Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1991, Publication: 78th ILC session (1991)

Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No. 107) - India (Ratification: 1958)

The Government has communicated the following information:

Some basic facts about the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) with updated information on the issues raised in the comments of the International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers (IFPAAW) are enumerated below: The total population affected by SSP as per 1981 census is 66,675 comprising 245 villages; 19 in Gujarat, 33 in Maharashtra and 193 in Madhya Pradesh (including the population affected for very short duration due to back water effect). The Narmada Sagar Project (NSP) on the other hand would displace 86,572 people as per the 1981 census and in this case also only 69 villages out of a total of 249 villages would be completely submerged. The rest of the villages will be only partially submerged. In 25 villages of SSP only government land will be affected requiring no displacement while in 91 villages submergence would be only 10 per cent.

Resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) measures

Gujarat. The policy drawn up in December 1987 has been modified from time to time to provide maximum benefit to the project-affected people (PAP). A subcommittee has been constituted to make an in-depth study of the socio-economic status of canal-affected people for their proper rehabilitation. Up to 15 April 1991, 2,624 families out of 4,500 families of Gujarat had been resettled and the rest would be resettled by 1991-92. A resettlement grant has been given to 697 families and an allowance of 5,000 rupees per family, besides subsistence allowance, has been given to 1,141 families. In the matter of resettlement, the oustees have been moved to sites of their choice.

Maharashtra. The displaced people have the option of resettling in Maharashtra itself or moving to Gujarat. 425 families have opted for settling in Gujarat out of which 200 have been already settled at Parveta in Gujarat. Parveta has now been developed as a model village where all civil amenities, social cultivable land and house plots have been provided. Temporary houses have also been made available, though according to the policy the oustees have to construct their own houses on the allotted land. Hence, the claim of Survival International that the residents of Parveta face severe R&R problems is not correct. More over, the inference drawn by the study made by the Tata Institute of Social Studies regarding infant mortality rate has also not been found to be correct. To accommodate the oustees who had shown preference for settling in Maharashtra itself, the Government of India has, as a special case, given clearance for use of 2,700 hectares of forest land in Taloda in Dhule District, for this purpose. Already about 20 families have been resettled there and by June 1992 all other families would be covered. Construction of civil amenities is also in progress.

Madhya Pradesh. The claim of SI that oustees of Madhya Pradesh have been given unfair treatment and have been forced to go to Gujarat is not substantiated by facts. As already mentioned, the Madhya Pradesh oustees have also the option of staying back in Madhya Pradesh, if they so desire, or move to Gujarat. As already conveyed in the information provided to the Committee earlier, in the State of Madhya Pradesh 193 villages regrouping 14,994 families would be affected: 8,854 families would be completely affected and 6,149 only partially. For the purpose of resettling 15,080 hectares of land of which 2,083 hectares was required in Madhya Pradesh itself and 13,000 hectares in Gujarat. As is already known there is no problem of land in Gujarat: 218 families have already been moved to Gujarat and 1,342 families will be resettled there by June 1992. The schedule to acquire 2,500 hectares of land annually from Gujarat for Madhya Pradesh oustees has been drawn up. In Madhya Pradesh itself, as already mentioned last year, the state government had identified 1,489 hectares of land. Requirement of an additional 594 hectares of land would be no problem. In this connection it may be mentioned that as per the submergence schedule the first village of Madhya Pradesh will go under submergence in 1994 and 16 in 1995. According to the Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal (NWDT) Award the rehabilitation should be completed one year prior to the submergence. Although there is enough time to design appropriate R&R strategies, the government of Madhya Pradesh has already initiated action as indicated above. It has been stated that many oustees have been living in miserable temporary shelters for the last few years and have not received title to land. This is because, as per the policy, the oustees are entitled to cultivate their land at both places viz. original land as well as new sites allotted to them. The main reason for their staying in temporary shelters is their desire to continue to cultivate their original land as well. As regards the coverage of people under the term "oustee" for R&R purposes, all the people who would be affected by submergence have been identified as PAPs as defined in the Award. Not only the owners but also the encroachers and landless labourers have been given benefits under the R&R package of SSP.

Social costs

The main aim of developing projects like SSP is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the people including tribal people of these areas. Hence the statement that these projects will cause human and social catastrophe has no basis. The plan for resettlement and rehabilitaiton of the oustees has been carefully formulated to ensure that the oustees shall: (a)be promptly reallocated as village units in accordance with their preference; (b)be fully integrated in the community in which they are resettled; (c)be provided with appropriate compensation and adequate infrastructure including community services and facilities; (d)improve or at least regain the standard of living they had enjoyed before their displacement; and (e)the oustees shall fully participate in their rehabilitation process.

Environmental impact

The assessment of environmental impact of the project was made at the initial stage of the project formulation itself. The establishment of the Environmental Development Centre (EDC) is in progress to monitor the environmental impact of the projects and to design suitable strategies to combat any problems that might arise.

Loss of forests and wildlife

To counter the anticipated loss of forest cover, compensatory afforestation has been taken up by the three state governments in a big way. The government of Madhya Pradesh has prepared a plan for afforestation of 8,737 hectares, Maharashtra for 19,000 hectares and Gujarat for 4,650 hectares. In addition, another plan for afforestation of 3,000 hectares in Maharashtra and 4,650 hectares in Gujarat is under preparation. So far, afforestation has been carried out in about 7,525 hectares of land in three States. Budgetary provision has already been made for this purpose. The project has fulfilled the requirements of the World Bank who have been monitoring the progress periodically. The Bank's mission has satisfied itself with the measures being taken by the State to take care of R&R and environmental aspects. As far as the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF) by the Government of Japan is concerned, it is granted on a year-to-year basis. Extension of the same for this year is under negotiation with the OECF authorities. The protests by NGOs and other organisations is due to their lack of knowledge about the positive aspects of the project, which clearly outweigh the negative impact. It cannot be denied that any developmental project would have both a positive and a negative impact. It is also not correct to say, as mentioned in the complaint, that only 10 per cent of the dam has been built. The maximum civil work has already been completed. Further, there is no substance in the statement that government officials resorted to force and violence dealing with oustees. Hence, these organisations should leave a confrontationist approach and assist in the completion of the project which would result in socio-economic development of the country in general and particularly the States concerned.

In addition a Government representative recalled that the various aspects of the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) were discussed a number of times by this Committee and that a detailed statement had also been made by the Government delegate during the Committee's 1990 session. In addition to the information provided in writing by the Government, she gave some other basic facts. The speaker assured the present Committee that her Government was fully committed to complying with the provisions of the Convention and that it had been taking all necessary measures in connection with the social, economic and environmental problems that were arising out of the SSP.

In regard to paragraph 2 of the Committee of Experts observations, the speaker indicated that her Government intended to take all measures to comply with the Committee's comments. Concerning the matter of basic human rights and land rights, as well as the right to maintain the traditional way of life, adequate social upliftment programmes were launched, and rehabilitation of the project-affected persons was directed towards a multidisciplinary approach, to ensure a better quality of life for these persons. The steps taken by the Government on the provision of adequate compensation for displaced persons had already been dealt with in detail in the resettlement and rehabilitation policy of the state governments of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. In regard to identification of land, the speaker mentioned that the decision was taken only after consultation with the project-affected people. Basically the oustees were to make their own choice of relocation site out of the options given to them. In regard to the resettlement programme, the speaker drew the attention of the Committee to the guidelines incorporated in the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award. She stated that there was no substance in the allegation that the Project authorities and government officials have been resorting to force and violence in this connection, and referred to the information in writing concerning the position in regard to the World Bank assistance and the assistance from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Government representative pointed out that it was clearly stipulated in the Award that the rehabilitation should be completed one year prior to submergence schedule, and that filling up of the reservoir would not be done until and unless the rehabilitation work of the affected persons was fully and satisfactorily committed.

The Workers' members stated that very important human rights questions were at issue in this discussion. In reference to the Committee of Experts' comments, they noted from the information provided that it was evident efforts continued to be made; but it was less evident that these efforts had yet been successful. They also recalled that the Project was being financed by the World Bank and that there had been some criticism of the latter concerning its involvement in this particular Project. The Workers' members referred to the point made during the general discussion when it was indicated that it would be helpful if the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund added a social dimension to the money they lent to the countries. In this connection they pointed out that if the ILO had been involved at an earlier stage of the project, it would have been possible to advise the Government of the preparations necessary to ensure that no infringements of the Convention had taken place. As regards the environmental aspects, the Workers' members pointed out that it was very difficult to make assessments, judgements and evaluations about them on this Committee, but expressed the opinion that there should be some more information on the subject for examination by the Committee of Experts than had been provided by the Government in writing. Concerning the Government's attitude to the position of NGOs, the Workers' members indicated that the information provided by these organisations, and examined by the Committee of Experts, was subsequently passed to the Government, which in turn made a response; this created a helpful dialogue and provided the present Committee with information which it was not able to obtain otherwise. They also expressed the hope that the Government would study the report of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes referred to in the Committee of Experts' report, and would provide information on the points raised therein for examination by the Committee of Experts. The Workers' members expressed some doubt as to whether there was sufficient land available to resettle all the people affected by the Project. As only the start of the Project had been seen, the Government needed to provide up-to-date and timely information so that the Committee of Experts could consider it. Though the Workers' members did not underestimate the good will of the Government, they did not consider it appropriate to convey any sense of complacency.

The Employers' members recalled that it was the fourth time that this difficult case was being discussed since 1987. Stating that the problem the Committee was dealing with was that of the resettlement of large numbers of people (100,000, including 60,000 tribals), they though this number may come up to 1 million people at future stages of the Project, and expressed some doubt as to whether the resettlement plans were adequate, and whether there were sufficient resettlement lands available to relocate all these people. With regard to the problem of property and ownership rights, the Employers' members stated that the situation was not at all clear as between traditional occupation and encroachment on government land, and the circumstances in which compensation was appropriate. Comprehensive long-term measures were needed and, in addition to equivalency of replacement lands, health issues must also be taken into account.

The Government representative indicated that a monitoring committee headed by the Secretary of the Welfare Department had been set up at the national level to look into the aspect of rehabilitation and resettlement. As far as environmental issues were concerned, they are monitored by another subgroup headed by the Secretary of the Environment Department. She stated that the number of families affected was indicated on the basis of 1981 census figures and the information on the exact number of families who would be affected by the Project might be communicated as soon as a detailed survey in the matter was completed. She expressed the hope that it would perhaps be done before the next meeting of the Committee in 1992. Concerning the World Bank, the Government representative pointed out that it provided its assistance only after having studied every aspect in depth, so one would assume that it would keep the social dimension in mind before considering the matter. On the environmental issues, she also added that the Government had a more detailed plan of action which would be submitted to the Committee in due course. Concerning the land rights, and the clarification of what was meant by encroachment and by the traditional land, the speaker referred to the statement of a Government representative during the Committee's session in 1990. She also assured the Committee that the quantum of land that was needed for the number of people affected was adequate, and that there was no problem whatsoever in making the suitable land available to these people.

The Workers' members, with reference to the point about the World Bank, pointed out that the World Bank was not capable of assessing the social dimensions of its projects since it was not equipped to do that any more than the ILO would be equipped to advise the World Bank on the financial aspects of its loans. The ILO was the body that could have advised the World Bank on the social dimensions of the projects.

The Committee took note of the information, verbal and in writing, provided by the Government. It noted with interest the measures taken to ensure the application of the Convention. It regretted, however, that all the information requested was not provided by the Government in its last report. Recalling the concern that it always expressed with respect to the situation with the tribal populations, the Committee hoped that the Government would continue to take all necessary measures for the benefit of these populations so as to ensure the full application of the Convention in law and in practice. It urged the Government to supply a detailed report as requested by the Committee of Experts.