It isn’t a zero sum game …..JAIRAM RAMESH
Growth-fetishists’ misread conflict between development and environment
OVER half a century ago, while giving the Reith Lectures over the BBC, the eminent British physicistauthor C.P. Snow spoke of how the breakdown of communication between the “two cultures” of modern society -the cultures of the science and that of the humanities -was becoming a hindrance tounderstandingandaddressingpressing public issues… This afternoon, I wish to speak of a later-day facet of these “two cultures” syndrome -the apparent gap between those espousing the case for faster economic growth and those calling for greater attention to protection of the environment…
Let us all accept the reality that there is undoubtedly a trade-off between growth and environment. In arriving at decisions to untangle the trade-off, three options present themselves -“yes”, “yes, but” and “no”. The real problem is that the growth constituency is used to “yes” and can live with “yes, but”. It cries foul with “no”. The environment constituency exults with a no, grudgingly accepts the yes, but but cries foul with a yes. Therefore, one clear lesson is this maximise the yes, but, where this is possible.
The vast majority of environmental and forestry clearances are in the yes, but category but they do not hit the headlines like the yes or the no decisions do. Of course, as we gain experience, we must refine the but in the yes, but approach. The but often takes the form of conditions that must be adhered to before, during the construction, and after the launch of the project. I believe that in laying down these conditions, we must strive for three things: First, the conditions must be objective and measurable, so that it is clear what is to be done and whether it has been complied with. Second, the conditions must be consistent and fair, so that similar projects are given similar conditions to adhere to. Finally, the conditions must not impose inordinate financial or time costs on the proponents.