From: aparna@mipos2.intel.com (Aparna Krishnan)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,sci.environment,misc.activism.progressive,soc.rights.human
Subject: Narmada - are we opposing developement - Part I
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:49:51 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

We got a lot of arguments that we were "opposing developement". We
refute that further below in the article.

The WB meeting was due to be held on the 15th of October. It has been 
postponed to Oct 22nd with no reasons given. This has happenned before.
It is important to continue to put pressure on them to withold
funding for Sardar Sarovar Project until adequate studies are 
done on the subject and the problems pointed out by various groups, 
notably the Morse Committee, are adequately resolved.

If You Are Convinced -  You Can Help By
---------------------------------------
    1. by e-mailing your NAME AND FULL ADDRESS to 
		sign-narmada@nacho.cs.wisc.edu

    2. Pass on this article to others

    3. Call/ Write to 

       (a) Mr.Lewis T. Preston
           President, The World Bank,
           1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC - 20433.
           Ph: (202) 458-2001.  Fax: (202) 477-1305

       (b) Mr. J.S. Baijal,
           Executive Director (India and and?
           The World Bank,
           1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC - 20433.
           Ph: (202) 458-1046. Fax: (202) 477-3538



Are we opposing developement ?
------------------------------

THE SAGA OF THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

The planning comission requires that projects of this scale have a
minimum cost to benefit ratio of 1:1.5 . So the NVDA (N valley Dev.
authority) submitted some analyses claiming the ratio stood at 1.88.
But, they had not considered the cost of the construction of the dam so
they had to work on it again. The next figure submitted was 1.72, but 
taking figures from the same report the calculation came out to be 1.52,
a technical error. They had to submit it again. In 1984 the Dept. of
Environment and Forests woke up and said the environmental costs of the
whole project (estimated by the loss of wood and cost of correcting other
ecological damage) is about Rs 40,000 crores!!!
	Now this was a serious dilemma, the NVDA did not know how to
counter this figure. All the benefits claimed could not change their
value overnight, the agricultural benefits, the electricity, the 
pisciculture etc. still retained the same value. So they set up a
committee called the Rajadhyaksha committee to look into the benefits.
The committee came up with certain figures which was never submitted to
any expert panel for study, which were presented to the planning
comission in 1987. In a matter of three months the proposal was passed,
despite all the objections from the DOE&F. (coincidentally the rajiv
gandhi government then was having lot of problems with bofors and
elections). The new figures were conveniently placed at just over 1:1.5.
Once it was passed the authorities have never looked back, come what may.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MAJOR DISCREPANCIES IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

1) We are not using a Thermal plant, we are using a Hydel plan instead.
In doing that we save Rs 17000 crores in fuel and other costs. OUT OF
THE ESTIMATED BENEFITS OF Rs 50,000 crores, Rs 17000  crores ARISES FROM
THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOT USING A THERMAL PLANT.

2) The extra electricity generated over the next 50 years will fetch a
revenue of Rs 13000 crores,  and the extra productivity due to this
increased power supply is worth Rs 14,400 crores. A double counting of
Rs 13000 crores.

A TOTAL OF Rs 30,000 crores IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IS CONJURED
UP.

3) The agricultural produce due to the Narmad Sagar will increase by a
factor of 6 and that due to the Sardar Sarovar will increase by a factor
of 8. No where in India has the productivity of land gone up by more
than a factor of 2.5 due to irrigation from a project like this.

4) The cost of catchment area treatment and command area development was
estimated to be Rs 25 crores, the actual cost then was more than Rs 550
crores.

Economists on being shown this figures are struck with disbelief, even
the economic evaluation officer of NVDA (the person responsible for
actually submitting these figures) says "I don't know what was the need
for all this jugglery, but it was accepted by the planning
comission..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The COST BENEFIT ratios as calculated independently (Alvares and
Ramesh) claim the following -

Without including indirect environmental costs :
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Narmad Sagar Project has a BC ratio of 1:0.17

Sardar Saroval Project has a BC ratio of 1:0.38

With the environmental costs :
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Narmad Sagar Project has a BC ratio of 1:0.017

Sardar Saroval Project has a BC ratio of 1:0.24

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Jagan (jagan@ctr.columbia.edu) and Bindu (UK00006@ukpr.uky.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.activism