Srikumar Banerjee, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission and ex-officio Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, one of the drafters of the Bill is guilty of ignoring the consequences of possible nuclear disaster because his text has privatized profits and made liabilities public. Mamohan Singh who is in-charge of Department of Atomic Energy appears to be guilty of dereliction of duty as well. The Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests chaired by T Subbirami Reddy reveals their culpability quite categorically. This report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on 18th August, 2010. Report attached What else can explain their indifference towards other concerned ministries like health, agriculture, labour, water resources etc. Aren’t they relevant? What can explain the lack of consensus among the committee members even in matters of national interest?
India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 is meant to pave the way for India to sign International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage, 1997. The question that stares citizens in the face is: whether or not the proposed liability Bill and the pre-existing IAEA’s compensation treaty in the supreme interest of present and future generation of Indians? If India decides to join the CSC, it will be an exercise in surrendering its sovereignty to a conflict of interest ridden regime like IAEA which is both the promoter and regulator of nuclear commerce. Like IAEA, Indian the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) is dependent on the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) whose mandate is charged with promoting nuclear power in India.
The Parliamentary Committee enquired from Nirupama Rao , the Foreign Secretary that “whether there are other considerations apart from the legal requirements that necessitated the Bill.” She informed that “since the Government is operating within the ambit of international agreements and on the basis of certain principles the nation should have provisions of the nuclear liability Bill.”
This is further corroborated by two members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee namely, Saman Pathak and Barun Mukherji. Both have observed categorically that the provisions of the Bill will unduly favour the foreign suppliers of nuclear equipment and it is being done to make the provisions compatible with the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC). Like all Indians both these members are not convinced with the rationale of India joining the CSC because this legislation on civil nuclear liability does not “keep the interests of the Indian people, who may be affected in a nuclear accident, as its core concern’.
In its 25 page report on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests observes, “When the Committee inquired from the Secretaries of Ministries/Departments of Government of India who appeared before the Committee as to whether the draft nuclear liability Bill was referred to them for their views/comments, some of them viz. Ministries of Health & Family Welfare, Agriculture, Labour & Employment, Food & Public Distribution, etc. replied in the negative. The Committee is of the opinion that Government must have sought the opinion of Ministries which are even distantly related to any provision of the legislation. The Committee, therefore, recommends that in future Government should consult all such Ministries/ Departments which are even remotely concerned with the provisions of a proposed legislation.”
It is noteworthy that the 25-member working group on civil nuclear energy-2009 constituted by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) under the chairmanship of Dr S K Jain, chairman and managing director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited came out with a 57-page report with the format of the proposed Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill. Dr Jain was present during the testimony of the experts and citizens to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests. The government of India has an ambitious target “to increase our installed capacity more than seven fold to 35,000 MWe by the year 2022, and to 60,000 MWe by 2032.” Established in pre-independent India in 1927, FICCI is the largest and oldest apex business organization of the country. It claims to be a “non-government, not-for-profit organisation”. FICCI has direct membership from the private as well as public sectors, including SMEs and MNCs, and an indirect membership of over 83,000 companies from regional chambers of commerce. As part of its corporate lobbying, “FICCI works closely with the government on policy issues, enhancing efficiency, competitiveness and expanding business opportunities for industry through a range of specialised services and global linkages. It also provides a platform for sector specific consensus building and networking.” In such conflict of interest ridden circumstances, Dr Jain claimed that the health hazards from Chernobyl nuclear disaster is no more visible. Therefore, he implied that the questions of intergenerational adverse effects do not arise. Are his claims factual and trustworthy?
Under the influence of FICCI and US nuclear industry, Dr.T. Subbarami Reddy, Dr Mammohan Singh and Dr Srikumar Banerjee have chosen not learn from the mistakes of US firms who embarked on a nuclear power strategy under the assumption that the radioactive waste management problem was not difficult and would be solved relatively quickly. Subsequent events have proved otherwise because radioactive waste management efforts are quite different from industrial and municipal waste management.
Observations of G K Pillai, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs illustrate how Banerjee has not been rigorous in the drafting of the Bill. While commenting on the conditions in which the operator of a nuclear power plant, who could be made liable for nuclear damage, Pillai stated that the Bill contains such terms as armed conflict, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or an act of terrorism that have wide meanings but have not been defined in the present Bill. Therefore there is a need for inserting meanings of these terms from other laws, in Section 2 of this Bill. Such vagueness in connotations can make the operators negligent in observing security procedures and can create situations of disputes between the operator and the central government.
It is frightening to know that any nuclear incident may induce radioactive contaminations in surface, ground water bodies, and other water resources. U N Panjiar, the Secretary, Water resources was of the opinion that the Ministry does not have any facility for testing water quality, from point of view of nuclear contamination because this work has been done by the Department of Atomic Energy. The efficiency of Department of Atomic Energy gets routinely revealed in issues ranging from radioactive steel, ship breaking industry, Mayapuri scrap market, Kaiga incident etc. Didn’t AERB reveal its incompetence when it declared Mayapuri scrap market radiation free when it was proven later that the radiation still existed in the area? Didn’t it do the same after inspecting the obsolete ship Blue Lady?
While Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy responded by saying that Ministry of Water Resources has not been involved in checking and monitoring the quality of water because this job is done by the Environmental Survey Laboratories of the Department of Atomic Energy, the fact remains the Bill should have been sent to the Water Resources Ministry as well because Department of Atomic Energy deals with point source of radioactive pollution and not with non-point source of pollution. It is saddening that Ministry of Water Resources conceded that since expertise is available in DAE alone, the Ministry need not be consulted. Panjiar rightly stressed upon the need to study the impact of nuclear contaminated water on human beings, animals, plants and crops. The Bill does not make any provision for such efforts.
In such a context it is germane to recollect that more than 51 years ago, on 28 May 1959, the World Health Organisation (WHO)’s assembly voted into force an agreement with the IAEA, a UN agency that prevented the WHO from investigating, warning and revealing the dangers of nuclear radiation on health. The agreement is attached.
Coincidentally, K Sujata Rao, Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare while deposing before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests mentioned that “while drafting the Bill the Dept. of Atomic Energy did not consult them. Since the response system to deal with any kind of emergency of such type, the hospitals are not well-equipped, it is natural that mortality and morbidity due to multiple burn, blasts, radiation injuries and psycho-social impact could be on very high scale and medical tackling of such a large emergency could have enough repercussions in the nearby areas of radioactive fallout. She also mentioned that in the entire Bill, there is not a single clause which speaks about taking health care during radiological emergencies. It reflects only about payment of compensation due to health impacts of such radiation. She suggested while setting up nuclear plants consideration may also be given to the fact that there should be hospital having trained doctors near such establishments and arrangements should also be made for free treatment of people who are affected by serious nuclear fallout.” She confessed that her Ministry is nowhere to meet an eventuality that may arise out of nuclear and radiological emergencies. Present and future generation of India would slaute Sujatha Rao for her exemplary conduct to safeguard her compatriots.
Clearly, objectives of Health Ministry and Department of Atomic Energy are at loggerheads in the same way as objectives of WHO and IAEA are. The former is dedicated to promoting health and the latter exists to promote nuclear commerce. Under the agreement between WHO and IAEA, the two agencies must “keep each other fully informed concerning all projected activities and all programs of work which may be of interest to both parties”. Notably, probe into the health impacts of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine on 26 April 1986 was taken over by IAEA and dissenting voices were suppressed. The health effects of the nuclear accident were the subject of two major conferences, in Geneva in 1995, and in Kiev, Ukrain in 2001. The full proceedings of those conferences remain unpublished. The programme and conclusions of the Kiev Conference is attached. The Kiev conference was organised by WHO Association of “Physicians of Chernobyl” in co-operation with UN agencies. There is no evidence to suggest that our Department of Atomic Energy or the Parliamentary Standing Committee had accessed the documents of these conferences and drew lessons from it.
IAEA’s International Conference on Chernobyl – Looking Back to Go Forwards Towards a United Nations Consensus on the Effects of the Accident and the Future, Vienna, September, 2005 was a public relations exercise by the nuclear industry that promoted such risk models for nuclear radiation that understated the true hazards. Chris Busby, the scientific secretary of European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) and visiting professor at the University of Ulster’s school of biomedical sciences observes, “The subordination of the WHO to IAEA is a key part of the systematic falsification of nuclear risk which has been under way ever since Hiroshima, the agreement creates an unacceptable conflict of interest in which the UN organisation concerned with promoting our health has been made subservient to those whose main interest is the expansion of nuclear power. Dissolving the WHO-IAEA agreement is a necessary first step to restoring the WHO’s independence to research the true health impacts of ionising radiation and publish its findings.”
Disregarding lessons from 26 years of Bhopal disaster, even in the 24th anniversary year of the Chernobyl disaster the WHO-IAEA Agreement is yet to be abandoned. ECRR has called for its abandonment. India too should call for freeing WHO from hiding facts about health effect from nuclear hazards due to the agreement.
Amidst public relations blitzkrieg of nuclear companies, it is not surprising that Banerjee, Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy expressed his touching faith in the nuclear power companies of all ilk and informed the Parliamentary Committee that the “Reactor at Chernobyl did not have a containment, while old reactors in India have containments and, therefore, Chernobyl type incident can never take place in India.” Is it because of such divine belief in the nuclear technology that he was starkly negligent in choosing not to consult revenant ministries while drafting the Bill? Is it for this very reason that doctrine of “absolute liability” for the operator, supplier, builder and owner has been subverted? Business enterprises are “strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortuous principle of strict liability,” as per Supreme Court’s order. The liability of the operator should be made “absolute” to ensure that there are no exceptions.
The Bill ignores the fact that Union Carbide Corporation was also in the business of nuclear power and its current owner The Dow Chemicals Company (since February 6, 2001) too offers a range of nuclear grade resins that are designed and manufactured to meet the requirements of the nuclear power industry. As part of its `policy perspectives’ for `Accelerate Development of Alternatives and Renewable Energy’, Dow calls for “An increased reliance on safe nuclear power and technologies for effectively managing nuclear waste”. Radioactive waste is not a single “thing” that can be isolated and dealt with.
Reddy, Singh and Banerjee should have recommended more openness, increased public access to information so that no agency hides problems to be solved by the future generations. Current draft of the Bill is leaving the nuclear waste problems for future generations.
This is illustrated by what Alka Sirohi, Secretary, Department of Food & Public Distribution informed the Parliamentary Standing Committee , while explaining the functioning of her Ministry, she emphasized the ill-effects of nuclear radiation on food items and its subsequent repercussions on human health and safeguards to be taken to prevent nuclear contamination of food during radiological accidents. She further mentioned although radiological damage to food items may fall within the generic definition of the property as mentioned in Clause 2f (ii) of the Bill, it would be better if the said Clause could provide a separate definition food grains along with of storage of foodgrains. Additionally she also mentioned that safety norms, distance, location and operating procedure, which should be defined in the Bill during the construction of the warehouses for foodgrains storage to be followed, near a nuclear facility. She also mentioned about the establishment of laboratories for the standard testing of food articles to ascertain radiation levels. Sirohi merits appreciation for her considered submission before the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
The Bill remains silent on the grave issues raised by Prabeer Kumar Basu, Secretary, Agriculture who mentioned before the Committee that the disaster management structure in the country is oriented in such a manner that emergencies arising out of floods, earthquakes and droughts could be managed in an efficient manner. However, on the other hand, unfortunately the disaster management structure in the country, as per his opinion, is not well tailored in meeting radiological fall out and more unfortunate to mention that even educated section of the people is not well aware about the implications of a serious nuclear disaster. He therefore, felt that more public awareness needs to be built in respect of nuclear disaster and its hair-raising impact on biological population. He further pointed out that as a consequence of a nuclear disaster of the Chernobyl type, it is quite possible that agricultural crops around 30 to 100 kms. from the site of the incident could be wiped out total. This may affect seriously the biodiversity of the crops in the radiation area and the farmer may loose their traditional variety of crops. In this connection he mentioned that the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources and Gene Bank in the country who are keeping a sample of each variety of crops can preserve these varieties which could be planted for further production if a variety of crops is entirely lost due to radiological emergency. He however, mentioned that there should be suitable rules, regulations and guidelines and compensation model for agricultural damage that could be inserted at an appropriate place in the legislation which may work after a radiological eventuality takes place.
Further revealing the criminal negligence of the drafters of the Bill, Prabhat C Chatirvedi, Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment while referring to Clause 5 (1)(i) which provides for non-liability of operator for any nuclear damage arising out of a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character pointed out that grave natural disaster should not include earthquakes or floods. He advised the Committee that if nuclear plant is placed in a seismic zone, it should be properly designed to withstand earthquake of severe character. The word natural disaster is too general. He further mentioned that concept of absolute liability of the operator in case of a nuclear damage whether it is on worker or someone else should be invoked in the Bill. The Secretary, while referring to Clause 39 (1) of the Bill, drew the attention of the Committee that no specific monetary quantum has been mentioned in regard to the fine to be imposed under the chapter on offenses and penalties. He therefore, suggested that specific quantum of fine in monetary terms should be defined in the Bill. Chaturvedi merits plaudits for his considered submission before the committee.
In compliance of the suggestion of Chairperson, Parliamentary Standing Committee Science & Technology, Environment & Forests during my testimony on 3rd August, 2010 and pursuant to my written submission dated 7th July, 2010, Toxicswatch Alliance (TWA) had specifically drawn the attention of the Parliamentary Standing Committee with regard to the narrow definition of the word “installation” and conflict of interest ridden existence of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). In a letter to the Parliamentary Standing Committee dated August 12, 2010, TWA has highlighted the backdrop of the deliberations on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill. Meera Shankar, Indian Ambassador to the US, and William Burns , the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs of the United States signed the Agreement on Arrangements and Procedures for Reprocessing on July 30, 2010 in pursuance to Article 6(iii) of the Agreement for Cooperation concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between India and the US. TWA has questioned the merit of centralised power stations like nuclear given 35-40 percent transmission and distribution loss from power grids.
R.Gopalan, Secretary, Financial Services submitted before the Parliamentary Committee that “any increase in premium of insurance will lead to increase in the cost of production of electricity for nuclear power. It is argued that higher the liability limit higher will be the insurance premium and subsequently higher will be the cost of electricity production.” Unmindful of such concerns its business as usual for the US nuclear companies and FICCI. A press release from the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC noted, “The historic bilateral cooperation agreement for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the 123 Agreement that we signed two years back provided for reprocessing of US obligated nuclear material in an Indian national facility under IAEA safeguards.”
It observes, “The government of India has already designated two sites for nuclear power plants to be established in cooperation with the US and the companies of the two countries are now engaged in discussions” as a follow up of the last month’s Strategic Dialogue and the meeting of the CEO’s Forum prior to the visit of President Barack Obama to India in November 2010.
Reddy, Dr Singh and Banerjee have failed to discourage nuclear power companies to locate “sinks” like deep waters of ocean, sea, rivers, air and landfills etc in which it could dump, flush, or vent radioactive waste products. They have skirted the issue of India’s radioactive waste management and it should desist from NIMBY-ism. NIMBY stands for “Not In My Back Yard”. The US state of Nevada is fighting a classic NIMBY battle against the Yucca Mountain facility. In India too communities should be empowered and not harassed for asserting their right to safe environment and the rights of future generations. It was once argued that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel was another important waste management strategy although the act of reprocessing still generated volatile waste products which exacerbated the waste management problem even as it reduced the overall volume of radioactive waste material but it only made radioactive waste problem a long-term disposal option. Notably, US itself has stopped reprocessing nuclear fuel during the late 1970s by order of President Jimmy Carter.
Reddy, Singh and Banerjee do not realize that the difficulties with radioactive waste cannot be dealt with by imposing a legislative fix on a problem that has not been clearly defined or fully understood. Such legislative fixes are hardly a solution as became evident from US Nuclear Waste Repository Act of 1982 and a 1987 Congressional amendment to the Act which mandated consideration of only one location, Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository leading to major litigation as well as significant opposition from people in the US state of Nevada. Nuclear power cannot and should not expand in India as is the case with the US until the problem of where to dispose of radioactive waste is solved.
P Umashankar, Secretary, Ministry of Power apprised the Committee about the Clause 3 of the Bill, wherein the notification regarding the occurrence of a nuclear incident is to be issued within 15 days by the AERB. According to him, “the nuclear power station incharge/ director will immediately declare nuclear emergency, and forthwith the disaster management plan will start, without waiting for the publication of the notification and the 15 days time-period also needs to be reduced. ” This is quite sensible but it appears that Department of Atomic Energy did not consult even the Power Ministry.
Testimony after testimony before the Committee had asked for deletion of the word terrorism from the Bill but the same is not reflected in the Committee’ s report despite the fact that Pradeep Kumar, the Defence Secretary, who also appeared before the Committee categorically stated, “under different layers of protection, nuclear assets including nuclear installations are being protected through Defence. However he admitted that absolute and fool proof protection cannot be guaranteed for any nuclear or other assets in the country during peace or war.” Exceptions for acts of terrorism can easily be used by the supplier and the operator to wash their hands off any nuclear disaster.
In view of the above observations, there is a very urgent need for a Joint Parliamentary Committee (sans conflict of interest) to probe and examine the current liability regime in general and nuclear liability regime in particular in the developed countries besides a High Powered Trans-disciplinary Independent Experts Committee to study the status of adverse enviro-occupational hazards world over. Human cost of industrial disasters have created a compelling logic to do away with the idea of limited liability to companies, the proposed Companies Bill should make a beginning in order to make these legal-artificial persons accountable to our legislature.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance, Email-krishna2777@gmail.com, Mb: 9818089660, Blog: toxicswatch.blogspot.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.com
For several decades, Mahasweta Devi has worked for the welfare of tribal communities. She has involved herself in the development work for the Lodha, Khedia and Shabar tribes in West Bengal and Jharkhand, but she is circumspect about her alleged ‘closeness with Maoists.’ On being asked to give her opinion on the Naxal problem the country faces, she has said time and again, “Why am I only told to write on this issue? I don’t know any Maoist.” Moreover, while discussing this issue, she made it clear that she didn’t approve of the killings in Chhattisgarh’s Dantewada by Maoists and that she is completely against such violence. She called on the central government to start a dialogue with the Maoists immediately and stop Operation Green Hunt as it would not solve the Naxal problem. It would victimise the tribal people, and this she didn’t want.
Independent writers, intellectuals and NGOs from West Bengal and across the nation who sympathise with the pain and suffering of the tribal communities are being castigated, directly or indirectly. Today, it has become customary to consider Maoists activities and tribal revolts by the same standards, as if they are complementary to each other. One can clearly see the effects of the warnings on Mahasweta Devi’s exclusive writing for Delhi Press on the Maoist issue.
Here is her opinion:
Today is 23 April. Delhi Press wants me to write on the growing violence, especially the Naxal violence. As far as Maoism is concerned, I accept that until today I have not met any Maoist, nor have I had an opportunity to talk to anyone. For us (who have closely watched the Naxal movement), their violence is the result of continuous injustice meted out to the common man, especially the tribal people.
The statement of Jairam Ramesh, Indian Environment & Forest Minister is clearly depressing with no sign of hope. With every passing day it is becoming clear that Cancun is also going to end up as a “tea party” with lot of tamasha.
Now one thing is going to be pretty clear that the symbolic activism promoted by civil society in the North which claims itself to be international has failed and failed on a large scale. Forming numbers, switching off lights, dancing in public places, commemorating days is not the way to ask for radical action. Something more need to be done. Blame will also go to our prominent “activists” based in India & developing south, who talk about Gandhi but leave his lifestyle for others to follow. Many from the same lobby have a lot to say about Marxism and plight of proletariat class but prefer to live in bourgeois houses. The carbon footprint of “Messiahs or Saviours” of planet earth is also very high & similar to that of an American from high income group.
The words of Sheikh Farid (Sufi Saint) “Farida Je Tun Akal Latif Hain/ Kaale Lekh Na Lekh/Apnane Gireban Mein/Sir Nevan Kar Dekh” are very much relevant for all the “environmentalists” & those who call themselves as “climate activists.” It is the high time to seek retrospection; bring the real voices out instead of taking old stinking hypocrites as leaders, if we want something worth while in Mexico.
The issue of Climate Change will be hard to digest in the coming future. As Mr. Dunu Roy (of Hazard Center) rightly points out that we the people from the urban middle class are the most vulnerable species on earth. Forget about “cute” polar bears or “mighty” Bengal tigers, now even our future is at stake. It is for us to now take rigorous course of action which calls for change and pressurize world leaders to do something. We have enough time, Mexico is faraway, lets brainstorm and figure out alternatives which includes the interests and well being of all those who are going to suffer with the worst of the climate emergency.
Cancun should not merely end up as conference of “parties,” but instead a call for all Davids to take on Goliaths!
GM crops are those artificially altered by randomly inserting select genetic fragments drawn from another organism or crop, usually of a different species. The technology is widely acknowledged to be imprecise. As the location of the transferred gene sequence in the host crop differs with each insertion, the consequences are uncertain. Lacking a natural slot to fit in, there is high instability of the foreign genetic fragment in the host.
While for patenting GM crops, their developers (commonly agri-business corporations) claim these to be novel creations, they adopt a diametrically opposite stand for their safety assessment, dubiously claiming “substantial equivalence” to the natural crops, despite much evidence to the contrary. This they do to avoid rigorous safety testing and labeling of the new GM crops, fearing consumer rejection. GM crops are overwhelmingly rejected in Europe and most parts of the world. Just a tiny minority of countries allow them. USA (home to Monsanto) alone grows half the world’s GM crops. Argentina and Brazil account for another 30%. Globally, over 99% of commercial GM crops are: soya, cotton, maize, canola – largely for animal feed, fibre or bio-fuel, rather than human food.
Bt Brinjal, the first GM food crop of its kind in the world, was stopped by huge public opposition from all sections of Indian people. Over a dozen States officially opposed it. Not one pleaded in its favour. Agriculture is constitutionally a State subject.
Worldwide, 99% of GM crops have just one or two traits: herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. Despite the hype from the industry, there is still not a single commercial GM crop with increased yield, drought-tolerance, salt-tolerance, enhanced nutrition or any of the other ‘beneficial’ traits long-promised by the industry. An estimated 90% of all GM crops contain a gene or trait patented by one single giant company – Monsanto. Other corporations into the business of GM crops include: Syngenta, Bayer, Du Pont and Dow. These 5 corporations are also the top pesticide/herbicide companies in the world. Already, nearly half the global trade in seeds is controlled by such MNCs that make no secret of their resolve to wrench total strategic control of world agriculture through control of seeds and other inputs.
In India, almost 80% farmers still save their own seeds, and hence, do not buy them. They are the custodians of a huge treasure of crop biodiversity. It is this section that the MNCs want to target. By severely contaminating the natural local seed varieties-through cross-pollination by their GM varieties they acquire immense power to dictate terms, gravely threatening the food security and sovereignty of our nation. The GM-industrial model that further increases chemical consumption and external dependence, results in ruinous destruction of vital ecological ‘capital’ – soil, biodiversity, groundwater – on which agriculture is fundamentally dependent, while reliance on non-renewable (and increasingly expensive) fossil fuels is extremely high. Such agriculture is totally unsustainable, energy inefficient and economically inviable. Though geographically smaller than USA, India has more than 200 times as many farmers, who are largely self-reliant. In USA, less than 2% of the people are engaged in agriculture. Most of the farmland is held by large corporations or big farmers, each of whom own thousands of hectares, or more, enjoying billions of dollars of agricultural subsidy each year — several thousand times higher (per capita/farmer) than in India!
Trying to ape the US model may thus create a quarter billion economic and ecological refugees in India. India is a signatory to ‘The World Agriculture Report’ by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), endorsed in 2008 by 60 countries, after four years of detailed study and deliberation by over 400 international scientists, experts and nearly 1,000 reviewers, supported by the World Bank, FAO, WHO, UNDP, UNEP, among others. The Report confirms that GM crops are not the answer to hunger, poverty or climate change. Rather, bio-diverse and ecologically sound, low-external-input and low-cost organic farming methods offer the best hope for ensuring a just and sustainable future for all.
Contributed by: bharatmansata@yahoo.com
Bharat Mansata is a writer-editor and environmental activist, particularly involved in ecological regeneration and organic farming. He has authored: (1) The Great Agricultural Challenge, (2) Organic Revolution, and (3) Pregnant with Poison (on Bt Brinjal), all published by Earthcare Books (www.earthcarebooks.com <http://www.earthcarebooks.com/> ). He has also edited ‘Ecological Vision’, published by DRCSC, Kolkata.
For the past 16 years, he is closely associated with a collective forest-farm, Vision Acres (Van Vadi), which has grown into a rich forest – dense, tall and high in biodiversity. Located in the foothills of the Sahyadris, it is a source of joy and inspiration to visitors. The rainwater harvesting and organic farming too have been quite successful, as also initiatives in non-formal environmental/Nature learning.
The dying river has become a grave threat to the health of people who are bathing in it and are living on its bank. Their only fault is that they love the river, worship it like their mother. High incidents of gastric and entric diseases have been recorded amongst the residents close to river.
The overall rate of water-borne/enteric diseases incidence, including acute gastrointestinal diseases, cholera, dysentery, hepatitis-A, and typhoid, was estimated to be about 66% during the one-year period prior to the survey.
Logistic regression analysis revealed significant associations between the occurrence of waterborne enteric disease and the use of the river for bathing, laundry, washing utensils, and brushing teeth. Thirty-three cases of cholera were identified among families exposed to washing clothes or bathing in the Ganges while no cholera cases occurred in unexposed families.
Ganga & Government
In spite of the fact that the “Ganga Water pollution Issue” has been in limelight for few decades, little has been done to address the real cause of the problem. Recently, the Government of India has declared the transnational river as the “National River of India”. However, the situation remains unchanged and has even worsened.
A glimpse of the Ganga Action Plan.
The first phase of the Ganga action plan (GAP) was started in 1986 by Rajiv Gandhi. To oversee the implementation of the GAP and to lay down policies and programmes, the Government of India constituted the Central Ganga Authority (CGA) in February 1985, renamed it as the National River Conservation Authority (NRCA) in September 1995, under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister. The Government also established the Ganga Project Directorate (GPD) in June 1985 as a wing of the Department of Environment, to execute projects under the guidance and supervision of the CGA. The Government renamed the GPD as the National River Conservation Directorate (NRCD) in June 1994.
Naming & Renaming but no output
Core sectors of GAP included the interception and diversion of domestic wastewater including the construction and rehabilitation of sewers and pump houses, while non-core sector schemes consisted of the installation of crematoria, river front development and aesthetic improvement, implementation of low cost sanitation systems, and miscellaneous activities such as water quality monitoring, research programmers, and identification and management of waste from grossly polluting industries.
More than Rs 2000 crore has been mobilized but nothing has been achieved since the inception of the plan; instead the conditions have only become poorer. Tall claims are made by the Government officials but the ground realities are totally different. The miserable failure of the Ganga Action Plan can be attributed to lack of conceptualization of the real problem, lack of political will political and corruption.
The 2nd phase of Ganga Action Plan has been initiated; however, its success depends on proper planning and execution. A water treatment plant has been set up at Bhagwanpur(Varanasi) with limited capacity. It can treat the sewage water up to the secondary level only. Moreover it caters only to a small part of the city. According to some people the disposal of half burnt corpses and ash into the river is another cause of concern. Electric crematories have been set at the shamshan ghats, but they remain nonfunctional for most of the time.
Satyagraha – A ray of hope
In all this chaos and silence of government, a small revolution is creating a ray of hope. Tulsi Ghat where Goswami Tulsi Das penned down Ram Charitra Manas, is again a center of attraction. Successor of Goswami ji Prof. Vir Bhadra Mishra revered as Mahantji founded Sankat Mochan Foundation in the 80’s. The aim was to connect people with Ganga ji. They have succeeded in doing that.
When asked about the foundation Prof. Mishra referred to Swetcha Ganga Campaign and said, “This is my Satyagraha to save the river”. After the struggle of more than two decades, the Government of India decided to involve Ganga Satyagrahis in rejuvenating the river. Foundation proposed the idea of Integrated Waste Management which the government after delay and court cases at last has accepted. The proceedings have started. Hope the Mother Ganga ji is saved! Amen!
Did you like this, become a fan
environmentpress.in | Become a fan
East Kolkata Wetlands are a complex combination of natural and human-made wetlands lying east of the city of Kolkata. Spread over 140 sq km of salt marshes, meadows ponds, lakes, canals and swamps, they are the kidney of the city, a natural treatment plant for Calcutta’s sewage and the nutrients contained in the wastewater sustain fish farms and agriculture. It provides livelihood to 90,000 persons engaged in fish cultivation via ‘bheries’ and 10,000 farmers who grow vegetables and paddy on small plots.The East Calcutta Wetlands were designated a “wetland of international importance” under the Ramsar Convention on August 19, 2002.
“
- The wetland also hosts a wide range of bio-diversity. “In 1965, before the wetlands were converted, 245 species of birds and more than 40 species of small mammals and large number of fish species had been recorded.” Says Dr. Ghosh, Director of Centre for Environment and Development. He had recently conducted a reseach for Nature, Environment and Wildlife Society (NEWS) on the loss or regression of biodiversity bird fauna due to reclamation of parts of wetlands and the implications of the same. He found that 80 species of bird have never visited after the construction of Salt Lake City.
1. Read about the Avian Diversity in the East Kolkata Wetlands – Cover Story from the ‘Environ’ Magazine, 2004 by Dr. Ashis K. Ghosh
2. Read about the Biological Resources of Wetlands of East Kolkata – A research paper By Dr. Ashis K. Ghosh
Did you like this, become a fan
environmentpress.in | Become a fan
Hydropower is among the oldest renewable energy technique known to the mankind for mechanical energy conversion as well as electricity generation. Hydropower energy generation has proven itself as inflation free energy due to absence of fuel cost with mature technology characterized by highest prime moving efficiency and spectacular operational flexibility. Around 25% of India’s total installed capacity of power generation is from Hydropower.
Hydro power projects are generally categorized in two segments i.e. small and large hydro. The mandate for small hydro power (up to 25 MW) is given to Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. Small hydro power projects are further classified as:
| Micro Hydro/ Pico Hydro | Up to 100 kW |
| Mini Hydro | 101 kW – 2 MW |
| Small Hydro | 2 MW to 25 MW |
Technology
The basic principle of hydropower is that if water can be piped down from a certain level, then the resulting water pressure is converted to work. If the water pressure is allowed to move a mechanical component then that movement involves the conversion of the potential energy of the water into mechanical energy. Hydro turbines convert water pressure into mechanical shaft power, which can be used to drive an electricity generator, a grinding mill or some other useful device.
Sustainable Development through Micro and Small Hydro plants
Supply of clean and reliable energy is considered to be one of the main inputs required to raise the standards of living of the people and to minimize the damage to the ecosystem. Micro hydro can provide electricity to rural communities which otherwise might take years to be served by national electricity services. The possible target sites for small hydro plants are the isolated areas (usually at a higher level), which are not connected to the grid. The target beneficiaries are the rural people residing at a considerable distance away from transmission line and distribution networks.
The main advantages are:
- The components of Micro hydro can be locally manufactured and system required can be locally built
- Micro hydro plants are comparatively easy to manufacture and install indigenously, thus boosting employment, economic activity and the industrial base
- The Small hydro plants can be locally managed, operated and main much lower trained with training input to the local people. The organization and management cost are lower than for the other energy systems.
Potential and Policy Framework
An estimated potential of about 15,000 MW of small hydro power projects exists in India. The total installed capacity of small hydro power projects in 2009 was around 2,500 MW. The Ministry’s aim is that the SHP installed capacity should be about 7000 MW by the end of 12th Plan.
23 States in India have announced policies for setting up commercial SHP projects through private sector participation. The facilities available in the States include wheeling of power produced, banking, buy-back of power, facility for third party sale, etc. Each state has specified different incentives and buy-back price for the power generated.
Estimated Cost
Present costs of generation: around Rs 1.5/kWhr
Capital costs
- Pico Hydro – Rs 2.0 lakh/kW
- Micro Hydro –Rs 1.5 lakh/kW
- Mini and Small Hydro –Rs 0.6 lakh/kW
Operation and Maintenance costs: 2% of capital costs
Social Impact
- Environmental Impact – Electricity supplied to previously unelectrified areas helps in reduction of kerosene and firewood, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The local watershed of the village becomes a source of power and hence the community is more involved in protecting the forest and surrounding areas.
- Livelihood – Improved lighting stimulates education. Reduction of use of firewood improves quality of health. Power used by micro-enterprises and cottage industries increases income. Energy supplied for agricultural and supporting activities increases productivity and reduces wastage of crop.
- Capacity building and community empowerment – Supply of clean and reliable energy by utilisation of water provides a huge impetus for overall development of the village community and empowerment of its people.
Did you like this, become a fan
environmentpress.in | Become a fan
