INDIA RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT OPTIMISATION STUDY

A study carried out for the World Bank at the request of the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Government of Uttarakhand

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As India attempts to achieve very ambitious targets in developing hydropower over the next decade, the challenge is very much on the Himalayan states, particularly Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. In undertaking the River Basin Development Optimisation Study, the Study Team has identified numerous shortcomings in the planning and coordination of hydropower development, noting the bias to the project as the unit of development, and the lack of coordination among developers and concerned agencies, which works against capturing the full benefit of a cascaded system. Taking the Satluj and Alaknanda basins as case studies, it was noted that: There are substantial geological risks associated with hydropower development in the Himalayan region, with no mechanism for shared knowledge management. Hydrological risk is high, given the relatively short period of observations, and the obtaining of existing data is very problematic. Methodologies for determining design floods vary from project to project. This inconsistency could lead to under or over designing of spillway capacities for the various projects in a cascade, or a dam with adequate spillway capacity could be vulnerable to the cascade dambreak potential from the failure of an upstream dam with inadequate spillway capacity. Silt is a major obstacle to hydropower development in the Himalayan region, and threatens to undermine the viability of the hydropower investments unless more effective measures for silt management are developed. Simple modelling shows that optimisation of a cascade of hydropower projects results in greater energy output and less physical footprint than the currently planned designs and operational plans. An upstream storage will bring benefits to existing and planned downstream projects via regulated flow releases, flood control, and sediment trapping. There is a multitude of developers, which works against the coordination that is critical to ensuring efficient implementation of projects. There is confusion amongst developers as to the details of the regulations proposed but not enacted by the State Government regarding the design and operation of their hydropower projects. This confusion is being compounded by press reports of the

pending new hydro policy of the Central Government. Many of the private developers are new to hydropower, and have questionable understanding of the fundamental commercial risks that arise, and of the market environment, eg absence of a peaking power tariff. The already challenged road network faces severe problems, especially with uncoordinated hydropower construction schedules. The poor state of public communications and public awareness of what is going to happen has lead to increased anxiety that could lead to resistance to projects. The environmental flow requirements are unclear is it 15% of the flow at any given time, 15% of the minimum flow in the lean season, 15% of the minimum flow ever recorded? It appears that the environmental flow requirements have not been

developed with an understanding of the biodiversity of the particular river basins or the needs, if any, of the downstream population. There is often a gap between Environmental and Social Development Plans and their implementation. There is variable success with Catchment Treatment Plans and compensatory afforestation and concern regarding direction of funding and activities away from locally impacted areas. There are considerable risks to the fragile Himalayan ecosystem. Many, if not most, of the abovementioned shortcomings can be addressed to some degree through a river basin approach to planning and implementation of hydropower projects. Analysis of the available feasibility studies and related reports for the Satluj and Alaknanda hydropower projects, some simple mathematical and qualitative modelling, consultations with the various stakeholders in hydropower development, and reference to international practice, suggest the advantages of developing a framework for efficient hydroelectric power development at the level of the river basin, as distinct from the current individual project level. River basin development optimisation (planning, design, development and operation) is better done at the river basin level because: Hydrological yield estimation can be vastly improved by the coordinated gathering, storage, and dissemination of hydrological and meteorological data to developers. In particular the effects of climate change can be estimated by central studies, without

ii

individual developers either ignoring this important aspect or undertaking their own individual varying studies. Mathematical models of basins can be developed so that the effects of one project in a cascade on another are fully understood, and optimisation of design and operation of a cascade of projects can be achieved. A storage at the upstream end of a cascade can be investigated to determine the balance of benefits in terms of flow regulation, flood control and sediment trapping against any negative aspects related to the environment or affected local population. There can be consistency in determination of design floods, and flood prediction and warning systems can be installed on a basin-wide basis. Development and sharing of infrastructure can be coordinated so as to minimise strain on such infrastructure as main roads, access roads, construction power and transmission lines for evacuation of power. A strategic environmental assessment of an entire basin can be undertaken to establish baselines and objectives, setting the context for project specific EIAs. There can be standardisation and sharing of water quality measurements. Panchayat representatives can have far greater involvement in the developments within their basin through, for example, monitoring of the Catchment Area Treatment plans and other plans to mitigate the social and environmental impacts of development. Standardisation and monitoring by various stakeholders of Catchment Treatment Plans will be greatly enhanced. Sustainability flows for various stretches of river within a basin can be determined on a scientific and social needs basis, taking due cognisance of the biodiversity of the basin. Benefit sharing amongst all stakeholders can be far more equitable and better managed. It is important to note that there are some encouraging recent developments in the move towards river basin planning, particularly in the area of project optimisation. There have been some recent instances of optimisation by developers and State Governments involving a

iii

small number of projects along limited stretches of river the proposed integration of Jangi Thopan and Thopan Powari projects on the Satluj in Himachal Pradesh, and the optimisation of projects on the Pindar and adjacent Alaknanda rivers in Uttarakhand. While encouraging, these cases underscore the need for a more systematic approach to basin optimisation, to ensure benefits to all developers, impacted communities and the State Government. While a number of issues are covered in this report, it is not intended to be a complete analysis of impacts and issues in the hydropower industry in the subject basins or India in general. There are a number of issues and risks which are not dealt with in this report but this does not mean that they are not important aspects for future development of hydropower. However, the study and the report are focused on the main issues where a river basin planning approach can play a clear role in improving sustainable development financial, environmental, and social outcomes. This Recommendations Report makes numerous recommendations and suggestions to enable hydropower development in India to move towards river basin level planning, design and operation. The underlying themes of these recommendations are: There is a need for data sharing amongst the developers and government authorities, particularly related to meteorology, hydrology and sedimentation. There is a need for improved methods of yield estimation, which has a fundamental impact on project economics. There is a need for significant improvement in coordination between developers, in terms of shared infrastructure such as access roads, construction power, and power evacuation transmission lines. It is desirable to integrate communities and qualified third parties (NGOs) in aspects of project monitoring such as use of community forests, Resettlement Action Plans, etc. The Study Team presented some of the key recommendations at a workshop on 1st November, 2007 where senior government figures presented the visions for their states and representatives from government, private developers, and non-governmental organisations contributed to discussion on the issues. The key recommendations are summarised below and appear in more detail in the body pf the report: 1. Establish uniform and easily available data sets for hydrology, topography, sedimentation, ecology, and social and economic activity.

iv

2. Standardise methods for energy assessment (not 90% dependable year) and Design Flood Analysis (using extreme rainfall methods) 3. Implement a basin operations model for real-time scheduling and for flood forecasting. 4. Reassess issues associated with the proposed storage at Khab to determine a decision making process, and develop an action plan to move forward. 5. Provide a co-ordinated approach to sedimentation at the basin level which could include data sharing and cooperative research, consideration of alternative design assumptions such as cost-benefit of removing smaller than the current minimum 0.2 mm particles, and improvements to sediment control during construction. 6. Develop Master Plans for infrastructure (roads, transmission) to optimise benefits and minimise costs and impacts. 7. Undertake basin wide environmental and social assessment to determine high value areas in basins where hydropower is planned. 8. Develop plans to collect relevant data and identify objectives across the two basins for the eventual establishment of sustainability flows. 9. Develop a basin-wide benefit sharing options and priorities paper and incorporate requirements with EIA/SIA social analysis requirements and consultation processes for individual projects. 10. Developers to consider aggregating benefit-sharing expenses for large ticket items and state governments to consider contributions from the 12% free power. 11. Develop basin-wide plan, with sequenced priorities linked to water management issues for developers (eg. upstream) and local input 12. Identify basin-wide CAT opportunities projects (eg. Satluj study) The question arises: who will initiate and act upon these recommendations, and how will they be funded. Suggested responsibility for the recommendations is provided in the main body of the report. Many recommendations can be taken on board as part of either improving current practice, or as steps toward the river basin planning approach. Implementing a completely new system via River Basin Authorities would require considerable time, and it is important that positive actions are taken as soon as possible without delaying the hydropower development program.

A move towards river basin planning could include: Informal, cooperative development of databases and tools to facilitate river basin considerations in project planning and implementation, which could be formalised through a central agency or independent body for the ongoing maintenance of data integrity. Establishment of a developers forum similar to that for the Satluj, although with stronger participatory requirements and supporting mechanisms for data sharing and decision-making. Redefinition of responsibility and funding of a program through a lead agency to facilitate river basin planning and development. Establishment of a new institution, with legal mechanism to establish representative membership and to provide clear responsibility for river basin planning. The last option is effectively a mandated River Basin Development Authority. Each such Authority could have representation from all stakeholders and be chaired by a person without vested interest, other than overall optimised development of the basin in question. Membership of each Authority could change as development progresses, eg as projects are allocated to new developers then such developers could have representation. NGOs and representatives of people living in the basin could have membership, as well as the developers and relevant technical organisations such as Public Works and Transmission companies. The Chairmen of these Basin Authorities could meet regularly with Government so that there is consistency of approach across the State. A single State Authority is not recommended because it would be very difficult for the local people with specific issues to be involved. Funds to operate these Authorities could come from the upfront premiums paid by developers to the States, and from the revenue emanating from the 12% free power royalty. Discussion and feedback from the Recommendations Workshop held on November 1st gave strong support to river basin planning approaches with some caution noted with regard to the amount of changes required. State government representatives noted the importance of establishing strong mechanisms for river basin planning that incorporate input from NGOs and communities, with the suggestion that the development of independent Authorities with powers to act was required. Workshop participants also strongly supported coordinated data collection and analysis and it was noted that improvements could be made in transparency and availability of data through an independent or centralised organisation. Again, the role of

vi

local communities could have in data collection and monitoring programs was noted as an opportunity.

vii

CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 River Basin Planning An Opportunity for India 1.2 Stakeholder Consultation 2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Yield Estimation in Project Design 2.2 Production Optimisation and Interface of Cascade Schemes 2.3 Sedimentation and Water Quality 2.4 Storage and Regulation of Flow 2.5 Environmental (Sustainability) Flows 2.6 Flood Risk Assessment 2.7 Multiple Development of Associated Infrastructure i 1 2 2 4 4 6 9 10 13 15 17

2.8 Preparation of adequate and strategic Environment and Social Impact Assessments and Mitigation Plans 19 2.9 Implementation of Catchment Treatment Plans and Compensatory Forestry 24 2.10 Development and Implementation of Environmental and Social Management Plan Activities 25 2.11 Benefit Sharing 2.12 Local Participation in Project Delivery 2.13 Development and Implementation of Resettlement Plans 2.14 Impacts to Culture and Heritage 2.15 Policy Integration 3. CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE 3.1 Examples of River Basin Planning 3.1.1 India 3.1.2 International 3.2 Implementing River Basin Planning in India 4. 5. REFERENCES GLOSSARY Satluj Basin Alaknanda Basin APPENDIX 2 INDIAN REGULATORY CONTEXT Uttarakhand Hydropower Policy Himachal Pradesh Hydropower Policy Project Approvals APPENDIX 3 - CONSULTATION 27 29 31 33 35 36 36 36 37 42 45 46 48 48 53 59 59 59 61 63

APPENDIX 1 STUDY AREA

viii

1.

INTRODUCTION

Availability and reliability of electricity supply in India continues to be a major obstacle to Indias development, restraining economic growth and impeding potential for poverty alleviation. One of the Government of Indias top priorities is to provide all its citizens with reliable access to electricity by 2012, requiring an estimated 100,000 MW of additional generating capacity to be installed which is about four times the amount added during the last Five Year Plan. The Government of India has decided that hydropower has the potential to provide a considerable portion of this additional power requirement, increasing percentage of total generation from 26% to 40% by 2012. The governments of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand recognise the substantial hydropower potential of their states and have developed ambitious hydropower programs. Himachal Pradesh has more than 20,000 MW of identified hydropower potential (25% of the whole of India) with less than 7,000 MW installed to date. Uttarakhand has a hydropower potential of the order of 20,000 MW, of which less than 3,000 MW has been harnessed to date. The States are responsible for generation of electricity within their borders and each State has its own Hydro Power Policy and regulations, see Appendix 2 for details. However the Central Government also has a Hydro Power Policy, with recent press reports indicating that a revised policy is soon to be released. At the request of the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the Government of Uttarakhand, the World Bank (with funding from the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility) initiated the River Basin Development Optimisation Study to demonstrate a framework for efficient hydroelectric power development at the level of the river basin. The World Bank contracted Hydro Tasmania Consulting to undertake the Study which reviews the plans for the development of the Satluj River and Alaknanda River basins in order to explore the benefits of the river basin approach to hydropower development and operation for these two river basins. Details of these two basins, and the planned hydropower developments, are given in Appendix 1. The intention is not to change what has already happened in the Satluj and Alaknanda basins, but rather, to suggest improvements to existing practices in planning and implementation of the hydropower development program in each State with the goal of ensuring the long-term sustainability of this important development. More generally, it is hoped that study recommendations may be usefully applied to the development of other river basins.

The study produced an Inception Report and an Issues Paper which discussed many issues associated with the current project-based approach compared to a river-basin-wide approach to hydropower development in the Satluj and Alaknanda basins. Some of the more important issues have been modelled so as to identify technical and operational impacts, as well as environmental and social implications of multi-project development. The modelling results were presented at a Seminar on 6th July 2007 and a Modelling Report was produced taking into consideration feedback from attendees. This Final Recommendations Report integrates the various aspects of the project, including description of issues, modelling results, feedback from consultations regarding the potential for river basin planning, and interactive discussion and debate at the Final Workshop held on 1st November 2007 attended by more than 80 participants.

1.1

River Basin Planning An Opportunity for India

Since its inception, river basin planning has been taken up in many countries and has evolved to encompass a number of different institutional models, with various developmental emphases. In the latter part of the 20th century, the philosophy of river basin development underwent significant changes shifting from solely engineering approaches to encompass the values of biodiversity, non-structural means of improved water management, and stakeholder participation in sub-basin scale initiatives. Environmental and social groups have been instrumental in promoting the incorporation of social and environmental issues into river basin planning programs around the world. These include resettlement of indigenous communities, fish migration, and protection of natural flood cycles. A new generation of river basin planning is thus emerging with a holistic approach that seeks to integrate potential environmental and social costs into the planning and implementation process. This rich worldwide experience provides India with an opportunity to incorporate into current practice in the hydropower sector a holistic approach to river basin development that will help serve the countrys national development goals while promoting sustainable, equitable development on the local and regional levels.

1.2

Stakeholder Consultation

Wide-ranging consultations have formed an integral part of this study because consultations help capture the many facets of this complex development program and bring out problems that can be addressed upfront and avoid surprises later on that could threaten the

sustainability of the development. Representatives of government agencies, hydropower developers, scientific institutions and universities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and the local people affected by the developments were consulted because they have direct experience with the hydropower industry - they will be the key stakeholders in the hydropower future of India, and of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh in particular. Consultation has been carried out during the course of the project for establishing the key issues, collecting and discussing available data, discussing past and proposed projects and obtaining opinions and ideas regarding the potential role for river basin planning in the development of hydropower. Local communities are a critical stakeholder in the hydropower development program. While it was not possible as part of this study to consult widely with local communities that have been, or who may potentially be, directly affected by current or future projects, a number of views were put forward on their behalf by those working closely with such communities. Comments, opinions and ideas from these consultations (including the Modelling Workshop) are referred to throughout this Report. A list of organisations and people consulted during the project is provided in Appendix 3.

2.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations arising from the analysis and consultations carried out in the course of the study are presented for consideration by the governments of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, the Government of India, concerned developers, project-affected communities and other stakeholders. The recommendations have been drafted in such a way that there are suggestions that can be taken on board as part of either improving current practice, or as steps toward river basin planning approach, without necessarily launching into a completely new system. There are opportunities to improve the outcomes associated with the issues, regardless of whether a river basin planning approach is adopted. In many cases, these opportunities relate to economic, environment and social benefits that can be achieved through improved processes, data collection and access, or involvement of key stakeholders. A comprehensive river basin planning approach is a major undertaking that could realistically take a number of years to establish the relevant baselines, skills and tools, guidelines, and operating framework for its implementation. There are a number of challenges in the existing system and current practice of developing hydropower projects in India influencing the likelihood of effective implementation of a river basin planning approach. These include the number of agencies currently involved, the time and negotiation required for changes to legal instruments, bureaucratic processes and need for substantive changes or streamlining, the limited skills and tools available, and the need for increased resources (people and funds) to implement actions. However, a river basin planning approach can be achieved to varying degrees and in a phased way through, for example, uptake of strategic regionally based economic, social and environmental assessments, as well as basin wide yield estimates and establishment of wider development or benefit sharing activities in the host regions. Funding for some of these initiatives, including potential River Basin Authorities, could come from the upfront premiums paid by developers to the state governments, and from the revenue emanating from the 12% free power.

2.1

Yield Estimation in Project Design

Current practice for the analysis of hydro power output, as indicated from examination of feasibility reports for the Satluj and Alaknanda basins, is to consider only local at-site data for derivation of water yield. Often the flow sequences used to derive a yield are based on

transposition of limited length data from another site or from a site that has already been transposed. Only estimation based on area scaling is used and often only 10 daily mean flows or 3 flow values per month are used making the yield estimation less reliable. A significant part of both basins is covered by snow and glaciers (in some cases more than 50% of the catchment to a proposed dam site is snow covered), however in only a few cases, is there any special consideration given to yield estimates from these areas. For the run-of-river hydro power projects this is an important issue due to the highly seasonal nature of the snow and glacier runoff. Generally, the studies carried out do not consider either upstream or downstream impacts of either water storage or operating rules when considering yield. One report reviewed did consider one power scheme immediately upstream but none considered the basin as a whole. The methods used for yield determination are basic, relying in most cases on the minimum expected guidelines from CWC of determination of the 90% dependable year. Even in some studies where a moderate amount of storage is being considered, usually only the 10 daily flow sequence for just the 90% dependable year is used in a simulation of power production rather than the whole of the available flow sequence. The use of data from just one year (90% dependable year) may provide a biased estimate of the water yield and hence produce unreliable energy estimates, as the data from one year may be highly skewed depending on the nature of the higher flow in the snow melt and monsoon seasons. From an assessment of the available records it would seem that the use of the standard Hydrological Year for India (1st June to 31st May) may not be as appropriate for the western Himalayan zone as it is for the rest of the Indian basins. Presently the Hydrological Year starts during the late snow and mid glacial melt season where flows are not at their yearly minimum. This may introduce some systematic error or bias especially for analysis of 90% dependable year when a single year is used. To realistically assess the run-of-the-river energy output, the power projects immediately upstream should be considered as a minimum. When assessing the energy output, the timing of available water inflowing from these upstream schemes may dictate the timing of the energy output of the downstream site. Additionally, a cascade of run-of-the-river schemes could be optimised for total energy output if they are analysed together rather than in isolation and ideally a basin-wide approach to energy yield is preferable. The current practice of using 3 values per month or even daily flow data is not really adequate when considering

run-of-the-river projects, as the diurnal generation pattern can not be adequately assessed or simulated with such data. The design of hydropower projects fails to consider optimisation of energy output due to firming of seasonal river flows from optimised release from a major upstream storage eg. Khab. Modelling has shown that if such a seasonal storage were considered, then the basinwide energy and also the energy output of individual power projects increases if releases from the upstream storage are seasonally regulated. A basin wide approach to yield assessment would be of advantage to all proponents. Recommendations: Central Electricity Authority in conjunction with the Central Water Commission should consider the adoption of the following recommendations in order of priority. 1. Consider mechanism for the collation, management of an accessible, uniform data set for rainfall and streamflow to all proponents so that at least all available data is considered when making at-site calculations and transposition and assessment of maximum storms for a region. 2. Consider adoption, dissemination and requirement to use more appropriate and standardised yield calculation methods. Training modules for proponents and consultants could also be developed and implemented through workshops and/or guidelines. 3. Develop and disseminate more suitable procedures to replace the use of the 90% dependable year which is inadequate in assessing real power station output. Training modules for proponents and consultants could also be developed and implemented through workshops and/or guidelines. 4. Consider a more appropriate Hydrological Year boundary (such as January or February) for regions where snow and glacier melt is significant. 5. Consider adopting guidelines requiring that the best available data be used in yield and flood analyses and discouraging the use of 3 values per month aggregated data.

2.2

Production Optimisation and Interface of Cascade Schemes

Current practice for energy production optimisation appears to be that projects are optimised on an individual basis, without regard to other projects in the cascade or indeed entire basin.

Some mathematical modelling in the Alaknanda basin was carried out to show potential repercussions of this practice. Our modelling studies indicated that optimisation of the operation of the Alaknanda and Vishnuprayag plants (treated as a cascade) over the currently planned design / operation (where the projects are regarded as independent) results in an increase in energy output of 230 GWh pa valued at INR 58 crore pa. In the Satluj River basin the GOHP has accepted a proposal, and is currently negotiating with developer Brakel, for the allotment of a single project to replace the advertised 480 MW Jangi Topan and 480 MW Thopan Powari. This is an example of a developer finding advantage in optimising two projects into one, effectively a mini-example of cascade optimisation. For the Alaknanda River basin a request for tenders recently came out for the Pindar River, a tributary of the Alaknanda, to undertake a cascade scheme optimisation study, followed on by the PFRs and DPRs for the individual projects. The UJVNL Master Plan indicates a total installed capacity of 240 MW for this stretch of river. However, some recent optimisation undertaken by IL&FS and the Government of Uttarakhand has lead to a revised cascade arrangement with total installed capacity 306 MW. The consultancy will further optimise the stretch of river, including a cost-benefit analysis which will consider the environmental and social issues as well least cost energy. Further positive moves in this area are expected with IL&FS soon to call for tenders for optimisation of the upstream stretch of the Pindar, and also there is the possibility of a joint venture with the GOU for similar optimisation of cascades of hydropower projects in Uttarakhand. There does not seem to be a basin-wide System Model for either the Satluj or Alaknanda basins. Such a model would comprise a hydrological mathematical simulation of the various major rivers and tributaries along with the expected individual power schemes coded as operational rules including expected hourly operation and storage/diversion characteristics. Input would be a standardised inflow sequence for the major tributaries over a set period. In order to examine the hydrological issues in an objective manner, an operational model of the Satluj cascade of power station and storages was set up to demonstrate what might be achieved should a basin-wide modelling approach be adopted in order to optimise the cascade. This model was able to examine the likely effects of how individual generators/reservoirs would be assessed for output, both individually and in combination with other generators in the cascade. The modelling is described in detail in the Modelling Report which was an interim output of this Study. .

The modelling demonstrated that the overall energy output from a cascade of generators can be increased by optimising the scheduling of successive generators as the peak river flows progress downstream. The results give enough confidence of the potential that can be achieved through basin wide hydrological models and signal a clear benefit that could be achieved from a more comprehensive study to determine the optimum generation schedule for the basins as a whole. Such a model would require inputs from the available stream flow, rainfall and other climatological time-series records, only some of which were made available for the current study. The model would need to be less simplistic and to simulate in more detail the operation of the individual power stations in order to optimise the individual and basin power production. Developing such a model would be a fundamental step in moving toward a river basin planning approach, regardless of the formal mechanism or agency used to implement river basin planning principles. It might be appropriate for a central body to develop and own such a whole-of-basin model and provide individual developers access to simulation results. In this way, the model integrity would be secure and centrally updated with any proposed additional developments that may impact on other developers. The model might be used to assess best operating procedures for individual generators, including allowance for minimum

environmental flows, such that the maximum energy would be extracted from the basin. If and when a peak tariff is adopted, it can be argued that individual generators may have to be compensated for generating at non-peak load (peak price times) for the overall benefit of basin output. Recommendations: 1. Consideration should be given by the state governments for the development of basin wide hydrological simulation models with the output available to all developers. Such a model would allow sensible options planning at a broad scale and allow the governing authority to understand how changes to individual projects by proponents might affect all other projects proposed within the system. 2. State governments should consider the commissioning of comprehensive studies to determine the optimum generation schedule for the basins as a whole through the development of basin-wide hydrological models which could be used to simulate the network of dams, diversions and generators. 3. State governments could consider a framework for possible compensation for developers for any individual loss incurred as part of achieving wider river basin planning outcomes.

2.3

Sedimentation and Water Quality

Sedimentation issues have been prominent in the subject basins, with the Spiti River having a particularly high silt load. The Nathpa Jhakri plant has faced frequent shut downs due to very high concentrations of silt during the monsoons. On the Alaknanda, only two months after the Vishnu Prayag project started commercial production two of the four turbines had to be taken out of service for repair following severe damage from the silt laden water. The number of upcoming projects in the Satluj and Alaknanda is likely to result in more sediment entering the rivers through soil erosion, construction spoils, etc. The proposed Jangi Thopan, Thopan Powari, Tidong I, Tidong II and Shongtong Karcham projects are planned in landslide prone areas which may exacerbate the silt problem. There is, therefore, an urgent need to improve the sediment handling arrangements in order to avoid seriously undermining the value of projects. There are a number of key impacts of silt load on hydropower projects, which are summarized below: Loss of storage if the storage is lost with time due to siltation, then the benefits of the storage including daily and seasonal regulation of the flow and the flexibility of operation (eg. peaking power) will be lost. The following section discusses the benefits of an upstream storage trapping much of the silt to increase the reservoir life of those downstream projects with storage. Erosion / Pitting of turbine runners high silt load damages turbine runners with pitting and erosion, resulting in reduced efficiency and a reduced life. Current practice is to incorporate desanders which remove silt particles of size greater than 0.2mm, and in times of high flow to close down the power station when the silt load exceeds 4000 ppm. The cost of construction and operation of the desanders, and the cost of lost energy production when the plants are shut down during periods of high silt load, add considerable costs to the projects which affect their financial viability. This problem could be reduced by having an upstream storage to trap silt (discussed in following section), and by having more efficient desander designs. Costs could be reduced by having the de-silted water from one project being directly fed to the downstream project, as is planned for the Raipur project downstream of Nathpa Jhakri. If silt is taken from the river either by being retained in a storage, or by being completely removed from the river system (as has been proposed by some developers) then the reduced sediment loads may lead to erosion of the existing

channel sediments and destabilization of riparian vegetation, impacting on water quality. Downstream users, including farmers who rely on sediments for terrace farming, would also be impacted. Recommendations: 1. In the following section there is a recommendation for basin-wide consideration of an upstream storage in respect of flow regulation, and increased energy output from a cascade of smaller power plants. Such a storage would also benefit downstream projects in terms of extending reservoir life and reducing downtime due to high silt load. 2. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of removal of sediment of different minimum particle size than the currently adopted 0.2mm. 3. Consider different desilting basin configurations such as V-shaped desanders as used internationally, or proprietary sediment flushing arrangements. 4. Consider the engineering option of having water discharged from one power station directly fed to the intake of the downstream station, avoiding the need for another diversion structure and desander.

2.4

Storage and Regulation of Flow

The results of the hydrological model studies suggest that the output from a cascade of storages and generator could be improved if a large enough seasonal storage is incorporated high up in the cascade of dams. This storage needs to be sufficiently large in order to allow proper regulation otherwise the effect might be to reduce overall output due to peaking of flows. Regulation provided by a storage would not only result in more energy from the cascade, but would also result in less expensive projects because of lesser number of turbines and reduced installed capacity. There would be reduced environmental / social impacts because of the smaller footprint of the downstream projects.

The Preliminary Feasibility Report for the Khab Dam Project carried out by SJVNL in 2005 estimates a project cost of INR 14,412 crore. In recognition of the potential numerous benefits of the project, the PFR apportions the cost of the project as given in the third column of Table 2.1. On this basis the various benefits of the project considerably outweigh the costs.

10

Table 2.1 - Costs and Benefits of Khab Storage Description Estimated Benefits INR crore Note 1 Energy generation Flood control Silt control Increase in life of Kol Dam Increase in generation at downstream plants due to Khab regulation TOTAL 5,700 2,064 8,857 849 1,341 Cost Allocation INR crore Note 2 5,700 1371 5,886 564 891 Note 3 Note 4 Note 5 Notes

18,811

14,412

Note 1

The second column of Table 2.1 gives the estimated benefits determined in the

PFR. The PFR does not give a specific value to the benefit from energy generation of 3,522 GWh in a 90% dependable year, so the benefit is taken to be the PFR cost allocation of INR 5,700 crore. This assumption is justified given that 40 years of energy production at a reasonable tariff of INR 2.41/kWh (with 5% annual escalation) has a net present value of INR 5,700 crore (10% discount rate). Note 2 The third column of Table 2.1 gives the PFR cost allocations against each benefit

of the project. It can be seen that only two-thirds of the estimated benefit in each category other than energy generation has been allocated as a cost to the project. If the entire estimated benefit was transposed as a cost to the project, then the cost of energy generated reduces to only INR 1,300 crore this would result in an extremely low tariff. Note 3 The PFR suggests an additional indirect socio-economic benefit of INR 1,000 crore

for the reduction in flood damage to property, infrastructure, forests, etc. If some of this INR 1000 crore were to be allocated as a cost to the project, then this would again reduce the cost of electricity generation. Note 4 Storage of silt in Khab reservoir would result in less down time at the downstream

projects which are shut down during times of excessive silt load in the water. The PFR suggests a benefit to each downstream plant in proportion to the installed capacity, which leads to a benefit at Nathpa Jhakri of the order of INR 2,500 crore. The modelling reported in

11

the following section of this current report is based on actual data from Nathpa Jhakri and gives a benefit of INR 5,500 crore at Nathpa Jhakri. This suggests an additional INR 3,000 crore could be allocated to silt control, with an associated decrease in cost of electricity generation. Over and above this, there would be the benefit of savings on account of reduced erosion of turbine runners and other underwater hydro-mechanical parts in the downstream projects because of reduced sediment. Note 5 The PFR estimates the benefit of increased reservoir life at Kol Dam, and although

the PFR recognises a similar benefit at Bhakra Dam, it is not quantified. This Studys Modelling Report gives a benefit from Khab dam storage of INR 1,000 crore for the delay in Bhakra reservoir being completely silted and only operating as run-of-river. Again, if the benefit of this cost saving was allocated to the Khab project it would further reduce the cost of electricity generation. Thus, on the basis of the PFR, the Khab project appears to be economically viable provided that the downstream projects are willing to pay for the benefits that accrue from the sediment trapping, flow regulation, and flood control provided by the large upstream storage. More study is required to be convinced that a Khab storage is cost-effective, and this must be done in conjunction with a thorough study of the environmental / social effects, and the practicalities of cost sharing via the benefits described in Table 2.1. At the 1st November Workshop, a representative from SJVNL said that at the time of the Khab PFR, the only known downstream developer was NTPC (Kol Dam), and NTPC were quite receptive to the concept of paying for benefits derived from the Khab project. A river basin approach to planning hydropower development would enable such an important study as an upstream storage to be carried out at a sufficiently early stage so that a decision can be made, and downstream projects could then be planned and designed accordingly. Recommendations: 1. In overall basin planning, consideration should be given to the benefits of an upstream storage, weighed up against environmental / social negative impacts if any. In the particular case of the Satluj basin, it is acknowledged that much study has been done regarding the proposed Khab storage project, with the PFR indicating techno-economic viability. Proposals for a full DPR study have been called by the developer but it is understood that this process is on hold because of concerns by the local people, and the nationally strategic location of such a large dam. There is a strong case for such a storage given the benefits of water storage, flow regulation, silt storage, and flood attenuation. Climate change and the need for a secure water

12

supply can only strengthen this case. It is suggested that the GOHP take a river basin wide view of this project, involving all stakeholders including of course the downstream project developers and the local people. The benefits of such a storage are great, and with appropriate benefit sharing there may be a way forward in which all stakeholders benefit and are comfortable with a storage project.

2.5

Environmental (Sustainability) Flows

The minimum flow requirements in the Satluj and Alaknanda basins have not been developed with an understanding of the ecology of the river basins, the carrying capacity of the rivers, or social and economic objectives for the downstream environment. Whilst the establishment of appropriate sustainability flows continues to be a challenge everywhere, there is potential to improve its calculation and application in India. There is a risk to developers and/or to ecosystems and society if flows are set too high or low. It could be said that in the absence of detailed studies to establish the river systems requirements, that a base minimum flow at least provides some level of access to water by users immediately downstream and some degree of ecological function. The debate then comes to defining the goal that society wishes to achieve from setting a flow, and then setting the actual sustainability flow, which could vary over the length of the river, depending on the agreed objectives. For example, given the high cultural importance of the Alaknanda as a tributary of the Ganga and a heavily travelled pilgrimage route, it could be argued that a greater sustainability flow is required. The Government of Himachal Pradesh is the only state to have a legal requirement for water release to the river being defined as being the threshold value of not less than 15% of the minimum flow observed in the lean season. The interpretation of this requirement has been applied variously from the minimum flow at one single point in time in any one lean season (15 % of an absolute minimum flow ever recorded) to an average flow over the lean season. The varying interpretation of the required sustainability flow, and the difficulty in monitoring compliance, mean that there is a real possibility of unnecessarily generating less power than possible with an appropriate sustainability flow. It is understood that the practice in Uttarakhand is a sustainability flow of 10% of the lean season flow. In the Alaknanda basin, particularly in the River Dhauliganga, it has been observed that the river flows in the month of December and January are the lowest. For the Tamak-Lata project, the sustainability flow was taken as 10% of the average flow in the months of December and January. Other projects in Himachal Pradesh or Uttarakhand could meet their obligations by taking a much lower flow based on the absolute minimum flow recorded. In the Spiti River, it can be expected that there will be a complete drying up of river

13

downstream of the projects during the lean season, signalling the need for a higher importance of establishing an appropriate flow. International good practice points to the consideration of controlled water releases to support ecological and other objectives of the river. Setting effective sustainability flows requires a sound understanding of ecosystem function and other values. These should be derived through a consultative process. Sustainability flows can be based on maintenance of a minimum flow in the river, constraints on draw-down rates, and periodic flushing flows. Agreed sustainability flow regimes may include some or all of these considerations, and may be specified for year-round or by season. By utilizing a good process of establishing sustainability flow objectives, it may be possible to find ways to address these objectives without significant loss of generating potential. Downstream regulating ponds and other engineering solutions may provide cost-effective alternatives to flow releases directly from power stations, and construction of smaller offstream storages can be considered to deliver flows to address particular local issues. There is an opportunity to develop a good database and clarify objectives as part of basinwide development in the Satluj, Alaknanda and other basins where hydropower projects are planned. This would involve data collection and analysis on key variables which would then be linked to the objectives set for sustainability flows. A whole of basin approach in India, will allow more cost-effective resource allocation in establishing downstream flow objectives, better prioritisation of high benefit areas for releases, better identification of low value areas where releases might not be required, and reduced overall losses due to coordination of releases in the basin. Recommendations: 1. MoEF and the state governments to consider an international forum on sustainability flows and expert committee to discuss sustainability flow methods and determinations and, in particular, how it can be best determined for a river basin. This could be incorporated into hydropower policies, Departmental notifications, and

aforementioned methods and data sharing. 2. GoHP and GoU should develop plans to collect relevant data and identify objectives across the two basins and then integrate these into EIA requirements. 3. Consideration should be given to reassessing the 10/15% rules following collation,

14

collection, and analysis of data leading to a program to proactively establish the ecological, social and economic values across the basins and, in particular, of the key rivers from which hydro-electric generation is proposed in order to set appropriate objectives for sustainability flows. Appropriate downstream flows and/or other strategies to meet the objectives can then be developed in consultation with proponents and informed by findings from the international expert forum. Findings and approaches can be incorporated across other states. 4. GoHP and GoU should also consider potential measures to address risk/uncertainty issues for developers resulting from future adaptive management requirements.

2.6

Flood Risk Assessment

Our research suggests that methods used in the context of preparing the project feasibility studies for extreme flood estimation in the basins are not always consistent with the CWC guidelines. The guidelines suggest appropriate methods without actually being prescriptive and consultants generally try to adopt the simplest approach, without exploring more appropriate methods for flood estimation depending on the circumstances. With the amount of snow and glacier melt runoff contributing to baseflow and the potential for increased flood runoff from extreme monsoon season rain events falling on snow covered area, it would be prudent for proponents to undertake a basin approach to flood estimation using the deterministic rainfall approach plus unit hydrograph or hydrological modelled flood runoff. Consideration of flood potential should occur early in the planning process for potential project locations. Many of the Satluj and Alaknanda tributaries have a history of cloud-burst and flash floods, the operating Baspa II (300MW) plant being located in one such valley. The Baspa River previously flowed into a lake that covered part of the valley, the river entering the lake near Rakcham and exiting from a very narrow opening a few kilometres down the valley. The Baspa has a history of transporting avalanche-landslide induced debris during very high rainfall conditions. Such issues of flood and landslide conditions should be included in an assessment to determine the level of risk and its effect on viability of a project in those locations and/or to determine the potential to mitigate. As discussed in the Issues Paper, it appears that no proponent has considered a combined probability of reservoir failure in a cascade of dams within a river basin. In many cases a combined failure approach is not warranted, as the reservoirs are small but for some of the intermediate or large dams, combined probability of failure should at least be considered.

15

The key advantage of flood risk assessment is in providing an accurate picture of risks upon which to base mitigation measures and emergency planning. An investment in a basin wide assessment could be shared by governments and developers and flood prevention measures can be developed in high risk areas appropriate to the conditions, thereby saving social and economic costs associated with flood damage. Recommendations: 1. CWC should consider adopting more rigorous standards for the estimation of flood design. A basin approach to flood estimation using the deterministic rainfall approach plus unit hydrograph or hydrological modelled flood runoff would be most appropriate. 2. CEA in conjunction with CWC should consider a mechanism to formally require developers to include a combined probability approach when considering developments within a river cascade. It could be mandatory for developers to show that a combined probability approach is not required or otherwise undertake such an analysis. 3. CEA in conjunction with CWC should consider mechanism to formally require developers to calculate the incremental consequences of structural failure on other downstream structures and communities. 4. A basin-wide flood forecasting and warning system should be implemented such that all downstream plants, local towns and villages can receive adequate and appropriate warning, including upstream dam break. Such a system is beyond any one individual developer and should be coordinated by both State and central agencies. The running of such a system might best be undertaken by Central Water Commission given their current responsibility and ability to collect real-time hydrometric data from remote river and precipitation sites. Such a system would require extensive upgrading to remote data gathering site, telemetry communications and central database and processing. Forecasts and warnings derived through the system could be disseminated directly through responsible officers for each developer along the river with appropriate mechanisms in place between individual reservoir operators and local and State emergency response authorities for the appropriate and timely warning of flood situation with action according to flood severity. It should be noted that for the Satluj, the proposed Real-time Decision Support System for Bhakra Beas Management Board would provide all of the required inputs and forecast modelling to such a flood warning system. In this case the direct outputs from the system will be used by BBMB for flood warning and management of floods associated with and

16

down stream of their reservoirs, but the system could also be used (with additional modification) by other operators as input to provide local forecast and warning along the entire river length.

2.7

Multiple Development of Associated Infrastructure

Many issues have been identified in the implementation / construction phase of many projects in the river basin. The sheer movement of people, materials and equipment into the remote mountainous environment for the construction of the planned projects will create major problems for local people and communities, the developers, contractors and workers. The need to ensure the safety and well-being of the large numbers of pilgrims and tourists in many of the areas slated for hydropower development is a particular concern. The pressure on these areas will only increase as more projects progress toward construction. A coordinated approach to the implementation phase should significantly improve this situation to the benefit of all stakeholders. For example, a coordinated approach to the construction activity could include scheduling of projects, shared investment to improve road standards, and traffic management. The advantages of planning and implementing these works in an integrated manner are that the integrated approach: is the most cost effective, has the potential to reduce impacts on the environment and communities both during construction and the longer term, and has the potential to deliver better end results by for example having community input into what they would like to have by way of infrastructure. The construction of hydropower projects requires good road infrastructure for the transport of construction equipment and materials, heavy steelwork in the form of gates and valves, and plant machinery. Simultaneous construction of several hydropower projects in a particular area may place a heavy requirement on road infrastructure already being used by the local population and travellers. Road upgrades will be required, and staggering of construction schedules may alleviate peak traffic and hence avoid or minimise road upgrade requirements.

17

It would be of great benefit to have a forum that brings the developers together to discuss required infrastructure and reach consensus. This forum could consider the overall benefits of particular projects deferring their construction schedules. For example the developer of an upstream project in a cascade could defer construction so that the downstream developer could construct an access road and mains for construction power. The upstream developer could then extend the access road and mains to his project. Overall savings in access road construction, and avoidance of using diesel generating sets in the likely case of insufficient mains construction power for parallel construction activities, would benefit both developers who could share the benefits. At present the planning, coordination, development and undertaking of the transmission of electricity through the inter-state system is being undertaken by PowerGrid whereas for the intra-state system the responsibility lies with the State Transmission Utility. PowerGrids Master Plan is prepared primarily on the project basis and covers interstate transmission. This approach doesnt necessarily account for the most optimal utilization of transmission capability because not all future planned projects are considered. In order to plan, design, implement and maintain a comprehensive transmission evacuation system, a river basin approach is more prudent because: It will entail a comprehensive approach for all the projects in the basin whether captive, merchant, IPP etc. Moreover, the main emphasis in both the Satluj and Alaknanda basins is on sales of power outside of the State and the projects considered are mostly greater than 100 MW. Hence, transmission planning should focus on the inter-state transmission system, for which close coordination between the State and Central authorities is required. The river basin modelling will be optimizing the energy output by virtue of cascade operation for most optimal harnessing of the available energy. The same approach would also lead to optimal planning and utilization of the power evacuation system. The development of a consolidated evacuation system can be undertaken in stages, in conjunction with the development of different schemes, with suitable methods of cost and profit sharing for the common infrastructure for cost effective development. It would account for the secondary energy forecasting and planning/utilization of the transmission system for the same, whereas in present methodology the increase in secondary energy may lead to transmission congestion. It would cater to inter-state and intra-state interfacing connection requirements due to consolidated planning of all the hydro power schemes. According to the most recent data, the States of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand

18

(although able to meet their peak power demand) are unable to meet their total energy requirements, the energy deficit for April-August 2007 being 0.8 % and 1.2 % respectively. The consolidated transmission planning will automatically cater to interstate (when there is energy surplus) and intra-state (when there is energy deficit) interfacing/inter connection requirements by accounting for small hydro, seasonal as well as diurnal demand & generation pattern, transmission losses etc.

Recommendations: 1. Consider establishing a forum in which all stakeholders can consider the shared infrastructure required by the developers, with a view to minimising overall cost and adverse environmental / social impact. 2. State governments and State transmission utilities should coordinate transmission investment plans with PowerGrid in keeping with the development plans for each basin to enable optimal planning and execution of transmission for power evacuation.

2.8

Preparation of adequate and strategic Environment and Social Impact Assessments and Mitigation Plans

The current situation of uncertainty surrounding the planned major development of hydropower in the Indian Himalayan region is, in itself, creating social and economic impacts. People in the region do not have a clear understanding of the extent of the development and the environmental and social impacts on particular areas. This makes investment in infrastructure and economic activity difficult and does not allow for preparation to take advantage of the economic and social development opportunities and benefits. A river basin approach to environmental and social assessment would bring benefits at the planning stage for all parties. For developers it could bring: more certainty of development requirements and acceptance. early focus on what is achievable, rather than wasting time on non-supported options. lower costs simpler consultation, more baseline data, less time and expense in completing environmental and social impact assessments. A comprehensive environmental impact assessments (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA) would include analysis of current data, potential impacts and benefits, consideration of alternatives and of cumulative effects, and present avoidance, mitigation and/or

19

compensatory activities that can be implemented to minimise the overall impacts. For SIAs, this would involve looking at the wider socio-economic impacts (positive and negative) with a comprehensive approach to understanding the social and economic uses of the river and surrounds and how these might be affected by the project. Further, it would involve a wider definition of who is project affected to ensure consideration (and potentially compensation) is given to those whose livelihoods and well-being is impacted. For EIAs, there is a particular opportunity to improve the downstream and cumulative impact assessment to ensure the full effect of the project is understood. A number of NGOs supported the concept of river basin planning because of the opportunity it provides to look strategically at the natural, social and cultural assets or values in a basin and to better plan to minimise impacts to vulnerable systems. It was also seen as an important step to increase objectivity in assessments which would begin with a basin wide assessment that is independent from any one project developer. The river basin planning approach advocates Strategic Planning in which the selection of projects, sites and project alternatives gives due weighting to environmental and social aspects in conjunction with economic and technical requirements through Strategic environmental and social Assessment. The overall impacts of multiple developments are identified through a process of Cumulative Impact Assessment. These processes allow for the selection of the optimum combination of projects / sites which result in the least impact for most benefits. It also provides for identifying the best combination of a range of other benefits through multi-purpose projects. Planning for other uses and additional benefits on river basin level can include specific environmental benefits such as conservation and biodiversity, reservation of high value tributaries as undeveloped streams and catchments and requirements for environmental flows or release of water to meet specific environmental needs, community uses, water access and catchment area treatment including sediment control and afforestation. This is particularly important for the Alaknanda which has high cultural and ecological values and is relatively undeveloped and, therefore, has a greater opportunity for integrated consideration of environmental and social issues. Proposed projects in the Alaknanda Basin include Tapovan Vishnugad (520MW) which is under construction, Malari Jelam (55MW), Jelam Tamak (60MW), Tamak Lata (280MW), Lata Tapovan (310MW) and Alaknanda (240MW) which are under investigation, and Deodi (60MW), Rishi Ganga I (70 MW) and Rishi-Ganga II (35MW) which have been identified for development. All of these projects fall within the Nanda Devi Bioshpere Reserve and the latter three are located within the Nanda Devi National Park (NP) or core zone (see Figure A1.7 in Appendix 1). The Biosphere is

20

considered of extreme environmental significance and the Nanda Devi NP is a designated World Heritage Area listed for its exceptional natural beauty as one of the most spectacular wildernesses in the Himalaya, containing a number of endangered species of universal scientific or conservation value. The area has been managed under strict requirements for 20 years and only 100 or so people are reported to have entered the core zone since its World Heritage listing in 1988. Given there are a number of projects proposed within this ecologically important area, a thorough study of the cumulative impact should form part of the final plan of any projects to be allotted. The likely opposition and increased clearance requirements for projects in this area should also be considered. In the Satluj Basin, the Kashang Stage I (66MW), Kashang II (60MW) and Kashang III (132MW) are proposed in the vicinity of Lipa Asrang High Altitude Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS). Similarly Sorang Kut is proposed in the Rupi Bhaba WLS (see Figure A1.4 in Appendix 1). In accordance with the Wildlife Protection Act 1972, no development activity is allowed within the sanctuary without the permission of Supreme Court of India. Whilst there is precedence for clearances within Wildlife Sanctuaries, it may be prudent for GOHP to undertake a thorough assessment of impacts to ensure impacts are understood and minimised. Full information on the impacts, if any, and how they will be addressed, may improve acceptance of the projects and improve decision timeframes for clearance from the Ministry. According to the International Association for Impact Assessment, a successful strategic assessment is: Integrated Focused Sustainability-led Accountable Participative Iterative An important benefit of such an approach is in promoting the consistent and transparent allocation of projects whereby all stakeholders can see that the process is fair and open. Such an approach would help to build social acceptance, by demonstrating transparency in the planning process, fostering public participation, and allowing companies to display their corporate responsibility. It would also provide for strategic environmental assessments that can inform project specific EIAs, thereby enabling early consideration of environmental

21

issues in the investigation stage and improving the quality of such documents that, ultimately, will reduce project delays in receiving environmental clearance (Singal, 2006). This reduces the political risk and risk of public protest; reduces delays and increase as project stoppers and cost / schedule risks identified early; allows for clearly identified and enforceable development rules and no-development areas; facilitates better planning for inter-dependent projects; and provides a consistent assessment by proponents and regulators. For example, the Rampur project on the Satluj River involved a lengthy process for environmental clearance as well as lengthy timeframes for the approval to convert forestry land and other associated clearances, which are considered to have significant effect on overall project viability estimates (Sharma et. al., 2006). Singal (2006) argues that early and thorough environmental assessments can reduce this timeframe and improve acceptability of the project. Thorough strategic, cumulative assessments will provide a more robust baseline and better understanding of issues to enable future evaluation of predicted impacts. Verification of potential impacts once a project is operating has not occurred in India and it is considered by some to be a major barrier to understanding and appropriately assessing potential impacts of new projects (Singh and Banerji 2002). It could be said that many of these benefits could be gained in the planning of individual projects through the application of good practice. However, a river basin approach to planning could provide a framework for coordinated data collection and analysis, strategic site assessments and would promote good practice in the areas of transparency, public accountability and consistent enforcement of the rules, thereby improving environmental and social protection and development outcomes. Strategic planning and environmental assessment requires adequate environmental monitoring and baseline information which is best managed by coordination across the river basin level. Without this, it is difficult for project developers and approval agencies to adequately understand environmental values and assess environmental impacts. In some cases the data does not yet exist and data collection programs will form the first steps of river basin wide assessments. In other cases, there are data held by numerous bodies that will be important in modelling and assessing project potential and likely impacts associated with developing the projects. Consultation with NGOs and scientific institutes highlighted that the availability of data that

22

are consistent and of high quality is highly problematic in undertaking effective assessments, including environmental, climatic, hydrological, and social data. Project proponents, too, can benefit from transparent access to complete data sets to facilitate effective planning. The Study Team has had difficulty in accessing relevant data for this Study. There are various reasons such as the numerous stakeholders gathering and storing data, quality of data records and easy retrieval, perceived security risk related to the data, bureaucracy in having data released, and commercial value of the data. Stakeholder consultation revealed a widely held belief that this problem of access to data could be addressed by gathering, storing and managing data at a river basin level. Recommendations: 1) State governments to commission a strategic environmental and social assessment for the basins, consolidating current information and clearly identifying high value stretches of river, landscapes, and habitats as well as areas with less critical habitat and species. This is particularly important for the Alaknanda basin, considering its relatively undeveloped state and could guide the process of site selection and could consider designating sections of rivers or entire rivers as reserved for conservation, tourism or other low-impact uses. 2) State governments to consider forming a Taskforce of experts to determine data requirements and agree appropriate methods for river basin resource and impact assessments. 3) State governments to consider mechanism (technical and process) to provide for shared data between agencies, developers, and community organizations, perhaps identifying or creating a single agency to have responsibility. 4) MoEF to consider preparation of template/guidelines that clearly outline international good practice for EIAs and SIAs including guidelines for cumulative assessment and participatory involvement. 5) State governments to consider establishing a forum for Panchayat representatives to provide an avenue for accurate information about social and economic resource use and activity in the vicinity of proposed projects and to provide input to developers and agencies on socio-economic outcomes. 6) MoEF and/or State governments to consider a mechanism for independent review of EIAs/SIAs against the guidelines developed which might include a fee from

23

developers that is directed to a targeted Fund for this purpose. 7) Develop a Program for training of project managers and consultants in preparing strategic basin-wide EIAs and SIAs. This could be coordinated by the MoEF and/or the National Registration Board for Personnel and Training (NRBT) and build on efforts to date focused on improving the quality of EIAs through

registration/certification.

2.9

Implementation of Catchment Treatment Plans and Compensatory Forestry

Environmental clearance conditions generally include development and implementation of Catchment Area Treatment (CAT) Plans. Where these are undertaken well with resulting regeneration of natural forests and other habitats, there can be significant benefits to the environment as well as to hydropower projects, as the sediment load in the river is reduced. Consultation with NGOs and scientific organisations has indicated that the success of such plans is variable in the basins and India generally, potentially due a number of reasons: The involvement of several agencies which can confuse responsibility. The developer is not in complete control of implementing mitigation and offset activities committed to in the DPR. State Forest Departments responsible for implementing CAT Plans do not have clear accountability to specifically allocate the funds and resources for implementing the plans in the project area. Implementing agencies are under resourced and can have difficulty in implementing the activities amongst a range of other responsibilities. Given that CAT Plans are required for all projects, undertaking planning for this on a basin level should afford more efficient planning and implementation that could be shared amongst relevant developers. For Nathpa Jhakri, SJVN allocated 29.57 crore for catchment area treatment (Sharma et al. 2006a). With CAT being a key mitigation/restoration measure reducing overall impact of the projects and sums of around 2% of project costs being directed to it, CAT plans represent a major area for potential collaboration by operators. Steps toward this are already in place, with CAT costs in the Satluj expected to be shared by all projects (Sharma et al., 2006a). However, the implementation is not in the control of the project developers and it is not approached as a basin-wide activity. Taking a basin wide

24

approach to assessments and planning for CAT, as well as sharing the costs, can only improve the return on investment in terms of outcomes. Ensuring that payments for CAT and compensatory afforestation are directed at the right activities in the right areas is an important aspect to successfully meeting the environmental objectives of the governments hydropower policies and in ensuring the best environmental outcomes for the project. As part of the conflict resolution for the Phalenda project, the Divisional Commissioner of Garhwal ruled that the utilisation of money provided against forest compensation should be made through Panchayats in the affected villages. Although this project is not in the subject basins, it illustrates the possibility for a more targeted approach to the direction of compensatory afforestation payments. Recommendations: 1. Consider mechanism similar to Phalenda outcome to direct compensatory afforestation fees from project developers into a specific fund for allocation for activities within the relevant basin or sub-basin, potentially via Panchayats. 2. Governments should consider mechanism for defining legal responsibility of developers to implement CAT Plans and include mandatory reporting of progress to Government. 3. MoEF and State Forest Departments should consider a mechanism for independent review of progress and compliance of CAT, potentially by relevant agency branch or via a panel of expert providers (institutes or consultants). 4. Project developers should consider involvement of local communities or

environmentally-oriented NGOs in implementation, and governments or dedicated river basin authority could consider local involvement in monitoring of implementation and in the mechanism/process for reporting.

2.10

Development and Implementation of Environmental and Social Management Plan Activities

A common theme from NGOs and scientific institutions has been that there is often a gap between plans and their implementation. Developers currently commit around 4-5% of project costs toward management plans, catchment area treatment and compensatory afforestation (not including costs of developing EIAs/SIAs), much of which is provided to government agencies for implementation. With resources and personnel limited, the ability of the government departments to effectively implement and/or monitor compliance against the

25

plans will become increasingly difficult as the hydropower development program progresses. Again, transparency of information and participation of local communities can add more value than might be expected by a project developer and scrutiny (whether from civil society or from government departments) will ultimately improve the effectiveness of financial contributions for this purpose and, therefore, environmental and social outcomes of the projects. Successful environment and social outcomes will become increasingly more important to corporate reputation and, therefore, timely project implementation of current and future projects. Governments may also have an opportunity to place stricter requirements on developers through the contracts for allotment. These could specify and strengthen the requirements to ensure environmental and social benefits. Recommendations: 1. Consider strengthening legal mechanism to clearly assign responsibility for implementation of plans to the project developer to ensure plans are implemented (refer also recommendations under Implementation of Catchment Treatment Plans & Compensatory Forestry). 2. Consider how state government departments can be supported with the growing task of compliance monitoring, whether through establishing a separate body for the purpose (river basin authority or otherwise) providing additional budgets and/or personnel for the specific purpose, or allocating funds for outsourcing enforcement or compliance auditing to independent institutions or consultants; 3. State governments should consider strengthening environment and social

requirements of the tendering process and include them in the allotment contracts with the developer. Specifically, the MOUs signed by the developers following project allotment by the state government could be significantly clearer regarding the expected standard for environmental and social outcomes.. 4. MoEF should consider a mechanism for independent review of environmental management plans and local area development activities against the clearance conditions, which could include a fee from developers that is directed to a targeted Fund for this purpose and could include a panel of experts from institutes / consultants.

26

2.11

Benefit Sharing

Consultation with governments, NGOs and scientific institutes highlighted the desire for greater consideration of benefit sharing for the communities when planning and implementing Indian hydropower projects. The primary issue relates to a desire to move beyond the singular focus of compensation of directly affected people (which is often perceived as inadequate) to embrace the concept of benefit sharing with a more widely defined group of project-affected communities. The possibilities for and potential success of, benefit sharing activities or mechanisms can be influenced by applying the principles discussed above such as strategic assessments of options and EIA/SIAs and taking a participatory approach to planning and implementation. If the guiding principle of social policy in projects has to date been to mitigate or redress any damage inflicted by the project, it is increasingly recognized that project-affected people should actually benefit from the project. The principle relates to a question of equity between those directly or indirectly affected by the project and those directly benefiting from the project who are located elsewhere and do not suffer the direct effects of the project. A significant imbalance can occur for example, there are known cases of hydropower generation projects internationally where locally affected communities remain without power supply. From a pragmatic perspective, a policy of benefits-sharing can help to minimise local resistance to projects, ensuring smoother project implementation leading to additional cost and time-related. There are different definitions of the benefit sharing concept and these principally fall into two categories 1. sharing of direct benefits from project revenues, usually financial (such as company shares or direct investment in the affected community derived from royalties/taxes) 2. sharing of benefits in a wider context including (1) as well as by provision of social and economic development as a project offset or additional contribution from the project developer to the project affected area (above and beyond compensation for direct impacts). The IHA Sustainability Guidelines (section 7.3) and Assessment Protocol (Aspect B3) promote the sharing (allocation) of benefits as a key principle. A wider context definition as per (2) is used by the IHA and includes employment, knowledge transfer, capacity building, new industries, improved facilities, and additional amenity. The Sustainable Hydropower Website (www.sustainablehydropower.org) uses a similar interpretation. For the purposes of this report, the wider meaning of the term is assumed and discussion, examples, and

27

recommendations relate to possibilities for direct financial benefits through shares or royalties through to development and capacity building activities. Benefits to the host state are important and are generally captured by the standard 12% free power royalty which is provided by operators from all commercially functioning plants. Additional direct benefits to the state can include, such as in the case of Rampur, an additional percentage of power generated at cost; which is effectively a share of equity percentage in the project. Other benefits include the flow-on employment and investment and the development of roads and other infrastructure. There are examples of where benefit sharing is being attempted in the case study basins. Under the Rampur project in the Satluj basin, SJVN has set aside Rs 125 million to be invested during project implementation over a period of five years (or Rs 25 million annually) in infrastructure and development schemes in project-affected villages, out of which Rs 6.20 million (out of the first-year budget of Rs 25 million) has already been spent/ works in progress. Thereafter, the villages will get Rs 7.5 million each year in perpetuity. It is understood that the residents have led the local area development exercise, choosing the infrastructure schemes they would like to see implemented in their villages. From streetlighting, through improved water supply to footpaths and footbridges, the villagers have reportedly identified their particular needs which are being funded by the scheme. Projects usually outline and budget for social and development activities as part of their project implementation plan. Involvement of the community in developing these plans, such as in the Rampur example, increases public support for the project and improves the overall outcomes from the investment made. There is certainly a view that there could be more transparent and targeted direction of the 12% payments that are received by governments into activities for the affected areas as well as the provision of shares in the project to facilitate an ongoing income stream that could be used for investment in community development programs. This was pursued as part of an appeal in relation to the Phalenda Hydropower Project. The people of the Phalenda and Saruna villages and their supporters argued for the provision of free power to those villages and for the free shares in the project for the life of the project. While the Divisional Commissioner of Garhwal agreed that afforestation payments should be directed via Panchayats, he said that the issues of providing free power or shares in the power company to the local people was a matter of State policy, and therefore beyond his jurisdiction. He agreed to refer the matter to the State Government. Recommendations:

28

1. State governments should consider mechanism to dedicate a portion of the 12% free power royalty into a targeted fund for social and economic development activities in the host regions. 2. State governments in consultation with MoEF to consider mechanism and process for basin level social and economic development plans and involve community leaders and organisations in their development and implementation. 3. MoEF to consider funding the development of an Options Paper on benefit sharing opportunities and how they could be implemented in India. The paper should involve extensive consultation with developers, government, and community organisations to establish appetite for (and therefore support for and barriers to) the benefit sharing approach, models for community shares etc, and identification of tangible ways that could demonstrate win-win outcomes.

2.12

Local Participation in Project Delivery

Research and consultation has indicated that the impacts of large numbers of migrant workers on local communities are extremely significant. This is particularly the case for women villagers who are often fearful of the influx of male labourers, leading to anxiety and ultimately disruption of their daily routines. There can also be social tensions between male members of a local community and the temporary workforce. Aside from these social disruptions, there are some economic benefits to the communities from the injection of people with incomes to spend on local produce and so on. However, there are also missed opportunities for local residents to be involved in project implementation, thereby reducing the potential economic and social benefits of the project to the community. Given the impacts associated with migration of workers, there is an opportunity to maximise economic and social benefits to the region through the training of residents. Comments from scientific institutes noted that such investment in the skills capital of the states should form a part of the overall hydropower development policy. In Himachal Pradesh, the hydropower policy explicitly notes generation of local employment opportunities as an objective of the policy. Availability of skilled labour is likely to be a constraint to the pace of the proposed construction program and access to willing and cheap labour skills from outside the project area (and from outside India) will tend to work against increased local participation, as will the desire for accelerated implementation of projects. However, the direct benefits and the reduction of disbenefits associated with imported labour could be considerable if contracts

29

are fairly awarded. Employment opportunities can be developed through favouring local businesses or other contractors who are proactive about employing and training local people, as well as through direct employment. As long as the processes for awarding of contracts are clear and transparent, these opportunities can have further downstream economic benefits in the area. There is often considerable knowledge and experience amongst residents about the local area that can be invaluable to project assessment and delivery. Involvement of local expertise not only means the project and associated plans and activities are practical but also increases the likelihood of a successful project that has community support and minimized environmental and social effects. The present approach to vocational training is apparently handled by 17 different Ministries without much coordination, signalling an important need nationwide and an opportunity to build from national efforts in this area. Recommendations: 1. State governments should consider immediately developing and implementing a program for the training and capacity building of people within the regions for the full range of skills needs, without compromising overall development policy. Liaison with the Directorate General for Employment and Training (DGET) in the Ministry of Labour and Employment (which aims to training 20 million people by 2020) should occur to maximise any opportunities underway at a national level. 2. Consider possibilities for coordinating scheduling between projects to enable workers to move from project to project, thus reducing the need for outside workers (refer also recommendations under Multiple Development of Infrastructure). This would require cooperation between governments and the project developers and would probably be best taken on by a dedicated river basin authority or sub-agency/committee. 3. State governments should provide coordinated public information across the river basin about the overall development plans and opportunities for business and employment, sufficiently in advance to enable local people and businesses to position themselves to participate in such opportunities. 4. State governments to consider development of practical advice and suggestions to improve participation in project planning and implementation this could include but not limited to; early notification and discussions, involvement of local people in

30

identifying key issues and designing survey requirements, assistance with ecological and social data collection, assistance with monitoring of implementation. This could be incorporated into overall template/guidelines for strategic assessments. 5. State governments to consider development of a register of skills in local villages where hydropower projects are planned to assist in easy identification of particular areas of assistance with assessments or project planning. This could be perhaps arranged via the Panchayats.

2.13

Development and Implementation of Resettlement Plans

The displacement of communities has in notable cases been a factor causing significant opposition to hydropower projects. In some cases, the land has been the home of local communities, providing their spiritual, social and economic resource base. Resettlement of people is consequently a sensitive issue, and needs to be planned and managed from project outset through a process of engagement and economic support. Population displacement in India has occurred on a range of scales from several families to tens of thousands of people. While, the run-of-river projects that are proposed on the Satluj and the Alaknanda will require resettlement of up to several hundred families per project, and not tens of thousands, managing the process will be critical to ensuring good outcomes for the communities and the success of the projects. Typically, social unrest is significantly reduced if clear and consistent policies on social and economic issues (eg. resettlement and compensation) are in place. International best practice in social policy development is being driven by a priority for fairness and equity. If local communities perceive other groups or communities are getting a better deal, the development in question will face increased problems including costs and delays. Inevitably, piecemeal development of the catchment, in the absence of these policies, will lead to inconsistency and disruptions associated with community support. As noted in the discussion of EIAs and SIAs, there are aspects of resettlement and rehabilitation of people that can be improved at the project level. In fact, much of the effort on improvements should be directed at the project level rather than the river basin level so as to ensure that the specific local issues are not lost in a regional approach. Addressing impacts to local people fundamentally needs attention at the local level. Consultation with NGOs and scientific institutes has pointed to a number of issues regarding resettlement and rehabilitation in the subject basins (and India generally) that are best addressed at the project level:

31

Consideration of local community needs understanding their use of the river and surrounds, so that compensation, rehabilitation, or development activities adequately address the losses felt by those residents. Improved processes for the determination of adequate compensation or resettlement, particularly beyond one-off cash payments. Consideration of the impacts of multiple resettlements and the social and economic futures of displaced persons, with a focus on supporting the establishment of new livelihoods and so on. River basin planning can, however, still contribute to improved outcomes for resettlement and rehabilitation of projects affected persons (PAPs). A river basin planning approach, especially because of the systems and process that would result, could address the following gaps: Need for coordinated input into strategic planning for hydropower to encourage discussion of effects on people and their livelihoods. Need for strategic planning to better incorporate the identified likely impacts into site selection and to better avoid villages. Need for improved monitoring of implementation against the Resettlement Plans to ensure obligations have been met and impacts have not been exacerbated. Need for consistent and transparent process for grievances relating to resettlement and rehabilitation outcomes. While many of the recommendations below are aimed at improvements at the project level, a river basin planning approach most notably offers opportunities for improved communication, improved data collection & management, improved mechanisms for the dissemination of good practice guidelines, and improved mechanisms for local imput into basin wide planning that ultimately sets the scene for project allocation and, therefore, should reduce issues at the project level due to avoidance. Recommendations: 1. State governments should consider development of practical advice and suggestions to guide development of quality assessments and Resettlement Plans which can be incorporated into wider EIA/SIA template or guidelines.

32

2. State governments and Developers should consider more effective participatory approach to ensure impacts are properly understood and that community needs are met through Local Area Development activities (refer also recommendations under local participation in planning and development process). 3. State governments should consider establishing a basin wide committee with representatives from local Panchayats; this could be for local area development and resettlement issues only, or form part of a committee/authority with wider remit. 4. Governments should consider ensuring there is a clear process and mechanism for grievances to be heard from PAPs. 5. The Central Government should consider a revised method and process to quantify impact beyond the loss of land or resource to more fully account for the loss of amenity, cultural practice, and future earnings as part of compensatory payment determination. An expert could be commissioned to prepare a proposed method. 6. State governments should consider a mechanism for independent review of progress and compliance with Resettlement Plans, potentially by relevant agency branch or via a panel of expert providers (institutes or consultants). 7. MoEF and developers could consider consolidating and disseminating verified information on good practice in resettlement and rehabilitation.

2.14

Impacts to Culture and Heritage

In the absence of an adequate assessment, new hydropower schemes may end up submerging heritage sites and areas of cultural value. The construction of infrastructure, roads and power lines can also disturb or damage items with cultural significance. This may in cases result in the loss of, or damage to, sites with religious or ceremonial meaning for people. Construction activity, and later restrictions to areas during operation, can impact on pilgrimage routes and access to important places. Without sufficient involvement of relevant local and cultural groups, the values and risks for heritage issues may not be realised and adequately addressed. The sorts of issues are broad ranging and include: inundation of sites. lost oral histories when connection with place is lost.

33

impacts to pilgrams and sites of significance during construction. changing culture toward urbanisation and associated social ramifications. native communities and loss of traditional practice. Although the projects currently proposed in the Satluj and Alaknanda do not involve significant inundation of land, there are cultural heritage issues that need to be considered. For example, the Badrinath temple is one of the four most sacred Hindu sites in the region. Badrinath is situated in the Tehri-Garhwal hill tracks on the Alaknanda River at a height of 3,133 m above sea level. Pilgramage traffic is substantial and already there are safety impacts associated with the quality of roads to the site. This was most recently (October 2007) demonstrated when 41 pilgrims were killed when the bus on which they were travelling from Badrinath lost control on the NH 58 at Vishnuprayag and fell into the Alaknanda after being struck by a boulder (DailyIndia.com). Particular attention will be required during construction of any hydropower projects to ensure the safety of pilgrims and to minimise impacts to these culturally significant sites. Other examples in the region include, the Karcham Wangtoo (1,000MW) project currently under construction, which is already facing problems with a local tribal population agitating against the project. Similarly, concern is mounting about socio-cultural issues in the Lahaul & Spiti district of the Satluj basin, because there are tribal communities inhabiting the area. Recommendations: 1. State governments to consider funding studies of culture and heritage in relevant basins to establish a good baseline record of the cultural assets and values, including local histories and stories. 2. MoEF to consider inclusion of clear requirements of how to assess and manage for impacts to culture and heritage within current EIAs for inclusion in broader proposed EIA/SIA guideline/template. 3. Developers to consider increased participation of communities in pre-planning processes to ensure these values are respected. 4. Developers and State governments should look for opportunities to record, protect, enhance, or interpret cultural heritage sites in the basin, whether or not directly affected by the project. 5. Include minimising interference to traditional pilgrimage routes as a major objective when developing mechanism for the coordination/scheduling of construction projects

34

across the basin.

2.15

Policy Integration

As previously noted, both Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand have ambitious hydropower development goals, and policies have been developed to guide this goal. The States also have other assets and economic activity to support and grow, such as tourism, agriculture, and forestry. The objectives and targets from such policies could potentially be in conflict and it will be a challenge to develop in all areas. River Basin Planning offers a framework for these other resource development activities to be more integrated. Recommendations: 1) State governments to consider involvement of representatives from these other core activities (industry, government, community) being involved in river basin planning activities. 2) State governments to ensure that other uses are considered as part of strategic assessments and consider how they can be catered for, perhaps by designating rivers for particular purposes.

35

3.
3.1
3.1.1

CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

Examples of River Basin Planning
India

There is some experience of river basin forums in the case study basins.

Satluj
The first meeting of the Forum of Hydro Power Producers of the Satluj Basin was held on 5 November 2005. This Satluj Forum was an initiative of SJVNL and is not mandated. It is understood that meetings of developers have only been conducted on two occasions. The member organisations of the Satluj Forum are: NTPC BBMB HPSEB Jaypee Nuziveedu Himachal Sorang Pvt Ltd (Sorang HEP now being developed by SSJV) SJVNL The objectives of the Satluj Forum are: Environment To evolve integrated catchment area treatment plan. Operation of power stations and sharing of technical expertise and experience. Data sharing share facilities to generate input data, eg discharge, silt. Disaster management and planning to develop and implement effective flood forewarning and disaster management systems. Common issues with State government and Government of India. An article from The Tribune, Chandigarh, 19 October 2005, discusses the Satluj Forum and states experts have advised that keeping in view the ever increasing levels of silt in the river, storage projects should be preferred to run-of-the-river projects. The problem of excessive silt hampering the smooth operation of the Nathpa Jhakri project will also be faced by the 1000 MW Karcham Wangtu project being set up upstream. However, it could be solved to a great extent if a 280m high dam is constructed at Khab where the first project after the river

36

enters the country from China is planned. Since such a high dam will more than double the cost of the Khab project, a cost sharing mechanism to distribute the cost among the beneficiary projects downstream will have to be worked out. All these issues could be dealt with effectively if the agencies engaged in execution of projects come under a common platform. The Himachal Pradesh Hydro Power Policy indicates that Local Area Development Committees (LADC) will be set up for projects being developed in each river valley. Their role is to oversee the implementation of each project, with emphasis on Catchment Area Treatment, Reafforesation, and Rehabilitation & Relief Plans. Draft MOUs being sent to developers who have recently been allocated projects also refer to proposed LADCs, but at this time it is not clear whether or not any LADC has been established and is undertaking project surveillance activities.

Alaknanda
Although there are no Planning Forums in the Alaknanda basin, the Additional Chief Secretary of GOU has advised that a Bhagirathi River Valley Development Authority (BRVDA) has been established and a Chairman appointed, but it is understood that to date there is no Secretariat and no activity by the Authority. The concept of a BRVDA was raised during the 1980s and the first meeting of the BVDRA is said to have been held on 20 May 2005. Its mandate was to maintain ecologic balance, provide environment protection, ensure sustainable development, and maintain mechanism for redressal of public grievances.

3.1.2

International

Okavango River Basin

The three countries of Namibia, Botswana and Angola share the Okavango River basin, which has remained unaltered by extensive investment in infrastructure. These three Basin States formed the Permanent Okavango River Basin Commission (OKACOM) in 1994, with the purpose of promoting sustainable management of the river basin through the development and implementation of a comprehensive basinwide management plan. Recognizing the opportunity presented by OKACOM and the ongoing threats to the resource and communities that depend on the river, in the late-1990s the International Rivers Network worked with NGOs to develop a project called. (NOTE: IRN is not currently active in this program).

37

A project was established with support of NGOs and communities and communities in Botswana and Namibia called Every River Has Its People: Promoting CoManagement of the Okavango River Basin. By the end of 2001, project staff had conducted extensive Socio-Ecological Surveys, in partnership with local communities, regional and local authorities, and NGOs. Supporting the Every River project, the Sharing Water project was designed to develop and test a consensus building, decision-making model and a data management system, broaden stakeholder participation in the OKACOM planning process, and build capacity in the region to analyse complex scenarios and to work towards a consensus decision. Sharing Water was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), guided by a Steering Committee and implemented by a broad partnership of organisations. The Sharing Water Steering Committee included representatives from the three main existing basin water management projects: Southern African Development Community (SADC) Water, the Every River Project and the United Nations Development Program Global Environment Facility OKACOM project. A core group of delegates who were likely to have future roles in water resource management for the basin were selected from each Basin State, and represented a wide range of organisations and stakeholders. Sharing Water offered a joint fact-finding process in the Okavango River basin as a tool to compile and analyse relevant information and translate it into a form that can be understood by stakeholders, and used by decision-makers to create the foundation for broad-based consensus. Community leaders and representatives were involved in the fact-finding and scenario workshop stages. The Shared Okavango/Kubango Database was a concrete outcome of this process, and acted as a key modelling input. An analytical platform that linked databases, hydraulic and hydrologic analysis, scenarios and collaborative learning was used to develop a prototype river basin planning model for the Okavango River system. The Water Evaluation and Planning System (WEAP), developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute, was the chosen platform and incorporated not only water yield and power production, but was also capable of processing licensing arrangements and developing and managing numerous scenarios about future water management arrangements. The use of scenarios to explore ecological dynamics of alternative futures has been advocated through the recently completed Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a 4-year initiative to investigate relationships between ecosystem services and human well-being at multiple scales. The Sharing Water project supported an analysis of legal and institutional arrangements that

38

govern river basin management in the Okavango Basin across the local, national, transboundary and international scales, and provided recommendations on how to bridge gaps and disconnection in policy, legal and institutional structures.

Mekong River Basin

The Mekong River Commission (MRC) was formed on 5 April 1995 by an agreement between the governments of Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam. The four countries signed The Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin and agreed on joint management of their shared water resources and development of the economic potential of the river. The four goals for 2006-2010 are: Goal 1: To promote and support coordinated, sustainable, and pro-poor development; Goal 2: To enhance effective regional cooperation; Goal 3: To strengthen basin-wide environmental monitoring and impact assessment; Goal 4: To strengthen the Integrated Water Resources Management capacity and knowledge base of the MRC bodies, National Mekong Committees, Line Agencies, and other stakeholders. From 1955 through to the mid-1960s, the Mekong Committee conducted hundreds of surveys and studies to map, measure, sample and catalogue a rich diversity of resources. These studies were the basis of an ever-expanding 'knowledge base' now maintained by the Mekong River Commission. Since the 1995 Agreement that, the member countries have signed sub-agreements on Data and Information Sharing and Exchange, a Flood Management and Mitigation Strategy, and a formal agreement with China on the exchange of hydrological and other data. The aim of many early Mekong Committee surveys was to gather data for irrigation flood control and hydropower projects. Over the last 50 years, much has been learned about dams and their impacts The Commission has responded with a hydropower development strategy based on principles that recognise the rights and needs of multiple users, the value of public participation in planning, and protection of the environment. Similarly, the knowledge gained from early efforts to 'control' floods led to greater understanding of flood management and mitigation. The unharnessed hydropower potential of the Mekong region stands high on the options list,

39

and is therefore earmarked in national strategies to contribute an important share of the prospective electricity demand. Since the environmental impacts of hydropower are difficult to ascertain, they are at risk of being underestimated (Malik, U., Cogels, O., and Coull, E., 2007)

Environmental Criteria for Hydropower Development (ECHD),

Three organisations - ADB, MRCS and WWF - joined forces to investigate options for the development of Environmental Criteria for Hydropower Development (ECHD), which aimed to provide interested stakeholders with information, knowledge and tools to better manage hydropower so that the ecological functions of rivers, the natural resources they provide to other economic sectors, and the livelihoods of people that depend on them are maintained acceptably and appropriately. The report analyses the environmental policies and criteria of each GMS country, regional institutions like the MRC, the main multilateral institutions involved in the GMS (ADB, World Bank, World Commission on Dams (WCD), Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), and the Equator Principle private banks. The report reviews several attempts at formulating an industry standard including the Green Hydropower Project in Switzerland, various green certification schemes (such as the Technical Inspection Association in Germany, Future Energy in the UK, Naturemade Basic in Switzerland, Eco-Logo in Canada, Bra Miljoval in Sweden, Grner Strom Label in Germany, and Green-e in the USA), the US Power Scorecard, the International Energy Agencys Hydropower Agreement, the Low Impact Hydropower Institutes (LIHI) certification criteria, and the International Hydropower Association (IHA) Sustainability Guidelines. Of the three international environmental criteria frameworks reviewed, the IHA Sustainability Guidelines was considered to be the most comprehensive and a possible best starting point for the Greater Mekong Sub-region. Although the MRC is an international river basin planning organisaiton and has many other challenges associated with international planning and cooperation, there could be valuable outcomes from the ECHD program that could be used in developing strategic assessment and river basin planning principles in India.

Vu Gia-Thu Bon River Basin, Viet Nam

The Government of Viet Nam is turning to hydropower development as part of a modernisation and poverty reduction program. At the centre of Viet Nam's hydropower agenda is the Vu Gia-Thu Bon River Basin in Quang Nam province. Eight hydropower

40

projects are proposed for the next 10 years in this basin, with some dams already under construction. The combination of pre-existing environmental issues, such as coastal flooding and changes in river alignments, erosion, salinity intrusion, droughts, and industrial pollution means that the introduction of hydropower generation in the basin will require a more coordinated institutional response than the mandate that any one agency can provide. With assistance from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) a Pilot and Demonstration Activity Project was established a new generation of river basin organisation (RBO) is being tested. Past experience in Viet Nam included two out of the three major RBOs rarely meeting since they were formed. Also problematic in the past has been their location in either Hanoi or Ho Chi Min City, rather than based near the communities on the management frontlines. The Project sought to develop a solution that avoided these problems. The key findings from the project were the need for the RBO to be simple, practical, replicable and flexible. The formation of the body was demand driven, which means that the local villages/districts in the basin were involved in developing the structure. Therefore, the consultants recommend that the most practical and functional model is developed together with the stakeholders. Given the concept was fairly new in Viet Nam (aside from examples of international basins such as the Meekong), it was considered important to ensure that the mandate of the RBO was flexible so that it could be revised as awareness of members improves and the scope increases. Membership was balanced and all areas within the basin were represented which ensures that it remains sustainable (Tim McGrath, ADB Consultant, pers. comm.).

Cultivating Good Water Program Itapu Binacional (Brazil / Paraguay)

The Cultivando Agua Boa Program, initiated by Itapu Binacional, is an excellent example of community cooperation to address catchment-wide environmental, social, and economic issues. The program is focussed on the catchment area above the Itapu Power Plant on the Parana River. It works on the basis of partnerships across the various micro-basins with 21 municipalities having signed Water Pacts. The catchment is heavily populated and has been rapidly deforested over the last 50 years. There are significant environmental, social, and economic issues that the Program is aimed at addressing. Key features of the Program include obtaining ownership at the local level, capacity building through training programs, economic development through a range of initiatives including new agricultural programs, and environmental protection. Over 100,000 hectares have been set aside for protection. Biological reserves and corridors have been

41

created and an extensive riparian vegetation protection and planting program has been introduced. New farming technologies have been fostered to address issues such as erosion and pesticide pollution. New waste management facilities have been built and new waste management practices encouraged. The Cultivando Agua Boa Program is a good model to examine when considering improvements to catchment treatment activities in India.

3.2

Implementing River Basin Planning in India

There is compelling evidence, quantitative and qualitative, to suggest that there are economic, environmental and social benefits for all stakeholders to be gained from a river basin planning approach, through: Strategic yield estimates based on basin wide information and with full context of possible projects to be developed Strategic approach to project identification, comparison of alternatives and cumulative effects including strategic environmental and social assessment Transparency and public participation in planning and implementation improving outcomes, project support, and reducing project delays Coordinated planning for benefit sharing and broad socioeconomic development, providing additional benefits to the host communities Coordinated planning of construction sequence and shared infrastructure. A comprehensive river basin planning approach is a major undertaking that could realistically take a number of years to establish the relevant baselines, skills and tools, guidelines, and operating framework for its implementation. There are a number of challenges in the existing system and current practice of developing hydropower projects in India influencing the likelihood of effective implementation of a river basin planning approach. These include the number of agencies currently involved, the time and negotiation required for changes to legal instruments, bureaucratic processes and need for substantive changes or streamlining, the limited skills and tools available, and the need for increased resources (people and funds) to implement actions. However, a river basin planning approach can be achieved to varying degrees and in a phased way through, for example, uptake of strategic regionally based economic, social and environmental assessments, as well as basin wide yield estimates and establishment of

42

wider development or benefit sharing activities in the host regions. Learnings may be possible from experience in other sectors. For example, in Himachal Pradesh, there has been a state-wide Forest Sector Review in 1999-2000 which notified the constitution of three tiers Panchayat, Block and District level Forest Committees. The Participatory Forest Management Rules, notified by the Government of HP on 23 August 2001, supported these committees. Later, in August 2001, notification on H.P. Forest Consultative Forum was issued, that was formed to strengthen cross-sectoral linkages and involvement of local level stakeholders in sustainable forest management. A comprehensive consultation process involving 81 villages has led to strong ownership of the new Forest Sector Policy. A key feature of the new policy is the the strengthening and re-constitution of an independent, autonomous and multi-sectoral Centre for Policy and Planning. It also includes the efforts to promote cross-sectoral collaborative mechanism and converges extra sectoral policy influences. Lastly, the policy envisages a long term investment programme for forest sector funding commensurate with the contribution of forest to the state GDP through public sector participation and need based international funding and regular budgetary allocation (Kapta, S. 2006) The enormity of implementing a completely new system would require considerable time to establish and, therefore could hold up valuable improvements in the meantime or, potentially delay the hydropower development program. A move toward river basin planning could include: Informal, cooperative development of tools and databases to facilitate river basin considerations in project planning and implementation, which could be formalised through a central agency or independent body for the ongoing maintenance of data integrity. Establishment of a developers forum similar to those in Satluj, Bhagirathi or Narmada Valley; although preferably with stronger participatory requirements and supportive mechanisms for data sharing and decision-making. Redefinition of responsibility and funding of a program through a lead agency to facilitate river basin planning and development, similar to efforts in HP in the forestry sector. Establishment of a new institution, with legal mechanism to establish representative membership and to provide clear responsibility for river basin planning that may affect the distribution of risks across individual players and the government. .

43

Regardless of the system or process put in place, based on experience elsewhere noted above, the keys to a successful river basin planning model are that it must be: Simple Authentic Transparent Participatory Representative Practical Mandated Replicable

44

4.

REFERENCES

Basson, G.R. (2007) Assessment of Global Reservoir Sedimentation Rates; paper presented at ICOLD International Conference, St Petersburg, 2007 Bohensky, E.L, Reyers, B. and Van Jaarsveld, A.S. (2006). Future ecosystem services in a Southern African river basin: A scenario planning approach to uncertainty. Conservation Biology, in press. Kapta, S., (2006) Making Policy that Works-Participatory Policy Formulation Process in H.P. Forest Sector; Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies (UGC-Centre of Excellence) Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla. Malik, U., Cogels, O., and Coull, E., (2007) Foreward, in King, P., Bird, J., and Haas, L., The Current Status of Environmental Criteria for Hydropower Development in the Mekong Region, WWFLiving Mekong Programme, Vientiane. Pottinger, L. (2004) Can the Nile States cam their way to cooperation? International Rivers Network, California. Sharma, H.K. et al., (2006) Prospects of Hydro Development in the Back drop of Environment Impacts, Legislation, and Procedures with special reference to Rampur HEP & Future Course, Paper presented at All India Seminar on Environmental Consideration in Planning and design of Power Projects; Nov 9-11, Dehradun. Sharma, H.K., et al., (2006a) Environmental Management of SJVNL in Nathpa Jahkri Hydro Power Project, Paper presented at All India Seminar on Environmental Consideration in Planning and design of Power Projects; Nov 9-11, Dehradun. Sharma, HR (n.d.) A note on Environmental Flow (unpublished). Singal, V.K., (2006) Time and cost over-run in hydro-electric projects and its control, Energy India; Jan-Mar; pp. 67-70. Singh, S., Banerji, P. (eds) (2002) Large Dams in India: Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts. Indian Institute of Public administration, New Delhi. USAID (2005) Sharing Water: Towards a transboundary consensus on the management of the Okavango River Basin. United States Agency for International Development. www.sustainablehydropower.org www.hydropower.org

45

5.
BBMB Brakel CAT CEA CWC DPR EIA

GLOSSARY
Bhakra Beas Management Board Brakel Corporation of the Netherlands Catchment Area Treatment Central Electricity Authority Central Water Commission Detailed Project Report Environmental Impact Assessment Gammon Infrastructure Projects Ltd glacier lake outburst flood GMR Infrastructure Ltd Government of Himachal Pradesh Government of Uttarakhand GVK Industries Ltd Hydro Electric Project Himachal Power Corporation Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Institution of Engineers (India) IL&FS Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Independent Power Producer Jaiprakash Associates Limited Larsen & Toubro Limited Ministry of Power

Gammon GLOF GMR GOHP GOU GVK HEP HPC HPSEB IEI IIDC IPP Jaypee L&T MOP

46

MOU NEEPCO NHPC NTPC Nuziveedu PFR Powergrid RFP SANDRP SIA SSJV SJVNL SVP THDC UIPC

Memorandum of Understanding North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited National Hydro Power Corporation National Thermal Power Corporation Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, Preliminary Feasibility Report Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Request for Proposal South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People Social Impact Assessment Satyam Shankranayanan Joint Venture Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd Sanjay Vidyut Pariyojna Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Uttarakhand Infrastructure Project Company Pvt Ltd (JV between IIDC and GOU)

Uttarakhand UJVNL WAPCOS WB WCN

previous name of Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd Water and Power Consultancy Services (India) Limited World Bank Wildlife Conservation Network

47

APPENDIX 1 STUDY AREA

Satluj Basin
The Satluj River rises in China and flows generally west through Himachal Pradesh and Punjab until it joins the Indus River in Pakistan. That part of the Satluj basin under current study is from the Chinese border to Bhakra Dam on the Himachal Pradesh / Punjab border. The principal tributaries are the Spiti (joining from the right or northern side), and the Tidong and Baspa (joining from the left or southern side). Figure A1.1 shows this basin, together with the considerable Satluj catchment area on the Tibetan plateau in China.

Figure A1.1 Satluj Catchment Area

Figures A1.2, A1.3 and A1.4 show the Digital Elevation Model, the land use, and the hydropower projects in the Satluj basin, together with protected areas.

48

Figure A1.2 - Digital Elevation Model of Satluj Basin

49

Figure A1.3 Land use in Satluj Basin

50

Figure A1.4 Hydropower Projects and Protected Areas in Satluj Basin

Table A1.1 presents a summary of the hydropower projects, and Table A1.2 includes some details. Table A1.1 Satluj Basin Projects Satluj Basin Projects Operating Under construction Under development To be allotted Total 5 5 9 9 28 Developer HPSEB 1 2 2 5 Other Govt. 3 2 2 7 Private 1 2 5 9 17

51

Table A1.2 Satluj Basin Project Details

Site Size Proponent Status/Comment

Kuling Lara Lara Mane Nadang Lari Sumte Sumte Kothang Chango Yangthang Yangthang Khab Khab Ropa Jangi Thopan Tidong-II Tidong-I Thopan Powari Kashang-I Kashang-II Kashang-III ShongtongKarcham Baspa-I Baspa-II Karcham Wangtoo SVP Bhaba Nathpa Jhakri Sorang Rampur Luhri Kol Dam Beas Link Bhakra Dam

40 MW (Spiti) 60 MW (Spiti) 70 MW (Spiti) 104 MW (Spiti) 130 MW (Spiti) 140 MW (Spiti) 261 MW (Spiti) 1020 MW 60 MW (Ropa) 480 MW 60 MW (Tidong) 100 MW 480 MW 65 MW (Kashang) 48 MW (Kashang) 130 MW (Kashang) 402 MW 210 MW (Baspa) 300 MW (Baspa) 1000 MW 120 MW 1500 MW 100MW(Sorang) 412 MW 750 MW 800 MW 990 MW 1325 MW

bids from private developers being assessed. bids from private developers being assessed. bids from private developers being assessed. bids from private developers being assessed. bids from private developers being assessed. Malana Power recently awarded

bids from private developers being assessed SJVNL Malana Power under development recently awarded

recently awarded to Brakel recently awarded to Gammon Nuziveedu under development

recently awarded to Brakel. Proposal to make a single project with Jangi Thopan HPSEB HPSEB HPSEB HPSEB under development under development under development under development

Earlier regarded as unviable on environmental grounds, but a revised project has been proposed by a private developer. Jaypee Jaypee HPSEB SJVNL SJVNL SJVNL SJVNL NTPC BBMB BBMB operating since 2003 under construction, commissioning expected 2011 operating operating under development under construction under development under construction operating operating

52

Eight projects are proposed for the Spiti River in the Lahaul & Spiti district. The Spiti River originates from the Kunzum and the slopes draining the famous Pin River Valley area are also a part of the Spiti River system. The river attains peak discharge in late summers due to glacier melting but its position behind the main Himalayan range deprives it from the benefit of the South-West monsoon. The terrain of the district is a cold desert with huge deposits of morains and an absence of any vegetation cover, which contributes to the Spiti Rivers silt loads that are known to be high. Even though there are a number of small settlements along the valley, Kaja is the only major settlement along the Spiti River, although Tabo and Dhankar Gompa are other noteworthy settlements. The proposed Chango-Yangthang (140 MW), Yangthang-Khab (261) and Khab (1020 MW) projects are situated in the Kinnaur district. The Khab project would lead to submergence of a large area of land, however no settlement would be submerged. Local residents have nevertheless been vocal in objecting to Khab which has apparently delayed some of the investigative studies. The proximity to the international border with Tibet (China) could be a major hurdle in obtaining environmental clearance. The under construction Karcham Wangtoo (1,000MW) project is already facing problems and the local tribal population is agitating against the project causing law and order problems in the area.

Alaknanda Basin
The Alaknanda basin is wholly contained within Uttarakhand. The Alaknanda River rises near to the Chinese border in the north of the State, and flows in a south then east direction until it joins the Bhagirathi River to form the Ganga (Ganges River) at Devprayag. The principal tributaries are the Dhauliganga and Pinder (joining from the left or western side), and the Mandakini (joining from the right or northern side). Figures A1.5, A1.6 and A1.7 show the Digital Elevation Model, the land use, and the hydropower projects in the Alaknanda basin, together with protected areas.

53

Figure A1.5 Digital Elevation Model of Alaknanda Basin

54

Figure A1.6 Land use in Alaknanda Basin

55

Figure A1.7 Hydropower Projects and Protected Areas in Alaknanda Basin

Table A1.3 gives a summary of the hydropower projects, and Table A1.4 some details. Table A1.3 Alaknanda Basin Projects Alaknanda Basin Projects Operating Under construction Under development To be allotted Total 1 2 16 4 23 5 8 5 1 7 Developer UJVNL Other Govt. Private 1 1 4 4 (plus 10 ?) 10

56

Table A1.4 Alaknanda Basin Project Details

Site Alaknanda Vishnu Prayag Malari Jhelum Jhelum Tamak Tamak Lata Deodi Rishiganga-I Rishiganga-II Lata Tapovan Tapovan Vishnughad Vishnughad Pipalkoti Bowala Nand Prayag Gohana Tal Nand Prayag Langasu Devsari 'Bagoli 72 MW Rambaru Phatu Byung Chuni Semi Singoli Bhatwari Shrinigar Khoti Bhel - 1B Size 300 MW 400 MW 55 MW (Dhauliganga) 60 MW (Dhauliganga) 280 MW (Dhauliganga) 60 MW (Rishiganga) 70 MW (Rishiganga) 35 MW (Rishiganga) 171 MW (Dhauliganga) 520 MW 444 MW 300 MW 60 MW (Birahiganga) 141 MW 141 MW (Pindar) Padli 27 MW (Pindar) 76 MW (Mandakini) 76 MW (Mandakini) 26 MW (Mandakini) 99 MW (Mandakini) 330 MW 320 MW Proponent GMR Jaypee THDC THDC UJVNL to be allotted UJVNL UJVNL NTPC NTPC THDC UJVNL THDC UJVNL SJVNL IL&FS / GOU LANCO LANCO in Nanda Devi Sanctuary in Nanda Devi Sanctuary under development under development under development under development under development under development under development under development DPR in preparation DPR in preparation Status/Comment under development operating since 2006 under development under development under development

expected to be allotted to a private developer L&T GVK NHPC under development under construction under development

Only 3 hydropower projects are operating or are under construction in the Alakananda basin, so hydropower development in this basin lags that of the Satluj basin where there are 10 projects either operating or under construction. Of particular importance to the Alaknanda

57

basin is tourism, driven not only by the scenic value of the area but more so by the number of very important religious sites. Tourist traffic on the narrow windy roads, combined with the expected increasingly heavy traffic associated with hydropower project construction, is a major source of concern from a safety view point.

58

APPENDIX 2 INDIAN REGULATORY CONTEXT

Uttarakhand Hydropower Policy
To support its hydropower development objective, the Government of Uttarakhand established a hydropower policy covering small and large projects, in order to attract investors for the development of the State's water resources in an environmentally friendly manner, and to generate revenues for the State through hydropower generation. On all projects governed by the policy for the first 15 years, royalty at the rates of 12% of net energy wheeled (after deducting wheeling charges) or supplied directly without wheeling would be charged. Beyond the 15th year of operation, IPPs are required to provide a royalty of 18% of net energy wheeled or supplied directly without wheeling to the GoU. No further levies, taxes, charges would be levied by the State Government and its agencies or the Regulator on the IPPs, for a period of ten years from the date of this policy.

Himachal Pradesh Hydropower Policy

Himachal Pradesh has also developed a policy to supports its hydropower development objectives. The policy is more detailed than that of Uttarakhand and is heavily focused on wider objectives of the policy. General Goals and Objectives The Hydro Power Policy 2006 of Himachal Pradesh primarily aims to: i) Develop Himachal as a Hydro Power State to provide affordable, reliable and uninterrupted power to customers throughout the year; ii) Create employment opportunities for residents of Himachal Pradesh while mitigating environmental and social impacts of hydro power projects. The principal objectives of the policy include (but not limited to): To make the power sector a major source of income for the State and secure long term financial interests of the State; To finance local area development through power projects; To establish and promote a power trading entity in the State; To protect the rights of local water users (irrigation and potable water use etc.) within the State;

59

Address environmental impacts of hydro power projects by adopting suitable mitigation measures; The policy provides detailed terms and condition for Category I projects (projects above 5 MW to 100 MW installed capacity) and Category II projects (projects above 100MW installed capacity). Hydro power projects are allotted to prospective independent hydropower producers on Build, Own, Operate, Transfer (BOOT) basis. Transmission Load Despatch and Power Trading The policy states that the Government of Himachal Pradesh must prepare a Transmission Master Plan for the period 2007 2012 and that the plan will cater to absorb all generated power from hydropower projects to the maximum possible extent. The policy also states that the Government of Himachal Pradesh shall adopt availability Based Tariff (ABT) to effect improvement in grid disciplines and mean optimum utilization of resources. In view of power being available for trading, the policy states that the Government of Himachal Pradesh shall endeavour to establish power trading under its control to ensure prudent commercial practices. Distribution The policy also creates an enabling environment to implement the provisions related to power supply and distribution under the Electricity Act (2003). The policy enlists a number of actions to enhance the distribution sector within the State. These include: To improve LT and HT ratio; Reduce aggregate technical and commercial loss; Introduce a profit centre concept to make the Distribution Business more profitable; Support the implementation of reforms under the Accelerated Power Development and Reform Program1; Facilitate open access in the distribution sector; Introduce state-of-the-art technologies in the distribution sector; Support energy conservation and demand side management.

A program introduced by the Indian government to introduce reforms in the distribution sector.

60

Rural Electrification The policy states that the Government of Himachal Pradesh will be committed to ensuring that power supply is available to 100% of villages and hamlets in the State. A number of actions to improve the existing distribution system to cater to rural areas are specified under the policy. These include: Provide household electrification to every rural household on demand; Create an enabling environment to provide Single Point (Bulk) supply and encourage local / community distribution management; Provide quality and reliable power to all rural households; Generate assured revenue by improved collection; Ensure 100% electronic metering on all categories of consumers; Set up special courts to provide speedy trials for offences relating to theft of electricity.

Project Approvals
The project approval process is described in the flow chart of Figure A2.1.

61

Figure A2.1 - Approvals process for hydro-electric projects

62

APPENDIX 3 - CONSULTATION
Organisation Representatives Meeting or phone call Non-government Organisations and Institutes Matu Peoples Organisation National Campaign for People Rights to Information Rashtriya Himalayan Niti Abhiyan, Chamba (H.P.) Gopeshwar (Garhwal), Uttarakhand Winrock International India Mr Sundarlal Bahuguna Mr Sundarlal Bahuguna Shri Bhuvneshwari Mahila Ashram (SBMA) Mr Mayank Joshi RANCHA People Science Institute Mr Manoj Bhatt Dr Ravi Chopra Mr Ayan Biswas Mr Devashish Sen Mr Salil Das Mr Divakar Dev Himachal Pradesh Gyan Vigyan Samitti, Shimla Dr Omprakash Bhuraita Mr Cyril R. Raphael Mr Kulbhushan Upmanyu Mr Chandi Prasad Bhatt Mr Sanjeeva Pandey Mr Shekhar Singh Mr Vimalbhai Modelling Workshop Final Workshop

63

Dr R S Thakur Mr Kuldip Tanwar Environics Environics Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies, H.P. University, Shimla Dr Ravinder Sood Dr Richa South Asian Network on Dams , Rivers and People (SANDRP) Hazard Centre, New Delhi IEI Dr Dunnu Roy Dr G.S.Yadava Chairman CISMHE Dr M.K.Pandit Professor&Director WAPCOS Mr D.Datta CMD Wildlife Conservation Network Ms Stacey J Iverson Program Manager Prof Yudhbhir State Government GoU, Dehradun Mr Indu Pande, Additional Chief Secretary Mr Shatrughan Singh Power Secretary *Dr M.C.Joshi Mr Himanshu Thakkar Mr Sreedhar Mr Nishant Alag Dr B S Marh

64

Additional Secretary UJVNL Mr. Yogendra Prasad Chairman Mr S.P.Singh MD Mr Vivek Singla Exec Dir Business *Mr Alok Kumar DGM Mr Subhash Chand Chabbra Mr S K Rastogi GoHP S.S.Guleria Add.Sec (Power) Dr Shrikant Baldi Secretary MPP & Power State Council for Science, Technology and Environment, HP Department of Energy, HP HPSEB, Shimla Mr J.P Negi Principal Secretary Mr Shamsher Singh, CMD Mr R L Chauhan Member (Civil) Ram Mohan Gupta Director Planning Kinnar Kailash Power Corp. Dr R K Sood

65

D.S.Verma Sen. Exec. Eng. Man Mohan Singh Chief Engineer (Generation) Department of Irrigation and Health R.N.Sharma Engineer in Chief Deepak Shanan Principal Secretary Central Government Central Electricity Authority Mr Rakesh Nath Chairman Mr Yum Subramanian Chief Engineer Mr S.D Dubey Director Mr Pradeep Shukla Deputy Director Mr Tanmoy Das CWC Mr S.K.Das Chairman Mr C.S.Mathur Chief Engineer Ministry of Power Mr Jayant Kawale Joint Secretary (Hydro) Mr Anil Kumar Kutty, Joint Secretary Mr Rajesh Verma

66

Director Mr V Rama Krishnan NHPC Mr Siba Prasad Sen Director (Technical) Mr Rajeev Baboota Mr Manjusha Mishra NTPC Mr K.B.Dubey Exec Dir (CMG) Mr S.K.Shukla Mr S.C.Gupta NEEPCO Ms Debjani Dey Mr Ashok Kr. Mr S S Adhikari PTC Mr seth Vedantham

Central Government Joint Ventures BBMB Mr U.C.Misra Chairman Mr Anil Arora Member Irrigation R.C.Mahajan Secretary Ashok Gupta Dep Sec Mr N.K.Arora Member Power Mr Balbir Singh Member Irrigation Retired

67

Mr Rajeev Bansal Mr V K Mittal Mr S P Singh SJVNL Mr H.K.Sharma, CMD *Mr H.B.Sahay, Head Corporate Planning THDC Mr R.S.T Sai CMD Mr P.P.S.Mann Mr Vijay Sehgal Mr J.L.Narang Mr J.K. Varshney Mr Rakesh Khare Mr Rajeev Dhall Private Developers Brakel Mr Dean Gesterkamp CEO Mr Anil Wahal Director Managing Director Mr Gautam Gammon Mr Parvez Umrigar MD Mr Suhrid Ghosh Dep GM Mr S.K.Anil GMR Mr B.Vanchi

68

Director Mr Avinash Shah Sen VP-Power Mr Vivek Jhamb Mr Harvinder Manocha Mr Rajeev Mishra GVK Mr V.Rama Rao Director technical Mr M.Sivaji Director Project Development ICCS IL&FS Mr A B Giri Mr G.Pharlia Advisor-Hydro Mr Pradeep Aggarwal Senior Manager Mr N.D.Arora Mr Dinesh Mittal India bulls Mr Murali Suramanyam Mr Ranjit Gupta Jaypee Mr Sunil Sharma Exec Vice Chairman Mr C.K.Agarwal Mr Vatsal Chopra L&T Mr N.Raghavan VP Hydro Power Sector

69

Mr N.Parameswara Rao Lanco Malana Power Mr Karpaga Ganesh Mr Awadh B Giri CEO Nuziveedu Mr G.Chowdaraiah VP (Hydel Projects) Reliance Mr Sandeep Mr Ashutosh Srivastava SSJV Mr Purohit GM Mr Vara Prasad Business Development

70