The foregoing discussion has led us to sum up our conclusions in the form of the following points:

(i) The impacts on flora and fauna are substantial and any amount of compensatory afforestation cannot offset the loss of biological values.

(ii) The biological values likely to be lost are, however, not so unique as not to be found elsewhere within Bastar district. Still, their value cannot be reckoned on the present depleted status but should rather be reckoned on the habitat potential which is substantial. This loss shall have to go as a ‘development cost’ provided Bodhghat project can be cleared on other counts.

(iii) One of the main counts against such clearance is that with the present plan of rehabilitation of oustees and compensatory afforestation, neither there is adequate assurance for the well being of the ousted people nor is there any sustainable compensation for forest cover, much less the biological values. Not only this, the diversion of land to project will lead to increased pressures (including by rehabilitation of oustees) on the residual land, particularly the ‘commons’. This will further undermine the biological values of and the economic benefits from the residual forests.

(iv) Wild buffalo of Bastar are genetically the purest of all populations of this species in the country. The project will jeopardize the survival of one (Bhairamgarh Sanctuary) of the two Bastar populations by flooding of river bed grasslands which are their mainstay in summer. Another major count against the clearance is hence the downstream impacts of Bodhghat project upon wild buffalo conservation on account of the heavy discharges released as a result of peaking power for regulating these discharges downstream of the dam, the damage will be unacceptably high.

(v) The third point is the imperative to appraise Bodhghat project along with other downstream hydel projects (Kutru I & II, Nugur I & II and Bhopalpatnam) for whom Bodhghat project on creation will become the ‘raison d’etre’. Althogh there is no immediate programme to implement these projects but their construction will be justified on ‘hydel engineering sense’ as applied to Inderavati basin, once the Bodhghat project comes up. Assessed broadly for impacts on the basis of their present preliminary planning, these projects will again have an unacceptable environmental cost in the form of social and natural values. They will completely alter the free flowing river ecosystem into lake ecosystems of dubious conservation value, will cut off gene flow and animal movement corridors as well as impose human hardships of colossal proportions. At this stage, therefore, there should be an undertaking that these projects will not be proposed. When and if these projects are subsequently proposed a comprehensive EIA should be made and impacts provided against, taking into account also the impacts of Bodhghat project in an integrated manner.

(vi) As for compensatory afforestation, the plan proposed does not even assure protection of the plantation beyond the short 3 to 5 year period during which watch and ward will be provided. A sensible alternative plan should involve people in the restoration of existing degraded forest by allowing them usufruct including a share from the revenues of the restored forests forested by the people.

(vii) Rehabilitation of ouetees should be organized on ‘ecodevelopment’ approach with full involvement of people in the planning and implementation and should come up as an integrated package of measures addressing private land as well as the ‘commons’ including the forests.