Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 17:21:20 +0500

From: Environment Support Group <esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in>

Subject: "Cogentrix: The bloodiest environmental conflict of the last decade"

Dear Friends,

I am sharing my letter and response note to Sagar Dhara, on his article in

The Hindu Survey of Environment 2000, entitled, "Cogentrix: The bloodiest

environmental conflict of the last decade". I feel you should be aware of

my response, given your close support and/or interest in the issue.

Best wishes,

Leo Saldanha

Environment Support Group

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Sagar,

Thank you for sharing your article: "Cogentrix: The bloodiest

environmental conflict of the last decade", published (?) in The Hindu

Survey of Environment 2000. As requested by you I am offering my comments.

I am marking the same openly to several friends, associates and groups

that have lent support to us in our ongoing struggle against the power

plant, especially given the fact that:

1. the article is appearing in the widely circulated Survey of Environment,

2. it has major inconsistencies from what actually transpired,

3. there are factual inaccuracies, particularly on the litigation front, and

4. last but certainly not the least, it provides an extremely unauthentic

account of the movement against the power plant, whilst also belittling the

extraordinary efforts that characterised it.

I do very sincerely appreciate your efforts, and I am sure you will

appreciate my honesty and candidness in writing back to you on such vital

concerns and request you to share the same to all others you may have

circulated the article to. Certainly, had the article been discussed

before it went into publication (I am presuming it is already published),

this could have been avoided. But I am constrained to take this action

given the circumstances.

Finally, I wish to be clear that my comments are being offered within the

context of what you state in the article, and is certainly not a

comprehensive statement on the struggle of which I have been a part, day in

and day out, as have been my family and my colleagues and their families in

turn, and not to forget the people of Nandikur, Padubidri, Nadsal, Palimar,

Yellur, etc.

With best wishes

Leo Saldanha

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sagar's Article:

X-Sender: sagdhara@hd1.vsnl.net.in

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)

Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 08:56:15 +0500

To: Dhara Sagar <sagdhara@hd1.vsnl.net.in>

From: Sagar Dhara <sagdhara@hd1.vsnl.net.in>

Subject: Cogentrix

Because of your deep involvement with Cogentrix and the Western Ghats, I

thought you may be interested in this article. Your comments on it will be

appreciated. Please feel free to circulate the article to others who were

involved with the Cogentrix issue or who you feel may be interested in it.

Cogentrix: The bloodiest environmental conflict of the last decade

By Sagar Dhara

Jinxed! say some about the Nandikur power plant site. Particularly, after

the Mangalore Power Corporation Ltd (MPC), better known as Cogentrix,

abandoned plans in December 1999 to build a 1,000 MW coal-based thermal power

plant on this site. Cogentrix Inc and China Light and Power Company, two

small offshore firms, formed MPC to make the third attempt to build a 'fast

track' plant at Nandikur. Earlier attempts by Karnataka Power Corporation

Ltd (KPC) and the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd (NTPC) had failed.

Bloody battle

A conflict of interest between evenly matched forces, not a jinx, gave the

Nandikur tale its many twists. But when I first visited this small village

of 500 families in October 1989 to kickstart the environmental impact

assessment (EIA) study for NTPC's proposed 2,420 MW power plant, I did not

realize that the bloodiest environmental battle of the 1990s was to be fought

over this site.

Nandikur is midway between Mangalore and Udupi, in the hauntingly beautiful

narrow coastal strip of Dakshina Kannada (DK), between the emerald green

Arabian Sea and the blue-green rain forests of the Western Ghats. I gasped

in awe when I first saw this picture perfect place. Nandikur is nestled in a

shallow valley dressed by shimmering green paddy fields and shaded by silk

cotton, teak and coconut trees, with cashew plantations climbing up the hill.

Satellite images of the area show that 60% of the land in and around Nandikur

had a thick green cover of forest, plantation and dense vegetation.

In the mid-1980s, 85% of Karnataka's power came from hydel sources. But not

much of it was left to meet the growing power needs of the state. Improving

system efficiency and demand side management were not considered as solutions

then. Additional thermal generation was then the only option contemplated.

Growing power needs

Karnataka has no coal and politicians love to control resources, so Karnataka

preferred new thermal generation capacity in the state to cheaper power from

up-country pithead plants. Talcher coal which was planned to be used, could

be cheaply transported by coastal barges from Paradip to a Karnataka port. A

site near Mangalore, the only Karnataka port which can handle large volumes

of coal, whether Indian or foreign, was a logical choice.

Coastal sites offer another advantage. Capital and operating costs reduce if

a thermal plant is designed to use a once-through cooling system, where cheap

sea water substitutes scarce fresh water.

Why Nandikur?

The choice of the power plant site on the DK coast was influenced solely by

cost minimization criteria for the project promoter, environmental criteria

being only token. In the late-1980s, KPC became the first promoter to

attempt setting up a 420 MW plant on the DK coast. They selected Nandikur

out of four sites for its advantage of being away from large towns and having

Mulki river closeby, from which they hoped to draw water. NTPC and Cogentrix

never looked for alternatives and inherited the Nandikur site from their

predecessors.

In early-1990, I sought a meeting with some Mangalore-based NGOs and told

them that I would examine very carefully any specific apprehensions they had

about the Nandikur site. However, except for expressing general concerns,

they were unable to articulate specific environmental apprehensions. A year

later, the first rumblings of local discontent with the project site emerged

in Nandikur and the surrounding villages. The villagers formed Janajagrithi

Samithi, Nandikur (JJSN) to voice concern about the loss of 2,000 acres of

their members' lands, and low compensation they feared they may receive for

it. The JJSN filed and lost a public interest litigation against the siting

of the plant at Nandikur as their environmental arguments were weak.

NTPC abandoned the project in 1991 as their collaborator, the Soviet Union,

had collapsed. Nandikur was quiet for two years after that, until Cogentrix

announced plans to build a 1,000 MW plant. And JJSN became active again.

Cogentrix preferred the Nandikur site for other reasons as well. A site near

Bangalore would have been a logical choice since much of the power generated

by the plant would go there. However, it entailed an additional coal

transport cost of Rs, 2,600, at current prices, over a 30 year life time of a

plant, ie, the cost of the plant without a flue gas desulphurizer. The

Nandikur site gave Cogentrix an indirect 100% subsidy on the main plant cost.

Dakshina Kannada is Bunt-land. Bunts have an old world sense of honour, and

to protect it they will make high stakes, including the considerable wealth

they have earned from businesses in Mumbai and the Gulf. They saw the siting

of a power plant at Nandikur as a threat to their homeland, which dawned on

them fully only when Cogentrix appeared on the horizon. Bunt expatriates

joined JJSN and lobbied hard against the Nandikur site. In doing so, JJSN

learnt about the environmental impacts of power plants.

If environmental issues were to be ignored, the Mangalore port and DK

district's good transport network gave the Mangalore-Udupi corridor an

unmatched advantage as a new industrial centre, so Karnataka Government

started promoting industry in this belt. By 1995, an oil refinery was built

close to Mangalore and plans were announced for Rs 50,000 cr worth of new

projects to be located here.

Paradigm shift

Three significant things happened at this point. First, JJSN crossed that

invisible line between articulating livelihood issues, which concern human

sustenance in the present, and environmental issues, which deal with

sustainability of human development in the future. The local fishermen

helped JJSN make this transition as they realized that any water pollution

caused by the plant would immediately affect livelihood and environmental

issues due to reduced fish catch and health effects. Whereas, air and soil

pollution take longer to become visible, which lengthens human reaction time

to them.

Second, JJSN was no longer alone. A federation of organizations and

individuals, called the Okoota, was formed and this gave the Cogentrix issue

wide publicity.

Third, the issue no longer remained isolated to Cogentrix. Doubts were

raised about the exogenous development model being promoted in DK district,

for which Cogentrix became a symbol. The Karnataka government justified

industrializing DK district on grounds that it had little industry. This was

countered by the argument that DK was the most developed district in the

state by any measure of human development, so dirty industry is best kept

out.

Another report

At this stage I decided to participate in this debate as I felt that the

ecologically rich DK district could absorb some dirty industry, but not all

those being proposed. I wrote another report describing the environmental

richness and frailties of the area, saying the same thing that I had in the

NTPC EIA report. But I concluded that the EIA and environmental clearance

for the Cogentrix project had not been viewed in the context of the plans to

industrialize the Mangalore-Udupi belt; and therefore that the environmental

clearance for the project required review; and that if this was not done,

India would renege on the commitments made at the 1992 Rio conference to

protect the environment.

Issues at stake

The most problematic environmental issues in the Cogentrix case are:

Air: Mangalore and its surroundings have very low wind speeds and high wind

calms, which is bad for air polluting industries such as thermal power

plants. Such conditions disperse air pollutants poorly and cause higher

ground level air pollution.

The wind data used by Cogentrix's consultants for predicting the post-plant

ambient air quality (AAQ) was inappropriate as it indicated low wind calms.

Three other wind data sets for the area, including the one that Cogentrix's

consultants measured at the plant site, indicate wind calms which are 2-3

times greater than that used for the AAQ predictions. Consequently, AAQ

predictions made by Cogentrix's consultants indicate much lower air pollution

levels than would have been obtained had any of the other data sets been

used.

The possibility of mercury pollution, which occurs when large amounts of coal

is burnt, was ignored by Cogentrix's consultants. Mercury pollution has

happened in Singrauli area, which has several power plants.

Water: Power plants require very large quantities of water, preferably fresh

water. Despite an annual rainfall of 3,500 mm, high runoffs limit the amount

of utilizable surface water in DK district. The Karnataka State Pollution

Control Board (KSPCB) granted Cogentrix 280 million cubic meters of water per

year from the nearby Mulki river. Estimates over 22 years indicate that the

average annual flow in the Mulki is 15% less than this. KSPCB's grant

compromised the rights of the older users of Mulki's waters.

A power plant with a once-through cooling system discharges large quantities

of heated water which may significantly alter the aquatic life profile of a

water body. The Mulki estuary is very rich in aquatic life and supports

about 2,000 fishing families. Had MEF not banned Cogentrix from drawing or

discharging Mulki river water, this river would have died if Cogentrix had

used it in any fashion.

Cogentrix was silent about how it would draw and discharge marine waters, the

only viable water body which can be used by Cogentrix. If the marine intake

and outfalls are not designed with care, fish and turtles, which abound the

marine waters of this area, would be affected.

Solid wastes: The Cogentrix plant would have produced a train load, ie,

1,500 tonnes, of ash every day. It is normally pumped as a slurry into ash

ponds. Ash contains highly toxic heavy metals, including some carcinogens.

Heavy metals can leach out of the ash and contaminate ground water. The risk

of this event happening increases many times at Nandikur because of its

highly porous lateritic soils and shallow inter-connected aquifers. The

contamination of one aquifer will lead to the contamination of many others.

Moreover, had Cogentrix opted to use sea water for slurrying ash, and there

was nothing that prevented them from doing this, wells in a few hundred

square kilometres may have turned saline, affecting agriculture yields and

availability of water for domestic use.

Cogentrix did nothing to dispel apprehensions about aquifer contamination.

They neither acknowledged this risk nor suggested measures to reduce it,

except for agreeing to line the ash ponds. And linings are known to tear.

Moreover, aquifer decontamination is extremely difficult and expensive.

Human development: Dakshina Kannada's people enjoy the best of both worlds--

material comforts of an urban area and the unhurried pace of a rural one.

The best beaches I have seen are here; the only place in rural India where I

enjoyed watching flood-lit cricket was here; some of the cleanest and

prettiest villages I have seen are here. If industry came here, in the same

way it did to the Mumbai-Pune belt, DK district will change. People will

migrate here in search of jobs and those who do not find them will end up as

the urban poor in Mangalore and Udupi, or colonize land in the Western Ghat

forests. Along with greater industrial pollution loads, a larger population

will put more pressure on DK district's environment and its towns' civic

services.

The MEF was more sensitive to environmental issues while granting NTPC a

clearance. Karnataka government was asked to integrate environmental

protection into the regional plan for the area. And NTPC was required to: do

periodic epidemiological studies; occupy only 350 acres of waste land for ash

ponds, half that Cogentrix was allowed, in spite of generating six times more

ash than Cogentrix; not to use sea water for ash slurrying; study the effects

of sulphur dioxide on coconuts and compensate any air pollution injury to

vegetation. Such conditions were not put on Cogentrix.

Between 1997-99, the Cogentrix matter was in court on two issues--environment

and financial irregularities. The petitioners lost on both counts.

Powerful movement

Cogentrix claims to have spent $100 million in its bid to build the plant.

No details regarding the expense were offered. Cogentrix refused to comply

with MEF's condition to do a comprehensive EIA unless the site was handed to

them. At the end of it, Nandikur's people and the NGOs backing them were

also exhausted.

Cogentrix and the Delhi and Bangalore governments failed to realize that

economic clout, social status and reach in India and abroad, which DK

district possessed, are potent ingredients for the making of a powerful

environmental movement.

The precautionary principle, which shifts the burden of proof onto the

project promoter to establish that his project is clean, is proposed to be

incorporated into the Environmental Protection Act. This principle should be

used to declare DK district as an eco-sensitive area, and only green

industries to be allowed here. The breathtakingly beautiful beaches and the

beleaguered rain forests of the area will then have a fighting chance to

survive.

If China Light and Power wish to now set up this plant, they should do so on

the less ecologically sensitive Deccan Plateau.

(The writer is an environmental engineer with Cerana Foundation contactable

at: E-303 Highrise Apts, Lower Tank Bund Rd, Hyderabad 500 080.

tel: +91 40 753 6593, fax: 780 8808, email: sagdhara@hd1.vsnl.net.in)

The Hindu: Survey of the Environment, 2000

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My response (Parenthesized items are quotes from the article):

Let's start with the title:

"Cogentrix: The bloodiest environmental conflict of the last decade"

This is certainly a sweeping statement to make. However, the article does

not provide as much evidence of the blood shed as the title claims. It

indeed was a hard battle fought, and won, but to characterise it as the

"bloodiest" of the decade is to belittle much vaster environmental and

livelihood struggles that have been fought in India during the decade,

Narmada for instance. The wide opposition to Cogentrix in Dakshina Kannada

was certainly a wholly unique experience for it emerged in a region that is

otherwise loath to popular association on public interest causes. How this

came about is not explained at all in the article. And such analysis is

relevant for it is here that one realises how the efforts of local

community groups such as Janajagriti Samithi of Nandikur (JJSN, in contrast

to the Janajagriti Samithi of Padubidri that Cogentrix deliberately

promoted to divide communities), solidarity and campaign groups such as

Environment Support Group (that continues to work with JJSN) and

individuals like Arun Agarwal (who fought the corruption case) worked

towards achieving the goal.

Did Mangalore Power Company (MPC) withdraw?

"Mangalore Power Corporation…. abandoned plans in December 1999."

Certainly not the case. In fact Cogentrix, a major stakeholder in the MPC

did. The other partner China Light and Power (CLP), initially withdrew

along with Cogentrix but soon reconsidered this decision. CLP is now

trying hard to revive the project with support from Tatas and GE. GE

incidentally walked out of the deal in 1995 making way for CLP, and are now

strangely willing to partner with CLP on the deal.

When did resistance to power plants at Nandikur originate?

"….except for expressing general concerns, they (the local

'environmentalists') were unable to articulate specific environmental

apprehensions".

I wish to state that records of research in my possession indicate that

members of JJSN, had collated a variety of local environmental data and as

well extensive information on environmental impacts of power plants. They

were very well aware of the most adverse impacts of locating power plants

in the region, a fact clearly established by the depositions made before

the Environmental Appraisal Committee of Ministry of Environment during

1990-91 followed by a site visit.

Further,

"….a year later (from 1990), the first rumblings of local discontent with

the project site emerged".

If the villagers had reached the stage of lobbying MoEF in Delhi by 1991,

it certainly would not have been possible were the movement to start in

1991, as you suggest. By then the JJSN had already approached the Supreme

Court against the NTPC project for which you were preparing an EIA. Their

legal petition was certainly not well prepared and/or presented, and was

lost at the High Court level. But on appeal the Supreme Court took a

different view and dismissed the appeal only after the Union Government

confirmed that they would proceed with the project only if all legal

conditions were met. The main objective of the litigation was thus not

lost at that stage.

Why Cogentrix decided to locate the plant in Nandikur?

The reasons cited for Cogentrix relocating from Bangalore to Nandikur are

that the

"Nandikur site gave… an indirect 100% subsidy on the main plant cost".

This is an area where every guess is as good as another one, unless figures

presented make clear the basis of the same. The figure of Rs. 2,600 crores

that are presented as being the main plant cost are in variance with plant

costs that Cogentrix actually quoted of Rs. 3,900 crores + FGD Costs. By

your estimates of basic plant costs, Cogentrix should have quoted a price

of Rs. 5,200 crores, considering the claim of "100% subsidy" that Nandikur

site presented. In my opinion, these were not the major reasons why

Cogentrix relocated to Nandikur.

"Paradigm Shift":

"JJSN Crossed that invisible line between articulating livelihood issues,

…… and environmental issues" and "local fishermen helped JJSN make this

transition".

This is certainly not the case for the two sets of issues have been seen

together from the very inception. It may be that farmers may be more

concerned about the effects of dislocation, but this does not belie their

concern for the environment. The fishing community has also been concerned,

and is not such a distinct community, as is suggested. The main

distinction remains that resistance actions of the fishing community are

guided by the Mogaveera Mahajana Sangha, a traditional organisation with a

history of 800 years. One of the major concerns for the fishing community

was the implications of coal unloading facility being sited at the

Mulki-Pavanje estuary, shelving original plans of dragging coal by trains

from Mangalore. In fact Nagarjuna Power Company, the other 1,000 MW

project proposed adjacent to MPC, and finds no mention in the article, has

this option open.

"JJSN was no longer alone. A federation of organisations and individuals,

called the Okkoota, was formed and this gave the Cogentrix issue wide

publicity".

How by mere association there was a "paradigm shift" is not at all clear.

However, I wish to contextualise here the pattern of association. JJSN was

not a part of Okkoota (i.e. Dakshina Kannada Jilla Parisarasakta Okkoota).

The Okkoota was a federation of NGOs, not project affected communities. In

fact the Okkoota failed to work with the communities due to the extremely

hegemonic motives of those who guided its activities. The Okkoota expected

communities to come to them for relief, rather than taking the correct step

of reaching communities that needed support. The relationship between the

Okkoota and JJSN ended soon as it began, but most formally in February

1997. The Okkoota, in fact, seriously jeopardised JJSN resistance to

Cogentrix when several key leaders ransacked the office of ESG, which has

prepared all the JJSN litigations against Cogentrix, during November 1997

with police complicity, and destroyed the SLP that was ready to be filed in

the Supreme Court against the High Court verdict. This criminal act alone

is enough evidence that the Okkoota was not only not supportive of JJSN and

ESG's efforts, but as well attempted to destroy the enormous campaign

initiatives that had been built against the Cogentrix project. The

reasons for the Okkoota's actions are deep and various, and this is not the

occasion for me to address them. However, I must state here that the

horrible cost of their action was contained by the enormous sacrifices

made, and continuing to be made, by the ESG team and their families and

some individuals of JJSN.

"The issue no longer remained isolated to Cogentrix".

This point addresses some areas of concern of the wide scale

industrialisation proposed as part of the New Economic Policy, but

certainly does not do any justice to the deep analysis that marked the

grounds for opposition of the development paradigm of the "liberalisation"

era.

"Another Report":

"At this stage I decided to participate in this debate as I felt that the

ecologically rich DK district could absorb some dirty industry, but not all

those being proposed. I wrote another report describing …." .

The report you are referring to is probably the review of the Cogentrix

REIA that JJSN commissioned you to do on the basis of the previous work you

had done for NTPC. The same, as you are aware, was creatively used by us

in the litigation, but mainly as a means of re-stating and beefing up the

concerns the NEERI report raised at the behest of the Supreme Court and

that which, in turn, were based on the grounds for opposition clearly

detailed in the petition (available online at

www.altindia.net/esg/index.htm).. Surprisingly no mention is made of the

petition or the NEERI report at all in the article. And further,

absolutely no mention is made of the tumult that marked Cogentrix's various

attempts to short-cut the environmental and economic clearance procedures.

Most importantly, your opinion that the "district could absorb some dirty

industry" is very subjective, to say the least.

Litigation:

"Between 1997-99, the Cogentrix matter was in court on two issues --

environment and financial irregularities. The petitioners lost on both

counts."

Not only is this statement extremely simplistic, but incorrect as well. To

have reduced a major process of exposing the ills of the project, and the

controversial decisions that backed it, to such vague interpretation,

would, I fear, misguide readers. Further, the environmental litigation

continues, and thus has not been "lost". And the other litigation on

"financial irregularities" (popularly known as the "Cogentrix corruption

case"), filed by Arun Agarwal, was won in the High Court comprehensively.

The Supreme Court overruling this decision a weekend after Cogentrix's

withdrawal, is by itself a statement of the peculiarity of the timing of

the decision, to say the least.

"Powerful movement":

"Cogentrix claims to have spent $100 million in its bid to build the

plant".

Wrong: MPC MD has officially stated it to be US$ 27 million.

On stating thus you quickly follow with statements such as

"Nandikur's people and the NGOs backing them were also exhausted."

And

"Cogentrix and the Delhi and Bangalore governments failed to realise that

economic clout,…..are potent ingredients for the making of a powerful

environmental movement".

Tired, yes, but "exhausted" most certainly not. Unless this is a statement

on those who are not directly representing the cause. And as for the

latter statement, it is most certainly in contradiction with the former.

Finally:

The article is a very poor representation of the enormous efforts that have

gone into making a truly powerful citizens' movement against socially,

economically and environmentally destructive development, and most

certainly does in no way present the profound arguments pursued by the

campaign against the Government's "liberalisation" policies. It has no

mention whatsoever of the Environmental Master Plan Study of Dakshina

Kannada and the movement that secured a commitment to conducting "carrying

capacity" studies of the district prior to industrialising. It does not

contextualise developments, or justly credit the actors involved in winning

a hard fought battle. It has also a very poor record of some major

campaign efforts, such as the alliance of communities in Indian and the US

jointly resisting Cogentrix investments in their areas.

For these reasons, I fear that the readers may erroneously and most

unfortunately get a feeling a "movement" was created, based on the opinions

of a few and some reports, again, to say the least.

Leo F. Saldanha

05 August 2000

cc: Janajagriti Samithi, Nandikur

and

"Abey George" <georgeabey@hotmail.com>,

"abhaym" <abhaym@vsnl.com>,

"AKN REDDY" <ieiblr@bgl.vsnl.net.in>,

"ALLADI JAYASRI" <ALLADIJ@thehindu.co.in>,

"Alok Agarwal" <nobigdam@vsnl.com>,

"Anita Pleumarom" <tim-team@access.inet.co.th>,

"Ann Leonard" <aleonard@essential.org>,

"Arlene" <melville@bgl.vsnl.net.in>,

"Arun Singh" <arunsings@yahoo.com>,

"Arvind Ganesa" <ganesaa@hrw.org>,

"Ashish Kothari" <ashish@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in>,

"ASHVIN SHAH" <ASHVINSHAH@AOL.COM>,

"Bineet J Mundu" <bineet@del3.vsnl.net.in>,

"Bittu Sahgal" <bittusahgal@vsnl.com>,

"CHRI INDIA" <chriall@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in>,

"Daphne Wysham" <dwysham@seen.org>,

"Darryl D'Monte" <darryl@shakti.ncst.ernet.in>,

"Debi Goenka"<debi.beag@softhome.net>,

"Des" <dfer@dmu.ac.uk>,

"Dr. Parasuraman" <sparasuraman@dams.org>,

g_f_k@usa.net,

"Glen B. Wheeler" <daytrade1@earthlink.net>,

"H. Sudarshan" <vgkk@vsnl.com>,

"Himanshu Thakkar" <cwaterp@del3.vsnl.net.in>,

"Humanscape" <HUMANSCAPE@BITSMART.COM>,

"Jai Sen" <jai.sen@vsnl.com>,

"Jaideep Prabhu" <J.Prabhu@jims.com.ac.uk>,

"Jaideep V. G." <j.vg@hotmail.com>,

"Jason K Fernandes" <jason-keith@usa.net>,

"John R. Regl" <jrregl@crawdat.com>,

"Joselyn Lobo" <joslobo@eudoramail.com>,

"KALPANA SHARMA" <KSHARMA@BOM4.VSNL.NET.IN>,

"Kalpavriksh" <kvriksh@vsnl.com>,

"Kavaljit Singh" <kaval@nde.vsnl.net.in>,

"Kiran Kamal Prasad" <jeevika@vsnl.com>,

"M. S. Shivakumar" <shiv@camnet.com.kh>,

"Manvel Alur" <ajeeth@mindspring.com>,

"Medha Patkar" <medhap@bom5.vsnl.net.in>,

"N. Srinivasan" <srini@apctt.org>,

"Nagini Prasad" <nagini@hotmail.com>,

"Nancy Kete, WRI" <nkete@wri.org>,

"NAPM Delhi" <napmdel@vsnl.com>,

"Naresh Kaushik" <naresh.kaushik@yahoo.co.uk>,

"ncas" <ncas@vsnl.com>,

"Neil Tangri" <ntangri@essential.org>,

"Nick Hildyard" <nick@fifehead.demon.co.uk>,

"Nirmal Sengupta, MIDS" <nsengupt@eth.net>,

"Nitya Jacob" <nityajacob@vsnl.com>,

"NITYANAND J" <NITY@DEL3.VSNL.NET.IN>,

"PANDURANG HEGDE" <appiko@vsnl.com>,

"Patrick McCully" <patrick@irn.org>,

"Peace Trust" <peace@md3.vsnl.net.in>,

"Peter Bosshard" <finance@evb.ch>,

"Pipal Tree" <pipaltree@vsnl.com>,

"Poornima d.g" <poornima.d.g@mailcity.com>

"poornima hatti" <poornimahatti@hotmail.com>,

"Prashant Shetty" <prashant.adve@usa.net>,

"PRAYAS, Pune, India" <prayas@vsnl.com>,

"Rachel and Bob" <rk@lifeinplastic.com>,

"RANJAN KAMATH" <rkamath.rkofilm@aworld.net>,

"Ravindranath Shanbagh" <ravindranath@zetainfotech.com>,

"rebel grrlz" <rebelgrrlz@hotmail.com>,

"RKO" <rko@vsnl.com>,

"Robert John" <robert@ces.iisc.ernet.in>,

"Rosa H. Ramos" <rosah@coqui.net>,

"Roy David" <david@giasbg01.vsnl.net.in>,

"sandesha" <sandesha@blr.vsnl.net.in>,

"Sanjay Sangvai" <sanjay@narmada.org>,

"Shekar Singh" <shekharsingh@vsnl.com>,

"Shubha Chacko" <shubha@cedban.ilban.ernet.in>,

"siobhan wall" <siobhanwall@yahoo.co.uk>,

"Smitu Kothari" <smitu@lokayan.unv.ernet.in>,

"Stephen David" <steven@intoday.com>,

"subbarayan prasanna" <sprasann@vsnl.com>,

"Tasqeen Macchiwala" <tasqeenm@actionaidindia.org>,

"The Other India Bookstore" <oibs@bom2.vsnl.net.in>,

"Thomas Kochery" <nff@md2.vsnl.net.in>,

"Tulika Narayan" <tulika@arec.umd.edu>,

"Udaybhaskar" <uday_b@usa.net> ,

"Udhayan" <udayan@md4.vsnl.net.in>,

"U Harish Kumar" <harish@bplservice.com>,

"Upendra Baxi" <U-Baxi@email.msn.com>,

"V.Ranganathan" <ranga@iimb.ernet.in>,

"vasuki"<kgvasuki@vsnl.com>,

"Venu Madhav Govindu" <venu@narmada.org>,

"vigil" <vigil@giasbg01.vsnl.net.in>,

"Vijayan" <delforum@unv.ernet.in>,

"Vimal" <napmdel@del6.vsnl.net.in>,

"Vivek Tiwari" <vivek@EE.Princeton.EDU>,

"Walter Fernandes"<walter@isid.unv.ernet.in>,

"Ward Morehouse" <cipany@igc.org>,

"Wiert Wiertsema" <ww@bothends.org>,

"William Saldanha" <saldanha_william@acer.co.in>,

"YUVA" <yuva@vsnl.com>,

<ksharma@vsnl.com>,

<veena@ilban.ernet.in>,

"Joe Johnson" <jsjohnson777@prodigy.net>

"Arun Agarwal" <angrywal@hotmail.com>,

"Douglas P. Norlen" <dnorlen@igc.org>, Manu Mathai

<manumathai@www.usa.net>, bruce_rich@environmentaldefense.org,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WE HAVE MOVED : OUR NEW ADDRESS

Environment Support Group (R)

S-3, Rajashree Apartments

18/57, 1st Main Road

S. R. K. Gardens

Jayanagar

Bannerghatta Road

Bangalore 560 041. INDIA

Telefax: 91-80-6341977

Fax: 91-80-6723926 (PP)

Email: esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~