A detailed representation sent to the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) has raised strong objections to the consideration of the 2,000 MW Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project (PSP) proposed inside the Sharavathi Lion-Tailed Macaque (LTM) Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka. Dated November 14, 2025, the communication from power and climate policy analyst Shankar Sharma argues that the project continues to move forward despite what he describes as “massive opposition,” serious procedural lapses, and extensive evidence of potential ecological damage.
The representation, addressed to the Member Secretary, Members, and Chairperson of the FAC and copied to several senior authorities including the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), the Environment Minister, and the Prime Minister, questions proceedings recorded in the minutes of the FAC’s 11th meeting held on October 27, 2025. Sharma contends that the committee relied on outdated information and failed to consider substantial material submitted earlier by civil society groups, scientists, elected representatives, and other stakeholders. Echoing a recent media report, he states that the advisory panel did not appear to have examined any new data beyond what was discussed in previous meetings.
According to the representation, MoEF&CC did not place before the FAC several relevant inputs, including submissions from two public hearings, records of widespread protests, statements from MLAs and MPs, communications from retired Supreme Court judges, opinions of environmental scientists and former senior forest officials, and documentation from religious leaders and civil society organisations. Sharma highlights multiple sit-in protests, including a 10-day farmers’ dharna in Sagara, public seminars, and online campaigns where more than 40,000 signatures opposed the project and over 10,000 people questioned the feasibility of its compensatory afforestation plan. In light of this near-unanimous opposition, he argues that it is unclear why the project continues to be considered.
The representation asserts that neither the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) nor the state energy department has provided evidence demonstrating the necessity of a project of this scale within a wildlife sanctuary located in the Western Ghats, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Sharma argues that the state forest department and the State Wildlife Board could not have reasonably endorsed the proposal without addressing the ecological costs involved. He also criticises MoEF&CC for not requiring a comparative assessment of alternatives such as battery energy storage systems (BESS) and demand-side management (DSM), both of which, he says, could meet the same objectives without damaging forests. Two discussion papers on alternatives submitted earlier to the ministry, he notes, have not been deliberated on by either the FAC or the NBWL.
The representation draws particular attention to the Site Inspection Report (SIR) submitted by the Deputy Inspector General of Forests (Central) of the Bengaluru Regional Office, who inspected the site and recommended against the project. The SIR details 16 reasons why the project is unsuitable and warns that construction and subsequent operations over a 20-year lease period would permanently alter the sanctuary’s ecology. It describes the project area as comprising climax wet evergreen and semi-evergreen forests and shola grasslands with canopy densities of 0.7 to 1.0, noting that these ecosystems cannot be restored once destroyed. The report further states that more than 15,000 trees—many endemic to the Western Ghats—would be cut, and that new roads, surge shafts, ducts, power evacuation structures, and other components would cause irreversible damage.
Sharma argues that MoEF&CC appears to have accepted the supporting views of a senior forest official who recommended the proposal, despite the absence of any substantial counter-argument to the objections raised in the SIR. He maintains that many observations in the official’s note actually corroborate the concerns raised by the site inspection.
The representation also notes that the project proponent has not conducted a cumulative impact assessment or a carrying capacity study for the Sharavathi region, despite multiple studies by IISc scientists showing that the ecological carrying capacity of the Western Ghats in Karnataka has already been exceeded due to previous large-scale projects. The SIR itself records that over 18,000 hectares of biodiversity-rich forests in Uttara Kannada district have already been diverted to KPCL. Sharma questions how much more destruction can be justified in the context of climate change and national forest policy goals.
At a public hearing held in September 2025, IISc environmental scientist Dr. M. D. Subhash Chandran had highlighted earlier research showing that up to 77 IUCN Red-Listed plant and vertebrate species may be found within the project zone. Sharma warns that this alone underscores the severity of the ecological risks, and notes that he is willing to resubmit Dr. Chandran’s detailed submission if required.
The representation also challenges the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) presented by the project proponent. The FAC minutes quote a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1:2643.25, a figure Sharma calls “preposterous” and suggests has been accepted without due diligence by regulatory authorities. He argues that a realistic assessment would likely yield a ratio below one, undermining claims of economic advantage.
Summarising his objections, Sharma writes that not a single factor in the official deliberations justifies continued consideration of the project. He emphasises overwhelming public opposition, the unaddressed loss of forest wealth, unanswered questions on alternatives, and clear warnings of incalculable ecological impacts. He asks MoEF&CC to examine how continued forest diversion in the Western Ghats aligns with national conservation goals and why the ministry would disregard the findings of its own site inspection. He argues that further deliberation would waste public resources and risk violating multiple environmental laws.
The representation concludes with a warning that approving this proposal could open the “floodgate” for dozens of similar high-impact projects in river valleys across the country, threatening already fragile ecosystems. Sharma urges the ministry to reject the project outright and to acknowledge his submission as well as earlier representations. A detailed file supporting the objections has been enclosed with the communication.
Comments