The Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 can certainly become a very useful instrument for bringing greater transparency and accountability in the planning, decision-making and implementation processes in mega dams and big hydropower projects as in all other sectors. Like all instruments, the Act has its strengths, weaknesses and limitations. We, at SANDRP (South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People), have tried to use the RTI over the last two years, and the following article is based on this experience.

The water resources establishment is one of the most opaque of all governance sectors in India. The water sector has huge social, environmental, financial and human resources at its disposal. During each year of the ongoing 11th Five year plan (2007-12), it is proposed that Rs 46,360 crores will be spent on the water sector, mainly on the big dam projects, and Rs 21,330 crores will be spent on the big hydropower projects. (The expenditure on water supply and sanitation sector will be additional.) Just these two components add up to an expenditure of Rs 67,690 crores each year. The kind of vested interests that will develop around such expenditure can well be envisaged. Moreover, these projects have huge social and environmental impact. However, there is no democracy in the planning and decision-making processes of such projects.

Using the RTI in the Context of Mega Projects

Some of the crucial issues in the implementation of the mega projects that affect the local people and the environment include the costs of the project; who is developing and financing such projects; what the developers plan to do about the impact and what they are actually doing. The RTI can be used to get copies of relevant studies and documents and information about the action taken or not taken by various officials.

In the absence of the RTI, the only window that the system offered to the affected people and the others, to obtain information about a project or otherwise have some role, was the public hearing that is conducted before such projects were considered for environmental clearance. However, this window is of very little significance because of a number of limitations in the prescribed process, including the facts that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report is available only in English, the public hearing is conducted by government officials and not an independent panel, the affected people do not get to know what goes in the public hearing report, its implications and, most importantly, whether the Environment Management Plan (EMP) is implemented or not.

With the use of the RTI, many of these gaps may be filled. For example, all mega project developers are supposed to file a progress report every six months about the implementation of the EMP. The RTI can be used to obtain copies of these reports when the implementation is lagging behind the required pace. Or if there are other violations, these could be highlighted in the communications to responsible officers, in the media and otherwise used in campaigns, including in legal action. Similarly, progress reports about resettlement and rehabilitation plans, about safety at construction sites (a large number of deaths occur frequently at such project sites), and about adherence to the conditions of environmental clearance can be obtained and, when necessary, these can also be used in legal action.

To illustrate, when the 510 MW Teesta V Hydropower project was given environmental clearance in May 1999, one of the conditions in the clearance was, “No other project in Sikkim will be considered for environmental clearance till the carrying capacity study is completed.” Following an RTI application by SANDRP, the Ministry accepted in January 2007 that the carrying capacity study mentioned above had not been completed and that the ministry had cleared six hydropower projects, in the interim, in Sikkim. This exposed how the ministry had been violating conditions that it had set for itself. SANDRP has also obtained the draft carrying capacity study under the RTI.

In response to another RTI application, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests agreed that the developer of the World Bank-funded Allain Duhangan HEP in Kulu district in Himachal Pradesh had been found to be violating the Forest Conservation Act, up to March 2, 2007, on at least ten different occasions and a total fine of Rs 3.69 crores was imposed on the project developer. This is useful information for the people involved in campaigns on this project and for those involved in the campaign against World Bank-funded projects.

Similarly, India`s first National Policy for Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) was gazetted in February 2003. When the Prime Minister and the union government made statements in 2006 about their intention to formulate a National R&R policy in the wake of the issues around the Narmada dam and SEZs, SANDRP filed an RTI application with the Union Rural Development Ministry, asking what it had done to implement the February 2003 policy. The ministry accepted that it had done absolutely nothing to implement the existing policy, which took away whatever little credibility the National R&R Policy had.

Other instances in which SANDRP has obtained useful information under the RTI include the Sardar Sarovar Project, the Polavaram Project, the siltation rates of big dam reservoirs, and from the Central Electricity Authority and Central Water Commission (CWC).

In the controversial Sardar Sarovar Project, it was learnt from the CWC that the backwater impact studies of the project are being initiated only now, 18 years after starting work on the project.

In the other controversial project, the Polavaram Project, SANDRP learned that the Chhattisgarh government has not given clearance to the project, because large parts of the state would get submerged. Despite not getting permission from the Chhattisgarh and Orissa governments, construction for the project was started in Andhra Pradesh.

The government is very secretive about the siltation rates of big dam reservoirs. SANDRP obtained some 30 reports under the RTI from the CWC on the siltation of reservoirs. An analysis of the reports showed that India may be losing about 1.95 billion cubic metres of reservoir capacity annually due to siltation. This is almost two-thirds of the rate of addition of new reservoir capacities.

Following the analysis of the information obtained from the Central Electricity Authority and CWC, SANDRP learned how the generation of power from big hydro projects per MW of installed capacity has fallen by 20 per cent over the last 15 years. Similarly, despite claims to the contrary by the Union Water Resources Ministry, there has been absolutely no addition to the net irrigated areas by big dams for over 12 years between 1991-92 and 2003-04 (the latest year for which data are available), after spending over Rs 99,610 crores on major and medium irrigation projects.

Furthermore, no studies have been carried out on the possible future impact of global warming on the performance of the large dams and hydropower projects.

Limitations of the RTI

Like all instruments, the RTI has its limitations. First, if the government does not want to give certain information, it will try its best not to give that information. For example, after the disastrous floods of 2004, the Prime Minister had set up a Task Force under the Chairman, CWC. When SANDRP asked CWC for a copy of that report, under the RTI, it said it did not have a copy of it. This was clearly a lie. In such cases, one has to pursue the appellate authority and so on to get the information and ensure that those that deny this to the applicant are punished. Second, the government obviously cannot give information that it does not have, even though it may be crucial. For example, information about the source-wise information about the gross irrigated area is crucial to assess the performance of the irrigation sector but it seems this crucial information is not available with the government. Another major limitation of the RTI is that most of the documents that the union government has are in English. For many people, who use only the local language, this is not useful. Last, the effectiveness of the information will depend on how usefully it is disseminated and used in the campaigns.

Impact on the Administration of Mega Projects

Many times, the very action of filing an RTI for some information can make the relevant departments active. And when the information sought can have legal or social or political implications, the working of the relevant departments could potentially become more sensitive on the issues on which applications have been filed. However, this is not likely to happen with just one application; it requires consistent long-term action. The potential use of the information sought can also make the department active. When the information thus sought is put to actual use in campaigns and legal action, the possible impact of such events is quite significant in the administration of mega projects. To illustrate, it is possible to bring in greater alertness and sensitivity on the implementation of EMPs, R&R plans, labour safety and welfare measures in the working of mega projects if the RTI is used effectively.