The current debate concerning development versus environment is premised on the fatal assumption that the two are in contradiction with each other. The background to the debate is the recent activism of the Union environment and forests ministry.
First it was Vedanta's bauxite mining project at Niyamgiri; then it was Sterlite's (a part of Vedanta) copper smelter at Tuticorin; now it is Posco's steel project in Orissa. All of them had got environmental clearances in the past, and all of them now face the axe.
Some of them have run the gauntlet of environmental controversy for years.
While many environmentalists hailed the government's rejection of London-listed Vedanta's bauxite mining project in Orissa's Niyamgiri hills in August this year, saying the decision was in favour of the poor tribal communities residing there; others contented that, had Vedanta succeeded in making aluminum close to a bauxite source, as it had planned in Orissa, world prices of aluminum could have fallen by half and India could have become an important aluminum producer.
The Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment welcomed the environment ministry's decision, saying that it was appalled at the way that Vedanta had been violating all laws. "This is certainly a decision which goes in favour of the poor and marginalised people of Orissa -- a manifestation of 'environmentalism of the poor'," it said in a statement.
Describing the decision a "great victory for India", environmentalist Bittu Sehgal said, "This is a victory of common sense as these forests would have been badly affected by the mining, not just the people, but all the lions, elephants, everything."
In contradiction, Tavleen Singh wrote in her column in the Indian Express: "As someone who has actually been to Kalahandi, I would like to state clearly that the Adivasis live in such horrible poverty and deprivation that such exalted ideas as cultural heritage are irrelevant. If Vedanta had succeeded in bringing schools, hospitals and employment to Kalahandi, it would have transformed the bleak, hopeless lives of those who live here."
That we need economic development to meet our most pressing challenge of bringing 400-500 million citizens out of poverty and deprivation is unarguable. Take a poll anywhere in India today and if asked to choose, a vast majority of Indians would choose economic development over environmental protection.
It's not necessarily right, but it reflects the priorities as people see it. Wallets will win over the environment for a vast majority.
Even the Prime Minister gave two thumbs up to development when he categorically stated that environmental concerns must not be taken so far that they end development. Dr Singh made it clear that it was not possible to build airports without some degree of environmental damage and that it was not possible to develop India if we banned minerals from being exploited.
This statement by the PM, to many came across as a belated rap on the knuckles for India's environment mininter, Jairam Ramesh who was flying high and being called a crusading minister by many on his move to deny Vedanta's bauxite mining project.
In barely 14 months as environment minister, the suave 56-year-old technocrat-turned-politician has pitchforked a low-key ministry into front-page headlines.
Be it mega projects like Vedanta and Posco, the Navi Mumbai airport, GM foods or tortuous climate change negotiations, Ramesh has an uncanny ability to be in the limelight -- all for the green cause.
But there is however a school of thought that believes that if we are genuinely concerned about preserving the environment, we must begin by ensuring that India does not make the same mistakes that other countries did when they were developing. The main cause of environmental degradation in India is extreme poverty. It reduces people like the Dongria Kondhs of Niyamgiri to living conditions that are not much better than if they were still living in hunter-gatherer times.
In tribal areas where development has failed to reach, often the only means of survival is what they call 'slash and burn agriculture'. This method involves burning down forests for fuel and food. Only when development brings schools, hospitals, roads and public services, does this horrible practice stop.
If the adivasis who live in the Niyamgiri hills were to discover that the bauxite that lies buried under their 'sacred' mountain could help them become rich and prosperous, they might not want Vedanta to leave.
Similarly, the farmers in Uttar Pradesh who have been protesting against their land being taken away for a new highway might be more amenable if they could see real benefits. There is no question that they should be given what they consider a fair price for their land.
Tavleen Singh says that instead of banning projects essential to development, perhaps more focus should be spend on developing an environmental policy that would allow development and yet improve the environment.
If Vedanta, for instance, needs to cut down trees to mine the bauxite reserves under the Niyamgiri hills, then it must take responsibility for reforestation elsewhere.
If corporations want to acquire land to build roads and factories, then they must be made responsible for ensuring that local communities benefit from what they do.
Perhaps we need to develop an alternate sustainable development model that will empower communities to force developers to consider the potential benefits of economic development (jobs, taxes etc) versus the potential costs to environment at each stage.
So, if the tribal communities in Orissa, for instance, seek to preserve their traditional lands in the way they have tilled it for generations, they would have their way.
There will evolve different types of development zones. Some may prohibit development completely, others may encourage non-polluting and non-mining investments, a few may encourage mining subject to adequate returns to the local community etc.
Sunita Narain, director, Centre for Science and Environment says that it is evident that without environmental management and safeguards, there can be no development. We cannot foster a GDP first and environment later attitude. "But what can be negotiated is the balance that we strike in making development work," she says.
There is no doubt that industrial growth will lead to environmental damage. The question is how this damage can be averted or minimised. Indian industry must understand the challenge of balancing the demands of development and environment. The environment forms the survival base for large numbers of people in India and any destruction of the same would impinges on their lives and livelihoods.
Also, industry needs to invest in improving the regulatory systems in India, especially since industrial growth has intensified over the past few years.
As a nation, we certainly cannot follow the path that says "Its my turn to develop and i don't care how" and not can we bow down in the name of environment conservation and let the economy suffer.
Judiciousness would have to be applied to the decision-making, so as to strike a balance between the various objectives sought to be served.
The challenge of balancing development and environment imperatives requires rethinking growth and making economies work in the interests of all.
Not pitting growth against growth.
Source: The Indian Express, Business Standard, IANS, India syndicate
No comments:
Post a Comment