Rampal: A layman’s perspective

Israfil Khosru

The Rampal issue seemed to have died down. While the opposition against it was and remains quite significant, the media seemed to not cover it with equal significance after a certain point. The media, be it electronic or print, seemed to have implicitly adopted (with few exceptions of course) a uniform policy to black out this story.

The government meanwhile continued to proceed with the 1320 MW plant in question with unflinching fervor and no propensity to compromise. However, the recent attacks by the police on the protestors against the plant in Shahbagh and other parts of the capital city on January 26 seem to have forced the issue back in the information mainstream.

This begs the question, “What makes this plant so unique that the government is willing to take on such overwhelming opposition to forward this agenda?” Let us look at it from a layman’s perspective. The coal-fired plant in question is a partnership between India’s state owned National Thermal Power Corporation and Bangladesh Power Development Board. The joint venture company is known as Bangladesh India Friendship Power Company (BIFPC).

The proposed project, on a substantial area of over 1834 acres of land, is situated 14 kilometers north of the Sundarbans and once implemented will be Bangladesh’s largest power plant. However, basic precondition states that such projects must be outside a 25-kilometer radius of the outer periphery of an ecologically sensitive area. Furthermore, transportation of coal to fuel the plant through the river flow path that cuts through the Sundarbans adds a greater dimension of risk.

While the environmental threat posed by this proposed plant was never in question, a UNESCO report published in 2016 overtly labeled the environmental impact assessment (EIA) undertaken to proceed with the plant to be highly questionable and thus vindicated the general consensus by suggesting the project to be shelved. Various environmental experts have also labeled the EIA to be grossly faulty. In light of the very basic information furnished thus far, let us just say that we have enough materials to comprehend what the activists and the environmentalists are protesting against.
Exploring the fundamental financial viability of the project is likely to open a new can of worms.

Reportedly, 70% of the project is funded by loan and the remaining 30% is shared equally by the Bangladesh and India governments. According to a 2016 report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, the Rampal power station will produce electricity that will cost 32% more than the average electricity costs in Bangladesh, despite multiple subsidies from Bangladesh and India. Furthermore, the Government of Bangladesh is proposing a tax exemption of 15 years for the plant, which also amounts to a significant figure in terms of revenue loss. Thus a rudimentary view of the financial aspect of the project also point towards ambiguity and encourages no confidence.

Upon exploration of basic facts thus far, from a general citizen’s perspective, there is no perceivable rationale behind driving this project forward with such extant uncertainty. However, if the motivations and the priorities of the state are to be entirely different from what we think it is, such an obdurate position of the government could be understood. Let me further expand on what I am trying to say.

As the Indian government is an equal partner in this project one could argue that the GOB is prioritizing prior commitments/obligations towards its financial partner, which is a neighboring country, over its own constituents. If that is the case, then the issue of environment by default becomes secondary. There is something even greater we have to be concerned about here and that would be the state of our national sovereignty.

The manner in which the government is proceeding with this plant, one cannot be blamed for questioning the loyalty of the state towards its own constituents. Thus far, various phases of the protests against the plant has been met with acrimony by the government followed by the usual failed lip service of defending the project, whereas it should not at all proceed with such a project with even minimal probability of risk.

The bait of ‘development’ has been used incessantly by the government in this regard to justify their position but so far it has failed to produce a viable cost-benefit analysis to appease the real stakeholders. Furthermore, it intentionally shied away from engaging various platforms and pressure groups that oppose the plant as if to avoid any scope of compromise.

The protests are purely about the location of the plant and in no way undermines the need for energy to enable a sustainable economic growth. Hence, the GOB’s intractably static position regarding a possible relocation is rather baffling. Given the events that have unfolded regarding this solitary project so far, one cannot be blamed for thinking that our sovereignty is under threat.

The government can only be judged by the actions it is undertaking and through only positive approaches it can convince the citizens otherwise. If they fail to do so, we will see more Rampals in the future where preservation of Bangladesh’s nature and environmental standards will be never be a priority. We cannot afford to fall prey to hegemonic motivations of external factors that cloud our decision-making process. As the movement to save the Sundarbans gains momentum, time has come for us to acknowledge the fact that something greater than the issue of environment might be at play and has to be addressed to ensure clarification.

The mainstream media in this regard needs to play a proactive role. The Rampal plant has become a symbol of various issues that intertwine to make it significant at various levels and the media’s coverage of it has been rather inadequate and guarded at best in my humble opinion. Like our government, our mainstream media also needs to think seriously about their priorities. There has to be concerted effort in this particular case and sitting on the fence will not bear any fruit.

The writer is a businessman and a concerned citizen.