Only three Indians find a place in TIME magazine's 20 most influential Asians of the 20th century. Professor M S Swaminathan is one of them. The other two being Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore. A plant geneticist by training, Professor Swaminathan is considered the architect of the Green Revolution. His advocacy of sustainable agriculture leading to an ever-green revolution makes him an acknowledged world leader in the field of sustainable food security.
Professor Swaminathan has won many awards including the Ramon Magsaysay Award for Community Leadership in 1971, the Albert Einstein World Science Award in 1986, and the first World Food Prize in 1987. Recently, the Union government appointed him as the head of the National Commission on Farmers.
Excerpts from an exclusive interview:
How big is the crisis facing Indian agriculture?
The nature of crisis varies from region to region. In the dry farming areas, there is a crisis of water and high rates of interest from money lenders. These farmers are not perceived to be credit worthy under the present system. Indian agriculture is in a crisis because the second and third generational problems were not addressed to the extent they should have been. Academicians and politicians knew these problems all along. But in the quest for urban boom, agriculture was not given adequate attention.
Is the situation changing?
Today there is widespread appreciation that farmers were bypassed in our nation's road to progress. We can ignore these people only at our peril ‘not just for food security, but also for the security of the country at large. For example, the recruits for the People's War Group in Andhra Pradesh are mainly poor and unemployed youth. We have to realise that there is a cry for change and attention, which we have to recognise without any delay.
What are the factors responsible for farmers committing suicide?
This can be due to many reasons. We will have to analyse each case separately. Many studies indicate that several of these suicides were related to debt burden and a sense of hopelessness.
What do you think went wrong since the Green Revolution?
Green Revolution was a term coined in 1968 when we achieved a quantum jump in food production. For the first time in the 1970s and 1980s, our growth rate of food production went above the population growth rate. But the challenge now is to look for ways that will sustain, deepen and expand this revolution. We must also look at the problems of ecology and work towards an ever-green revolution.
We have no more land available for agriculture. Therefore, we must produce more and more from less land and even less water. We must also extend the benefits of the ever-green revolution to dry areas, hill areas and coastal areas. (Nearly 20 per cent of our population lives in coastal areas.)
Farmers need three things: credit, water, and assured market. Depending upon how well these three pillars are developed, the nature of crisis will be circumscribed by these parameters. We must address these issues with the farmers. If we listen to them, we will understand that they know the problems and they will also tell you the solution.
Have farm subsidies contributed to this crisis?
I don't think so. A major portion of subsidy goes to fertiliser and food. Today the agricultural sector is crying for investment. I am not in favour of any perverse subsidy, but I will not recommend that we must take away the money meant for agriculture. Suppose I have to give Rs 200 crores for free electricity, I will use that money for constructing roads and godowns in rural areas and improve trade literacy and marketing infrastructure. Many things can be done with the same amounts of money. We must remove subsidy and divert the money to need-based services, which may vary from region to region.
What would you suggest to the government about subsidy?
The policy of appeasement like free electricity to farmers is adding to the problem. This policy will be detrimental to our future generations. It is just not sustainable. Of course, some subsidy may be needed -- like in the dry farming areas of Rajasthan where farmers are not able to pay for electricity. So there is a difference between trade-distorting subsidy or ecology-distorting subsidy and life-supporting subsidy. What we need is a life-supporting subsidy. This could be in the form of insurance -- both for the farmer as well as for his crops. Life insurance for farmers must be subsidised because only the private health sector is growing today. The public health system is breaking down. And health cost is going up in this country. Therefore, we must work towards low-transaction, corruption-free credit system, which is linked to health and crop insurance. Already a beginning has been made in the form of Kisan Cards and the SBI Life. This is the first step. But we must deepen and widen it.
We need to also think of a long-term policy because 50 per cent of our population is below 21 and over 70 per cent of them live in rural areas. Do we want them to migrate to town and urban slums? Or should we create infrastructure for them to take up farm and non-farm employment in the rural areas?
How critical is the water situation in India?
Exactly 60 years ago, I joined the Agricultural College in Coimbatore. At that time we were alarmed that the water table was going down to 10-15 metres. But now it has gone down to 1,000 metres. How much can we keep digging? When I was in the Planning Commission in 1980, I along with Manmohan Singh and Mohammed Fazal made water as the first priority in the Sixth Five Year Plan. But over the years, more and more irrigation has come under groundwater and our policy of free electricity has sucked every drop.
What policy changes would you prescribe to reverse the paradox of food insecurity amidst plenty?
We have come to a stage where we can have a food guarantee scheme. My concept is a combination of employment guarantee and food for work. The Maharashtra employment generation scheme is a good model. Food as a currency is very powerful because the needy can get food for their stomachs and farmers can market more if they produce more. The paradox of poverty amid plenty can be done away with imaginative food guarantee schemes. I hope that by August 15, 2007, when we complete 60 years of Independence, we will overcome this paradox.
Do you think it is time to take a re-look at pesticides?
The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) -- set up after the Centre for Science and Environment found pesticides in soft drinks -- has clearly recommended that we must look at our standards for pesticides in food and drinking water. We still use pesticides that have long-term residual toxicity. This is affecting our food chain. I hope the government will start looking at the recommendations of the JPC and take follow up action. We must not just revise standards, but we also set up more monitoring laboratories.
Do you think enough efforts have gone into what you call "monsoon management"?
I think we have not been pro-active. For some reason our agricultural administration has remained very archaic. Monsoon management means alternative cropping system. The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University has come up with alternative crops depending on water availability. But what's the use of having these models only on paper. These must be put to use.
We must have a system of administration that is highly professional. But we hear about officers being transferred almost every other day. For example, an agricultural commissioner is suddenly transferred to a museum. In a country like China, even cabinet ministers are thorough professionals. In fact, two Chinese ministers have been awarded the World Food Prize. We need such professionalism. Unfortunately we have a system of administration where generalists are occupying technical posts.
We must also look at agricultural management, of which monsoon management is an integral part. I suggest that we train a male and female member of every panchayat as monsoon managers.
What steps do you think we must take to bridge the numerous divides that exist in India?
If we can bridge the agricultural divide in a country where 70 percent people live in rural areas, then we would be closer to bridging the nutritional, gender, technological and digital divides. We must simplify our rules on radio so that every community or panchayat can have its own radio. This will go a long way in making information location-specific and in giving market and trade-related news.
What safeguards would you prescribe as we experiment with biotechnology?
The reason why the Americans are not afraid of genetically modified (GM) food is that they have immense faith in their Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). If someone falls sick as a result of consuming GM corn, the fine is US $2-3 billion in the courts. We have recommended a national biotechnology regulatory authority that is professionally managed. We must work towards regulatory mechanisms that people can trust.
It is wrong to condemn or decry a new technology. We must study the use of the technology case by case. There cannot be any generalisations. We have recommended that the health and environmental safety must be the bottom line for any food security system.
What does the India's agricultural future look like?
The Green Revolution gave us self-confidence. Now we must shape our agricultural destiny. Because our future will depend on agriculture.
(New Indian Express, June 27, 2004)
WALDEN BELLO: The role of the South
Walden Bello , co-director, Focus on the Global South, a research institute in Thailand, has done extensive work on the East Asia Miracle Paradigm. Author of several books, Bello is associated with Greenpeace International and Oxfam America. On a recent visit to India, he spoke with S S Jeevan on the various issues that confront Southeast Asian countries.
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/section.asp?sec_id=14&foldername=19971215
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/section.asp?sec_id=14&foldername=19971215
OVER TROUBLED WATERS
The hastily launched multi-crore Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project is a scientific and ecological disaster in the making. Here's why. By S S Jeevan
It is a proverbial case of putting the cart before the horse. The Rs 2,427.40-crore Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (SSCP), launched with much fanfare in Madurai on July 2, 2005 by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is throwing up more questions than it set out to solve. The SSCP aims to provide a route linking India's eastern and western shores, doing away with the current need to circumnavigate Sri Lanka. But scientists and environmentalists have voiced concerns of constructing the canal in an ecologically sensitive region as well as the way the project has been "rushed" without even a detailed scientific study.
Ironically, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) sounded the first alarm in March 2005. The PMO note asked for the project to be put on hold till a proper evaluation of specific issues was made. The note severely criticised the "rapid" study by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur, whose report was cited to get the quick approval.. The institute -- which comes under the Union government -- has been associated with several controversial environment studies in the past and has reportedly limited experience in marine issues.
"The canal project faces the problems of sedimentation, cyclonic disturbances and dumping of the dredged sediments which have not been effectively tackled in the NEERI study. NEERI neither considered the sediment contribution from the rivers flowing into the Palk Bay nor from the previous cyclones, with the result that the study did not pinpoint the source for 99..4 per cent of the sediment volume in the region," the PMO note said. But strangely enough, within three months of having drafted the note, the Prime Minister and the entire political establishment gathered in Madurai to launch the 150-year-old dream.
150-YEAR-OLD PROBLEMS
The idea to build a canal was originally conceived by British Commander A D Taylor of the Indian Marines in 1860. After Independence, the government constituted a committee headed by A Ramaswamy Mudaliar in 1955 to examine the feasibility of connecting the Gulf of Mannar with Palk Bay. The committee recommended that the canal project be linked to the Tuticorin Harbour Project. The report was put in cold storage, and in 1963, only the Tuticorin port project was sanctioned. A number of committees were set up since then and each of these committee reports "further validated" the earlier reports. It is significant that Taylor's idea was conceived on a different route where there will be no turbulent sea or churning water currents. However, the present route is through one of most volatile regions in the world. The canal project area is dangerously located in a cyclone-prone region. According to Current Science, between 1891 and 2000, around 64 cyclones have known to have hit the Tamil Nadu coast. The Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) too considers the coastal stretch between Nagapattinam and Pamban (the canal project area) as a "high-risk zone".
Meteorological records reveal that 23 storms have crossed the project area in that period. For instance, the super cyclone in 1964 devastated Danushkodi, a coastal town near Rameshwaram and part of the SSCP area. Reports suggest that an entire train was washed away during this cyclone, taking along with it hundreds of students. And even today one can see the battered Danushkodi railway station invaded by seawaters. "A large part of the old Danushkodi town lies buried under the sea," Pavalam, a 50-year-old fisherman in Danushkodi told the New Indian Express.
What is worrying is that the NEERI report completely ignored the impact of a future tsunami on the SSCP. Says Dr C P Rajendran, one of India?s top geologists, who is with the Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram: "The open question is that whether the deepening activities would 'create a new deep water route' for a future tsunami to reach the west coast with a devastating impact." The PMO, in fact, found the information furnished by NEERI about the effects of tsunamis and cyclones "incomplete" and there were huge gaps in the knowledge about "the sedimentation regimes existing in the various micro regions of Palk Bay". "Had the Sethusamudram shipping canal been operational at the time of this (December 2004) tsunami, the currents in the Palk Bay and the associated turbulence would have damaged the canal considerably and would have caused a wide dispersal of the dredged material placed at seas," the PMO note says.
"In terms of expertise on marine issues NEERI's credibility is wanting. The fact that NEERI had only done a "Rapid" Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and not a comprehensive EIA and that the area and period of primary data collection was little or nothing accounts for an unscientific EIA being passed off by the Ministry of Shipping and MEF," says Ossie Fernandes, co-convenor of Coastal Action Network (CAN), an organisation spearheading the campaign and fighting for the rights of fisherfolk. Scientists point out to India's lack of understanding of complex geological phenomenons. Sethusamudram is the part of an ocean that is being constantly bridged by natural sedimentation processes, and nature has been at this work for hundreds of thousands of years. "The current tsunami crisis in the Bay of Bengal makes us to rethink the whole issue? The SSCP is not feasible technically at the present moment, with the current level of understanding of the sedimentation and meteorological regimes of the project area," says journal Current Science.
It is also a mystery then that how project officials convinced the Prime Minister without even doing a tsunami-impact study. Officials at the Tuticorin Port Trust (TPT) -- the nodal agency to implement the project -- are yet to respond to a questionnaire sent by this newspaper on these issues.
MARINE THREAT
Ecologists say the impact of the project on this unique and fragile ecosystem will be disastrous. The Gulf of Mannar (GOM) falls in the Indo-Pacific region and is considered to be one of world's richest marine biological resources. The Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve is the first Marine Biosphere Reserve not only in India, but also in South and Southeast Asia. The GOM thus constitutes a live scientific laboratory of national and international value. It has 3,600 species of plants and animals that make it India's biologically richest coastal region, according to CAN.
Says Commander G V K Unnithan of Indian Navy (Retd), who as part of the anti-Tamil insurgent operations during 1995-96 spent considerable time watching the ecosystem of this region: "During that time I have closely watched the sea from helicopters and boats. I have seen colonies and coral reefs. It is shocking that NEERI says there is only sand." It is interesting to note that the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation is engaged in a unique promotion of alternative options for livelihood security in the region, including community-owned small industrial units and a community-managed artificial reef programme.
Experts say that India has had the experience of dredging navigation channels near the shipping ports, but it will be the first time we are going to dredge a navigation channel, located 30 to 40 km away from the coast. The SSCP involves massive dredging -- an estimated 84.5 million cubic metres of sand -- that will need safe disposal. Statements from the environment and shipping ministries reassure that the project will pose no threat to the coral reefs and the marine wealth of the GOM. However, it is still not clear as to how and where the dredged material will be dumped for safe disposal. "The question is how would the cyclones rework the dredged material to be dumped at various sites, although fortified with embankments," asks Rajendran.
The migration of birds in this region is natural and limited due to the two different ecosystems prevalent and generally separated by the Adams Bridge. The dredging will certainly disturb the system and large-scale forced migration will take place, says Unnithan. But when it happens from the shallow Palk Bay to deeper GOM, the fish will be lost forever due to the proximity of the much deeper Indian Ocean.
Unnithan, who is now a member of the Bombay Natural History Society, says, "They (NEERI) should have collaborated with institutes such as NIO, CMFRI, ZSI and GSI and come up with first-hand scientific work. Instead, they have depended heavily on secondary published data." He adds that the Indian Navy was given a sub-contract by NEERI for hydrographic studies. But there is no evidence to show that they were carried out. Unnithan says that if it (the study) was in favour of the canal, why was it not made public? Another threat arising out of the project is the pollution that would be created by ships in such a narrow channel. The prospect of their grounding or even a collision of ships containing coal or oil will lead to an ecological disaster.
MAROONED
The Sethusamudram project is also set to affect the livelihood of millions fisherfolk in the coastal districts of Tamil Nadu. But very little has been done to prepare a roadmap for rehabilitation and re-location of the affected people. Fishermen in Danushkodi, for example, say that they had heard of the project but had no clue if they would be asked to relocate or offered compensation. Many NGOs working for these fishing communities say that the public hearings for such projects are a farce. "The first series of public hearings were scrapped. Then in November 2004, another series were scheduled which were compartmentalised. Then the TPT went to court and got the project cleared," says Unnithan. "Most often the public hearing panel is not constituted with persons of integrity and scientific credibility,? says Ossie Fernandes. And public hearing reports by the state pollution central boards are shrouded in secrecy -- the anti thesis of a public hearing, he adds. "Big projects usually mean that poor people like us will be promised compensation and then asked to relocate," Muniamma, a fisherwoman from Danushkodi.
India's tryst with big projects has usually thrown up the same problems: they are hurriedly conceived and even poorly implemented. As we have seen with the Sardar Sarovar Project the rehabilitation of the affected people still remains a distant dream. In the case of the SSCP, there has been a mindless hurry to launch the project, without adequately addressing the core scientific and ecological problems. The project is plagued by other problems as well: many experts are now beginning to question the economic and technical validity of the project and the issue is threatening to boomerang into a diplomatic stand-off with Sri Lanka, which has also voiced its protest against the project. "We believe that the Tamil Nadu government can still step in as the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has not given a 'No Objection Certificate' to the project. And one of the grounds for granting clearance by the MEF is the report of the public hearings," adds Fernandes.
Meanwhile, the Union government has belatedly constituted a monitoring committee to assess the environmental impact of the SSCP. Its members include Dr S Kannaiyan of the National Biodiversity Authority, Dileep Biswas, former chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board and S C Sharma, additional director-general (Wildlife). Moreover, some 15-odd committees have also been constituted by Union Ministry of Shipping and Port Trust to look into the other aspects of the project. But whether these efforts are just to please the project's critics or can they lead to a real change in the developmental mindset of the political establishment, only time will tell.
(New Indian Express, July 31, 2005)
It is a proverbial case of putting the cart before the horse. The Rs 2,427.40-crore Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (SSCP), launched with much fanfare in Madurai on July 2, 2005 by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is throwing up more questions than it set out to solve. The SSCP aims to provide a route linking India's eastern and western shores, doing away with the current need to circumnavigate Sri Lanka. But scientists and environmentalists have voiced concerns of constructing the canal in an ecologically sensitive region as well as the way the project has been "rushed" without even a detailed scientific study.
Ironically, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) sounded the first alarm in March 2005. The PMO note asked for the project to be put on hold till a proper evaluation of specific issues was made. The note severely criticised the "rapid" study by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur, whose report was cited to get the quick approval.. The institute -- which comes under the Union government -- has been associated with several controversial environment studies in the past and has reportedly limited experience in marine issues.
"The canal project faces the problems of sedimentation, cyclonic disturbances and dumping of the dredged sediments which have not been effectively tackled in the NEERI study. NEERI neither considered the sediment contribution from the rivers flowing into the Palk Bay nor from the previous cyclones, with the result that the study did not pinpoint the source for 99..4 per cent of the sediment volume in the region," the PMO note said. But strangely enough, within three months of having drafted the note, the Prime Minister and the entire political establishment gathered in Madurai to launch the 150-year-old dream.
150-YEAR-OLD PROBLEMS
The idea to build a canal was originally conceived by British Commander A D Taylor of the Indian Marines in 1860. After Independence, the government constituted a committee headed by A Ramaswamy Mudaliar in 1955 to examine the feasibility of connecting the Gulf of Mannar with Palk Bay. The committee recommended that the canal project be linked to the Tuticorin Harbour Project. The report was put in cold storage, and in 1963, only the Tuticorin port project was sanctioned. A number of committees were set up since then and each of these committee reports "further validated" the earlier reports. It is significant that Taylor's idea was conceived on a different route where there will be no turbulent sea or churning water currents. However, the present route is through one of most volatile regions in the world. The canal project area is dangerously located in a cyclone-prone region. According to Current Science, between 1891 and 2000, around 64 cyclones have known to have hit the Tamil Nadu coast. The Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) too considers the coastal stretch between Nagapattinam and Pamban (the canal project area) as a "high-risk zone".
Meteorological records reveal that 23 storms have crossed the project area in that period. For instance, the super cyclone in 1964 devastated Danushkodi, a coastal town near Rameshwaram and part of the SSCP area. Reports suggest that an entire train was washed away during this cyclone, taking along with it hundreds of students. And even today one can see the battered Danushkodi railway station invaded by seawaters. "A large part of the old Danushkodi town lies buried under the sea," Pavalam, a 50-year-old fisherman in Danushkodi told the New Indian Express.
What is worrying is that the NEERI report completely ignored the impact of a future tsunami on the SSCP. Says Dr C P Rajendran, one of India?s top geologists, who is with the Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram: "The open question is that whether the deepening activities would 'create a new deep water route' for a future tsunami to reach the west coast with a devastating impact." The PMO, in fact, found the information furnished by NEERI about the effects of tsunamis and cyclones "incomplete" and there were huge gaps in the knowledge about "the sedimentation regimes existing in the various micro regions of Palk Bay". "Had the Sethusamudram shipping canal been operational at the time of this (December 2004) tsunami, the currents in the Palk Bay and the associated turbulence would have damaged the canal considerably and would have caused a wide dispersal of the dredged material placed at seas," the PMO note says.
"In terms of expertise on marine issues NEERI's credibility is wanting. The fact that NEERI had only done a "Rapid" Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and not a comprehensive EIA and that the area and period of primary data collection was little or nothing accounts for an unscientific EIA being passed off by the Ministry of Shipping and MEF," says Ossie Fernandes, co-convenor of Coastal Action Network (CAN), an organisation spearheading the campaign and fighting for the rights of fisherfolk. Scientists point out to India's lack of understanding of complex geological phenomenons. Sethusamudram is the part of an ocean that is being constantly bridged by natural sedimentation processes, and nature has been at this work for hundreds of thousands of years. "The current tsunami crisis in the Bay of Bengal makes us to rethink the whole issue? The SSCP is not feasible technically at the present moment, with the current level of understanding of the sedimentation and meteorological regimes of the project area," says journal Current Science.
It is also a mystery then that how project officials convinced the Prime Minister without even doing a tsunami-impact study. Officials at the Tuticorin Port Trust (TPT) -- the nodal agency to implement the project -- are yet to respond to a questionnaire sent by this newspaper on these issues.
MARINE THREAT
Ecologists say the impact of the project on this unique and fragile ecosystem will be disastrous. The Gulf of Mannar (GOM) falls in the Indo-Pacific region and is considered to be one of world's richest marine biological resources. The Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve is the first Marine Biosphere Reserve not only in India, but also in South and Southeast Asia. The GOM thus constitutes a live scientific laboratory of national and international value. It has 3,600 species of plants and animals that make it India's biologically richest coastal region, according to CAN.
Says Commander G V K Unnithan of Indian Navy (Retd), who as part of the anti-Tamil insurgent operations during 1995-96 spent considerable time watching the ecosystem of this region: "During that time I have closely watched the sea from helicopters and boats. I have seen colonies and coral reefs. It is shocking that NEERI says there is only sand." It is interesting to note that the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation is engaged in a unique promotion of alternative options for livelihood security in the region, including community-owned small industrial units and a community-managed artificial reef programme.
Experts say that India has had the experience of dredging navigation channels near the shipping ports, but it will be the first time we are going to dredge a navigation channel, located 30 to 40 km away from the coast. The SSCP involves massive dredging -- an estimated 84.5 million cubic metres of sand -- that will need safe disposal. Statements from the environment and shipping ministries reassure that the project will pose no threat to the coral reefs and the marine wealth of the GOM. However, it is still not clear as to how and where the dredged material will be dumped for safe disposal. "The question is how would the cyclones rework the dredged material to be dumped at various sites, although fortified with embankments," asks Rajendran.
The migration of birds in this region is natural and limited due to the two different ecosystems prevalent and generally separated by the Adams Bridge. The dredging will certainly disturb the system and large-scale forced migration will take place, says Unnithan. But when it happens from the shallow Palk Bay to deeper GOM, the fish will be lost forever due to the proximity of the much deeper Indian Ocean.
Unnithan, who is now a member of the Bombay Natural History Society, says, "They (NEERI) should have collaborated with institutes such as NIO, CMFRI, ZSI and GSI and come up with first-hand scientific work. Instead, they have depended heavily on secondary published data." He adds that the Indian Navy was given a sub-contract by NEERI for hydrographic studies. But there is no evidence to show that they were carried out. Unnithan says that if it (the study) was in favour of the canal, why was it not made public? Another threat arising out of the project is the pollution that would be created by ships in such a narrow channel. The prospect of their grounding or even a collision of ships containing coal or oil will lead to an ecological disaster.
MAROONED
The Sethusamudram project is also set to affect the livelihood of millions fisherfolk in the coastal districts of Tamil Nadu. But very little has been done to prepare a roadmap for rehabilitation and re-location of the affected people. Fishermen in Danushkodi, for example, say that they had heard of the project but had no clue if they would be asked to relocate or offered compensation. Many NGOs working for these fishing communities say that the public hearings for such projects are a farce. "The first series of public hearings were scrapped. Then in November 2004, another series were scheduled which were compartmentalised. Then the TPT went to court and got the project cleared," says Unnithan. "Most often the public hearing panel is not constituted with persons of integrity and scientific credibility,? says Ossie Fernandes. And public hearing reports by the state pollution central boards are shrouded in secrecy -- the anti thesis of a public hearing, he adds. "Big projects usually mean that poor people like us will be promised compensation and then asked to relocate," Muniamma, a fisherwoman from Danushkodi.
India's tryst with big projects has usually thrown up the same problems: they are hurriedly conceived and even poorly implemented. As we have seen with the Sardar Sarovar Project the rehabilitation of the affected people still remains a distant dream. In the case of the SSCP, there has been a mindless hurry to launch the project, without adequately addressing the core scientific and ecological problems. The project is plagued by other problems as well: many experts are now beginning to question the economic and technical validity of the project and the issue is threatening to boomerang into a diplomatic stand-off with Sri Lanka, which has also voiced its protest against the project. "We believe that the Tamil Nadu government can still step in as the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has not given a 'No Objection Certificate' to the project. And one of the grounds for granting clearance by the MEF is the report of the public hearings," adds Fernandes.
Meanwhile, the Union government has belatedly constituted a monitoring committee to assess the environmental impact of the SSCP. Its members include Dr S Kannaiyan of the National Biodiversity Authority, Dileep Biswas, former chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board and S C Sharma, additional director-general (Wildlife). Moreover, some 15-odd committees have also been constituted by Union Ministry of Shipping and Port Trust to look into the other aspects of the project. But whether these efforts are just to please the project's critics or can they lead to a real change in the developmental mindset of the political establishment, only time will tell.
(New Indian Express, July 31, 2005)
FISHING FOR BETTER OPTIONS
Children of fishermen in the tsunami-hit areas are trying to do something more profitable on land
Often, it takes destruction to show the path to development. On a fateful December morning two years ago, the tsunami invaded 19-year-old Elamparithi’s fishing village in Kanchipuram. “Though we lost our belongings, we felt lucky as my father had not ventured into the seas the previous evening,” says Elamparithi, a school drop-out who used to accompany his father. The destruction kept playing on his mind. “That day, I decided to give up our traditional occupation—fishing,” he says. Subsequently, he met some volunteers at the local community college and today he is about to complete a course in catering and hopes for a job in a “more secure” profession.
Hundreds of children of fishermen in the area have benefitted from an initiative called the Loyola Empowerment and Awareness Programme (LEAP) that covers the nine fishing hamlets of Kanchipuram panchayat. Many of them are now studying in premier colleges. Started in 2000, the programme has launched many initiatives including the Kanchipuram Community College that offers courses such as publishing and catering. “We realised the importance of providing technical education for the marginalised,” says Father Vedam Xavier, Loyola’s vice-principal and director of the project. And the large-scale displacement of fisherfolk during the tsunami only heightened the need for alternative livelihoods. In collaboration with the Tata Relief Committee, the college infrastructure was strengthened and it is now affiliated with the Tamil Nadu Open University. Students say the programme has provided a window of opportunity and empowered them with “life-coping skills”. “High input costs like that of diesel and competition from mechanised boats has forced us to abandon fishing,” says Kalil Rahiman, a student, who also broke away from the family tradition.
LEAP also includes community programmes such as health camps and welfare schemes for women, who are taught embroidery and other crafts. It has a tie-up with the Loyola College where it is mandatory for post-graduate students to do social work, such as spreading awareness about sanitation and hygiene. “The project has boosted self-belief of students,” says Father Xavier. While the tsunami might have battered Elamparithi’s family boat two years ago, it has put him on a new course today.
(India Today, December 25, 2006)
Often, it takes destruction to show the path to development. On a fateful December morning two years ago, the tsunami invaded 19-year-old Elamparithi’s fishing village in Kanchipuram. “Though we lost our belongings, we felt lucky as my father had not ventured into the seas the previous evening,” says Elamparithi, a school drop-out who used to accompany his father. The destruction kept playing on his mind. “That day, I decided to give up our traditional occupation—fishing,” he says. Subsequently, he met some volunteers at the local community college and today he is about to complete a course in catering and hopes for a job in a “more secure” profession.
Hundreds of children of fishermen in the area have benefitted from an initiative called the Loyola Empowerment and Awareness Programme (LEAP) that covers the nine fishing hamlets of Kanchipuram panchayat. Many of them are now studying in premier colleges. Started in 2000, the programme has launched many initiatives including the Kanchipuram Community College that offers courses such as publishing and catering. “We realised the importance of providing technical education for the marginalised,” says Father Vedam Xavier, Loyola’s vice-principal and director of the project. And the large-scale displacement of fisherfolk during the tsunami only heightened the need for alternative livelihoods. In collaboration with the Tata Relief Committee, the college infrastructure was strengthened and it is now affiliated with the Tamil Nadu Open University. Students say the programme has provided a window of opportunity and empowered them with “life-coping skills”. “High input costs like that of diesel and competition from mechanised boats has forced us to abandon fishing,” says Kalil Rahiman, a student, who also broke away from the family tradition.
LEAP also includes community programmes such as health camps and welfare schemes for women, who are taught embroidery and other crafts. It has a tie-up with the Loyola College where it is mandatory for post-graduate students to do social work, such as spreading awareness about sanitation and hygiene. “The project has boosted self-belief of students,” says Father Xavier. While the tsunami might have battered Elamparithi’s family boat two years ago, it has put him on a new course today.
(India Today, December 25, 2006)
WHOSE WORLD IS IT AFTER ALL?
Can multilateral banks usher in equitable and sustainable development in South Asia?
I know many who can read words and many, like me, who can only read the land. Both are important. We are not backward or less intelligent: we live in exactly the same up-to-date year as you. I was going to say we all live under the same stars, but no, they're different, and there are many more in the Kalahari. The sun and moon are the same.”
— Roy Sesana, acceptance speech, The Right Livelihood Awards 2005.
When Lalani Chandrika cries, her tears say it all. Chandrika was chased out from her ancestral home in Sri Lanka. And along with it she lost her children, as well as her identity. The reason for her condition is not the ethnic strife. But a project of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) that has displaced thousands of people in the country. She was promised compensation, but ended up getting little. She believes that the bank did not follow its own guidelines while disbursing compensation. Her children are now scattered across the country.
Chandrika is not alone. Local people in Nepal have also been opposing many projects due to various reasons. “The World Bank pulled out of a hydroelectricity project because the inspection panel found gross violations with regard to the environment and the rights of indigenous people,” says Prabin Man Singh of Water and Energy Users’ Federation-Nepal. Many projects in the kingdom have since been abandoned. Not surprisingly, the cost of water and electricity has shot up in many areas. In Bangladesh, projects to embank the country’s many rivers have led to breaches and heavy loss of life and property. The experience of multilateral projects in India has also been the same. Whether it is the Sardar Sarovar or Tehri dam, they have been greeted with protests and have led to the displacement of millions of local people. Stifled voices such as Chandrika's made a refreshing appearance at a recent meeting of the Bank Information Center in Delhi, where participants made some interesting observations on the developmental effectiveness — or ineffectiveness — of Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) in South Asia.
Growing inequities
Walden Bello, executive director of Focus on the Global South, once said that MDBs believe that development can best take place in a free market economy where governance systems are weak. “They (MDBs) have slowly tuned the bureaucracy — the permanent arm of the government — and trained them,” says Ravi Revapragada, of Samatha, an Andhra-based NGO. The displacement of people due to such projects is because of an insensitive bureaucracy, which has allowed itself to become an agent for a new paradigm of development. A model that is throwing up more inequities in developing countries and is clashing with traditional and time-tested local economies. Soon there could be a ground swell against such projects, adds Ravi.
The conflicts are primarily over access for natural resources — land and water. In the rural economies of South Asian countries, land and water play a critical role in the livelihood of marginalised communities. When communities are displaced due to big projects, they not only lose their lands, but also their livelihoods. Not surprisingly the buzzword for compensation packages of MDBs is relocation, not rehabilitation. Maybe that’s why Chandrika cannot stop wailing as she feels like an orphan in her own country.
Poverty of ideas
“MDBs usually have one development model for all countries. But they must understand that every country is unique. So they need to sensitise their developmental models to suit local concerns. They also need to create open spaces for people to create their own models,” says Neil Tangri, who is with the Center for Economic Justice.
In their attempt to eradicate poverty, many projects in Asian countries have widened the rich-poor divide, maybe unwittingly. Some experts believe that MDBs have been moving community resources from the poor to the wealthy sections of society. And that’s what makes local people hostile to any developmental idea. “MDBs cannot claim credit for reducing India’s poverty. India has been slowly reducing poverty since Independence. If you look at countries like Kenya, Argentina, they have reduced poverty without much help from MDBs. The same is the case with China, South Korea and Taiwan. MDBs have been moving resources from the poor to the wealthy sections of society,” says Tangri. This has also led to a crucial shift in power.
The problem with MDBs is that they are not directly answerable to the government. In some cases, the banks have acknowledged how their own rules have been violated at the ground level while implementing projects. There is also the issue of corruption: funds meant for projects often siphoned off by implementing agencies. According to some estimates, the World Bank has lost around 25 per cent of money since 1944 due to inadequate monitoring mechanisms. Analysts say that while governments and civil society must work closely with MDBs, local institutions and voices of the marginalised must also be understood. Panchayati Raj institutions in India, for instance, can make development and governance more participatory and equitable. Maybe MDBs need to listen to the voices such as that of Chandrikas to make development truly sustainable.
(New Indian Express, February 23, 2006)
I know many who can read words and many, like me, who can only read the land. Both are important. We are not backward or less intelligent: we live in exactly the same up-to-date year as you. I was going to say we all live under the same stars, but no, they're different, and there are many more in the Kalahari. The sun and moon are the same.”
— Roy Sesana, acceptance speech, The Right Livelihood Awards 2005.
When Lalani Chandrika cries, her tears say it all. Chandrika was chased out from her ancestral home in Sri Lanka. And along with it she lost her children, as well as her identity. The reason for her condition is not the ethnic strife. But a project of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) that has displaced thousands of people in the country. She was promised compensation, but ended up getting little. She believes that the bank did not follow its own guidelines while disbursing compensation. Her children are now scattered across the country.
Chandrika is not alone. Local people in Nepal have also been opposing many projects due to various reasons. “The World Bank pulled out of a hydroelectricity project because the inspection panel found gross violations with regard to the environment and the rights of indigenous people,” says Prabin Man Singh of Water and Energy Users’ Federation-Nepal. Many projects in the kingdom have since been abandoned. Not surprisingly, the cost of water and electricity has shot up in many areas. In Bangladesh, projects to embank the country’s many rivers have led to breaches and heavy loss of life and property. The experience of multilateral projects in India has also been the same. Whether it is the Sardar Sarovar or Tehri dam, they have been greeted with protests and have led to the displacement of millions of local people. Stifled voices such as Chandrika's made a refreshing appearance at a recent meeting of the Bank Information Center in Delhi, where participants made some interesting observations on the developmental effectiveness — or ineffectiveness — of Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) in South Asia.
Growing inequities
Walden Bello, executive director of Focus on the Global South, once said that MDBs believe that development can best take place in a free market economy where governance systems are weak. “They (MDBs) have slowly tuned the bureaucracy — the permanent arm of the government — and trained them,” says Ravi Revapragada, of Samatha, an Andhra-based NGO. The displacement of people due to such projects is because of an insensitive bureaucracy, which has allowed itself to become an agent for a new paradigm of development. A model that is throwing up more inequities in developing countries and is clashing with traditional and time-tested local economies. Soon there could be a ground swell against such projects, adds Ravi.
The conflicts are primarily over access for natural resources — land and water. In the rural economies of South Asian countries, land and water play a critical role in the livelihood of marginalised communities. When communities are displaced due to big projects, they not only lose their lands, but also their livelihoods. Not surprisingly the buzzword for compensation packages of MDBs is relocation, not rehabilitation. Maybe that’s why Chandrika cannot stop wailing as she feels like an orphan in her own country.
Poverty of ideas
“MDBs usually have one development model for all countries. But they must understand that every country is unique. So they need to sensitise their developmental models to suit local concerns. They also need to create open spaces for people to create their own models,” says Neil Tangri, who is with the Center for Economic Justice.
In their attempt to eradicate poverty, many projects in Asian countries have widened the rich-poor divide, maybe unwittingly. Some experts believe that MDBs have been moving community resources from the poor to the wealthy sections of society. And that’s what makes local people hostile to any developmental idea. “MDBs cannot claim credit for reducing India’s poverty. India has been slowly reducing poverty since Independence. If you look at countries like Kenya, Argentina, they have reduced poverty without much help from MDBs. The same is the case with China, South Korea and Taiwan. MDBs have been moving resources from the poor to the wealthy sections of society,” says Tangri. This has also led to a crucial shift in power.
The problem with MDBs is that they are not directly answerable to the government. In some cases, the banks have acknowledged how their own rules have been violated at the ground level while implementing projects. There is also the issue of corruption: funds meant for projects often siphoned off by implementing agencies. According to some estimates, the World Bank has lost around 25 per cent of money since 1944 due to inadequate monitoring mechanisms. Analysts say that while governments and civil society must work closely with MDBs, local institutions and voices of the marginalised must also be understood. Panchayati Raj institutions in India, for instance, can make development and governance more participatory and equitable. Maybe MDBs need to listen to the voices such as that of Chandrikas to make development truly sustainable.
(New Indian Express, February 23, 2006)
What’s your poison?
IT’S there in your your water, milk, fruits, vegetables, eggs, meat, wheatflour, bottled water and now...soft drinks. For some time evidence has been mounting against pesticides—from brain damaged infants in Rajasthan to cancer cases in Kerala. The latest report on pesticides in Coke and Pepsi is just another grim reminder that much of what we eat and drink is contaminated. There have been sporadic reports from across the country — in February this year, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a Delhi-based NGO, blew the whistle on the bottled water industry when it found high levels of pesticides in almost all brands. It has now followed up with its tests on soft drinks.
Food for grave thought
• There are no safe limits for pesticides in food products • Almost all food commodities in India are contaminated with pesticides • Pesticides cause long-term harm. Cancer, hormone disruption and immunity loss are linked to them • All that exists in regulations is some friendly advice to companies Earlier, a seven-year study conducted across 12 states by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) found dangerously high residues of pesticides (HCH and DDT) in milk products. ‘‘Almost all food commodities in India are contaminated with residues of pesticides, particularly DDT and BHC,’’ says N P Agnihotri of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute. Ahmedabad-based CERC found pesticide residues in wheatflour. Fruits are not far behind. ‘‘Grapes, bananas and apples sold around Bangalore carry intolerably high levels of pesticides,’’ says T N Prakash of Bangalore-based University of Agricultural Sciences.
The question then is why is the government not stopping pesticides from becoming a part of our dinner table menu? Not only are there no standards for pesticide limits in soft drinks in India, there are none even for drinking water. Even more alarming — the limit for deadly arsenic and lead in soft drinks has been set 50 times higher than the permissible standards for bottled water or drinking water. Where is all this pesticide coming from? When India was busy increasing its food production by four times, correspondingly the pesticide consumption increased nine-fold.
Today, the pesticide industry in India is the fourth largest in the world and second largest in the Asia-Pacific region, after China. Estimates of its market value vary between Rs 3,800 and Rs 4,100 crore. It also has the dubious distinction of producing more than a dozen pesticides and insecticides that have been banned the world over. Adding to this mess is India’s unregulated food industry. Food products are licensed under the Food Products Order and further regulated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The BIS standards (Bureau of Indian Standards), are largely voluntary. With multiplicity of agencies, even these standards do not get enforced.
And if you want to go to the courts to tackle pesticides, you might as well give up. A pesticide cannot be de-registered even if there is scientific proof that it is harmful. The pesticide industry’s strength lies in a large and cultivated network of scientists, agriculturalists and officials who spring to its defence whenever it’s caught on the wrong foot. ‘‘Pesticide companies don’t adhere to the same standards in India,’’ says Ravi Agarwal of Shristi, an NGO fighting pesticide companies. After the CSE findings on pesticides in colas, people are now waiting for the government to act.
(Indian Express, August 10, 2003)
Food for grave thought
• There are no safe limits for pesticides in food products • Almost all food commodities in India are contaminated with pesticides • Pesticides cause long-term harm. Cancer, hormone disruption and immunity loss are linked to them • All that exists in regulations is some friendly advice to companies Earlier, a seven-year study conducted across 12 states by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) found dangerously high residues of pesticides (HCH and DDT) in milk products. ‘‘Almost all food commodities in India are contaminated with residues of pesticides, particularly DDT and BHC,’’ says N P Agnihotri of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute. Ahmedabad-based CERC found pesticide residues in wheatflour. Fruits are not far behind. ‘‘Grapes, bananas and apples sold around Bangalore carry intolerably high levels of pesticides,’’ says T N Prakash of Bangalore-based University of Agricultural Sciences.
The question then is why is the government not stopping pesticides from becoming a part of our dinner table menu? Not only are there no standards for pesticide limits in soft drinks in India, there are none even for drinking water. Even more alarming — the limit for deadly arsenic and lead in soft drinks has been set 50 times higher than the permissible standards for bottled water or drinking water. Where is all this pesticide coming from? When India was busy increasing its food production by four times, correspondingly the pesticide consumption increased nine-fold.
Today, the pesticide industry in India is the fourth largest in the world and second largest in the Asia-Pacific region, after China. Estimates of its market value vary between Rs 3,800 and Rs 4,100 crore. It also has the dubious distinction of producing more than a dozen pesticides and insecticides that have been banned the world over. Adding to this mess is India’s unregulated food industry. Food products are licensed under the Food Products Order and further regulated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The BIS standards (Bureau of Indian Standards), are largely voluntary. With multiplicity of agencies, even these standards do not get enforced.
And if you want to go to the courts to tackle pesticides, you might as well give up. A pesticide cannot be de-registered even if there is scientific proof that it is harmful. The pesticide industry’s strength lies in a large and cultivated network of scientists, agriculturalists and officials who spring to its defence whenever it’s caught on the wrong foot. ‘‘Pesticide companies don’t adhere to the same standards in India,’’ says Ravi Agarwal of Shristi, an NGO fighting pesticide companies. After the CSE findings on pesticides in colas, people are now waiting for the government to act.
(Indian Express, August 10, 2003)
Nature strikes back
2005 will go down in our memory as the year we faced the maximum number of natural calamities
By S S Jeevan
The images were stark and stunning - gushing waters entering houses. Streets flooded. Electricity cut off. Carcasses floating around. Angry residents screaming for help. People frantically trying to reach makeshift relief shelters. A non-existent state machinery. And stampedes at relief centres. You could be forgiven for imagining that this is a scene from a flood-ravaged developing country. But this was Katrina - one of the most powerful hurricanes to hit the US in a very long time. The hurricane not only made the world’s only superpower look like a helpless Third World country, but it was also a wake up call to the world that something is terribly wrong with Mother Nature.
2005 will be best remembered as the year of disasters. Beginning with the heart-wrenching images of last year’s tsunami, disasters broke all geographical barriers this year - earthquakes in Kashmir, Iran and Indonesia, hurricanes in USA and Brazil, floods in Mumbai, Chennai and Bangalore and unprecedented torrential rains in China. The mayhem broke all barriers, both for developed as well as developing countries. If 1998 was the hottest year, 2005 was the costliest ever, with over US$ 200 billion dollars in economic losses as a result of weather-related natural disasters. This year’s record onslaught of disasters seems to corroborate what scientists have been saying for some time now: destructive weather patterns of recent years are due to climate change. And this could well be just the beginning.
Climate chaos
Earlier this year the scientific journal Nature said that hurricanes in the Atlantic and North Pacific had roughly doubled over 30 years. Scientific analysis also shows that storms have become more intense in the past several decades. Recently Science reported that the frequency of hurricanes had significantly increased over the past 35 years - the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, and the most powerful ones, had increased by over 80 percent over that period.
The situation was no different in India: Mumbai recorded 944 mm of rain in 24 hours, the greatest and most intense spell of rainfall ever recorded in India. Chennai is witnessing its worst floods in the last 25 years. And according to the United Nations Environment Programme, the number of tropical storms in 2005 surpassed all records - there have been 26 storms, five more than the previous record of 21. Of the 26, 16 reached hurricane force. Research across the world reveals that rapid urbanisation - and the huge amounts of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases that come with it - are responsible for this situation. In fact, Katrina and other hurricanes have belatedly galvanised the US public towards the burning issue of global warming, since the country is the biggest stumbling block towards ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty to arrest greenhouse gas emissions.
Triggering disasters
Scientists also believe that apart from climate change, increasing population and rapid development, especially in vulnerable areas, may be fuelling this crisis. For instance, one reason being cited for the flood devastation this year in Tamil Nadu is that of encroachment of catchment areas such as ponds and tanks.
According to one estimate, nearly 3,000 tanks in the state have been lost over the years, and now exist only on government records. The Madurai corporation office, for example, is located in a tank area. Such water bodies would not only have stored water, but also prevented large-scale flooding. According to a study conducted by Dhan, an organisation working towards regenerating water bodies throughout South India, many tanks have gone completely defunct due to various reasons such as heavy siltation, urbanisation and encroachments resulting in extremely poor storage capacity.
In some cases, tanks have been destroyed due to effluent discharge from tanneries and factories. It is well known that tanks are the most important sources for storage of rainwater; they retain ground water, besides preventing large-scale flooding. ‘‘Unplanned development, especially in vulnerable areas has turned natural disasters into major calamities resulting in heavy loss of life and property,’’ says Dhan’s executive director, M P Vasimalai.
Coping with calamities
Experts say that climate change is a larger problem that would require sincere and long-term commitments from rich countries to reduce carbon emissions. But in the short run, disaster preparedness and disaster management need urgent attention from governments, especially in developing countries. Because it is mostly the poor people, living downstream, who face the wrath of every natural calamity. Whether it was the floods in New Orleans or the earthquake in Kashmir, the deprived are the worst affected, even when it comes to relief - the death of over 40 flood-affected people at a relief centre in Chennai last week is a powerful reminder to this reality.
Environmentalist Anil Agarwal once said, ‘‘Disasters come and go but our government has become a permanent disaster.’’ It is not that India doesn’t have the scientific expertise to predict, prepare and contain a natural disaster. Just that there is a shocking lack of political will among governments to implement policy decisions. ‘‘We need to empower the stakeholders to face every disaster and minimise the response time. A vulnerability map must to be prepared for disaster-prone regions,’’ adds Vasimalai. Moreover, developmental planning must take into account simple logic like the fact that earthquakes don’t kill, buildings do. And town planners must make earthquakes less devastating. Just like protecting the vanishing mangroves in South India could have, to some extent, reduced the impact of the tsunami.
We also need to rethink whether diluting the coastal regulation zone rules for construction work can become counter-productive, as the threat of a future tsunami looms large over South Asia. In a year dominated by unending news of disasters, it was but appropriate that Parliament passed the Disaster Management Bill, 2005. Among other things, the bill mandates the setting up of a National Disaster Management Authority under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister. But the success of its implementation can only be gauged when the next calamity strikes.
(New Indian Express, December 25, 2005)
By S S Jeevan
The images were stark and stunning - gushing waters entering houses. Streets flooded. Electricity cut off. Carcasses floating around. Angry residents screaming for help. People frantically trying to reach makeshift relief shelters. A non-existent state machinery. And stampedes at relief centres. You could be forgiven for imagining that this is a scene from a flood-ravaged developing country. But this was Katrina - one of the most powerful hurricanes to hit the US in a very long time. The hurricane not only made the world’s only superpower look like a helpless Third World country, but it was also a wake up call to the world that something is terribly wrong with Mother Nature.
2005 will be best remembered as the year of disasters. Beginning with the heart-wrenching images of last year’s tsunami, disasters broke all geographical barriers this year - earthquakes in Kashmir, Iran and Indonesia, hurricanes in USA and Brazil, floods in Mumbai, Chennai and Bangalore and unprecedented torrential rains in China. The mayhem broke all barriers, both for developed as well as developing countries. If 1998 was the hottest year, 2005 was the costliest ever, with over US$ 200 billion dollars in economic losses as a result of weather-related natural disasters. This year’s record onslaught of disasters seems to corroborate what scientists have been saying for some time now: destructive weather patterns of recent years are due to climate change. And this could well be just the beginning.
Climate chaos
Earlier this year the scientific journal Nature said that hurricanes in the Atlantic and North Pacific had roughly doubled over 30 years. Scientific analysis also shows that storms have become more intense in the past several decades. Recently Science reported that the frequency of hurricanes had significantly increased over the past 35 years - the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, and the most powerful ones, had increased by over 80 percent over that period.
The situation was no different in India: Mumbai recorded 944 mm of rain in 24 hours, the greatest and most intense spell of rainfall ever recorded in India. Chennai is witnessing its worst floods in the last 25 years. And according to the United Nations Environment Programme, the number of tropical storms in 2005 surpassed all records - there have been 26 storms, five more than the previous record of 21. Of the 26, 16 reached hurricane force. Research across the world reveals that rapid urbanisation - and the huge amounts of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases that come with it - are responsible for this situation. In fact, Katrina and other hurricanes have belatedly galvanised the US public towards the burning issue of global warming, since the country is the biggest stumbling block towards ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty to arrest greenhouse gas emissions.
Triggering disasters
Scientists also believe that apart from climate change, increasing population and rapid development, especially in vulnerable areas, may be fuelling this crisis. For instance, one reason being cited for the flood devastation this year in Tamil Nadu is that of encroachment of catchment areas such as ponds and tanks.
According to one estimate, nearly 3,000 tanks in the state have been lost over the years, and now exist only on government records. The Madurai corporation office, for example, is located in a tank area. Such water bodies would not only have stored water, but also prevented large-scale flooding. According to a study conducted by Dhan, an organisation working towards regenerating water bodies throughout South India, many tanks have gone completely defunct due to various reasons such as heavy siltation, urbanisation and encroachments resulting in extremely poor storage capacity.
In some cases, tanks have been destroyed due to effluent discharge from tanneries and factories. It is well known that tanks are the most important sources for storage of rainwater; they retain ground water, besides preventing large-scale flooding. ‘‘Unplanned development, especially in vulnerable areas has turned natural disasters into major calamities resulting in heavy loss of life and property,’’ says Dhan’s executive director, M P Vasimalai.
Coping with calamities
Experts say that climate change is a larger problem that would require sincere and long-term commitments from rich countries to reduce carbon emissions. But in the short run, disaster preparedness and disaster management need urgent attention from governments, especially in developing countries. Because it is mostly the poor people, living downstream, who face the wrath of every natural calamity. Whether it was the floods in New Orleans or the earthquake in Kashmir, the deprived are the worst affected, even when it comes to relief - the death of over 40 flood-affected people at a relief centre in Chennai last week is a powerful reminder to this reality.
Environmentalist Anil Agarwal once said, ‘‘Disasters come and go but our government has become a permanent disaster.’’ It is not that India doesn’t have the scientific expertise to predict, prepare and contain a natural disaster. Just that there is a shocking lack of political will among governments to implement policy decisions. ‘‘We need to empower the stakeholders to face every disaster and minimise the response time. A vulnerability map must to be prepared for disaster-prone regions,’’ adds Vasimalai. Moreover, developmental planning must take into account simple logic like the fact that earthquakes don’t kill, buildings do. And town planners must make earthquakes less devastating. Just like protecting the vanishing mangroves in South India could have, to some extent, reduced the impact of the tsunami.
We also need to rethink whether diluting the coastal regulation zone rules for construction work can become counter-productive, as the threat of a future tsunami looms large over South Asia. In a year dominated by unending news of disasters, it was but appropriate that Parliament passed the Disaster Management Bill, 2005. Among other things, the bill mandates the setting up of a National Disaster Management Authority under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister. But the success of its implementation can only be gauged when the next calamity strikes.
(New Indian Express, December 25, 2005)
Out of gas?
The World’s oil reserves are drying up. Are we headed towards an energy crisis?
By S S Jeevan
In 1956, legendary geophysicist King Hubbert predicted that US oil production would peak in early 1970s and then slowly decline, in something resembling a bell-shaped curve. At that time, governments scoffed at him and experts rubbished his theory. But his prediction came true in 1970 and following the Arab oil embargo in 1973, prices of oil quadrupled. Forty-five years later, Kenneth S Deffeyes, another geophysicist and professor at Princeton University, used Hubbert’s methods to make fresh forecasts in 2001. It is a scary one: global oil production will ‘peak sometime between 2004 and 2008, and the world’s production of crude oil will fall, never to rise again’.
Is the world running out of oil? And is the 100-year petroleum era nearly over? Two recent developments give credence to this theory. Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that oil major Shell had over-estimated its proven oil reserves in Oman by as much as 40 per cent. The scandal led to the sacking of Philip Watts, Shell’s head of exploration and development. Shell may not be alone. Most oil companies and even governments are known to notoriously hype estimates of how much oil they have.
On March 31, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) decided to cut oil production by 1 million barrels per day, pointing towards a new era of higher oil prices, particularly as demand has increased sharply, especially in Asia. Even the respected New Scientist magazine recently said that peak production year is 2004. Virtually all experts believe that we will certainly be staring at an oil crisis much before the end of this decade.
A growing number of geologists and energy analysts say that global oil reserves may be dangerously exaggerated. “An amazing display of ignorance, deliberate ignorance, denial and obfuscation by governments, industry and academics on this topic,” as geologist Colin Campbell puts it in his award-winning book The Coming Oil Crisis.
In 2000, global production stood at 76 million barrels per day (MBD). By 2020, demand is forecast to reach 112 MBD, an increase of 47 per cent. But additions to proven reserves have virtually stopped and it is clear that pumping at present rates is unsustainable. With oil prices currently at around $38 a barrel, the highest for nearly 15 years, and the threat of diminishing supply, the question of reserves has assumed a greater importance than ever. Especially for a country such as India that is pitifully dependent on imports to take care of its energy needs.
Oil’s not well
India is one of the top six oil-consuming countries in the world. But it has just 0.4 per cent of the world’s petroleum reserves. More than 70 per cent of the country’s oil requirement is met by imports -- 45 per cent of which is from politically volatile countries in the Middle East. Between 1990 and 1999, net imports of crude oil and petroleum products more than doubled. So even a slight increase in international oil prices has huge repercussions on the economy. Consider this: if oil prices rise by US $1, India’s annual oil bill can increase by US $600 million. The International Monetary Fund estimates that every rise of US $5 in the cost of crude oil lowers India’s Gross Domestic Product by 0.5 per cent, raises inflation by 1.5 per cent, and leads to an outflow of Rs 18,000 crore.
Oil also fuels the transportation industry -- 75 per cent of transportation runs on oil. So the cost of transport fuel has a greater impact on the price line since trucks transport many goods. The volatile global oil market has had a telling effect on India. Since April 2000, the price of diesel has gone up by 40 per cent and that of petrol by 23 per cent. And this trend is only bound to get worse.
Estimates suggest that India’s GDP will grow at an average of 5.2 per cent per year till 2025, and oil demand will grow by 4 per cent a year. This translates to oil demand shooting up to 274 million tonnes in 2025. Now it is 115 million tonne a year. India did made some feeble attempts to procure gas from other sources. But these efforts came a cropper. Unocal of USA, which discovered gas in the Bibiyana field of northwest Bangladesh in 1998, wanted to build a 1,363-km pipeline to export gas. But the Bangladeshi government has been unable to decide if it wants to allow export of gas to India. Now officials are negotiating with Myanmar for its oil and gas reserves in the hope that Bangladesh will sign the agreement.
The pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan has been discussed for over 10 years. But nothing much has happened. An undersea pipeline fetching gas from Iran or Qatar is yet to take off. Another project to fetch gas from Oman has been shelved after eight years of study and expenses of Rs 330 crore. An undersea pipeline is anywhere between two to ten times as expensive as one over land. The process to deregulate the oil sector has been going on for some time now. But experts are quite pessimistic about the NELP (New Exploration Licensing Policy), which they say will not be able to meet the rising demand. Privatising the sector too could well be a stopgap arrangement, nothing short of buying time. Sooner or later oil reserves are going to dry up the world over.
A renewable crisis
It is fashionable to talk of renewable energy, even for the oil cartel bigwigs. Substitutes for oil exist: fusion, fuel cells, high-powered batteries, electric, solar, hybrid etc. But none of them are worth a thing because nobody has prototyped it to be sold on a large scale. The nexus of governments and oil industry is far too strong for even those wanting to make earnest efforts at renewable energy.
There is one other reason why renewable energy sources are at a disadvantage: subsidy. In most countries, taxpayers’ money is used to subsidise the price of fossil fuels, keeping them artificially low. Because of this renewable energy options remain uncompetitive. And cleaner-fuel cars are prohibitive to say the least. So any possibility of a transition to cleaner energy options like solar and wind power or fuel cells remains elusive. Is there a way out?
In 1987, the Indian government’s Renewable Energy Development Agency set up a number of programmes to reduce oil-based electricity usage. Today, we are the largest user of photovoltaic systems in the world. China too adopted a nationwide energy efficiency programme in the 1980s. Within a decade, overall energy intensity fell by 50 per cent even as its economy grew rapidly. As Hubbert’s predictions threaten come true in a fuel-guzzling world, we need to realize that we are heading towards a slippery future.
(New Indian Express, May 2, 2004)
By S S Jeevan
In 1956, legendary geophysicist King Hubbert predicted that US oil production would peak in early 1970s and then slowly decline, in something resembling a bell-shaped curve. At that time, governments scoffed at him and experts rubbished his theory. But his prediction came true in 1970 and following the Arab oil embargo in 1973, prices of oil quadrupled. Forty-five years later, Kenneth S Deffeyes, another geophysicist and professor at Princeton University, used Hubbert’s methods to make fresh forecasts in 2001. It is a scary one: global oil production will ‘peak sometime between 2004 and 2008, and the world’s production of crude oil will fall, never to rise again’.
Is the world running out of oil? And is the 100-year petroleum era nearly over? Two recent developments give credence to this theory. Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that oil major Shell had over-estimated its proven oil reserves in Oman by as much as 40 per cent. The scandal led to the sacking of Philip Watts, Shell’s head of exploration and development. Shell may not be alone. Most oil companies and even governments are known to notoriously hype estimates of how much oil they have.
On March 31, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) decided to cut oil production by 1 million barrels per day, pointing towards a new era of higher oil prices, particularly as demand has increased sharply, especially in Asia. Even the respected New Scientist magazine recently said that peak production year is 2004. Virtually all experts believe that we will certainly be staring at an oil crisis much before the end of this decade.
A growing number of geologists and energy analysts say that global oil reserves may be dangerously exaggerated. “An amazing display of ignorance, deliberate ignorance, denial and obfuscation by governments, industry and academics on this topic,” as geologist Colin Campbell puts it in his award-winning book The Coming Oil Crisis.
In 2000, global production stood at 76 million barrels per day (MBD). By 2020, demand is forecast to reach 112 MBD, an increase of 47 per cent. But additions to proven reserves have virtually stopped and it is clear that pumping at present rates is unsustainable. With oil prices currently at around $38 a barrel, the highest for nearly 15 years, and the threat of diminishing supply, the question of reserves has assumed a greater importance than ever. Especially for a country such as India that is pitifully dependent on imports to take care of its energy needs.
Oil’s not well
India is one of the top six oil-consuming countries in the world. But it has just 0.4 per cent of the world’s petroleum reserves. More than 70 per cent of the country’s oil requirement is met by imports -- 45 per cent of which is from politically volatile countries in the Middle East. Between 1990 and 1999, net imports of crude oil and petroleum products more than doubled. So even a slight increase in international oil prices has huge repercussions on the economy. Consider this: if oil prices rise by US $1, India’s annual oil bill can increase by US $600 million. The International Monetary Fund estimates that every rise of US $5 in the cost of crude oil lowers India’s Gross Domestic Product by 0.5 per cent, raises inflation by 1.5 per cent, and leads to an outflow of Rs 18,000 crore.
Oil also fuels the transportation industry -- 75 per cent of transportation runs on oil. So the cost of transport fuel has a greater impact on the price line since trucks transport many goods. The volatile global oil market has had a telling effect on India. Since April 2000, the price of diesel has gone up by 40 per cent and that of petrol by 23 per cent. And this trend is only bound to get worse.
Estimates suggest that India’s GDP will grow at an average of 5.2 per cent per year till 2025, and oil demand will grow by 4 per cent a year. This translates to oil demand shooting up to 274 million tonnes in 2025. Now it is 115 million tonne a year. India did made some feeble attempts to procure gas from other sources. But these efforts came a cropper. Unocal of USA, which discovered gas in the Bibiyana field of northwest Bangladesh in 1998, wanted to build a 1,363-km pipeline to export gas. But the Bangladeshi government has been unable to decide if it wants to allow export of gas to India. Now officials are negotiating with Myanmar for its oil and gas reserves in the hope that Bangladesh will sign the agreement.
The pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan has been discussed for over 10 years. But nothing much has happened. An undersea pipeline fetching gas from Iran or Qatar is yet to take off. Another project to fetch gas from Oman has been shelved after eight years of study and expenses of Rs 330 crore. An undersea pipeline is anywhere between two to ten times as expensive as one over land. The process to deregulate the oil sector has been going on for some time now. But experts are quite pessimistic about the NELP (New Exploration Licensing Policy), which they say will not be able to meet the rising demand. Privatising the sector too could well be a stopgap arrangement, nothing short of buying time. Sooner or later oil reserves are going to dry up the world over.
A renewable crisis
It is fashionable to talk of renewable energy, even for the oil cartel bigwigs. Substitutes for oil exist: fusion, fuel cells, high-powered batteries, electric, solar, hybrid etc. But none of them are worth a thing because nobody has prototyped it to be sold on a large scale. The nexus of governments and oil industry is far too strong for even those wanting to make earnest efforts at renewable energy.
There is one other reason why renewable energy sources are at a disadvantage: subsidy. In most countries, taxpayers’ money is used to subsidise the price of fossil fuels, keeping them artificially low. Because of this renewable energy options remain uncompetitive. And cleaner-fuel cars are prohibitive to say the least. So any possibility of a transition to cleaner energy options like solar and wind power or fuel cells remains elusive. Is there a way out?
In 1987, the Indian government’s Renewable Energy Development Agency set up a number of programmes to reduce oil-based electricity usage. Today, we are the largest user of photovoltaic systems in the world. China too adopted a nationwide energy efficiency programme in the 1980s. Within a decade, overall energy intensity fell by 50 per cent even as its economy grew rapidly. As Hubbert’s predictions threaten come true in a fuel-guzzling world, we need to realize that we are heading towards a slippery future.
(New Indian Express, May 2, 2004)
WATERSHED AWARD
Tamil Nadu is elated but the discontent in Karnataka over the Cauvery Tribunal order means that the last has not been heard in the long-drawn-out battle over sharing of the river’s water
By S S Jeevan and Stephen David
It’s a dispute that has fanned political embers in two southern states for over 50 years, testing the patience of the best of negotiators and making a mockery of attempts to arrive at a settlement by different parties. It has frustrated the efforts of successive chief ministers and widened the differences between the two states, leading to emotional outbursts and violent clashes. But as the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) gave its final verdict on February 5 after a wait of over 16 years, Tamil Nadu had reasons to feel relieved. “Justice has been done to the state,” said Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi.
Across the border in Karnataka, emotions ran high as politicians and the public cried foul. Cauvery, which originates in the Brahmagiri hill range in Karnataka and winds 780 km through three southern states before emptying into the Arabian Sea, is not only dear to farmers—it is also a big stepping-stone to wannabe politicos who find it easy to whip up passions on the politics of water.
The CWDT, comprising Chairman Justice N.P. Singh and members N.S. Rao and Sudhir Narain, in a unanimous award asked Karnataka to make available 419 tmcft to Tamil Nadu and 7 tmcft to Puducherry. This is better than what Tamil Nadu could have expected. In an interim award on June 25, 1991, the tribunal had directed Karnataka to release 205 tmcft each year to Tamil Nadu at Mettur, of which Tamil Nadu had to release 6 tmcft to Puducherry. Though the state had argued for 562 tmcft of water to meet irrigation, domestic and industrial requirements, most people seem satisfied with the verdict.
Experts believe that the final award eliminates the possibility of disputes over claims and counter-claims of quantity and quality of water. The CWDT has also fixed monthly release schedule and the award will come into effect within 90 days of its notification by the Centre. For Karunanidhi, the decision has come at the right time. Having been unable to achieve a breakthrough in the Mullaperiyar Dam with his Kerala counterpart, he has lost no time in taking the credit. “I have been discussing the issue with 11 Karnataka chief ministers since 1968. Only now a favourable decision has been arrived at,” he said. The Opposition in the state has, however, come out against the verdict. AIADMK chief J. Jayalalithaa said the state should move the Supreme Court to get more water.
In Karnataka, the tribunal’s order is not seen as the last word in the dispute. The last interim order by the tribunal in 1991 saw riots breaking out in south Karnataka after it was felt that the order weighed heavily in favour of Tamil Nadu. This time, 16,000 policemen were out in Bangalore alone. Karnataka Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy called for an all party meeting to take a decision on going for appeal against the “black Monday” order even as the Akhila Karnataka Gadi Horata Samiti, an umbrella organisation of pro-Kannada groups, announced a Karnataka bandh on February 8. Samiti president Vatal Nagaraj called the order a death sentence for the state. “You will have no drinking water in Bangalore if we follow this order,” he said.
But more than looking at the Cauvery as a source of water for cities like Bangalore, some fringe Kannada groups like Kannada Rakshana Vedike and many self-styled native saviours are going around parts of the state showing off their strength by forcing the Government to shut down schools and colleges.
But both Kumaraswamy and Karunanidhi feel that only a political dialogue can find a solution to the order. “It is a very bitter award for the state,” says Kumaraswamy, who is planning to cash in on his pro-farmer image and go on a statewide tour to talk about the Centre’s alleged ill-treatment to his state.
Cauvery is an emotive issue in Karnataka. That is why the late Rajkumar, the king of Kannada cinema, came out in public to lead a rally over Cauvery in September 2002 on behalf of the Kannada film and TV industry. The “silent” rally, dubbed ‘Cauvery nammadu’ (Cauvery is ours) featuring Kannada stars like Shivrajumar, Upendra, Ravichandran, Ramesh, Srinath, Devraj, Sudeep, Jayamala, Umasri, Sriraksha and Pramila Joshi had also brought Bangalore to a halt.
The plus side to the February 5 order is that the CWDT has accepted Karnataka’s argument for a distress formula and said that when the yield is less, the allocated shares will be proportionately reduced among all the states. It also lifted the 11.2 lakh hectare ceiling imposed on Karnataka, which means that the state is now free to make judicious use of the excess water when the monsoon is good. It has also given the green signal for taking up hydro-electric projects in the common reach boundary provided the specified water releases are ensured. An independent regulatory authority to monitor the monthly releases is also a welcome move by Tamil Nadu, but Karnataka is hoping that it will not be there when it appeals in the Supreme Court against the tribunal’s order. While making political capital is one thing, the ground reality that can help the Kumaraswamy regime now is blessings by the rain gods. Good rains in the intermediate and lower catchment areas result in an abundance of water that could help keep Kumaraswamy out of trouble. Meanwhile, the finalé to the dispute is yet to flood in.
(India Today, February 19, 2007)
By S S Jeevan and Stephen David
It’s a dispute that has fanned political embers in two southern states for over 50 years, testing the patience of the best of negotiators and making a mockery of attempts to arrive at a settlement by different parties. It has frustrated the efforts of successive chief ministers and widened the differences between the two states, leading to emotional outbursts and violent clashes. But as the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) gave its final verdict on February 5 after a wait of over 16 years, Tamil Nadu had reasons to feel relieved. “Justice has been done to the state,” said Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi.
Across the border in Karnataka, emotions ran high as politicians and the public cried foul. Cauvery, which originates in the Brahmagiri hill range in Karnataka and winds 780 km through three southern states before emptying into the Arabian Sea, is not only dear to farmers—it is also a big stepping-stone to wannabe politicos who find it easy to whip up passions on the politics of water.
The CWDT, comprising Chairman Justice N.P. Singh and members N.S. Rao and Sudhir Narain, in a unanimous award asked Karnataka to make available 419 tmcft to Tamil Nadu and 7 tmcft to Puducherry. This is better than what Tamil Nadu could have expected. In an interim award on June 25, 1991, the tribunal had directed Karnataka to release 205 tmcft each year to Tamil Nadu at Mettur, of which Tamil Nadu had to release 6 tmcft to Puducherry. Though the state had argued for 562 tmcft of water to meet irrigation, domestic and industrial requirements, most people seem satisfied with the verdict.
Experts believe that the final award eliminates the possibility of disputes over claims and counter-claims of quantity and quality of water. The CWDT has also fixed monthly release schedule and the award will come into effect within 90 days of its notification by the Centre. For Karunanidhi, the decision has come at the right time. Having been unable to achieve a breakthrough in the Mullaperiyar Dam with his Kerala counterpart, he has lost no time in taking the credit. “I have been discussing the issue with 11 Karnataka chief ministers since 1968. Only now a favourable decision has been arrived at,” he said. The Opposition in the state has, however, come out against the verdict. AIADMK chief J. Jayalalithaa said the state should move the Supreme Court to get more water.
In Karnataka, the tribunal’s order is not seen as the last word in the dispute. The last interim order by the tribunal in 1991 saw riots breaking out in south Karnataka after it was felt that the order weighed heavily in favour of Tamil Nadu. This time, 16,000 policemen were out in Bangalore alone. Karnataka Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy called for an all party meeting to take a decision on going for appeal against the “black Monday” order even as the Akhila Karnataka Gadi Horata Samiti, an umbrella organisation of pro-Kannada groups, announced a Karnataka bandh on February 8. Samiti president Vatal Nagaraj called the order a death sentence for the state. “You will have no drinking water in Bangalore if we follow this order,” he said.
But more than looking at the Cauvery as a source of water for cities like Bangalore, some fringe Kannada groups like Kannada Rakshana Vedike and many self-styled native saviours are going around parts of the state showing off their strength by forcing the Government to shut down schools and colleges.
But both Kumaraswamy and Karunanidhi feel that only a political dialogue can find a solution to the order. “It is a very bitter award for the state,” says Kumaraswamy, who is planning to cash in on his pro-farmer image and go on a statewide tour to talk about the Centre’s alleged ill-treatment to his state.
Cauvery is an emotive issue in Karnataka. That is why the late Rajkumar, the king of Kannada cinema, came out in public to lead a rally over Cauvery in September 2002 on behalf of the Kannada film and TV industry. The “silent” rally, dubbed ‘Cauvery nammadu’ (Cauvery is ours) featuring Kannada stars like Shivrajumar, Upendra, Ravichandran, Ramesh, Srinath, Devraj, Sudeep, Jayamala, Umasri, Sriraksha and Pramila Joshi had also brought Bangalore to a halt.
The plus side to the February 5 order is that the CWDT has accepted Karnataka’s argument for a distress formula and said that when the yield is less, the allocated shares will be proportionately reduced among all the states. It also lifted the 11.2 lakh hectare ceiling imposed on Karnataka, which means that the state is now free to make judicious use of the excess water when the monsoon is good. It has also given the green signal for taking up hydro-electric projects in the common reach boundary provided the specified water releases are ensured. An independent regulatory authority to monitor the monthly releases is also a welcome move by Tamil Nadu, but Karnataka is hoping that it will not be there when it appeals in the Supreme Court against the tribunal’s order. While making political capital is one thing, the ground reality that can help the Kumaraswamy regime now is blessings by the rain gods. Good rains in the intermediate and lower catchment areas result in an abundance of water that could help keep Kumaraswamy out of trouble. Meanwhile, the finalé to the dispute is yet to flood in.
(India Today, February 19, 2007)
MISSION THIRST AID
Restoration of traditional water tanks has rejuvenated life in parched areas and helped revive agriculture
It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. But the seemingly dead calmness that greets you in Vellinipatti, a village in Madurai district, belies the intense struggle of the local people for water. For years the 1,500 people of this village, who primarily depend on agriculture for livelihood, had to fight with each other over every drop of water available. Over 30 years of encroachments had turned their 1000-year-old, 27-acre water tank into a ruin and choked water supply. But today all that has changed. Their tank is overflowing with water.
Similarly there are hundreds of such tanks in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Puducherri that have been renovated through an initiative by NGO Dhan Foundation. “We have realised that reviving surface water through community efforts is probably the only way to take the pressure off from groundwater and restore livelihoods,” says Dhan’s executive director M.P. Vasimalai. Water tanks, one of the oldest man-made ecosystems, have irrigated about 6.5 million hectares of land since the early 1950s. But over the decades, their numbers had declined.
The road to their revival was meticulously planned. For instance, the organisation conducted a detailed survey of the water table with the help of local people, civil, hydraulic and irrigation engineers and then devised a restoration strategy. With inputs from government agencies and local communities, the tanks were renovated within a timespan of two-three months. The cost of the whole renovation project—Rs 20 lakh—was shared between the Government, the funding agency as well as the village community.
“As a social system, tanks have served and benefitted various groups of the village community, such as farmers, fishermen and especially the women who had to trudge long distances to fetch water,” says A. Gurunathan, a programme leader of the project. The support that the local people are giving to this initiative is also commendable. Earlier, encroachments in Athigarikulam tank in Andipatti of the Theni district had forced farmers to migrate to other villages due to the non-availability of water for irrigation. But with the initiative of the local people and with the assistance of the district collector, the tank was revived.
Courts too have stepped in periodically, giving a muchneeded fillip to these community initiatives. “The efforts have not just triggered a water movement, but given back the management of water in the hands of the community, as has been the case for centuries,” adds Vasimalai.
(India Today, May 7, 2007)
It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. But the seemingly dead calmness that greets you in Vellinipatti, a village in Madurai district, belies the intense struggle of the local people for water. For years the 1,500 people of this village, who primarily depend on agriculture for livelihood, had to fight with each other over every drop of water available. Over 30 years of encroachments had turned their 1000-year-old, 27-acre water tank into a ruin and choked water supply. But today all that has changed. Their tank is overflowing with water.
Similarly there are hundreds of such tanks in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Puducherri that have been renovated through an initiative by NGO Dhan Foundation. “We have realised that reviving surface water through community efforts is probably the only way to take the pressure off from groundwater and restore livelihoods,” says Dhan’s executive director M.P. Vasimalai. Water tanks, one of the oldest man-made ecosystems, have irrigated about 6.5 million hectares of land since the early 1950s. But over the decades, their numbers had declined.
The road to their revival was meticulously planned. For instance, the organisation conducted a detailed survey of the water table with the help of local people, civil, hydraulic and irrigation engineers and then devised a restoration strategy. With inputs from government agencies and local communities, the tanks were renovated within a timespan of two-three months. The cost of the whole renovation project—Rs 20 lakh—was shared between the Government, the funding agency as well as the village community.
“As a social system, tanks have served and benefitted various groups of the village community, such as farmers, fishermen and especially the women who had to trudge long distances to fetch water,” says A. Gurunathan, a programme leader of the project. The support that the local people are giving to this initiative is also commendable. Earlier, encroachments in Athigarikulam tank in Andipatti of the Theni district had forced farmers to migrate to other villages due to the non-availability of water for irrigation. But with the initiative of the local people and with the assistance of the district collector, the tank was revived.
Courts too have stepped in periodically, giving a muchneeded fillip to these community initiatives. “The efforts have not just triggered a water movement, but given back the management of water in the hands of the community, as has been the case for centuries,” adds Vasimalai.
(India Today, May 7, 2007)
BEAT ABOUT BUSH
He may not have a clean environmental track record. But as president, George W Bush will have to tread carefully
AS GEORGE W BUSH heads for the White House, a wave of scepticism greets this former Texas governor. Bush arrives in Washington with a weak public mandate and a divided congress. What that will mean for the environment, is a question that is as riddled as the unending recounts and court cases that preceded his ‘victory'. One thing is certain: Bush will not be able to take a hardline stance on any issue, even if he wants to.
Judging from his past, Bush has shown little interest in environmental issues. "He has displayed no normative commitment to matters of the environment or international equity,' says Jeff Romm of the University of Berkeley, USA. There is a fear that he may dismantle the ‘environmental legacy' of the Clinton administration. "There will be a hardening of the US position on issues such as landuse and forest ‘sinks' and a stronger emphasis on flexibility mechanisms such as emissions trading,' says Ujjayant Chakravorty of Emory University, USA.
Bush has often said that he seeks further scientific evidence of climate change before pursuing significant policies. Since there is substantial scientific evidence, many interpret Bush's position as one of denial or ignorance. His environmental record in Texas is abysmally poor. When he was governor, the state led all others in total emissions, note analysts. Environmentalists point to an upward spike in ozone violations since Bush became governor in 1995. Data from the US Environment Protection Agency and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission show there were 679 eight-hour ozone violations in Texas' eight major metropolitan areas in the 1995-99 period, up from 508 in 1990-94.
As for the negotiations associated with the Kyoto Protocol, Bush has said that he would not sign it in its present form, and many are sceptical if he will ever fully support a multilateral treaty that privileges ecological health over economic growth. Additionally, the US congress is on record saying that it will not ratify the protocol unless developing nations take on immediate commitments. This hamstrung the Clinton administration and will provide justification for foot-dragging by a Bush administration. "I think a Bush administration will drag its feet on climate change arguing that any significant movement on the issue will come at the expense of economic costs that he thinks the country is unwilling to endure,' says Paul Wapner of the American University. It would also mean a lower degree of enthusiasm for securing substantial funding for projects such as the clean development mechanisms (CDMs). The US private sector has shown interest in CDMs, as they stand to make a lot of money. They were disappointed that the CDMs did not materialise in the recently concluded climate talks at The Hague.
Speaking at a presidential debate at Wake Forest University on Oct 11, 2000, Bush said: "I'm not going to let the US carry the burden for cleaning up the world's air, like the Kyoto treaty would have done. China and India were exempted from that treaty.' He was only echoing what his father, former President George Bush, said at the Rio Summit in 1992, that the US "standard of living is not subject to negotiation.'
Therefore, a radical change in climate change policy is certainly not on the anvil.On the contrary, there may be a concerted effort to reduce the US dependence on foreign oil and increase drilling activity in the US. Incidentally, both Bush and vice president-elect Dick Cheney have been closely associated with oil companies in the past. The federal reserve economic models are heavily impacted by assumptions about oil prices, so whether it is a US $35 a barrel or US $22 barrel will make a significant difference on the US economy in the coming months. For Bush, US energy needs are about tapping more sources for oil. This is why he campaigned on opening up the Tongass Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil exploration. "He may try to drill for oil, but Democrats will be able to stop this as polls indicate popular opposition to such a policy,' feels Armin Rosencranz, professor at Stanford University, USA.
Some analysts believe that climate negotiators under a Bush administration cannot be much worse than the Clinton-Gore negotiators — both in terms of exploiting loopholes in the ‘trading' and ‘sinks' proposals and in violating US diplomatic commitments by insisting on developing country participation during the first round of the Kyoto protocol. "I would expect about the same level of intransigence from a Bush administration which will result only in intensifying the sense of diplomatic fatigue among the various delegations to the talks,' says Ross Gelbspan, author of The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-Up, The Prescription .
One group that will benefit from the Bush presidency is the large US NGOs such as the Sierra Club and the World Wide Fund for Nature. "Their best days were when Reagan and Bush were in office. Since then their funding campaigns have gone down. They stand to gain once again,' feels Adil Najam, assistant professor at Boston University, USA.
Endangered Act!
The fate of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 also hangs in the balance. Over the past 25 years, the ESA has been a critical tool to protect species and habitats across the country. The Clinton administration worked hard in a defensive mode over the past few years to protect the Act from being gutted. Many members of the Republicans, however, tried consistently to undermine the Act's provisions. The Democrats were largely successful — although funds were cut that compromise full implementation of the Act — but it will be a much different situation with a Republican administration. "Bush will probably try to gut ESA, and anything remotely green,' warns Tom Athanasiou of EcoEquity, a non-governmental organisation based in California.
Bush may take power away from the federal government and place it in the hands of local governmental officials. This spells bad news for the ESA, as the act depends upon federal agencies to investigate petitions to place certain species on the endangered list and to oversee the implementation of regulations that actually protect species at risk. Some observers believe that Bush may not make a dent on the ESA within a four-year term. "A conservative Congress failed to undermine it, so a divided Congress is less likely to do so,' says Romm. He might, however, undertake strong efforts to share ESA responsibilities with the states. "That may be advantageous to some regions like the Pacific coast, but could destroy all hope in others like the Gulf states and Alaska,' Romm adds.
Another aspect of this is that Bush strongly believes in the rights of property owners to do what they want on their land. The ESA has provisions for reducing the choices landowners have for landuse and this Bush feels is ‘anti-American.' That is, private property is a sacred notion for Bush and it trumps federal environmental protection efforts.
Down to Earth, January 2001
AS GEORGE W BUSH heads for the White House, a wave of scepticism greets this former Texas governor. Bush arrives in Washington with a weak public mandate and a divided congress. What that will mean for the environment, is a question that is as riddled as the unending recounts and court cases that preceded his ‘victory'. One thing is certain: Bush will not be able to take a hardline stance on any issue, even if he wants to.
Judging from his past, Bush has shown little interest in environmental issues. "He has displayed no normative commitment to matters of the environment or international equity,' says Jeff Romm of the University of Berkeley, USA. There is a fear that he may dismantle the ‘environmental legacy' of the Clinton administration. "There will be a hardening of the US position on issues such as landuse and forest ‘sinks' and a stronger emphasis on flexibility mechanisms such as emissions trading,' says Ujjayant Chakravorty of Emory University, USA.
Bush has often said that he seeks further scientific evidence of climate change before pursuing significant policies. Since there is substantial scientific evidence, many interpret Bush's position as one of denial or ignorance. His environmental record in Texas is abysmally poor. When he was governor, the state led all others in total emissions, note analysts. Environmentalists point to an upward spike in ozone violations since Bush became governor in 1995. Data from the US Environment Protection Agency and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission show there were 679 eight-hour ozone violations in Texas' eight major metropolitan areas in the 1995-99 period, up from 508 in 1990-94.
As for the negotiations associated with the Kyoto Protocol, Bush has said that he would not sign it in its present form, and many are sceptical if he will ever fully support a multilateral treaty that privileges ecological health over economic growth. Additionally, the US congress is on record saying that it will not ratify the protocol unless developing nations take on immediate commitments. This hamstrung the Clinton administration and will provide justification for foot-dragging by a Bush administration. "I think a Bush administration will drag its feet on climate change arguing that any significant movement on the issue will come at the expense of economic costs that he thinks the country is unwilling to endure,' says Paul Wapner of the American University. It would also mean a lower degree of enthusiasm for securing substantial funding for projects such as the clean development mechanisms (CDMs). The US private sector has shown interest in CDMs, as they stand to make a lot of money. They were disappointed that the CDMs did not materialise in the recently concluded climate talks at The Hague.
Speaking at a presidential debate at Wake Forest University on Oct 11, 2000, Bush said: "I'm not going to let the US carry the burden for cleaning up the world's air, like the Kyoto treaty would have done. China and India were exempted from that treaty.' He was only echoing what his father, former President George Bush, said at the Rio Summit in 1992, that the US "standard of living is not subject to negotiation.'
Therefore, a radical change in climate change policy is certainly not on the anvil.On the contrary, there may be a concerted effort to reduce the US dependence on foreign oil and increase drilling activity in the US. Incidentally, both Bush and vice president-elect Dick Cheney have been closely associated with oil companies in the past. The federal reserve economic models are heavily impacted by assumptions about oil prices, so whether it is a US $35 a barrel or US $22 barrel will make a significant difference on the US economy in the coming months. For Bush, US energy needs are about tapping more sources for oil. This is why he campaigned on opening up the Tongass Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil exploration. "He may try to drill for oil, but Democrats will be able to stop this as polls indicate popular opposition to such a policy,' feels Armin Rosencranz, professor at Stanford University, USA.
Some analysts believe that climate negotiators under a Bush administration cannot be much worse than the Clinton-Gore negotiators — both in terms of exploiting loopholes in the ‘trading' and ‘sinks' proposals and in violating US diplomatic commitments by insisting on developing country participation during the first round of the Kyoto protocol. "I would expect about the same level of intransigence from a Bush administration which will result only in intensifying the sense of diplomatic fatigue among the various delegations to the talks,' says Ross Gelbspan, author of The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-Up, The Prescription .
One group that will benefit from the Bush presidency is the large US NGOs such as the Sierra Club and the World Wide Fund for Nature. "Their best days were when Reagan and Bush were in office. Since then their funding campaigns have gone down. They stand to gain once again,' feels Adil Najam, assistant professor at Boston University, USA.
Endangered Act!
The fate of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 also hangs in the balance. Over the past 25 years, the ESA has been a critical tool to protect species and habitats across the country. The Clinton administration worked hard in a defensive mode over the past few years to protect the Act from being gutted. Many members of the Republicans, however, tried consistently to undermine the Act's provisions. The Democrats were largely successful — although funds were cut that compromise full implementation of the Act — but it will be a much different situation with a Republican administration. "Bush will probably try to gut ESA, and anything remotely green,' warns Tom Athanasiou of EcoEquity, a non-governmental organisation based in California.
Bush may take power away from the federal government and place it in the hands of local governmental officials. This spells bad news for the ESA, as the act depends upon federal agencies to investigate petitions to place certain species on the endangered list and to oversee the implementation of regulations that actually protect species at risk. Some observers believe that Bush may not make a dent on the ESA within a four-year term. "A conservative Congress failed to undermine it, so a divided Congress is less likely to do so,' says Romm. He might, however, undertake strong efforts to share ESA responsibilities with the states. "That may be advantageous to some regions like the Pacific coast, but could destroy all hope in others like the Gulf states and Alaska,' Romm adds.
Another aspect of this is that Bush strongly believes in the rights of property owners to do what they want on their land. The ESA has provisions for reducing the choices landowners have for landuse and this Bush feels is ‘anti-American.' That is, private property is a sacred notion for Bush and it trumps federal environmental protection efforts.
Down to Earth, January 2001
SMALL TOWNS, BIG MESS
Something terrible is going on in India's small cities. There are warning signals from whatever data is available — and that is not much, as the Central Pollution Control Board is yet to publish data for 1997. The latest data would provide a more accurate picture of the present air quality status. Visits to a couple of small towns in India overwhelmingly point to a growing menace of air pollution. S S JEEVAN reports from Dehradun and Gajaraula
Dehradun
It is a sight which Suresh Rawat, a hotelier in the hill station of Mussourie that overlooks the town of Dehradun in Uttar Pradesh, could do without. Every winter, thick blue smoke envelops this town, casting a shadow on one of the most picturesque valleys in Asia. "Doon is a broad valley. This sometimes gives rise to a lateral inversion that does not allow hot air to rise from the valley. As a result the smoke settles over the valley," says Hugh Gantzer, resident of Mussourie and a member of a monitoring committee set up by the Supreme Court to restore the "natural normalcy of the Doon Valley".
Down in the valley, Tarun Pal, a resident of Dehradun, is wary of the first rains of the monsoon. "They leave scars on my car," he says. "I am sure that the rains here are acidic, although no studies have been conducted," says Anoop Kumar, editor of Doon City Chronicle, a local magazine.
Air pollution in Dehradun has been in the headlines for some time now. More than a decade ago it was limestone mining, but this was banned in 1986 by the Supreme Court in response to a public interest petition. "Although the SPM levels have shown a downward trend over the years, they are still above the prescribed limits at all the monitoring sites in Dehradun," says Shobha Chaturvedi, assistant scientific officer with the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB). In 1997, the city's annual average SPM level was more than twice the permissible limit and the maximum spm level was more than thrice the standard. Moreover, SPM levels were higher in residential areas compared to industrial areas.
Today, vehicular emissions are the main reason for air pollution. According to the road transport authority, only 10,000 vehicles were registered in Dehradun between 1937 and 1967. There are more than 126,452 vehicles plying on the roads at present, more than 100,000 of these are two-wheelers. However, the length and width of roads have increased only marginally. Result: traffic congestion. "Air pollution is concentrated in the middle of the town. The Saharanpur road, Gandhi road and the Railway station areas are the most polluted areas," says Kumar.
A study by the Dehradun-based People's Science Institute (PSI), a non-governmental organisation, says, "The abnormally high levels of SPM in Dehradun are mainly due to natural dust and particulate-laden smoke from diesel-fuelled vehicles, especially Vikrams, trucks, buses and three-wheelers." The impact on public health has been telling. PSI functionaries say the prevalence of respiratory diseases has risen alarmingly over the past decade and most cases are linked to air pollution. The institute conducted a study in which it selected a few plants and monitored the growth of their leaves at four sites in the town and one control site far away from the town. "We found that the growth of the bougainvillaea, lantana, litchi and mango was severely hampered by air pollution. However, some pollution-tolerant plants like jambolan (jamun) were not affected," says Anita Dutta of PSI.
"Vikrams are petrol-driven, but the replacement rate of petrol engines by diesel engines is about 99 per cent," Kumar says. Officially, about 2,050 Vikrams are registered in the town. "But there are several Vikrams registered in nearby towns like Saharanpur plying in Dehradun," says Ravi Chopra of PSI.
Another cause for concern are two-wheelers. "In the absence of a public transport system - and Vikrams being the only alternative - most middle-class people prefer scooters," says Gantzer. "There is also a class distinction attached with Vikrams. Most people prefer their own vehicles," adds Kumar. He points out that a survey conducted in the late 1980s revealed that on an average, each Dehradun family owned two vehicles. In some cases it was even three. "This number must have increased considerably by now," Kumar comments. Till a viable alternative is found to Vikrams, the sight that a tourist will behold from Mussourie, will not be a pleasant one.
GAJARAULA
There is no evidence more conclusive about the state of air pollution in Gajraula, a sleepy industrial town in Uttar Pradesh, than the air itself. As one enters the town, breathing becomes difficult. "The residents of the town have got used to the air quality. But visitors generally have difficulty in breathing," says an engineer who works in one of the polluting industrial units. CPCB data for 1997 show both the maximum and average levels of SPM way above the prescribed limit.
Gajraula was declared an industrial town in 1981-82. Within a few years, a number of industrial units - mainly chemical and pharmaceutical factories - sprung up. "After the setting up of these units, air pollution has increased at an alarming rate. We do not know what the pollution control board officials are doing. I am sure that these officials are fudging the data, because if an independent study is conducted, the figures would be higher," says Jitendra M Shukla, president, Nagrik Suraksha Samithi, a local organisation campaigning against industrial pollution.
A visit to the office of the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) in Moradabad can be quite revealing. Although admitting that industrial units are polluting the air, the regional officer, R C Chowdary, says pollution is only to be expected in an industrial town. "The industrial units have installed pollution control equipment," he justifies. "We have all the requisite pollution control equipment," says Ajay Jain of J K Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Then why is the air polluted? "Poor enforcement," explains Shukla. Repeated visits by the Down To Earth reporter to the UPPCB monitoring station in the town proved futile as there was nobody at the office. CPCB officials in Delhi reveal that of the 20 large- and medium-scale industrial units in Gajraula, nine are classified as polluting.
The health of the residents is in jeopardy. There has been a steep rise in prevalence of asthma, respiratory problems and lung diseases after the industries have come up. Says N Mathur, superintendent of the government hospital in Gajraula: "Sixty-seventy per cent of my patients complain of respiratory problems. Cases of chronic lung problems are increasing. In 1985-86, I used to get an average 5-10 patients every month with respiratory problems. Now it is 30-40 patients," he says. Many of his patients are employed in the industrial units.
Cultivable land has undergone a change after the setting up of the industrial units. Mango, that was extensively cultivated here, has now been replaced by sugarcane and rice. "My mango trees were affected by air pollution from industrial units," says Tirath Ram, whose fields lie just outside the town, and who has now given up growing mango trees. Surely, if scientific studies are conducted on the state of air pollution in Gajraula, the results will be alarming. Till then, the town continues to suffer in silence.
(Down To Earth, Oct 1999)
Dehradun
It is a sight which Suresh Rawat, a hotelier in the hill station of Mussourie that overlooks the town of Dehradun in Uttar Pradesh, could do without. Every winter, thick blue smoke envelops this town, casting a shadow on one of the most picturesque valleys in Asia. "Doon is a broad valley. This sometimes gives rise to a lateral inversion that does not allow hot air to rise from the valley. As a result the smoke settles over the valley," says Hugh Gantzer, resident of Mussourie and a member of a monitoring committee set up by the Supreme Court to restore the "natural normalcy of the Doon Valley".
Down in the valley, Tarun Pal, a resident of Dehradun, is wary of the first rains of the monsoon. "They leave scars on my car," he says. "I am sure that the rains here are acidic, although no studies have been conducted," says Anoop Kumar, editor of Doon City Chronicle, a local magazine.
Air pollution in Dehradun has been in the headlines for some time now. More than a decade ago it was limestone mining, but this was banned in 1986 by the Supreme Court in response to a public interest petition. "Although the SPM levels have shown a downward trend over the years, they are still above the prescribed limits at all the monitoring sites in Dehradun," says Shobha Chaturvedi, assistant scientific officer with the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB). In 1997, the city's annual average SPM level was more than twice the permissible limit and the maximum spm level was more than thrice the standard. Moreover, SPM levels were higher in residential areas compared to industrial areas.
Today, vehicular emissions are the main reason for air pollution. According to the road transport authority, only 10,000 vehicles were registered in Dehradun between 1937 and 1967. There are more than 126,452 vehicles plying on the roads at present, more than 100,000 of these are two-wheelers. However, the length and width of roads have increased only marginally. Result: traffic congestion. "Air pollution is concentrated in the middle of the town. The Saharanpur road, Gandhi road and the Railway station areas are the most polluted areas," says Kumar.
A study by the Dehradun-based People's Science Institute (PSI), a non-governmental organisation, says, "The abnormally high levels of SPM in Dehradun are mainly due to natural dust and particulate-laden smoke from diesel-fuelled vehicles, especially Vikrams, trucks, buses and three-wheelers." The impact on public health has been telling. PSI functionaries say the prevalence of respiratory diseases has risen alarmingly over the past decade and most cases are linked to air pollution. The institute conducted a study in which it selected a few plants and monitored the growth of their leaves at four sites in the town and one control site far away from the town. "We found that the growth of the bougainvillaea, lantana, litchi and mango was severely hampered by air pollution. However, some pollution-tolerant plants like jambolan (jamun) were not affected," says Anita Dutta of PSI.
"Vikrams are petrol-driven, but the replacement rate of petrol engines by diesel engines is about 99 per cent," Kumar says. Officially, about 2,050 Vikrams are registered in the town. "But there are several Vikrams registered in nearby towns like Saharanpur plying in Dehradun," says Ravi Chopra of PSI.
Another cause for concern are two-wheelers. "In the absence of a public transport system - and Vikrams being the only alternative - most middle-class people prefer scooters," says Gantzer. "There is also a class distinction attached with Vikrams. Most people prefer their own vehicles," adds Kumar. He points out that a survey conducted in the late 1980s revealed that on an average, each Dehradun family owned two vehicles. In some cases it was even three. "This number must have increased considerably by now," Kumar comments. Till a viable alternative is found to Vikrams, the sight that a tourist will behold from Mussourie, will not be a pleasant one.
GAJARAULA
There is no evidence more conclusive about the state of air pollution in Gajraula, a sleepy industrial town in Uttar Pradesh, than the air itself. As one enters the town, breathing becomes difficult. "The residents of the town have got used to the air quality. But visitors generally have difficulty in breathing," says an engineer who works in one of the polluting industrial units. CPCB data for 1997 show both the maximum and average levels of SPM way above the prescribed limit.
Gajraula was declared an industrial town in 1981-82. Within a few years, a number of industrial units - mainly chemical and pharmaceutical factories - sprung up. "After the setting up of these units, air pollution has increased at an alarming rate. We do not know what the pollution control board officials are doing. I am sure that these officials are fudging the data, because if an independent study is conducted, the figures would be higher," says Jitendra M Shukla, president, Nagrik Suraksha Samithi, a local organisation campaigning against industrial pollution.
A visit to the office of the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) in Moradabad can be quite revealing. Although admitting that industrial units are polluting the air, the regional officer, R C Chowdary, says pollution is only to be expected in an industrial town. "The industrial units have installed pollution control equipment," he justifies. "We have all the requisite pollution control equipment," says Ajay Jain of J K Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Then why is the air polluted? "Poor enforcement," explains Shukla. Repeated visits by the Down To Earth reporter to the UPPCB monitoring station in the town proved futile as there was nobody at the office. CPCB officials in Delhi reveal that of the 20 large- and medium-scale industrial units in Gajraula, nine are classified as polluting.
The health of the residents is in jeopardy. There has been a steep rise in prevalence of asthma, respiratory problems and lung diseases after the industries have come up. Says N Mathur, superintendent of the government hospital in Gajraula: "Sixty-seventy per cent of my patients complain of respiratory problems. Cases of chronic lung problems are increasing. In 1985-86, I used to get an average 5-10 patients every month with respiratory problems. Now it is 30-40 patients," he says. Many of his patients are employed in the industrial units.
Cultivable land has undergone a change after the setting up of the industrial units. Mango, that was extensively cultivated here, has now been replaced by sugarcane and rice. "My mango trees were affected by air pollution from industrial units," says Tirath Ram, whose fields lie just outside the town, and who has now given up growing mango trees. Surely, if scientific studies are conducted on the state of air pollution in Gajraula, the results will be alarming. Till then, the town continues to suffer in silence.
(Down To Earth, Oct 1999)
WTO: DOHA ROUND
Neither a Victory for the North, Nor a Loss for the South
By Anju Sharma with S S Jeevan
The choice of venue was clever and the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center added to the security paranoia. The result was that it combined to give trade negotiators somewhat of a breather when they met in Doha, Qatar, for the fourth ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The massive street protests that marked the Seattle round were non-existent at the Doha ministerial. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks against the US, anti-globalisation protesters were suddenly disoriented, and several plans for protests at Doha were cancelled. "Are we talking about anti-capitalisation, anti-globalisation or anti-Americanism? It didn’t matter before September 11; now it does," says Tom Spencer, director of the European Centre for Public Affairs.
Besides, the organisers were not taking any chances, and the conference venue looked like a fortress. The perceived threat of terrorism was used as an effective way of stopping anyone opposed to the WTO — out of sight, and perhaps out of mind.
With the debacle of Seattle looming large, the negotiators were under pressure to come up with results. And at the end of the six-day marathon meeting, a deal was struck. It was agreed to start negotiations on a new trade round to culminate in 2005. For the North, which was keen to bring issues of investment and competition into global trade negotiations, it was a "given". Most importantly, they got an agreement for a new round of negotiations. The South lost most battles, but was relieved to still be in the reckoning. Most gains were in the backroom "bilateral deals" — a euphemism for arm-twisting.
Give and take!
The biggest gain for developing countries was on patents and drugs. Countries were granted the right to break the monopoly over patented drugs in case of health emergencies like epidemics. Analysts feel that the issue was clinched only due to the US’ predicament over anthrax drugs. But the drug industry has dismissed Doha as a political statement and not legally binding. The European Union (EU) brought an agreement within reach by making a concession on agricultural subsidies. It agreed to "reductions, with the view to phasing out", of agricultural export subsidies — something it had always resisted. However, a qualifying phrase was included in the agreement, which said the EU’s concession was made "without prejudging the outcome of the (final) negotiations". "It was clear from the very beginning that we have to give and to take also something," said European agriculture commissioner, Franz Fischler. In return, WTO members accepted EU demands that investment, competition and environment rules be put on the agenda.
The US agreed to relax some import curbs. And it got an assurance on the anti-dumping issue. The US has given assurance of greater discipline in imposition of anti-dumping provisions. But on the issue of greatest concern to the South, textiles, the US refused to advance the deadline for quota reduction from January 2005. It has, in fact, threatened to impose non-tariff barriers on other imports if pushed.
In return for the concessions made by the EU, negotiators wanted stronger language on trade and protecting the environment. Developing countries, however, did not want the environment to be linked to trade rules. They felt that environmental concerns would be used as an excuse for renewed protectionism. For now, the issue has been put on the backburner. The EU has won the right to talks within two years on how to improve the investment climate for international companies abroad, and how to introduce competition policy into trade law.
The Indian act: deal breaker
India made all the right noises at the meeting, but came back with very little. Indian commerce and industry minister Murasoli Maran, who called WTO "a necessary evil", was seen as the champion of developing countries. He was also the biggest stumbling block during negotiations. India, which has just a share of 0.7 per cent of world trade, was wary that a clause on competition would allow foreign companies too much freedom to operate in the country. India’s intransigence led to the extension of the conference by a day. Till the last day, the minister seemed to block a declaration. In an effort to reach an agreement, many trade ministers held several closed-door meetings with Maran. But nothing worked. Media reports suggest that the issue was clinched only when the Qatari chief negotiator Yousef Hussein Kamal held a one-to-one meeting with the minister. That meeting changed everything. India finally fell in line. What transpired at that meeting, however, remains unknown.
Maran is being showered with encomiums for holding his ground at Doha. In reality, he has only bought more time with regards to issues such as investment and competition. The delay is being seen as a victory — typical of Indian bureaucracy’s shortsightedness. The strategy is to block a proposal without proposing a new one. But as countries tighten the noose in the forthcoming negotiations, India will be forced to accept what it fought all the while.
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT
Can green mean free? The debate reached a boiling point in Doha, but remained inconclusive
Midway through the Doha meeting, EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy visited Rainbow Warrior, the mascot ship of the international environment activist organisation Greenpeace, anchored in the Qatari seawaters. "Some balance between the trade rules and environmental protection is to be struck, that is why we are here," Lamy said on board his high-visibility platform. The gesture might have struck a chord back home in Europe, but most countries from either side of the economic divide did not agree.
The EU had made it abundantly clear even before the ministerial that inclusion of environmental concerns was in effect a sine qua non for the EU’s agreement to ambitious negotiations on cutting back state supports for agriculture. The EU move is perceived as a means to retain some green barriers to its agriculture markets when its agricultural subsidies are eventually phased out as envisaged in the Doha declaration. It is pushing for recognition of the ‘multifunctionality of agriculture’. Under this concept, agriculture does not just serve the purpose of providing food but also helps in maintaining rural communities, protect the environment if non-intensive methods are used, preserve culture and promote sustainable development. This possible connection between agriculture and environment is seen as one of the reasons why the EU is pushing environment at the WTO.
The South opposes bringing the issues related to environmental protection into the mainstream of multilateral trade talks, saying their potential abuse as green protectionism cannot be ruled out. In the past, the demands for linkages between trade and environment have come not only from Northern non-governmental organisations (NGOS), but also from Northern industry and labour unions, which stand to benefit if environmental standards are applied to trade.
Developing countries also fear the huge costs associated with greener technologies, which will be unbearable by their domestic industries. It could make their goods uncompetitive in western markets. This unequivocal opposition to greening of trade is what brings the motley crew of poor countries together. "If there’s one thing that unites developing countries, it is opposition to negotiations on trade and environment," said a developing country official before the meeting. "If the EU says it’s a deal-breaker, so be it. There are just too many people against it." The Republican Bush administration shares these views (unlike the democrats), and would rather the green issues remain outside the purview of the WTO, as they could harm the interests of US industry. For instance, US biotechnology firms stand to lose out, due to the wariness against genetically modified (GM) food.
Despite this opposition, the EU threat that it would negotiate on liberalising agricultural trade only if other WTO members agree to talk on trade and environment, eventually worked. The final ministerial declaration controversially proposes negotiations to enhance "mutual supportiveness of trade and environment". The declaration reiterates the EU demand seeking clarification on the relationship between the WTO rules and "trade obligations set out in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAS)" instructs the WTO’s committee on trade and environment (CTE) to give special attention to, among other things, ecolabelling suggests reduction and even elimination of trade barriers to environmental goods and services, a move that has been mutely welcomed by developing nations seeks to further strengthening the links between trade and environment by proposing negotiations on "procedures for regular information exchange" between the relevant MEA bodies and their counterparts in the WTO.
Indian industry minister Murasoli Maran dismissed the environment provisions in the declaration as "the price we have to pay for something in agriculture". "We have marginally agreed on environment, which to a large extent, is a political acknowledgement of its importance rather than rebalancing of rights and obligations," he said.
The environmental measures listed in the Doha declaration are not new. They have been part of the discussions at the CTE for several years now, and have been discussed in by the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism before that. CTE was set up in 1995 and is composed of all WTO members and a number of observers from inter-governmental organizations. It functions with the understanding that "it does not modify the rights and obligations of any WTO member under the WTO agreements." A ten-point agenda forms the basis of the committee’s work, which includes decisions on environment measures for trade, ecolabelling, environmentally unfriendly subsidies and intellectual property rights.
CTE has not reached any conclusions due to the controversial nature of the issues. In 1996, it presented an inconclusive report at the Singapore ministerial due to the fact that its members had failed to reach agreements on most of the issues under discussion. The ministerial made note of the "the breadth and complexity of the issues covered by the committee" and "further work needs to be undertaken on all items of its agenda". The committee was directed to carry on its work.
Although CTE discussions have been unfruitful, the trade and environment debate is being addressed in other fora. As the pressure from Northern civil society to take on board environmental concerns increases, the dispute settlement mechanism has come out more and more in support of green issues. In a recent ruling on the shrimp-turtle case, a WTO appellate body (AB) endorses a US ban on shrimp imports from countries that do not use turtle excluder devices to prevent harming sea turtles (see box: In through the backdoor). These judgments cannot be taken lightly, since they are making law by setting precedents.
In October 2001, an appellate body set up under the WTO ruled that the US was justified in banning shrimp exports from countries that do not use ‘turtle excluder devices’ (TEDs) to prevent sea turtle mortalities while catching shrimp. Through this ruling, the WTO has endorsed unilateral, extrajurisdictional action by nations. Moreover, it has endorsed discrimination between products based on their process and production methods (PPM).
The shrimp-turtle issue goes back to 1996, when the US banned shrimp imports from countries that did not use TEDs. India, Malaysia, Thailand and Pakistan took the matter to the WTO, contending that the US was trying to dictate the environment policy to be followed by other countries, and imposing its unilateral decision on other countries. They said the US ban amounted to disguised protectionism.
In 1998, the WTO dispute settlement panel (DSP) dismissed the US ban on grounds that it was discriminating among the exporters. The DSP stated that the US action was arbitrary and inconsistent with article XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which does not allow WTO members to impose import restrictions. Although the ruling did not go to the extent of rubbishing the unilateral nature of the US ban, the WTO’s dispute settlement body won new respect amongst developing countries for this ruling.
But in response to a US appeal, a WTO appellate body (AB) partially overruled the DSP ruling. The AB ruled that the US law did not violate the WTO obligations and was covered under an exception to the GATT (article XX (g)) rules for measures relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources. However, the AB felt that the US ban resulted in unfair discrimination between exporting nations, since the process of certification was to be decided by the US agencies alone. Hence there was a lack of transparency and participation in the process. Also, the US guidelines gave exporting countries little time to implement the mandatory use of TEDs. In August 1998, the US changed its guidelines to accommodate the WTO ruling. Instead of an outright ban on shrimp exports from the four countries, it made certification that TEDs were used essential on a shipment-to-shipment basis.
Malaysia and India were not satisfied with these changes, and wanted a complete lifting of the shrimp import restriction. Malaysia filed a complaint in late 2000, and sought a review of the whole issue and requested the re-establishment of the original panel to examine whether the US had, in fact, complied with the appellate body findings. A compliance panel, set up to look into the case, in May 2001 ruled in favour of the US, concluding that the US was not obliged to lift its import ban to implement the 1998 appellate body report, which requested the US to bring its import ban into conformity with WTO trade rules.
The latest ruling indicates that the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism is giving in to pressure from environmental groups, and protests by Southern governments to keep environmental concerns out of the trade agenda may eventually prove futile. Morevover, as the EU faces pressure from its civil society on the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the Union is unlikely to let go of issues such as the primacy of public health, the precautionary principle, and process and production methods (PPMS).
In June 2000, seven months after non-governmental organisations demanded that the WTO look beyond trade concerns at the doomed Seattle ministerial, a WTO dispute settlement panel (DSP) ruled in favour of public health and against free trade for the first time, in a case involving Canadian asbestos exports. WTO representatives lost no time in announcing that the decision "disproves charges by radical environmental and human rights bodies that the organisation works in favour of big business by giving free trade interests preference over other concerns".
Canada is the world’s largest exporter of chrysotile (white) asbestos — in 1999 alone, its four mines based in French-speaking Quebec produced 345,000 tonnes of chrysotile, worth roughly US $110 million. But health concerns lead several European countries to ban the import and use of this material in many countries that had, until then, been strong import allies. The World Health Organisation (WHO) lists asbestos fibres as carcinogenic. France was the first among the EU countries to implement such a ban, starting in January 1997. Other EU nations followed, and as of late 2000, most EU member states, excluding Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg, had similar bans in place.
Canada filed a complaint with the WTO against the French ban in May 1998. A dispute settlement panel (DSP) was set up in November 1998. The DSP first decided that imported Canadian asbestos and domestically produced substitutes (polyvinyl alcohol or PVA, cellulose and glass) are ‘like-products’, since they are similar in properties, nature and quality and had similar end-uses. Therefore, the panel first decided that the ban was not a question of health, but rather a question of GATT article III on national treatment, or equal treatment of foreign products and their domestic equivalents. Following the DSP’s ruling that asbestos was indeed a ‘like product’, France was required to justify its ‘violation’ through article XX (b), which allows for specific general exceptions to the WTO rules, in support of health and environment. In September 2000, the DSP ruled in favor of France, setting a new precedent by allowing a WTO member to use article XX (b) to impose trade measures for the first time. Canada decided to appeal, but the WTO’s appellate body (AB) ruled again in March 2001, to once again uphold the decision in France’s favour.
This case could also have an impact on interpretations of the scope of the agreement on technical barriers to trade (TBT), which explicitly rules against discrimination of final products based on the process of their production. Canada had asserted that France’s ban on asbestos was effectively a regulation of the characteristics and process of production, while the European Community (EC), representing France, asserted that the ban was not. The DSP agreed with France, and ruled that the French ban was not based on the characteristics and process of production, and thus not covered by the TBT agreement. The AB reversed this finding, taking the view that product characteristics could be presented in a positive or negative light.
In this case, France had specified that imports shall not contain asbestos fibres. "The effect of this ruling is that countries can circumvent a product and production method (PPM) analysis, at least as it relates to goods containing a banned product, by simply outlawing the hazardous substance as a whole," says London-based trade and environment analyst Kevin Gray.
Developing country concerns over green protectionism are legitimate, but they cannot simply continue to oppose negotiations on the links between trade and environment — they have to take them head on to make sure their concerns are addressed through legitimate multilateral negotiations, rather than through the back door, by a few people on a dispute settlement panel or appellate body.
Conflict with environment treaties
For instance, the discussion on the relationship between trade rules and MEAS has been uneasy to say the least. While the WTO currently allows importing countries the freedom to choose their own standards in the interests of public health and the environment in their own countries, they are not allowed to impose standards aimed at improving health or environmental practices of exporting countries. But can environmental standards be imposed on another country if a multilateral treaty has been signed to this effect? The EU considers it necessary to ensure that when there is dispute concerning environment-related trade measures, linkages between trade and environment are taken into account so that one does not jeopardise the fulfillment of the other.
Developing countries see the debate on MEAS as a non-trade issue, but it is in fact in their interests to sort out the issue once and for all, rather than leave the issues open for interpretation by the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism. Several feasible options have been suggested in the past, such as moving environment-trade conflicts to tribunals provided specifically under MEAS; or moving such disputes to the International Court of Justice. But even before agreeing to a venue, developing countries must insist on clarification on a set of overarching rules. For instance, they should insist on a provision that forbids the use of trade sanctions to conserve the global environment, since such sanctions can only be used by the more economically powerful nations against the less economically powerful. Extra-jurisdictional and unilateral action should not be possible even within a multilateral agreement.
Northern green activists were not entirely happy with the outcome at Doha, though for reasons other than those troubling developing countries. The declaration states that negotiations on the relationship between trade and MEAS shall not prejudice the WTO rights of any Member that is not a party to the MEA in question. Greenpeace fears that this phrase would prove a powerful disincentive for countries to sign the MEAS. The declaration also states that negotiations on the effect of environmental measures on market access and the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) accord shall not add to or diminish the rights and obligations of Members under existing WTO agreements. These environmental activists feel that the final outcome of the negotiations on these points could end up as footnotes rather than effect any change in the WTO rules.
Marks of shame?
Ecolabelling started out as a consumer awareness aid to help them make better choices. The EU penchant for ecolabelling was on full display in all the pre-Doha drafts. Ecolabelling is a way to ensure that all exports are harmless to humans and the environment — in itself a rational and benign idea. However, its practice could erect new insurmountable barriers to exports from the poorer countries.
Ecolabelling requires that products be marked environmentally friendly not just because they do not directly harm the environment but also indirectly. At the centre of the debate is the ppm criterion which looks at the environmental-friendliness of the technologies used to make a product rather than the superficially judge the product, the final outcome of the process. Life cycle criterion is another specification applied for ecolabelling. This looks at the ppm, the product and how the product will be eventually disposed, making ecolabelling an even more stringent requirement. This has raised hackles in the developing world where state-of-the-art green technologies are seldom considered for their prohibitive costs. Insisting on ppm for labelling would bar most of poorer countries’ exports from the northern markets. At the moment this agenda has only been put on a fast track, but it is not for negotiations.
Pragmatic investment
Developing countries must try and use global investment rules for their benefit
Attempts by a few developing countries, including India and Malaysia, to keep investment out of the Doha declaration failed. The declaration calls for ‘clarifying elements’ of a possible multilateral investment framework, and recognises the need for a multilateral framework to secure transparent, stable and predictable conditions for long-term cross-border investment, particularly foreign investment that will contribute to the expansion of trade. A decision will be taken at the next ministerial conference on modalities of negotiations in this area.
Addressing a press conference in India after the Doha conference, minister for commerce and industry Murasoli Maran took solace in the fact that "nothing would happen immediately" and the negotiations would take their time "during which we have to be watchful". But rather than simply saying and then hoping that nothing will happen, the Indian government would do better to start thinking about what they would like out an investment treaty, which now seems inevitable. Otherwise, they will find themselves at a disadvantage, as industrialised countries jump a readymade pro-industry model such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on them. NAFTA gives foreign investors the right to sue host governments, which do not have the right to appeal once a decision has been reached. Such a multilateral framework can have deep repercussions for developing countries.
Civil society around the world has also been wary of attempts to establish global multilateral investment rules since the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tried to secretly negotiate a Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI) that would vest MNCs with the power to question the decisions of national governments. These groups, based mostly in Europe and Canada, opposed the OECD MAI draft, but many believed that global multilateral investment rules were needed to stop the exploitation of developing countries through poorly negotiated bilateral investment treaties (BITs).
There has been a dramatic increase in the number of BITs signed from 385 at the end of the 1980s to 1,857 at the end of the 1990s. Often, BITs do not reflect a balance between the desire of developing country governments to attract FDI, and their domestic developmental concerns. At a meeting on foreign investments and their development dimensions organised by UNCTAD in 1997, some developing country governments considered themselves ill equipped to draw up balanced BITS, given the unequal bargaining power between industrialised and developing countries. Some contend that a global set of established guidelines could ensure the parameters of accountability, social and environmental responsibility. Others disagree.
In any multilateral negotiation on investment, industrialised countries will hold the aces, and are likely to have an inherent bias towards protecting the best interests of their companies, while developing countries will continue to play the role of desperate investment-seekers. There are no precedents to indicate that developing countries can expect anything but an unfair deal out of such an arrangement, particularly if the negotiations are conducted under the already biased WTO. Therefore, while an overreaching investments agreement may help developing countries out of having to compete with each other for investment, they will have to take care to ensure that the negotiations take place at a forum that is capable of taking on their development concerns.
Precautionary principle
The EU locked horns with the US by banning American beef exports on the ground that the beef was laced hormones that could cause cancer and other health problems. The ban was not upheld by the WTO because it was not convinced with the scientific evidence the EU had provided to prove its case and that it was imposing its higher standards on health and food safety on others. The EU insisted that it was acting according to the precautionary principle. This better-safe-than-sorry principle lets a country take a similar action like the one the EU took even in the absence of supporting scientific rationale.
The WTO had judged the case by the 1996 agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS), which favoured a more scientifically demanding risk assessment to the precautionary principle. The US also proved that its beef hormones met standards set by Codex Alimentarius Commission, a world body that develops standards for food additives, pesticides, chemicals and contaminants. The precautionary principle has since become pet issue that the EU pushes in every WTO meeting. Doha was no exception. On the fourth day of the talks the EU broached the subject, but intense opposition kept it out of the final declaration.
At the insistence of the Philippines, the US and Iceland the Doha text pushes for negotiations on clarifying and improving WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies. Fisheries subsidies have been seen as a major cause for the depletion of fish stocks due to overfishing. Apart from the environmental impact the subsidies-caused depletion also undermines the livelihood of those dependant on fishing. This is particularly the case in many developing countries as the text also points out.
Though fisheries subsidies have figured in the WTO debates and in its predecessor GATT, no agreement was earmarked to cover the issue during the Uruguay Round. At the Seattle 1999 meeting a proposal was made to tackle environmentally harmful and trade-distorting fisheries subsidies but disagreements over which WTO body should cover the subject halted progress. The EU is one of the leading providers of subsidies to its fishermen and hence has been shying from bringing the issue into WTO forum. The presence of the subject vindicates the view that much give and take has transpired to prevent Doha ending up as a disaster.
(Down to Earth, December 15, 2001)
By Anju Sharma with S S Jeevan
The choice of venue was clever and the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center added to the security paranoia. The result was that it combined to give trade negotiators somewhat of a breather when they met in Doha, Qatar, for the fourth ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The massive street protests that marked the Seattle round were non-existent at the Doha ministerial. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks against the US, anti-globalisation protesters were suddenly disoriented, and several plans for protests at Doha were cancelled. "Are we talking about anti-capitalisation, anti-globalisation or anti-Americanism? It didn’t matter before September 11; now it does," says Tom Spencer, director of the European Centre for Public Affairs.
Besides, the organisers were not taking any chances, and the conference venue looked like a fortress. The perceived threat of terrorism was used as an effective way of stopping anyone opposed to the WTO — out of sight, and perhaps out of mind.
With the debacle of Seattle looming large, the negotiators were under pressure to come up with results. And at the end of the six-day marathon meeting, a deal was struck. It was agreed to start negotiations on a new trade round to culminate in 2005. For the North, which was keen to bring issues of investment and competition into global trade negotiations, it was a "given". Most importantly, they got an agreement for a new round of negotiations. The South lost most battles, but was relieved to still be in the reckoning. Most gains were in the backroom "bilateral deals" — a euphemism for arm-twisting.
Give and take!
The biggest gain for developing countries was on patents and drugs. Countries were granted the right to break the monopoly over patented drugs in case of health emergencies like epidemics. Analysts feel that the issue was clinched only due to the US’ predicament over anthrax drugs. But the drug industry has dismissed Doha as a political statement and not legally binding. The European Union (EU) brought an agreement within reach by making a concession on agricultural subsidies. It agreed to "reductions, with the view to phasing out", of agricultural export subsidies — something it had always resisted. However, a qualifying phrase was included in the agreement, which said the EU’s concession was made "without prejudging the outcome of the (final) negotiations". "It was clear from the very beginning that we have to give and to take also something," said European agriculture commissioner, Franz Fischler. In return, WTO members accepted EU demands that investment, competition and environment rules be put on the agenda.
The US agreed to relax some import curbs. And it got an assurance on the anti-dumping issue. The US has given assurance of greater discipline in imposition of anti-dumping provisions. But on the issue of greatest concern to the South, textiles, the US refused to advance the deadline for quota reduction from January 2005. It has, in fact, threatened to impose non-tariff barriers on other imports if pushed.
In return for the concessions made by the EU, negotiators wanted stronger language on trade and protecting the environment. Developing countries, however, did not want the environment to be linked to trade rules. They felt that environmental concerns would be used as an excuse for renewed protectionism. For now, the issue has been put on the backburner. The EU has won the right to talks within two years on how to improve the investment climate for international companies abroad, and how to introduce competition policy into trade law.
The Indian act: deal breaker
India made all the right noises at the meeting, but came back with very little. Indian commerce and industry minister Murasoli Maran, who called WTO "a necessary evil", was seen as the champion of developing countries. He was also the biggest stumbling block during negotiations. India, which has just a share of 0.7 per cent of world trade, was wary that a clause on competition would allow foreign companies too much freedom to operate in the country. India’s intransigence led to the extension of the conference by a day. Till the last day, the minister seemed to block a declaration. In an effort to reach an agreement, many trade ministers held several closed-door meetings with Maran. But nothing worked. Media reports suggest that the issue was clinched only when the Qatari chief negotiator Yousef Hussein Kamal held a one-to-one meeting with the minister. That meeting changed everything. India finally fell in line. What transpired at that meeting, however, remains unknown.
Maran is being showered with encomiums for holding his ground at Doha. In reality, he has only bought more time with regards to issues such as investment and competition. The delay is being seen as a victory — typical of Indian bureaucracy’s shortsightedness. The strategy is to block a proposal without proposing a new one. But as countries tighten the noose in the forthcoming negotiations, India will be forced to accept what it fought all the while.
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT
Can green mean free? The debate reached a boiling point in Doha, but remained inconclusive
Midway through the Doha meeting, EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy visited Rainbow Warrior, the mascot ship of the international environment activist organisation Greenpeace, anchored in the Qatari seawaters. "Some balance between the trade rules and environmental protection is to be struck, that is why we are here," Lamy said on board his high-visibility platform. The gesture might have struck a chord back home in Europe, but most countries from either side of the economic divide did not agree.
The EU had made it abundantly clear even before the ministerial that inclusion of environmental concerns was in effect a sine qua non for the EU’s agreement to ambitious negotiations on cutting back state supports for agriculture. The EU move is perceived as a means to retain some green barriers to its agriculture markets when its agricultural subsidies are eventually phased out as envisaged in the Doha declaration. It is pushing for recognition of the ‘multifunctionality of agriculture’. Under this concept, agriculture does not just serve the purpose of providing food but also helps in maintaining rural communities, protect the environment if non-intensive methods are used, preserve culture and promote sustainable development. This possible connection between agriculture and environment is seen as one of the reasons why the EU is pushing environment at the WTO.
The South opposes bringing the issues related to environmental protection into the mainstream of multilateral trade talks, saying their potential abuse as green protectionism cannot be ruled out. In the past, the demands for linkages between trade and environment have come not only from Northern non-governmental organisations (NGOS), but also from Northern industry and labour unions, which stand to benefit if environmental standards are applied to trade.
Developing countries also fear the huge costs associated with greener technologies, which will be unbearable by their domestic industries. It could make their goods uncompetitive in western markets. This unequivocal opposition to greening of trade is what brings the motley crew of poor countries together. "If there’s one thing that unites developing countries, it is opposition to negotiations on trade and environment," said a developing country official before the meeting. "If the EU says it’s a deal-breaker, so be it. There are just too many people against it." The Republican Bush administration shares these views (unlike the democrats), and would rather the green issues remain outside the purview of the WTO, as they could harm the interests of US industry. For instance, US biotechnology firms stand to lose out, due to the wariness against genetically modified (GM) food.
Despite this opposition, the EU threat that it would negotiate on liberalising agricultural trade only if other WTO members agree to talk on trade and environment, eventually worked. The final ministerial declaration controversially proposes negotiations to enhance "mutual supportiveness of trade and environment". The declaration reiterates the EU demand seeking clarification on the relationship between the WTO rules and "trade obligations set out in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAS)" instructs the WTO’s committee on trade and environment (CTE) to give special attention to, among other things, ecolabelling suggests reduction and even elimination of trade barriers to environmental goods and services, a move that has been mutely welcomed by developing nations seeks to further strengthening the links between trade and environment by proposing negotiations on "procedures for regular information exchange" between the relevant MEA bodies and their counterparts in the WTO.
Indian industry minister Murasoli Maran dismissed the environment provisions in the declaration as "the price we have to pay for something in agriculture". "We have marginally agreed on environment, which to a large extent, is a political acknowledgement of its importance rather than rebalancing of rights and obligations," he said.
The environmental measures listed in the Doha declaration are not new. They have been part of the discussions at the CTE for several years now, and have been discussed in by the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism before that. CTE was set up in 1995 and is composed of all WTO members and a number of observers from inter-governmental organizations. It functions with the understanding that "it does not modify the rights and obligations of any WTO member under the WTO agreements." A ten-point agenda forms the basis of the committee’s work, which includes decisions on environment measures for trade, ecolabelling, environmentally unfriendly subsidies and intellectual property rights.
CTE has not reached any conclusions due to the controversial nature of the issues. In 1996, it presented an inconclusive report at the Singapore ministerial due to the fact that its members had failed to reach agreements on most of the issues under discussion. The ministerial made note of the "the breadth and complexity of the issues covered by the committee" and "further work needs to be undertaken on all items of its agenda". The committee was directed to carry on its work.
Although CTE discussions have been unfruitful, the trade and environment debate is being addressed in other fora. As the pressure from Northern civil society to take on board environmental concerns increases, the dispute settlement mechanism has come out more and more in support of green issues. In a recent ruling on the shrimp-turtle case, a WTO appellate body (AB) endorses a US ban on shrimp imports from countries that do not use turtle excluder devices to prevent harming sea turtles (see box: In through the backdoor). These judgments cannot be taken lightly, since they are making law by setting precedents.
In October 2001, an appellate body set up under the WTO ruled that the US was justified in banning shrimp exports from countries that do not use ‘turtle excluder devices’ (TEDs) to prevent sea turtle mortalities while catching shrimp. Through this ruling, the WTO has endorsed unilateral, extrajurisdictional action by nations. Moreover, it has endorsed discrimination between products based on their process and production methods (PPM).
The shrimp-turtle issue goes back to 1996, when the US banned shrimp imports from countries that did not use TEDs. India, Malaysia, Thailand and Pakistan took the matter to the WTO, contending that the US was trying to dictate the environment policy to be followed by other countries, and imposing its unilateral decision on other countries. They said the US ban amounted to disguised protectionism.
In 1998, the WTO dispute settlement panel (DSP) dismissed the US ban on grounds that it was discriminating among the exporters. The DSP stated that the US action was arbitrary and inconsistent with article XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which does not allow WTO members to impose import restrictions. Although the ruling did not go to the extent of rubbishing the unilateral nature of the US ban, the WTO’s dispute settlement body won new respect amongst developing countries for this ruling.
But in response to a US appeal, a WTO appellate body (AB) partially overruled the DSP ruling. The AB ruled that the US law did not violate the WTO obligations and was covered under an exception to the GATT (article XX (g)) rules for measures relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources. However, the AB felt that the US ban resulted in unfair discrimination between exporting nations, since the process of certification was to be decided by the US agencies alone. Hence there was a lack of transparency and participation in the process. Also, the US guidelines gave exporting countries little time to implement the mandatory use of TEDs. In August 1998, the US changed its guidelines to accommodate the WTO ruling. Instead of an outright ban on shrimp exports from the four countries, it made certification that TEDs were used essential on a shipment-to-shipment basis.
Malaysia and India were not satisfied with these changes, and wanted a complete lifting of the shrimp import restriction. Malaysia filed a complaint in late 2000, and sought a review of the whole issue and requested the re-establishment of the original panel to examine whether the US had, in fact, complied with the appellate body findings. A compliance panel, set up to look into the case, in May 2001 ruled in favour of the US, concluding that the US was not obliged to lift its import ban to implement the 1998 appellate body report, which requested the US to bring its import ban into conformity with WTO trade rules.
The latest ruling indicates that the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism is giving in to pressure from environmental groups, and protests by Southern governments to keep environmental concerns out of the trade agenda may eventually prove futile. Morevover, as the EU faces pressure from its civil society on the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the Union is unlikely to let go of issues such as the primacy of public health, the precautionary principle, and process and production methods (PPMS).
In June 2000, seven months after non-governmental organisations demanded that the WTO look beyond trade concerns at the doomed Seattle ministerial, a WTO dispute settlement panel (DSP) ruled in favour of public health and against free trade for the first time, in a case involving Canadian asbestos exports. WTO representatives lost no time in announcing that the decision "disproves charges by radical environmental and human rights bodies that the organisation works in favour of big business by giving free trade interests preference over other concerns".
Canada is the world’s largest exporter of chrysotile (white) asbestos — in 1999 alone, its four mines based in French-speaking Quebec produced 345,000 tonnes of chrysotile, worth roughly US $110 million. But health concerns lead several European countries to ban the import and use of this material in many countries that had, until then, been strong import allies. The World Health Organisation (WHO) lists asbestos fibres as carcinogenic. France was the first among the EU countries to implement such a ban, starting in January 1997. Other EU nations followed, and as of late 2000, most EU member states, excluding Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg, had similar bans in place.
Canada filed a complaint with the WTO against the French ban in May 1998. A dispute settlement panel (DSP) was set up in November 1998. The DSP first decided that imported Canadian asbestos and domestically produced substitutes (polyvinyl alcohol or PVA, cellulose and glass) are ‘like-products’, since they are similar in properties, nature and quality and had similar end-uses. Therefore, the panel first decided that the ban was not a question of health, but rather a question of GATT article III on national treatment, or equal treatment of foreign products and their domestic equivalents. Following the DSP’s ruling that asbestos was indeed a ‘like product’, France was required to justify its ‘violation’ through article XX (b), which allows for specific general exceptions to the WTO rules, in support of health and environment. In September 2000, the DSP ruled in favor of France, setting a new precedent by allowing a WTO member to use article XX (b) to impose trade measures for the first time. Canada decided to appeal, but the WTO’s appellate body (AB) ruled again in March 2001, to once again uphold the decision in France’s favour.
This case could also have an impact on interpretations of the scope of the agreement on technical barriers to trade (TBT), which explicitly rules against discrimination of final products based on the process of their production. Canada had asserted that France’s ban on asbestos was effectively a regulation of the characteristics and process of production, while the European Community (EC), representing France, asserted that the ban was not. The DSP agreed with France, and ruled that the French ban was not based on the characteristics and process of production, and thus not covered by the TBT agreement. The AB reversed this finding, taking the view that product characteristics could be presented in a positive or negative light.
In this case, France had specified that imports shall not contain asbestos fibres. "The effect of this ruling is that countries can circumvent a product and production method (PPM) analysis, at least as it relates to goods containing a banned product, by simply outlawing the hazardous substance as a whole," says London-based trade and environment analyst Kevin Gray.
Developing country concerns over green protectionism are legitimate, but they cannot simply continue to oppose negotiations on the links between trade and environment — they have to take them head on to make sure their concerns are addressed through legitimate multilateral negotiations, rather than through the back door, by a few people on a dispute settlement panel or appellate body.
Conflict with environment treaties
For instance, the discussion on the relationship between trade rules and MEAS has been uneasy to say the least. While the WTO currently allows importing countries the freedom to choose their own standards in the interests of public health and the environment in their own countries, they are not allowed to impose standards aimed at improving health or environmental practices of exporting countries. But can environmental standards be imposed on another country if a multilateral treaty has been signed to this effect? The EU considers it necessary to ensure that when there is dispute concerning environment-related trade measures, linkages between trade and environment are taken into account so that one does not jeopardise the fulfillment of the other.
Developing countries see the debate on MEAS as a non-trade issue, but it is in fact in their interests to sort out the issue once and for all, rather than leave the issues open for interpretation by the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism. Several feasible options have been suggested in the past, such as moving environment-trade conflicts to tribunals provided specifically under MEAS; or moving such disputes to the International Court of Justice. But even before agreeing to a venue, developing countries must insist on clarification on a set of overarching rules. For instance, they should insist on a provision that forbids the use of trade sanctions to conserve the global environment, since such sanctions can only be used by the more economically powerful nations against the less economically powerful. Extra-jurisdictional and unilateral action should not be possible even within a multilateral agreement.
Northern green activists were not entirely happy with the outcome at Doha, though for reasons other than those troubling developing countries. The declaration states that negotiations on the relationship between trade and MEAS shall not prejudice the WTO rights of any Member that is not a party to the MEA in question. Greenpeace fears that this phrase would prove a powerful disincentive for countries to sign the MEAS. The declaration also states that negotiations on the effect of environmental measures on market access and the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) accord shall not add to or diminish the rights and obligations of Members under existing WTO agreements. These environmental activists feel that the final outcome of the negotiations on these points could end up as footnotes rather than effect any change in the WTO rules.
Marks of shame?
Ecolabelling started out as a consumer awareness aid to help them make better choices. The EU penchant for ecolabelling was on full display in all the pre-Doha drafts. Ecolabelling is a way to ensure that all exports are harmless to humans and the environment — in itself a rational and benign idea. However, its practice could erect new insurmountable barriers to exports from the poorer countries.
Ecolabelling requires that products be marked environmentally friendly not just because they do not directly harm the environment but also indirectly. At the centre of the debate is the ppm criterion which looks at the environmental-friendliness of the technologies used to make a product rather than the superficially judge the product, the final outcome of the process. Life cycle criterion is another specification applied for ecolabelling. This looks at the ppm, the product and how the product will be eventually disposed, making ecolabelling an even more stringent requirement. This has raised hackles in the developing world where state-of-the-art green technologies are seldom considered for their prohibitive costs. Insisting on ppm for labelling would bar most of poorer countries’ exports from the northern markets. At the moment this agenda has only been put on a fast track, but it is not for negotiations.
Pragmatic investment
Developing countries must try and use global investment rules for their benefit
Attempts by a few developing countries, including India and Malaysia, to keep investment out of the Doha declaration failed. The declaration calls for ‘clarifying elements’ of a possible multilateral investment framework, and recognises the need for a multilateral framework to secure transparent, stable and predictable conditions for long-term cross-border investment, particularly foreign investment that will contribute to the expansion of trade. A decision will be taken at the next ministerial conference on modalities of negotiations in this area.
Addressing a press conference in India after the Doha conference, minister for commerce and industry Murasoli Maran took solace in the fact that "nothing would happen immediately" and the negotiations would take their time "during which we have to be watchful". But rather than simply saying and then hoping that nothing will happen, the Indian government would do better to start thinking about what they would like out an investment treaty, which now seems inevitable. Otherwise, they will find themselves at a disadvantage, as industrialised countries jump a readymade pro-industry model such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on them. NAFTA gives foreign investors the right to sue host governments, which do not have the right to appeal once a decision has been reached. Such a multilateral framework can have deep repercussions for developing countries.
Civil society around the world has also been wary of attempts to establish global multilateral investment rules since the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tried to secretly negotiate a Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI) that would vest MNCs with the power to question the decisions of national governments. These groups, based mostly in Europe and Canada, opposed the OECD MAI draft, but many believed that global multilateral investment rules were needed to stop the exploitation of developing countries through poorly negotiated bilateral investment treaties (BITs).
There has been a dramatic increase in the number of BITs signed from 385 at the end of the 1980s to 1,857 at the end of the 1990s. Often, BITs do not reflect a balance between the desire of developing country governments to attract FDI, and their domestic developmental concerns. At a meeting on foreign investments and their development dimensions organised by UNCTAD in 1997, some developing country governments considered themselves ill equipped to draw up balanced BITS, given the unequal bargaining power between industrialised and developing countries. Some contend that a global set of established guidelines could ensure the parameters of accountability, social and environmental responsibility. Others disagree.
In any multilateral negotiation on investment, industrialised countries will hold the aces, and are likely to have an inherent bias towards protecting the best interests of their companies, while developing countries will continue to play the role of desperate investment-seekers. There are no precedents to indicate that developing countries can expect anything but an unfair deal out of such an arrangement, particularly if the negotiations are conducted under the already biased WTO. Therefore, while an overreaching investments agreement may help developing countries out of having to compete with each other for investment, they will have to take care to ensure that the negotiations take place at a forum that is capable of taking on their development concerns.
Precautionary principle
The EU locked horns with the US by banning American beef exports on the ground that the beef was laced hormones that could cause cancer and other health problems. The ban was not upheld by the WTO because it was not convinced with the scientific evidence the EU had provided to prove its case and that it was imposing its higher standards on health and food safety on others. The EU insisted that it was acting according to the precautionary principle. This better-safe-than-sorry principle lets a country take a similar action like the one the EU took even in the absence of supporting scientific rationale.
The WTO had judged the case by the 1996 agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS), which favoured a more scientifically demanding risk assessment to the precautionary principle. The US also proved that its beef hormones met standards set by Codex Alimentarius Commission, a world body that develops standards for food additives, pesticides, chemicals and contaminants. The precautionary principle has since become pet issue that the EU pushes in every WTO meeting. Doha was no exception. On the fourth day of the talks the EU broached the subject, but intense opposition kept it out of the final declaration.
At the insistence of the Philippines, the US and Iceland the Doha text pushes for negotiations on clarifying and improving WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies. Fisheries subsidies have been seen as a major cause for the depletion of fish stocks due to overfishing. Apart from the environmental impact the subsidies-caused depletion also undermines the livelihood of those dependant on fishing. This is particularly the case in many developing countries as the text also points out.
Though fisheries subsidies have figured in the WTO debates and in its predecessor GATT, no agreement was earmarked to cover the issue during the Uruguay Round. At the Seattle 1999 meeting a proposal was made to tackle environmentally harmful and trade-distorting fisheries subsidies but disagreements over which WTO body should cover the subject halted progress. The EU is one of the leading providers of subsidies to its fishermen and hence has been shying from bringing the issue into WTO forum. The presence of the subject vindicates the view that much give and take has transpired to prevent Doha ending up as a disaster.
(Down to Earth, December 15, 2001)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)