The Problem with Large-scale Hydro Dams in Northeast India

Alexandra Goodson

India’s Energy
As of 2009 India had the largest energy demand in the world behind China and the United States (Ahn 24). The largest supply of this energy comes from coal, but as India’s energy sector grows it has become more unable to deliver a constant and secure supply of energy. In recent years renewable energy has been explored as a clean and “sustainable” way to a more secure energy future for India. Wind power, solar power and even small-scale hydropower have shown to have produced good amounts of energy as well as maintain a sustainable picture. The Ministry of Development of the Northeast region identified the Brahmaputra Basin as the “future powerhouse of India” (Chowdhury196). Following that in 2001, the Central Electric Authority (CEA) gave the Basin the highest place of order for its high potential in electricity generation. Because of these high markings the CEA plans to construct 168 large hydraulic plant projects, many of which are already in the process of construction (Chowdhury 198). Large-scale Hydro dams have proven to cause more damage than good. In addition to the environmental damage that these dams cause, the damage to the livelihoods of the people affected by these dams may be even greater. This paper explores the environmental justice issues that are breached as a result of the building and running of these dams. The energy values that are taken into account as values that have been violated in the case study of large-scale hydro dams in Northeast India are due process, intergenerational equity, and intragenerational equity (Sovacool 367).

Due Process
The definition of due process by the energy justice conceptual framework is that countries should respect due process and human rights in their production and use of energy (Sovacool 367). States must take into account the communities that are involved in the decisions about projects that will affect them. In this case study this right is overlooked by the private companies who are building these dams and the states that allow for the construction of the dams. Due to India’s impending energy crisis their need for energy fast is extremely apparent. To speed up the process of accessing the power for the future development of the region the northeast states have started to sign and establish Memoranda’s of understanding (MoU’s) and Memoranda’s of agreement (MoA’s) (Chowdhury 201). Arunachal Pradesh is the largest player in the region in the hydropower generation. As of 2010 they have had 132 hydropower projects and their government has signed MoU’s for 103 large projects (201). Because of the MoU’s and MoA’s being signed before any other evaluation is done there is hardly and environmental or social impact assessments done for these projects. The largest due process issue that has presented itself as an effect of the construction of these dams is the resettlement and rehabilitation of the displaced population. The Brahmaputra river basin is one of the world’s largest river basin’s covering 580,000 sq. km. It is home to more than 100 indigenous tribes. These people that tend to be affected are already part of the marginalized population of India, being the “scheduled tribes” or “scheduled caste” (202). The dams tend to be being built in remote area. These areas are inhabited by tribes who are dependent on the cultivation, forest and river ecosystem for food security and their livelihood (201). These people are many times not consulted prior to being resettled, therefore not having a say in the project or where they get resettled. When they are aware of the construction of a dam prior to its influence their protests go unheard by the government and the companies. An example of where these tribes’ human rights are blatantly violated is the Ranagadi Hydro Electric Project (RHEP). The project that was commissioned in 2002 eventually failed due to underproduction displaced more than 30 families to a settlement area 25-30 km away (202). The important things they lost were a schoolhouse, their own houses with electricity, and their jobs since their jobs were dependent on the land they lived on. The new settlement had a school with no teacher, depriving the students of any further education in that area. Their houses were made of poor quality material and the free electricity that was promised by the government never happened. Agriculture was the most common occupation, but due to unregulated flooding that killed both cattle and crops and the diversion of water for the dam causing problems for the flow of agriculture water, it is pretty impossible to maintain any farmland with certainty (203). This example is just one, of possible hundreds of future displacement stories that don’t reap any type of compensation or respect of human rights to those affected by the extraction of this energy.

Intragenerational Equity
Intragenerational equity is explained that present people have a right to access energy services fairly, and thus are entitled to a certain set of minimal energy services, which enable them to enjoy a basic minimum of well being (Sovacool 370). With the displacement of many lower caste tribal people, it is clear that their livelihoods are stationed lower than those of whom the energy is being extracted and provided for. Basic rights include employment, food, shelter and unpolluted resources (370). These rights are stripped from those who are affected by the construction of these large-scale dams. The building of these dams has brought and will bring 12,000 to 100,000 laborers into the northeast region. The influx of this amount of people will put more pressure on the resources that are still left after the destruction done by the water. Bringing in more parties to an already difficult to maintain area as it is being allocated, will make the question of what entities are these goods distributed to much harder to answer. When a dam is built, and people start to live around it intragenerational problems tend to arise. Different tribes try to stake claim to different parts of the land, while some fight still for the destruction of the dam (Chowdhury 205). After a while even the destruction of the dam causes problems amongst the people, as some have begun to make a living off of fishing in the water allocated and others have moved into parts where the destruction of the dam would flood their new homelands (205). Intragenerational equity becomes more and more difficult to contest as it the hardest to say what is most right. How does one weigh one life higher than another?

Intergenerational Equity
Intergenerational equity reviews the distributive justice between present and future generations. It includes that future people have a right to at least equivalent good life that is undisturbed by the damage our energy systems (Sovacool 307). In the Brahmaputra river basin the river system is closely linked with the floodplain ecology of the wetlands and grasslands in the Brahmaputra valley (Chowdhury 201). Any disturbance, especially large land projects, has the opportunity to ruin the ecology of the valley, making it hard for future generations to use that land. In addition, the river basin and valley is home to high seismic sensitivity due to the conjoining of the Chinese and Indian tectonic plate being right under this area, and because of this the area sees devastating earthquakes periodically (201, 202). It is unfair, especially with this knowledge very public and known, to possibly put future parties at risk of major floods if an earthquake were to happen. It is the responsibility of the Indian government to make sure that all projects are constructed in a way and place that does not put the future generations in a compromising position.

Conclusion
Large-hydro power dams have proven to fail the same people they were built to help in the region of northeast India. The transformation that will and has been imposed on the landscape, riverscape, and demographics is unjust. There has yet to be any sufficient evidence of appropriate compromises made with the people who have been displaced by the construction of these dams. It is pertinent that the Indian government takes into account its people first, and here they put the water before the dam so to say. In the future I would urge the government to be more aware of where they are building and who they are hurting. It would prove much better if they built a sustainable and efficient energy source, not only for the people in the region, but for everyone in the country.

Bibliography
Ahn, Sun-Joo and Dagmar Graczyk. “Understanding Engergy Challenges in India: Policies, Players, and Issues.” International Energy Agency: Partner Country Series (2012): 47-57. 20 Feb. 2015.
Chowdhury, Arnab Roy, and Ngamjahao Kipgen. “Deluge Amidst Conflict: Hydropower Development And Displacement In The North-East Region Of India.” Progress In Development Studies 13.3 (2013): 195-208. Business Source Complete. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.
Sovacool, Benjamin K., and Michael H. Dworkin. Global Energy Justice: Problems, Principles, and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2014. Print.

Energy Poverty in India

August Andrews

2/20/15

Energy Justice

 

Case Study: Energy Poverty in India

 

India is one of the largest nations in the world, with a population of 1.25 billion people.  This makes India the second most populous country in the world, second only to China.  Despite its massive population and massive workforce, a large portion of India still lives in energy poverty.  An average of about thirty five percent of India’s population is caught in energy poverty.  Energy poverty is where people, just like having low or no access to money in economic poverty, have little to no access to electricity and the benefits that come with it.  In India, with electricity come many injustices whether there is a lack of it or an abundance.  These injustices take many forms but many revolve round the energy justice framework points of due process, availability, and intragenerational equity.

Due process is an important aspect of the energy justice framework.  Due process is based on human rights and that in the processes of producing energy or extracting it that these rights must be respected.  Due process also involves the human rights justices or injustices in an absence of electricity as well through a number of things like access to clean drinking water, education, the right to live a healthy life and many more.  In rural India energy poverty is much greater because of the difficulties in rural electrification similar to America in the early 1900s, including cost of putting in lines, maintenance from harsh conditions or vegetation. Another factor to consider in electrification is the economic variable of putting a lot of resources into extending the energy grid to an area that is sparsely populated or where many may not be able to afford electricity and installation on a seasonal agrarian income.  In the absence of electricity the most popular form of light energy is kerosene lamps.  Before the revolution of incandescent lighting kerosene was the most up to date and popular lighting source, with the oil industry rising with it.  While it may be one of the best non-electric sources of light, kerosene has some drawbacks.  The first of these is the level of light, much dimmer than electric lights, and the lamps require much maintenance for them to work well, with constant cleaning and trimming of the wick.  A bigger problem and injustice lies however in the fumes it puts off.  Like any burning substance kerosene produces smoke, acting as an indoor air pollutant.  While this may not seem like a large issue just from lighting, it has to be taken into account also that most people in rural India use biomass as an energy source for cooking and heating.  Breathing in this poorly combusted biomass smoke as well as kerosene smoke is harmful to the people living there, causing respiratory issues and even death.  The annual death toll from this in India is estimated to be 500,000 deaths.  That’s 25 times the entire population of Carlisle dying in a year, just from fumes from cooking and lighting.  This is a great injustice to due process because simply from a lack of electricity, many people’s health and lives are detrimentally effected.  Another injustice coming from this is the time and money that has to be spent to get these forms of energy.  It is estimated that rural households spend ten percent of their income on biomass fuels or kerosene.  This income could be used for other things such as electricity which would cover those needs and extend to other parts of household life as well, improving the standard of living there.  Often these people have to go get these resources themselves, which can also endanger their health.  In impoverished parts of the world, women out gathering biomass fuels are at greater risk the further they go from home to things such as assault and rape but also just hazards associated with it such as lifting heavy loads of wood.

Availability of electricity is also an aspect of the energy justice framework where injustices are found in India’s energy poverty.  This part of the energy justice framework revolves around access to a reliable and stable source of electricity.  Light can play a large role in household life, one way it is especially important is to children in school.  In homes where they have access to electric light, children have access to sufficient light at night to study by.  On average these students have been shown to study more than children in homes without electricity.  This puts the children in non-electrified homes at an automatic disadvantage to peers that have access to electricity.  The lack of availability is also an injustice because it affects economic opportunity for many people.  Studies show that women in households with electricity on average work seventeen percent more hours than in households without.  Because of access to electricity they no longer have to spend time, energy, or income gathering biomass fuel and can spend this time earning a living and adding to the household income.  Electrification of random households also showed that electrification can reduce poverty by thirteen percent, supporting the ability of electrification to improve standard of living in these households.  Electrified villages and towns also have better economic opportunity because with electricity they can keep their shops open for longer hours and at night, giving them more time to earn a living as opposed to shops that may not have electricity.  This is an injustice because since these people don’t have access they are at an economic opportunity disadvantage to electrified homes.  While electrification boasts the ability to improve standard of living and economic opportunity, it is also limited by the lack of reliable and secure energy services in these areas.  If energy providers and services are poorly operated these homes can’t take advantage of the electricity or tap into its full potential.  In fact, because of this almost all rural homes also have kerosene lamps for when the power goes out or services are down.  This is an injustice because it is limiting the availability of needed energy because of the inefficiencies of an industry.  This unreliability of energy services also makes the state more reluctant to electrify rural areas, prolonging the injustices occurring there.

While the injustices of energy poverty in India provide great injustices, the processes involved in obtaining that energy also bring with them their own set of injustices.  While these issues cross paths with many of the points of the energy justice framework, one that involves many of the issues with energy production is intragenerational equity.  Intragenerational equity is being responsible for and taking today’s actions, knowing that they will affect the lives of future generations.  Because of intragenerational equity when you discuss the injustices of energy poverty, you also have to examine the injustices of producing more energy to electrify.  India’s primary form of energy is coal because it is relatively cheap and is largely domestically produced, but coal’s production and use brings its own set of injustices.  Coal mining has historically been a very dangerous job, usually done underground, but the mines found now in India look like a different planet.  The most common form of coal mining in India is now open pit mining.  Some injustices that comes from this are that the overburden, which must be removed to get to the coal, is toxic. The mine itself also provides the injustice of displacing people with improper or no compensation, rooting up families future generations and their ways of life.  This is especially problematic for tribal peoples because they rely on the land around them to sustain them and can’t just move to a big city and try to find work.  These tribal peoples also live in some of the most mineral and resource rich areas, putting them at high risk.  The reason these things are intragenerational equity issues is because once the coal is gone there will be no jobs or energy being produced with the mine’s coal, there will just be nothing left but something that looks like it should belong on mars and the harmful effects to the people and environment around it for generations to come.

Energy poverty is a complex problem, involving many moving parts in both the government and the private sector.  The injustices associated with energy poverty cover many parts of the energy justice framework, but some of the most prominent are ones involving due process, intragenerational equity, and availability.  India is following the path blazed by other countries to electrify and will likely find many of the same problems they did, with electricity first coming to the wealthy and the cities and with government efforts allowing it to spread to the masses and rural areas.  The injustices of energy poverty involving due process are many aspects of health related issues such as injury from collecting fuel and respiratory problems from the combustion of that fuel.  The injustices of availability are the results of a lack of electricity like decreased economic opportunities as well as children in electrified homes being at automatic advantage over other students who may not have electricity available to them.  The most pressing issues of intragenerational equity did not come from energy poverty itself, but instead from the solution to the problem.  By building more coal mines and plants they are degrading their environment, and leaving future generations with a much more scarred and polluted world than they found it.  India needs energy, but the world doesn’t need more coal.  Instead of choosing the cheaper option of relying on coal for their energy needs, India should put those funds and labor into renewable energy and programs that work directly with communities to bring them electricity.

 

 

Works Cited

 

Sovacool, Benjamin K., and Michael H. Dworkin. Global Energy Justice: Problems, Principles,   and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2014. Print.

Khandker, Shahidur R., Hussain A. Samad, Rubaba Ali, and Douglas F. Barnes. “Who Benefits   Most from Rural Electrification? Evidence in India.” The Energy Journal(2014). World           Bank. Web. 16 Mar. 2015. <www.worldbank.org>.

I did not know where to find the information to cite my other two in class sources, but my other two in class sources were: “Rich Lands Poor People CSE”, and the “India Energy Challenges” reading

 

 

Ecuador Case Study: Hydroelectricity Leading to Energy Injustice

Ecuador: Hydroelectricity Leading to Energy Injustice

Introduction
The Ecuadorian government has not taken adequate measures to protect the intergenerational equity of its people, make informed decisions regarding energy policy, and has failed to responsibly protect its environment within the Amazon region. Indeed, the state and policymakers have sought to greatly expand hydroelectric projects, in order to diversify their energy resources. Specifically, Ecuador has sought to ween itself off of international oil, and has taken into account environmental damage within the country as a result of oil production. The country has repeatedly encroached upon indigenous lands, leading to significant amounts of pollution within these areas.1 However, Ecuador heavily relies on profits from their oil sector, with over 50% of revenues coming from oil taxes.2 In addition to these oil-related environmental damages, the Ecuadorian government is embarking upon a dangerous journey in their rapid expansion of hydroelectricity in the Amazon region.
Intergenerational Equity for Natives
The expansion of hydroelectric projects in the Amazonian territories of northeastern Ecuador greatly impacts the intergenerational equity of native communities. These rural indigenous groups have been historically underrepresented and marginalized in Ecuadorian policymaking, and subsequently, are victims of policies that directly impact their ways of life, as well as the well-being of future generations. Below, this paper will outline how increased hydroelectric dams in the Amazon region will impact the intergenerational equity of native communities in the affected areas, according to the energy justice framework in Sovacool and Dworkin.3 Recently, the decision by President Rafael Correa to significantly expand Ecuador’s hydroelectric capabilities has infringed upon the rights of these indigenous, Amazonian peoples. Specifically, the encroachment of these hydroelectric projects into the Amazon will greatly damage, and has the possibility to destroy, their unique ways of life. In addition to this, the case study argues that the environmental damages caused by the development of hydroelectric dams in the Amazon will significantly detract from the quality of life for future generations. A key consequence of these dams is the fragmentation of not only the Amazon River, but also some of its tributaries.4 Indeed, it has been proven that these bodies of water are sources of livelihood, as well as actual sustenance to these indigenous communities.
The Ecuadorian government approved two massive dams in the Amazon – the Agoyán and San Francisco projects. According to the case study, these hydroelectric dams have already destroyed eighteen water sources in the Rio Blanco and Rio Negro communities – both of which are primarily populated by native settlements. More shockingly, these water resources span a distance of over 28 miles, and supply drinking water and fishing grounds to hundreds of families in the affected area.5 It is evident from the text that these two dams have permanently diverted important water resources in the Rio Blanco and Rio Negro native communities. Building off of this, it is also clear that the hundreds of families in these settlements will be forced to find new homes, once their supply of drinking water is exhausted. The Agoyán and San Francisco dam projects have significantly and irreversibly caused damage to not only the Rio Blanco and Rio Negro settlements themselves, but also to the future generations of these communities. Due to the diversion of water resources from the dams, both current and future generations will be unable to access drinking water, or fishing grounds, in the 28 mile affected area. In addition to this, the impact of hydroelectric dams extends beyond the damage to water resources. A primary example of this physical disruption is the Coca Codo Sinclair dam project, which would include “extensive road-building and transmission line construction in primary forest[s].”6 Clearly, this infrastructure development in previously undeveloped wilderness will have a massive environmental impact on these lands. In addition to this, forty of the proposed hydroelectric dams will be built either upstream or downstream of an indigenous community.7 This plethora of proposed projects will undoubtedly impact these communities in a negative way.

Lack of Accountable Energy Decision-Making
With regards to the process of expanding hydroelectric projects into the Amazon, the Ecuadorian government has not followed methods that are consistent with “fair, transparent, and accountable … decision-making.”8 Specifically, the presidency of Rafael Correa and the Amazonian Regional Eco Institute (ECORAE) have failed to consider the rights of various indigenous groups in the Amazon. Despite this, the Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008 affirms natural rights – with Article 400 including specific provisions for the protection of nature and biodiversity.9 The case study asserts that both the Ecuadorian president, as well as the Amazonian Regional Eco Institute, have exploited loopholes in the Constitution in order to advance and expedite hydroelectric projects in the region. Following this, the Ecuadorian state has argued that since nature is owned by the government, they can use it to advance national interests – in this case, expanding hydroelectricity. These dams, in turn, have greatly impacted native communities in the eastern portion of Ecuador. According to the case study, “The populations of eastern Ecuador are not only subjected to a broad range of socio-environmental conflicts, they must also face increased poverty and inequality in the redistribution of resources.”10 It is clear from this passage that the government and its associated institutes, in planning these hydroelectric projects, did not take into account the various social, as well as environmental, impacts in their decision-making. On top of this, the relationship between ECORAE and indigenous groups has not progressed significantly since its inception in the early 1990s.11 Based on the actions of the Ecuadorian government, as well as prominent policymakers associated with hydroelectricity, the state has not acted in a manner that is consistent with fair and accountable decision-making.

Failure to Responsibly Protect the Environment
The Ecuadorian government, in its quest to diversify energy resources, has failed to protect the natural environment within the Amazon region. It is well known that this region is home to a plethora of species, many of which have not been discovered. Specifically, the article by Finer and Jenkins asserts that the Amazon “is documented to contain extraordinary richness … namely amphibians, birds, mammals, and vascular plants.”12 On top of this, the authors argue that the installation of more hydroelectric dams will severely damage the biodiversity of the region as a whole. A primary example is the disruption of fish breeding patterns, due to fragmentation of the Amazon River and its associated tributaries. It is clear from the case studies that the Ecuadorian state did not adequately take into account the effects of hydroelectric dams on these long-distance migratory fish species, thereby causing significant environmental damage. In addition to this, the depletion and subsequent flooding of forested areas within the Amazon may contribute to global climate change. Specifically, the loss of forestry will lead to less greenhouse gases absorbed by trees within the Amazon.13 It is evident that Ecuadorian policymakers have failed to take adequate measures in the protection and preservation of the natural environment within the Amazon.

Conclusion
With regards to the evidence presented above, it is clear from their actions that the Ecuadorian government has not taken adequate measures to protect the environment in the Amazon region. First, the expansion of hydroelectric dams is detrimental to current, as well as future, ways of life for the people in the affected areas. Second, Ecuadorian policymakers have not exercised accountable decision-making in their decisions to build hydroelectric dams in ecologically vulnerable areas. Lastly, the government as a whole has systematically failed to protect these sensitive areas, resulting in significant damage to not only the Amazon region, but also to the environment as a whole.

Bibliography
Environmental Resource Center. “The True Costs of Petroleum Map: The World.” The True Costs of Petroleum (2003). http://www.biofuels.coop/archive/world.pdf.

Finer, Matt, and Clinton N. Jenkins. “Proliferation of Hydroelectric Dams in the Andean Amazon and Implications for Andes-Amazon Connectivity.” Plos ONE 7, no. 4 (April 2012): 1-9. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 14, 2015).

O’Rourke, Dara and Sarah Connolly. “Just Oil? The Distribution of Environmental and Social Impacts of Oil Production and Consumption.” Annual Review of Environment & Resources 28, no. 1 (2003): 589.

Razook, Andrea. “Defined Territories, Spaces in Transition: “Amazonization” and the Expansion of Hydroenergetic Frontiers in the “Baños de Agua Santa” Canton, Tungurahua, Ecuador.” Spaces & Flows: An International Journal Of Urban & Extra Urban Studies 3, no. 1 (January 2013): 89-95. SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed March 14, 2015).

Sovacool, Benjamin K, and Michael H. Dworkin. Global Energy Justice: Problems, Principles, and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.