Content uploaded by Siddarth Machado
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Siddarth Machado on Jan 12, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Siddarth Machado
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Siddarth Machado on Jan 12, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
REPORT
Big concerns with small projects: Evaluating the socio-ecological
impacts of small hydropower projects in India
Suman Jumani , Shishir Rao, Siddarth Machado, Anup Prakash
Received: 25 August 2015 / Revised: 1 March 2016 / Accepted: 23 November 2016
Abstract Although Small Hydropower Projects (SHPs)
are encouraged as sources of clean and green energy, there
is a paucity of research examining their socio-ecological
impacts. We assessed the perceived socio-ecological
impacts of 4 SHPs within the Western Ghats in India by
conducting semi-structured interviews with local
respondents. Primary interview data were sequentially
validated with secondary data, and respondent perceptions
were subsequently compared against the expected baseline
of assured impacts. We evaluated the level of awareness
about SHPs, their perceived socio-economic impacts,
influence on resource access and impacts on human–
elephant interactions. The general level of awareness about
SHPs was low, and assurances of local electricity and
employment generation remained largely unfulfilled.
Additionally most respondents faced numerous
unanticipated adverse impacts. We found a strong
relationship between SHP construction and increasing
levels of human–elephant conflict. Based on the disparity
between assured and actual social impacts, we suggest that
policies regarding SHPs be suitably revised.
Keywords Human–wildlife interactions India
Mini-hydel dam Small hydropower projects
Socio-ecological impacts
INTRODUCTION
Growing human populations, rising energy consumption,
increasing energy access and industrial expansion are
continuously increasing power requirements, especially in
developing countries (Ahmad et al. 2014). In the face of these
rising needs, issues such as demands for distributed electricity
supply, limited reserves of fossil fuels and the imminent threat
of global climate change have spurred the growth of renewable
energy technologies globally (Ahmad et al. 2014).
Small hydropower is one such form of renewable energy
which has witnessed massive growth in the past decade.
Typically functioning as run-of-river projects, SHPs
broadly have 4 components—a diversion weir, a penstock
pipe, a powerhouse with turbines and a tailrace canal. River
flows are diverted at the weir, through the penstock pipe, to
the downstream powerhouse, where it drives the turbines to
produce electricity. Water is then released back into the
river channel through the tailrace canal. Widely believed to
have no emissions, small areas of submergence and mini-
mal rehabilitation issues, SHPs are propagated as a means
to meet rising energy demands without harming the envi-
ronment (Sharma 2007; Kosnik 2008; Yuksel 2010). Fur-
ther, SHPs assure social benefits such as employment
generation, development of fisheries, infrastructure devel-
opment and electrification of remote areas, and therefore
claim to be socially beneficial (Chaurey et al. 2005; Balat
2007). Based on the presumption that SHPs are environ-
mentally sustainable, socially equitable and financially
viable, their growth is being globally encouraged through
facilitative policies, international carbon credits and mon-
etary incentives (Nautiyal et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2013).
However, scientists have cautioned against labelling the
entire sector as environmentally benign (Abbasi and Abbasi
2011; Kibler and Tullos 2013) since the definition of SHPs
varies across countries, ranging from a maximum generating
capacity of 1 megawatt (in Denmark) to 50 megawatt (in
China). Additionally, key factors are often overlooked when
assessing their impacts, such as altered flows, barriers to
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0855-9) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
DOI 10.1007/s13280-016-0855-9
animal movement, effects of ancillary structures and
impaired sediment transport (Gleick 1992;Bas¸kaya et al.
2011;Andersonetal.2014;Pangetal.2015). Recent studies
indicate that assessing SHPs as isolated entities without
recognising their cumulative impacts precludes a holistic
understanding of their environmental, economic and social
consequences (Abbasi and Abbasi 2011; Kibler and Tullos
2013). Additionally the trickle down of socio-economic
benefits to local communities is also being questioned due to
the lack of accountability and monitoring (Schmitz 2006).
In India, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
(MNRE) defines SHPs as those that produce between 2 and
25 megawatts of power. Unlike other hydel projects, SHPs in
India are exempted from requiring environmental clearances
due to the assumption that they have negligible adverse
effects. Hence they do not partake in public hearings, social
assessments and environmental impact assessments (as per
the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 2006).
Their growth is further encouraged through governmental
financial assistance (Ghosh et al. 2012;MNRE2015). India
has tapped about 20% of its small hydropower capacity, and
there is now a gathering momentum to realise its full
potential. Consequently, almost all rivers that flow through
the country have been dammed, with highest densities in 2
global biodiversity hotspots—the Western Ghats and the
Himalayas (Myers et al. 2000).
Various study reports and Clean Development Mecha-
nism Project Design Documents (CDM-PDD) of SHPs in
India assure socio-economic benefits to local communities.
However, rising incidents of social conflict due to SHP
development are being highlighted through journal articles
(Erlewein 2013; Baker 2014), reports (Bhaumik 2012) and
court petitions (Atul Bhardwaj v. HPPCB and Ors. 176/
2014). In the midst of these contradictory narratives, there
exists a lacuna in assessing the socio-ecological impact of
SHPs on local communities. In an attempt to address this
gap, we focus on understanding the perceptions of a local
community with regard to (1) awareness about SHPs, (2)
socio-economic impacts of SHPs, (3) impacts of SHPs on
resource access and (4) impacts of SHPs on human–wild-
life interactions. We also compare respondent perceptions
against the expected baseline of assured impacts. In doing
so, we provide recommendations that could facilitate the
sustainable growth of this sector, particularly in landscapes
that are of significant conservation importance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area
We conducted our study around the upper reaches of the
Gundia River basin, an important tributary to the west-
flowing Netravathi River of Karnataka State in India. This
region constitutes part of the Western Ghats—one of the 8
hottest hotspots in the world (Myers et al. 2000) charac-
terised by exceptionally high levels of species richness,
endemism and anthropogenic pressures. The study site
includes the Kemphole, Kagneri and Kanchankumari
Reserve Forests, and extends from 12450Nto12560N
latitude and 75360Eto75470E longitude encompassing an
area of 252.6 km
2
. The Reserve Forests comprise ever-
green and semi-evergreen forests interspersed with grass-
lands. Outside the Reserve Forests, the landscape is
primarily composed of a matrix of forest patches, planta-
tions, agricultural fields and settlements. The region
receives a mean annual rainfall of 3750 mm (Ramachandra
et al. 2015). Previous assessments have recorded the
presence of 56 fish species, 23 amphibian species and 22
mammalian species (Dudani et al. 2010). This area is part
of an important elephant corridor (Ramachandra et al.
2010) and is listed as a potential freshwater key biodiver-
sity area (Molur et al. 2011).
The stretch of river adopted for the study extends for
71.5 km and has a cluster of 4 SHPs along its course.
Project characteristics of the SHPs are listed in Table 1. All
4 SHPs are registered with the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. This enables
them to earn Certified Emission Reduction units which
may be traded in emissions trading schemes.
Twenty-one river-dependent communities are located
within a 6 km radius of the SHPs (Fig. 1), most of which
fall within the Eco Sensitive Area of the Western Ghats
(Kasturirangan et al. 2013). The community is dominated
by the ‘Vokkaliga’ caste—a Hindu caste group primarily
engaged in agricultural activities. People depend on
perennial springs and groundwater reserves to meet their
drinking-water needs, and utilise the main river for irri-
gation, subsistence fishing and other domestic activities.
Most people have small-scale land holdings and depend on
agriculture and associated activities for their livelihood.
Study design
Semi-structured interviews were used to gather respondent
perceptions on the impacts of SHP development as this
method is well suited for exploring perceptions regarding
sensitive issues. It also allows for probing and clarification
of answers (Bariball and While 1994), which aids in
establishing an interviewer–respondent rapport, thereby
reducing the risk of receiving socially desirable answers
(Patton 1990).
To address the drawbacks of semi-structured interviews
with regard to reliability of data (Diefenbach 2009), we
adopted a measure of quantitative triangulation (Bam-
berger et al. 2011) where primary interview data were
Ambio
123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017
www.kva.se/en
Fig. 1 Map of study site. Note that the illustration of India is not to scale
Table 1 Characteristics of SHPs
SHP name Installed capacity
(MW)
Dam height
(m)
Year of
commissioning
Ownership Status
Yettinahole mini-hydel scheme 3 NA 2010 Private Grid-connected
Kadamane mini-hydel scheme-1 9 21.85 2008 Private Grid-connected
Kadamane mini-hydel scheme-2 15 14.5 2010 Private Grid-connected
Kemphole mini-hydel scheme 18 21 2005 Private Grid-connected
Ambio
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017
www.kva.se/en 123
sequentially validated with reliable secondary data. The
use of secondary information also served to contextualise
our sample against the wider population.
Respondent perceptions were compared against the
expected baseline of assured impacts, which were obtained
from the CDM-PDDs of the projects.
Field surveys
We conducted 73 semi-structured interviews across 9 of
the 21 villages located in the study area between June and
August 2014. Three estate villages were not sampled as
most of the inhabitants consisted of labourers hired from
outside this region. The northern-most communities were
also not sampled since they were located near the head-
waters of the main river, far above and beyond the influ-
ence of the SHPs. Care was taken to sample communities
housing village council or panchayat offices (F and H),
large communities of local importance (A, D and G) and
smaller remote communities (C and E). The final ques-
tionnaire was designed after a pre-test. Respondents
included members of the local community who resided and
worked within the landscape, and were chosen using a
combination of opportunistic and snowball sampling
methods. Respondents were informed about the study and
their verbal consent was obtained prior to the interview.
Interviews were conducted in the local language, Kannada,
and recorded on a voice recorder when permitted. Each
interview took 50 to 60 min, and the final questionnaire
consisted of 30 closed-ended questions, multiple contin-
gency questions and 3 open-ended questions, categorised
into 4 sections that sought information on:
1. Awareness and participation: (a) When and how
people were informed about SHPs, (b) whether their
concerns were sought and addressed, and (c) whether
panchayat permission was awarded readily.
2. Socio-economic impacts: Respondent perceptions on
the impact of SHPs on (a) employment opportunities,
(b) electricity supply, and (c) effect of dam-related
infrastructure.
3. Resource access and water issues: Respondent percep-
tions on the impact of SHPs on (a) access to
surrounding forests, roads and rivers, (b) freshwater
fish assemblages and fish catch, (c) river water quality,
and (d) the effect of sporadic water releases from the
dams.
4. Human–elephant conflict (HEC): This section was
added following our pilot surveys, specifically
designed to obtain information on trends in HEC
(damage to crop, property and life) over time.
The issue of SHP development in this region is a
contentious one. The sensitive nature of the topic coupled
with resource constraints led to a moderate coverage of just
73 interviews.
Secondary data collection
To enhance the validity of the interview data, secondary
data from reliable sources were collected to look for con-
verging or diverging trends. Baseline information on
assured social benefits was obtained from CDM-PDDs of
the 4 SHPs. News coverage and video recordings were
used to validate respondent claims. Video recordings have
not been shared to preserve respondent anonymity. Tem-
poral trends in HEC were explored by collecting quanti-
tative data on elephant-related compensation claims for
damages to crop, property and life filed by local people in
the region. These data were procured for the period
between 1999 and 2013 from the State Forest Department.
Information obtained from the Karnataka Renewable
Energy Development Limited was used to determine the
date of commissioning of the SHPs in the study area.
Analytical methods
Interview responses were analysed in R v.3.0.1 (R Devel-
opment Core Team 2013). Villages and rivers were digi-
tised using Quantum GIS v.1.8.0 (Quantum GIS
Development Team 2012).
Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the perceived
impacts of SHPs. Responses to the close-ended questions
pertaining to each category of the 4 sections were coded
into values of -1, 0 or ?1 to indicate a perceived negative,
neutral or positive impact, respectively. For example,
reduced access to river stretches due to SHPs was scored
-1; no impact of SHPs on river access was scored 0;
enhanced access to river resources was scored ?1. Scores
were condensed into 6 categories, normalised to a range of
-1to?1 and calculated for each respondent. Averaged
scores across categories for each village, portrayed as a bar
plot, indicate the extent of perceived positive (0.1 to 1),
neutral (0) and negative (-0.1 to -1) impacts.
The drivers of respondent perception were examined by
constructing regression trees using the R package ‘party’
(Hothorn et al. 2006). The above-calculated perception
scores for each respondent were tested against 6 predictor
variables—(1) age, (2) caste, (3) source of income, (4)
employment status, (5) previous employment at SHPs and
(6) fishing frequency. Similarly, to examine the relation-
ship between HEC and SHP constructions we constructed a
classification tree using the R package ‘tree’ (Ripley.
2016). The sudden onset of HEC (‘‘HEC’’ or ‘‘NO HEC’’)
was tested against 4 predictor variables—(1) agricultural
land holding, (2) proximity to nearest SHP, (3) distance to
river and (4) distance to forest. Agricultural land holding
Ambio
123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017
www.kva.se/en
referred to whether respondents owned agricultural lands or
plantations. Distance to the closest SHP, river and forest
edge was computed for every respondent based on village
location. To build a tree, the response variable is repeatedly
partitioned into subsets based on its relationship with the
predictor variables (De’ath and Fabricius 2000). Each split
is based on the predictor variable that results in the greatest
change in explained deviance. A 10-fold cross-validation
technique was used to prune the tree and the minimum
cross-validated deviance occurred with 2 splits.
RESULTS
Almost all respondents (98.6%) were men as women
generally refused to participate in the interviews. The age
of respondents ranged from 24 to 78 years
(mean =49 years). We provide additional information on
respondent demographics in Table 2.
While respondents from 6 of the 9 surveyed commu-
nities perceived some level of socio-economic benefits
from SHP development, the overall perception regarding
their impact on all other categories was predominantly
negative (Fig. 2). There were no significant factors that
significantly explained the overall perception of SHPs in
the study area.
Awareness about SHPs
Although stakeholder consultation with local communities
is not mandated as per Indian policy, it is a prerequisite for
SHPs registered as CDM projects. All respondents reported
an absence of stakeholder consultations, and stated that
they were neither informed nor consulted prior to dam
construction (Table 3). This was contrary to the informa-
tion provided in the CDM-PDDs, which stated:
All stakeholders (including residents of the neigh-
bouring villages) had really shown their pleasure and
support to the project activity (Appendix S1).
About 47% of the respondents were unaware that their
panchayat had awarded No Objection Certificates for the
dams to be built. Many respondents (31.5%), including 4
panchayat members, admitted that the process of SHPs
seeking panchayat permission was pretence, driven largely
by bribes and political pressures, rather than the intent to
improve social welfare and livelihoods.
Socio-economic impacts of SHPs
Employment opportunities
Despite owning agricultural fields or plantations, most
respondents sought additional sources of employment. Most
respondents maintained that they did not get an opportunity
to work at the dam, despite being assured of the same by
dam developers (Table 3). Those who received employment
with the dam belonged to 5 of the 9 villages surveyed. A
small proportion of the respondents received temporary and
daily-wage employment. Temporary employment mostly
constituted security duty, ranged between 2 months to
4 years, and paid a salary of 50USD to 60USD per month,
which is below the minimum wages mandated by the
government (The Minimum Wages Act 1948). Daily-wage
labour existed predominantly during the construction phase
and paid approximately 4USD to 8USD per day.
Seven of the 10 respondents who were hired as tempo-
rary employees believed that they were underpaid, whereas
6 of the 7 respondents employed as daily-wage labourers
were satisfied with the wages received, but found the job
duration to be short. Only 1 respondent was awarded per-
manent employment which he voluntarily terminated after
1 year due to insufficient wages.
Table 2 Characteristics of villages and respondents
Village No of respondents Age in years Range
(mean age)
Distance in km to the nearest Electricity supply in hours/day mean (range)
Forest edge River SHP Monsoon Non-monsoon
A 11 26–65 (51) 0.25 1.0 4.53 7 (2–20) 16 (12–24)
B 5 26–53 (39.5) 0.0 0.1 5.50 0 0
C 2 65–49 (57) 3.08 0.54 4.79 4.5 (4–5) 13.5 (12–15)
D 7 34–72 (48) 0.18 1.75 4.40 4.75 (3–7) 11.6 (10–12)
E 4 26–52 (34) 2.60 0.20 0.95 11.2 (5–15) 16 (12–20)
F 9 30–78 (51) 4.12 1.32 1.34 5 (2–15) 12 (5–20)
G 25 24–73 (49.5) 2.31 0.42 1.60 4 (2–10) 10.5 (3–22)
H 4 36–50 (44.5) 2.85 0.30 1.39 3.5 (2–4) 8.2 (5–10)
I 6 49–67 (59.5) 1.40 1.30 3.11 4.4 (2–6) 9 (8–10)
Total 73 24–78 (49) 4.9 (0–20) 10.8 (0–24)
Ambio
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017
www.kva.se/en 123
The assurance of local employment generation by SHP
developers was confirmed by their CDM-PDDs, which
stated:
The mini hydel project contributes to social wellbe-
ing because it generates direct and indirect employ-
ment to the local people…The villagers and the
office bearers expressed their pleasure with the set-
ting up of the power project as it had provided the
rural population with permanent employment oppor-
tunities (Appendix S2).
Non-locals were perceived as preferred employees in
working plants by all respondents, even for unskilled
labour such as cleaning and maintenance. About 58%
attributed this to vigilant behaviour of local employees in
reporting illegal activities undertaken by dam authorities
(for example: sand mining and timber felling). These
claims were partly supported by a local news article
(Appendix S3). Another 24% attributed this preference to
lower risks of strikes and unions with non-locals as com-
pared to local workers.
Over 22% of respondents had participated in mass agi-
tations to demand for employment at the dams. The
occurrence of these protests was verified by video footage
provided to us by an ex-panchayat member.
Electricity supply
Eight of the 9 surveyed villages were electrified prior to
SHP construction; 1 village continued to remain un-elec-
trified even after the SHP commissioning. The perceived
average electricity supply per day across villages was about
5 h in the monsoon months (June to September) and 11.6 h
in the non-monsoon months (October to May) (Table 2).
All but one respondent indicated that electricity supply had
neither increased nor stabilised post SHP construction, and
their expectations of improved electricity supply had not
been met (Table 3). This was in contradiction to the CDM-
PDDs, which proclaimed:
With the project activity local people could benefit
from increased grid stability, which directly influ-
ences rural life quality. The project activity would
increase the availability of power in the local area
(Appendix S4).
Benefits from dam-related infrastructure
The construction of all 4 SHPs was accompanied by the
building of new approach roads, bridges, foot trails and
transmission lines. All respondents reported that they did
not benefit directly or indirectly from this infrastructure,
since they were denied access to these amenities (Table 3).
In fact, respondents from village ‘F’ got into conflict with
dam developers following the construction of transmission
towers on their land, which, they claimed exposed them to
health risks and reduced the economic value of their land.
Respondents from this village further maintained that about
15 village members were arrested for protesting the con-
struction of the transmission towers. This claim was sup-
ported by a regional news article (Appendix S5).
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Awareness and
parcipaon
Socio-economic impact Impact on resource access Impact on fish Water issues Impact on HEC
Score
A B C D E F G H I
Fig. 2 Perceived impacts of SHPs across villages
Ambio
123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017
www.kva.se/en
Resource access and water issues
Most respondents did not experience any change in the
ease of accessing surrounding forests due to SHP con-
struction. Respondents from village ‘F’ (11%) lost access
to a frequently used road which connected their village to
the National Highway, since the road now passed through
privately owned and restricted dam property. Access to the
river was most severely affected, with 88% of respondents
claiming to have lost access to river stretches which pre-
viously served as locations for sustenance fishing (Table 3).
After SHP commissioning, the stretch of the river extend-
ing from the reservoir to the tailrace canal, cumulatively
amounting to 7.4 km (or 10.35% of the river length), fell
within restricted areas and became inaccessible to the local
community.
About 68.5% perceived a decline in fish abundance and
attributed it, in part or whole, to the proliferation of SHPs.
They claimed that this decline directly affected their fish
catch. However, most respondents did not perceive any
impact of SHPs on average fish size or fish species richness
(Table 3).
Since none of the respondents depended on the main
river for water consumption (drinking), SHPs had no effect
on the drinking-water supply. Most respondents did not
perceive any effect of the SHPs on river water quality.
However, about 40% believed that river water quality had
declined after dam construction as the water accumulated
Table 3 Respondent perceptions to the impacts of SHPs
Impact Percentage
respondents
Awareness
Informed
Informed by relevant authority 0
Not informed by relevant authority 100
Concerns addressed
Concerns addressed by relevant authority 0
Concerns not addressed by relevant
authority
100
Socio-economic impacts
Employment status
No employment opportunity 75.34
Temporary employment received 13.7
Daily-wage employment received 9.59
Permanent employment received 1.37
Electricity supply
Decreased/destabilised after the SHPs 0
No effect 98.63
Increases/stabilised after the SHPs 1.37
Infrastructure
Has benefitted locals 0
Has not benefitted locals 89.1
Has harmed locals 10.9
Resource access
River access
SHPs have enabled access 0
SHPs have restricted access 87.6
No effect of SHPs on river access 12.4
Forest access
SHPs have enabled access 0
SHPs have restricted access 12.4
No effect of SHPs on forest access 87.6
Road access
SHPs have enabled access 0
SHPs have restricted access 10.9
No effect of SHPs on road access 89.1
Impact on fish assemblages
Fish abundance
Positively affected 0
Adversely affected 73.9
Not affected 26
Average fish size
Positively affected 0
Adversely affected 13.7
Not affected 86.3
Fish species richness
Positively affected 0
Adversely affected 1.37
Not affected 98.63
Table 3 continued
Impact Percentage
respondents
Water issues
Drinking water
Positively affected 0
Adversely affected 0
Not affected 100
River water quality
Positively affected 0
Adversely affected 38.3
Not affected 61.7
Varying water levels
Dangerous 61.6
Nuisance 8.2
No effect 30.2
Human–elephant interaction
Human–elephant conflict
No conflict with elephants 12.4
Recent onset of conflict with elephants 83.5
Continuing historic conflict with elephants 4.1
Ambio
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017
www.kva.se/en 123
sediment when stagnant, got muddy during release and
made the rocks more slippery due to sediment deposits
(Table 3).
Respondents explained that river flows were highly
pulsed below the powerhouse, and that the sudden release
of water did not follow a fixed timetable and was not
accompanied by warning signals. While about 30%
remained unaffected by the sporadic release of dam water,
about 8% indicated that it posed a nuisance, since it
hampered river crossings and/or washed away fishing nets.
However, 62% considered it to be dangerous for people
and cattle, as there were instances of people and cattle
getting washed away (Table 3). While we were unable to
locate any secondary information linking such incidents
with the 4 SHPs of interest, we found media articles
reporting the death of 3 students in the Netravathi River
due to water release from another SHP—AMR Sham-
boor—located about 70 km downstream of our study site
(Appendix S6).
Impacts of SHPs on human–elephant conflict (HEC)
While respondents from community ‘B’ experienced no
HEC, almost all respondents from other villages reported
significant levels of HEC (Table 3). About 84% claimed
that elephants rarely or never entered their villages in the
past, and that HEC had increased only in the last decade.
The predominant reason given for this sudden onset of
HEC (71.5%) was the proliferation of SHPs in the land-
scape (Fig. 3). When asked to describe how SHPs could
increase HEC, the following reasons were given:
a. Disturbances caused by sound, light and people
movement in forests during dam construction and
operation have triggered elephant movement towards
villages (n=42).
b. Dams have destroyed riparian vegetation, especially
bamboo—a critical food source for elephants. Hence
they have started moving towards villages in search of
food (n=19).
c. Linear intrusion such as canals and penstocks have
blocked elephant movement corridors (n=11).
Based on these observations, we examined the relationship
between HEC and SHP construction. Elephant-related
compensation claims peaked thrice between 1999 and
2013. The observed peaks in 2005, 2008 and 2010
coincided with the construction of 1 (18 MW), 1 (9 MW)
and 2 (15 MW and 3 MW) SHPs, respectively (Fig. 4). The
peaks showed an increase in filed compensation claims by
173, 97 and 22.5% compared to respective previous years.
Fifty per cent of the respondents reported that HEC began
between 2004 and 2006, and this coincided with the first
peak in filed compensation claims (Fig. 4).
We further tested this relationship using a classification
tree. The tree classified our response variable into 3 classes
using 2 of the 4 predictor variables—agricultural land
holding and proximity to SHPs (Fig. 5). The model indi-
cated that almost all respondents who owned agricultural
lands experienced a sudden increase in HEC. For others,
proximity to the closest SHP influenced the response, with
all respondents at a distance of less than 5 km from the dam
experiencing a sudden increase in HEC (Residual mean
deviance =0.39).
DISCUSSION
Implications of findings
The lack of expected benefits from the dams coupled with
the onset of unexpected adverse impacts led to high levels
of dissatisfaction among respondent over the construction
of SHPs in the region.
Benefits assured to local communities in CDM-PDDs,
such as improved socio-economic well-being, rural elec-
trification and benefits from dam-related infrastructure did
not materialise. Local employment, if any, was largely
temporary, limited to the early stages and remunerating
below the minimum mandated wages. Perceived adverse
impacts such as the sudden onset of HEC, sporadic water
releases, declining fish abundances and restricted access to
previously accessible natural resources further increased
local hostility against the SHPs.
Our study is the first to illustrate a strong correlation
between the onset of HEC and SHP construction. The high
degree of overlap between periods of actual and perceived
increase in HEC and periods of SHP construction, suggest
that SHPs in elephant habitats can trigger or increase
conflict. In our study, the number of conflict claims
increased from an annual average of 248 claims pre-dam
Dam-relat ed dist urbances
Coming f rom outside
Don't know
FD releas ing elephants
Lack of food in f orests
Increas ing elephant populat ion
Percentage respondents (%)
0
20
40
60
80
Fig. 3 Perceived reasons for the sudden increase in HEC
Ambio
123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017
www.kva.se/en
construction (1999 to 2004) to 2030 claims post-dam
construction (2005 to 2013). The converging lines of evi-
dence from primary interview data and secondary gov-
ernment data strengthens the reliability of our results. The
study site, which comprises part of an elephant corridor, is
characterised by steep terrain, which poses a natural con-
straint for elephant movement (Wall et al. 2006). Hence the
proliferation of SHPs and their associated structures can
further disturb and obstruct the free movement of ele-
phants, possibly leading to increased HEC as elephants are
forced to move into new areas (Fernando et al. 2010).
Conspicuous increase in HEC during periods of dam con-
struction can be attributed to extensive blasting, working of
heavy machinery and vehicular movement during this
phase. Similar trends of habitat avoidance were observed in
African forest elephants (Loxodonta africana cyclotis)in
response to dynamite explosions associated with oil
prospecting in Gabon (Rabanal et al. 2010). Though HEC
decreased post construction, it remained significantly
higher compared to the period prior to dam building. This
can be attributed to operational disturbances, human
activity, forest fragmentation and SHP-related infrastruc-
ture development. This is supported by the report of the
Karnataka Elephant Task Force (2012) which states that
SHP construction can increase HEC levels by causing
disturbance in elephant habitat and hindering elephant
movement. Similar trends were observed along the Chilla–
Motichur elephant corridor, where elephant movement was
drastically affected by large hydropower development
(Johnsingh and Joshua 1994).
As illustrated in our study, the transfer or lease of land
and river resources to private SHP developers, with little or
no community consultation, can strongly infringe upon the
18MW
9MW 15MW
3MW
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Number of respondents
Number of compensaon claims
Compensaon claims Perceived commencement of HEC
Fig. 4 Relationship between perceived and actual HEC levels and periods of SHP construction. The grey bars indicate the number of filed
compensation claims. The black line indicates the perceived time period of commencement of HEC. The period of construction of each SHP is
represented by the capacity (in MW) above the corresponding year
Agricultural
holding = N
SHP distance
< 5.01
HEC
HEC
No HEC
Fig. 5 Classification tree modelling the sudden onset of HEC against
agricultural land holding and proximity to closest SHP
Ambio
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017
www.kva.se/en 123
rights of local communities (Islar 2012). Since SHPs alter
natural flow patterns, they have been known to directly
disrupt culturally important sites, traditional irrigation
cycles, watermills and drinking-water sources (Reddy et al.
2006; Baker 2014). Their impact on longitudinal riverine
connectivity further affects fish populations, and thus local
fishing communities. The lack of public consultations may
explain why factors such as restricted access to natural
resources, sporadic water releases and disruption of river
flows were not mentioned in even a single CDM-PDD. Our
results concur with assessments by Schmitz (2006), which
indicates that the predominant reason for SHPs not con-
tributing to sustainable development is the lack of public
participation.
Though our study is limited by a moderate sample of 73
interviews, high levels of corroboration between primary
and secondary data improve the reliability of our results.
Constrained by our sample size, we were unable to
examine the geographic and spatial parameters that influ-
enced the relationship between HEC and SHPs. Further
research is required to examine the impacts of individual
SHPs vis-a
`-vis the cumulative impact of multiple SHPs,
and the relationship between SHPs and human–animal
interactions across different landscapes.
Policy recommendations
SHPs are usually subject to minimal scrutiny, especially in
developing countries striving to meet distributed energy
demands, such as China, India, Turkey and Brazil (Haya
and Parekh 2011). For example, the exemption of SHPs
from requiring Environmental Clearances in India has
resulted in their proliferation. Until 2012 India’s MNRE
had commissioned 1266 SHPs and identified 6474 sites for
SHP development, all without any impact assessments or
public consultations. Within the Netravathi River basin at
least 10 SHPs have been commissioned and 44 more are in
the pipeline. This excludes mid-sized and large-sized dams.
India’s draft National Mission on Small Hydro (2015)is
proposing a number of economic and policy incentives to
promote this sector. However, it still does not acknowledge
the sector’s adverse social and environmental
consequences.
Local stakeholder consultations provide a platform to
identify and remediate areas of conflict or concerns prior to
dam building, and constitute an essential tool to facilitate
transparent and participatory decision making (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005). SHPs should be subject to
prior environmental impact assessments, especially since
environmental degradation can strongly affect the health
and socio-economic activities of local communities. For
example, the disruption of riverine connectivity by SHPs
can negatively impact fish communities, thereby affecting
local fish catch; the regulation of riverine flows can disrupt
local water use patterns; deforestation and fragmentation
due to infrastructure development can impact wild animal
movement, thereby increasing human–wildlife conflict.
More important than strengthening the policies gov-
erning individual projects is the need to address the
cumulative effects of multiple SHPs. Recent studies indi-
cate that when normalised for power output, the impacts
from extensive SHP development can be more serious than
large hydropower systems (Abbasi and Abbasi 2011).
Hence, cumulative impact assessments can aid in the
landscape-level planning of SHP development by estimat-
ing basin-wide carrying capacities, minimum mandated
environmental flows and inter-dam distances.
Additionally, the implementation of effective monitor-
ing mechanisms coupled with regulations promoting
decentralised electricity supply, local employment at
working plants and participatory management practices can
enhance compliance with standard baselines and policies.
CONCLUSION
Our findings complement a growing volume of scientific
literature that makes evident the fact that SHP development
is not necessarily equivalent to low-impact hydropower
development. We found that the lack of adequate scrutiny
within this sector has resulted in a near absence of public
participation, false claims being made in project reports
and high levels of conflict with local communities.
Given the ambitious targets of projected SHP growth,
there is a dire need for further research, especially to better
understand their cumulative ecological and social impacts.
Suitable policies, science-based decision making, compli-
ance with sustainability protocols (such as the IHA Sus-
tainability Assessment Protocol) and effective monitoring
can aid in the development of low-impact small hydro-
power projects and ensure that the true potential of this
sector is realised.
Acknowledgements We are deeply grateful to Critical Ecosystem
Partnership Fund (CEPF) and Asoka Trust for Research in Ecology
and Environment (ATREE) for financial support extended to us
through the CEPF-ATREE Western Ghats Small Grants Program. We
also thank Dr. Siddharth Krishnan, Arjun Srivatsa and Divya Karnad
for their invaluable inputs. We express our sincere gratitude to the
reviewers and the editor for their comments and suggestions, which
have greatly improved the quality of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Abbasi, T., and S.A. Abbasi. 2011. Small hydro and the environ-
mental implications of its extensive utilization. Renewable and
Ambio
123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017
www.kva.se/en
Sustainable Energy Reviews 15: 2134–2143. doi:10.1016/j.rser.
2010.11.050.
Ahmad, A., S. Khalid, S.H. Qaisar, and T. Gourav. 2014. The
contemporary scenario of Indian renewable energy sector.
International Research Journal of Environment Sciences 3:
82–89.
Anderson, D., H. Moggridge, P. Warren, and J. Shucksmith. 2014.
The impacts of ‘‘run-of-river’’ hydropower on the physical and
ecological condition of rivers. Water and Environment Journal
29: 268–276. doi:10.1111/wej.12101.
Atul Bhardwaj v. Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board and
Others. Original Application No. 176/2014.
Baker, J.M. 2014. Small hydropower development in Himachal
Pradesh. Economic and Political Weekly 49: 77–86.
Balat, H. 2007. A renewable perspective for sustainable energy
development in Turkey: The case of small hydropower plants.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11: 2152–2165.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2006.03.002.
Bamberger, M., J. Rugh, and L. Mabry. 2011. Real world evaluation:
Working under budget, time, data and political constraints, II ed.
London: Sage Publications.
Bariball, K.L., and A. While. 1994. Collecting data using a semi-
structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced
Nursing 19: 328–335.
Bas¸ kaya, S¸ ., E. Bas¸kaya, and A. Sari. 2011. The principal negative
environmental impacts of small hydropower plants in Turkey.
African Journal of Agricultural Research 6: 3284–3290.
Bhaumik, S. 2012. Tripura: Ethnic conflict, militancy and counterin-
surgency. Policies and Practices, Mahanirban Calcutta Research
Group, Report 52, Kolkata, India.
Chaurey, A., K. Lata, P. Mohanty, and A. Kumar. 2005. RETs theme—
Renewable energy in South East Asia for improving access to
energy (With focus on India and Nepal). The Energy and
Resources Institute (TERI), Report 2003RT70, New Delhi, India.
De’ath, G., and K.E. Fabricius. 2000. Classification and regression
trees: A powerful yet simple technique for ecological data
analysis. Ecology 81: 3178–3192. doi:10.1890/0012-
9658(2000)081[3178:CARTAP]2.0.CO;2.
Diefenbach, T. 2009. Are case studies more than sophisticated
storytelling? Methodological problems of qualitative empirical
research mainly based on semi-structured interviews. Quality &
Quantity 43: 875–894. doi:10.1007/s11135-008-9164-0.
Dudani, S., M.D.S. Chandran, G.R. Rao, V. Mukri, H. Bhat, and T.V.
Ramachandra. 2010. Biodiversity, ecology and socio-economic
aspects of Gundia River basin. Energy and Wetlands Research
Group, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore, India. http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/
lake2010/Theme%201/sumesh_d.pdf. Retrieved 20 Feb 2016.
Erlewein, A. 2013. Disappearing rivers—The limits of environmental
assessment for hydropower in India. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 43: 135–143. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2013.07.002.
Fernando, P., H.K. Janaka, T. Prasad, and J. Pastorini. 2010.
Identifying elephant movement patterns by direct observation.
Gajah 33: 41–46.
Ghosh, A., S. Majumdar, and A. Kaur. 2012. Steady growth in small
hydro power; however significant challenges remain. ICRA
Limited, New Delhi, India. http://www.icra.in/Files/ticker/
SHP%20note-.pdf. Retrieved 2 Feb 2016.
Gleick, P.H. 1992. Environmental consequences of hydroelectric
development: the role of facility size and type. Energy 17:
735–747.
Haya, B., and P. Parekh. 2011. Hydropower in the CDM: Examining
additionality and criteria for sustainability. Energy and Resources
Group Working Paper ERG-11-001, University of California,
Berkely, United States of America. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=2120862. Retrieved 10 Jan 2016.
Hothorn, T., K. Hornik, and A. Zeileis. 2006. Unbiased recursive
partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of
Computational and Graphical Statistics 15: 651–674.
Islar, M. 2012. Privatised hydropower development in Turkey: A case
of water grabbing? Water Alternatives 5: 376–391.
Johnsingh, A.J.T., and J. Joshua. 1994. Conserving Rajaji and Corbett
National Parks—The elephant as a flagship species. Oryx 28:
135–140.
Kasturirangan, K., C.R. Babu, J.M. Mauskar, K. Chopra, J. Kishwan,
D. Shankar, S. Narain, P.S. Roy, A. Tyagi, et al. 2013. Report of
the High Level Working Group on Western Ghats. http://www.
moef.gov.in/sites/default/files/1%20HLWG-Report-Part-1_0.pdf.
Retrieved 2 July 2016.
Kibler, K.M., and D.D. Tullos. 2013. Cumulative biophysical impact
of small and large hydropower development in Nu River, China.
Water Resources Research 49: 3104–3118. doi:10.1002/wrcr.
20243.
Kosnik, L. 2008. The potential of water power in the fight against
global warming in the US. Energy Policy 36: 3252–3265. doi:10.
1016/j.enpol.2008.05.009.
Liu, H., D. Masera, and L. Esser. 2013. World Small Hydropower
development report 2013. United Nations Industrial Develop-
ment Organisation; International Center on Small Hydro Power.
www.smallhydroworld.org. Retrieved 20 Feb 2016.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human
well-being: synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press.
MNRE (Ministry of New and Renewable Energy), Government of
India. 2015. Annual Report. http://mnre.gov.in/file-manager/
annual-report/2014-2015/EN/Cover_Inside.htm. Retrieved 3
Feb 2016.
Molur, S., K.G. Smith, B.A. Daniel, and W.R.T. Darwall.
2011. The status and distribution of freshwater biodiversity
in the Western Ghats, India. Cambridge, UK and Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN, and Coimbatore, India: Zoo Outreach
Organisation.
Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca,
and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation
priorities. Nature 403: 853–858. doi:10.1038/35002501.
National Mission on Small Hydro: Enriching Remote Areas
through Small Hydro (2015). http://mnre.gov.in/file-manager/
UserFiles/Draft-national-mission-on-SHP.pdf. Retrieved 5 Jan
2016.
Nautiyal, H., S.K. Singal, V. Varun, and A. Sharma. 2011. Small
hydropower for sustainable energy development in India.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15: 2021–2027.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.01.006.
Pang, M., L. Zhang, S. Ulgiati, and C. Wang. 2015. Ecological
impacts of small hydropower in China: Insights from an emergy
analysis of a case plant. Energy Policy 76: 112–122.
Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative research and evaluation methods.
London: Sage Publication.
QGIS Development Team. 2012. QGIS Geographic Information
System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project.
R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Rabanal, L.I., H.S. Kuehl, R. Mundry, M.M. Robbins, and C. Boesch.
2010. Oil prospecting and its impact on large rainforest
mammals in Loango National Park, Gabon. Biological Conser-
vation 143: 1017–1024. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.01.017.
Ramachandra, T.V., M.D.S. Chandran, H. Bhat, S. Dudani, G.R. Rao,
M. Boominathan, V. Mukri, S. Bharath. 2010. Biodiversity,
ecology and socio-economic aspects of Gundia River basin in
the context of proposed mega hydroelectric power project.
Energy and Wetland Research Group, Centre for Ecological
Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, CES Technical Report 122,
Bangalore, India.
Ambio
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017
www.kva.se/en 123
Ramachandra, T.V., S. Vinay, and B.H. Aithal. 2015. Environmental
Flow Assessment in Yettinahole. Energy and Wetland Research
Group, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of
Science, Sahyadri Conservation Series 48, ETR 91, Bangalore,
India.
Reddy, V.R., J.I. Uitto, D.R. Frans, and N. Matin. 2006. Achieving
global environmental benefits through local development of
clean energy? The case of small hilly hydel in India. Energy
Policy 34: 4069–4080. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2005.09.026.
Ripley, B. 2016. Tree: Classification and Regression Trees. R package
version 1.0-37. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tree.
Schmitz, D. 2006. Developing a methodology for assessing the
Sustainable Development impact of Small Scale CDM hydro-
power projects. Hamburg Institute of International Economics,
HWWA-Report 267, Hamburg. http://www.econstor.eu/
bitstream/10419/32918/1/521362091.pdf. Retrieved 3 Feb 2016.
Sharma, M.P. 2007. Environmental impacts of small hydro power
projects. International Conference on Small Hydropower—
Hydro Sri Lanka.
Sukumar, R., A. Desai, S. Lele, C.H. Basappanavar, C. Bist, R.
Kamath, B.R. Deepak, V.V. Angadi, et al. 2012. Report of the
Karnataka Elephant Task Force Submitted to the High Court of
Karnataka. Retrieved 20 February, 2016, from http://www.
indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Report%20of%20the%
20Karnataka%20Elephant%20Task%20Force.pdf. Final Report
SCREEN RES.pdf.
The Minimum Wages Act 1948. Government of India.
Yuksel, I. 2010. As a renewable energy hydropower for sustainable
development in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 14: 3213–3219. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.056.
Wall, J., I. Douglas-Hamilton, and F. Vollrath. 2006. Elephants avoid
costly mountaineering. Current Biology 16: R527–R529.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Suman Jumani (&) is a Senior Research Fellow with the Foundation
for Ecological Research, Advocacy and Learning (FERAL), Banga-
lore, India. Her research interests include freshwater ecology, with a
focus on applied interdisciplinary research.
Address: Foundation for Ecological Research, Advocacy and Learn-
ing, Bangalore, India.
e-mail: sumanjumani@gmail.com
Shishir Rao is a Research Consultant with the Wildlife Conservation
Society-India, Bangalore. His research interests include freshwater
ecology, herpetology and the social sciences.
Address: National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore, India.
e-mail: shishir.t.rao@gmail.com
Siddarth Machado is a Junior Research Fellow at the National
Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS), Bangalore, India. His field of
interest lies in ecosystem services, restoration ecology and conser-
vation biology.
Address: National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore, India.
e-mail: siddarthmachado@gmail.com
Anup Prakash is the Field Director of Agumbe Rainforest Research
Station of the Madras Crocodile Bank Trust (MCBT), India. His
research interests include road ecology, carnivore ecology and natural
history.
Address: Agumbe Rainforest Research Station, Agumbe, Shimoga
District, India.
e-mail: anup.bp@gmail.com
Ambio
123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017
www.kva.se/en
