Bharat Jhunjhunwala, former professor of IIM-Bangalore, has dismissed studies conducted by the IIT-Roorkee and the Wildlife Institute of India on the cumulative impact of hydropower projects on the Ganga's tributaries - Bhagirathi and Alaknanda - as a 'sham' which should not be the basis for policy making.

It was Jhunjhunwala's petition protesting against the sanctioning of the three Kotlibhel projects on Alaknanda-Bhagirathi to the central empowered committee which prompted the supreme court to order these such studies in 2009. The studies were completed and submitted to the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) earlier this year.

Here is a summary of the shortcomings in both the studies. Attached below is the detailed analysis of the studies by Jhunjhunwala.

Critique of Study of Cumulative Impacts of Hydropower projects on Ganga River by AHEC, IIT, Roorkee and WII, Dehradun

Executive Summary

IIT Roorkee
1    The study has been undertaken by Dr Arun Kumar as an individual consultancy assignment. It is not a study by AHEC or IIT. However, it is being treated by MOEF as a study by IITR.
2    It is assumed without basis that tunneling can avoid fracturing aquifers.
3    It is assumed without basis that earthquakes can be predicted from surface seismological data.
4    The parameters of water quality showing greatest impact of hydro projects have been ignored.
5    Mean Annual Flow method for assessing Environmental Flows is not suitable because of large seasonal variations in our rivers.
6    The methods used for assessing Environmental Flows are hydrological or as per existing practice. They are not based on cumulative environmental impacts.
7    The alternative of partial obstruction is not examined.
8    The Environmental Flows do not take into account the need to upgrade the river to higher state.
9    Building Block Method is endorsed but even a sample calculation is not done.
10    The Zonation classification is passed off as Environment Management Class.
11    Energy Payback Ratio is calculated without accounting for social- and environmental costs and some economic costs.
12    Figures for Green House Gas emissions are taken from temperate reservoirs and not tropical reservoirs.
13    Effectiveness of fish passages is not assessed.
14    Impact of hydro projects on the creation of beneficent sediments is not assessed.
15    The NEERI study done for a single project is extrapolated to cumulative study without justification.
16    Key informants for assessing religious and cultural impacts are not selected by a scientific basis.
17    Shri Chandi Prasad Bhatt has been quoted as supporting dams while actually he has opposed them.
18    Har-ki-pauri precedent is quoted out of context.
19    Long term impact of a single project is passed of a cumulative impact.
20    Cumulative environmental impact is done prophetically without giving any basis.
21    Stakeholder-wise distribution of benefits and costs is not done.
22    Dams more than 20 m height are discouraged yet dams greater than 20 m height are recommended.
23    Ecological functions are not taken into account while suggesting variability of the environmental flows.
24    Gap between hydro projects is suggested but no scientific method to assess the same is given; and problem of ‘no gap’ between existing projects is not addressed.
25    It is suggested that 70% of the river may be harnessed for generation of hydropower without giving any basis of the same.
26    Impact on biodiversity is not assessed.

WII, Dehradun
1    Environment Flow Requirement should be based on Mean Seasonal Flow, not on Mean Annual Flow. This is welcome.
2    Cumulative impact assessment ignores (1) Change in sediment transport; (2) Deterioration of water quality; (3) More oxygen in water; (4) Carry of drift materials.
3    Impact of existing dams on the low cumulative scores for Vishnugad-Pipalkoti and Kotlibhel 1A are not examined.
4    Conservation importance ignores cultural value of Ganga River; and many places of significance such as Koteshwar and Dhari Devi Temples.
5    Existence of Otter is ignored.
6    Threat to the Cheer Pheasant is not mitigated.
7    Zone of influence is arbitrarily restricted to 500 meters.
8    Classification in Environment Management Class ignores the (1) importance of the river basin; and (2) need to upgrade the river to higher management class.
9    Mitigation measures are not spelled out.