Environmental concerns have taken center stage as the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) deliberates over the proposed 2,000 MW Pumped Storage Project (PSP) in the Sharavathi Lion-Tailed Macaque (LTM) Sanctuary, located in Karnataka’s Western Ghats. The project, discussed during the FAC’s 7th meeting on July 30, 2025, has drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists, with power and climate policy analyst Shankar Sharma leading the charge.
Sharma, in a detailed representation to the FAC, expressed cautious optimism about the committee’s objective approach but urged a reevaluation of the project’s ecological impact. “The minutes of the FAC meeting provide a ray of hope that regulatory authorities can be persuaded to take a rational view of all associated issues,” Sharma stated. He congratulated the FAC for considering the detailed Site Inspection Report (SIR) by the Deputy Inspector General of Forests (DIGF), which recommends against the project due to its disproportionate ecological fallout.
The proposed PSP, which involves clearing approximately 400 acres of tropical rainforest, threatens a biodiversity hotspot with 12,000 floral species, including 1,500 endemic to the Western Ghats, and a rich faunal diversity, with 85% of its amphibians and 62% of its reptiles being endemic. The SIR highlights the potential extinction of numerous species and the destruction of 16,000 heritage trees. Sharma emphasized, “This project will not only reduce the carbon sequestration capacity of this critical carbon sink but will also result in massive ecological damage.”
Critics, including Sharma, have questioned the National Board for Wildlife’s (NBWL) in-principle approval, citing a lack of substantiated reasoning. “We are shocked that NBWL has not clarified why it is critical to build a PSP in a Wildlife Sanctuary, since the associated activities will in no way protect biodiversity,” Sharma remarked. He pointed to Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) as a viable alternative, noting their deployment in Gujarat and Maharashtra for similar energy storage capacities without ecological harm. “Why pursue a ghastly project in a global heritage site when BESS can meet the same objective without destroying a single tree?” he asked.
The project’s cost-benefit analysis, claiming a ratio of 1:2,643.25, has also come under scrutiny. Sharma called it “a slap on the economic decision-making process,” arguing that it undervalues the forest’s ecological worth. A study by the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, estimates the Total Ecosystem Supply Value (TESV) of the project area at ₹346.65 million annually, with a Net Present Value of ₹8,919.13 million over 50 years. Sharma’s analysis suggests the project’s societal costs, including ₹8,644 crore in construction and unaccounted expenses like transmission lines, far outweigh benefits, potentially resulting in a negative net present value.
Further concerns include potential violations of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, due to an existing transmission line within the sanctuary and the project proponent’s failure to account for additional forest land needed for new lines. Sharma warned that this omission could contravene Supreme Court orders on “fait accompli” considerations.
Civil society groups, backed by Sharma, have called for a cumulative impact assessment of the Western Ghats, which they argue has reached its ecological carrying capacity. They urge the FAC, NBWL, and Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) to reject the proposal, emphasizing BESS as a sustainable alternative. “To persist with such projects without due diligence is a wanton disregard of the Constitutional mandate,” Sharma concluded, expressing hope that regulatory bodies will prioritize ecological sanity over short-term gains.
Comments