Are there lessons to be drawn from the Farakka Barrage?
Subsequent to publication of my three articles on the Tipaimukh and a presentation at the FOBANA conference in Houston, TX, questions have been raised on a number of issues relating to the proposed project in India. Here below I share two such questions from the Tehelka (http://www.tehelka.com/) principal correspondent (NE India) Teresa Rehman:
A. Do you think Bangladesh needs to draw lessons from the Farraka Barrage? How and why?
B. What is your stand on the dam -- should it be scrapped altogether or some compromise formula can be worked out?
My answers are: A. Bangladesh has already drawn lessons from the Farakka Barrage which has proven to be a real disaster in every sense of the term. Recently, a friend of mine Dr. M. Aminul Karim, who visited the dam affected rivers in northern Bangladesh had this to say about the Teesta river: "We had to physically push the boat like you push a bullock cart." That says a lot about what these Indian dams are doing to Bangladesh!
My article on Farakka has already provided a list of reasons why Farakka was bad not only for Bangladesh but did not even benefit the targeted West Bengal. Prominent researchers (e.g., Bridge and Husain in the USA) have linked the arsenic poisoning in ground-waters with the Farakka Dam. As to its impact the South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP), report (Nov. 1999) to the World Commission on Dams is quite revealing. It says, “Farakka Barrage Project taken up for the resuscitation of the navigational status of the Port of Calcutta has resulted in massive devastation in Malda on its upstream and Murshidabad on its downstream in West Bengal. Huge sedimentation, increasing flood intensity and increasing tendency of bank failure are some of its impacts. Erosion has swept away large areas of these two districts causing large scale population displacement, border disputes with Bihar and Bangladesh, pauperization and marginalisation of the rural communities living by the river and creation of neo-refugees on the chars.”
Dams are known for causing the following problems:
1. Environmental damage: can be disruptive to surrounding aquatic ecosystem both upstream and downstream of the plant site. Generation of hydroelectric power changes the downstream river environment. Water exiting a turbine usually contains very little suspended sediment, which can lead to scouring of river beds and loss of riverbanks.
2. Greenhouse gas: The reservoirs of power plants in tropical regions may produce substantial amounts of methane and CO2.
3. Population relocation: In February 2008, it was estimated that 40-80 million people worldwide had been physically displaced as a direct result of dam construction.
4. Dam failures: Although rare, failures can happen which can kill many people, and making many survivors to become homeless.
5: Flow shortage: The results of diminished water can be devastating to farmers and fishermen who depend on water for their livelihood.
The downstream effects of dams are: river- and coast-line erosion, decrease in fish population, salinity in coastal territories which affect vegetation and agriculture, even limit people's access to fresh water, disease, forced relocation of people living close by who had hitherto depended on river for their livelihood, poverty and slow but definite climate change.
Bangladesh has seen all the above effects as a result of the Farakka and cannot therefore welcome another deathtrap put on the Barak River.
The immediate effects included:
• Reduction in agricultural products due to insufficient water for irrigation;
• reduction in aquatic population;
• river transportation problems during dry season;
• increased salinity threatening crops, animal life drinking water, and industrial activities in southwest Bangladesh.
The long term effects, which are already being felt, include:
(a) One fourth of the fertile agricultural land will become wasteland due to a shortage of water;
(b) thirty million lives are affected through environmental and economical ruin;
(c) an estimated annual economic loss of over half a billion dollars in agricultural, fisheries, navigation and industries;
(d) frequent flooding due to environmental imbalance and changes in the natural flow of the Ganges;
(e) root cause behind arsenic poisoning with groundwater in Bangladesh and West Bengal State of India (Bridge and Husain);
(f) A BSS report of 2004 stated that over 80 rivers of the country dried up during last three decades due to the construction of the Farakka barrage on the Indian side of the river Ganges.
Building such dams on international rivers is simply unacceptable these days. They violate the letter and principle of already agreed upon international regulations on international rivers. The overall harm India has caused to Bangladesh as a result of the Farakka Barrage is estimated at more than a billion dollars.
If India cares about her people in the eastern and north-eastern corner, she must know that creating a forced poverty upon Bangladesh does not help her long term objectives. Already Bangladesh has more than her share of population density in a country that sees natural calamities in an increased frequency these days, thanks to climate change, deforestation in the Himalayas , man-made disasters, etc. Most of her southern territories are getting flooded forcing people to move away. Where will they go? Dams like those of the Farakka simply worsen the situation, while they need not to be. They also create animosity between two neighbors and strengthen the forces that desire nothing better than an unfriendly relationship between India and Bangladesh. India has more to lose than gain from her unilateral decisions to build dams on international rivers. Only a fool, criminal and arrogant policy maker can be oblivious to the effects and concerns I have shared above.
B. I have long-held belief, and I have not been proven wrong on this, that hydroelectric dams are wrong ways to go for meeting energy needs. India has better alternatives, e.g., nuclear power option, to meet her energy needs. I strongly believe that India should scrap the Tipaimukh project altogether and look for alternative options like the nuclear power energy to meet energy needs in the north-east corner. This I say against any compromise, irrespective of the amount of guarantee that India may propose for the share of water with Bangladesh, because our experience has shown that India cannot be trusted to keep her side of the promise in share of water. So, what will compromise do to Bangladesh? Nothing, nada.
A. Do you think Bangladesh needs to draw lessons from the Farraka Barrage? How and why?
B. What is your stand on the dam -- should it be scrapped altogether or some compromise formula can be worked out?
My answers are: A. Bangladesh has already drawn lessons from the Farakka Barrage which has proven to be a real disaster in every sense of the term. Recently, a friend of mine Dr. M. Aminul Karim, who visited the dam affected rivers in northern Bangladesh had this to say about the Teesta river: "We had to physically push the boat like you push a bullock cart." That says a lot about what these Indian dams are doing to Bangladesh!
My article on Farakka has already provided a list of reasons why Farakka was bad not only for Bangladesh but did not even benefit the targeted West Bengal. Prominent researchers (e.g., Bridge and Husain in the USA) have linked the arsenic poisoning in ground-waters with the Farakka Dam. As to its impact the South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP), report (Nov. 1999) to the World Commission on Dams is quite revealing. It says, “Farakka Barrage Project taken up for the resuscitation of the navigational status of the Port of Calcutta has resulted in massive devastation in Malda on its upstream and Murshidabad on its downstream in West Bengal. Huge sedimentation, increasing flood intensity and increasing tendency of bank failure are some of its impacts. Erosion has swept away large areas of these two districts causing large scale population displacement, border disputes with Bihar and Bangladesh, pauperization and marginalisation of the rural communities living by the river and creation of neo-refugees on the chars.”
Dams are known for causing the following problems:
1. Environmental damage: can be disruptive to surrounding aquatic ecosystem both upstream and downstream of the plant site. Generation of hydroelectric power changes the downstream river environment. Water exiting a turbine usually contains very little suspended sediment, which can lead to scouring of river beds and loss of riverbanks.
2. Greenhouse gas: The reservoirs of power plants in tropical regions may produce substantial amounts of methane and CO2.
3. Population relocation: In February 2008, it was estimated that 40-80 million people worldwide had been physically displaced as a direct result of dam construction.
4. Dam failures: Although rare, failures can happen which can kill many people, and making many survivors to become homeless.
5: Flow shortage: The results of diminished water can be devastating to farmers and fishermen who depend on water for their livelihood.
The downstream effects of dams are: river- and coast-line erosion, decrease in fish population, salinity in coastal territories which affect vegetation and agriculture, even limit people's access to fresh water, disease, forced relocation of people living close by who had hitherto depended on river for their livelihood, poverty and slow but definite climate change.
Bangladesh has seen all the above effects as a result of the Farakka and cannot therefore welcome another deathtrap put on the Barak River.
The immediate effects included:
• Reduction in agricultural products due to insufficient water for irrigation;
• reduction in aquatic population;
• river transportation problems during dry season;
• increased salinity threatening crops, animal life drinking water, and industrial activities in southwest Bangladesh.
The long term effects, which are already being felt, include:
(a) One fourth of the fertile agricultural land will become wasteland due to a shortage of water;
(b) thirty million lives are affected through environmental and economical ruin;
(c) an estimated annual economic loss of over half a billion dollars in agricultural, fisheries, navigation and industries;
(d) frequent flooding due to environmental imbalance and changes in the natural flow of the Ganges;
(e) root cause behind arsenic poisoning with groundwater in Bangladesh and West Bengal State of India (Bridge and Husain);
(f) A BSS report of 2004 stated that over 80 rivers of the country dried up during last three decades due to the construction of the Farakka barrage on the Indian side of the river Ganges.
Building such dams on international rivers is simply unacceptable these days. They violate the letter and principle of already agreed upon international regulations on international rivers. The overall harm India has caused to Bangladesh as a result of the Farakka Barrage is estimated at more than a billion dollars.
If India cares about her people in the eastern and north-eastern corner, she must know that creating a forced poverty upon Bangladesh does not help her long term objectives. Already Bangladesh has more than her share of population density in a country that sees natural calamities in an increased frequency these days, thanks to climate change, deforestation in the Himalayas , man-made disasters, etc. Most of her southern territories are getting flooded forcing people to move away. Where will they go? Dams like those of the Farakka simply worsen the situation, while they need not to be. They also create animosity between two neighbors and strengthen the forces that desire nothing better than an unfriendly relationship between India and Bangladesh. India has more to lose than gain from her unilateral decisions to build dams on international rivers. Only a fool, criminal and arrogant policy maker can be oblivious to the effects and concerns I have shared above.
B. I have long-held belief, and I have not been proven wrong on this, that hydroelectric dams are wrong ways to go for meeting energy needs. India has better alternatives, e.g., nuclear power option, to meet her energy needs. I strongly believe that India should scrap the Tipaimukh project altogether and look for alternative options like the nuclear power energy to meet energy needs in the north-east corner. This I say against any compromise, irrespective of the amount of guarantee that India may propose for the share of water with Bangladesh, because our experience has shown that India cannot be trusted to keep her side of the promise in share of water. So, what will compromise do to Bangladesh? Nothing, nada.
Comments
Post a Comment