Risks and Constraints in Rehabilitation of People Displaced: A Case of Tehri Dam

Annually lives and livelihoods of nearly ten million people across the globe are affected by forced displacement from dam construction and many infrastructure project sites. Hydroelectric dam projects have an enormous potential to provide electricity, to increase agricultural productivity through irrigation and to control flooding, all with the goal of improving people’s well-being. Tehri dam is 260m height situated on the Bhagirathi River in the highly active Central Himalayan Seismic Zone of North India. The construction of Tehri dam started in 1972 and completed in the year 2002. It is designed to withstand earthquakes of up to 7.2 on the Richter scale although experts predict that earthquakes of magnitude 8.5 or more could strike this region. If the dam were to burst, several major towns downstream of the dam with a total population of over half a million people could be wiped out. Landslides are common on the steep slopes above Tehri’s reservoir. A major landslide into the reservoir could cause a huge wave, which could overtop the dam and cause massive damage downstream. The dam was expected to generate 2400 megawatts of electricity with the capacity to irrigate a quarter million hectares of land. Despite the anticipated benefits, more than 125 villages and one town, Tehri, involving a total of approximately 100,000 people who were mostly peasants, had to resettle due to construction activities and water impoundment.

Although land acquisition started in 1979, resettlement of affected people is far from complete. There was no master plan for rehabilitation nor even a clear estimate of the number of people affected. Construction of a dam affects people in many ways, from displacing them because of water impoundment to creating new habitats around the dam, water reservoir, and irrigation canals. The existing resettlement policies around the world have primarily focused on the issues of land and housing compensation and to some extent, providing basic amenities for project-affected people but not considering other socio-economic factors. The economy in this region is primarily agrarian, with approximately 85% of the adult population practicing intensive agriculture. Although most are farmers, only 10.3% of the land in the region is arable and soil fertility is significantly good along the narrow river valley due to alluvial soil deposits. The remaining cultivatable land consists mostly of narrow strips on hilly slopes and is used for dry terrace cultivation. More than 90 % of arable land is used for food grains. Animal husbandry is also an important economic activity, in most cases supplements agricultural produce. The availability and accessibility of forest land and grazing grounds determines number of livestock and other animals. Goats and sheep are the main herding animals, most people keep cows, oxen, and buffaloes for milk and plowing and chickens for eggs and meat. Other economic activities include horticulture, forestry and cottage industries.

These resettlers were forcibly displaced from their mountain homes to plains in foothills of the Himalayas. This region was already very densely populated and poorly developed with unhygienic conditions, including an inadequate sewage system and polluted drinking water. In addition, the region’s hot and humid climate makes this area a fertile breeding ground for various vectors of parasitic agents due to these high cases of fever, malaria, typhoid, measles and gastrointestinal ailments, were reported. They had many health problems. Several initiatives were taken by Government, NGOs and SHGs to provide to improve health of resettlers.

MEDICINAL PLANT’s CONSERVATION IN AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS AND ITS IMPACT

India is one of the world's 12 mega diversity centers with 47000 plant species and is divided into twenty agro-eco zones (Prakash and Singh 2001). The increased pressure on forest and other vegetation areas for fodder, fuel wood and livelihood requirements has resulted in degradation of both agriculture and forest areas with associated loss of biodiversity of this highly fragile ecosystem. It is well recognized that 4/5th of the population earn their livelihood on subsistence agriculture and animal husbandry. Husain et al., 2002 studied the socio-economic condition of some areas of Uttaranchal and found that people of the area heavily depend on the forest resources. Further Husain and Raina, 2004 have noticed significant awareness among the farmers towards the conservation of the resources.

National Forest Policy of 1988 emphasizes the involvement of people in protection, regeneration and development of forest ecosystem by preventing further degradation of forest, rehabilitation of degraded forest areas and finding alternate source of timber, fuel wood and fodder. Increasing population has raised the demand for agriculture produce on one hand and reduced the size of land holding on the other. This has resulted in conversion of marginal lands into agricultural lands and encroachment of forestlands. If integrated efforts are not undertaken timely to arrest the degradation processes, this may further complicate the already serious ecological consequences.
On developing and adopting an integrated and participatory village agro–ecosystem approach to meet the diverse biomass needs of the communities and simultaneously to promote restoration of biodiversity on degraded lands.

This will require sustainable and integrated management of agricultural lands along with degraded forest and community lands keeping in view the resource requirements of the population. These efforts may result in reduction in land degradation; increase biomass resulting in higher sequestration of carbon and in–situ conservation of genetic diversity of endemic trees and medicinal plants. The added focus on improved livestock management and productivity is expected to increase the income generation activity of the farmers and at the same time reduce pressure on the forest resources.
Biodiversity includes all components of biological diversity of relevance to food and agriculture, including genetic crop and livestock resources. Agricultural and forest biodiversity provides food, income and materials for clothing, shelter and medicine. It also executes ecological services essential to human survival, such as nutrient cycling, pest and disease regulation and pollination.
Much has been written about the impacts on biodiversity from land use practices, but only limited work has been done on how foresters and farmers, the "custodians of biodiversity," manage their resources to sustain and enhance them. Through innovation and experiment, foresters and farmers have accumulated rich knowledge of managed biodiversity. Collaborative efforts among scientists, foresters and small farmers have been initiated to tap traditional’ knowledge and skills for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems.
Management of forest biodiversity has temporal and spatial attributes as well as socio-economic implications. This paper intended to share the experiences and ideas of the community working on biodiversity with the hope that the collected knowledge would be useful for international and national biodiversity programmes and policy.