which large and small storages, surface water and ground water could be combined so that the requirement of large storage is minimised and water is used more carefully and effectively.

Many things are wrong, and seriously wrong, with the way irrigation works have been designed, constructed and managed: poor project preparation, excessive preoccupation with large new projects, inordinate delays and high costs, corruption, poor management and inequitable distribution of costs and benefits. The NBA had an excellent opportunity to focus on these issues in the context of the SSP. Important questions on costs, patterns of water use, productivity impact and regional distribution of benefits were in fact raised early on. This stimulated interest not only among the public at large but also professionals outside the Government. At least one group which included engineers and social scientists with extensive experience in irrigation management produced a well-researched and reasoned alternative to the official plan.

This proposal argued that lowering the maximum height of the dam would drastically reduce the extent of submergence and the number of people displaced. The storage of the Sardar Sarovar would be smaller, but the total water utilisation as envisaged in the official plan could be ensured by using the existing tanks in Saurashtra to store part of the water and operating them in an integrated way. Moreover, this group argued for different patterns of water allocation among regions and crops to ensure a more productive and sustainable use of water and more equitable sharing of benefits. It is regrettable that the NBA did not consider this alternative seriously. At any rate it chose not to use it to press the Government and later the court for reviewing the project and instead argued for its outright rejection. However, this alternative was brought to the court's notice in other submissions.

Nevertheless, the court evidently was not persuaded of the justification for ruling in favour of a review of alternative designs. This prima facie is somewhat surprising. One would have thought that a solution which could drastically reduce displacement and ensure a more effective use of available supplies deserved serious consideration. Given the complexity of the problem, the court may not be in a position to assess the merits of alternatives. But it could have recommended an independent expert review of the proposed options. That would have helped to create a much-needed and credible mechanism for addressing the legitimate concerns of the affected parties and finding a reasonable and fair compromise between conflicting interests.

The other issue which the judgment has not resolved is the question of compensation. There are several aspects: (a) the basis for determining those eligible, (b) the criteria for deciding the magnitude and form of compensation and (c) mechanisms to ensure that the claims are in fact settled fully and speedily. Without these no package can be complete. The verdict leaves the criteria by which to judge whether or not the rehabilitation package is satisfactory ill-defined; and the mechanisms to ensure implementation even more so.

There is also the question who should bear the cost of compensating the displaced. Placing the responsibility entirely on the State is neither prudent nor fair. The current policy of the State bearing the full responsibility for financing investment costs and of pricing water far below the costs of providing it has resulted in a huge and mounting burden on budgets. In this context, making the beneficiaries of the project liable to compensate those who are displaced by it merits serious consideration. The judgment, however, does not go into the substantial issues relating to compensation and lay down at least the principles on which they should be settled.

Altogether one is left feeling that the court missed a good opportunity to give an impetus to the much-needed reform for ensuring transparency and accountability in the way large public projects are handled and credible mechanisms to address and accommodate the concerns of those adversely affected in a fair, humane and equitable manner.

(The writer is Professor Emeritus, Madras Insititute for Development Studies.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : A litmus test for disinvestment
Next     : ASEAN in turmoil