Dams

How Efficient is Maharashtra’s Sugarcane Crop?

April 18, 2013 SANDRP2 Comments

That question may sound slightly irreverent and irrelevant.

Maharashtra is the highest sugar producing state of India. Its sugarcane yield in 2011-12 was 80.1 t/ha, compared to the yield of 59.6 t/ha for the second highest sugar producing state Uttar Pradesh and national average of 70.3 t/ha. The average sugar recovery rate of the four sugarcane cultivation methods in Maharashtra was 11.32% in 2011-12, the recovery rate of Adsali sugarcane was even higher at 12.3%. The Maharashtra average was way above that of UP at 9.16% and all India rate of 10.2%. In fact the land productivity adjusted for recovery rate is even higher for Maharashtra at 98.8 t/ha (161.14 t/ha for Adsali) compared to 61.04 t/ha for UP. The yield per month when adjusted for recovery rate is 7.56 t/ha/month compared to 6.33 t/ha/month for UP.

So with the highest production, high yield and high recovery rate, there should be no question of efficiency of Maharashtra sugarcane crop.

Indeed.

Methods of Sugarcane cultivation in Maharashtra Let us understand the basic parameters of how sugarcane crop is grown in Maharashtra, see the table 1 below.

Table 1. Basic parameters of sugarcane crop in Maharashtra in 2011-12

Source: Price Policy for Sugarcane: the 2013-14 Sugar season, Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Aug 2012, Table 5.1

Of the four sugarcane cultivation methods prevalent in Maharashtra, Ratoon is most popular with 40% cane area under it, possibly since it has shortest duration at 11 months, fitting almost perfectly with the annual Oct to March cane crushing season. Same can be said about Suru method, having duration of 12 months and coverage of 20%, both methods requiring 22.5 irrigations, each of 7.5 cm depth. Adsali method has the highest yield and recovery rate, but only 10% of the sugarcane area is under this method, possibly since it has the longest duration at 17 months. It is most water intensive, requiring 32.5 irrigations. Pre-seasonal method, as the name suggests, is planted about 2.5 months before the season, and stands between Ratoon and Adsali in terms of duration, yield and recovery rate.

Water Productivity The latest report from CACP from which the above figures are taken, however states that land productivity alone does not give correct picture, “…as land and water are increasingly becoming scarce in India with high opportunity costs. Therefore, the real resource cost of growing sugarcane in different regions cannot be correctly compared unless land productivity is normalised for the time duration of crop, its water intake, and its recovery rate.” To make such a comparison, CACP made a table, a part of which is given above in Table 1.

However, CACP has gone a step further than the figures in Table 1 (though there is an error in CACP calculations here, we have pointed this out to CACP). CACP has calculated water productivity of different sugarcane methods in Maharashtra and compared them with the water productivity in UP. The average water productivity of sugarcane in Maharashtra comes to 0.403 T/ha/month/’000 m³ water, compared to 1.11 for UP. This means that while UP seemed inefficient in sugarcane productivity in everyway, Maharashtra is inefficient by 175.43% when productivity per unit of water consumption is considered.

How is this possible? The reason why sugarcane productivity of UP in terms of water is higher is simple: UP sugarcane crop is of shorter 9-10 months duration and requires only 7-8 irrigations, approximately less than once a month. As against this, Maharashtra sugarcane crop requires irrigation every 15 days and that too for longer duration. To put it another way, while on average Maharashtra needs 25 irrigations for sugarcane crop, UP needs 7.6.

Water required per kg of sugar The CACP report further calculates that in Maharashtra every kilogram of sugar needs 2068 litres of water, where as in UP the requirement is almost half, at 1044 litres. This is indeed a telling figure. Add to it, as CACP report puts it, “real cost of water in Maharashtra is at least 2 to 3 times higher than that in UP”.

In response to a specific question, CACP chairman Dr Ashok Gulati wrote to me that this water calculation does not include the water used by sugar mills. If water used by sugar mills and water used in further downstream processing is included, the water consumption in sugar production is will go up substantially.

This analysis is very relevant for a state like Maharashtra that has much lower rainfall and per capita water availability compared to northern states like UP and Bihar. It is even more relevant when 79.5% of Maharashtra’s sugarcane is grown in drought prone districts as we showed in another blog.

How sugar mills lock up Maharashtra’s water future Considering water becomes even more important, looking at the kind of impact sugarcane cultivation is having in Maharashtra this drought season. Here it may be recalled that sugarcane is a long duration trans-season crop that has implications for water consumption beyond the point where decision for planting is taken. So even if the rainfall is normal or above when the crop is planted, the same crop will continue to have high water demand in the following year when it may be drought year. This creates really serious implications for water availability in the drought year particularly in drought prone, low rainfall areas. The impact on water available becomes even more serious in a state like Maharashtra where sugar mills are set up irrespective of water availability, violating the norms of distances, where sugar factories operate at way beyond their sanctioned capacity, where they violate the norms of no more than 5% of cultivable land under sugarcane, they dump untreated effluents into water bodies, thus polluting the water in such water bodies and so on. The lock in becomes even more stronger with the setting up of sugar mills, since their owners would like to get maximum cane every year, irrespective of water availability situation.

The CACP report says Maharashtra is further worse off in terms of cost of providing water for sugarcane, “If this costing is included in calculating water productivity, the difference in sugarcane yields will be so high that, Uttar Pradesh and presumably Bihar, would turn out to be the most efficient producers of sugar per unit cost of water, adjusted for time duration and recovery.” CACP goes on to say that Maharashtra sugarcane grown on 3% of the total cropped area of the state, takes away 60% of irrigation water in the state, “leading to massive inequity in the use of water within the state”. These figures might be slightly outdated considering the expansion of sugar factories and sugarcane cultivation in recent years.

Band aid solutions won’t help One recommendation CACP report makes for Maharashtra is that much of sugarcane in the state must be brought under drip. Even the Chief Minister of State and the Union Agricultural Minister has made same recommendation. We are not sure if this is really a solution since this is unlikely to curb the unsustainable levels of sugarcane in drought prone districts of Maharashtra, considering the politics involved in the issue with large number of politicians owning sugar factories.

As per the Maharashtra Economic Survey figures for last two years, Maharashtra has provided subsidy for drip irrigation in 5.68 lakh ha and for sprinkler irrigation in 2.33 lakh ha between 2005-06 and 2011-12, thus providing subsidy for covering 8.01 lakh ha for these two techniques in these seven years. However, we see no impact of so much area under the drip and sprinkler irrigation on water situation in the state, nor do we see much of sugarcane under drip. State institute like the VSI does not even know how much sugarcane is under drip even though it has a section just for drip irrigation. More investment in drip for sugarcane is likely to give reasons for expansion of sugarcane empire in drought prone districts, in addition to opening the doors for more corruption.

Another method called Sustainable Sugarcane Initiative can help the farmers to produce at least 20 per cent more sugarcane, and that too with 30 per cent of reduced water consumption and 20 per cent less chemical inputs. CACP report, though is silent on this.

Options like drip irrigation and sustainable sugarcane initiative should be explored for sugarcane cultivation in relatively water rich areas. However, in immediate future, Maharashtra needs to cancel all new licenses for sugar mills and put a halt to new mills and expansion of existing sugar mills in drought prone districts. For existing sugar factories, it needs to decide the level of sustainable sugarcane cultivation in each drought prone district through a transparent, independent process. Immediately in this drought year, no more water should be allowed to be used for sugarcane cultivation in drought prone districts.

Maharashtra faces a very challenging water future even if all these steps are implemented. Its water future is very bleak if no serious move is made in this direction.

Himanshu Thakkar (ht.sandrp@gmail.com)

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (www.sandrp.in)

References:

1. Price Policy for Sugarcane: the 2013-14 Sugar season, Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Aug 2012 http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/RPP/Sugarcane-2013-14.pdf

2. How is 2012-13 Maharashtra Drought worse than the one in 1972?, March 2013, SANDRP, https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/how-is-2012-13-maharashtra-drought-worse-than-the-one-in-1972/

3. Economic Survey for Maharashtra for 2011-12 and 2012-13

4. Sugarcane leaves farmers crushed, Business Line, April 15, 2013
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/sugarcane-leaves-farmers-crushed/article4620505.ece

Dams

HC asks Maharashtra Govt to release water for Ujani: But will it help the drought affected?

April 10, 2013 SANDRP3 Comments

Through its order on April 9, 2013 the Mumbai High Court has asked Maharashtra Govt to release water from upstream dams to Ujani dam for mitigating drought in Solapur. The decision is welcome if the water released from upstream dam were to be used for the drought affected in Solapur. A division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sanklecha directed the government to release as much water as possible within 24 hours. The High Court’s order came in response to a PIL filed by a Solapur-based activist, Shankarrao Sathe. The PIL says that the Ujani dam gets water from the Bhima River which starts from Karjat in the Western Ghats. Between the source of the river and the dam, there are 20-22 dams.

Highly-placed sources informed that soon after the High Court order, a high-level meeting was held in Mumbai to discuss the issue of release of water for Solapur as per the court orders. Senior officials from Sinchan Bhavan in Pune attended the meeting which explored the options best suited for release of water to Ujani dam. The sources informed that it is likely that 2.5 TMC (70.8 MCM) water would be released from Bhama Askhed dam while half a TMC (14.16 MCM) water would be released from Andra dam, the WRIS map above shows the location of both these reservoirs. The water release would start from April 10, 2013, an official said. Bhama Askhed dam has design live storage capacity of 208.11 MCM and as per the latest (April 8, 2013) information, the dam had 124 MCM. Andra Valley dam has live storage capacity of 82.75 MCM. Both are irrigation and hydropower projects.

However, the moot question is, how much water would actually reach Ujani dam and how of that, how much water will really reach the drought affected people. Under the current circumstances, it is seriously doubtful if any significant proportion of the water released from upstream dams would reach the drought prone people, unless specific steps are taken to ensure the water is not diverted for non drought relief purposes.

In that context, it needs to be noted that the water released from Bhama Asakhed and Andra Valley dams will have to travel about 250 km before it would reach the Ujani Dam. A very large portion of the water would be lost in evaporation and seepage and some also would be taken out by the enroute farmers as happened in the past with other water releases in Maharashtra earlier this year.

Moreover, Bhama Asakhed dam has irrigation potential of 29,465 Ha, but as per Irrigation Dept white paper, had irrigated area of just 434 ha by June 2012. The dam has 124 MCM storage now because it has not developed its irrigation potential over a decade since the dam has been completed. Why has that irrigation potential not realised? Pune has been eyeing water from Bhama Askhed for augmenting its water supply for a long time now, a demand backed by the same politicians who made mocked drought affected farmers.Similar questions also arise for Andra Valley dam.

Secondly, as per Solapur CADA website, the water level in Ujani dam as on April 9, 2013 is 16.74 TMC (474.3 MCM) below the live storage level. So even if the 3 TMC proposed to be released were to reach Ujani, the water level would still remain far below dead storage level.

Unfortunately, the Maharashtra Water Resources Department has never been able to control unauthorised use, let alone promote equitable usage of water from canals, dams and rivers. In our earlier blog, we showed how, even when it was clear that Maharashtra was going to face serious drought in 2012-13, no attempt was made to curb sugarcane farming, running of sugar mills or wine distilleries even when district officials have asked for such steps. This is also highlighted in the current drought, water conflicts in Manmad, in Nandur Madhyameshwar, in Mula Dam for Jayakwadi could not be resolved by the Water Resources Department.

With this background, though it is indeed a welcome decision that HC has ordered water release for Ujani from Pune Dams, it will be doubtful how much of that water will reach the purpose and area that it is meant for. The fact that all dams in a basin should have uniform water by the end of October is enshrined in the MWRRA Act 2005. It says:

Section 11: Power, functions and duties of the Authority states:

to determine the priority of equitable distribution of water available at the water resource project, sub-basin and river basin levels during periods of scarcity;

Section 12: General Policies of the Authority states:

“in order to share the distress in the river basin of sub-basin equitably, the water stored in the reservoirs in the basin or sub-basin, as the case may be, shall be controlled by the end of October every year in such way that, the percentage of utilizable water, including kharif use, shall, for all reservoirs approximately be the same”.

However, the establishment has made a mockery of this law by actually claiming that[1] MWRRA does not effectively exist as it does not have a Chairperson or expert members!

How can we then depend on the same WRD to ensure that water reaches Solapur and affected regions? When we know that the Khadakwasala RBC and LBC as well as Ujani RBC and LBC canal systems are leaking and in a state of dispair? That there are hundreds of unathorised lifts and siphons all along the way from Pune to Solapur?

Mismanagement and misuse of Ujani water has reached its new heights during this drought, when, the dam water was supplied water exclusively to sugarcane lobby and factories.

Under the circumstances, firstly, the High Court and the Govt of Maharashtra, in stead should consider the option of stopping the west ward diversion of water from the six Tata dams, as that would provide much more substantial water for the downstream Bhima basin.

Secondly, the High Court should also direct Maharashtra govt to formulate a policy for reservoir operations so that through out the filling period, there is sufficient water releases from all dams so that at the end of the monsoon, dams in any basin or sub basin have equitable water storage. This will ensure that High Court orders does not remain a fire fighting step, but has longer term implications.

The High Court would also need to ask the State govt as to what steps it has taken to ensure that the water released for Ujani actually goes to the deserving drought prone area and also what steps have been taken to stop the unjustifiable, unviable and unsustainable water use activities like westward diversions, sugarcane cultivation and sugar mill operations in drought period are stopped. Without all these steps, the welcome decision of High Court may not really serve the purpose it is supposed to serve.

Parineeta Dandekar(parineeta.dandekar@gmail.com), Himanshu Thakkar (ht.sandrp@gmail.com)

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (www.sandrp.in)

[1] Agrowon Newspaper, 29^th March 2013

Dams

Bhima Water Crisis: Genesis and Way forward

April 9, 2013April 9, 2013 SANDRP6 Comments

Introduction Two weeks back I visited these farmers protesting at Azad Maidan and requesting for water to be released to canals (Right and Left Bank Canals of Ujani dam) for the Solapur district for their drinking water needs. They (there were women too) represent Solapur Jilha Janahit Shetakari Sangathana (SJJSS). The man with prominent injury in the center is their leader Mr. Prabhakar (bhaiya) Deshmukh, who was publicly mocked at by no other than Maharashtra Dy. CM, Ajit Pawar on April 7, 2013 in absolute tasteless language. There can be different views over effectiveness of releasing the water from canals for drinking water needs in Solapur villages. Nonetheless, the public sentiments cannot be ridiculed by any one, leave aside the Dy. CM. Particularly when the Maharashtra government has some real options to solve the problems raised by Prabhakar Deshkukh.

Solapur farmers on satyagarha in Mumbai for drinking water for two months Photo- SANDRP

Analysis Ujani dam, the biggest dam on Bhima River (Bhima river meets Krishna river in downstream Karnataka near Raichur), which supplies water to Solapur district, does not have any water left in its live storage – in fact, the attached graph shows that the level has gone in negative, which means the water level has gone below its live water storage capacity- in such case, judicious water consumption should have been the norm. It should have been adopted once it was confirmed by Aug 2012 that the area will be facing drought this year. Strict ban on sugar cane crushing, sugar cane plantation, effective water recycling, stopping westward water diversions from Bhima river, etc. are some of these options, none of which the administrators have perused with any seriousness.

Bhima before it reaches Solapur It is important to study the upstream situation of Mula, Mutha, Pavana and Bhima rivers before it flows down to Ujani dam. This first leads us to west-ward transfers of water from drought affected Bhima river basin to high rainfall (3000 mm or more annually) Konkan region for power generation. The attached maps depict this westward diversion projects. For hydro power generation, Tata Power transfers the water from these rivers across the Western Ghats through underground water tunnels, to the western side i.e. Konkan region which actually receives surplus rainfall. Such projects are highlighted in the Maps obtained from Water Resources Information System (WRIS). The six water reservoirs (Mulshi, Thokewadi, Shirawatha, Walwan, Lonavvala and Kundali), parts of the three Tata hydropower projects (150 MW Bhira, 72 MW Bivpuri and 72 MW Khopoli) could be seen on the eastern side of the dotted line which is Western Ghats ridge line.

Figure 1– Bhira Power Project

Considering the fact that the downstream basin is reeling under severe drought, one must critically evaluate the question whether millions of cubic meters of water should be allowed to flow west into Konkan region.

Figure 2- Khopoli Power Project

Figure 3-Bhipuri Power Project

Water supply in Pune district Pune is intersected by rivers Mula, Mutha, and Pawana which are tributaries of Bhima. In Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad region, there are 5 major dams which control the river flow downstream viz. Temghar, Panshet, Varasgaon, Khadakvasala and Pawana. There is Ujani dam in Solapur on Bhima River itself. It is indeed a cause of concern that the live storage in Ujani dam has reached in its negative capacity (-30%) when, upstream all these dams are showing quite healthy trend of water storage of their capacity. The following graph is compiled using the most recent available figures from Water Resources Department and Command Development Authority (CADA), Solapur.

It is clear that while Solapur is reeling under sever water crises, Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad metropolitan area have adequate water supply. This situation raises question on the equity of our water sharing practices; not just on inter-state but even also on inter-district ones! In fact a case has been filed in which Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority is a respondent, asking for water release from upstream dams in Pune for Ujani Dam. In Pune district, apart from annual draft of underground 1015 MCM out of available 1442 MCM water[1], a study[2] on Urban water distribution states that, PMC is supplying so much water today that it would be sufficient to sustain Pune’s projected population of 2050[3]. There is unevenness in the water distribution with lack of well-designed inter-city water supply coordination. The demand for water has reached 1,164 MLD for Pune city. Water for the city predominantly comes from Khadakvasala dam. On the other hand, large part of the over 1.7 million rural population in Pune district are supplied the drinking water from tankers in March 2013[4]. The government officials claim that the district has enough water storage in the four dams to supply 1.5 TMC water every month till mid-July[5].

Water pollution in Pune district Pune’s record of sewage treatment has been one of the most dismal ones in India, pronmpting even the erstwhile Env. Minister Jairam Ramesh to write a strong letter condemning the Municipal Corporation. Pune Municipal Corporation admits that there is still a gap of over 250 MLD of sewage which is left untreated out of total 700 MLD generated[6]. In case of Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, the administration claims that there is about 50 MLD of sewage still being discharged into river untreated[7]. Experts believe that these figures are entirely misleading. Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad effectively do not treat even 25% of their sewage. Though Pune is required to do so, it does not return a single drop of recycled water into Khadakwasla Left Bank or Right Bank Canals for downstream usage. Pollution Control Board had filed a case against Pune Municipal Corporation in this regard, without any positive outcomes. Out of 30 stations across Maharashtra assessed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board for exceptionally poor Water Quality Indices, a whopping 18 stations lie in Pune. The picture becomes even grimmer considering the fact that there are 25% of the population who are not connected by established sewage carrying mechanisms[8]. DO of Mula Mutha is routinely near zero is Pune and BOD and COD are extremely high. Even after building more than 6 sewage treatment plants, the condition has not improved.

Sugar mills and sugarcane cultivation Sugar factories also consume huge quantity of water and deliver surplus pollutants in the river. CPCB newsletter Parivesh confirms that sugar factories consume around 1,500- 2,000 liter of water and produce about 1,000 liters of sewage for every ton of sugarcane that they crush[9]. As on 28^th February 2013, there are 27 operational cooperative sugar factories in Pune and Solapur combined[10] with total crushing capacity of 83750 tons/day. In addition, in the same region, according to government records, there are 19 private sugar factories[11]. It is not clear whether any of these follow the rule of not establishing a sugar mill in 15 km circumference from any other sugar mill. The staggering figure of daily crushing capacity of 173250 tons/day imparted by 55 sugar cane factories in Pune division (not to be confused with district), leaves us wondering how much of water pollution they would have been caused[12]. In fact people from Daund and Indapur have been protesting about pollution from Pune for the past few years. Moreover there is the issue of massive water consumption by the sugarcane farms that cater to these sugar mills. Even as some of us travelled in these districts in this drought year, we could see sugarcane fields on both sides of the road as we travel from Pune to Solapur, as far as the eye could see. The plantation of sugarcane even after the declaration of drought continued and there was no attempt to curb that by anyone. Nor was there any attempt to stop the functioning of the water mills even in drought. There is of course the larger question of appropriateness of sugarcane cultivation and allowing sugar mills in this drought prone area. We learn that the administration has already sanctioned 31 more sugar factories in Solapur district.

Conclusion There is a huge disparity between water availability in Pune and Solapur districts.

There is no effective machinery to ensure judicious inter-district water sharing.
In the wake of severe drought also, we continue to divert our water to water surplus basins from water deficit Bhima basin
Whatever water is left in the basin, Pune district degrades it, leaving the people downstream in Solapur demanding clean water in addition to their demand for supply of water in the first place[13].
The addiction to sugarcane cultivation and sugar mills is very high even in the drought hit areas. In fact at least the crushing in Pune and Solapur districts should have been stopped right in October when it became clear that the state is going to face drought.

These conclusions also tell us that Dy. CM has a lot of options to work on instead of what he suggested in Indapur on 7^th April 2013. The demand for water by Prabhakar Deshmukh and his organization cannot be brushed aside and certainly not in the fashion that Mr. Ajit Pawar did. In stead, he could have immediately directed stopping of westward diversion of water from the six Tata dams so that the water instead flows to the Ujani dam, which can than be used for providing water to the drought hit villages.

Damodar Pujari (damodar.sandrp@gmail.com)

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (www.sandrp.in)

[1] http://cgwb.gov.in/District_Profile/Maharashtra/Pune.pdf

[2] From Centre for Science and Environment

[3] http://cseindia.org/node/4267

[4] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Over-17-lakh-people-in-Pune-district-depend-on-water-tankers/articleshow/19276661.cms

[5] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-03/pune/38247785_1_varasgaon-temghar-khadakwasla-dam

[6] http://www.icrier.org/pdf/pune_6feb13_new.pdf

[7] http://www.indianexpress.com/news/pollution-control-board-for-100–treatment-of-bhima-river-in-2-years/958030/0

[8] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-11/pune/32174296_1_sewage-water-water-supply-mld

[9] http://cpcbenvis.nic.in/newsletter/agro-dec-1994/dec943.htm

[10] http://www.mahasugarcom.gov.in/SITE/Upload/GR/A.CO-OPERATIVE%20SUGAR%20FACTORIES%20%E2%80%93%20ERRECTED.pdf

[11] http://www.mahasugarcom.gov.in/SITE/Information/GetSugarListFactories.aspx

[12] http://www.mahasugarcom.gov.in/SITE/Upload/CrushingUploadPDF/crushing%20report%20up%20to%205.4.2013%20div.wise.pdf

[13] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-08-10/pune/29871898_1_river-pollution-polluted-water-river-policy

Dams

How is 2012-13 Maharashtra Drought worse than the one in 1972?

March 30, 2013March 31, 2013 SANDRP17 Comments

Maharashtra is facing one of the worst droughts this year. Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar as well as Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan have said that this year’s drought is worse drought than the one in 1972, which was termed as a ‘famine’. Maharashtra has the highest number of large dams in the country and is now claimed to be suffering the worst drought in four decades or more.

(For more detailed analysis, with tables, please see:

Click to access Maharashtra_Drought_2012_13_worse_than_1972_March2013.pdf

https://sandrp.in/otherissues/PR_How_is_Mah_Drought_2012_13_worse_than_1972_March_30_2013.pdf)

Sugarcane going to sugar factories against teh backdrop of a dry Ujani Canal in Solapur Photo: SANDRP

However, an analysis of the rainfall figures and the monthly rainfall pattern in 1972 and 2012 with respect to the normal rainfall pattern in seventeen drought affected districts shows a different picture. From a Meteorological and agricultural point of view, this year’s drought cannot be called worse than that in 1972. It is possible that hydrologically, this year’s drought may prove to be worse than 1972 for some districts. The blame for this lies entirely on wrong decisions about building unviable and undesirable large dams, wrong cropping patterns, diversion of water for non priority uses, neglect of local water systems and unaccountable water management by the Maharashtra government, MWRRA (Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority, set up in 2005 under a World Bank funded programme) as well as the Union Government.

Let us look at the figures of the rainfall of 1972 and 2012. Table 1 shows monthly normal and actual rainfall for 1972 and 2012 for the months of June to October and their total for the seventeen districts[1] mentioned as drought affected. When the monthly rainfall of 1972 and 2012 shows more than 50% deficit[2] from normal, it is marked in red background for 1972 and in red numbers for 2012.

It is clear from the Table 1 that in June 2012, eight districts had monthly rainfall less than half the normal. In July 2012, no district showed a deficit rainfall more than 50%. In August 2012, the deficit was more than 50% in case of three districts: Aurangabad, Jalna and Osmanabad (these three districts also experienced over 50% deficit in June). This was the case for only Jalna in Sept 2012 and for Dhule and Jalgaon in Oct 2012. It seems from this comparison that Aurangabad, Jalna and Osmanabad were some of the worst drought affected districts this year, which is indeed the case.

In comparison, the number of districts that faced more than 50% deficit in monthly rainfall in 1972 were: 3 in June, 9 in July, 9 in August, 6 in September and all 17 in October 1972. This comparison between 1972 and 2012 for the number of districts facing over 50% deficit in monsoon months clearly tells us that the 1972 rainfall was much lower than the 2012 rainfall for every month with the sole exception of June.

Sugarcane in various stages of growth in Solapur, in March 2013 Photo: SANDRP

Table 2 gives the total rainfall of these five months (June-Oct) in a normal year, in 1972 and in 2012 for these districts. This table also gives the 2012 rainfall as % of the normal rainfall and as % of 1972 rainfall in separate columns. It is clear from this comparison that only in case of two districts (Sangli and Dhule) is the 2012 rainfall substantially lower than 1972. In two other districts (Jalna and Satara) the rainfall in 2012 is lower than that in 1972, but difference is less than 7% in both cases. In remaining thirteen districts, the monsoon rainfall in 2012 was more than that in 1972.

While comparing the 1972 and 2012-13 droughts, it must be kept in mind that rainfall in 1971, the year before the 1972 drought was also low. In comparison, rainfall in Maharashtra was above average in 2011 & most of the dams were full. Maharashtra Economic Survey for 2011-12 notes, “Total rainfall in the State during 2011 was 102.3 per cent of the normal rainfall.” The state agriculture commissioner had stated in 2011: “The good distribution of rain has resulted in good quality of crops. The above average rainfall has filled up nearly all dams, which will help replenish the soil in the run-up to the rabi season.”^{^[3]}

Table 1 Normal, 1972 and 2012 Rainfall (in mm) in Drought Affected Districts

District	Year	June	July	August	September	October	TOTAL
Ahmednagar	Normal	101.4	102.5	84.3	148.1	61	497.3
	1972	80.36	80.29	60.2	97.87	1.2	319.92
	2012	39.6	86.8	63.8	93.6	99.5	383.3
Pune	Normal	139.9	286.6	181.4	144.9	77.3	830.1
	1972	132.41	338.48	68.74	120.42	1.08	661.13
	2012	55.8	161.2	205.6	116.8	137.2	676.6
Solapur	Normal	102	101.1	104.3	181.4	70.9	559.7
	1972	49.35	64.28	20.03	91.4	25.99	251.06
	2012	56.1	93.6	53.2	103.8	105.3	412
Satara	Normal	149.3	339.9	204.5	140.5	87.9	922.1
	1972	241.54	535.62	73.65	127.79	1.75	980.35
	2012	114.2	270.1	278.2	123.9	131.4	917.8
Sangli	Normal	92.9	132.1	96.7	133.6	96.3	551.6
	1972	151.5	337.19	54.05	107.24	15.17	665.16
	2012	48	78.7	58.8	68	154.4	407.9
Aurangabad	Normal	131.4	168.1	166.7	157.3	51.8	675.3
	1972	92.07	46.64	64.63	85.64	0.85	289.84
	2012	49.1	118	67.6	84.7	49.4	368.8
Jalna	Normal	138.9	171.8	166.7	156.7	54	688.1
	1972	105.46	54.83	73.32	102.16	0.61	336.39
	2012	43.4	95.2	62.7	78.4	44.3	324
Beed	Normal	128	161	138.8	177.6	63.1	668.5
	1972	78.35	36.69	48.09	105.09	2.84	271.06
	2012	54.9	108.6	82.7	107.3	81.4	434.9
Latur	Normal	145.6	192.7	181.8	205.2	63.3	788.6
	1972	64.32	46.54	84.57	123.98	6.48	325.88
	2012	115.6	183.4	160.8	163.9	136.3	760
Osmanabad	Normal	163.3	141.6	221.9	148.6	66.3	741.7
	1972	59.03	32.23	33.48	115.17	17.54	257.44
	2012	45.8	142.1	46.2	106.8	49.7	390.6
Nanded	Normal	164.8	273.9	246.9	197.2	60.9	943.7
	1972	128.16	74.17	115.95	60.02	3.99	382.28
	2012	108.4	219.3	154.9	125.5	52.6	660.7
Akola	Normal	135.2	231.3	182.8	148	37.6	734.9
	1972	119.26	130.75	244.64	72.22	0.58	567.45
	2012	151.4	292.9	148.8	198.7	36.3	828.1
Nashik	Normal	154.4	378.1	282	198.5	60.9	1073.9
	1972	101.476	252.837	207.496	78.948	2.37	643.127
	2012	83.2	262	280.1	162.4	75.7	863.4
Dhule	Normal	116.6	168.7	131.8	113.3	36	566.4
	1972	87.68	159.823	240.364	48.517	1.578	537.962
	2012	32.5	171	112	79.6	10.6	405.7
Jalgaon	Normal	130	206.8	187.8	139.2	39.1	702.9
	1972	88.734	80.941	149.924	59.197	0.836	379.632
	2012	19.6	181	102.5	86.2	15.3	404.6
Parbhani	Normal	126.6	210.8	203.5	180.7	55	776.6
	1972	98.107	61.838	97.434	84.497	0.783	342.659
	2012	99.5	192.4	107.4	159.3	78.5	637.1
Buldhana

Source: 1972 Rainfall Data: http://indiawaterportal.org/met_data/

Normal and 2012 Rainfall Data: http://www.mahaagri.gov.in/rainfall/index.asp

In addition, Maharashtra has by far the largest number of Big Dam in India. In 1972, some of the big irrigation projects in the worst drought affected districts. In 40 years since 1972, Maharashtra has built a very large number of big dams, ostensibly to help these drought prone areas. For example, Aurangabad has Jayakwadi project (completed in 1976), Beed has Mazalagaon Project (Jayakwadi Stage II), Jalna has Upper Dudhna and Lower Dudhna projects. Osmanabad depends partly on Ujani Dam, partly on schemes in Krishna basin, Solapur completely depends on Ujani. Live storage of most of the dams in drought affected districts is either 0 or near zero today. All these projects and increased groundwater use facilities in 2012 should actually be able to reduce the impact of rainfall deficit in 2012, which is lower than the deficit of 1972. But the situation is actually the worse in 2012 compared to 1972, claims the Chief Minister and the Union Agriculture Minister. So what are the reasons for this? For one, area under sugarcane in Maharashtra was 167 000 ha in 1970-71, going up to 1022 000 ha in 2011-12 (Maharashtra Economic Survey 2012-13).

Chart showing district-wise Normal, 1972 and 2012 rainfall for the 16 drought affected districts of Maharashtra

As can be seen from the profiles of some of the districts given in Table 3 and accompanying chart, Solapur, Pune, Ahmednagar, Sangli, Satara, Osmanabad, Beed, Latur, Nashik, Jalna, Parbhani and Aurangabad, all drought prone and drought affected districts are major sugar producing centres of the State. They collectively produce 79.5% of sugar produced in Maharashtra. According to Maharashtra Economic Survey for 2012-13, “As on 31st December, 2012, out of the total sugar production in the country, the share of State was 35.3 per cent”. So more the drought prone districts of Maharashtra produce more than a quarter of India’s sugar!

Table 2 Total Rainfall in drought affected districts in 1972 as against 2012 (in mm)

	Districts	Normal	1972	2012	2012 as % of Normal	2012 as % of 1972
1	Ahmednagar	497.1	319.9	383.3	77.1	119.8
2	Pune	830.1	661.1	676.6	81.5	102.3
3	Solapur	559.7	251.1	412.0	73.6	164.1
4	Satara	922.1	980.4	917.8	99.5	93.6
5	Sangli	551.6	665.2	407.9	73.9	61.6
6	Aurangabad	675.3	289.8	368.8	54.6	127.2
7	Jalna	688.1	336.4	324.0	47.1	96.3
8	Beed	668.5	271.1	434.9	65.1	160.4
9	Latur	788.6	325.9	760.0	96.4	233.2
10	Osmanabad	741.7	257.4	390.6	52.7	151.7
11	Nanded	943.7	382.3	660.7	70.0	172.8
12	Akola	734.9	567.5	828.1	112.7	145.9
13	Nashik	1073.9	643.1	863.4	80.4	134.3
14	Dhule	566.4	538.0	405.7	71.6	75.4
15	Jalgaon	702.9	379.6	404.6	57.6	106.6
16	Parbhani	776.6	342.6	637.1	82.0	186.0
17	Buldhana	713.0	453.2	612.2	85.9	135.1

As one travelled during March 2013 in some of the drought affected districts like Pune, Solapur, Ahmednagar and Nashik one saw unending fields of sugarcane, and some of Banana and Grapes on both sides of the road. Many of these fields were planted after August 2012 when it was known that Maharashtra would be facing a drought this year. There was no attempt by anyone in the Maharashtra govt or administration to curb either planting of sugarcane and other water intensive crops or to curb any of the water intensive activities like running of sugar and wine factories in the drought affected districts. The builders continued to advertise sale of houses attached with swimming pools in drought affected areas. Maharashtra continues to divert millions of cubic meters of water everyday, out of the Krishna and Bheema basin, to the Konkan area with average rainfall of over 3000 mm. The manager of Solapur Hotel said that there is no water scarcity. Groundwater levels are down, but there seemed little sign of drought in most of these areas. The poor and the cattle are facing the water shortage. However, it seems those who had the money and power continued to get as much water as they needed, for whatever purpose they want it for. An NDTV programme on March 29, 2013 accused NCP leaders of stealing water in times of drought[4].

Table 3: Profiles of some of the drought affected districts

Area in ‘000 ha		Ahmednagar	Aurangabad	Beed	Jalna	Osmanabad	Sangli	Solapur	Pune
Geographical area		1702	1007.7	1068.6	772.6	748.5	861	1487.8	1562
Sown area		1146.3	654	876	529	519.3	557.1	919.7	945
Net Irrigated area		330	163.3	137.7	116.5	106.66	174	251.5	287
Canal irrigated area		84	31.05	108.92	22.17	18.72	45	31.4	121.5
GW irrigated		246	130.31	Nil	91.28	102.74	38.5	193.5	92.3
Sugarcane area	2007-08	133.3	34.3	74	25.1	53.8	64.7	154.5	104.2
Sugarcane area	2010-11	126	23.3	58.8	19.3	43.2	76.3	163.1	111.5

Amazingly, the Maharashtra Economic Survey for 2012-13, published after March 19, 2013[5] does not mention that the state is suffering from drought, leave aside giving details of the drought prone areas. Interestingly, it says that during 2012 monsoon, Maharashtra suffered rainfall deficit of 9.7% and that 10 districts and 136 talukas had deficit over 25%. And Yet the survey reported that water availability situation was alarming in Aurangabad, Jalna, Beed, Osmanabad, Nanded, Ahmednagar, Nashik, Jalgaon Pune, Satara, Sangli, Solapur and Buldhana (13 districts). These districts, the survey said, suffered “very severe water scarcity”. It said 1779 villages were supplied water through tankers as on March 4, 2013, topping the list was Aurangabad division with 771 villages. 4709 wadis were also supplied water through tankers, topping the list here was Pune division with 3197 wadis.

MWRRA and the state machinery have entirely failed in managing water levels at Jayakwadi & Ujni dams and releases from the upstream dam releases. There has been no serious attempt at controlling area under sugarcane and sugarcane crushing in the drought areas or controlling unauthorised sugarcane cultivation around Ujani backwaters, or unauthorised lifts from upstream of many dams like Nandur Madhyameshwar and through canal systems Majalgaon Project or lifting of water from the river beds for sugarcane or curbing other non essential water intensive activities. In fact all efforts have been towards increasing the area under sugarcane and other water intensive activities in the drought prone areas. In affidavit in the High Court, Maharashtra government said on March 28, 2013 that MWRRA effectively does not exist!

40 years after Maharashtra’s worst drought of 1972, the state seem to be in worse situation this year, despite spending lakhs of crores on irrigation projects and despite putting in place numerous institutions and authorities to manage water. While 1972 drought could be called a natural calamity, 2012-13 drought is a disaster of water management accompanied by corruption, extremely water intensive cropping pattern unsuitable for the drought prone areas, pushed by the government and the politicians, top heavy institutions without local participation or transparency, absence of responsive disaster management system and absence of a long term view to manage drought.

Parineeta Dandekar (parineeta.dandekar@gmail.com) and Himanshu Thakkar (ht.sandrp@gmail.com)

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (www.sandrp.in)

[1] Ahmednagar, Pune, Solapur, Sangli, Satara, Aurangabad, Beed, Jalna, Latur, Osmanabad,Nanded, Akola, Parbhani, Buldhana, Nashik, Dhule and Jalgaon

[2] It may be noted here that India Meteorological office calls rainfall deficient when deficit is 20-60% and scanty when deficit is more than 60%. We have used the figure for 50% just for comparison here.

[3] http://envis.maharashtra.gov.in/envis_data/?q=monsoon_update_jul11_nws

[4] http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/maharashtra-drought-sugar-barons-from-sharad-pawar-s-party-stealing-water/269732

[5] http://mahades.maharashtra.gov.in/files/publication/esm_2012-13_eng.pdf

Dams

Fish Ladders: Do they Work?

March 29, 2013October 14, 2020 SANDRP2 Comments

During the last few months several contradictory facts have been surfacing about fish ladders. Fish Ladders are small elevated steps or passes made in dams, with water releases to enable fish to migrate in the upstream (or downstream) of the dam.

This upstream migration is a part of the reproductive cycle of many fish, like Hilsa and Mahseer in India.

A study in the United States, a country with comprehensive attention to impacts of dams on fish, has concluded that actual numbers of fish who make it to their spawning grounds above dams with fish passages is a small fraction of targeted goals of these facilitie. For example, for American shad (Incidentally, Hilsa is also a type of Shad) – an important species for commercial and recreational fisheries that sustained generations on the East coast of the US – on average about only 3% percent of the fish that pass the first fishway make it past the last dam with a fishway in these rivers. Another example is that species such as Atlantic sturgeon cannot pass fish ladders—so for certain species, fishways do not work at all. Thus, in these systems, effective up and down stream passage is not being provided for anadromous fish. The result is that these species are getting listed as endangered or threatened one by one. The study actually concludes that looking at the dismal success rate of fish ladders and hatchery based recovery programs, “Ecologically and economically significant species restoration is not possible without dam removals”. (International Rivers)

A spectacular film “End of the River” chronicles the impact of small hydropower dams on fish in Europe. The film says that water released from the fish ladders is not enough for the fish species to survive in the downstream. https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/the-end-of-the-river/)

At the same time, ecologically designed fish ladders do help the fish get across the impediment of dams in some cases. For example, a weir on River Elbe in Germany counted its Millionth migrating fish in January 2013, 3 years after it was built.(http://www.dw.de/german-fish-ladder-celebrates-millionth-user/a-16509927)

Lesson for India seems to be that, in keeping with our livelihood dependency on riverine fish and their ecological value:

Dams should not be built in ecologically important regions with documented fish diversity like in Western Ghats, Eastern Himalayas, near river confluences and near estuaries.
Existing dams, where feasible, should have fish ladders and passages designed for Indian species, these should be monitored by independent committees with local participation
all small hydel projects should have functioning fish ladders and most importantly,
ALL dams should release e-flows which exceed the flows needed for fish survival and migration. E-flows should be released through fish passages and not turbines. They should keep in mind the need for longitudinal and lateral connectivities.
No in stream sand mining should be allowed. No diversion of water for sand mining should be allowed. Sand mining should only be done manually, use of machine should not be allowed.

Unfortunately, even India’s premier research institutes like CIFRI are recommending eflows which are insufficient for species like trouts to survive. Its not a coincidence that these recommendations are very convenient for the private dam developers who are funding these studies.

SANDRP (ht.sandrp@gmail.com)

POST SCRIPT: Some related articles on SANDRP blog:
1. https://sandrp.in/2016/11/24/narora-barrage-fish-ladder-ganga-and-memories/
2. https://sandrp.in/2016/08/12/sushri-umaji-hilsa-fisherfolk-and-ganga-deserve-more-than-a-fish-ladder-by-cifri/
3. https://sandrp.in/2014/02/02/fish-ladder-at-kurichhu-hydropower-project-bhutan-some-thoughts/
4. https://sandrp.in/2014/12/17/larji-dam-fishladder-an-unlovely-trinket-a-deceptive-ornament/

Dams

Drought engineered by state govt

March 25, 2013March 26, 2013 SANDRPLeave a comment

Drought engineered by state govt: expert

DNA Correspondent; March 24, 2013

The current drought situation in the state has been engineered by the state government, which has diverted water to cash crops, alleged Himanshu Thakkar, coordinator of the South Asia Network of Dams, Rivers and People.

He was speaking at the opening session of the two-day conference titled, ‘The water sector of India – challenges and prospects’ here on Saturday. The event was organised by the Karve Institute of Social Service as part of its golden jubilee celebrations.

Thakkar said, “If we compare the 1972 rainfall to this year’s, we can see that the rainfall this year is higher. The sugarcane crop has not been affected this year, though there is a severe drought. This shows that water is being diverted to sugarcane at the expense of other crops. At the same time, water is being diverted from the Krishna basin to the Koyna power plant to be used for electricity generation.”

Thakkar added that though thousands of crores of rupees had been spent on building dams in the last 20 years, the net irrigated area in the country has not increased much.

He said the drought in Maharashtra was engineered. “Despite what we hear about the severity of the drought, the fact is that the sugarcane production in the state has not dropped,” he said.

The sugarcane crop has not suffered at all. Though the government of Maharashtra has spent thousands of crores of rupees on new dams in the last 20 years, irrigated area in the state has not increased much. The irrigation department officials are not accountable to the people.”

He said that today groundwater was the mainstay of the people, especially in rural areas. “Both rural water supply and irrigation are largely supplied through groundwater, but there is no regulation of this resource. With every passing day, our dependence on groundwater is rising, but we are not doing anything to protect or preserve our groundwater sources,” he said.

Thakkar added that rising water pollution was another major challenge. He slammed the central and state pollution control boards for their failure to ensure clean water bodies. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act was passed in 1974, after which the states set up the state pollution control boards. But today, there are hardly any water bodies that have been made clean by these boards. “There is hardly any example of a polluted water body in the country that was cleaned by the boards since 1974,” he said.

Another expert too pointed out the different treatment given to the sugarcane crop. Shripad Dharmadhikari, a policy researcher at Manthan Adhyana Kendra, Pune said, “The major problem over water is that there is no mechanism of allocating water. Though Maharashtra has over 30 per cent of the nation’s major dams, the water is only being used for sugarcane crop. What one sees in many villages is that people are struggling to get drinking water, while on other hand the sugarcane crop is well-irrigated. We should give priority for drinking water over all other requirements.”

Some experts spoke on the need for planning. Himanshu Kulkarni, secretary of the NGO, Advanced Centre for Water Resources Development and Management (Acwadam), said that the biggest problem today is the absence of planning to meet water needs. “We need to have a plan for the next 15 years in order to preserve water sources, especially groundwater. There is a clear link between the current drought and the over-extraction of groundwater.”

Magasasay awardee Rajendra Singhji of Tarun Bharat Sangh and Jal Biradari said there were four key components in protecting natural resources like water. “One is to control water evaporation; second, enhance ground water; third, take control over your own life (uske bad apna jivan chalawo); and finally stand up against those who loot your resources.” He spoke at the last session of the first day of the state-level event organised as part of Karve Institute’s golden jubilee celebrations.

http://www.dnaindia.com/mobile/report.php?n=1815072&p=0

Dams

Maharashta Drought: Breaking the Sugar Shackles

March 19, 2013 SANDRPLeave a comment

The fact that the state’s most drought-prone regions have continued to devote precious resources for highly water-intensive sugarcane cultivation and sugar production indicates that there is more to the region’s water crisis than climatic conditions alone. Parineeta Dandekar analyses.

This year seems to be a year of basalt-hard lessons for Maharashtra. The year saw the irrigation scam, sugarcane farmers protesting for a fair price (leading to the death of two farmers) and now a ‘drought worse than 1972’ with 11,801 villages declared to be drought affected in March 2013.

If we analyse these three events in perspective, their link becomes inextricably clear. This year’s drought, though devastating, was not an unannounced calamity. It had been building up since August 2012, when more than 400 villages were declared drought-affected. The protest by sugarcane farmers was not a sudden outburst either; their discontent over fair price for sugarcane had been simmering and occasionally boiling over for the past few years. Last but not the least, the irrigation scam, though unprecedented in scale, was not a sudden revelation. Many NGOs, whistle blowers and government committees had been warning about the tip of the iceberg for several years.

Many experts, organisations and reports like World Bank have highlighted the unjustifiably high share of sugarcane in Maharashtra’s irrigation

That all these factors came together in one year is not just an unfortunate coincidence. It shows that the reasons behind the Maharashtra drought are starker than simply less rainfall. Unless these root causes are addressed, no amount of state and central assistance can banish droughts. Farmers and rural and urban poor have been suffering for too long due to the opportunistic and myopic response of the political and administrative leadership in Maharashtra to successive droughts. To understand and change this, we need to first take a long, deep look at some of the reasons sparking the water shortage:

Worst drought-affected districts have the most sugar factories

Sugarcane is one of the most water-intensive crops grown in Maharashtra, requiring ten times more water than Jowar or nut. Ironically, the regions where it is grown the most are chronically drought hit regions, which have been receiving central aid for drought proofing though the Drought Proof Area Program and other such schemes. Sugarcane area under drip irrigation in these regions is dismally low.

According to the Water Resources Department, Maharashtra, in 2009-10, of the approximate 25 lakh hectares (Ha) of irrigated area in Maharashtra, 3,97,000 Ha was under sugarcane. However, according to the Union Agricultural Ministry (which would get its data from the State Agricultural Department), area under sugarcane was 9,70,000 hectares in 2010-11 and again 10,02, 000 hectares in 2011-12.

When it was grown on 16% Irrigated area, sugarcane used 76% of all water for Irrigation. With area under sugarcane increasing, its hegemony has increased exponentially. Not only does it capture maximum water, it results in water logging, salinity and severe water pollution by sugar factories. Incidentally, Maharashtra has 209 sugar factories, the highest in any state in India.

A strong example of links between drought and sugarcane may be found in the Solapur District in the Bhima Basin, which is facing the worst of droughts today. Live storage of Ujani Dam is zero and drinking water is being taken from dead storage, even as Solapur and 400 villages depend on Ujani for drinking water. Drinking water supply has become a severe problem. Hundreds of villages and blocks have been declared drought affected. Nearly 1000 tankers have been plying, and there is a near exodus of stricken communities to urban areas.

Solapur also includes the Union Agriculture Minister’s parliamentary constituency Madha. This chronically drought-prone district, with average annual rainfall of 550 mm, is the largest sugarcane producer in Maharashtra with the densest concentration of sugar factories and area under sugarcane . That such water intensive cropping pattern in an arid region should flourish in Union Minister of Agriculture Sharad Pawar’s constituency speaks volumes about the political backing for sugarcane and the attitude of the Ministry.

During a meeting at the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), officials from the Water Resource Department (WRD) claimed that of the 87 TMC (Thousand million cubic feet) live storage of Ujani, 50-60 TMC is flow irrigation to sugarcane in command, accounting for more than 60% of its live storage. The authorised use, however, is only 32 TMC! In addition, there are several sugar factories in the upstream of the Ujani dam, taking water through unauthorised lifts from the backwaters. So, actual water going to sugarcane from Ujani is estimated to be close to 80% or more. This is causing severe water scarcity in the downstream regions, creating severe drinking water crisis.

All of this diversion apparently happens with political support. Of the 30 cabinet ministers in Maharashtra, 13 ministers either own sugar factories, or a substantial share in these. The White Paper on Irrigation Projects proudly boasts that the Ujani Project irrigates 92000 hectares of Sugarcane.

Apart from Ujani, Pune region (Districts Satara, Solapur and Pune), Ahmednagar Region, Aurangabad region and Nanded region, – all of them drought-prone areas – also have a dense concentration of sugar factories, aided by irrigated sugarcane fields in the vicinity.

Sugarcane is increasing in area in drought affected Krishna and Godavari Basins too, commanding maximum share of the irrigation water. This is borne out by the table below, all figures taken from the Maharashtra Irrigation Status report 2009-10 (the latest one available).

Area under main crops in thousand hectares (canals, groundwater and rivers) ISR 2009-10
Region	Jowar	Wheat	Ground nut	Harbhara	Rice	Oilseed	Sugar-cane	Cotton	Fruits
Pune	221.43	191.85	38.68	52.85	96.96	61.58	315.97	5.77	13.80
Aurangabad	29.38	33.33	5.07	12.68	0.08	2.30	43.30	27.83	5.48

Sugarcane: Lifeline of the political economy of Maharashtra

A Memorandum for Drought Relief sent to the centre from Maharashtra in 2003-04 said that Sugarcane is the “Lifeline of the agro economy of Maharashtra”. However, more than a lifeline of the agro-economy, it appears to be so for the political economy of Maharashtra. Hugely entrenched in sugar politics, the political economy is unable to take any brave and sustainable decisions when it comes to cultivating sugarcane. As experts have pointed out in the past, entire water management of Maharashtra revolves around sugarcane.

The Ujani Dam, sanctioned in 1964 for 40 Crores is still not complete, while the expenses have been pegged at nearly 2000 Crores. Even as the main canal work is incomplete, more and more lift irrigation schemes, link canals, underground tunnels are being planned on this dam, for sugarcane. Incomplete projects, with bad distribution network, which has been the hallmark of the irrigation scam, has aided sugarcane cultivation the most and has resulted in concentration of water in small ‘pockets of prosperity’ amidst drought affected zones and thirsty tail-enders.

Osmanabad collector K.M. Nagzode had written to the state sugar commissioner on 29 November 2012 that Osmanabad “had received only 50% of average rainfall, and water levels in dams are extremely low while ground water hasn’t been replenished and that since a sugar factory typically uses at least one lakh litres of water a day, it would be advisable to suspend crushing and divert the harvest to neighbouring districts”. However, no such orders were given and cane crushing went on. Osmanabad district contributes significantly to sugar production of Maharashtra, with over 25100 hectares of sugarcane, which is the only crop that gets irrigation in this district.

District Collectors have the right to reserve water for drinking in any major, medium and minor projects, when they see the need. However, even when Ujani was reaching zero live storage, such decision was not taken by the Solapur Collector.

Everybody loves a good drought

A Memorandum for drought relief sent by the Maharashtra government to the Centre does not seem to be in the public domain, but the state is reportedly seeking Rs 2500 crore for drought relief. The Memorandum for drought relief, 2003-04 shows that during every drought, we indulge in the same fire- fighting measures of resorting to the Employment Guarantee Scheme, tanker water supply, cattle camps and well-control. Once the drought passes, sugarcane is pushed again.

Currently 3 million farmers and significant number of labourers are involved in sugarcane farming, it is claimed. In reality, even if a million hectares were to be under sugarcane, how can 3 million farmers be involved in sugarcane farming when the average farm size in Maharashtra is 1.45 hectares?

We have neither been able to solve the minimum price for sugarcane lock till now. Farmers have been demanding Rs 4500 per tonne of sugarcane from sugar industries, which have agreed to only Rs 2300/ tonne. In Vidarbha, the situation is even worse with prices at Rs 1500/ tonne. The government has made it clear that it will not interfere in the issue. Many sugar industries did not even pay last year’s dues to farmers. Globally and in Indian markets, sugar prices are going down. Last November, during farmers’ protests for minimum price for sugarcane, two farmers lost their lives. This protest was the strongest in the drought hit region around Ujani Dam.

Instead of hiding behind claims of three million sugarcane farmers, politicians need to ensure that these farmers do not have to suffer the same fate time and again. With climate change, droughts have become a more frequent reality. The only way to tackle and manage droughts is to improve the resilience of the agro-economic system and water management systems in coping with droughts. Encouraging and pushing for sugarcane in chronically drought-affected areas is a poor adaptation measure and only pushes farmers deeper into the vicious cycle of uncertainty, crop failures, and hardships.

Drip Irrigation: A Band-aid solution?

The Maharashtra state government is planning to make it mandatory for sugarcane growers to use drip irrigation systems over the next three years, a move prompted by the drought. “Hence a regulation will make a big difference in the water utilization pattern in the agro-sector,” chief minister, Prithviraj Chavan said in an interview.

Measures like drip Irrigation, sprinkler irrigation, etc, though critical, are incapable of arresting the proliferation of sugarcane, a fundamentally inappropriate crop in drought prone areas. Moreover, despite the relative abundance of sugarcane and heavy subsidies for drip, sugarcane belts have stuck to flood irrigation and have not adopted drip the way Nashik region has for grapes. Of the one million hectares under sugarcane, barely 10% is under drip. Even the Union Agriculture Minister’s constituency has not shown any notable success on this front.

As sugarcane is claiming almost all of irrigation and also domestic water from dams in the drought-affected zones, villagers in Marathwada and Western Maharashtra do not have drinking water; students are missing their exams to attend to cattle at cattle shelters and hospitals have to postpone surgeries for want of water. If at all Maharashtra wants to liberate itself from the shackle of regular droughts, one of the things it must first do is break free from sugarcane, and politicians who push the mirage of sugarcane in the absence of any sustainable efforts towards improving farm livelihoods.

This drought would not have been so severe if Maharashtra had broken the shackles of sugar earlier.⊕

Parineeta Dandekar
14 March 2013

Parineeta Dandekar is with the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People.

References and Links

Bharat Patankar, Asserting the Rights of the Toiling Peasantry for Water Use, IWRM in India
Irrigation Status Report 2009-10, Maharashtra Water Resources Department
64th Meeting of the Expert Appraisal committee on River Valley and Hydropower projects: TOR for Shirapur Lift Irrigation Scheme
Revised Memorandum to the Government of India on Drought Relief and Mitigation in Maharashtra (2003-04)
Agriculture Statistics at a Glance 2012, Ministry of Agriculturehttp://eands.dacnet.nic.in/Publication12-12-2012/Agriculture_at_a_Glance 2012/Pages85-136.pdf
http://www.jains.com/Company/bhj/2agriculture in maharashtra.htm
http://www.vsisugar.com/india/statistics/maharashtra-sugar-industry.htm
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/Maharashtra-set-to-face-worst-drought-ever/Article1-1021808.aspx
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/tBAf2SQJDHNzcmRGmlifsM/Suspend-cane-crushing-in-11-factories–Osmanabad-DM.html
http://agricoop.nic.in/Agriculture Contingency Plan/Maharastra/Maharashtra 30-Osmanabad- 31-12-2011.pdf
http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/in-western-maharashtra-cane-farmers-protest-turns-violent-2-die/article4091037.ece
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/xZBeoQVgOMFZiFwmJWtHBL/Maharashtra-govt-to-tackle-water-shortage-with-drip-irrigati.html

Dams

Impact of 98 Mini Hydel Projects on Cauvery on Bangalore’s Water Supply

March 16, 2013April 1, 2013 SANDRP4 Comments

In recent news reports, it was reported that “following the drastic fall in the water-level in the Shiva Balancing Reservoir (SBR), the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) has asked Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (KPTCL) and Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. (KPCL) to stop power generation from four mini-hydroelectric projects in the Cauvery basin, at least till May.”[1] The projects which were asked to stop generation include: Madhavamantri, Satyagala, Shiva Anecut and Shimsha mini-hydroelectric projects.

However, the fact is that KREDL (Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Limited) has allotted and commissioned a whopping 98 mini hydel projects on the Cauvery, most of them downstream Krishnaraj Sagar Dam, many of them commissioned. These projects are in the Mysore, Mandya and Chamrajanagara Districts. Actual numbers maybe higher as we have not included projects from Ramanagara in the list as we are not certain how many of those would fall in Cauvery Basin.

24 Projects are in Mysore, 62 in Mandya and 12 in Chamrajanagar.

See Annex 1 for the full list with their status (Only projects from Mandya in the Annex, contact us if you need the full list)

Some of these projects are downstream from the Shiva Anicut from where water supply to Bangalore is routed. In addition to decrease in water availability, water stored by several mini hydel projects increases the evapo-transpiration rate of water, particularly in summer.

Critically, these projects also hold back water, affecting water supply cycles to Bangalore and other towns and villages dependent on the river. Similar conditions had occurred in Mangalore, last year where water levels in the Thumbe Dam fell to alarming levels due to mini hydel projects hoarding up water in the upstream.[2]

In Cauvery, if at all the state government, BWSSB and others concerned about impact of water supply due to mini hydel projects, they need to consider the impact of these projects on the water supply, ecology and livelihoods in the downstream areas and consider halting generation of these projects during this summer when the Cauvery basin is facing sure dire water situation. Mini Hydel Projects which are below the capacity of 25 MW do not need Environmental Clearance, Environment Impact Assessment or Public Hearing. String of Mini Hydel projects on a single river, one after the other, severely affects the hydrology as well as ecology of a river system and also people and their livelihoods in surrounding areas. The same is happening with Cauvery with nearly 100 Mini Hydel projects planned or commissioned. Many projects are right next to the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary and are causing impediment to movement of elephants, increasing man-animal conflicts. This has been highlighted by the Karnataka Elephant Task Force. Due to their cumulative impacts on ecology, High Court of Karnataka has halted construction of any such projects in Western Ghats.

Hence, keeping water supply, hydrology and ecology in view, project level and cumulative impact assessment of mini hydel projects planned, allotted and commissioned along the River Cauvery is an urgent need. Earlier such appeals to KREDL, Karnataka Forest Department and Karnataka Wildlife Board have fallen on deaf ears.

We hope that the Karnataka government, BWSSB, KPCL, KREDL, KPTCL, Cauvery Neeravari Nigam and all others concerned will come together and will conduct this assessment urgently and cancel the projects which are having unacceptable impacts on people, ecology, hydrology and water supply of Cauvery. Immediately, an assessment of their impact is required in the context of summer and dire water situation.

On the International Day of Action for Rivers, Cauvery needs our urgent attention. Cumulative impact Assessment and individual Impact Assessment of unprecendeted number of Mini Hydel Projects is a must.

Nisarg Prakash, Nityata Foundation, Bangalore, nisargprakash@gmail.com

Dr. Latha Anantha, River Research Centre, Kerala, rrckerala@gmail.com

Parineeta Dandekar, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP) parineeta.dandekar@gmail.com

09860030742

(Scroll Down for a list of Commissioned and Allotted Mini Hydel Projects on Cauvery in Mandya District alone)

Annexure 1

Small Hydro Projects in mandya District on Cauvery in Karnataka. Please contact us if you need full list of 98 projects including those in Mysore and Chamrajanagara.

(Source: Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Limited, KREDL: http://www.kredltest.in/Hydroreportall.aspx)

No.	Company	Company	MHS	Status	Capacity (MW)
1	ADD Realty Ltd.			New	3
2	Aparimitha Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd.	Aparimitha	Kuppahalli MHS	Allotted	4
3	Atria Brindavan Power Ltd.	Atria	Hanumanahalla	Commissioned	8
4	Atria Brindavan Power Ltd.	Atria	Brindavan	Allotted	12
5	Atria Brindavan Power Ltd.	Atria	Visveswara	Commissioned	12
6	Atria Brindavan Power Ltd.	Atria	KRS	Commissioned	4
7	Atria Hydel Power Ltd.	Atria	Sheshadri Iyer	Allotted	10
8	Atria Hydel Power Ltd.	Atria	Sheshadri Iyer II	Commissioned	12
9	Atria Power Corpn. Ltd.	Atria	Shimsha	New	24
10	Atria Power Corpn. Ltd.	Atria	Yelachagere MHS	Allotted	5
11	B & G Energy Pvt. Ltd.	B&G		Allotted	3
12	B Soilmec India Pvt. Ltd.	B Soilmec	Hasurubore Halla	Allotted	20
13	B Soilmec India Pvt. Ltd.	B Soilmec	Someshwara II	Commissioned	15
14	Bhoruka Power Corpn. Ltd.	Bhoruka	Mandagere	Commissioned	4.5
16	Cauvery Hydro Energy Ltd.	Cauvery	Shiva	Commissioned	3
17	Cauvery Hydro Energy Ltd.	Cauvery	Akkihebbal	Allotted	4.5
18	Energica Power Co.	NULL	Alugodu	Commissioned	0.8
19	Graphite India Ltd.	Graphite India		Allotted	1.5
20	Hallikeshwara Energy Projects Pvt. Ltd.	NULL	NULL	Allotted	0.5
21	IJK Power Pvt. Ltd.	NULL	Ganadahalli	Allotted	15
22	Innoverse Eco Friendly Solutions	Innoverse	Thimmana hosur	Allotted	0.4
23	Instrument & Systems	NULL	Banasamudra	Allotted	1
24	Kaltronics Office Automation & Networking Pvt. Ltd.	Parpikala	Mahadevapura	Commissioned	0.5
25	Kilara Power Pvt. Ltd.	NULL	NULL	Commissioned	2
26	Limbavali Power Pvt. Ltd.	Limbavali	Hullahhalla	Commissioned	12
27	LK Power Corpn. Ltd.	LK	Maddur Branch Canal	Allotted	2
28	Manasa Gangothri Power Pvt. Ltd.			New	3
29	ME Power Gen Project	NULL	Shree Lakshmi Narashimhaswamy	Allotted	3
30	Mythree Power Developers	Mythree	Sampaji	Allotted	0.25
31	Nimishamba Energy India Pvt. Ltd.	Nimishamba	Nimishamba	New	3
32	Obull Power Projects Pvt. Ltd.	Obull	Sagya	New	2
33	Obull Power Projects Pvt. Ltd.	Obull	Chillapura	Allotted	2
34	P6 Energy Pvt. Ltd.	KCP	Ballenahalli	New	2
35	Paramount Estate Pvt. Ltd.		Ramapura	New	1
36	Paramount Estate Pvt. Ltd.		chaluve	Allotted	1
37	Parpikala Power Pvt. Ltd.	Parpikala	Viraja	Allotted	0.5
38	Parpikala Power Pvt. Ltd.	Parpikala	Sithapura	Allotted	0.5
39	Penna Cements Industries Ltd.	Pioneer Genco	Sreeramadevara	Allotted	24.75
40	Photon Energy Systems Ltd.	Photon	Hosaholalu	Commissioned	0.5
41	Pioneer Genco Ltd.	Pioneer Genco	Someshwara	Allotted	24.75
42	Samrudhi Hydro Energy	NULL	KRS	Allotted	1.22
43	SLS Power Industries Ltd.	Bhoruka	Belakavadi	Allotted	1.5
44	SM Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd.	SM	NULL	Allotted	10
45	Soham Renewable Energy India Pvt. Ltd.	Soham	Mahadevapura-2	Allotted	6
46	Sree Mallikarjuna Power	NULL	Maddur	Allotted	0.95
47	Sri Rama Enterprises	Rama	Doddrasinakere	Allotted	0.5
48	Sri Rama Enterprises	Rama	Chikkarsinakere	Allotted	0.5
49	Sriven Power Pvt. Ltd.	NULL	Heggadahalli	Allotted	5
50	Subhash Kabini Power Corpn. Pvt. Ltd.	SPML	Varuna RBC	Allotted	2
51	Subhash Kabini Power Corpn. Pvt. Ltd.	SPML	Hulikere	New	3
52	Trinity Aero & Energy Formulations Pvt Ltd	NULL	Mosarahalla (Katteri Nala)	Commissioned	0.25
53	Trishul Power Pvt. Ltd.	Trishul	Hemagir	Allotted	4
54	V.Pram Power Co. Pvt. Ltd.	NULL	Devaraya	Allotted	0.5
55	Venika Green Power Pvt. Ltd.	XS	Chikka	Commissioned	24.75
56	Venika Green Power Pvt. Ltd.	XS	Malligere	Commissioned	0.75
57	Vijayalakshmi Hydro Power P Ltd (2)	NULL	Hebbakavadi	Commissioned	1.75
58	Vijayalakshmi Hydro Power P Ltd (3)		Hebbakavadi	Allotted	1.25
59	West Mountain Power Ltd.	West Mountain	Shimsha Kaveri Confluence SHP	Allotted	24
60	XS Hydro Energy Pvt. Ltd.	XS		Commissioned	24.75
61	Yuken India Ltd.		Attigala	Allotted	0.35
62	Zen Power Pvt. Ltd.	KGK	Paschim vahini	Allotted	0.5
	TOTAL			361.47 MW

[1] http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/water-likely-to-be-diverted-from-minihydel-projects-to-bangalore/article4480453.ece

[2] http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Mangalore/water-from-two-hydel-projects-released-mcc-commissioner/article3307122.ece

Dams

Comments on MWR’s DRAFT HYDRO-METEOROLOGICAL DATA DISSEMINATION POLICY (2013)

March 8, 2013March 11, 2013 SANDRP1 Comment

The Union Ministry of Water Resources has invited comments by March 31, 2013 (comments to be sent to: nwp2012-mowr@nic.in) on its Draft Hydro-Meteorological Data Dissemination Policy 2013 based on the document available at: http://mowr.gov.in/DraftHydrometlDataDisseminationPolicy_2013.pdf. This is indeed a welcome move. Since there has been no publicity of this notice, we assume that the policy has just been put up on the MWR website on March 7, 2013.

PREAMBLE The preamble to the policy should also mention that the National Water Mission of 2008 and the Draft National Water Policy 2012 (final version still not available on MWR website, typical of the MWR functioning) also require transparent data sharing policy.

LANGUAGE OF DRAFT POLICY AND PERIOD OF COMMENTS The three week period provided for comments is too brief and the policy is also not available in languages that majority of people of this country speak and understand. This is an issue that is of interest to majority of people of the country. Hence the draft policy should be translated into local languages and disseminated widely before setting a reasonable deadline for inviting comments.

UNCLASSIFIED RIVER BASIN INFORMATION The policy should mandate the MWR, CWC, CGWB, India Meteorological Department and all other organisations that are involved in such data collection to put all unclassified hydro-meteorological information promptly in public domain. This is also the requirement implied by the section 4(2) of the RTI act, which the draft policy quotes. United States Geological Society, the agency of USA that is in charge of gathering such data in the US is making this available to the mobile phone users through a publicly available application, see: http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/45658. The qualification now put in section 6.1 of the draft policy that the information even in unclassified basins only after “after validation and to the extent published in Water Year Book, Water Quality Year Book, Water Sediment Year Book, Ground Water Year Book” is clearly unacceptable. CWC takes years to publish its year books and the information cannot be held secret till CWC and CGWB find time to make their year books public. About the validation issue, the information promptly put up can say that this is unvalidated information and validated information an be put up after validation. This is even now standard practice adopted by number of agencies like Central Electricity Authority who put up the “tentative” monthly generation reports first and actual reports later on (see: http://www.cea.nic.in/monthly_gen.html).

CLASSIFIED BASINS INFORMATION It is good to see that there is no blanket ban on making public hydro-met information for the classified river basins and there is some application of mind to make some of it public. However, this is still far from sufficient. In the classified basins section, you can say that following categories of data should be made public:

(1) Data pertaining to any “public interest” project in the basin, public interest being defined as per say the Land Acquisition Act, any project where land is compulsorily acquired;
(2) Data related to any project that is defined as a public project under the RTI Act;

(3) Data related to any project being defined as Category A or B1 projects for EIA under the 2006 EIA Notification;

(4) Data related to any project that requires forest land;

(5) Data related to any irrigation, drinking water, flood control project and data related to any hydropower project as all of them are supposed to be public purpose projects. All information that is necessary for assessing and understanding cost benefit, social and environment impact assessment of hydropower projects, dams, diversions, information necessary for assessing and understanding disaster management plans including dam break analysis and such kind of information should be in public domain.;

(6) Data related to any project or intervention that can cause significant impact on the local populations or ecology, and

(7) Any data or information that is made available to any private developer or commercial interests.

(8) All information about the water flow at smaller sub basins of the classified basin should be in public domain, as this is very useful for all water related planning, decision making and analysis.

(9) All information shared with the neighbouring countries should be in public domain.

(10) Information about functioning of all transboundary cooperation projects, plans and committees should be in public domain.

INFORMATION SHARED BY NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES The policy should also make it clear that information shared by the neighbours with India, particularly relevant for people in terms of information related to floods, water flow and water quality etc should also be promptly available in public domain. What is the use of flood forecasting information if it is not available to those who are in the areas that are vulnerable to flood risks that this information is pertaining to?

ORGANISATIONS OTHER THAN CWC AND CGWB There are a large number of organisations besides CWC and CGWB that are also involved in collecting hydro-met information, including IMD, state government, BBMB, NHPC, NEEPCO, SJVN, THDC and private sector hydropower developers. The policy should be pertaining to all such organisations. All information gathered by IMD should be in public domain, in all basins.

METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION In addition to actual data, the methods of data collection should also be available in public domain, so that the information users can also understand the implications of such methods for the accuracy or otherwise of such data. The methods deployed related reports by CWC, CGWB, MWR and others in ensuring the accuracy of the data, including third party evaluation should also be in public domain.

GOOD OPPORTUNITY This is a good opportunity to make the functioning of the ministry of water resources also transparent, it would hugely help improve the image of the ministry. The National Water Mission and new Draft National Water Policy also talk about making available all relevant policy and document in public domain promptly. However, this is yet to happen. We hope you will give due consideration to these comments and accordingly change the policy.

Himanshu Thakkar, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (www.sandrp.in), ht.sandrp@gmail.com

Dams

PEOPLES’ CONSULTATION ON DAMS & NATURAL RESOURCES IN NORTH EAST

February 28, 2013 SANDRP1 Comment

10-11 FEBRUARY 2013, AGARTALA, TRIPURA

The participants of the Two Day “Indigenous Peoples Consultation on Dams and Natural Resources Protection in India’s North East”, held at Agartala from 10 till 11 February 2013, organized by the Borok Peoples Human Rights Organization, Committee on the Protection of Natural Resources in Manipur, North East Dialogue Forum, Citizens Concern for Dams and Development, Siang Peoples Forum, Mapithel Dam Affected Villagers Organization, Peoples Movement for Subansiri Valley, Civil Society Women’s Organization, All Loktak Lake Areas Fishermen Union, Affected Citizens of Teesta, Centre for Research and Advocacy, Save Sikkim, Initiative for Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples, Peoples’ Right to Information and Development Implementing Society of Mizoram, Federation of Khasi, Jaintia and Garo People, All Assam Students Union, Save Mon Federation, All Zeliangrong Students Union, Hmar Inpui United Committee on the Protection of Natural Resources, All Tribal Students Union Manipur, Manab Adhikar Sangram Samiti, Naga Women’s Union hereby:

Asserts that the land, forests, rivers and all natural resources in India’s North East belongs to the indigenous peoples of the region. Our land and all natural resources are inherent sources for our life, culture, identify, survival and future of our present and coming generations.

Further affirms that the indigenous peoples in the region have the right to self determination over our land, territory and resources possessing undeniable rights over its management and use.

Expresses our concern with the introduction of more than 200 mega dams and other unsustainable development policies and projects in the region without the free prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples in the region

Asserts that mega dam constructions already commissioned such as Loktak Project in Manipur, Dumbur Dam in Tripura has already led to widespread dispossession, loss of land, extinction of flora and fauna, demographic impacts on indigenous peoples in the region and other human rights violations.

Taking note of the ongoing and aggressive construction of mega dams such as 2700 MW Lower Siang HEP, 3000 MW Dibang HEP, 1750 MW Lower Demwe in Arunachal Pradesh, 1200 MW Teesta III HEP, 500 MW Teesta IV HEP, 97 MW Tashiding HEP, 280 MW Panang HEP etc in Sikkim, 1500 MW Tipaimukh HEP, 7.5 MW Mapithel Dam in Manipur, 2000 MW Lower Subansiri HEP, 600 MW Kameng HEP in Arunachal Pradesh which has already led to widespread dispossession, environment devastations, militarization, conflicts and human rights violations

Seriously concerned with the projection of mega dams in India’s NE as climate friendly and seeking carbon credits and profits by dam developers from CDM mechanisms of UNFCCC Concerned further with increasing corporatization of our land and resources and the aggressive efforts to explore and drill oil in the region by corporate bodies, such as oil exploration efforts by Jubilant Energy in Manipur, Gas exploration in Tripura by ONGC, to mine uranium in Meghalaya by UCIL, etc.

Concerned with the increasing militarization of indigenous peoples land while pursuing mega dams and other extractive industries and the complication of conflicts by the destructive development processes and subsequent human rights violations:

Concerned with the increasing involvement of international financial institutions, such as World Bank, Asian Development Bank, the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation etc in financing energy and water related projects and in deregulation of related policies to intensify corporatization of our land and resources Concerned with the Government of India’s non application of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007 and the recommendations of other UN human Rights bodies, such as the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples and UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2007 and September 2011 to respect indigenous peoples’ rights

Recall the obligations of all states to ensure participatory forms of development and to recognize indigenous peoples rights as reflected in the outcome of the UN Rio+20 conference, June 2012.

Calls upon the Government of India and corporate bodies:

• The Government of India and all corporate bodies should respect and recognize indigenous peoples’ rights over our land and resources in India’s North East and also to respect and recognize their self determined development processes in the region.

• Implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007 and recommendations of all UN human rights bodies in all development processes affecting their land and resources. • Decommission Dumbur HEP project in Tripura and Loktak Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project in Manipur

• Revoke all MoUs, Environment Clearances for mega dams in the region, especially for 2700 MW Lower Siang HEP, 3000 MW Dibang HEP, 1750 MW Lower Demwe in Arunachal Pradesh, 1200 MW Teesta III HEP, 500 MW Teesta IV HEP, 97 MW Tashiding HEP, 280 MW Panang HEP etc in Sikkim, 1500 MW Tipaimukh HEP, 4000 MW Etalin HEP, 2000 MW Lower Subansiri HEP, 600 MW Kameng HEP etc, granted in the region despite peoples vehement objections and also without their consent.

• Conduct a full review of Mapithel Dam construction and other ongoing mega dams constructions for their compliance with social, environment and human rights norms and safeguards as laid down by the World Commission on Dams, UN Indigenous Peoples Declaration, other human rights treaties and as reflected in “The Future, We Want”, the outcome document of the Rio+20 in June 2012.

• Stop all false projection of Mega Dams as Climate Change friendly in NE India

• Oppose all bilateral or multilateral secretive agreements and negotiations among States on water and energy issues in India’s North East, especially between India and Bangladesh

• Stop all Uranium mining in Meghalaya, Oil exploration efforts in Manipur without the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples.

• Ensure that all International Financial Institutions, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Japanese Bank for International Cooperation etc investing in India’s North East in water, energy, forestry sector etc should respect indigenous peoples’ rights as per the UN Indigenous Peoples Declaration.

• Repeal Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 and stop all militarization processes associated with development processes in India’s North East

• Protect the human rights of environmentalists, human rights defenders, dam activists campaigning for just and sustainable development in the region We committed to support and extend solidarity to all initiatives and efforts of the indigenous peoples of NE region to assert our right to self determination over our land, wetlands and rivers, forests and all resources and to define our development priorities based on our needs, wishes and aspirations.