• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>National Seminar on Environmental Management in Hydro Electric Projects, Nov 11-12, 1999, New Delhi >Integrated Framework of Environmental Impact: Relief and Rehabilitation Aspects of Hydel Projects
【24h】

Integrated Framework of Environmental Impact: Relief and Rehabilitation Aspects of Hydel Projects

机译：环境影响综合框架：海德尔项目的救济和修复方面

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Growing disillusionment with large development projects the world over, their cost and time over-runs, and people's movements against them due to displacement without adequate rehabilitation especially in India have brought the very paradigm of development under close public scrutiny. As far as rehabilitation is concerned, a critique of the first major irrigation project, namely, the Hirakund Dam commissioned in the 1950s, is not quite encouraging (Babu: 1991). In the nineties, the Prime Minister's intervention has been sought to "kick-start" the Narmada Dam Project (The Statesman: October 29, 1999). During the five development decades, an over-emphasis on financial, engineering and physical aspects of hydel projects to the neglect of human environmental, and socio-cultural aspects in their planning and execution has compounded problems for the project-affected people (oustees) as well as the host communities. In a democratic polity, where the government is supposed to represent people, proper consultation has not taken place between them and the establishment. It appears that project interests have over-ridden people's interests. It is also questionable as to who has 'developed'! Neither systematic social reporting on the affected people's condition has been done nor tracer studies conducted as part of any project design as if people do not matter. Such an approach to development is being questioned increasingly, and the demand is growing that people concerned should be involved in the planning of such projects. Furthermore, various available alternatives are sought to be explored before such projects are planned and undertaken. Issues which have emerged in the process of this public debate relate to state power (Sen: 1995) and its use, process of people' representation (Baviskar: 1995), method(s) of cost-benefit analysis (Singh, Kothari & Amin: 1992; Fernandes & Paranjapye: 1997, Iyer: 1998), voluntary and involuntary nature of displacement, structural underfinancing of projects and exaggerated claims of benefits (Cernia: 1999; Dharmadhikary: 1993), process of project execution and its outcome, people's right to information, contestation of their formal and customary rights, inclusion of social costs, shrinking life span of major irrigation projects, land acquisition and deforestation, quantum and mode of compensation, extent of displacement of the poor and the tribals, differential distribution of benefits to different groups, problems in their rehabilitation compared to those who hold assets, violation of human rights and sustainability of development. The disillusionment with mega-projects is so wide-spread that the World Commission on Dams is currently examining various alternatives and is to submit its report by 2000 A.D. (Iyer : 1998). The question arises: if projects benefit people, why should they protest? Politics of development has added to the people's problems within and between states. Breaching of canals by alienated or militant groups and their protection by security agencies is a new phenomenon which can spell disaster for many. Data on alienation of people, their marginalisation, struggles for survival, sufferings due to multiple displacements, protest movements as their sequel, and corruption (Asian Age: October 29, 1999) in resettlement and rehabilitation programme from across the country are a matter of concern These have perforce brought 'social' on the centre stage of the mega projects; and have made local issues trans-local, national and even international. Development thinking has thus undergone a major change: the project space occupied earlier by the political leadership, bureaucrats, technocrats and financing institutions has indeed become a people's space at least in theory.
机译：随着世界范围内大型开发项目的破灭日益加剧，其成本和时间超支以及人们因流离失所而对他们的运动而没有充分的康复，尤其是在印度，这使发展的范式受到了公众的严格审查。就恢复而言，对第一个大型灌溉项目，即1950年代启用的Hirakund大坝的批评并不令人鼓舞（Babu：1991）。在九十年代，一直寻求总理的干预以“启动”纳尔默达水坝项目（政治家：1999年10月29日）。在过去的五个发展十年中，过度重视hydel项目的财务，工程和物理方面，而忽略了人类环境的规划和执行中的社会文化方面，这给受项目影响的人们（被驱逐者）带来了更多问题以及东道国社区。在应该由人民代表政府的民主政体中，在人民与机构之间未进行适当的协商。项目利益似乎已经超越了人们的利益。对于谁“发达”也有疑问！既没有进行关于受影响人群状况的系统性社会报告，也没有进行示踪剂研究作为任何项目设计的一部分，就好像人们无所谓一样。这种发展方式受到越来越多的质疑，并且有关人员应参与此类项目的规划的需求正在增长。此外，在计划和开展此类项目之前，寻求各种可行的替代方案。在本次公开辩论中出现的问题涉及国家权力（Sen：1995）及其使用，人民代表制（Baviskar：1995），成本效益分析方法（Singh，Kothari和Amin） ：1992年; Fernandes＆Paranjapye：1997年，Iyer：1998年），流离失所的自愿和非自愿性质，项目的结构性供资不足和夸大的福利要求（Cernia：1999; Dharmadhikary：1993），项目执行的过程及其结果，人民权利信息，对他们的正式和习惯权的争夺，包括社会成本，主要灌溉项目的寿命缩短，征地和毁林，补偿的数量和方式，穷人和部落的流离失所程度，利益分配的差异与持有资产的人相比，不同群体的人在康复方面存在问题，侵犯人权和发展的可持续性。对大型项目的幻想破灭的程度如此之大，以至于世界水坝委员会目前正在研究各种替代方案，并将在公元2000年之前提交其报告（Iyer：1998）。问题就来了：如果项目造福于人，为什么他们要抗议？发展政治增加了国家内部和国家之间的人民问题。疏远或好战组织破坏运河并受到安全机构的保护是一种新现象，可能给许多人带来灾难。来自全国各地的安置和恢复计划中有关人的疏远，边缘化，为生存而挣扎，因多重流离失所而遭受的苦难，抗议运动及其续集以及腐败（亚洲年龄：1999年10月29日）的数据令人关注这些使“社会”成为大型项目的中心。并使当地问题跨地方，全国乃至国际。因此，发展思想发生了重大变化：至少在理论上，政治领导人，官僚，技术官僚和金融机构早先占据的项目空间确实已成为人们的空间。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号