climate campaign profiles local resistance to India’s rush for coal Fighting coal fired power stations in Andhra Pradesh This case study is published as part of the 800% with as many as 60 new coal-fired pow- Democracy Center’s series of Climate Cam- er stations being built. This would mean Andhra paign Profiles. These studies have been pro- Pradesh emitting as much carbon dioxide as a duced to gather lessons from climate activ- country like Spain, making it one of the world’s ism in diverse places and contexts in order to top 20 polluters. In the coastal Srikakulam dis- share these with other campaigners and help trict of Andhra Pradesh, where a hot spot of six build the effectiveness of their advocacy work. plants are planned, opposition from local com- You can find the full series in the Climate & munities has been determined. This case study Democracy section of our website. focuses on the campaign against the Sompeta power plant, a 2640 MW megawatt (MW) proj- By Ben Castle ect proposed by Nagarjuna Construction Com- pany. As one of the earlier projects in the state the story it became the focal point for opposition and a India is in the midst of an energy boom as it symbol of the anti-coal movement. seeks to improve access to electricity and pre- The state authorities and the national gov- pare for a huge anticipated increase in economic ernment sought to push the Sompeta proj- growth over the next 10-20 years. Much of that ect through the planning process as quickly as new capacity is planned to come from coal. The possible, showing little regard for environmen- Sierra Club estimates that in 2010 alone India tal impacts or local objections. There have also approved plans for a staggering 173 new coal- been suggestions of high level corruption involv- fired power stations. Across the country hun- ing officials with conflicts of interest. In addi- dreds of local communities are paying a heavy tion, opposition from the local communities has price for this government policy as their land is been met with serious violence and intimidation, forcefully taken from them and pollution threat- including the killing of three protesters by police. ens to destroy their livelihoods and health. Despite these seemingly overwhelming odds, Andhra Pradesh is one of a number of states at local communities have fought back through a the centre of this rush for new coal. The state series of protests and court cases, and they have intends to increase its power production by 1 CLIMATE CAMPAIGN PROFILES · “LOCAL RESISTANCE TO INDIA’S RUSH FOR COAL” © THE DEMOCRACY CENTER 2012 succeeded in stopping the planned project. The the strategy campaign has also had wider ramifications by inspiring opposition to new coal power stations Messaging strategy throughout the state and across India, forcing Targeting the misinformation the government to reconsider its approach to A key audience for the campaign was the NEAA the locating of power stations. It has also trig- and High Court, the legal institutions which cam- gered a wider debate over India’s path to devel- paigners used to challenge the decisions by opment and the true cost of the nation’s love the state and national government to allow the affair with coal. Sompeta development. Campaigners argued that in awarding land rights and giving clearance the targets to Nagarjuna, the authorities had failed in their duty to enforce environmental protection legisla- For power projects above 500 MW capacity the tion. The project was also only able to proceed national government’s Ministry of Environment because the objections raised by local peo- and Forests is responsible for setting the terms ple were ignored during the initial public hear- for the environmental impact assessment (EIA) ing. Key facts were also misrepresented to help and awarding environmental clearance through facilitate the development. The land surrounding its Expert Appraisal Committee (the Expert Com- Sompeta was given to Nagarjuna by the Andhra mittee).The Andhra Pradesh state government’s Pradesh state government on the basis of it pollution control board is responsible for over- being classified in a District Collector’s report seeing public hearings and for issuing the final as a ‘waste land’ and ‘non-cultivable’. Studies Consent for Establishment (following approv- undertaken to support the Environmental Impact al from the Expert Committee). Importantly, the Statement also misleadingly portrayed the area state government is also responsible for obtain- as having little ecological or social value. Cam- ing land under the Compulsory Land Acquisition paigners sought to show how in reality the area Act and awarding it to project developers. is a highly productive and ecologically important wetland which should therefore receive protect- Despite strong objections to the project, the ed status under Indian law. They argued that by Expert Committee awarded environmental clear- deliberating misrepresenting the on the ground ance for the first 1320 MW of the Sompeta Plant reality and granting clearance the authorities had in December 2009. This followed 972 hect- been complicit in acting against the interests of ares of land being allotted to Nagarjuna by the the public for the benefit of a private company. state government in September 2008. Most of the campaign effort has therefore been focused Anti-power plant but pro-development on appealing against the initial granting of land The Indian government and much of the pub- rights by the state government and the awarding lic see new coal capacity as an inevitable part of clearance by the Expert Committee. This has of national economic development and prog- been done by taking cases to the National Envi- ress. Dr. Babu Rau, a retired government scien- ronment Appellate Authority (NEAA) - a body set tist who is now an activist against coal plants in up to adjudicate on environmental disputes - and Andhra Pradesh, explained the typical discourse the Andhra Pradesh High Court (High Court). the movement was up against: ‘‘They say that if 2 CLIMATE CAMPAIGN PROFILES · “LOCAL RESISTANCE TO INDIA’S RUSH FOR COAL” © THE DEMOCRACY CENTER 2012 you are going to grow economically you need to of the plans or they had simply been promised increase power capacity, that if you are going to that the power-station would bring nothing but grow at 8 or 9% you need to grow power by 6% jobs and economic benefits to the area. The at least year by year. That is the logic they use. lead campaigners chose to focus on illustrating Everyone is carried away by the slogan of devel- how the development would damage local liveli- opment. They think that opposing any industrial hoods which are primarily based on fishing and development is opposing development.’’ farming. Dr. Rau explains the approach: “Here in India we can’t really talk much about climate Campaigners have tried to challenge the sim- change science at the grass roots level – so the plistic narrative which presents the preserva- main issues are livelihood issues. For example tion of the environment as counter to the objec- we explained to a lot of the fisher folk how the tives of development. A key messaging strategy project will damage their fishing and affect their of campaigners has therefore been to empha- lives.” Getting these messages out to the com- size that they are opposing only one version of munity was key in building the grass roots oppo- development i.e. that which is damaging to local sition to the plans. livelihoods. As local campaigner Dr. EAS Sar- ma puts it, ‘‘What is perceived to be ‘develop- Ally Strategy ment’ from the seat of power in Hyderabad or The campaign against the Sompeta plant has Delhi may not necessarily be the same as seen been led by a wide coalition of individuals, com- by those that are at the receiving end at Sompe- munity groups and NGOs. Each group or indi- ta and at similar other locations’’.1 An appeal by vidual has taken on different roles and responsi- local campaigners was sent to the Chief Minister bilities, some operating within local communities of Andhra Pradesh deliberately emphasizing this and others at the state or national level. point: ‘‘We state categorically that we are not against development. We are all for it. But we Local opposition has been spearheaded by a are of the firm opinion that this thermal plant will group of concerned citizens called Paryava- not usher in development. Rather, it will destroy rana Parirakshana Sangham (PPS). The group whatever development we have. It will devastate was set up by B. Dilli Rao, Y. Krishna Murthy (a the lives of thousands of families from the farm- local doctor) and T. Rama Rao (an engineer), as ing and fisher-folk communities as well as throw well as other concerned community leaders. An into deep distress landless labourers and artisan important constituent was the fishing communi- classes.’’ ty, whose leader V. Krishna Rao was also a key member of the PPS. For the protection of local livelihoods In the early stages of the campaign organisers Along with other organizations, the PPS have sought to inform local communities about the been responsible for developing the legal cas- negative impacts of the proposed development es against the provision of the land and environ- and why it should be opposed. Many villagers mental clearance to Nagarjuna. High profile envi- living near the proposed site were either unaware ronmental Lawyer Ritwik Datta took on the case at the NEAA in Delhi while the High Court case 1 http://hrfinfo.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/sompe- was handled by K Srinivasa Murthy in Hyder- ta1.pdf 3 CLIMATE CAMPAIGN PROFILES · “LOCAL RESISTANCE TO INDIA’S RUSH FOR COAL” © THE DEMOCRACY CENTER 2012 abad.