Can China go green without disrupting their economic growth?
Fossil fuels provide most of the energy powering the world’s post populated country, but last month China committed to producing more energy from cleaner sources.
Liu Zhenya — the president of China's largest electric provider — said that China aims to produce 35 percent of its energy from "low-emissions" sources by 2020 at a press conference in Beijing, tells Bloomberg.com.
China is currently the world's leader in renewable energy production. However, a study by Wharton University shows that low emissions sources like hydro-electricity, wind power, and solar power make up only 8 percent of the nation's total energy capacity.
China’s demand for energy is expected to double over the next decade as well — increasing consumption rates, massive amounts of industrial exports, and construction growth could potentially push electricity consumption to nearly 8 trillion kilowatt-hours a year. At that rate China would consume twice as much the United States, which is the next biggest energy consumer after China.
Considering that China’s growth in energy consumption has more than tripled the world’s average in past years and nearly 90 percent of China's energy still comes from coal and oil, the Wharton University report estimates that the nation will need $3.7 trillion to maintain its projected energy growth.
For China, the numbers don’t add up. Their demand for energy is going to double over the next eleven years and the majority of their energy capacity is highly dependent on coal. The climb to 35 percent is either going to be relatively steep or they are going to spend a lot of money converting fossil fuels
Thursday, July 2, 2009
SRI LANKA: Rains raise fears of malaria setback
Health experts warn that the expected rains could increase the risk of waterborne diseases for tens of thousands of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in camps in northern Sri Lanka. More than 280,000 people who fled fighting between government forces and the now defeated Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are staying in some 35 government camps in four northern districts - Vavuniya, Mannar, Jaffna and Trincomalee. The majority, 220,000, are living at the Menik Farm camp, a sprawling site of over 700ha outside Vavuniya town. “With such a large number of people concentrated together, there is always the risk of waterborne disease with the rains,” Laurent Sury, head of mission for Médecins Sans Frontières, told IRIN in Colombo. MSF runs a field hospital in Vavuniya District where more than 23 of the IDP camps are located, housing 260,000 IDPs.
There are around 115 patients at the MSF hospital now,” Sury said. Even though the World Health Organization (WHO) says no major disease outbreaks have been reported, the risk factors for malaria and diarrhoea have increased.WHO said the Ministry of Health had taken precautions to deal with a possible malaria outbreak, with proper surveillance mechanisms at all camps. Until 19 June, only 29 cases of malaria had been reported, but health officials initiated a high alert when two cases were reported on 18 June from zone 4 in Menik Farm. Field staff have been deployed to all hospitals and healthcare units assisting IDPs by the Regional Malaria Office for the Vavuniya District from 8 June. “This is an alarming situation considering the very small number of malaria cases reported from the entire country in the recent past,” the WHO update said. “An active surveillance for malaria is ... [ongoing].” Until 18 June, 1,060 cases of dysentery and more than 5,000 cases of diarrhoea had been reported from the camps, it said. "There is a serious threat of waterborne diseases because of so many people living so close together," one humanitarian official said, highlighting the risk posed by improper disposal of solid waste and rubbish in the camps. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) on 27 June, the greatest needs were specialist doctors. “IDP health workers, paid by the government of Sri Lanka, are working in the IDP sites. Thirty-seven new doctors are expected to be appointed at the Vavuniya District within a week. However, a shortage of specialists remain,” OCHA confirmed
Chickenpox update According to the latest communicable Disease Weekly Update released on 25 June, surveillance within the camps by the Ministry of Health staff was being strengthened. The greatest disease outbreak reported so far was chickenpox, with more than 12,000 cases, but those numbers had since been decreasing, the UN reported. The number of new cases reported is steadily declining and admissions to hospitals are 40–50 patients per day, OCHA confirmed on 19 June. “In Vavuniya, the number of Hepatitis A cases is also declining. A total of 2,139 cases were reported as at 12 June,” the report added. Medical officers working with the displaced suspect that most of the chickenpox patients contracted the disease before they arrived in camps.
There are around 115 patients at the MSF hospital now,” Sury said. Even though the World Health Organization (WHO) says no major disease outbreaks have been reported, the risk factors for malaria and diarrhoea have increased.WHO said the Ministry of Health had taken precautions to deal with a possible malaria outbreak, with proper surveillance mechanisms at all camps. Until 19 June, only 29 cases of malaria had been reported, but health officials initiated a high alert when two cases were reported on 18 June from zone 4 in Menik Farm. Field staff have been deployed to all hospitals and healthcare units assisting IDPs by the Regional Malaria Office for the Vavuniya District from 8 June. “This is an alarming situation considering the very small number of malaria cases reported from the entire country in the recent past,” the WHO update said. “An active surveillance for malaria is ... [ongoing].” Until 18 June, 1,060 cases of dysentery and more than 5,000 cases of diarrhoea had been reported from the camps, it said. "There is a serious threat of waterborne diseases because of so many people living so close together," one humanitarian official said, highlighting the risk posed by improper disposal of solid waste and rubbish in the camps. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) on 27 June, the greatest needs were specialist doctors. “IDP health workers, paid by the government of Sri Lanka, are working in the IDP sites. Thirty-seven new doctors are expected to be appointed at the Vavuniya District within a week. However, a shortage of specialists remain,” OCHA confirmed
Chickenpox update According to the latest communicable Disease Weekly Update released on 25 June, surveillance within the camps by the Ministry of Health staff was being strengthened. The greatest disease outbreak reported so far was chickenpox, with more than 12,000 cases, but those numbers had since been decreasing, the UN reported. The number of new cases reported is steadily declining and admissions to hospitals are 40–50 patients per day, OCHA confirmed on 19 June. “In Vavuniya, the number of Hepatitis A cases is also declining. A total of 2,139 cases were reported as at 12 June,” the report added. Medical officers working with the displaced suspect that most of the chickenpox patients contracted the disease before they arrived in camps.
India Should Combine Tough Climate Stand With Green Policy
The emergence of a Congress Party-led coalition government with a comfortable majority could not have been better timed. A government with a strong mandate is well placed to define India’s long-term strategy towards climate change, and to call for the steps that the nation and the world need to take at the Copenhagen climate summit scheduled for December.
These climate negotiations are easily the most complex collaborative effort the world has undertaken, and India, like all nations, is being asked to sign on to the deal being worked out at Copenhagen. India is likely to be among the most affected by coming climate shifts – in prediction maps, the subcontinent shows up as dark red, threatened by melting ice caps, shifting rainfall patterns and rising sea levels. The Indian government rightly points out that the burden of cutting carbon emissions should lie with the developed nations responsible for the accumulated levels of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.
The opening sessions to the Copenhagen negotiations have indicated that developed nations that were early holdouts from Kyoto – including Australia and the US – may eventually sign the climate deal. But as the deadline for an agreement nears, developed country targets and planned carbon-reducing strategies are falling victim to local politics. In Europe, the largesse in carbon trading permits to industries has allowed them to pollute at rock-bottom prices. The developing world’s unwillingness to take on caps has also become a defense for groups opposed to emission cuts. In the US, the Waxman-Markey carbon bill is facing opposition from those who argue that without India and China’s participation, US curbs will have no overall impact.
The big question for India here is how it can reconcile its own goals with the aim of building an effective global climate deal. One way to move forward is for India to reiterate a commitment that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pledged at the G8 Heiligendamm summit in June 2007: that India will not exceed, between now and 2050, the per capita emissions of developed nations.
India cannot be expected to take on binding emission cuts over and above this commitment. It is only fair that Western nations take responsibility for the accumulation of GHGs over the last century. Independent assessments support this view that India should stay away from mandatory cuts. They’ve shown that even with rapid growth, it will still remain among the least carbon intensive countries in the next few decades. Besides, much of India’s future emission growth, the World Bank points out, will come from providing essential energy services to its population.
Another aspect of fairness that the country should focus on during negotiations is ensuring financial flows and technology transfers from developed nations to the developing world, for climate mitigation and adaptation. This is literally a hundred billion dollar issue – the estimated costs of mitigation for India. But this has long been a sore point for Indian negotiators. The proposals of assistance from developed nations have fallen far short of what India needs, and one Indian diplomat recently compared these to offering to 'push a broken down car, but with two fingers'. Besides financing, India must insist on programs tailored to its economic needs, which include support for carbon reducing technologies and microfinance schemes, as well as expertise in sustainable urban and industry growth. An emphasis on fairness also means that developed countries refrain from imposing carbon tariffs on exports from India.
While taking a firm stand in international negotiations, India has to take a closer look at its domestic approach to climate change. The growing concern among Indian environmental activists is that the government’s stance globally is coloring its local environmental efforts. “The defense of our emissions internationally has been long used to justify apathy towards controlling pollution in India,” the Indian environmentalist Sharad Lele told me. This attitude ignores the increasing negative impact of pollution on India’s agriculture, urbanization and economic growth. It is becoming clear that the traditional, carbon-intensive model of growth will not work here for long – we have to embrace a low-carbon approach.
In 2008, India’s Congress Party-led government put in place a National Action Plan on Climate Change, which emphasized renewable energy, adaptation and greater energy efficiency. Now returned to power, the government has the chance to intensify these efforts. This includes low-pain measures such as zero tariffs on low emission products, and tax exemptions for clean energy investments. More ambitious policy could include a smart grid through which people can both buy and sell excess energy, and efficiency and pollution standards that nudge industry towards greener choices.
The new government has already tabled plans to account for the depletion of natural resources while calculating India’s GDP. However, India has been reticent when it comes to ambitious attempts at controlling pollution and emissions, on the concern that it will hurt its economy.
In doing so, the country may have overlooked the opportunities that come with a pro-environmental policy. The burden of pollution has fallen disproportionately on the poor. Over 80% of India’s rural poor depend on the country’s degraded common lands and water, and on its declining forests. For India’s legislators, whose emphasis in recent years has been on ‘pro-poor’ policy and addressing income inequalities, a low-carbon approach ought to then be an overriding interest.
yale global online
Nandan Nilekani
These climate negotiations are easily the most complex collaborative effort the world has undertaken, and India, like all nations, is being asked to sign on to the deal being worked out at Copenhagen. India is likely to be among the most affected by coming climate shifts – in prediction maps, the subcontinent shows up as dark red, threatened by melting ice caps, shifting rainfall patterns and rising sea levels. The Indian government rightly points out that the burden of cutting carbon emissions should lie with the developed nations responsible for the accumulated levels of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.
The opening sessions to the Copenhagen negotiations have indicated that developed nations that were early holdouts from Kyoto – including Australia and the US – may eventually sign the climate deal. But as the deadline for an agreement nears, developed country targets and planned carbon-reducing strategies are falling victim to local politics. In Europe, the largesse in carbon trading permits to industries has allowed them to pollute at rock-bottom prices. The developing world’s unwillingness to take on caps has also become a defense for groups opposed to emission cuts. In the US, the Waxman-Markey carbon bill is facing opposition from those who argue that without India and China’s participation, US curbs will have no overall impact.
The big question for India here is how it can reconcile its own goals with the aim of building an effective global climate deal. One way to move forward is for India to reiterate a commitment that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pledged at the G8 Heiligendamm summit in June 2007: that India will not exceed, between now and 2050, the per capita emissions of developed nations.
India cannot be expected to take on binding emission cuts over and above this commitment. It is only fair that Western nations take responsibility for the accumulation of GHGs over the last century. Independent assessments support this view that India should stay away from mandatory cuts. They’ve shown that even with rapid growth, it will still remain among the least carbon intensive countries in the next few decades. Besides, much of India’s future emission growth, the World Bank points out, will come from providing essential energy services to its population.
Another aspect of fairness that the country should focus on during negotiations is ensuring financial flows and technology transfers from developed nations to the developing world, for climate mitigation and adaptation. This is literally a hundred billion dollar issue – the estimated costs of mitigation for India. But this has long been a sore point for Indian negotiators. The proposals of assistance from developed nations have fallen far short of what India needs, and one Indian diplomat recently compared these to offering to 'push a broken down car, but with two fingers'. Besides financing, India must insist on programs tailored to its economic needs, which include support for carbon reducing technologies and microfinance schemes, as well as expertise in sustainable urban and industry growth. An emphasis on fairness also means that developed countries refrain from imposing carbon tariffs on exports from India.
While taking a firm stand in international negotiations, India has to take a closer look at its domestic approach to climate change. The growing concern among Indian environmental activists is that the government’s stance globally is coloring its local environmental efforts. “The defense of our emissions internationally has been long used to justify apathy towards controlling pollution in India,” the Indian environmentalist Sharad Lele told me. This attitude ignores the increasing negative impact of pollution on India’s agriculture, urbanization and economic growth. It is becoming clear that the traditional, carbon-intensive model of growth will not work here for long – we have to embrace a low-carbon approach.
In 2008, India’s Congress Party-led government put in place a National Action Plan on Climate Change, which emphasized renewable energy, adaptation and greater energy efficiency. Now returned to power, the government has the chance to intensify these efforts. This includes low-pain measures such as zero tariffs on low emission products, and tax exemptions for clean energy investments. More ambitious policy could include a smart grid through which people can both buy and sell excess energy, and efficiency and pollution standards that nudge industry towards greener choices.
The new government has already tabled plans to account for the depletion of natural resources while calculating India’s GDP. However, India has been reticent when it comes to ambitious attempts at controlling pollution and emissions, on the concern that it will hurt its economy.
In doing so, the country may have overlooked the opportunities that come with a pro-environmental policy. The burden of pollution has fallen disproportionately on the poor. Over 80% of India’s rural poor depend on the country’s degraded common lands and water, and on its declining forests. For India’s legislators, whose emphasis in recent years has been on ‘pro-poor’ policy and addressing income inequalities, a low-carbon approach ought to then be an overriding interest.
yale global online
Nandan Nilekani
A New Green Revolution in India?
Over the past few years, hundreds of thousands of farmers in rural India have transitioned organic farming. But can these families grow enough to compete with conventional agriculture?
India’s agricultural history, especially in the 20th century, has been haunted by the Bengal famine of 1943, in which food scarcity led to the deaths of 4 million people. In order to combat a future national hunger crisis, the American plant breeder Norman Borlaug worked with Indian scientists, farmers, and politicians to promote the Green Revolution of the 1960s and 70s. New seeds, fertilizers and agricultural technology were introduced and, for a while, dramatically improved crop yields to feed India’s hungry and growing population.
After its initial success, however, the accumulation of chemicals in the ground damaged the soil and crop yields declined. Over time, more and more fertilizer had to be used to achieve the same yields as before, and for some farmers, the benefit of fertilizers and pesticides eventually outweighed by the costs it incurred.
But according to recent report from NPR, some farmers are making the switch to more varied crops instead of a single-crop farms to improve the nutrients in the soil.
Despite its growing popularity in India as well as around the world, some agribusiness companies like Monsanto worry that organic techniques just aren't as efficient as those developed during the green revolution, and will leave those immediately affected by the switch to organic without enough food to survive.
Worries about food distribution are justified. Approximately 2.1 million children under five die each year in India, with over half of those deaths directly related to malnutrition — of those who survive, another half will suffer from malnutrition-related stunted growth. Still, organic farmers around the world argue that given time, government support, and technological advances, the sustainability of organic farming will in fact increase the productivity and the safety of food given to those at greatest risk.
According to international organizations like the World Bank and the farmers themselves, it is not just agriculture itself that needs a face-lift in India, but also the bureaucracy and policy that surrounds it. A recent study by the Punjab State Farmers Commission cited by NPR found that 70 percent of India's farms could go organic and maintain appropriate food production. It also suggests that India redirect some of it's government funding to organic farming infrastructure and research, thus recognizing its future place in India's food production.
Gurcharan Kalkat, a member of the commission, told NPR he believes in the organic movement. "Only one thing can save Punjab: India has to launch a brand new Green Revolution. But … this one has to be sustainable."
With a population of 1.15 billion, the population of India is three times that of the United States. It also has 30 times the number of organic farmers. Some, like Grist food editor Tom Philpott, think the rest of the world could learn a thing or two from an Indian organic farmer, rethinking the ways to feed a massive population on healthy, sustainable crops.
India’s agricultural history, especially in the 20th century, has been haunted by the Bengal famine of 1943, in which food scarcity led to the deaths of 4 million people. In order to combat a future national hunger crisis, the American plant breeder Norman Borlaug worked with Indian scientists, farmers, and politicians to promote the Green Revolution of the 1960s and 70s. New seeds, fertilizers and agricultural technology were introduced and, for a while, dramatically improved crop yields to feed India’s hungry and growing population.
After its initial success, however, the accumulation of chemicals in the ground damaged the soil and crop yields declined. Over time, more and more fertilizer had to be used to achieve the same yields as before, and for some farmers, the benefit of fertilizers and pesticides eventually outweighed by the costs it incurred.
But according to recent report from NPR, some farmers are making the switch to more varied crops instead of a single-crop farms to improve the nutrients in the soil.
Despite its growing popularity in India as well as around the world, some agribusiness companies like Monsanto worry that organic techniques just aren't as efficient as those developed during the green revolution, and will leave those immediately affected by the switch to organic without enough food to survive.
Worries about food distribution are justified. Approximately 2.1 million children under five die each year in India, with over half of those deaths directly related to malnutrition — of those who survive, another half will suffer from malnutrition-related stunted growth. Still, organic farmers around the world argue that given time, government support, and technological advances, the sustainability of organic farming will in fact increase the productivity and the safety of food given to those at greatest risk.
According to international organizations like the World Bank and the farmers themselves, it is not just agriculture itself that needs a face-lift in India, but also the bureaucracy and policy that surrounds it. A recent study by the Punjab State Farmers Commission cited by NPR found that 70 percent of India's farms could go organic and maintain appropriate food production. It also suggests that India redirect some of it's government funding to organic farming infrastructure and research, thus recognizing its future place in India's food production.
Gurcharan Kalkat, a member of the commission, told NPR he believes in the organic movement. "Only one thing can save Punjab: India has to launch a brand new Green Revolution. But … this one has to be sustainable."
With a population of 1.15 billion, the population of India is three times that of the United States. It also has 30 times the number of organic farmers. Some, like Grist food editor Tom Philpott, think the rest of the world could learn a thing or two from an Indian organic farmer, rethinking the ways to feed a massive population on healthy, sustainable crops.
Green Revolution in India : A Case Study
The world's worst recorded food disaster happened in 1943 in British-ruled India . Known as the Bengal Famine, an estimated four million people died of hunger that year alone in eastern India (that included today's Bangladesh ). The initial theory put forward to 'explain' that catastrophe was that there as an acute shortfall in food production in the area. However, Indian economist Amartya Sen (recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economics, 1998) has established that while food shortage was a contributor to the problem, a more potent factor was the result of hysteria related to World War II which made food supply a low priority for the British rulers. The hysteria was further exploited by Indian traders who hoarded food in order to sell at higher prices.
Nevertheless, when the British left India four years later in 1947, India continued to be haunted by memories of the Bengal Famine. It was therefore natural that food security was a paramount item on free India 's agenda. This awareness led, on one hand, to the Green Revolution in India and, on the other, legislative measures to ensure that businessmen would never again be able to hoard food for reasons of profit.
However, the term "Green Revolution" is applied to the period from 1967 to 1978 and even into today. Between 1947 and 1967, efforts at achieving food self-sufficiency were not entirely successful. Efforts until 1967 largely concentrated on expanding the farming areas. But starvation deaths were still being reported in the newspapers. In a perfect case of Malthusian economics, population was growing at a much faster rate than food production. This called for drastic action to increase yield. The action came in the form of the Green Revolution.
The term "Green Revolution" is a general one that is applied to successful agricultural experiments in many Third World countries. It is NOT specific to India . But it was perhaps most successful in India .
What was the Green Revolution in India ?
There were three basic elements in the method of the Green Revolution:
1) Continued expansion of farming areas;
2) Double-cropping existing farmland;
3) Using seeds with improved genetics.
Continued expansion of farming areas
As mentioned above, the area of land under cultivation was being increased right from 1947. But this was not enough in meeting with rising demand. Other methods were required. Yet, the expansion of cultivable land also had to continue. So, the Green Revolution continued with this quantitative expansion of farmlands. However, this is NOT the most striking feature of the Revolution.
Double-cropping existing farmland
Double-cropping was a primary feature of the Green Revolution. Instead of one crop season per year, the decision was made to have two crop seasons per year. The one-season-per-year practice was based on the fact that there is only natural monsoon per year. This was correct. So, there had to be two "monsoons" per year. One would be the natural monsoon and the other an artificial 'monsoon.'
The artificial monsoon came in the form of huge irrigation facilities. Dams were built to arrest large volumes of natural monsoon water which were earlier being wasted. Simple irrigation techniques were also adopted.
Using seeds with superior genetics
This was the scientific aspect of the Green Revolution. The Indian Council for Agricultural Research (which was established by the British in 1929 but was not known to have done any significant research) was re-organized in 1965 and then again in 1973. It developed new strains of high yield value (HYV) seeds, mainly wheat and rice but also millet and corn. The most noteworthy HYV seed was the K68 variety for wheat. The credit for developing this strain goes to Dr. M.P. Singh who is also regarded as the hero of India 's Green revolution.
Statistical Results of the Green Revolution
1) The Green Revolution resulted in a record grain output of 131 million tons in 1978-79. This established India as one of the world's biggest agricultural producers. No other country in the world, which attempted the Green Revolution recorded such level of success. India also became an exporter of food grains around that time.
2) Yield per unit of farmland improved by more than 30 per cent between 1947 (when India gained political independence) and 1979 when the Green Revolution was considered to have delivered its goods.
3) The crop area under HYV varieties grew from seven per cent to 22 per cent of the total cultivated area during the 10 years of the Green Revolution. More than 70 per cent of the wheat crop area, 35 per cent of the rice crop area and 20 per cent of the millet and corn crop area, used the HYV seeds.
Economic results of the Green Revolution
1) Crop areas under high-yield varieties needed more water, more fertilizer, more pesticides, fungicides and certain other chemicals. This spurred the growth of the local manufacturing sector. Such industrial growth created new jobs and contributed to the country's GDP.
2) The increase in irrigation created need for new dams to harness monsoon water. The water stored was used to create hydroelectric power. This in turn boosted industrial growth, created jobs and improved the quality of life of the people in villages.
3) India paid back all loans it had taken from the World Bank and its affiliates for the purpose of the Green Revolution. This improved India 's creditworthiness in the eyes of the lending agencies.
4) Some developed countries, especially Canada , which were facing a shortage in agricultural labor, were so impressed by the results of India 's Green Revolution that they asked the Indian government to supply them with farmers experienced in the methods of the Green Revolution. Many farmers from Punjab and Haryana states in northern India were thus sent to Canada where they settled (That's why Canada today has many Punjabi-speaking citizens of Indian origin). These people remitted part of their incomes to their relatives in India . This not only helped the relatives but also added, albeit modestly, to India 's foreign exchange earnings.
Sociological results of the Green Revolution
The Green Revolution created plenty of jobs not only for agricultural workers but also industrial workers by the creation of lateral facilities such as factories and hydro-electric power stations as explained above.
Political results of the Green Revolution
1) India transformed itself from a starving nation to an exporter of food. This earned admiration for India in the comity of nations, especially in the Third World .
2) The Green Revolution was one factor that made Mrs Indira Gandhi (1917-84) and her party, the Indian National Congress, a very powerful political force in India (it would however be wrong to say that it was the only reason).
Limitations of the Green Revolution
1) Even today, India 's agricultural output sometimes falls short of demand. The Green Revolution, howsoever impressive, has thus NOT succeeded in making India totally and permanently self-sufficient in food. In 1979 and 1987, India faced severe drought conditions due to poor monsoon; this raised questions about the whether the Green Revolution was really a long-term achievement. In 1998, India had to import onions. Last year, India imported sugar.
However, in today's globalized economic scenario, 100 per cent self-sufficiency is not considered as vital a target as it was when the world political climate was more dangerous due to the Cold War.
2) India has failed to extend the concept of high-yield value seeds to all crops or all regions. In terms of crops, it remains largely confined to foodgrains only, not to all kinds of agricultural produce. In regional terms, only Punjab and Haryana states showed the best results of the Green Revolution. The eastern plains of the River Ganges in West Bengal state also showed reasonably good results. But results were less impressive in other parts of India .
3) Nothing like the Bengal Famine can happen in India again. But it is disturbing to note that even today, there are places like Kalahandi (in India 's eastern state of Orissa) where famine-like conditions have existed for many years and where some starvation deaths have also been reported. Of course, this is due to reasons other than availability of food in India , but the very fact that some people are still starving in India (whatever the reason may be), brings into question whether the Green Revolution has failed in its overall social objectives though it has been a resounding success in terms of agricultural production.
4) The Green Revolution cannot therefore be considered to be a 100 per cent success.
(From Saby Ganguly, http://www.indiaonestop.com/Greenrevolution.htm)
Questions:
1. What were the causes and results of the Bengal Famine in 1943?
2. Briefly describe the three basic elements of the Green Revolution in India:
3. List two positive results of the Green Revolution in India:
4. List three positive economic, sociologic, or political results of the Green revolution in India:
5. Briefly describe two limitations of the Green revolution in India:
Argumentative Essay:
The Green revolution is the answer to the world's food supply problem. Agree or disagree.
Create a three paragraph argumentative essay that introduces the opposite point of view you are taking. Read all of the Pro and Con statements and establish your thesis (you may use the concepts presented in the statements, but you cannot plagiarize or simply rewrite the statements in your essay). Your first paragraph should explain the opposite point of view (e.g. It is commonly accepted that the Green Revolution is the answer to the world's food supply problem ...) The following paragraphs will contain your main ideas that support your position and refute the ideas presented in the first paragraph.
This technique allows the reader to see both sides of the argument. Also, by explaining the opposite position, you solidify your claims because you demonstrate that you have studied both sides of the issue and have come to your conclusions through careful analysis.
Nevertheless, when the British left India four years later in 1947, India continued to be haunted by memories of the Bengal Famine. It was therefore natural that food security was a paramount item on free India 's agenda. This awareness led, on one hand, to the Green Revolution in India and, on the other, legislative measures to ensure that businessmen would never again be able to hoard food for reasons of profit.
However, the term "Green Revolution" is applied to the period from 1967 to 1978 and even into today. Between 1947 and 1967, efforts at achieving food self-sufficiency were not entirely successful. Efforts until 1967 largely concentrated on expanding the farming areas. But starvation deaths were still being reported in the newspapers. In a perfect case of Malthusian economics, population was growing at a much faster rate than food production. This called for drastic action to increase yield. The action came in the form of the Green Revolution.
The term "Green Revolution" is a general one that is applied to successful agricultural experiments in many Third World countries. It is NOT specific to India . But it was perhaps most successful in India .
What was the Green Revolution in India ?
There were three basic elements in the method of the Green Revolution:
1) Continued expansion of farming areas;
2) Double-cropping existing farmland;
3) Using seeds with improved genetics.
Continued expansion of farming areas
As mentioned above, the area of land under cultivation was being increased right from 1947. But this was not enough in meeting with rising demand. Other methods were required. Yet, the expansion of cultivable land also had to continue. So, the Green Revolution continued with this quantitative expansion of farmlands. However, this is NOT the most striking feature of the Revolution.
Double-cropping existing farmland
Double-cropping was a primary feature of the Green Revolution. Instead of one crop season per year, the decision was made to have two crop seasons per year. The one-season-per-year practice was based on the fact that there is only natural monsoon per year. This was correct. So, there had to be two "monsoons" per year. One would be the natural monsoon and the other an artificial 'monsoon.'
The artificial monsoon came in the form of huge irrigation facilities. Dams were built to arrest large volumes of natural monsoon water which were earlier being wasted. Simple irrigation techniques were also adopted.
Using seeds with superior genetics
This was the scientific aspect of the Green Revolution. The Indian Council for Agricultural Research (which was established by the British in 1929 but was not known to have done any significant research) was re-organized in 1965 and then again in 1973. It developed new strains of high yield value (HYV) seeds, mainly wheat and rice but also millet and corn. The most noteworthy HYV seed was the K68 variety for wheat. The credit for developing this strain goes to Dr. M.P. Singh who is also regarded as the hero of India 's Green revolution.
Statistical Results of the Green Revolution
1) The Green Revolution resulted in a record grain output of 131 million tons in 1978-79. This established India as one of the world's biggest agricultural producers. No other country in the world, which attempted the Green Revolution recorded such level of success. India also became an exporter of food grains around that time.
2) Yield per unit of farmland improved by more than 30 per cent between 1947 (when India gained political independence) and 1979 when the Green Revolution was considered to have delivered its goods.
3) The crop area under HYV varieties grew from seven per cent to 22 per cent of the total cultivated area during the 10 years of the Green Revolution. More than 70 per cent of the wheat crop area, 35 per cent of the rice crop area and 20 per cent of the millet and corn crop area, used the HYV seeds.
Economic results of the Green Revolution
1) Crop areas under high-yield varieties needed more water, more fertilizer, more pesticides, fungicides and certain other chemicals. This spurred the growth of the local manufacturing sector. Such industrial growth created new jobs and contributed to the country's GDP.
2) The increase in irrigation created need for new dams to harness monsoon water. The water stored was used to create hydroelectric power. This in turn boosted industrial growth, created jobs and improved the quality of life of the people in villages.
3) India paid back all loans it had taken from the World Bank and its affiliates for the purpose of the Green Revolution. This improved India 's creditworthiness in the eyes of the lending agencies.
4) Some developed countries, especially Canada , which were facing a shortage in agricultural labor, were so impressed by the results of India 's Green Revolution that they asked the Indian government to supply them with farmers experienced in the methods of the Green Revolution. Many farmers from Punjab and Haryana states in northern India were thus sent to Canada where they settled (That's why Canada today has many Punjabi-speaking citizens of Indian origin). These people remitted part of their incomes to their relatives in India . This not only helped the relatives but also added, albeit modestly, to India 's foreign exchange earnings.
Sociological results of the Green Revolution
The Green Revolution created plenty of jobs not only for agricultural workers but also industrial workers by the creation of lateral facilities such as factories and hydro-electric power stations as explained above.
Political results of the Green Revolution
1) India transformed itself from a starving nation to an exporter of food. This earned admiration for India in the comity of nations, especially in the Third World .
2) The Green Revolution was one factor that made Mrs Indira Gandhi (1917-84) and her party, the Indian National Congress, a very powerful political force in India (it would however be wrong to say that it was the only reason).
Limitations of the Green Revolution
1) Even today, India 's agricultural output sometimes falls short of demand. The Green Revolution, howsoever impressive, has thus NOT succeeded in making India totally and permanently self-sufficient in food. In 1979 and 1987, India faced severe drought conditions due to poor monsoon; this raised questions about the whether the Green Revolution was really a long-term achievement. In 1998, India had to import onions. Last year, India imported sugar.
However, in today's globalized economic scenario, 100 per cent self-sufficiency is not considered as vital a target as it was when the world political climate was more dangerous due to the Cold War.
2) India has failed to extend the concept of high-yield value seeds to all crops or all regions. In terms of crops, it remains largely confined to foodgrains only, not to all kinds of agricultural produce. In regional terms, only Punjab and Haryana states showed the best results of the Green Revolution. The eastern plains of the River Ganges in West Bengal state also showed reasonably good results. But results were less impressive in other parts of India .
3) Nothing like the Bengal Famine can happen in India again. But it is disturbing to note that even today, there are places like Kalahandi (in India 's eastern state of Orissa) where famine-like conditions have existed for many years and where some starvation deaths have also been reported. Of course, this is due to reasons other than availability of food in India , but the very fact that some people are still starving in India (whatever the reason may be), brings into question whether the Green Revolution has failed in its overall social objectives though it has been a resounding success in terms of agricultural production.
4) The Green Revolution cannot therefore be considered to be a 100 per cent success.
(From Saby Ganguly, http://www.indiaonestop.com/Greenrevolution.htm)
Questions:
1. What were the causes and results of the Bengal Famine in 1943?
2. Briefly describe the three basic elements of the Green Revolution in India:
3. List two positive results of the Green Revolution in India:
4. List three positive economic, sociologic, or political results of the Green revolution in India:
5. Briefly describe two limitations of the Green revolution in India:
Argumentative Essay:
The Green revolution is the answer to the world's food supply problem. Agree or disagree.
Create a three paragraph argumentative essay that introduces the opposite point of view you are taking. Read all of the Pro and Con statements and establish your thesis (you may use the concepts presented in the statements, but you cannot plagiarize or simply rewrite the statements in your essay). Your first paragraph should explain the opposite point of view (e.g. It is commonly accepted that the Green Revolution is the answer to the world's food supply problem ...) The following paragraphs will contain your main ideas that support your position and refute the ideas presented in the first paragraph.
This technique allows the reader to see both sides of the argument. Also, by explaining the opposite position, you solidify your claims because you demonstrate that you have studied both sides of the issue and have come to your conclusions through careful analysis.
'Green Revolution' Trapping India's Farmers In Debt
As the world's population surges, the international community faces a pressing problem: How will it feed everybody?
Until recently, people thought India had an answer.
Farmers in the state of Punjab abandoned traditional farming methods in the 1960s and 1970s as part of the national program called the "Green Revolution," backed by advisers from the U.S. and other countries.
Indian farmers started growing crops the American way — with chemicals, high-yield seeds and irrigation.
Since then, India has gone from importing grain like a beggar, to often exporting it.
But studies show the Green Revolution is heading for collapse.
A Thirst For Water
On a recent morning, a drilling rig is pounding away in the middle of a wheat field near the village of Chotia Khurd. The sound, part jackhammer and part pile driver, is becoming increasingly common in the farm fields of northern India's Punjab region.
The farmer, Sandeep Singh, is supervising and looking unhappy as the rig hammers away, driving deeper and deeper under his field in search of water.
When India's government launched the Green Revolution more than 40 years ago, it pressured farmers to grow only high-yield wheat, rice and cotton instead of their traditional mix of crops.
The new miracle seeds could produce far bigger yields than farmers had ever seen, but they came with a catch: The thirsty crops needed much more water than natural rainfall could provide, so farmers had to dig wells and irrigate with groundwater.
The system worked well for years, but government studies show that farmers have pumped so much groundwater to irrigate their crops that the water table is dropping dramatically, as much as 3 feet every year.
So farmers like Sandeep keep hiring the drilling company to come back to their fields, to bore the wells ever deeper — on this day, to more than 200 feet.
Farmers In Debt
The groundwater problem has touched off an economic chain reaction. As the farmers dig deeper to find groundwater, they have to install ever more powerful and more expensive pumps to send it gushing up to their fields.
Sandeep says his new pump costs more than $4,000. He and most other farmers have to borrow that kind of cash, but they are already so deep in debt that conventional banks often turn them away.
So Sandeep and his neighbors have turned to "unofficial" lenders — local businessmen who charge at least double the banks' interest rate. The district agriculture director, Palwinder Singh, says farmers can end up paying a whopping 24 percent.
Another side effect of the groundwater crisis is evident at the edge of the fields — thin straggly rows of wheat and a whitish powder scattered across the soil.
The white substance is salt residue. Drilling deep wells to find fresh water often taps brackish underground pools, and the salty water poisons the crops.
"The salt causes root injuries," Palwinder says. "The root cannot take the nutrients from the soil."
Destroying The Soil
In the village of Chotia Khurd, farmers agree that the Green Revolution used to work miracles for many of them. But now, it's like financial quicksand.
Studies show that their intensive farming methods, which government policies subsidize, are destroying the soil. The high-yield crops gobble up nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous, iron and manganese, making the soil anemic.
The farmers say they must use three times as much fertilizer as they used to, to produce the same amount of crops — yet another drain on their finances.
A farmer named Suba Singh has seen the good and bad effects of the Green Revolution.
Clad in a bright blue turban and his face furrowed like a field, he opens a squeaky wooden gate to his compound. He points to a small building made of mud and straw, with faded green doors.
"That's where my family used to live," he says.
During the profitable years of the Green Revolution, he saw that everyone else in the village was building brick houses.
"So I took out a loan," he says, "and built a brick house for my family, too."
He turned the old mud house into his cattle shed. But now he is in debt.
A study by the Punjab State Council for Science and Technology calls it a "vicious cycle of debt."
Suba and the other farmers say they've had to borrow money to buy just about everything that makes them look prosperous — their brick homes, tractors, cattle, even their plastic chairs.
The farmers have also built their Green Revolution farms and lifestyle on another unstable source of money: Family members have moved overseas to find jobs, because they couldn't make a living farming, and now they send part of their income back to Chotia Khurd to support their relatives.
"It's like a disease that is catching on in the world," says Suba, "building a life that is like a house of cards."
A System About To Collapse?
Some leading officials in the farming industry wonder when this house of cards might collapse.
"The state and farmers are now faced with a crisis," warns a report by the Punjab State Farmers Commission.
India's population is growing faster than any country on Earth, and domestic food production is vital.
But the commission's director, G.S. Kalkat, says Punjab's farmers are committing ecological and economic "suicide."
If he is correct, suicide is coming through national policies that reward farmers for the very practices that destroy the environment and trap them in debt.
Kalkat says only one thing can save Punjab: India has to launch a brand new Green Revolution. But he says this one has to be sustainable.
The problem is, nobody has yet perfected a farming system that produces high yields, makes a good living for farm families, protects and enhances the environment — and still produces good, affordable food.
Until recently, people thought India had an answer.
Farmers in the state of Punjab abandoned traditional farming methods in the 1960s and 1970s as part of the national program called the "Green Revolution," backed by advisers from the U.S. and other countries.
Indian farmers started growing crops the American way — with chemicals, high-yield seeds and irrigation.
Since then, India has gone from importing grain like a beggar, to often exporting it.
But studies show the Green Revolution is heading for collapse.
A Thirst For Water
On a recent morning, a drilling rig is pounding away in the middle of a wheat field near the village of Chotia Khurd. The sound, part jackhammer and part pile driver, is becoming increasingly common in the farm fields of northern India's Punjab region.
The farmer, Sandeep Singh, is supervising and looking unhappy as the rig hammers away, driving deeper and deeper under his field in search of water.
When India's government launched the Green Revolution more than 40 years ago, it pressured farmers to grow only high-yield wheat, rice and cotton instead of their traditional mix of crops.
The new miracle seeds could produce far bigger yields than farmers had ever seen, but they came with a catch: The thirsty crops needed much more water than natural rainfall could provide, so farmers had to dig wells and irrigate with groundwater.
The system worked well for years, but government studies show that farmers have pumped so much groundwater to irrigate their crops that the water table is dropping dramatically, as much as 3 feet every year.
So farmers like Sandeep keep hiring the drilling company to come back to their fields, to bore the wells ever deeper — on this day, to more than 200 feet.
Farmers In Debt
The groundwater problem has touched off an economic chain reaction. As the farmers dig deeper to find groundwater, they have to install ever more powerful and more expensive pumps to send it gushing up to their fields.
Sandeep says his new pump costs more than $4,000. He and most other farmers have to borrow that kind of cash, but they are already so deep in debt that conventional banks often turn them away.
So Sandeep and his neighbors have turned to "unofficial" lenders — local businessmen who charge at least double the banks' interest rate. The district agriculture director, Palwinder Singh, says farmers can end up paying a whopping 24 percent.
Another side effect of the groundwater crisis is evident at the edge of the fields — thin straggly rows of wheat and a whitish powder scattered across the soil.
The white substance is salt residue. Drilling deep wells to find fresh water often taps brackish underground pools, and the salty water poisons the crops.
"The salt causes root injuries," Palwinder says. "The root cannot take the nutrients from the soil."
Destroying The Soil
In the village of Chotia Khurd, farmers agree that the Green Revolution used to work miracles for many of them. But now, it's like financial quicksand.
Studies show that their intensive farming methods, which government policies subsidize, are destroying the soil. The high-yield crops gobble up nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous, iron and manganese, making the soil anemic.
The farmers say they must use three times as much fertilizer as they used to, to produce the same amount of crops — yet another drain on their finances.
A farmer named Suba Singh has seen the good and bad effects of the Green Revolution.
Clad in a bright blue turban and his face furrowed like a field, he opens a squeaky wooden gate to his compound. He points to a small building made of mud and straw, with faded green doors.
"That's where my family used to live," he says.
During the profitable years of the Green Revolution, he saw that everyone else in the village was building brick houses.
"So I took out a loan," he says, "and built a brick house for my family, too."
He turned the old mud house into his cattle shed. But now he is in debt.
A study by the Punjab State Council for Science and Technology calls it a "vicious cycle of debt."
Suba and the other farmers say they've had to borrow money to buy just about everything that makes them look prosperous — their brick homes, tractors, cattle, even their plastic chairs.
The farmers have also built their Green Revolution farms and lifestyle on another unstable source of money: Family members have moved overseas to find jobs, because they couldn't make a living farming, and now they send part of their income back to Chotia Khurd to support their relatives.
"It's like a disease that is catching on in the world," says Suba, "building a life that is like a house of cards."
A System About To Collapse?
Some leading officials in the farming industry wonder when this house of cards might collapse.
"The state and farmers are now faced with a crisis," warns a report by the Punjab State Farmers Commission.
India's population is growing faster than any country on Earth, and domestic food production is vital.
But the commission's director, G.S. Kalkat, says Punjab's farmers are committing ecological and economic "suicide."
If he is correct, suicide is coming through national policies that reward farmers for the very practices that destroy the environment and trap them in debt.
Kalkat says only one thing can save Punjab: India has to launch a brand new Green Revolution. But he says this one has to be sustainable.
The problem is, nobody has yet perfected a farming system that produces high yields, makes a good living for farm families, protects and enhances the environment — and still produces good, affordable food.
From famine to plenty, from humiliation to dignity
India's food-grains production has hovered around a fifth of a billion tonnes mark in recent years. More than self-sufficient, India frequently exports its surpluses. India in 55 years has emerged from famine ridden colonial times, as a famine free Republic. Its population has nearly tripled in that period. More significantly, India in 1947,lost some of its most fertile lands. But she has managed to stand up and falsify many prophesies of doom. India was the greatest success story of the Green Revolution. Although today her agriculture is at a cross-roads again, the Green Revolution of the sixties gained some crucial decades for India in which to rethink her way forward. The Revolution is also worth remembering for India's capacity for collective action. Pause a while therefore, before you decry India's administration for every ill in the land.
Famine kingdom:
If the shame of the German Reich was the Holocaust, the British Empire --the Reich's great adversary-- matched it with the Bengal Famine. Both occurred around the same time and the scores were about even: 3 million dead in each. As a consequence of heartlessness and inept governance, the Great Famine of 1943-44 has no equal. Heavily taxed and left to themselves and the monsoons, India's farmers began the forties with falling, failing crops. The 'war effort' meant seizure of farm produce, banning of grain trade and turning the gaze away from the countryside. Result was, destitute folk began to arrive in Kolkata looking for food. Fearing that declaring an official famine would mandate supplying food diverted from its armed forces, the Empire simply let people die in the streets. And then within three years, with the war won, the British upped and left a traumatised, dismembered India.
The young nation was the object of much mockery world-wide. "Starving millions" was the phrase flung at it for an identity. Though the Indian farmer was back plying his heartache trade, shortages recurred. India was a massive importer, the tonnage peaking at 10 million in 1966. Humiliation was heaped upon it in a book : "Famine 1975" [Paddock and Paddock, 1965]. The authors predicted that by 1975 Indians would die in their millions. They suggested that the world turn its attention away from this hopeless land. Thomas Malthus probably concurred from his grave. Many nations of course helped, notably the USA with its massive PL-480 programme. The Indian government gamely coped with the times. It was a decade of much hardship and morale sapping pessimism.
The tide turns:
The story of how what came to be called the Green Revolution began is an exciting one. The story's moral is that hope is always buried within tragedy. Shortly after the Bengal Famine, MacArthur's victorious US army marched into Japan. In the huge occupation force was S. Cecil Salmon of the US Agricultural Research Service [ARS]. Many initiatives were being considered for rebuilding Japan. Salmon was focused on agriculture and that was how he chanced upon the legendary Norin strain of wheat that was to trigger the Revolution. Norin was a dwarf variety with little foliage and a heavy head of grain. Salmon sent this to the US for further study. In Washington State University at Pullman, a team under Orville Vogel researched the dwarf wheat. They bred many prototypes and finally created in 1959 the Gaines dwarf. It had been 13 long years of experimentation. Norman Borlaug --that icon of the Green Revolution-- picked up Gaines and crossed it with Mexico's best varieties at the International Maize and Wheat Research Centre there. He had the magic bullet -- he waited to unleash the Revolution.
By the 1960's India was desperate for a breakthrough. The nation's self-confidence was at an ebb. The Chinese had delivered a military lesson. Nehru was aging. Political uncertainty loomed. Food crises were endemic. Total food production hung around about 50 million tonnes. Marginal increases were only through bringing more land area under cultivation and not through increases in productivity. Food reserves were nil. India was just about meeting its deficit with imports. Clearly a quantum leap was needed.
It was then that India discovered Borlaug and the Norin dwarf. A small field at Pusa was seeded and the results were dramatic. It was what India had been waiting for. What then followed was a display of commitment and implementation that has stood to inspire India in many other fields. It is a milestone to cherish. Though the Green Revolution was a worldwide phenomenon its most successful revolutionaries were India's political leadership, bureaucrats, scientists and of course the farmers.
What it took:
Once Borlaug and India were convinced that they had a solution, the realisation of what needed to be done dawned. It was a formidable task. But India had its men in place. Of the ones that are easily named are C. Subramaniam, B. P. Pal and M.S.Swaminathan. In the end however, literally millions of Indians were active parts of the Revolution.
C. Subramaniam was in 1965, the Union Minister for Agriculture. He had trudged a long road, as a Gandhi devotee, freedom fighter and as a member of India's Constituent Assembly. Most of all he was a modern mind and a man of action. Swaminathan was an entirely home-grown plant genetist of repute. He emerged as Subramaniam's able lieutenant. In 1996, Subramaniam took the politically bold decision of importing 18,000 tonnes of the dwarf wheat seeds of the Lerma Rojo 64A and Sonora 64 variety.
The induction of an agricultural technology is not a mere question of buying seeds. Conducive policies and delivery systems have to exist. Subramaniam piloted the necessary reforms. To disseminate information Krishi Vigyan Kendras, model farms and district block development offices were put in place. Seed farms were developed. To augment research the Indian Council for Agricultural Research [ICAR] was reorganised. As the dwarf variety was chemicals and fertiliser intensive new industrial units were licenced. To encourage two crops a year and monsoon-independence, irrigation canals and deep water wells were created. Policy was changed to assure guaranteed prices and markets. Food stock storages were created.
The results were not long to come. Land under active cultivation began to grow from 1.9 million hectares [mHa] in 1960 to 15.5mHa [1970], 43mHa [1980] and 64mHa [1990]. As for the Paddocks' prophesied demise of India in 1975 well, it didn't happen: India weighed in that year with over 110 million tonnes of food grains.
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Food grain production [mT]
50.8
82.0
108.4
129.6
176.4
201.8
Food grain import [mT]
4.8
10.4
7.5
0.8
0.3
-
Buffer stock [mT]
-
2.0
-
15.5
20.8
40.0
Population [m]
361
439
548
683
846
1000
It is also well to remember that India continued its own adaptive research on high yielding varieties [HYV]. The Revolution was not about just importing seeds. At the Indian Agricultural Research Institute [IARI], Benjamin Peary Pal developed the New Pusa 809, a hardy Indian wheat variety. A genial man who did his doctorate at Cambridge in 1933, B.P.Pal is easily the father of post-modern research in India's agriculture. He was a painter, a rose fancier and a patron of arts. He built a large team, groomed many scientists and extended the HYV research in crops other than wheat. Indian Council for Agricultural Research [ICAR] of which he was the first Director General, proceeded to synthesise and broadcast many HYV seeds like Pusa Sonara, Malavika, Kalyan Sona. Many of these are popular today in Pakistan, other SAARC countries, Afghanistan, Sudan and Syria.
The success was not agriculture's alone. There were many spin-offs. Infrastructure improved. With increasing production India paid back all her loans on time; this increased its standing in the world. Vast employment opportunities opened up. Demand for consumer and industrial goods were triggered. Science-mindedness --and mechanics!-- sprouted everywhere. Amazed by the doughty farmers of Punjab and Haryana --the real real heroes of the Revolution-- Canada came wooing them to settle and farm its lands. Indians came to esteem themselves better. India had shaken off her colonial hang-over and defied the mould assigned for her.
The next road:
So let us say, "Long live the Revolution!" Why? Is it dying? No, but no Revolution is permanent. We began by observing that 'hope is always buried in tragedy'. Maybe strife in return arrives with success. The Green Revolution has thrown up its own set of problems. There has been a toll on soil fertility. The HYVs call for heavy dosages of chemicals -- fertilisers and pesticides. Prolonged use of these has depleted our soils and poisoned our environment. The once thrifty farmer has become a profligate user of power and water. Also because this form of agriculture is capital intensive, it is the farmer of means who most benefits from it. Therefore, while India's food problem may have been solved, not so the hunger problem of its poor. The profits of the Revolution have not spread evenly in society and the poor have little means to buy the huge stocks with the government. Worst of all yields are beginning to fall. We may have basked for too long in the glow of the Revolution.
So, India is at a cross-roads again. Which road is it to take. A tempting sign points to transgenic crops, also known as genetically modified [GM] crops. These are promoted as being the spear-heads of the next Green Revolution. They are said to need fewer inputs, display greater immunity to pests and yield high. But there are many sober voices that dispute these claims. Their views too are justified because in the past, multi-national companies have hastily jumped in to reap their profits with dubious products leaving the farmer to harvest sorrow. Objective scientific assessment of the claims made for GM crops is not yet complete. So the time may not be ripe yet to induct these promising technologies.
The more sensible road to take is the one to eco-sensitive farming. India needs to reevaluate proven, ancient ways of harmoniously maintaining soil fertility. Dependance on chemicals has to be minmised. Esteem for carefully selected native strains has to be encouraged if the small farmer is to be freed from malevolent seed companies. Conservation and optimal use of water is an important issue. Most of all, agricultural pricing and market policies need to be reviewed to favour the small farmer. There are signs of an emerging awareness all around. Many farmers in Kerala and Karnataka are turning to organic farming on a large scale. Most significantly Swaminathan, that star of the Green Revolution is today an advocate of 'sustainable agriculture'.
So let's put the Green Revolution in context again. It is undoubtedly a great Indian success story. But its unspoken mission may have been to give us a fresh breath with which to codify Indian farmers' traditional wisdom. Today technologies and Indian technologists are available -- as was not the case in the sixties-- to compile 'best practices' and disseminate them widely. It is in the nature of revolutions that they are never 'final solutions' but place-holders till the next one comes along.
Famine kingdom:
If the shame of the German Reich was the Holocaust, the British Empire --the Reich's great adversary-- matched it with the Bengal Famine. Both occurred around the same time and the scores were about even: 3 million dead in each. As a consequence of heartlessness and inept governance, the Great Famine of 1943-44 has no equal. Heavily taxed and left to themselves and the monsoons, India's farmers began the forties with falling, failing crops. The 'war effort' meant seizure of farm produce, banning of grain trade and turning the gaze away from the countryside. Result was, destitute folk began to arrive in Kolkata looking for food. Fearing that declaring an official famine would mandate supplying food diverted from its armed forces, the Empire simply let people die in the streets. And then within three years, with the war won, the British upped and left a traumatised, dismembered India.
The young nation was the object of much mockery world-wide. "Starving millions" was the phrase flung at it for an identity. Though the Indian farmer was back plying his heartache trade, shortages recurred. India was a massive importer, the tonnage peaking at 10 million in 1966. Humiliation was heaped upon it in a book : "Famine 1975" [Paddock and Paddock, 1965]. The authors predicted that by 1975 Indians would die in their millions. They suggested that the world turn its attention away from this hopeless land. Thomas Malthus probably concurred from his grave. Many nations of course helped, notably the USA with its massive PL-480 programme. The Indian government gamely coped with the times. It was a decade of much hardship and morale sapping pessimism.
The tide turns:
The story of how what came to be called the Green Revolution began is an exciting one. The story's moral is that hope is always buried within tragedy. Shortly after the Bengal Famine, MacArthur's victorious US army marched into Japan. In the huge occupation force was S. Cecil Salmon of the US Agricultural Research Service [ARS]. Many initiatives were being considered for rebuilding Japan. Salmon was focused on agriculture and that was how he chanced upon the legendary Norin strain of wheat that was to trigger the Revolution. Norin was a dwarf variety with little foliage and a heavy head of grain. Salmon sent this to the US for further study. In Washington State University at Pullman, a team under Orville Vogel researched the dwarf wheat. They bred many prototypes and finally created in 1959 the Gaines dwarf. It had been 13 long years of experimentation. Norman Borlaug --that icon of the Green Revolution-- picked up Gaines and crossed it with Mexico's best varieties at the International Maize and Wheat Research Centre there. He had the magic bullet -- he waited to unleash the Revolution.
By the 1960's India was desperate for a breakthrough. The nation's self-confidence was at an ebb. The Chinese had delivered a military lesson. Nehru was aging. Political uncertainty loomed. Food crises were endemic. Total food production hung around about 50 million tonnes. Marginal increases were only through bringing more land area under cultivation and not through increases in productivity. Food reserves were nil. India was just about meeting its deficit with imports. Clearly a quantum leap was needed.
It was then that India discovered Borlaug and the Norin dwarf. A small field at Pusa was seeded and the results were dramatic. It was what India had been waiting for. What then followed was a display of commitment and implementation that has stood to inspire India in many other fields. It is a milestone to cherish. Though the Green Revolution was a worldwide phenomenon its most successful revolutionaries were India's political leadership, bureaucrats, scientists and of course the farmers.
What it took:
Once Borlaug and India were convinced that they had a solution, the realisation of what needed to be done dawned. It was a formidable task. But India had its men in place. Of the ones that are easily named are C. Subramaniam, B. P. Pal and M.S.Swaminathan. In the end however, literally millions of Indians were active parts of the Revolution.
C. Subramaniam was in 1965, the Union Minister for Agriculture. He had trudged a long road, as a Gandhi devotee, freedom fighter and as a member of India's Constituent Assembly. Most of all he was a modern mind and a man of action. Swaminathan was an entirely home-grown plant genetist of repute. He emerged as Subramaniam's able lieutenant. In 1996, Subramaniam took the politically bold decision of importing 18,000 tonnes of the dwarf wheat seeds of the Lerma Rojo 64A and Sonora 64 variety.
The induction of an agricultural technology is not a mere question of buying seeds. Conducive policies and delivery systems have to exist. Subramaniam piloted the necessary reforms. To disseminate information Krishi Vigyan Kendras, model farms and district block development offices were put in place. Seed farms were developed. To augment research the Indian Council for Agricultural Research [ICAR] was reorganised. As the dwarf variety was chemicals and fertiliser intensive new industrial units were licenced. To encourage two crops a year and monsoon-independence, irrigation canals and deep water wells were created. Policy was changed to assure guaranteed prices and markets. Food stock storages were created.
The results were not long to come. Land under active cultivation began to grow from 1.9 million hectares [mHa] in 1960 to 15.5mHa [1970], 43mHa [1980] and 64mHa [1990]. As for the Paddocks' prophesied demise of India in 1975 well, it didn't happen: India weighed in that year with over 110 million tonnes of food grains.
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Food grain production [mT]
50.8
82.0
108.4
129.6
176.4
201.8
Food grain import [mT]
4.8
10.4
7.5
0.8
0.3
-
Buffer stock [mT]
-
2.0
-
15.5
20.8
40.0
Population [m]
361
439
548
683
846
1000
It is also well to remember that India continued its own adaptive research on high yielding varieties [HYV]. The Revolution was not about just importing seeds. At the Indian Agricultural Research Institute [IARI], Benjamin Peary Pal developed the New Pusa 809, a hardy Indian wheat variety. A genial man who did his doctorate at Cambridge in 1933, B.P.Pal is easily the father of post-modern research in India's agriculture. He was a painter, a rose fancier and a patron of arts. He built a large team, groomed many scientists and extended the HYV research in crops other than wheat. Indian Council for Agricultural Research [ICAR] of which he was the first Director General, proceeded to synthesise and broadcast many HYV seeds like Pusa Sonara, Malavika, Kalyan Sona. Many of these are popular today in Pakistan, other SAARC countries, Afghanistan, Sudan and Syria.
The success was not agriculture's alone. There were many spin-offs. Infrastructure improved. With increasing production India paid back all her loans on time; this increased its standing in the world. Vast employment opportunities opened up. Demand for consumer and industrial goods were triggered. Science-mindedness --and mechanics!-- sprouted everywhere. Amazed by the doughty farmers of Punjab and Haryana --the real real heroes of the Revolution-- Canada came wooing them to settle and farm its lands. Indians came to esteem themselves better. India had shaken off her colonial hang-over and defied the mould assigned for her.
The next road:
So let us say, "Long live the Revolution!" Why? Is it dying? No, but no Revolution is permanent. We began by observing that 'hope is always buried in tragedy'. Maybe strife in return arrives with success. The Green Revolution has thrown up its own set of problems. There has been a toll on soil fertility. The HYVs call for heavy dosages of chemicals -- fertilisers and pesticides. Prolonged use of these has depleted our soils and poisoned our environment. The once thrifty farmer has become a profligate user of power and water. Also because this form of agriculture is capital intensive, it is the farmer of means who most benefits from it. Therefore, while India's food problem may have been solved, not so the hunger problem of its poor. The profits of the Revolution have not spread evenly in society and the poor have little means to buy the huge stocks with the government. Worst of all yields are beginning to fall. We may have basked for too long in the glow of the Revolution.
So, India is at a cross-roads again. Which road is it to take. A tempting sign points to transgenic crops, also known as genetically modified [GM] crops. These are promoted as being the spear-heads of the next Green Revolution. They are said to need fewer inputs, display greater immunity to pests and yield high. But there are many sober voices that dispute these claims. Their views too are justified because in the past, multi-national companies have hastily jumped in to reap their profits with dubious products leaving the farmer to harvest sorrow. Objective scientific assessment of the claims made for GM crops is not yet complete. So the time may not be ripe yet to induct these promising technologies.
The more sensible road to take is the one to eco-sensitive farming. India needs to reevaluate proven, ancient ways of harmoniously maintaining soil fertility. Dependance on chemicals has to be minmised. Esteem for carefully selected native strains has to be encouraged if the small farmer is to be freed from malevolent seed companies. Conservation and optimal use of water is an important issue. Most of all, agricultural pricing and market policies need to be reviewed to favour the small farmer. There are signs of an emerging awareness all around. Many farmers in Kerala and Karnataka are turning to organic farming on a large scale. Most significantly Swaminathan, that star of the Green Revolution is today an advocate of 'sustainable agriculture'.
So let's put the Green Revolution in context again. It is undoubtedly a great Indian success story. But its unspoken mission may have been to give us a fresh breath with which to codify Indian farmers' traditional wisdom. Today technologies and Indian technologists are available -- as was not the case in the sixties-- to compile 'best practices' and disseminate them widely. It is in the nature of revolutions that they are never 'final solutions' but place-holders till the next one comes along.
From the Bengal Famine to the Green Revolution
The world's worst recorded food disaster happened in 1943 in British-ruled India. Known as the Bengal Famine, an estimated four million people died of hunger that year alone in eastern India (that included today's Bangladesh). The initial theory put forward to 'explain' that catastrophe was that there as an acute shortfall in food production in the area. However, Indian economist Amartya Sen (recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economics, 1998) has established that while food shortage was a contributor to the problem, a more potent factor was the result of hysteria related to World War II which made food supply a low priority for the British rulers. The hysteria was further exploited by Indian traders who hoarded food in order to sell at higher prices.Nevertheless, when the British left India four years later in 1947, India continued to be haunted by memories of the Bengal Famine. It was therefore natural that food security was a paramount item on free India's agenda. This awareness led, on one hand, to the Green Revolution in India and, on the other, legislative measures to ensure that businessmen would never again be able to hoard food for reasons of profit.However, the term "Green Revolution" is applied to the period from 1967 to 1978. Between 1947 and 1967, efforts at achieving food self-sufficiency were not entirely successful. Efforts until 1967 largely concentrated on expanding the farming areas. But starvation deaths were still being reported in the newspapers. In a perfect case of Malthusian economics, population was growing at a much faster rate than food production. This called for drastic action to increase yield. The action came in the form of the Green Revolution.The term "Green Revolution" is a general one that is applied to successful agricultural experiments in many Third World countries. It is NOT specific to India. But it was most successful in India.
What was the Green Revolution in India?
There were three basic elements in the method of the Green Revolution:
(1) Continued expansion of farming areas;
(2) Double-cropping existing farmland;
(3) Using seeds with improved genetics.
Continued expansion of farming areas
As mentioned above, the area of land under cultivation was being increased right from 1947. But this was not enough in meeting with rising demand. Other methods were required. Yet, the expansion of cultivable land also had to continue. So, the Green Revolution continued with this quantitative expansion of farmlands. However, this is NOT the most striking feature of the Revolution.
Double-cropping existing farmland
Double-cropping was a primary feature of the Green Revolution. Instead of one crop season per year, the decision was made to have two crop seasons per year. The one-season-per-year practice was based on the fact that there is only natural monsoon per year. This was correct. So, there had to be two "monsoons" per year. One would be the natural monsoon and the other an artificial 'monsoon.'
The artificial monsoon came in the form of huge irrigation facilities. Dams were built to arrest large volumes of natural monsoon water which were earlier being wasted. Simple irrigation techniques were also adopted.
Using seeds with superior genetics
This was the scientific aspect of the Green Revolution. The Indian Council for Agricultural Research (which was established by the British in 1929 but was not known to have done any significant research) was re-organized in 1965 and then again in 1973. It developed new strains of high yield value (HYV) seeds, mainly wheat and rice but also millet and corn. The most noteworthy HYV seed was the K68 variety for wheat. The credit for developing this strain goes to Dr. M.P. Singh who is also regarded as the hero of India's Green revolution.
Statistical Results of the Green Revolution
(1)
The Green Revolution resulted in a record grain output of 131 million tons in 1978-79. This established India as one of the world's biggest agricultural producers. No other country in the world which attempted the Green Revolution recorded such level of success. India also became an exporter of food grains around that time.
(2)
Yield per unit of farmland improved by more than 30 per cent between 1947 (when India gained political independence) and 1979 when the Green Revolution was considered to have delivered its goods.
(3)
The crop area under HYV varieties grew from seven per cent to 22 per cent of the total cultivated area during the 10 years of the Green Revolution. More than 70 per cent of the wheat crop area, 35 per cent of the rice crop area and 20 per cent of the millet and corn crop area, used the HYV seeds.
Economic results of the Green Revolution
(1)
Crop areas under high-yield varieties needed more water, more fertilizer, more pesticides, fungicides and certain other chemicals. This spurred the growth of the local manufacturing sector. Such industrial growth created new jobs and contributed to the country's GDP.
(2)
The increase in irrigation created need for new dams to harness monsoon water. The water stored was used to create hydro-electric power. This in turn boosted industrial growth, created jobs and improved the quality of life of the people in villages.
(3)
India paid back all loans it had taken from the World Bank and its affiliates for the purpose of the Green Revolution. This improved India's creditworthiness in the eyes of the lending agencies.
(4)
Some developed countries, especially Canada, which were facing a shortage in agricultural labour, were so impressed by the results of India's Green Revolution that they asked the Indian government to supply them with farmers experienced in the methods of the Green Revolution. Many farmers from Punjab and Haryana states in northern India were thus sent to Canada where they settled (That's why Canada today has many Punjabi-speaking citizens of Indian origin). These people remitted part of their incomes to their relatives in India. This not only helped the relatives but also added, albeit modestly, to India's foreign exchange earnings.
Sociological results of the Green Revolution
The Green Revolution created plenty of jobs not only for agricultural workers but also industrial workers by the creation of lateral facilities such as factories and hydro-electric power stations as explained above.
Political results of the Green Revolution
(1)
India transformed itself from a starving nation to an exporter of food. This earned admiration for India in the comity of nations, especially in the Third World.
(2)
The Green Revolution was one factor that made Mrs. Indira Gandhi (1917-84) and her party, the Indian National Congress, a very powerful political force in India (it would however be wrong to say that it was the only reason).
Limitations of the Green Revolution
(1)
Even today, India's agricultural output sometimes falls short of demand. The Green Revolution, howsoever impressive, has thus NOT succeeded in making India totally and permanently self-sufficient in food. In 1979 and 1987, India faced severe drought conditions due to poor monsoon; this raised questions about the whether the Green Revolution was really a long-term achievement. In 1998, India had to import onions. Last year, India imported sugar.
However, in today's globalised economic scenario, 100 per cent self-sufficiency is not considered as vital a target as it was when the world political climate was more dangerous due to the Cold War.
(2)
India has failed to extend the concept of high-yield value seeds to all crops or all regions. In terms of crops, it remain largely confined to foodgrains only, not to all kinds of agricultural produce. In regional terms, only Punjab and Haryana states showed the best results of the Green Revolution. The eastern plains of the River Ganges in West Bengal state also showed reasonably good results. But results were less impressive in other parts of India.
(3)
Nothing like the Bengal Famine can happen in India again. But it is disturbing to note that even today, there are places like Kalahandi (in India's eastern state of Orissa) where famine-like conditions have been existing for many years and where some starvation deaths have also been reported. Of course, this is due to reasons other than availability of food in India, but the very fact that some people are still starving in India (whatever the reason may be), brings into question whether the Green Revolution has failed in its overall social objectives though it has been a resounding success in terms of agricultural production.
(4)
The Green Revolution cannot therefore be considered to be a 100 percent success
What was the Green Revolution in India?
There were three basic elements in the method of the Green Revolution:
(1) Continued expansion of farming areas;
(2) Double-cropping existing farmland;
(3) Using seeds with improved genetics.
Continued expansion of farming areas
As mentioned above, the area of land under cultivation was being increased right from 1947. But this was not enough in meeting with rising demand. Other methods were required. Yet, the expansion of cultivable land also had to continue. So, the Green Revolution continued with this quantitative expansion of farmlands. However, this is NOT the most striking feature of the Revolution.
Double-cropping existing farmland
Double-cropping was a primary feature of the Green Revolution. Instead of one crop season per year, the decision was made to have two crop seasons per year. The one-season-per-year practice was based on the fact that there is only natural monsoon per year. This was correct. So, there had to be two "monsoons" per year. One would be the natural monsoon and the other an artificial 'monsoon.'
The artificial monsoon came in the form of huge irrigation facilities. Dams were built to arrest large volumes of natural monsoon water which were earlier being wasted. Simple irrigation techniques were also adopted.
Using seeds with superior genetics
This was the scientific aspect of the Green Revolution. The Indian Council for Agricultural Research (which was established by the British in 1929 but was not known to have done any significant research) was re-organized in 1965 and then again in 1973. It developed new strains of high yield value (HYV) seeds, mainly wheat and rice but also millet and corn. The most noteworthy HYV seed was the K68 variety for wheat. The credit for developing this strain goes to Dr. M.P. Singh who is also regarded as the hero of India's Green revolution.
Statistical Results of the Green Revolution
(1)
The Green Revolution resulted in a record grain output of 131 million tons in 1978-79. This established India as one of the world's biggest agricultural producers. No other country in the world which attempted the Green Revolution recorded such level of success. India also became an exporter of food grains around that time.
(2)
Yield per unit of farmland improved by more than 30 per cent between 1947 (when India gained political independence) and 1979 when the Green Revolution was considered to have delivered its goods.
(3)
The crop area under HYV varieties grew from seven per cent to 22 per cent of the total cultivated area during the 10 years of the Green Revolution. More than 70 per cent of the wheat crop area, 35 per cent of the rice crop area and 20 per cent of the millet and corn crop area, used the HYV seeds.
Economic results of the Green Revolution
(1)
Crop areas under high-yield varieties needed more water, more fertilizer, more pesticides, fungicides and certain other chemicals. This spurred the growth of the local manufacturing sector. Such industrial growth created new jobs and contributed to the country's GDP.
(2)
The increase in irrigation created need for new dams to harness monsoon water. The water stored was used to create hydro-electric power. This in turn boosted industrial growth, created jobs and improved the quality of life of the people in villages.
(3)
India paid back all loans it had taken from the World Bank and its affiliates for the purpose of the Green Revolution. This improved India's creditworthiness in the eyes of the lending agencies.
(4)
Some developed countries, especially Canada, which were facing a shortage in agricultural labour, were so impressed by the results of India's Green Revolution that they asked the Indian government to supply them with farmers experienced in the methods of the Green Revolution. Many farmers from Punjab and Haryana states in northern India were thus sent to Canada where they settled (That's why Canada today has many Punjabi-speaking citizens of Indian origin). These people remitted part of their incomes to their relatives in India. This not only helped the relatives but also added, albeit modestly, to India's foreign exchange earnings.
Sociological results of the Green Revolution
The Green Revolution created plenty of jobs not only for agricultural workers but also industrial workers by the creation of lateral facilities such as factories and hydro-electric power stations as explained above.
Political results of the Green Revolution
(1)
India transformed itself from a starving nation to an exporter of food. This earned admiration for India in the comity of nations, especially in the Third World.
(2)
The Green Revolution was one factor that made Mrs. Indira Gandhi (1917-84) and her party, the Indian National Congress, a very powerful political force in India (it would however be wrong to say that it was the only reason).
Limitations of the Green Revolution
(1)
Even today, India's agricultural output sometimes falls short of demand. The Green Revolution, howsoever impressive, has thus NOT succeeded in making India totally and permanently self-sufficient in food. In 1979 and 1987, India faced severe drought conditions due to poor monsoon; this raised questions about the whether the Green Revolution was really a long-term achievement. In 1998, India had to import onions. Last year, India imported sugar.
However, in today's globalised economic scenario, 100 per cent self-sufficiency is not considered as vital a target as it was when the world political climate was more dangerous due to the Cold War.
(2)
India has failed to extend the concept of high-yield value seeds to all crops or all regions. In terms of crops, it remain largely confined to foodgrains only, not to all kinds of agricultural produce. In regional terms, only Punjab and Haryana states showed the best results of the Green Revolution. The eastern plains of the River Ganges in West Bengal state also showed reasonably good results. But results were less impressive in other parts of India.
(3)
Nothing like the Bengal Famine can happen in India again. But it is disturbing to note that even today, there are places like Kalahandi (in India's eastern state of Orissa) where famine-like conditions have been existing for many years and where some starvation deaths have also been reported. Of course, this is due to reasons other than availability of food in India, but the very fact that some people are still starving in India (whatever the reason may be), brings into question whether the Green Revolution has failed in its overall social objectives though it has been a resounding success in terms of agricultural production.
(4)
The Green Revolution cannot therefore be considered to be a 100 percent success
Perceptions of Classroom Psychosocial Environment
Relationships between students’ affective and cognitive outcomes and their perceptions of classroom psychosocial environment as measured by the Individualized Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ) and the Classroom Environment Scale (CES) were investigated for a sample of 1,083 junior high school students in 116 classrooms. Six different statistical analyses (simple correlation, multiple correlation, and canonical correlation analysis conducted separately for raw post-test scores and residual posttest scores adjusted for corresponding pretest and general ability) revealed sizable environment-outcome associations. Further analyses showed that the ICEQ and CES made appreciable, unique contributions to explaining outcome variance, and that the magnitudes of environment-outcome relationships were larger when the class was employed as the unit of analysis than when the student was used.
India’s new mineral policy will usher in gloom for adivasis
India’s new mineral policy is long on ways to maximise the benefits of mining for “the economy” but short on measures to alleviate the social and environmental destruction that mining activity inevitably brings in its wake
India is rich in mineral resources but most of these minerals are to be found in remote forested areas and the watersheds of major rivers, areas that are largely inhabited by tribal peoples or adivasis.
According to the union ministry of mines, the country ranks first in the world in the production of mica blocks and splitting, third in chromites, lignite, coal and barytes, fourth in iron ore and sixth in bauxite and manganese ore. This mineral wealth and its exploitation have substantially contributed to the growth of the national economy. The gross value of mineral production in India in 1995 was estimated to be approximately Rs 270,000 million, up from about Rs1,800 million in 1961. Mineral resources contributed 2% to the country’s GDP and constituted 20% of its exports in 2001.
Since 1991, when the economy was liberalised, private companies have begun to play an important role in the mining sector. The government thus felt the need for a new mineral policy, and in April 2008, the United Progressive Alliance government released the new National Mineral Policy (for non-coal and non-fuel minerals).
Salient features of the National Mineral Policy (NMP) 2008
The document emphasises at the outset the abundance of mineral resources in the country and the need for scientific prospecting, state-of the-art technology and economic utilisation (2.1).
Its focus is on improving the regulatory environment to “make it more conducive to investment and technology flows” (2.2).
The policymakers are also aware that mining has social and environmental impacts, so they suggest “a framework for sustainable development” and protection of the interests of the “host and indigenous (tribal) population …through comprehensive relief and rehabilitation packages” (2.3). However this has to be done in order to ensure the availability and proximity of the minerals to industry (2.4), the economic efficiency of the sector (2.5), new sources of revenue for the states (2.6), research and development of exploration techniques, technologies and economic efficiency through optimal use of minerals and training for this purpose (2.7).
Embracing capitalism
In January 2001, the late President KR Narayanan in his address to the nation on the eve of Republic Day referred to the “dilemmas of development” and asked the country to consider carefully how it chose to develop its mining industry. “While the nation must benefit from the exploitation of these mineral resources, we will have also to take into consideration questions of environmental protection and the rights of the tribals,” he said.
The National Mining Policy (NMP) 2008 addresses none of these concerns. Not only does the policy not address the social and environmental consequences of mining, it actually has the potential to aggravate the situation in terms of displacement, deforestation, environmental degradation, and water scarcity.
The emphasis of the NMP 2008 is on extracting minerals for the economic development of the country. The development of the people who live in the areas to be mined has been ignored. International mining companies are already jumping at the opportunity of getting at the impressive reserves of minerals. Firms like De Beers of South Africa and the Anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto have acquired huge prospecting rights in Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. The human rights record and environmental practices of these companies have been controversial.
Mineral-rich states such as Orissa, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have been critical of the policy. The chief minister of Orissa went to the extent of alleging that the policy was being influenced by the international mining lobby and that it is against the national interest. He alleged that the policy favours private international companies and undermines the role of the public sector.
However, these criticisms are restricted to the economic implications of the policy. Their main concern is that the state may lose out on royalties. They have not commented on the absence of any measures that would limit the negative social and environmental fallout of mining. In fact the Orissa government has in the past violated and manipulated various environmental and human rights guidelines for issuing mining rights to private companies as is well demonstrated in the case of the Vedanta Lanjigarh project and the POSCO projects.
Two other aspects of the NMP that bear questioning are its emphasis on more mechanised forms of mining, and its reliance on private equity and foreign direct investment.
The policy makes a strong push for more mechanised, less labour-intensive mining, where the industry will largely depend on “skilled” labour with a high level of technical competence. It also proposes to substantially increase the scale of privatisation. Risk investment in survey and prospecting, joint ventures and public-private partnerships are the clear mandates of the policy. Moreover, by making environmental regulations voluntary, in the form of the Sustainable Development Framework (SDF), the NMP proposes to privatise environmental and social regulations in mining. Environmental protection is further compromised by the fact that the policy prescribes no deterrents for non-compliance.
Impact on adivasis and the environment
While the emphasis of the NMP 2008 is on extracting minerals for economic development of the country, it pays scant attention to the impact this burgeoning mining activity will have on the environment and the livelihood of local people. Mining always has serious consequences for displacement of people, deforestation, environmental degradation, water scarcity, etc, and these should be seriously addressed in any mining policy. The situation will be further aggravated when the government amends the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act of 1957 to implement the policy directives of the NMP.
The NMP is ambiguous on the subject of rehabilitation and resettlement of the large numbers of adivasis who will be displaced from their lands. Most adivasis are marginal landowners or landless farmers, with no official records to prove their rights over the lands they have been living on and cultivating for centuries. They are thus unlikely to get any compensation or appropriate rehabilitation if a strictly legalistic approach is adopted.
Mining activity hitherto has neither brought any benefits to local populations nor has it shown any concern for the environment as these facts will show:
In India, there exists an inverse relationship between mineral production and economic growth. Sixty per cent of the top 50 mineral-producing districts are among the 150 most backward districts of the country even after decades of mining.
More and more forest land has been diverted for mining, violating the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. During 1998-2005, 216 mining projects were granted forest clearance annually, as against 19 per year during 1980-97.
Mining projects have displaced around 25.5 lakh people during 1950-1991, and 52% of the people displaced are adivasis.
Chhattisgarh, which has a large tribal population, is one of the richest states in India in terms of mineral wealth. The mineral-rich districts of Bastar, Surguja, Korba and Dantewada are also tribal dominated and heavily forested. New mining projects are coming up in these districts which are among the most backward districts of the state in terms of human and social indicators.
Mining impacts negatively on the ecosystems of the area. In Korba district of Chhattisgarh, mining activity has affected around 78% of the forest area. According to a 2006 study by the Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, 6% of forest land has been completely converted for industrial purposes, 55% changed into barren and waste land, and around 17% became highly degraded forest.
West Singhbhum district of Jharkhand has abundant reserves of iron ore and forests, and 66% of its population is adivasi. Large-scale mining has not brought progress to the peoples here. Almost 50% of the population lives below the poverty line and a significant 19% of households are not food sufficient.
Forty per cent of the mineral-rich regions are affected by Naxalite insurgency – radicals who use force to overthrow or destabilise existing administrations that they see as corrupt and anti-poor. In Chhattisgarh, the government has pitted the adivasi population against the Naxals under the Salwa Judum, which it calls a peace campaign. This has divided the adivasis who were resisting industrial activity, including mining. This conflict has led to the displacement of about 80,000 people in the state.
Conclusion
As the global economy expands, the pressure on adivasi lands to yield minerals will intensify. Mining is a short-term activity with long-term effects. Though the NMP 2008 talks about scientific mining, it is an unsustainable activity and is based on the extraction of non-renewable resources. Millions of people lose their livelihoods because of mining and it has also become the main cause of social unrest, widespread human rights violation, health hazards for people and environmental degradation.
While it is true that the country needs minerals for infrastructure development, it is equally true that over-consumption by one section of society is destroying the livelihoods and environments of another section, which is at the receiving end of mining. Decades of mining have not contributed much to the economic betterment of local populations and this is particularly true of marginalised groups such as the adivasis. Poor development and marginalisation create conditions for social tensions. Mining is an activity that needs to be strictly controlled at all stages. Above all, people living in mining areas should have the capacity to take fully-informed decisions on allowing mining in their territories or decide on how to carry out the activity and ensure environmental conservation and social justice. The new NMP needs to examine these issues with a sense of urgency. The policy itself needs to be brought to centrestage and widely discussed.
India is rich in mineral resources but most of these minerals are to be found in remote forested areas and the watersheds of major rivers, areas that are largely inhabited by tribal peoples or adivasis.
According to the union ministry of mines, the country ranks first in the world in the production of mica blocks and splitting, third in chromites, lignite, coal and barytes, fourth in iron ore and sixth in bauxite and manganese ore. This mineral wealth and its exploitation have substantially contributed to the growth of the national economy. The gross value of mineral production in India in 1995 was estimated to be approximately Rs 270,000 million, up from about Rs1,800 million in 1961. Mineral resources contributed 2% to the country’s GDP and constituted 20% of its exports in 2001.
Since 1991, when the economy was liberalised, private companies have begun to play an important role in the mining sector. The government thus felt the need for a new mineral policy, and in April 2008, the United Progressive Alliance government released the new National Mineral Policy (for non-coal and non-fuel minerals).
Salient features of the National Mineral Policy (NMP) 2008
The document emphasises at the outset the abundance of mineral resources in the country and the need for scientific prospecting, state-of the-art technology and economic utilisation (2.1).
Its focus is on improving the regulatory environment to “make it more conducive to investment and technology flows” (2.2).
The policymakers are also aware that mining has social and environmental impacts, so they suggest “a framework for sustainable development” and protection of the interests of the “host and indigenous (tribal) population …through comprehensive relief and rehabilitation packages” (2.3). However this has to be done in order to ensure the availability and proximity of the minerals to industry (2.4), the economic efficiency of the sector (2.5), new sources of revenue for the states (2.6), research and development of exploration techniques, technologies and economic efficiency through optimal use of minerals and training for this purpose (2.7).
Embracing capitalism
In January 2001, the late President KR Narayanan in his address to the nation on the eve of Republic Day referred to the “dilemmas of development” and asked the country to consider carefully how it chose to develop its mining industry. “While the nation must benefit from the exploitation of these mineral resources, we will have also to take into consideration questions of environmental protection and the rights of the tribals,” he said.
The National Mining Policy (NMP) 2008 addresses none of these concerns. Not only does the policy not address the social and environmental consequences of mining, it actually has the potential to aggravate the situation in terms of displacement, deforestation, environmental degradation, and water scarcity.
The emphasis of the NMP 2008 is on extracting minerals for the economic development of the country. The development of the people who live in the areas to be mined has been ignored. International mining companies are already jumping at the opportunity of getting at the impressive reserves of minerals. Firms like De Beers of South Africa and the Anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto have acquired huge prospecting rights in Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. The human rights record and environmental practices of these companies have been controversial.
Mineral-rich states such as Orissa, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have been critical of the policy. The chief minister of Orissa went to the extent of alleging that the policy was being influenced by the international mining lobby and that it is against the national interest. He alleged that the policy favours private international companies and undermines the role of the public sector.
However, these criticisms are restricted to the economic implications of the policy. Their main concern is that the state may lose out on royalties. They have not commented on the absence of any measures that would limit the negative social and environmental fallout of mining. In fact the Orissa government has in the past violated and manipulated various environmental and human rights guidelines for issuing mining rights to private companies as is well demonstrated in the case of the Vedanta Lanjigarh project and the POSCO projects.
Two other aspects of the NMP that bear questioning are its emphasis on more mechanised forms of mining, and its reliance on private equity and foreign direct investment.
The policy makes a strong push for more mechanised, less labour-intensive mining, where the industry will largely depend on “skilled” labour with a high level of technical competence. It also proposes to substantially increase the scale of privatisation. Risk investment in survey and prospecting, joint ventures and public-private partnerships are the clear mandates of the policy. Moreover, by making environmental regulations voluntary, in the form of the Sustainable Development Framework (SDF), the NMP proposes to privatise environmental and social regulations in mining. Environmental protection is further compromised by the fact that the policy prescribes no deterrents for non-compliance.
Impact on adivasis and the environment
While the emphasis of the NMP 2008 is on extracting minerals for economic development of the country, it pays scant attention to the impact this burgeoning mining activity will have on the environment and the livelihood of local people. Mining always has serious consequences for displacement of people, deforestation, environmental degradation, water scarcity, etc, and these should be seriously addressed in any mining policy. The situation will be further aggravated when the government amends the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act of 1957 to implement the policy directives of the NMP.
The NMP is ambiguous on the subject of rehabilitation and resettlement of the large numbers of adivasis who will be displaced from their lands. Most adivasis are marginal landowners or landless farmers, with no official records to prove their rights over the lands they have been living on and cultivating for centuries. They are thus unlikely to get any compensation or appropriate rehabilitation if a strictly legalistic approach is adopted.
Mining activity hitherto has neither brought any benefits to local populations nor has it shown any concern for the environment as these facts will show:
In India, there exists an inverse relationship between mineral production and economic growth. Sixty per cent of the top 50 mineral-producing districts are among the 150 most backward districts of the country even after decades of mining.
More and more forest land has been diverted for mining, violating the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. During 1998-2005, 216 mining projects were granted forest clearance annually, as against 19 per year during 1980-97.
Mining projects have displaced around 25.5 lakh people during 1950-1991, and 52% of the people displaced are adivasis.
Chhattisgarh, which has a large tribal population, is one of the richest states in India in terms of mineral wealth. The mineral-rich districts of Bastar, Surguja, Korba and Dantewada are also tribal dominated and heavily forested. New mining projects are coming up in these districts which are among the most backward districts of the state in terms of human and social indicators.
Mining impacts negatively on the ecosystems of the area. In Korba district of Chhattisgarh, mining activity has affected around 78% of the forest area. According to a 2006 study by the Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, 6% of forest land has been completely converted for industrial purposes, 55% changed into barren and waste land, and around 17% became highly degraded forest.
West Singhbhum district of Jharkhand has abundant reserves of iron ore and forests, and 66% of its population is adivasi. Large-scale mining has not brought progress to the peoples here. Almost 50% of the population lives below the poverty line and a significant 19% of households are not food sufficient.
Forty per cent of the mineral-rich regions are affected by Naxalite insurgency – radicals who use force to overthrow or destabilise existing administrations that they see as corrupt and anti-poor. In Chhattisgarh, the government has pitted the adivasi population against the Naxals under the Salwa Judum, which it calls a peace campaign. This has divided the adivasis who were resisting industrial activity, including mining. This conflict has led to the displacement of about 80,000 people in the state.
Conclusion
As the global economy expands, the pressure on adivasi lands to yield minerals will intensify. Mining is a short-term activity with long-term effects. Though the NMP 2008 talks about scientific mining, it is an unsustainable activity and is based on the extraction of non-renewable resources. Millions of people lose their livelihoods because of mining and it has also become the main cause of social unrest, widespread human rights violation, health hazards for people and environmental degradation.
While it is true that the country needs minerals for infrastructure development, it is equally true that over-consumption by one section of society is destroying the livelihoods and environments of another section, which is at the receiving end of mining. Decades of mining have not contributed much to the economic betterment of local populations and this is particularly true of marginalised groups such as the adivasis. Poor development and marginalisation create conditions for social tensions. Mining is an activity that needs to be strictly controlled at all stages. Above all, people living in mining areas should have the capacity to take fully-informed decisions on allowing mining in their territories or decide on how to carry out the activity and ensure environmental conservation and social justice. The new NMP needs to examine these issues with a sense of urgency. The policy itself needs to be brought to centrestage and widely discussed.
Handful of players seen ruling the solar roost
Solar panel makers from California to China are gearing up to capture a slice of the growing U.S. market for utility-scale solar power plants, but just a handful of players are expected to snap up most of the business in the coming years.
U.S. players First Solar Inc and SunPower Corp and China's Suntech Power Holdings are widely expected to be the primary winners of large photovoltaic solar projects in the United States in the next few years, with the first two already firmly entrenched in the market.
"I don't think the utility landscape is going to become as competitive as the commercial market, because the barriers to entry are much higher," said Barclays Capital analyst Vishal Shah. "It takes a long time to prove your technology to the utility so they can be comfortable. So from that standpoint it limits the competition only to a handful of players."
For much of the last two years, investors have been banking on an eventual boom in solar power plants in the United States due to increased concerns about climate change that have ushered in generous government incentives for clean energy. That optimism has only intensified in recent months despite a weak global economy and tight credit markets that have hampered development of green power projects this year.
Efforts by the Obama administration to speed development of renewable energy, state mandates for renewable power and a dramatic drop in the cost of solar panels mean "the U.S. market could potentially (and finally) become 'the promised land' that investors have been waiting for since late 2007," FBR Capital Markets analyst Mehdi Hosseini said in a June research note.
But cashing in, at least in terms of securing the biggest projects, may be a tough sell for all but a select few.
With power plant-sized solar projects costing roughly $1 billion to build, according to Shah, developers and utilities are not willing to take chances on emerging technologies and are even skittish about snapping up panels from the flood of new Chinese manufacturers, despite their rock-bottom prices.
"There is a perception of a quality difference" between U.S. and Chinese panels, said Bank of America/Merrill Lynch analyst Steve Milunovich, who added that the U.S. utility market is shaping up to be a race between First Solar, SunPower and Suntech.
"It will be a fairly oligopolistic market," he said.
SUPPORTING THE WARRANTY
The financial health of panel suppliers is more important than ever, one utility executive said, given the global recession that has made even solar companies struggle to stay profitable.
Utilities have to be sure about not just the quality of the panels and their track record, but "the ability of the manufacturer to support their product during the warranty period" of 10 to 20 years, said Southern California Edison's director of generation planning and strategy, Mark Nelson.
For that reason, First Solar and SunPower have snapped up a string of contracts over the last few years, mostly in California, and are by far the biggest photovoltaic players in the utility market today.
The Golden State's utilities, including PG&E Corp's Pacific Gas & Electric, Edison International's Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy's San Diego Gas & Electric, are required to obtain 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010, and 33 percent by 2020.
First Solar, whose low-cost panels are made from cadmium telluride, is widely considered the market leader. Milunovich estimates that the company enjoys half the solar backlog in the U.S. utility market
But with recent steep declines in the cost of polysilicon, the raw material in traditional solar panels, silicon-based panels -- including those made by Suntech and SunPower -- are now more competitive with First Solar's products.
Southern California Edison, which has contracted First Solar to build the first two megawatts of its 250-megawatt rooftop solar program, may seek more suppliers for the rest of the project, Nelson said, depending on the bidding process.
SunPower's panels, though not the cheapest, are much in demand because they are most efficient at transforming sunlight into energy. The San Jose, California, company also benefits from having recognized the market potential early on and proven its technology to potential utility customers over a number of years, Shah said.
No. 1 Chinese panel maker Suntech, however, is nipping at the heels of its U.S. rivals and does not face the same quality concerns as many of its Chinese peers.
"As Suntech moves up I don't think there is going to be any difference there," Milunovich said. "They are going to be competitive."
To establish itself in the U.S. utility market, Suntech last year formed a joint venture called Gemini Solar Development Company LLC with solar developer Renewable Ventures, which was acquired by privately held Spanish power producer Fotowatio in March.
So far the group has secured a 30-megawatt project for Texas municipal utility Austin Energy, and Suntech is seeking to build a U.S. manufacturing plant ahead of an anticipated boom in the utility market.
Chinese panel maker Yingli Green Energy Holding Co Ltd is also expected to make some inroads into the U.S. market thanks to a new supply deal with solar developer AES Solar, a joint venture between power producer AES Corp and private equity firm Riverstone Holdings LLC.
U.S. players First Solar Inc and SunPower Corp and China's Suntech Power Holdings are widely expected to be the primary winners of large photovoltaic solar projects in the United States in the next few years, with the first two already firmly entrenched in the market.
"I don't think the utility landscape is going to become as competitive as the commercial market, because the barriers to entry are much higher," said Barclays Capital analyst Vishal Shah. "It takes a long time to prove your technology to the utility so they can be comfortable. So from that standpoint it limits the competition only to a handful of players."
For much of the last two years, investors have been banking on an eventual boom in solar power plants in the United States due to increased concerns about climate change that have ushered in generous government incentives for clean energy. That optimism has only intensified in recent months despite a weak global economy and tight credit markets that have hampered development of green power projects this year.
Efforts by the Obama administration to speed development of renewable energy, state mandates for renewable power and a dramatic drop in the cost of solar panels mean "the U.S. market could potentially (and finally) become 'the promised land' that investors have been waiting for since late 2007," FBR Capital Markets analyst Mehdi Hosseini said in a June research note.
But cashing in, at least in terms of securing the biggest projects, may be a tough sell for all but a select few.
With power plant-sized solar projects costing roughly $1 billion to build, according to Shah, developers and utilities are not willing to take chances on emerging technologies and are even skittish about snapping up panels from the flood of new Chinese manufacturers, despite their rock-bottom prices.
"There is a perception of a quality difference" between U.S. and Chinese panels, said Bank of America/Merrill Lynch analyst Steve Milunovich, who added that the U.S. utility market is shaping up to be a race between First Solar, SunPower and Suntech.
"It will be a fairly oligopolistic market," he said.
SUPPORTING THE WARRANTY
The financial health of panel suppliers is more important than ever, one utility executive said, given the global recession that has made even solar companies struggle to stay profitable.
Utilities have to be sure about not just the quality of the panels and their track record, but "the ability of the manufacturer to support their product during the warranty period" of 10 to 20 years, said Southern California Edison's director of generation planning and strategy, Mark Nelson.
For that reason, First Solar and SunPower have snapped up a string of contracts over the last few years, mostly in California, and are by far the biggest photovoltaic players in the utility market today.
The Golden State's utilities, including PG&E Corp's Pacific Gas & Electric, Edison International's Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy's San Diego Gas & Electric, are required to obtain 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010, and 33 percent by 2020.
First Solar, whose low-cost panels are made from cadmium telluride, is widely considered the market leader. Milunovich estimates that the company enjoys half the solar backlog in the U.S. utility market
But with recent steep declines in the cost of polysilicon, the raw material in traditional solar panels, silicon-based panels -- including those made by Suntech and SunPower -- are now more competitive with First Solar's products.
Southern California Edison, which has contracted First Solar to build the first two megawatts of its 250-megawatt rooftop solar program, may seek more suppliers for the rest of the project, Nelson said, depending on the bidding process.
SunPower's panels, though not the cheapest, are much in demand because they are most efficient at transforming sunlight into energy. The San Jose, California, company also benefits from having recognized the market potential early on and proven its technology to potential utility customers over a number of years, Shah said.
No. 1 Chinese panel maker Suntech, however, is nipping at the heels of its U.S. rivals and does not face the same quality concerns as many of its Chinese peers.
"As Suntech moves up I don't think there is going to be any difference there," Milunovich said. "They are going to be competitive."
To establish itself in the U.S. utility market, Suntech last year formed a joint venture called Gemini Solar Development Company LLC with solar developer Renewable Ventures, which was acquired by privately held Spanish power producer Fotowatio in March.
So far the group has secured a 30-megawatt project for Texas municipal utility Austin Energy, and Suntech is seeking to build a U.S. manufacturing plant ahead of an anticipated boom in the utility market.
Chinese panel maker Yingli Green Energy Holding Co Ltd is also expected to make some inroads into the U.S. market thanks to a new supply deal with solar developer AES Solar, a joint venture between power producer AES Corp and private equity firm Riverstone Holdings LLC.
New York inches closer to offshore wind farm
Government agencies and power companies said on Wednesday they are gauging interest from developers and manufacturers about building a wind farm about 13 miles off the New York city coast that could end up being the largest such project in the United States.
The Long Island Power Authority, the New York Power Authority, other agencies and Consolidated Edison Inc hope to build the 350 megawatt wind farm off the Rockaway Peninsula in the Atlantic.
Potentially, the project could be expanded to 700 MW, giving it a shot of being the biggest U.S. offshore wind farm. One megawatt powers about 1,000 homes in New York, but wind does not blow all of the time.
Taking stock of the interest of developers is a precursor to issuing a request for proposal for the project which is anticipated for release by the end of the year, the collaboration said.
"There clearly is growing interest in this proposal by many parties," Kevin Burke, chairman and CEO of Con Edison, said in a release.
"If the technical, environmental, economic and social challenges can be met, and we have the support of government, energy and environmental leaders, I am confident this project will be built and produce enormous benefits for our region," he said.
The group did not offer a price estimate for the project, but according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a work that size would cost about $1.35 billion to $2.7 billion.
Also on Wednesday, New York's state power authority said it had selected five firms to study the possibility of building an offshore wind farm on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario in western New York.
Such projects are consistent with New York Gov. David Paterson's "45 by 15" program, which establishes the goal for the state to meet 45 percent of its electricity needs through energy efficiency and renewable sources by 2015.
The Rockaway project would not be the first time a large wind farm was planned in the region.
The LIPA proposed the construction of a 40-turbine wind farm that would have produced 140 MW of energy off the shore of Jones Beach on the south shore of Long Island. The project was canceled in 2007 after estimates it would cost $800 million, more than double the initial estimate.
The Long Island Power Authority, the New York Power Authority, other agencies and Consolidated Edison Inc hope to build the 350 megawatt wind farm off the Rockaway Peninsula in the Atlantic.
Potentially, the project could be expanded to 700 MW, giving it a shot of being the biggest U.S. offshore wind farm. One megawatt powers about 1,000 homes in New York, but wind does not blow all of the time.
Taking stock of the interest of developers is a precursor to issuing a request for proposal for the project which is anticipated for release by the end of the year, the collaboration said.
"There clearly is growing interest in this proposal by many parties," Kevin Burke, chairman and CEO of Con Edison, said in a release.
"If the technical, environmental, economic and social challenges can be met, and we have the support of government, energy and environmental leaders, I am confident this project will be built and produce enormous benefits for our region," he said.
The group did not offer a price estimate for the project, but according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a work that size would cost about $1.35 billion to $2.7 billion.
Also on Wednesday, New York's state power authority said it had selected five firms to study the possibility of building an offshore wind farm on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario in western New York.
Such projects are consistent with New York Gov. David Paterson's "45 by 15" program, which establishes the goal for the state to meet 45 percent of its electricity needs through energy efficiency and renewable sources by 2015.
The Rockaway project would not be the first time a large wind farm was planned in the region.
The LIPA proposed the construction of a 40-turbine wind farm that would have produced 140 MW of energy off the shore of Jones Beach on the south shore of Long Island. The project was canceled in 2007 after estimates it would cost $800 million, more than double the initial estimate.
Green stocks flourish despite demand concerns
While green shoots of economic recovery are appearing only tentatively, green stocks are showing no such hesitation.
Since March, clean energy stocks have put together a mighty rally, outpacing the U.S. equities market as a whole. While some see it as a harbinger of increased demand for companies providing cleaner sources of energy, others say it merely reflects the benefit of being on the right side of political trends, thanks to initiatives from China, the United States and other countries.
Three major indexes tracking green energy companies have risen sharply of late. The U.S.-only Wilderhill Clean Energy Index, comprising 51 companies, is up 72 percent since a March 9 low. Its global counterpart, the Wilderhill New Energy Global Index, which tracks 88 companies in 21 countries, is up 66 percent in the same period.
The CleanTech Index, which tracks a broader group, including industries like sustainable agriculture, is up 57 percent. By comparison, the S&P 500 is up 35 percent since hitting a 12-year low on March 9.
Analysts see some of the rally as a corrective recovery after green stocks took a drubbing last year. Hammered by the drop in the price of oil and the credit freeze, the Wilderhill indexes plunged 70 percent, and the Cleantech Index 50 percent, in 2008. The indexes are still off 2007 peaks.
The stocks in question tend to be volatile small-cap and mid-cap names, and so it isn't rare for stocks to move 20 percent in a day -- the biggest company in the domestic Wilderhill index is Applied Materials Inc, worth $14 billion. The stocks are also not widely followed by Wall Street research, causing some swings in pricing.
"When the tape is down one percent, the group is down three percent," says Rob Stone, an analyst at Cowen and Co in Boston.
Stone is bullish on solar stocks, thanks to plenty of initiatives likely to drive demand.
The climate change bill passed by the U.S. House a week ago and now being considered by the Senate could be a boost to all renewables. Even without that, January's U.S. stimulus package allotted $37 billion to clean technology companies, money that should start to flow by the fall.
Large-scale solar power plants are expected to begin construction in coming years in the United States, though the bigger companies, such as First Solar Inc and SunPower Corp, are likely to get most of the business.
China, meanwhile, is set to announce a national feed-in tariff this year that would open a vast market to providers. U.S.-listed shares of Chinese solar companies like Yingli Green Energy Holding Co and Trina Solar Ltd have surged in anticipation.
PRICING PRESSURES
Still, some say the green stocks rally is a house built on the shifting sands of political chance.
"Rather than being judged by consumer preference, these technologies are dependent on temporary political majorities for their viability," says Robert Bradley Jr., chief executive of the Institute of Energy Research, a conservative non-profit.
Cost has also been an issue. Solar is still more expensive than fossil fuels, though Stone points out that polysilicon, the main raw material in photovoltaic solar panels, was trading at $400 a kilogram ($180 a pound) a year ago, and is now $60 a kilogram.
Similarly, the price of solar cells has dropped by about half in the last year as a result of reduced demand and a glut of supply. Analysts eventually hope solar can compete with fossil fuels as an energy source. Prudential Financial has just launched a green commodity index tracking prices of biofuels and other raw materials.
The recession itself is keeping some cautious, and the sharp declines in these stocks in 2008 suggests that investors still cast a fickle eye toward these names. As the industry grows, that belief should change.
"We're in the bullish camp on long-term solar potential," said Matt Schultz, analyst at Battle Road Research of Waltham, Massachusetts.
"Right now, it is in the transition period from growth story to a maturing industry made up of long-term businesses not dependent on government largesse."
Since March, clean energy stocks have put together a mighty rally, outpacing the U.S. equities market as a whole. While some see it as a harbinger of increased demand for companies providing cleaner sources of energy, others say it merely reflects the benefit of being on the right side of political trends, thanks to initiatives from China, the United States and other countries.
Three major indexes tracking green energy companies have risen sharply of late. The U.S.-only Wilderhill Clean Energy Index, comprising 51 companies, is up 72 percent since a March 9 low. Its global counterpart, the Wilderhill New Energy Global Index, which tracks 88 companies in 21 countries, is up 66 percent in the same period.
The CleanTech Index, which tracks a broader group, including industries like sustainable agriculture, is up 57 percent. By comparison, the S&P 500 is up 35 percent since hitting a 12-year low on March 9.
Analysts see some of the rally as a corrective recovery after green stocks took a drubbing last year. Hammered by the drop in the price of oil and the credit freeze, the Wilderhill indexes plunged 70 percent, and the Cleantech Index 50 percent, in 2008. The indexes are still off 2007 peaks.
The stocks in question tend to be volatile small-cap and mid-cap names, and so it isn't rare for stocks to move 20 percent in a day -- the biggest company in the domestic Wilderhill index is Applied Materials Inc, worth $14 billion. The stocks are also not widely followed by Wall Street research, causing some swings in pricing.
"When the tape is down one percent, the group is down three percent," says Rob Stone, an analyst at Cowen and Co in Boston.
Stone is bullish on solar stocks, thanks to plenty of initiatives likely to drive demand.
The climate change bill passed by the U.S. House a week ago and now being considered by the Senate could be a boost to all renewables. Even without that, January's U.S. stimulus package allotted $37 billion to clean technology companies, money that should start to flow by the fall.
Large-scale solar power plants are expected to begin construction in coming years in the United States, though the bigger companies, such as First Solar Inc and SunPower Corp, are likely to get most of the business.
China, meanwhile, is set to announce a national feed-in tariff this year that would open a vast market to providers. U.S.-listed shares of Chinese solar companies like Yingli Green Energy Holding Co and Trina Solar Ltd have surged in anticipation.
PRICING PRESSURES
Still, some say the green stocks rally is a house built on the shifting sands of political chance.
"Rather than being judged by consumer preference, these technologies are dependent on temporary political majorities for their viability," says Robert Bradley Jr., chief executive of the Institute of Energy Research, a conservative non-profit.
Cost has also been an issue. Solar is still more expensive than fossil fuels, though Stone points out that polysilicon, the main raw material in photovoltaic solar panels, was trading at $400 a kilogram ($180 a pound) a year ago, and is now $60 a kilogram.
Similarly, the price of solar cells has dropped by about half in the last year as a result of reduced demand and a glut of supply. Analysts eventually hope solar can compete with fossil fuels as an energy source. Prudential Financial has just launched a green commodity index tracking prices of biofuels and other raw materials.
The recession itself is keeping some cautious, and the sharp declines in these stocks in 2008 suggests that investors still cast a fickle eye toward these names. As the industry grows, that belief should change.
"We're in the bullish camp on long-term solar potential," said Matt Schultz, analyst at Battle Road Research of Waltham, Massachusetts.
"Right now, it is in the transition period from growth story to a maturing industry made up of long-term businesses not dependent on government largesse."
Preliminary notification on sanctuary issued
The government has issued gazette notification declaring its intention to constitute the proposed Malabar Wildlife Sanctuary. The sanctuary will consist of 7,421.50 hectares in Chakkittapara and Chembanoda villages of Koyilandy taluk in Kozhikode district. These include the reserve forests of Pannikottoor and Kakkayam and vested forests of Karampara Mala and Olathukki Malavaram and Sankaranpuzha, Athikode and the water-spread area of the Kakkayam reservoir. Out of about 2,200 hectares of Pannikottoor forests, about 400 had been excluded from the sanctuary. Of that, about 115 hectares had been identified for the proposed Tiger Safari Park while 94 hectares had been leased out to the Indian Institute of Spices Research. The balance is fragmented areas. From the vested forests, nearly 557 hectares of ecologically fragile lands have been excluded as disputes over their takeover remain to be settled. The notification said that the richness of biodiversity and conservational significance of the proposed sanctuary area had been identified by various agencies. So, the government found it necessary to declare the area as a wildlife sanctuary for protecting the ecological, faunal, floral, geo-morphological and natural wealth and ensuring its long-term conservation. Since the rights over the said reserve forests and vested forests were yet to be settled, the government had decided to notify the proposed sanctuary under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. (This enables the Collector to settle the claims within the area intended to be declared as a sanctuary). Preliminary ecological studies of the forests of Kakkayam by the Malabar Natural History Society have shown that the area was rich in diversity of flora and fauna. Topographically, the area is situated in a plateau rugged with steep hills of the Western Ghats, which suddenly rises from 50 metres to 1,600 metres within the reserve. It was once a good patch of wet evergreen forest, fragmented later by the construction of the Kuttiyadi hydro-electric project, plantations and human settlements. Now, it is the only evergreen patch left in Kozhikode district. Once the area was contiguous with the forests of the Brahmagiri Hills. The forests form the catchments of the Kakkayam and Peruvannamoozhi reservoirs. More than 40 species of mammals have been recorded from the reserve, including three endemic to the Western Ghats. Brown Palm Civet, one of the rarely recorded civet species of the Western Ghats, occurs in the area besides elephants, a small population of lion-tailed macaques and other animals. The area also harbours more than 110 species of birds, including eight endemics, six restricted range species and two globally threatened species (Kerala laughing thrush and Wayanad laughing thrush). It is also the habitat of king cobra, python and many rare and endemic amphibian species. Endangered game fish Mahseer has also been reported from there. In addition 94 species of butterflies (including 14 endemics) and 24 species of dragon flies have been recorded in the region.
Â
Â
Kerala - General Environment
Kerala State is situated between 8 o 8' and 18 o 48' North latitude and 74 o 4' to 77 o 50' East longitude, along the windward side of the Western Ghats of Indian Peninsula . The State is located in the tropical region of Indian Peninsula and extends to an area of about 38863 km 2 , which accounts for about 1. 2 per cent of the total geographical area of the country. The State is bordered by Tamil Nadu State on its South and part of the East, Karnataka State on the North and part of the East, the Lakshadweep Sea on the West and the Indian Ocean along the South. The State has a total coastline of about 560 km and from sea level it rises to about 2694 m above msl.
Because of the location of the State along the windward side of the Western Ghats , it receives an average yearly rainfall of about 3000 mm, and the precipitations in the South-West and North-East Monsoon period, may go even up to 5000 mm, especially in the higher altitudes of Wayanad and Idukki plateaus. The average temperature of the State at 1ow and medium elevations ranging between 0-700 m is about 23 o C. Between 700 - 1400 m above msl, the temperature fluctuates between 16 and 23 o C and in the high altitude areas along the crests of the Western Ghats , it is about 15 o C during the coldest months. Above 1400 m elevation, the average temperature is even less, ranging from 13.5 to 16 o C, and it is in this zone that the shola forests, with similarities in species representation with the temperate Himalayan forests, are distributed in the State.
Physiographically, the terrain has three natural regions namely, lowlands, midland, highlands. A physiographic classification, identified mainly in terms of broad geomorphic surfaces and altitudinal characteristics, is also used in the parlance of geographers (CESS, 1984). It has five physiographic zones, namely, high ranges with elevation above 600 m, foothill zone between 300 to 600 m, upland regions between 100 - 300 m, midland between 20 - 100 m and coastal areas and low land below an altitude of 20 m.
Kerala has 44 perennial rivers, of which three are East flowing and the remaining 41 are emptied into the Lakshadweep Sea , along the western side of the State . Rivers are generally swift flowing having very steep gradients in their higher reaches. Absence of delta formation is characteristic of Kerala rivers. The general drainage pattern of these rivers is dendritic, although at places trellis, sub-parallel and radial occur. The segments of river courses are nearly straight, indicating structural control, coinciding with the prominent lineament directions (NW-SE and NE-SW). As per national norm (Rao, 1979), there are no major rivers in Kerala. The four medium rivers, namely Chaliyar, Bharathapuzha, Periyar and Pamba have a total drainage area of only 8250 km 2 with length 169 km, 209 km, 244 km and 176 km respectively. The length of rest of the rivers varies from 16 km to 130 km, with an average length of 62 km and total drainage area of 19,485 km 2 . The river flow is modulated by about 30 reservoirs, mostly located in highlands (KSLUB, 2002; CWRDM, 1995). There are two fresh water lakes in the State namely the Pookot and Sasthamkottah. The State is also having a total of 46.13 km 2 of estuaries and backwaters. The important backwaters are Vembanad and Ashtamudi lakes
Ten broad groups of soils based on morphological features and physico-chemical properties have been identified in Kerala (Anon, 1978). They are red soil, laterite soil, coastal alluvial soil, riverine alluvial soil, grayish Onattukara soil, brown hydromorphic soil, hydromorphic saline soil, acid saline soil, black soil and forest soil.
The major forest types represented in the State (Champion and Seth, 1968) include the dry deciduous, moist deciduous, semievergreen, evergreen and shola forests . Within these four major forest types are also several subtypes and derivatives, differing in species composition and vegetation characteristics
Almost 78 per cent of the total land area of the State is under agriculture and dwelling, and the remaining 22 per cent of the land is under forests and forest plantations. Quite obviously, the pristine status of nature is better protected only in a limited area, and that too in the higher altitudes, whereas, most of the remaining area of the State is subjected to degradation and transformations of various types
Because of the location of the State along the windward side of the Western Ghats , it receives an average yearly rainfall of about 3000 mm, and the precipitations in the South-West and North-East Monsoon period, may go even up to 5000 mm, especially in the higher altitudes of Wayanad and Idukki plateaus. The average temperature of the State at 1ow and medium elevations ranging between 0-700 m is about 23 o C. Between 700 - 1400 m above msl, the temperature fluctuates between 16 and 23 o C and in the high altitude areas along the crests of the Western Ghats , it is about 15 o C during the coldest months. Above 1400 m elevation, the average temperature is even less, ranging from 13.5 to 16 o C, and it is in this zone that the shola forests, with similarities in species representation with the temperate Himalayan forests, are distributed in the State.
Physiographically, the terrain has three natural regions namely, lowlands, midland, highlands. A physiographic classification, identified mainly in terms of broad geomorphic surfaces and altitudinal characteristics, is also used in the parlance of geographers (CESS, 1984). It has five physiographic zones, namely, high ranges with elevation above 600 m, foothill zone between 300 to 600 m, upland regions between 100 - 300 m, midland between 20 - 100 m and coastal areas and low land below an altitude of 20 m.
Kerala has 44 perennial rivers, of which three are East flowing and the remaining 41 are emptied into the Lakshadweep Sea , along the western side of the State . Rivers are generally swift flowing having very steep gradients in their higher reaches. Absence of delta formation is characteristic of Kerala rivers. The general drainage pattern of these rivers is dendritic, although at places trellis, sub-parallel and radial occur. The segments of river courses are nearly straight, indicating structural control, coinciding with the prominent lineament directions (NW-SE and NE-SW). As per national norm (Rao, 1979), there are no major rivers in Kerala. The four medium rivers, namely Chaliyar, Bharathapuzha, Periyar and Pamba have a total drainage area of only 8250 km 2 with length 169 km, 209 km, 244 km and 176 km respectively. The length of rest of the rivers varies from 16 km to 130 km, with an average length of 62 km and total drainage area of 19,485 km 2 . The river flow is modulated by about 30 reservoirs, mostly located in highlands (KSLUB, 2002; CWRDM, 1995). There are two fresh water lakes in the State namely the Pookot and Sasthamkottah. The State is also having a total of 46.13 km 2 of estuaries and backwaters. The important backwaters are Vembanad and Ashtamudi lakes
Ten broad groups of soils based on morphological features and physico-chemical properties have been identified in Kerala (Anon, 1978). They are red soil, laterite soil, coastal alluvial soil, riverine alluvial soil, grayish Onattukara soil, brown hydromorphic soil, hydromorphic saline soil, acid saline soil, black soil and forest soil.
The major forest types represented in the State (Champion and Seth, 1968) include the dry deciduous, moist deciduous, semievergreen, evergreen and shola forests . Within these four major forest types are also several subtypes and derivatives, differing in species composition and vegetation characteristics
Almost 78 per cent of the total land area of the State is under agriculture and dwelling, and the remaining 22 per cent of the land is under forests and forest plantations. Quite obviously, the pristine status of nature is better protected only in a limited area, and that too in the higher altitudes, whereas, most of the remaining area of the State is subjected to degradation and transformations of various types
Preserve environment: Students
Three hundred students of S.D. Senior Secondary School marched through the city streets here today to mark the World Earth Environment Day - 1999. The celebrations were organised in collaboration with the Children's Alliance for Protection of the Environment (CAPE). They carried placards proclaiming Save the ozone layer, Save humanity.
Union Ministry of Environment and Forests Joint Director K.K. Garg flagged off the march which was led by school principal Vishwa Bandhu and environment teacher Ajay Sharma. Addressing the marchers, Environment Society of India president S.K. Sharma stressed traditional practices in environmental conservation. The school student's have pledged to take care of some 200 saplings planted by CAPE.
In similar celebrations, the Green Environment Club, Chandigarh, organised an awareness programme on the theme Keep our water sources clean at the premises of the Government Central Crafts Institute For Women. Prof S.C. Jain of Panjab University's Department of Chemical Engineering, spoke on the occasion. He stressed the need to preserve and protect water resources and urged people not to dump garbage, filth and human waste in water. UT Technical Education Director S.K.Aggarwal also spoke. S.K. Sharma gave away prizes to the winners in various competitions relating to World Earth Environment Day. A programme of songs and dances was presented.
The National Service Scheme, Punjab University, and the Government College for Girls, Sector 11, also jointly organised celebrations of the ``World Earth Day'' at Janta Colony, Sector 25 this morning. The celebrations were attended by a number of social workers, community leaders, teachers and NSS volunteers. Dr C.L. Narang, Programme Coordinator, PU, stated that due to ecological imbalances there is a threat of natural calamities in the near future.
Vijay Laxmi, principal of the GCG, said that man had made a blunder in using nature for his vested interests
Union Ministry of Environment and Forests Joint Director K.K. Garg flagged off the march which was led by school principal Vishwa Bandhu and environment teacher Ajay Sharma. Addressing the marchers, Environment Society of India president S.K. Sharma stressed traditional practices in environmental conservation. The school student's have pledged to take care of some 200 saplings planted by CAPE.
In similar celebrations, the Green Environment Club, Chandigarh, organised an awareness programme on the theme Keep our water sources clean at the premises of the Government Central Crafts Institute For Women. Prof S.C. Jain of Panjab University's Department of Chemical Engineering, spoke on the occasion. He stressed the need to preserve and protect water resources and urged people not to dump garbage, filth and human waste in water. UT Technical Education Director S.K.Aggarwal also spoke. S.K. Sharma gave away prizes to the winners in various competitions relating to World Earth Environment Day. A programme of songs and dances was presented.
The National Service Scheme, Punjab University, and the Government College for Girls, Sector 11, also jointly organised celebrations of the ``World Earth Day'' at Janta Colony, Sector 25 this morning. The celebrations were attended by a number of social workers, community leaders, teachers and NSS volunteers. Dr C.L. Narang, Programme Coordinator, PU, stated that due to ecological imbalances there is a threat of natural calamities in the near future.
Vijay Laxmi, principal of the GCG, said that man had made a blunder in using nature for his vested interests
Industry must contribute to safe environment: Experts
Industry cannot grow at the expense of environment. This was the unanimous opinion of experts at a seminar on `Corporate Environment Initiatives', organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), in association with the United States Information Services (USIS) and USAID, here today.
Douglas Weinfiled, environmental director, Manufacturers Alliance, USA, focused on short and long term opportunities for gaining financial benefits from environmental management. He presented various case studies, mainly from among the Fortune 500 companies, which clearly illustrated how a company could do well financially by addressing environmental concerns.
He added that environmental management systems were similar to any other system and that every organisation must allocate adequate resources to achieve its environmental goals.
Michael A. Toman, another expert from Washington, said that diffusion of environment-friendly technology was the key to improving corporate environmental performance. Clean technology was fundamentally an economic and social phenomenon, not merely a matter of engineering, he added. However, it was essential to lower the market barriers, which were hindering the penetration of new technologies, he added.
Douglas Weinfiled, environmental director, Manufacturers Alliance, USA, focused on short and long term opportunities for gaining financial benefits from environmental management. He presented various case studies, mainly from among the Fortune 500 companies, which clearly illustrated how a company could do well financially by addressing environmental concerns.
He added that environmental management systems were similar to any other system and that every organisation must allocate adequate resources to achieve its environmental goals.
Michael A. Toman, another expert from Washington, said that diffusion of environment-friendly technology was the key to improving corporate environmental performance. Clean technology was fundamentally an economic and social phenomenon, not merely a matter of engineering, he added. However, it was essential to lower the market barriers, which were hindering the penetration of new technologies, he added.
Indian states back special projects for tribals
At a recent meeting in the capital, state ministers for tribal affairs backed a plan to run special projects in 54 identified tribal pockets, aimed at improving the lives of tribal populations and ensuring that funds earmarked for tribals are not diverted
A number of Indian states are expected to come out with a special monitoring scheme to check the diversion of funds earmarked for tribals, and to ensure time-bound implementation of various tribal schemes. State tribal affairs ministers have also agreed to run special projects in 54 identified tribal pockets that have low female literacy rates, and will initiate action plans to develop the habitats of primitive tribes. The states agreed to give high priority to students from scheduled tribes (STs) and help prepare them for study at prestigious institutes, in a scheme in which the Centre will fund their studies. These and a slew of other measures aimed at tribal development were announced after a meeting of state ministers for tribal affairs in New Delhi on February 14, 2007.
Inaugurating the meeting, Union Minister for Tribal Affairs P R Kyndiah voiced his concerns over the lack of allocation of funds for tribal welfare schemes in some states. He said that the Tribal Sub-Plan, which had fallen into disuse over the years because of non-implementation by state governments, would be revived. States have been asked to create a separate head for the Tribal Sub-Plan -- first started in 1974 -- so that funds under the plan could not be diverted.
Under the Tribal Sub-Plan, the states are supposed to earmark funds exclusively for the welfare of STs in proportion to the population of scheduled tribes. Kyndiah said his ministry had written to the Planning Commission not to clear the annual plan for the year 2007-08 for states that had failed to implement the Tribal Sub-Plan. He also urged states to implement tribal welfare programmes in a focused and integrated manner.
In a briefing on the Centre's latest initiatives, Kyndiah said that the ministry had identified 75 primitive tribal groups that would receive insurance coverage under the Life Insurance Corporation's Jaishree Bima Yojana. A scheme for development of their habitat has also been drawn up.
The ministry has decided to involve banks in giving loans for income-generation under the National Scheduled Tribes Finance and Development Corporation. Earlier, loans were disbursed only through the State Scheduled Tribes Finances Corporation that often faced a shortage of funds. Self-help groups would also be involved in disbursing loans at low rates of interest.
The minister expressed his hope that these measures would help prevent tribals from falling into the debt trap.
Sufficient funds have been provided under a special programme to provide 100% financial assistance to the states to take up minor irrigation schemes for scheduled tribes.
Underlining the importance of the recently-passed Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest-Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, Kyndiah said that the ministry of tribal affairs had constituted a 19-member committee to draft the rules within three months so that the Act could be implemented.
Headed by retired bureaucrat S R Sankaran, the panel will include officials from the ministries of tribal affairs, forests and environment, rural development and panchayati raj, besides representatives from state governments and experts.
The Forest Rights Bill was passed during the winter session of Parliament and received the President's assent on December 29, 2006. It will be another month before it is actually finalised and implemented, according to Union Tribal Affairs Secretary Meena Gupta.
The 2006 Act recognises and vests forest rights and occupation of forest land with scheduled tribes and other traditional forest-dwellers who have been living in the forests for generations but whose rights have never been recorded.
Gupta said the ministry would also develop over 2,700 forest villages, and an amount of Rs 15 lakh per village had been earmarked for the purpose. As many as 13 states would be covered under this scheme that seeks to provide roads, electricity and water to the villages.
A number of Indian states are expected to come out with a special monitoring scheme to check the diversion of funds earmarked for tribals, and to ensure time-bound implementation of various tribal schemes. State tribal affairs ministers have also agreed to run special projects in 54 identified tribal pockets that have low female literacy rates, and will initiate action plans to develop the habitats of primitive tribes. The states agreed to give high priority to students from scheduled tribes (STs) and help prepare them for study at prestigious institutes, in a scheme in which the Centre will fund their studies. These and a slew of other measures aimed at tribal development were announced after a meeting of state ministers for tribal affairs in New Delhi on February 14, 2007.
Inaugurating the meeting, Union Minister for Tribal Affairs P R Kyndiah voiced his concerns over the lack of allocation of funds for tribal welfare schemes in some states. He said that the Tribal Sub-Plan, which had fallen into disuse over the years because of non-implementation by state governments, would be revived. States have been asked to create a separate head for the Tribal Sub-Plan -- first started in 1974 -- so that funds under the plan could not be diverted.
Under the Tribal Sub-Plan, the states are supposed to earmark funds exclusively for the welfare of STs in proportion to the population of scheduled tribes. Kyndiah said his ministry had written to the Planning Commission not to clear the annual plan for the year 2007-08 for states that had failed to implement the Tribal Sub-Plan. He also urged states to implement tribal welfare programmes in a focused and integrated manner.
In a briefing on the Centre's latest initiatives, Kyndiah said that the ministry had identified 75 primitive tribal groups that would receive insurance coverage under the Life Insurance Corporation's Jaishree Bima Yojana. A scheme for development of their habitat has also been drawn up.
The ministry has decided to involve banks in giving loans for income-generation under the National Scheduled Tribes Finance and Development Corporation. Earlier, loans were disbursed only through the State Scheduled Tribes Finances Corporation that often faced a shortage of funds. Self-help groups would also be involved in disbursing loans at low rates of interest.
The minister expressed his hope that these measures would help prevent tribals from falling into the debt trap.
Sufficient funds have been provided under a special programme to provide 100% financial assistance to the states to take up minor irrigation schemes for scheduled tribes.
Underlining the importance of the recently-passed Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest-Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, Kyndiah said that the ministry of tribal affairs had constituted a 19-member committee to draft the rules within three months so that the Act could be implemented.
Headed by retired bureaucrat S R Sankaran, the panel will include officials from the ministries of tribal affairs, forests and environment, rural development and panchayati raj, besides representatives from state governments and experts.
The Forest Rights Bill was passed during the winter session of Parliament and received the President's assent on December 29, 2006. It will be another month before it is actually finalised and implemented, according to Union Tribal Affairs Secretary Meena Gupta.
The 2006 Act recognises and vests forest rights and occupation of forest land with scheduled tribes and other traditional forest-dwellers who have been living in the forests for generations but whose rights have never been recorded.
Gupta said the ministry would also develop over 2,700 forest villages, and an amount of Rs 15 lakh per village had been earmarked for the purpose. As many as 13 states would be covered under this scheme that seeks to provide roads, electricity and water to the villages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)