the Cabinet Committee headed by the PM has cleared the Ken- Betwa link project on 8 December 2021.
This is despite the Central Empowered Committee, saying “Approval of SC, NBWL for diversion of 6017 ha of wildlife habitat for implementation of the Ken-Betwa Link Project Phase I has not been proved to be necessary for improvement and better management of the wildlife therein as provided in Section 35 (6) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972”.
In a letter to the PM, concerned groups working on water and habitat issues say that
A. The Wildlife Clearance granted by the Standing Committee (SC) of NBWL is illegal
B. The project shall sound a death knell of the Panna Tiger Reserve
C. There are much cheaper, faster and sustainable alternatives to the project, available
With thousands of Chandela and Bundela period tanks spread all over Bundelkhand but unfortunately in disuse today there is a strong case to focus on their rejuvenation for the region’s water security than promote costly, long gestation and uncertain results mega projects like the present one. (link added: https://snrd-asia.org/download/Economics-of-Ecosystem-Services-and-Biodiversity-for-Conservation-and-Sustainable-Management-of-Inland-Wetlands.pdf)
..Several successful farm pond schemes are already in operation in the Bundelkhand region. These can be upscaled over the entire region with suitable government support and schemes.
the report of the SC CEC says: “the alternative to the main objectives of the project proposal of irrigation and alleviation of poverty have not been examined by the project proponents”
Text of letter
12 January 2022
To The Hon’ble Prime Minister ..
Subject: According to SC Committee Ken Betwa Link project is illegal and lose-lose proposition – Would you like an illegality to take place under your charge and jeopardize the future of a Tiger Reserve and its tigers for all times?...
Please allow us to bring to your kind information that incomplete and wrong facts have been placed before the Cabinet Committee headed by you that has cleared the Ken- Betwa link project on 8 December 2021. Some glaring facts it seems have also been hidden from you.
We, the undersigned submit this for your kind attention in response to your encouragement to fact based criticism.
Sir, in this submission we quote only from the findings of a standing committee (Central Empowered Committee, CEC) created by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India so that bias, if any, on our part in the matter could be avoided.
A. The Wildlife Clearance granted by the Standing Committee (SC) of NBWL is illegal
According to CEC, “Approval of SC, NBWL for diversion of 6017 ha of wildlife habitat for implementation of the Ken-Betwa Link Project Phase I has not been proved to be necessary for improvement and better management of the wildlife therein as provided in Section 35 (6) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972”
The finding as above by the SC Committee highlights that the wildlife clearance by NBWL was in the teeth of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 and hence was illegal.
What is true of Section 35(6) of WPA dealing with National Parks is also true of Section 29 of WPA dealing with a Sanctuary. Since the Ken Ghariyal Sanctuary on river Ken downstream of the proposed dam site will suffer a fate similar to the Panna Tiger Reserve, it too required a detailed assessment. Nothing of this kind has been done and hence the said wildlife clearance is also illegal as it violates the section 29 of WPA too. On this the SC CEC report has following to say:
“impact of the project on the downstream Ghariyal Sanctuary and the vulture nesting sites have not been examined by the SC NBWL and no mitigative measures in this regard are forth coming in the recommendation of the SC NBWL”
So, the very fact that the wildlife clearance accorded to the project by SC of NBWL is not permissible by law should have been considered as a sufficient and determining factor against the project as proposed and the project should have been thus rejected by the Cabinet Committee.
Sir, how can a project which is foul by the law of the land be allowed to go ahead? Also, the case in question is still sub judice at the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Obviously these facts have been hidden from the Cabinet Committee headed by your honour.
B. The project shall sound a death knell of the Panna Tiger Reserve
Sir, kindly recall your message given to the nation on 29 July 2021 (International Tigers Day) which “reiterated Indian government’s commitment to ensuring safe habitats for the species and nurturing their habitat and ecosystems”.
Obviously the Cabinet Committee has not been briefed on how the proposed dam on river Ken bang in the heart of Panna Tiger Reserve shall sound a death knell for the tiger’s future in Panna by compromising its habitat for all times.
In this respect the CEC report has the following to say:
the large block of 6017 ha of forest land involved in diversion to non-forest use is part of the National Park and core critical tiger habitat of Panna Tiger Reserve and will result in total loss of wildlife habitat of 10500 ha on account of submergence and fragmentation;
the forest land involved in submergence is a unique ecosystem of morphological significance with unique and rich biodiversity in the region and which ecosystem cannot be recreated;
the very objective of declaration of this unique ecosystem with special morphological significance and unique biodiversity as national park to ensure operation of laws of nature including natural evolution unhindered by human intervention will be defeated and will result in complete breakdown of the evolutionary process of millions of years;
the mitigative measures are grossly insufficient to mitigate the loss of habitat and the unique ecosystem of KNP and the threat of PTR losing the status of "source area" without any reliable "source area" in the proposed landscape, the viability of tiger population in the entire land scale will be at risk;
the assumption of NWDA, SC NBWL and MoEF&CC that the project will have positive impact on the tiger population are found to be flawed as the large flood plains vacated by the villagers on relocation will remain under water even during summer as being located below 240 M dead storage level;
SC NBWL while giving wildlife clearance to this project has not taken into account the decision of this Hon'ble court in lA No. 100 in WP (C) No. 337 of 1995 with lA No. 3452 wherein it is held that our approach should be eco-centric and not anthropocentric and we must apply the "species best interest standard" as all species have equal rights to exist on earth;
The SC NBWL has ignored the following critical findings of its own expert committee
a) no developmental project should destroy the ecology of remnant fragile eco systems and an important tiger habitat in the country. ln an ideal situation, it would be best to avoid such projects in such wilderness areas with protected area status and specifically when it runs the risk of providing justification or unhealthy precedence for more such developmental projects within the protected areas that will not be in the interest of wildlife and the overall well being of the society in the long term.
b) the present proposal may not be the best possible option for addressing livelihood and development of the region using water resources from the River Ken.
Obviously, the facts, as above, that gravely threaten tiger’s future have not been brought to your honour’s notice. We are sure that, if informed, you would never have approved the project.
C. There are much cheaper, faster and sustainable alternatives to the project, available
Sir, experts like Prof. Brij Gopal, Prof. Dinesh Kumar Marothia and others have made strong case to suggest that much cheaper, faster and much more sustainable alternatives to the project are available for the people in the Bundelkhand region in whose name the Ken-Betwa link project is being pushed.
With thousands of Chandela and Bundela period tanks spread all over Bundelkhand but unfortunately in disuse today there is a strong case to focus on their rejuvenation for the region’s water security than promote costly, long gestation and uncertain results mega projects like the present one.
According to a 2016 publication by Prof. Brij Gopal and Prof. DK Marothia:
Restoring large tanks and village ponds must be accorded high priority. For centuries, village communities managed them as common pool resources. In recent decades, however, they have degraded due to weak property rights relations, institutional arrangements, and a breakdown of local authority systems, whether they be community-based organisations, local resource users’ groups, or village panchayats. Property rights/tenure security can effectively influence incentive structures for sustainable use of the commons (Marothia 1993, 1997, 2010, 2015), and appropriate property rights and an institutional hierarchy have to be established to restore and manage common waterbodies under the MOWR’s RRR (repair, renovation, restoration) scheme and Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana.
Several successful farm pond schemes are already in operation in the Bundelkhand region. These can be upscaled over the entire region with suitable government support and schemes.
Also, the region receives more than 1100 mm of rainfall annually and there are many examples in the country where village communities with less than half of this rainfall has been able to create water security by harvesting local water though watershed development and demand management.
The above fact has been endorsed by the report of the SC CEC as under:
“the alternative to the main objectives of the project proposal of irrigation and alleviation of poverty have not been examined by the project proponents”
It is also a fact that river Ken which turns into pools during the summer months has never carried the kind of water that its hydrological assessments claim to possess. Otherwise why would the existing Bariyarpur barrage along with its 59.34 km canal and 960.6 km long distribution system designed to irrigate a command area of 2,29,360 hectares, has been able to irrigate only 66,000 ha with a maximum 86,000 ha in 1994–96.
Sir, with above as the real facts about the project as endorsed by the CEC of the Hon’ble Supreme Court we request you to kindly direct a recall of the Cabinet Committee approval granted to the Ken-Betwa Link project and reject the same in favour of an alternative which would be much more time and cost saving as well as save the integrity of the Panna Tiger Reserve and safeguard the tiger’s future too.
Sir, we are sure that your vision and commitment for ensuring safe habitats for Tiger and nurturing its habitat and ecosystems shall convert the proposed lose-lose proposal (K-B Link) into win-win proposal both for tiger and the local people in the Bundelkhand region.
We shall be happy to clarify any queries in this regard and your office can contact Manoj Mishra at
...
Manoj Mishra, Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan; Water Conflict Forum
K. J. Joy, Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM); Water Conflict Forum
Chicu Lokagariwar, Independent Consultant; Water Conflict Forum
Himanshu Kulkarni, Advanced Centre for Water Resources Development and Management (ACWADAM); Water Conflict Forum
Veena Srinivasan, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE); Water Conflict Forum
Soma K. P, Mahila Adhikar Kisan Manch (MAKAAM); Water Conflict Forum
Janakarajan Srinivasan, SaciWaters; Water Conflict Forum
Shripad Dharmadhikary, Manthan Adhyayan Kendra; Water Conflict Forum
Gorky Chakroborty, Institute of Development Studies Kolkata (IDSK); Water Conflict Forum
Partha Jyoti Das, Aaranyak; Water Conflict Forum
Eklavya Prasad, Megh Pyne Abhiyan; Water Conflict Forum
S.P. Ravi, River Research Centre; Water Conflict Forum
Abraham Samuel, Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM); Water Conflict Forum
Nafisa Barot, Utthan Trust; Water Conflict Forum
R. Murali, Freshwater Action Network South Asia (FANSA); Water Conflict Forum
Sarita Bhagat, Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM); Water Conflict Forum
Neha Bhadbhade, Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM), Water Conflict Forum