E/CN.4/2003/90 page 16 45. Two thirds of the over 40,000 families expected to be displaced by the reservoir’s creation will be tribal people or Adivasis, belonging to different groups collectively referred to as Bhils. Displacement of Adivasis from their traditional lands and resources due to the creation of reservoirs, canals and reforestation projects significantly impacts on the ability of Adivasis to fully enjoy their human rights. They live mainly in 14 villages in Gujarat, 33 in Maharashtra and around 53 in Madhya Pradesh. The Adivasis are largely self-sufficient, growing their own food and collecting fuel, building materials, fodder, fruits and other resources from the forests and common lands around their villages, as well as relying on water and fish from the river. Resettlement away from their territory means the destruction of their lifestyles and village organization. One farmer whose village will be submerged commented: “the forest is our moneylender and banker. From its teak and bamboo we built our homes. From its riches we are able to make our baskets and cots. ... From its trees we get our medicines.”53 46. In the early 1990s opponents of the dam staged a series of non-violent protests (dharnas and satyagraha), prompting the World Bank, after commissioning an independent review which underlined the flaws in the project, to withdraw its remaining funding for it (the Bank cancelled $170 million remaining on its loan of $450 million). Work on the dam continued nevertheless, despite attempted judicial restraint, and by the summer of 2002 the water level in the reservoir rose much higher than initially expected, threatening many more people and villages with flooding. The Government’s rehabilitation and resettlement measures for “oustees” (displaced persons) appeared to be insufficient, generating a number of protest activities by the affected villagers within the rising waters themselves. Protest against the project has remained strong and the Narmada Bachao Andolan NBA) (Save the Narmada movement) has been particularly instrumental in fostering awareness and dissent. Many activists and tribal people continue to maintain that they will never abandon their land to the dam, even if it means doobenge par hatenge nahi: death by drowning.54 47. Multipurpose dams surely stimulate economic activity and have the potential for bringing benefits to large sectors of the population. The problem is whether these benefits are designed to reach the indigenous peoples who provide the land on which such projects are established, and how. It is estimated that the SSP will enable the irrigation of 1.8 million hectares of land in Gujarat alone. Irrigation facilitates the production of food and other crops, which could significantly improve food production in drought-prone areas. However, it appears that much of this area is unsuitable for irrigation because of waterlogging and salinization. Moreover, some of the designated water is likely to be consumed by sugar plantations before reaching more needy farms further away from the dam. Other potential benefits of the irrigation scheme and electric power generation from the dam are unlikely to benefit the Adivasi population. 55 48. Adivasis were not involved nor consulted in the dam construction process, on the premise that the project and the displacement of people was to serve a “public purpose” which would provide a “development opportunity” to the affected population. While some local governments did involve non-governmental organizations, an observer notes that “while NGOs can play an important supportive role they cannot substitute [for] the voice of the affected people, nor can they replace what is the basic responsibility of the State”.56