Journal of Global Resources

Volume 5 (01)January 2019
ISSN: 2395-3160 (Print), 2455-2445 (Online)

Page 107-115

14
RAMPAL POWER PLANT AND THE SUNDARBANS
Krishna Kumar Saha
Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration,
Comilla University, Comilla, Bangladesh
Email: krishna_du@yahoo.com
Abstract: In August 2016 Bangladesh Government has the capacity to generate 12185
megawatts (MW) of electricity per day, which are only the three-fourths of the total demand. To
fulfill the demand for the electricity the government has planned a 1320 MW coal-fired power
station at Rampal, near the Sundarbans mangrove forest. But the environmentalists, civilsociety organizations, major political parties, and freethinkers indicated that this plant would
face environmental issues and destroy the forest area. However, the government is trying toprove them wrong and considering the environmentalists as political opponents. Hence, thispaper will explore the major causes of the opposition against the power plant project.
Key words: Energy Politics, Environment, Civil Society, Development, Forest
Introduction
Rampal is a small village in the southern part of Bangladesh. It is just 14km from the world’s
largest mangrove forest, the Sundarbans where government planned a coal-fired power station(South Asians for Human Rights, 2015). The environmental experts, major political parties, civilsociety organizations, and activists in Bangladesh are demonstrating against the decision toestablish the plant, fearing consequences for the Sundarbans (Mustafa, 2013). On the other
hand, the energy-dependent Bangladesh economy requires power plant like this andgovernment is trying to meet the demand and trying to portray the project will have no harm on
the forest (Islam, 2016; CEGIS, 2013). In addition, the government claims that opponents of thepower plant are the enemy of the development of the country (Rahman, 2016). This paper will
discuss the major arguments against the power plant in Bangladesh.
Research Methodology
The empirical data for the study is collected from research papers, books, policy briefs,
published government decisions, newspapers, documentaries, leaflets, and brochures.
Environment related data is gathered from previous research on Sundarbans and the impact of
the Power Plant on Sundarbans related data is collected from recent studies by the civil society
organizations. Personal observation and insights have been added to bring a different
dimension to this paper. The hypothesis of this paper is the coal-fired power plant near the
Sundarbans will destroy the bio-diversity of the forest area. To define the core concepts- bycoal-fired power plant we meant the proposed plant near Sundarbans; Sundarbans is thelargest mangrove forest in the world; forest area means the area of the Sundarbans determinedby the government; bio-diversity is the eco-system of the forest; and destroy means theinterruption of the regular patter of the forest.
The question I will try to answer is what are the impacts of the proposed coal-fired power
plant on bio-diversity of the forest? Since the Sundarbans is an UN Heritage Site and the projectis a product of a bilateral agreement between two South Asian countries, it is important to see

107the impact on the people and the environment of both countries. The major objectives are thefollowing: Examine the consequences of the proposed power plant on bio-diversity;
 Assess the impact of the power plant on the lives of the people;
 Evaluate the geographical challenges of the power plant; and Examine all the other information relevant to this paper.
Literature Review“To enhance the traditional ties of friendship between the two countries through thedevelopment and cooperation for mutual benefit of both the countries”1 People in and outside of
Bangladesh, activists are exploiting traditional and social media to express their anger about thepower plant. In addition, UNESCO has articulated its concern and asked to stop the project(Group of NGO, 2015). Mangrove forests are a topological piece of the intertidal region thatconnects land and marine environments, and the Sundarbans, situated in the southwest of
Bangladesh (Figure 1), is the largest of its kind in the world which is also a UNESCO Natural
World Heritage Site since 1997 (Council of Ethics, 2014; Banu, 2016). Due to the water’ssalinity, the trees in this forest have a different adaptive capability (CEGIS, 2013). This area
includes the drainage basins of the Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Meghna rivers, and iscrisscrossed by a complex network of other rivers and waterways (Council of Ethics, 2014;
Agrawala, etl. 2003). On the other hand, over 200,000 people’s diverse livelihoods depend on
the Sundarbans. These three identities of the Sundarbans make it a phenomenon in theinternational discourse of ‘energy politics’.
Figure 1: Location of the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest

The Proponents and the Rampal Power Plant Project
The former ‘Maitree Super Thermal Power Project’ is coal-based thermal power plant owned by
the government of Bangladesh and India. The 30 percent of its cost will be financed by bothcountries and the rest will be from loans (Banu, 2016). The government of Bangladesh acquired
1,832 acres of agriculture and fish farming land which is 14km away from the Sundarbans and
70km away from the border of the world heritage site (Figure-2) (Mustafa, 2013).

1 Brochure, Bangladesh-India Friendship Power Company (Pvt.) Limited (A joint venture for NTPC Ltd and BPDB), “Mautree Super

Thermal Power Project 1320 (2 x 660) MW, Rampal, Bagerhat

108

Figure 2: Location of the Proposed Power Plant

Working Process of Coal-Based Power Plant
A coal-based power plant burns coal to manufacture steam to spin a generator to produce
electricity. A typical model of a coal-fired power plant is shown in Figure 3. In a regular year, atypical coal plant with capacity produces around 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2)—theequivalent of cutting down 161 million trees; 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO 2)—which
contributes to the formation of acid rain; 500 tons of small airborne particles; 10,200 tons of
nitrogen oxide (NOx) —equal to the discharge from half a million old cars; 720 tons of carbon
monoxide (CO); 220 tons of hydrocarbons; 170 pounds of mercury; 225 pounds of arsenic; 114
pounds of lead; 4 pounds of cadmium; other toxic heavy metals; and trace amounts of uranium(Banu, 2016).
Figure 3: A Traditional Coal-fired Power Plant

Previous Experiences of Coal-Fired Power Plants
In 1979 in Texas, the USA, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Fayette plant had
guaranteed that there would be no negative impacts on the nearby pecan orchards and othershrubberies. The 1230 MW later 1690 MW capacity power plant released 30 thousand tons of
Sulfur Dioxide causing mass destruction to the region from airborne contact (Mustafa, 2013).
The destruction has been observed along the 48km circle (Carman, 2010). In addition, I havereviewed literature related to South American countries and found similar results. Now it is109easily comprehensible the impact of a 1320 MW capacity coal-fired plant on the Sundarbans,which is just 14km away.
People against the Power Plant?
Local-global specialists and ecologists have raised concerns that the power plant could alter thecritical water balance in the Sundarbans region, pollute the surrounding water and air, andincrease the risk of oil and coal spills in the local rivers when they will transport those to the plan
area (Council of Ethics, 2014). All of these could have an impact on the Sundarbans mangrove
forest and threaten the well-being of the people and animals that call the area home. I haveorganized the concerned into three categories.
Environmental Concerns
Acute Pollution Threats
Given the rapid change of weather and coastal narrow waterways, the delivery to the power
plant is vulnerable to water cargo accidents which might lead to greater environmental pollution(CEGIS, 2013). The table one I have provided the figures about the air temperature, watertemperature, etc. for readers’ better understanding about the situation. According to the experts,
the elements in the environment (around the year) are not at an ideal level. And any disruption
in the natural process will put the area into environmental danger.
Table 1: Physio-Chemical Conditions of Water of Rampal Area (10 Years’ Average)
Air Tmp. Water
Transp. Conductivity Salinity pH
CO2
Silicate TDS(°C)
Tmp. (°C) (cm)(ms/cm)(ppt)(mg/l) (mg/l)(g/l)
24-37.5 22-35
19-37
4-16.52-19
7.1-8.7
0-6
4.9-6.9 3-20
Source: Chowdhury, 2013

Waste: Fly Ash
How much waste will be created depends on what type of coal is being used? (Council of
Ethics, 2014; CEGIS, 2013). In total, the power plant will burn 4.5 million tons of different typesof coal will produce about 300,000 tons of ash and 500,000 tons of sludge and liquid waste per
year. No final decision has been made on ash disposal (Mustafa, 2013). In the table number
two we can see the average monthly and daily temperature (around the year); it is beyond
question that this coal-fired power plant will have a drastic impact on the area.
Table 2: Yearly Average Temperature of the Respective Area (10 Years’ Average)
Average Temperature Monthly (°C)
Average Temperature Daily (°C)
Max
32.25

Min
22.93

Max
34.9

Min
19.9

Source: Chowdhury, 2013

The Impact Assessments
The EIA for the project has been prepared by the government itself, which created lots ofcontroversies (Council of Ethics, 2014; Group of NGO, 2015). In general cases, EIA is preparedby an independent organization. And the EIA itself doesn’t answer many significant questions.
For instance- where the ashes will be kept or used? In the following, we can see the chemical
properties of the soils of the project area and if the necessary measures are not taken
adequately the environmental degradation is inevitable.

110Table 03: Chemical Properties of the Soils of the Are (10 Years’ Average)
pH
Salinity Org.Mat N %P
S mg/gZn
Br mg/g
Mg mg/g
(ppt)
%
mg/g
mg/g
7.3-8.1 2.3-7.8 1.7-2.7 .07-.17 9-60 170-476 1.6-3.3 .76-2.08
3.1-6.33
Source: Chowdhury, 2013

Pollution
The emission from the power plant in the Sundarbans area will drastically change the climatecharacteristics of the ecology (CEGIS, 2013 p. 271–283). Likewise, the water discharge fromthe power plant will increase the temperature of the river water (South Asians for Human Rights,2015). It goes without saying; there will be huge sound pollution during construction and evenwhen the plant goes to electricity production (p. 284) (CEGIS, 2013). However, according to
EIA, a ‘green belt will be created to obstruct the sound pollution from spreading which is notproven to be efficient (Mustafa, 2013). In the following, I have shown the 10 years’ average
climatic characteristics of the concerned area which will be harshly affected by the power plant.
Table 04: Climatic Characteristics of the Project Area (10 Years’ Average)
Tmp. Avg. Tmp. Avg. Tmp.
Rltv.
RainfallSunshine Wind Speed
Max. (°C) Min. (°C)
Mean (°C) Humidity
Mean (MM) (d/hr)
Avg. (Nautical
Mean %
mil/hr)
31.53
22.24
25.72
75.75
132.83
6.79
10.27
Source: Chowdhury, 2013

In addition to the above-mentioned pollution indicators the Sulfur, Nitrogen, the Flue-Gas
Emission will increase in the area and for this, the air quality will decrease. Likewise, as we cansee in the following table the current groundwater quality which will be extremely affected.
Table 5: Physio-Chemical Conditions of the Groundwater (10 Years’ Average)
Depth (m) pH
TDS (ppm) Salinity
Arsenic
Total Iron HCO3
(ppt)
(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)
25-115
7.5-8.2
635-26105-16.01-.19.18-3.29
229-645
Source: Chowdhury, 2013

Likewise, the project will change the air quality of the region. In the following table, I have
prepared the current air quality of the area. And when the power plant will be in full production
and huge amount coal will be burnt in the area will significantly change the air quality of theregion and will lead to the destruction of the forest.
Table 06: Air Quality (10 Years’ Average)
SPM (mg/m3)
NOx (μg/m3)
SOx(μg/m3)
Working Day
Holiday
Working Day
Holiday
Working Day
Holiday
172-292
268
53-85
72
37-52
45
Source: Chowdhury, 2013

Human Rights Assessment
Land Acquisition
A study by South Asians for Human Rights documented several irregularities in the landacquisition process (South Asians for Human Rights, 2015). Transparency International
Bangladesh claimed the final contract, site clearing, and evacuating the dwellers started almost
three months before the EIA was finally approved (Transparency International Bangladesh,111

2015). In addition, the compensation price was not arranged according to the actual market
price and without consultation with the landowners (Mustafa, 2013; Transparency International
Bangladesh, 2015). No alternative livelihood was arranged, no relocation assistance wasprovided even though some people lose their homes, and no employment at the power plantsince it will require certain technical knowledge (Group of NGO, 2015; Transparency
International Bangladesh, 2015).
Harassment of Dissenting Voices and EIA
Lawful protests were demolished by the law enforcers, local gangsters (Transparency
International Bangladesh, 2015). To discourage protesters 144 Section was invoked, they wereillegally harassed, and finally using violent tactics and pressure on them (Mustafa, 2013). The
EIA prepared by CEGIS was rejected by the international and national community and its
scientific base was questioned (South Asians for Human Rights, 2015, p. 16). Also for preparing
EIA for most of the data was collected before 2010 and used mostly secondary data of theparameters (Islam, 2016). So, there is no real-time data in the EIA including both terrestrial andaquatic (South Asians for Human Rights, 2015). It also says, ‘if Mongla Port can be approved
under the environmental laws, no damage will be done’ (p. 268) (CEGIS, 2013).
Violation of the Conditions of Site Clearance
The site for power plant needed to be cleared, developed, and filling according to the DoE
conditions. But no public participation was ensured in the process, expert opinions wereignored, the public hearing was useless, rigged EIA report, and local political leaders took
control over the process (Mustafa, 2013). Most of the stakeholder meetings were pre-arranged
in controlled environments by the applying organization (Transparency International
Bangladesh, 2015). Also, the EIA didn’t include the people’s opposition; no opinion was
attached to it, and the project’s socioeconomic risks (CEGIS, 2013). In addition, according tonational law, no environmentally concerned shall not be approved within 15-25km of the reserve
forests, national parks, and human settlements (Council of Ethics, 2014). According to EIA, Flue
Gas Desulfurization (FGD) should be used to control sulfur but there was not FGD in theequipment list (Rahman, 2016).
Limitations in Land Acquisition Act of Bangladesh
The existing land acquisition law didn’t provide enough support to the property owners to getbetter compensation (The Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982;
Transparency International Bangladesh, 2015). Due to the loss of land hundreds of families losttheir home and livelihood and they had to move to an unknown destination. The evictions fromthe land, insufficient compensation, procedural complications in the compensation delivery
process, illegal payments to get compensation, the insensitive behavior of the individual
authority towards the affected people, and incidences of threats and physical torment, antiproject sentiment in the project areas also lead to strong protest against the project.
(Transparency International Bangladesh, 2015).
Financial
Loss of Project Affected Persons (PAP)
The compensation price was set below the actual market price of the land because of the lackof the documentation of the poor price. Due to the administrative difficulty, lack of necessary
information, documents, the process of the compensation got delayed (Transparency
International Bangladesh, 2015). People living in the area were not given the information about
the power plant, but the evacuation notice. Additionally, there were ten stakeholders meeting
where nobody opposed the project because of the threat from the political leaders. After112

providing the notice the land and shrimp field owners were not given enough time as required in
the law (South Asians for Human Rights, 2015). Similarly, the affected people faced nuisancesfrom the appointment of a lawyer, repeated changes in the trial date, the absence of amagistrate, misuse of arbitration; dishonest officials took advantage of the situation and claimed
undue payment (Transparency International Bangladesh, 2015).
The Plant Will Lead to Higher Electricity Rates in Bangladesh
The project’s tariff levels are 32 percent higher and will cause an upsurge in electricity rates in
the country. Without the subsidy, the cost would go up to 62 percent. Considering the tax
exemptions, conservation dredging, and the true cost of the project is being hidden (Bank
Track, 2015). Other countries are dropping such projects and there is no guarantee the money
spent on the project will be net beneficial to the capital (Mustafa, 2013). The global coal prices
are low; however, any unexpected increase in the price will create complexity in the process(Bank Trak, 2015). In addition, the project’s reliance on imported coal is another big demerit of
the project (Mustafa, 2013).
Government Responses
The DoE has formally placed its opposition about the project initially, however, at a certain point
they issue site permission, passed the EIA, and stipulated 59 conditions to be met (GoB, 2013;
CEGIS, 2013). The Prime Minister’s Energy Advisor, Dr. Tawfiq-e-Elahi Chowdhury, informed
the media that the Rampal project was part of a complete plan to make the country powerefficient but he emphasized on the ‘safe’ distance from the Sundarbans (South Asians for
Human Rights, 2015). Similarly, Hon. Talukder Abdul Khaleque, MP of Bagerhat 3 (RampalMongla areas) stated that the Rampal power plant would be a major step towards developing
the region and creating jobs for thousands of people. According to him, as agricultural
manufacture and fisheries are decreasing in the region, industrialization is the only way that theregion can prosper, and its people can lead dignified lives (South Asians for Human Rights,2015).
NTPC - A Poor Track Record
The Center for Science and Environment in India, in its report titled ‘Heat on Power’, delivered
an objective performance rating for 47 Indian coal-fired power plants. Notably, NTPC received avery low ranking (Mustafa, 2013). For this, various civil society groups raised their concerns
about the responsibility of the NTPC, Bangladesh Government, and Indian Government about
the project (CEGIS, 2013; Mustafa, 2013). The National Committee for Saving the Sundarbans(NCSS) and the National Committee for the preservation the country’s oil, gas, minerals, power,
and ports have powerfully campaigned against this project and shown in detail the impact it will
have on the Sundarbans and Bangladesh at large. In addition, a writ was filed in High Court in
Bangladesh challenging the legality of the project and a ruling on the matter was provided. But
eventually in the name of keeping the bilateral relation safe between Bangladesh and India
during Indian Prime Minister’s visit high court removed the ruling (Group of NGO, 2015). Alongwith the Bangladeshi activists, many Indian activists are raising their voice against the NTPC,
the project, and the location of the project (South Asians for Human Rights, 2015).
Validating the Hypothesis
From the above discussion, it is now evident that there are environmental, human rights, andfinancial issues with the proposed Rampal Thermal Coal-Fired Power Plant Project. Considering
the serious hazards, stakeholders are justified in opposing the coal-fired power plant near the
Sundarbans. This paper has gathered data from previous studies and attempted to validate its

113

proposed hypothesis that this proposed power plant will hamper the bio-diversity of the
Sundabans.
Conclusion
I have had the advantage of understanding the native context in formulating this paper. In
addition, I tried to be objective while designing the ground for this paper. This paper highlights
the background data of the region. Likewise, the demonstration against the decision of thegovernment to establish a coal-fired power plant near the Sundarbans has been included in theinitial parts of the paper. The major analysis has been done regarding the environmental issuesof the proposed project. This paper has attempted to combine all the possible hazards that
could happen or have already happened due to the proposed project. It has also found theinconsistencies between the government document and the private documents regarding theoutcome of the project. This paper has attempted to illuminate the environmental, social,
livelihood, and economic issues of the power plant. However, due to the higher demand forelectricity, Bangladesh needs to establish more and more power plants. However, now it is time
for the government to invest in renewable energy. At this current paper leaves space for doing
research on cost-benefit analysis of the renewable energy.
References
1. Agrawala, S., Ota, T., Ahmed, A. U., Smith, J., & Aalst, M. van. (2003). Development andClimate Change in Bangladesh: Focus on Coastal Flooding and the Sundarbans (Working
Party on Global and Structural Policies). Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
2. Bandyopadhyay, D. (2000). Can Sundarbans Be Saved? Economic and Political Weekly,
35(45), 3925–3928.
3. Banu, D. N. (2016). Rampal Power Plant Vs Sundarban. Sydney: bangla-sydney.com.
4. Bank Track. (2015). EQUATOR PRINCIPLES ANALYSIS OF THE RAMPAL COAL- FIRED
POWER PLANT PROJECT, BANGLADESH. Equator-principles.com.
5. Carman, N. J. (2010). Fayette Power Project’s Sulfur Dioxide and Acid Pollution: PrimaryContributor to Extensive Pecan Tree Deaths and Property Damage in the Fayette Area.
Austin, Texas: Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club.
6. CEGIS. (2013). CEGIS 2013 Final Report on Environmental Impact Assessment of 2x (500660) MW Coal Based Thermal Power Plant to be Constructed at the Location of Khulna.
Dhaka: Center for Environmental and Geographic Services.
7. Council of Ethics. (2014). Recommendation to exclude NTPC Limited from the investment
universe of the Government Pension Fund Global. The Ministry of Finance. Oslo, Norway:
The Government Penson Fund Global.
8. Faruque, M. O. (2017). Neoliberal resource governance and counter-hegemonic social
movementin
Bangladesh.
SocialMovement
Studies,16(2),
254–259.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2016.1268957
9. GoB. (2013). Rampal Coal-based Power Plant. Environmental Impact Report. Dhaka: GoB.
10. Group of NGO. (2015). Letter to Deutsch Bank: To Rule Out Financing. Dhaka: Group ofNGO.
11. Houdhury, A. H. (2013). Environmental Impact of Coal based Power Plant of Rampal on the
Sundarbans and Surrounding areas. Environmental Science Discipline, 1-14.
12. Islam, A. (2016). Bangladesh struggling to balance energy and environment needs. Berlin:
Deutsche Welle.
13. Jalais, A. (2014). Forest of Tigers: People, Politics and Environment in the Sundarbans.
Routledge.

114

14. Jalais, A. (2010). Is Salt Water Thicker than Blood? In A. Jalais, Forest of Tigers: People,
Politics and Environment in the Sundarbans (pp. 65-108). New Delhi, India: Routledge.
15. Kamal, A. S. (2015). Rampal and Matarbari Power Projects: Governance Challenges inEnvironmental Impact Assessment and Land Acquisition. Transparency International
Bangladesh. Dhaka: Transparency International Bangladesh.
16. Mazumder, G. C., Rahman, M. H., Huque, S., & Shams, N. (2016). A Modeled Carbon
Emission Analysis Of Rampal Power Plant In Bangladesh And A Review Of Carbon
Reduction Technologies. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGYRESEARCH , 5 (7), 257-264.
17. Mookerjea, S., & Misra, M. (n.d.). Coal Power and the Sundarbans: Subaltern Resistanceand Convergent Crises. In D. Kapor, Against Colonization and Rural Dispossession: Local
Resistance in South/East Asia-Pacific and Africa.
18. Mustafa, K. (2013). How the Rampal Coal Power plant will destroy the Sundarbans. Dhaka:
ncbd.org.
19. Sufi, S. (2014). Mining Own Coal Not On Priority List. Summit Power Ltd. Dhaka: Energy
and Power.
20. South Asians for Human Rights. (2015). Report of the Fact Finding Mission to Rampal,
Bangladesh. Colombo: SAHR.
21. South Asians for Human Rights. (2015). Report of the Fact Finding Mission to Rampal,
Bangladesh. Colombo: SAHR.
22. Rahman, M. (2016). Stop Rampal Project Save Sundarbans. Dhaka, Bangladesh.
23. Transparency International Bangladesh. (2015). Rampal and Matarbari Power Projects:
Governance Challenges in Environmental Impact Assessment and Land Acquisition. Dhaka:
TIB.
24. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). (2007). Renewable Energy in the Sundarbans.
The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).
25. Water Keepers Bangladesh. (2015). Coal Energy in Bangladesh: Impacts on Water andClimate. Statement from the Conference. Dhaka: Water Keepers Bangladesh.

115