Legality and legitimacy of public involvement in infrastructure planning: observations from hydropower projects in India

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

Volumn 57, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 297-315

  Choudhury, Nirmalya ^a  

^a TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

hydropower; India; legality; legitimacy; public hearing

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; HYDROELECTRIC POWER; INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PUBLIC SECTOR;

INDIA;

EID: 84890787174     PISSN: 09640568     EISSN: 13600559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2012.743879     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. AHD (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language. 2009., 4th ed, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
2. Arnstein, S. A. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35 (4): 216 - 224. doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225
3. Baruah, S. 2012. Whose river is it anyway? Political economy of hydropower in the Eastern Himalayas. Economic and political weekly, 47 (29): 41 - 52.
4. Borpujari, P. 2012. Damning the dam protestors [online] Available from: http://priyanka-borpujari.blogspot.in/2012/05/damning-dam-protesters.html [Accessed 1 August 2012]
5. Cashmore, M. 2004. The role of science in Environmental Impact Assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environment impact assessment review, 24: 403 - 426. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2003.12.002
6. CAO (Compliance Advisor Ombudsman), IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2004. Assessment report complaint regarding Allain Duhangan Hydropower Project Himachal Pradesh, India, Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman International Finance Corporation Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.
7. CAO (Compliance Advisor Ombudsman), IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2006. Progress report complaint regarding the Allain Duhangan Hydropower Project Himachal Pradesh, India, Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman International Finance Corporation Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.
8. Chatradhara, K. C. 2009. Lower Subansiri: downstream impact chronology, Unpublished document.
9. Choudhury, N. 2010. Sustainable dam development in India - between global norms and local practices, Bonn: German Development Institute. Discussion paper 10/2010
10. Choudhury, N. 2012. " Environment in an emerging economy: the case of environmental impact assessment follow-up in India ". In Large dams: contested environments between hydro-power and social resistance, Edited by: Nüsser, M. Heidelberg: Springer (forthcoming.
11. D'Entreves, A. 1963. Legality and legitimacy. The review of metaphysics, 16 (4): 687 - 702.
12. Devlin, J. F. and Yap, N. T. 2008. Contentious politics in environmental assessment: blocked projects and winning coalitions. Impact assessment and project appraisal, 26 (1): 17 - 27. doi: 10.3152/146155108X279939
13. Devlin, J. F., Yap, N. T. and Weir, R. 2005. Public participation in environmental assessment: case studies on EA legislation and practice. Canadian journal of development studies, 26 (3): 487 - 500. doi: 10.1080/02255189.2005.9669069
14. Diduck, A. 2007. Achieving meaningful public participation in the environmental assessment of hydro development: case studies from Chamoli District, Uttarakhand, India. Impact assessment and project appraisal, 25 (3): 219 - 231. doi: 10.3152/146155107X217299
15. Doelle, M. and Sinclair, A. J. 2006. Time for a new approach to public participation in EA: promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability. Environment impact assessment review, 26: 185 - 205. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2005.07.013
16. Dore, J. and Lebel, L. 2010. Gaining public acceptance: a critical strategic priority of the World Commission on Dams. Water alternatives, 3 (2): 124 - 141.
17. Fiorino, D. J. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Science technology & human values, 15 (2): 226 - 243. doi: 10.1177/016224399001500204
18. Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12 (2): 219 - 245. doi: 10.1177/1077800405284363
19. Geddes, B. 2003. Paradigms and sand castles theory building and research design in comparative politics, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
20. Ghosh, P. 2008. Dibang hydroelectric project yet to get nod: environmental clearance of projects does not usually lead to rejection of projects. livemint.com - The Wall Street journal, 31 January
21. Goh, E. 2008. The war against Iraq: legality and legitimacy, Singapore: Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University Library. [online] Available from: http://dr.ntu.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10220/3986/RSIS-COMMENT_157.pdf?sequence=1 [Accessed 15 December 2011]
22. GoI/MoEF (Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest). 1990. Annual report 1989-1990, Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forest.
23. GoI/MoEF (Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest). 1993. Annual report 1992-1993, Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forest. GoI/MoEF (Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest), 1998. Annual Report 1997-1998, Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forest.
24. GoI/MoEF (Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest). 2006. The 2006 Notification, S.O. 1533(E), (14 September 2006 [online] Available from: http://www.moef.nic.in/legis/eia/so1533.pdf. [Accessed 7 April 2011]
25. GoI/MoEF (Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest). 2009a. Summary Record of discussions of the twenty-seventh (27th) meeting of Expert Appraisal Committee for River Valley and Hydroelectric Projects constituted under the provisions of EIA notification 2006, held on 15 and 16 June, 2009 in New Delhi [online] Available from: http://environmentclearance.nic.in/Report/minutes.aspx [Accessed 14 August 2012]
26. GoI/MoEF (Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest). 2009b. Summary Record of discussions of the twenty-eighth (28th) meeting of Expert Appraisal Committee for River Valley and Hydroelectric Projects constituted under the provisions of EIA notification 2006, held on 29 and 30 July, 2009 in New Delhi [online] Available from: http://environmentclearance.nic.in/Report/minutes.aspx [Accessed 14 August 2012]
27. IAP2. 2007. IAP2 spectrum of public participation [online] Available from: http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf [Accessed 15 December 2011]
28. IR (International Rivers). 2004. Dam-affected peoples launch complaint against the Allain Duhangan Project [online] Available from: http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/dam-affected-peoples-launch-complaint-against-the-allain-duhangan-project-7401. [Accessed 2 September 2010]
29. Karjalainen, T. P. and Järvikoski, T. 2010. Negotiating river ecosystems: impact assessment and conflict mediation in the cases of hydro-power construction. Environment impact assessment review, 30: 319 - 327. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.004
30. King, S. C., Feltey, K. M. and Susel, B. O. 1998. The question of participation: toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public administration review, 58 (4): 317 - 326. doi: 10.2307/977561
31. Kunreuther, H. and Slovic, P. 1996. Science values and risk. The annals of the American academy of political and social science, 545: 116 - 125. doi: 10.1177/0002716296545001012
32. Mahoney, J. 2007. Qualitative methodology and comparative politics. Comparative political studies, 40 (2): 122 - 144. doi: 10.1177/0010414006296345
33. Mahoney, J., Kimball, E. and Kendra, L. K. 2009. The logic of historical explanation in the social sciences. Comparative political studies, 42 (1): 114 - 146. doi: 10.1177/0010414008325433
34. Menon, M. and Kohli, K. 2005. Large dams for hydropower in North East India. A dossier, New Delhi: Kalpavriksh and South Asia Network of Dams Rivers and People.
35. Menon, M. and Kohli, K. 2008. Reengineering the legal and policy regimes on environment. Economic and political weekly, 43 (23): 14 - 17.
36. Mertha, A. C. and Lowry, W. R. 2006. Unbuilt dams: seminal events and policy change in China, Australia, and the United States. Comparative politics, 39 (1): 1 - 20. doi: 10.2307/20434018
37. NHPC (National Hydroelectric Power Corporation). 2002. Executive summary of Subansiri Lower Hydroelectric Project Arunachal Pradesh and Assam
38. NPC (National Productivity Council). 2010. Executive summary of EIA and EMP of Dibang Multipurpose Project [online] Available from: http://apspcb.org.in/pdf/dt.%2022-09-11/EIA%20EMP%20Report%20Dibang%20Multipurpose%20Project%20(3000%20MW)/Executive%20Summary/Executive%20Summary%20English.pdf [Accessed 12 November 2011]
39. O'Faircheallaigh, C. 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environment impact assessment review, 30: 19 - 27. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2009.05.001
40. Paliwal, R. 2006. EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis. Environmental impact assessment review, 26: 492 - 510. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2006.01.004
41. Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42. Petts, J. 1999. " Public participation and environmental impact assessment ". In Handbook of environmental impact assessment volume 1, environmental impact assessment: process, methods and potential, Edited by: Petts, J. 145 - 177. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
43. Pratawbhan. 2008. Sixth Annual Gogamukh Conference by All Assam Student Union, Dhemaji, India
44. Rajaram, T. and Das, A. 2006. EIA in India. Need for participatory and sustainable principles in India's EIA system: lessons from the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project. Impact assessment and project appraisal, 24 (2): 115 - 126. doi: 10.3152/147154606781765237
45. Rajvanshi, A. 2003. Promoting public participation for integrating sustainability issues in environmental decision-making: the Indian experience. Journal of environmental assessment policy and management, 5 (3): 295 - 319. doi: 10.1142/S1464333203001395
46. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science technology & human values, 30 (2): 251 - 290. doi: 10.1177/0162243904271724
47. Saldanha, L. F. 2007. Green Tapism. A review of the environmental impact notification-2006, Bangalore: Environment Support Group.
48. Sarrikoski, H. 2000. EIA procedure. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) as collaborative learning process. Environmental impact assessment review, 20: 681 - 700. doi: 10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00059-7
49. Sinclair, A. J. and Diduck, A. P. 2000. Public involvement in environmental impact assessment: a case study of hydro development in Kullu District, Himachal Pradesh, India. Impact assessment and project appraisal, 18 (1): 63 - 75. doi: 10.3152/147154600781767637
50. Sinclair, A.J., Diduck, A. and Patricia, F. 2008. Conceptualizing learning for sustainability through environmental assessment: critical reflections on 15 years of research. Environment impact assessment review, 28: 415 - 428. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2007.11.001
51. Stillman, P. J. 1974. The concept of legitimacy. Polity, 7 (1): 32 - 56. doi: 10.2307/3234268
52. Vagholikar, N. and Ahmed, M. F. 2003. Tracking a Hydel Project. The story of Lower Subansiri. The Ecologist Asia, 11 (1): 25 - 32.
53. Webler, T., Kastenholz, H. and Renn, O. 1995. Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning perspective. Environment impact assessment review, 15: 443 - 463. doi: 10.1016/0195-9255(95)00043-E
54. Wiklund, H. 2005. In search of arenas for democratic deliberation: a Habermasian review of environmental assessment. Impact assessment and project appraisal, 23 (4): 281 - 292. doi: 10.3152/147154605781765391
55. WCD (World Commission of Dams). 2000. Dams and development: a new framework for decision-making, Cape Town, South Africa: WCD.