Can’t defy Nature
Source: By Suranjana Banerji: The Statesman
It is debatable whether the development policies being pursued by governments in different parts of the world are necessarily compatible with the concept of sustainability. India was economically under-developed at the time of independence and one of the basic objectives of policy formulation was to accelerate the pace of economic development through industries and infrastructure. The goal was, no doubt, laudable; but the consequences in many cases have been quite disastrous.
For example, according to environmentalists, the unprecedented destruction caused by rain and floods in Uttarakhand is not the outcome of nature’s fury alone; it is also a man-made disaster, the result of thoughtless development. Thus to meet the greed of a few, many have paid with their lives. The construction of roads in a haphazard manner, building of new resorts and hotels on fragile river banks, uncontrolled stone-crushing and strip-mining along the banks of the Ganga in Uttarakhand and the execution of several hydro-electric projects across the state’s river system has triggered this environmental disaster. There are reportedly six dams and four barrages in Uttarakhand. Taken together they produce 2600 MW of electricity, but they have also caused enormous damage to the river systems as well as the environment. The dams have damaged the Alakananda river and the tributaries of the Bhagirathi. The tunnels that were built and the blasts that were carried out for the hydro-electric projects have affected ecological equilibrium.
When the floods struck Uttarakhand, about 28 million tourists were visiting the state, while the local population is close to half that number. Many have even questioned whether the government should have allowed such a huge number of tourists in this ecologically fragile region, particularly during the monsoon. Since tourism is an important economic activity of this state, the government should have adopted suitable environmental norms as well as disaster management techniques.
In February 2013, the Uttarakhand High Court had passed an order asking the state government to demolish structures that had come up within 200 metres of the river banks. However, the administration took no action, and many of these illegal structures were washed away by the floods. Therefore, the disaster was rooted in short-sightedness and flawed planning. On 13 June 2011, exactly two years before the recent catastrophe, a sadhu named Swami Nigamanand, who had been on an indefinite fast to protest against the extensive stone-crushing and strip mining along the banks of the Ganga, passed away at the Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences in Dehra Dun. His death was almost unnoticed and the government did little to address his concerns.
There are several other examples which illustrate that development, if undertaken to cater to short-term needs, may not be environmentally sustainable in the long run. The decision to set up multi-purpose river-valley projects by constructing large dams did not prove to be environmentally sustainable. When such projects were undertaken after Independence, they were regarded as the symbol of economic development. The initial results were satisfactory; the construction of dams helped generate electricity and facilitated irrigation of agricultural lands. Subsequently, however, the adverse consequences of such policies became apparent. In most cases, such river-valley projects have turned out to be environmentally disastrous. Over time, damming of rivers has resulted in reduction of water flows, accumulation of silt, and raising of the river beds. This has resulted in floods during the monsoon.
The controversy over the Sardar Sarovar project on the Narmada has put a question mark over the future of large river-valley projects as they also result in displacement of the people. The Narmada Bachao Andolon Committee spearheaded the movement against the Sardar Sarovar Project, and the World Bank which was funding the project, withdrew its support.
Beyond the river-valley projects lies the larger issue of development. Does it imply a growth in GDP, without caring for the social and environmental consequences of development policies? During the last decade, the West Bengal government acquired 1000 acres of fertile agricultural land in Singur for setting up a small car factory by Tata Motors. The question of sustainable development was totally ignored. Ultimately, the project had to be abandoned in 2008 because of political opposition. In the name of promoting tourism, the government had encouraged the setting up of resorts and hotels at Mandarmani and Sankarpur, resulting in severe ecological damage to the entire coastal region in East Midnapore district.
The present dispensation is also planning to promote eco-tourism in the Sunderbans. This could lead to the degradation of the mangrove forests. Similarly, the sponge iron industry, spanning the tribal areas of Jharkhand, Odisha and Chhattisgarh, is being opposed because the units have been located near human habitation. On 15 November 2009, The Statesman had reported the high level of pollution in these states.
According to a study conducted by the UN, potential disaster threats were ignored during the construction of the Delhi Metro. The risk is high in no fewer than 50 stations. There could be huge casualties in the event of a flood or an earthquake.
The term ‘Sustainable Development’ was used in the World Conservation Strategy of 1980, whose document was published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Sustainable development has been defined as ‘the integration of conservation and development to ensure that modifications to the planet do indeed secure the survival and well-being of all people’ (JUCN, 1980, Section 1.2). The issue of sustainability dominated the discussion on development during the 1980s. The Brundtland Commission, in its report ‘Our Common Future’, published in 1987, emphasised the principles of equitable distribution and democratic participation.
The Commission defined Sustainable Development as ‘development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987). Whether this concept can be implemented is debatable. Failure to achieve environmental sustainability can be attributed to the low priority accorded to maintenance of public welfare by governments. Since in many respects the environment is a matter of public welfare, this often results in waste of natural resources. Inadequate environmental regulation and enforcement and poorly functioning environmental institutions can aggravate the problem. This is particularly relevant for India where concern over environmental sustainability is not much in evidence. Therefore, the development of environmental regulations and their implementation have been rather inadequate. This may be the result of the lack of good governance. Development polices should be formulated with a long-term perspective, so that these are sustainable in the long run.
This can be ensured if a balance is maintained between development and environmental sustainability, and through equitable distribution of the benefits of development. Good governance also requires coordination of policies between the different departments and proper implementation of the declared policies. Corruption amongst bureaucrats, businessmen, technocrats and politicians can lead to development policies that ignore the norms of sustainable development. They often view environmental issues as roadblocks to the path of development and not as facts of nature that should be dealt with on their own terms. Unfortunately, nature does not function out of logical self-interest, so we either abide by its rules, or else it will have its way either today or tomorrow ~ as illustrated by the Uttarakhand disaster.
No comments:
Post a Comment