India must achieve 8-8.5 percent growth regardless of what happens
in the world economy. This growth must be achieved whatever be the
circumstances,” said prime minister Manmohan Singh recently. The hurdles in
the way, it was diagnosed, “were cumbersome (environment) processes involved
in getting statutory clearances.”
Making environment, forest and wildlife laws the scapegoat for a
sluggish economy (if you can call it that at 6 percent when the US and UK
economies scrape 1.5-2 percent) has found favour with the media too, to the
extent that environmental regulations are being labelled “green terror”.
The diagnosis could be
called naive, if it weren’t for its ominous implications, given that it
espouses growth at whatever cost, “whatever the circumstances”. But more on
that later. First, doesn’t it stand to reason that a slow global economy and
plunging financial markets will have an impact on the Indian economy? Besides,
there is a multitude of factors that impact an economy. To pin the blame on
environment concerns is not just simplistic; it’s a false premise – a
convenient untruth.
To
bust the myth of ‘green impediments’ statistics have been highlighted before,
but they merit repetition. It is also pertinent to understand the genesis of
this flawed concept of ‘green imperialism’, the genesis of which, according to an
editorial in a
leading newsweekly, was in 2009, when Jairam Ramesh, both hailed
and hated as a green messiah, took charge of the Paryavaran Bhawan. During his
tenure between June 2009 and July 2011, well over 95 per cent of projects that
came to the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) sailed through the green
‘hurdles’. We don’t have a similar figure for the period when the DMK held the
environment portfolio, but suffice to say that it was during their stint that
dilutions to the Environment Protection Act were initiated, including weakening
the public consultation process. Rules were bent, and regulations such as those
relating to the coastal regulation zones (CRZ) were amended to accommodate
mega-projects of those who enjoyed proximity with the concerned minister.
What Ramesh did was to bring the ‘development vs. conservation’
debate to the centre-stage; but most projects that had been stalled eventually
got the green flag, be it Lavasa, or Posco or the airport at Navi Mumbai. One
of the very few that were denied was Vedanta’s alumina plant at Niyamgiri, and
we know whom we owe that one to.
Coal mining is another contentious issue. Urged by the coal
ministry, MoEF prepared a ‘go/no-go’ categorisation for mining in forest areas,
defining biodiversity-rich forests as ‘no-go’ (though, legally speaking, all
forests are ‘no-go’ according to the Forest Conservation Act, 1980).
Eventually, after a series of dilutions due to “pressures from higher-ups”, the
MoEF ceded over 80% of the so-called ‘no-go’ biodiversity-rich forests to
mining. This included proposed elephant reserves in Hasdeo-Anand in
Chhattisgarh, and Chiriya in Saranda – the world’s largest, finest sal forest
and tracts in the tiger-rich central Indian landscape. In the one year since
Natarajan took charge, the MoEF has cleared 1,126 proposals involving
diversion of 15,639 hectares of forest land.
Another oft-repeated accusation is that blocked forest clearances
are the cause behind coal shortage and India’s energy crisis. Here’s a reality
check: Between 1982 and 2012, the MoEF rejected only 18 of the 384 applications
for coal blocks. It gave forest clearances to 215, while another 75 got an
in-principle approval, which usually leads to full clearance. The rest are
either pending with the state or central governments or were withdrawn.
The clearance is also getting faster. An MoEF document shows that
between 1982 and 1999, the average time was five years to give full clearance.
During the BJP-led government between 2000 and 2004, this reduced to three
years, and further to 17 months during the regime of UPA I. After 2009, this
has declined to 11 months.
Let’s assess the 11th plan
period till August 2011: the MoEF has granted environmental clearances to 181
coal mines with a combined capacity of 583 million tonnes per annum, and forest
clearances to 113 mines, giving away 26,000 hectares of forest land for coal.
These clearances are expected to double our coal capacity. The 11th and 12th
five-year plans target 1,50,000 MW of additional thermal power capacity to be
created and set up by 2017. Between 2006 and August 2011, clearances were
granted for 2,10,000 MW of thermal power capacity: 40 percent in excess of our
proposed requirement till 2017.
Fact is, in key sectors
like power, coal, steel and cement, the clearances given exceed targets.
Capacity in energy and coal lies under or unutlised, while project proponents
clamour for clearances for new projects, since these give them the ownership
of valuable natural resources: land, water and minerals.
No wonder India Inc.,
backed by powerful politicians, perpetuates this convenient untruth, terming
environment norms the new ‘licence raj’, a green avtaar of the red tapeism that
had ‘throttled’ the economy before liberalisation.
As is evident, it is not
industry and infrastructure that is being short-changed, it is the
environment. Why then is the MoEF being vilified for doing its job, which is
protecting environment, forests and wildlife, which some would say is
debatable given the extent of clearances?
Protecting environment is
not, as I have pointed out before, about “saving a few sundry animals”, as
dismissed infamously by a bureaucrat. Saving forests is critical not just for
sustained growth but to protect the basic life support systems: water, clean
air, soil fertility. Forests are a key influencer of the monsoons; they
nourish and nurture our rivers and soils. Crucial, given that two out of every
three Indians still depend on agriculture or related employment. Monsoons are
a key factor in pulling down the GDP, and some estimates suggest that if
ecological-damage were considered as lost capital, India’s GDP would be
reduced by nearly six percent. If we are to take into account future climate
projects, the situation gets graver: Lord Nicholas Stern, former chief
economist of the World Bank who authored the path-breaking report, The
Economics of Climate Change, is quoted as saying that a business-as-usual
scenario could shrink the world economy by at least five percent – and possibly
as much as 20 percent. It is well established that biodiversity conservation is
the basis of eco-system functioning. Mangroves, for example, are not only
aquatic nurseries that sustain a healthy fish stock, but also serve as
bio-shields, providing protection from devastating storms and tidal waves. A
study (Das, S., 2007) investigating the impact of the Orissa super cyclone of
October 1999 established that coastal villages shielded by mangroves suffered
much less damage compared to those that lacked mangrove protection. This was
further established during the devastating tsunami of 2004 where fishing
villages under direct physical coverage of the mangroves were protected from
the fury of the tsunami.
The need of the hour
clearly is to strengthen, not weaken, environment regulations. Instead, the onslaught to do away with green regulations is
relentless, and it isn’t just the tiger and other critically endangered
wildlife – for tiger forests have rich coal deposits – that are being trampled
over as we hurtle toward ‘growth’; it is the democratic processes of public
hearing and consultation that are in the dock. Consider this fact: the group
of ministers (GoM) established to ‘rationalise’ coal mining in forests
recommended scrapping ‘no-go’ areas and public hearings.
The cacophony is shrill, albeit hysterical, with ‘solutions’
ranging from shutting down the MoEF to doing away with mandatory checks and
balances, offering instead to punish violators – after the forest is razed,
the river poisoned, the wetland bulldozed, the wildlife exterminated. Like, we
are told helpfully, being fined for a traffic violation. This, in our country,
where monitoring systems are non-existent, and punishment for environment
crimes a cruel joke. Think Bhopal.
The latest salvo is the proposed national investment board (NIB),
which, we are informed, “will boost investment by doing away with the ‘hated
licence raj’ “. The NIB is envisaged to ensure that mega projects sail through,
dismantling the regulatory systems for green clearances, without bothering
about their environmental and social impacts. With no checks and balances, no
provisions for appeal, the NIB appears to be a law onto itself, though it’s
unclear how the board’s powers will reconcile with the legal framework – the
Environment Protection Act, 1986, Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Wildlife
Protection Act, 1972 – which in its mandate also includes protection of
wildlife and forest against various pressures, and competing uses on natural
habitat including infrastructure development.
Equally importantly, how
will the NIB function vis-a-vis the various directives of the Supreme Court,
which ensure that economic imperatives are not the only consideration for
big-ticket projects? These concerns are well-reflected in the feisty letter
written to the prime minister, the intended chair of the NIB, by Natarajan who
questions its hasty formation and purpose. She expresses grave concerns about
its constitutional breach, the consequences to governance and responsibility to
the legislature. If the NIB overrules the far-reaching decisions of the MoEF,
who will be accountable? Are the law and finance ministries and the PMO,
envisaged as the three members of NIB, competent to take nuanced decisions
which have implications on livelihoods and biodiversity, issues on which they
have little knowledge? Can we afford to ignore environment costs in
development concerns? The mining and industrial towns of Chandrapur, Vapi and
Ludhiana are prime examples of environment consequences being ignored, and are
today living hell-holes, ravaged by diseases like lung and skin infections, TB
and cancer.
Another point is, how will
the NIB lure investors if hasty decisions taken without due diligence lead to
dispute and unrest? Across India, one major cause for social unrest and
uprising is land acquisition for infrastructure projects and development. At
the 11th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP
11 to CBD) held in October in Hyderabad was a group of protesting villagers
from the sal forest in Mahan, demanding that their forests be protected from
being pillaged for coal. The womenfolk of farmers and fishermen from Konkan
travelled to Bathinda in Punjab to understand the health impacts of thermal
power plants, which are proposed along the coast. They do not want cancer in
their backyard. Mangroves, which support a rich diversity, are the lifeline of
fisherfolk, and along the Indian coastline, the fishing community is up in arms
against the setting up of thermal power plants, ports and special economic
zones (SEZs) which wipe out mangroves – and their livelihood.
The NIB
offers little recourse to them – the farmer and the fisherman, the aam aadmi, whose
cause our government claims to espouse. Large investors may appeal to the NIB
if aggrieved by the decision of the MoEF, but the NIB makes no mention of
similar recourse for the aggrieved communities. The NIB only serves the cause
of the large investor, leaving no room for the concerns and grievances of
ordinary citizens and stakeholders. How will this fulfil the criteria of
‘inclusive growth’, that is cited as the current government’s fundamental
objective? Why is the world’s most vibrant democracy bending over backwards for
large investors, sacrificing democratic tenets and key considerations like
public health, environment and biodiversity?
This article was first published in the November 15 issue of Governance Now
Prerna Singh Bindra is a member, National Board of Wildlife, Sr Consultant, WCS-India Program and Editor, TigerLink
