Western Ghats Hydroelectric Project Faces Environmental and Social Scrutiny

PSHPs are vital for India's renewable energy strategy because they provide grid stability and help integrate intermittent sources like solar and wind. They store excess energy by pumping water uphill and release it during peak demand. However, their construction often involves significant environmental and social costs, particularly in biodiversity hotspots like the Western Ghats.

• •Energy Storage: PSHPs act as large-scale batteries, balancing the grid by storing surplus power and releasing it when needed.
• •Environmental Impact: Despite being "green" in operation, their construction requires large reservoirs, leading to forest land diversion (e.g., 138.5 hectares for Sharavathi), submergence of land, and displacement of communities (e.g., 100 tribal families).
• •Biodiversity Hotspots: Projects in regions like the Western Ghats (one of 18 global biodiversity hotspots) threaten unique ecosystems and species, leading to felling of thousands of trees (e.g., 7,000 estimated for Sharavathi).

For Prelims, focus on the specific numbers and the roles of different bodies. The Sharavathi PSHP is proposed in Shivamogga district, Karnataka. The PIL challenges approvals from the State Wildlife Board and the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife.

• •Location Trap: The project under PIL is Sharavathi PSHP in Shivamogga, Karnataka. Do not confuse it with Ponnaniyar PSHP which is mentioned as a key fact but is in Idukki, Kerala. UPSC might use the Kerala project as a distractor.
• •Approvals: Remember the specific bodies whose approvals are being challenged: State Wildlife Board and the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife.
• •Western Ghats Status: It's one of eighteen global biodiversity hotspots. This fact is crucial.
• •Land/Tree Numbers: 138.5 hectares of forest land, 100 tribal families, 7,000 trees. These are specific figures that can be tested.

The State Wildlife Board and the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) are crucial statutory bodies under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Their approvals are mandatory for projects impacting wildlife and protected areas. The PIL challenges these approvals, suggesting they might have been granted without proper due diligence or in violation of environmental norms, especially given the project's location in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats.

• •Statutory Authority: Both boards derive their powers from the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, making their clearance legally binding for projects in or near protected areas.
• •Ecological Scrutiny: They are responsible for assessing the environmental impact on wildlife, forests, and biodiversity, especially in Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) or biodiversity hotspots like the Western Ghats.
• •PIL Challenge: The PIL questions the legality of these approvals, implying that the boards might not have adequately considered the project's impact on 138.5 hectares of forest land, 7,000 trees, and tribal settlements, or that the process was flawed.

The Sharavathi PSHP case highlights a critical dilemma for India: the need for large-scale energy projects to meet renewable targets and ensure grid stability often clashes with the imperative to protect biodiversity hotspots and safeguard tribal rights. This scrutiny reflects a growing public and judicial awareness of the long-term environmental and social costs of development, pushing for more sustainable and equitable approaches.

• •Energy Security vs. Environment: India needs PSHPs for energy security and to integrate intermittent renewables, but these projects often require diverting forest land and impacting sensitive ecosystems.
• •Development vs. Displacement: The project involves submerging tribal settlements (100 families), raising questions about the implementation of the Forest Rights Act and the "social cost" of development.
• •Judicial Activism: The PIL and High Court notice signify increased judicial intervention in environmental governance, holding both central and state governments accountable for project approvals.
• •Policy Evolution: This scrutiny may lead to more stringent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processes and a greater emphasis on alternative locations or less impactful technologies in the future.

The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, is highly relevant to the Sharavathi PSHP because it recognizes the rights of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers over forest land, including rights to hold and live in the forest land for habitation or self-cultivation. The project's plan to submerge 100 tribal families' settlements directly impacts these recognized rights, making the project's legality questionable without proper consent and rehabilitation as mandated by the FRA.

• •Community Rights: FRA grants individual and community rights over forest land, including the right to livelihood and habitat, which would be violated by submergence and displacement.
• •Gram Sabha Consent: A crucial provision of FRA is the requirement for Gram Sabha consent for any diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes, especially if it affects tribal communities. The PIL likely questions if this consent was properly obtained.
• •Rehabilitation: The Act also emphasizes rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced forest dwellers, which must be adequately addressed if the project proceeds.

Aspirants should closely follow the Karnataka High Court's proceedings on the PIL. Key developments to watch include the Centre and State government's responses to the notice, any interim orders by the court, and further arguments regarding the legality of the project approvals. Beyond this specific case, observe any new policy pronouncements or amendments related to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, especially concerning projects in Eco-Sensitive Zones like the Western Ghats.

• •Judicial Outcome: The High Court's final verdict on the PIL will set a precedent for future projects in sensitive ecological areas.
• •Government Response: How the Centre and State defend their approvals will reveal their stance on balancing development with environmental protection.
• •EIA Process Reforms: Any discussions or changes to the EIA notification (last streamlined in 2006) in light of such challenges.
• •Western Ghats Policy: Broader policy decisions regarding the protection and development of the Western Ghats, potentially influenced by expert committee reports.