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.
This has indeed been our effort in the last 15 months for the vast majority of the cases that have come before us.
For instance, we allowed a power project in Ratnagiri in the face of NGO objections but imposed strict conditions that would be monitored by local institutions.
“Yes, but” cases aside, there will most certainly be instances, few and far between I should add in the overall scheme of things, when a firm “no” will be required. In such cases that have complex scientific, ecological and social dimensions, my approach has been to make decisions in the most consultative and transparent manner possible. This is what we did in the case of Bt-brinjal, and in the case of the Ve danta mining project in Orissa, where I consulted extensively, and shared a most detailed explanation for our decision with the public.
Is the debate really environment versus development or is it one of adhering to rules, regulations and laws versus taking the rules, regulations and laws for granted? I think the latter is a more accurate representation and a better way to formulate the choice. When an alumina refinery starts construction to expand its capacity from 1 million tonnes per year to 6 million tonnes per year without bothering to seek any environmental clearance as mandated by law, it is not a “environment versus development” question, but simply one of whether laws enacted by Parliament will be respected or not…
India is fortunate to have strong, progressive legislation to safeguard its ecology. The question before the country is very, very simple: are these laws to be enforced or are they to just adorn the statute books, honoured more in their breach than in their observance? I have to say that for too long a time, we have taken these laws and the discipline they enforce for granted. Industry has assumed that somehow these laws can be “managed” and governments too have not insisted that the laws be implemented both in letter and spirit. We have now reached a crucial juncture when fait accompli will not do any longer…
Our traditional approach has been to automatically assume that tough regulations mean an army of regulators.
There is a legitimate fear that this could end up being another source of what economists call “rent seeking” or what ordinary human beings would call “harassment” or “corruption”… That is why I have been saying that we need to think of market-friendly instruments for enforcing regulations…
Sunita Narain puts it well when she says that India’s environmental movement is about managing contradictions and complexities — and to this I would
add, also, conflicts. This environmentalism of the poor, as she calls it, or livelihood environmentalism, as I would term it — as opposed to lifestyle environmentalism of the privileged sections — manifested itself on the national scene first in the mid-1970s, with the birth and growth of the Chipko movement in the hills of Uttarakhand.
Those women were asserting the rights of local communities over the use of local resources.
Those women were asserting the rights of local communities over the use of local resources.
Such assertions are visible in different parts of the country today. We misread such assertions as the conflict between environment and development when they actually are about establishing a fundamental right to livelihood security and a fundamental right to determine the nature of what we call development that impacts their daily lives in a profoundly disturbing manner.
Democracy means the need to explain, the need to justify, the need to convince, the need to get people on board, the need to compromise… I would urge the scientific community and the larger community of growthfetishists that they have a special role to play in this regard. They need to engage the larger public in a more collegial and in a less condescending manner.
URL: Indian Express, Page No.: 11, Dated: October 04, 2010