You must be either very dumb or very rich if you fail to notice that development stinks", says Gustavo Esteva, a Mexican activist and development critic. A few days back I happened to read what Gustavo Esteva had to say. His quote was being used in a case study describing the devastation by the petrochemical industry in Nigeria - heralded by the multinational giant Shell - and its impacts on local cultures and lives. I had not even finished reflecting on the case when I received an anguished and angry missive from groups in Raigarh district of Chhatisgarh, about an industrial accident involving children. Esteva, I reminded myself once again, was not just relevant in faraway Mexico, but right here in India too.
The dictionary meaning of the word 'development' often does not match the corrupted reality of its use in India and elsewhere in the world, particularly in economies that are labeled 'developing'. At the same time, in the deeply embedded liberalised economies that one has been living in, the same word is read as a given paradigm, and the human and environment damage accompanying it - as they are in Raigarh - are regarded as necessary side effects.
The death of a child
To return to the letter I received - its contents spoke of one more incident in a by-now-familiar tale of woe over the operations of Jindal Steel and Power Limited (JSPL) around Raigarh town. Ramesh Agrawal of Jan Chetana, an NGO in Raigarh, sent alerts to human rights and environmental groups, drawing attention to a sad but true industrial accident. On the afternoon of 17 April, 7-year-old Twinkle Thakur, daughter of a JSPL employee Sanjay Thakur, and her brother were inadvertently caught in an open live-burning ash dump near a nearby residential area, the Indira Awaas colony. While her brother escaped with burn injuries to his legs, Twinkle died the following day, after being hospitalised first.
Villagers living in the area say the incident took place around 3-4 PM on the 17th. There were delays in informing the police, lodging complaints and booking suspects, but that has become the norm in incidents like this across the country. Twinkle died at 11 AM the following day, whereupon the police registered a case against an unknown JSPL contractor under section 304 A of IPC alleging death due to negligence. However, this was done without a site inspection - or verifying whether a contractor or JSPL itself was responsible for dumping the hot ash in the residential area.
Local activists have reported for many months now that JSPL has allegedly illegally dumped ash around Indira Awaas, which has led to serious accidents involving children. In fact ash dumps can be seen all around the plant site without any protection or regard to safety measures.
Dousing out the memory
Immediately after the accident, the hot ash was cooled off by JSPL, by sprinkling water through water tankers. Industrial operations like JSPL have their own fire brigade. "Soon after the incident, the very next day on 18th all the ash was removed from the accident spot. Tire marks of heavy vehicles could be seen even 4-5 days after the incident." says Agrawal. He argues that this action by the company (either directly or through its contractors) amounts to tampering with the accident site before the investigation is complete, and will come in the way of a just and proper assessment to determine the real culprit. "This is can be understood as a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence of the accident." he says.
On 29 April, the regional Hindi newspaper Chattisgarh reported on the incident in great detail. The report also included a statement by JSPL's public relations department denying the allegation that the illegal dumping of flyash is by the company. Accordingly to the statement, JSPL has designated dumping sites and methods for operations there. However, several villagers including those from Kirodimal Nagar (close to where the incident occurred), take ash from the JSPL plant for land filling and land leveling purposes. The statement implied that the hot burning ash that took Twinkle Thakur's life was one such instance of the material being moved by villagers to a different location than the one where it was dumped by the company.
Reports from the area indicate that Twinkle's house is locked, and her parents have left for their home town in Bihar. There is little that the local groups can also get out of the hospital administration, who are choosing to be quiet about the incident and the happenings after that. A few villagers complained to the District Collector Manish Tyagi, but rather than an immediate and urgent inquiry in response to their complaint, what they have got is legal notices asking them to appear for testimony. Further, more than fifteen days have passed but not a single senior officer from the district administration has visited site of the accident. Nor has the State Pollution Control Board (there is a regional office of the Chhatisgarh State Environment Conservation Board in Raigarh) taken any action against illegal dumping of hot ash direct from kilns at unguarded open residential place.
What is important to understand, in all this, is that this accident and its aftermath are not simply an isolated instance - not in Raigarh, nor elsewhere in India and definitely not across the 'developing' world. The faces of the villains, victims and audiences are the only things that change. Whistle-blowers find varied degrees of success while seeking justice. But more often than not, the industrial face of such projects is able to quickly put a lid on the whole affair. While the odd mention is made in papers, especially when children like Twinkle die, it is quickly back to business as usual - endless frustration for those who question it, and a nightmare for those whose lives are shattered, but a forgotten past for those who choose not to engage with it.
The verb "develop" is often defined as 'to bring out the capabilities or possibilities of or bring to a more advanced or effective state'. When one stops to ponder how routinely this advanced or effective state has included horrible tragedies visited upon the poor and disenfranchised, it is easy to recognise Gustavo Esteva's criticism for what it is - a plain observation of the truth. Development, packaged in the language of GDP and 'necessary' choices, stinks. And as we debate, define, resurrect, and reclaim our definitions, the world's realities are throwing them back at our faces, until we can evade them no more.
Incidents such as this and the lack of any due action, are of routine occurance in the burgeoning Raigarh district. Industrial development is playing out to its worst, with blatant violations, disregard for life along with fear and corruption as marks of "development". For the last 4-5 years I have been regularly writing in India Together on issues related to rapid industrial expansion in Raigarh district. The most recent article was on the expansion of the Monnet Ispat Plant where in school children were being impacted by pollution of existing operations, and no action was taken despite repeated complaints by the Principal
Article by Kanchi Kohli
To see that JSPL is part of a larger pattern is easy; one has to just land at the Railway Station, breathe the air, and circle around the plant, and the evidence is everywhere
Friday, June 26, 2009
The empire flows again
Sir Arthur Cotton, deified by generations of engineers and technocrats - with his statues found almost everywhere in Andhra Pradesh's coastal districts - supervised construction of what is called the Cotton Barrage (the Godavari anicut) which was completed in 1852. Back then, he viewed it as something greater than a mere engineering effort.
As Cotton saw it, the barrage was something a "Christian government' should do for its subjects ... The emphasis of all this is to give them (the 'natives') entirely new ideas of what a Christian Government is and thus to prepare them to receive Christianity." [Col. Arthur Cotton, Profits upon British Capital Expended on Public Works in India as Shown by the Results of the Godavery Delta Works, of Irrigation and Navigation, London, 1856]
The British are long gone from India, but the language, and the metaphors used in British colonial times continue to be used today. "The river must be restrained from wandering" wrote Cotton; "and all its branches must be provided with artificial embankments to protect the country from being flooded ... It is necessary, by artificial means, to keep the water constantly at a level which shall command the country, and also by a multitude of channels to lead it to every acre of land." And, "The system of works now in progress in the Delta of the Godavery are intended to embrace these four object, viz - to restrain the river; to preserve the land from floods; to supply it constantly with water; and to pervade the tract thoroughly with means of very cheap transit." [Col. Arthur Cotton, London, 1856]
Theirs was a philosophy of obstructing ('taming') what we today call ecological (natural) flows, and also of economic exploitation to maximize profits. And constant irrigation was seen as the means to generate revenue, even if it changed the traditional cropping patterns and methods of irrigation. When the cultivable land was left to 'breathe' at timed intervals, it bothered the British no end. "The number of ploughs lying idle every khureef season (2,000) would cultivate about 8000 acres of rice land, assuming that people work no harder than they now do ..." if irrigation access was provided. [Glasfurd, 1868] "It is necessary to keep the water constantly at a level which shall command the country and also by a multitude of channels to lend it to every acre of land." [Col Arthur Cotton, 1856
Cotton's statistics post-anicut, in the Godavari Districts, proved the benefits of these works in economic terms to the Empire. "The revenue of the Delta including that part that is in Masulipatnam, has increased about 60,000 Pounds ... (and) the amount of money re-circulated in the district had increased to 100,000 Pounds, above the average in years preceding the works; the internal traffic is now estimated at 180,000 tons carried thirty miles ..." [Col Arthur Cotton, 1856]. For his part, Cotton foresaw a larger role for private enterprise on the Godavari in the immediate future, and was disappointed that the Government in Britain was not taking as much initiative in this as was needed.
The empire flows again
More than a hundred years later, not only in his legacy of exploiting the river alive in the form of numerous projects that are ongoing, even his unfulfilled dreams of adding private exploitation to publicly-funded ones are close at hand. Commercial tourist traffic, based on the navigation idea that Cotton so religiously defended, to begin with, has already established itself.
Within a month of the Congress government being re-elected in Andhra Pradesh, its Major Irrigation Minister has announced that the Government seeks "national" (project) status for five irrigation projects related to Godavari waters. These include the Polavaram dam (top on the list of priorities), the Dummugudem tail pond, and three other projects at Pranahita-Chevella, Sujala Sravanthi and Sripada Sagar.
Signalling the urgency, he informed that Rs.18,000 crores have been allocated for these, of which Rs.4000 crores would be spent to clear pending bills for these projects. Surprisingly, the enthusiasm for these projects was not evident before the elections. Indeed, neither the Polavaram dam nor Godavari waters in general were part of the electoral discourse, except for the seemingly sudden shift in the Congress' campaign strategy in the last lap of campaigning in coastal Andhra districts - where the party warned voters about possible lack of access to the Godavari waters if Telangana state was allowed to become a reality.
'Utilisation of the Godavari waters' as a slogan was not invoked very much this time, to the extent it was in the 2004 elections. Water resources had a far greater share in electoral debates in 2004 than in 2009. In a conversation at the time of the elections, the former engineer K Vidayasagara Rao said, "Nobody is bothered about water issues. TRS was never against water being given to farmers, nor against Polavaram per se, but only against it in its present design and form. We have been highlighting the need for several small structures - not a big dam - to minimise the extent of displacement."
Even the opportunity for such nuance (TRS has also called for a fortification study of Polavaram, and independent reviews of the projects) may now have passed. Now that TRS has been defeated and the Left has been routed, and even the few remaining voices of opposition within the Assembly have been silenced, the implications on the spate of irrigation projects lined up in the State are worrisome. Several legal violations and socio-economic dimensions of these pending projects (not to mention the long-term environmental impact of restraining natural flows to the sea) have been discussed outside the Assembly. But with the Congress achieving a comfortable majority in the house of the people, these will no longer be part of the Assembly debates. Nor are other parties showing much interest in water issues.
The second coming of the Congress government in the State thus has opened the doors for aggressive consolidation of a form of privatisation and total control of Godavari waters we have not seen before. Sir Arthur Cotton's legacy is likely to continue without critical examination despite concerns about environmental flows, displacement, and exploitation of nature and climate change across the globe at several platforms. Until the idea of exploiting for profit continues, these concerns will remain unaddressed.
As Cotton saw it, the barrage was something a "Christian government' should do for its subjects ... The emphasis of all this is to give them (the 'natives') entirely new ideas of what a Christian Government is and thus to prepare them to receive Christianity." [Col. Arthur Cotton, Profits upon British Capital Expended on Public Works in India as Shown by the Results of the Godavery Delta Works, of Irrigation and Navigation, London, 1856]
The British are long gone from India, but the language, and the metaphors used in British colonial times continue to be used today. "The river must be restrained from wandering" wrote Cotton; "and all its branches must be provided with artificial embankments to protect the country from being flooded ... It is necessary, by artificial means, to keep the water constantly at a level which shall command the country, and also by a multitude of channels to lead it to every acre of land." And, "The system of works now in progress in the Delta of the Godavery are intended to embrace these four object, viz - to restrain the river; to preserve the land from floods; to supply it constantly with water; and to pervade the tract thoroughly with means of very cheap transit." [Col. Arthur Cotton, London, 1856]
Theirs was a philosophy of obstructing ('taming') what we today call ecological (natural) flows, and also of economic exploitation to maximize profits. And constant irrigation was seen as the means to generate revenue, even if it changed the traditional cropping patterns and methods of irrigation. When the cultivable land was left to 'breathe' at timed intervals, it bothered the British no end. "The number of ploughs lying idle every khureef season (2,000) would cultivate about 8000 acres of rice land, assuming that people work no harder than they now do ..." if irrigation access was provided. [Glasfurd, 1868] "It is necessary to keep the water constantly at a level which shall command the country and also by a multitude of channels to lend it to every acre of land." [Col Arthur Cotton, 1856
Cotton's statistics post-anicut, in the Godavari Districts, proved the benefits of these works in economic terms to the Empire. "The revenue of the Delta including that part that is in Masulipatnam, has increased about 60,000 Pounds ... (and) the amount of money re-circulated in the district had increased to 100,000 Pounds, above the average in years preceding the works; the internal traffic is now estimated at 180,000 tons carried thirty miles ..." [Col Arthur Cotton, 1856]. For his part, Cotton foresaw a larger role for private enterprise on the Godavari in the immediate future, and was disappointed that the Government in Britain was not taking as much initiative in this as was needed.
The empire flows again
More than a hundred years later, not only in his legacy of exploiting the river alive in the form of numerous projects that are ongoing, even his unfulfilled dreams of adding private exploitation to publicly-funded ones are close at hand. Commercial tourist traffic, based on the navigation idea that Cotton so religiously defended, to begin with, has already established itself.
Within a month of the Congress government being re-elected in Andhra Pradesh, its Major Irrigation Minister has announced that the Government seeks "national" (project) status for five irrigation projects related to Godavari waters. These include the Polavaram dam (top on the list of priorities), the Dummugudem tail pond, and three other projects at Pranahita-Chevella, Sujala Sravanthi and Sripada Sagar.
Signalling the urgency, he informed that Rs.18,000 crores have been allocated for these, of which Rs.4000 crores would be spent to clear pending bills for these projects. Surprisingly, the enthusiasm for these projects was not evident before the elections. Indeed, neither the Polavaram dam nor Godavari waters in general were part of the electoral discourse, except for the seemingly sudden shift in the Congress' campaign strategy in the last lap of campaigning in coastal Andhra districts - where the party warned voters about possible lack of access to the Godavari waters if Telangana state was allowed to become a reality.
'Utilisation of the Godavari waters' as a slogan was not invoked very much this time, to the extent it was in the 2004 elections. Water resources had a far greater share in electoral debates in 2004 than in 2009. In a conversation at the time of the elections, the former engineer K Vidayasagara Rao said, "Nobody is bothered about water issues. TRS was never against water being given to farmers, nor against Polavaram per se, but only against it in its present design and form. We have been highlighting the need for several small structures - not a big dam - to minimise the extent of displacement."
Even the opportunity for such nuance (TRS has also called for a fortification study of Polavaram, and independent reviews of the projects) may now have passed. Now that TRS has been defeated and the Left has been routed, and even the few remaining voices of opposition within the Assembly have been silenced, the implications on the spate of irrigation projects lined up in the State are worrisome. Several legal violations and socio-economic dimensions of these pending projects (not to mention the long-term environmental impact of restraining natural flows to the sea) have been discussed outside the Assembly. But with the Congress achieving a comfortable majority in the house of the people, these will no longer be part of the Assembly debates. Nor are other parties showing much interest in water issues.
The second coming of the Congress government in the State thus has opened the doors for aggressive consolidation of a form of privatisation and total control of Godavari waters we have not seen before. Sir Arthur Cotton's legacy is likely to continue without critical examination despite concerns about environmental flows, displacement, and exploitation of nature and climate change across the globe at several platforms. Until the idea of exploiting for profit continues, these concerns will remain unaddressed.
By the skin of their teeth
Stephen Nash is a tall, burly Canadian, with a flowing white beard and a wry sense of humour. He introduces himself as someone who is often mistaken for Santa Claus. But he is a veteran wildlife specialist who has caught deadly snakes in his native country and has handled many other vicious creatures. As he notes, "I have been bitten, scratched and impaled over the past 32 years!" He once hosted our very own Romulus Whitaker, who started the Snake Park in Chennai and now runs a Crocodile Park outside it.
Nash heads the Capacity Building Unit at the secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in Geneva. The convention has been in operation for 33 years and fuses wildlife and trade issues with a legally binding instrument to achieve conservation and sustainable use. In other words, it tries to ensure that under no circumstances should smuggling endanger wild fauna and flora.
Tackling illegal trade at customs
At a workshop organised by the World Customs Organisation at the sprawling campus of the National Academy of Customs, Excise and Narcotics (NACEN) in Faridabad (May 18-22), he briefed customs officials from several Asian countries on the objective of CITES, and how to handle threatened animals and plants. One can well imagine the consternation of customs officials who unsuspectingly open a consignment and have to deal with poisonous snakes, spiders and countless other pesky creatures
Endangered species are divided into three categories. Appendix I - this is a favourite category in UN parlance, since it also refers to industrialised countries in the Kyoto Protocol on climate change - are the most threatened, and international commercial trade in this category (as distinct presumably from exchange or research), is generally banned. This covers some 530 animals and 300 plants. Appendix II lists species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction, but for which trade must be controlled to avoid any such denouement. This is obviously a bigger category, covering 4400 animals and more than 28,000 plants. The third and last category comprises some 255 animals and 7 plants which countries ask CITES to help them protect.
India is most interested in the enforcement of CITES to curb the smuggling of tiger parts to China and other countries in South-East Asia, where people believe that these have curative properties. Indeed, while there is a great deal of controversy over who is responsible for the disappearance of tigers in this country - whether poachers (foreign or national or both) and/or tribals living within national parks and sanctuaries - there is no doubt that, were there to be effective surveillance by the customs at land, sea and airports, the trade would be considerably curbed. Just the sharing of information and better monitoring and coordination by the customs authorities of countries in this region would work wonders.
UNEP has launched the Green Customs Initiative to control what it terms "environmental crimes", among which the turnover in the trade in flora and fauna is estimated to range from $5 to $20 million a year. However, two of the biggest traded items - timber and fish - aren't covered by the treaty because these are not on the endangered list. The Faridabad workshop was to inform and instruct top customs officials from the region about different environmental treaties, most of which deal with harmful chemicals, and how the customs has a major role to play in compliance and enforcement.
Protecting plants
Readers may look somewhat askance at the need to protect plants. However, one has only to consider the enormous value to humans of many plants - as food, fuel and fibre, among other uses. We derive all our foodgrains from five or six staple plants, but there is no telling how many more there are, undiscovered in the wild, which can feed millions across the world. The threat of such plants dying out before they are even identified is similar to precious libraries of original manuscripts being burnt before anyone has read them.
Even today, some 30 per cent of all pharmaceuticals are derived from plants, although genetic engineering may gradually lower the proportion. In India, ayurveda is under serious threat because species are disappearing. Conservationists refer to rare plants in West Africa from which a substance several times sweeter than sugar can be extracted, but scientists have not yet been able to commercially exploit it.
During the protracted controversy over the Silent Valley hydel plant in Kerala in the early 'seventies, wild varieties of rice were discovered in Palghat district which possessed genes to withstand attacks of the brown plant hopper, a deadly pest which was devastating tracts of the dwarf Taichung varieties of rice grown throughout South and South-East Asia. Rice geneticists "married" genes from these Palghat (and Sri Lankan) varieties to the new dwarfs and the new variety was able to withstand the pest. This provides a glimpse of the tremendous value of wild plants.
Cultural beliefs
The tiger is particularly problematic for India because it is an iconic animal - so much so that the celebrated BBC Indian wildlife TV series, hosted by Valmik Thapar a few years ago, was titled Land of the Tiger. The CITES website (www.cites.org) in fact has a photograph of a majestic tiger on the prowl. The problem is compounded by the fact that Thailand has started breeding tigers on farms in order to "harvest" them for medicinal purposes.
In 2002, the Sri Racha (a corruption of 'Raja') Tiger Zoo sold 100 tigers - originally bred from a Royal Bengal pair - to Sanya Love World in China. They were widely alleged to have been bred there in captivity and slaughtered from time to time to be sold for their meat in Love World's restaurant. The Chinese denied this, since it would have violated CITES which only permits exchange of animals between zoos or for scientific purposes. Customs officers in many parts of the world may in future have to decide whether a particular consignment is genuinely from a farmed animal or has been poached.
Many conservationists like Nash take a pragmatic view of such trade and believe it can help assuage the seemingly insatiable demand for such animal parts. However, this should in no way come in the way of proper education of people who hanker over such products for purely traditional and usually irrational reasons. There is an almost exact parallel when it comes to Indian wildlife with the whale shark, one of the largest fish in the world, whose fins were cut off by fishermen off the Gujarat coast and shipped to South-East Asia for the renowned delicacy, shark's fin soup, a favourite on auspicious occasions. The helpless beasts were left to die in the ocean after their fins were cut off.
Fortunately, after a furore by Indian conservationists, this senseless slaughter and trade has been banned. The irony is that the fins actually don't impart any flavour to soup, which has to be augmented by species like abalone, but consumers blindly follow tradition.
Regulating the trophy trade
Nash told India Together that certain countries in east and southern Africa have issued a restricted number of hunting permits to cull old black rhino males. This serves two purposes: first, it earns the country a considerable amount of foreign exchange because the heads of these magnificent beasts are highly valued as trophies all over the wealthy world. Second, according to Nash, it eliminates old males and thereby helps to improve the genes of the species - a modern-day variant of "survival of the fittest"! However, Kenya has objected to this on the ground that smugglers who poach such rhinos in that country can attempt to export them through neighbouring countries by producing fake hunting licences.
Closer home, Pakistan has issued a restricted number of hunting licences - around six a year - to hunt the markhor goat, its national animal, which exists in the high Himalaya. US customs, have however, once confiscated such a trophy, assuming that it was poached, which is understandable when it comes to any rare species. Such concessions will always enrage die-hard conservationists, even as others argue that it raises revenues to protect the goats, restricts the number of licences to a manageable limit and thereby cuts down, if not eliminates, poaching. The jury is still out, but the common sense approach would be devote sufficient manpower and resources on protecting such species, which will reinforced by much stricter customs vigilance.
It should be noted that the original treaty regarding wild trophies was the London Convention of 1903, which was to govern hunting game in Africa and India. Times have changed and no civilized person today should be flaunting the heads, tusks or skins of animals from exotic corners of the world as some form of conquest, or even a form of neo-colonialism.
CITES, however, doesn't govern only living animals and plants but tusks and skins of dead animals as well. India has two such items - one as an import and the other which was both and import and export.
Jewellery made from red coral has been in existence for 5000 years, but the trade has dropped as smuggling is under surveillance. In 1984, some 450 tonnes were seized, which went down to 40 tonnes in 1990. Between 1990 and 2005, only an estimated 28 to 54 tonnes in all have been seized. From the Middle Ages, coral found its way from Rome (presumably harvested in the Mediterranean) to India. From the 17th century, there was a flourishing trade between Naples and Marseilles to India and West Africa. However, it is extremely difficult for customs officers to distinguish between three types of red coral, of which only Corallium is very rare and expensive.
The other item, which goes back some aeons, is ivory. Contrary to popular belief, ivory doesn't only consist of elephant tusks but also those of the narwhal (a long-toothed Arctic whale), killer and sperm whale, warthog, hippos and walrus. Cave paintings from the Cro-Magnon era depict people hunting mammoths for their tusks. The first ivory masterpiece in historical records is an arch which dates back to 2000 BC in Egypt. Even more surprisingly, such tusks are being recovered from the icy wastes in the extremities of the globe. In Alaska, carvings out of fossilized walrus ivory are in fact permitted today. Tusks of mammoths, which became extinct 16,000 years ago, are sought after.
However, faced with the dire threat to herds of African elephants, which declined by a half between 1970 and 1985, 119 countries at a CITES meet in 1989 decided to ban hunting elephants. African elephants are more sought after than their Indian counterparts because their tusks are bigger (as, indeed, are the elephants themselves). Indian craftsmen were far more adept at carving such tusks and till the ban, used to import African ivory. Most of this trade is now prohibited. There is some unhappiness in East and southern Africa, where herds are in fact increasing and the ban is sometimes thought of as a western imposition, without any concession to the revenue it could earn for poor countries in that part of the continent.
Sometimes, even with endangered species, truth can be stranger than fiction. In the current crisis over climate change, the sight of a lone polar bear struggling to keep afloat on a tiny ice floe has become the iconic image that goads countries and individuals to take action before it is too late. According to Nash, however, of 27 polar bear populations in the Arctic, 26 are actually increasing
Nash heads the Capacity Building Unit at the secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in Geneva. The convention has been in operation for 33 years and fuses wildlife and trade issues with a legally binding instrument to achieve conservation and sustainable use. In other words, it tries to ensure that under no circumstances should smuggling endanger wild fauna and flora.
Tackling illegal trade at customs
At a workshop organised by the World Customs Organisation at the sprawling campus of the National Academy of Customs, Excise and Narcotics (NACEN) in Faridabad (May 18-22), he briefed customs officials from several Asian countries on the objective of CITES, and how to handle threatened animals and plants. One can well imagine the consternation of customs officials who unsuspectingly open a consignment and have to deal with poisonous snakes, spiders and countless other pesky creatures
Endangered species are divided into three categories. Appendix I - this is a favourite category in UN parlance, since it also refers to industrialised countries in the Kyoto Protocol on climate change - are the most threatened, and international commercial trade in this category (as distinct presumably from exchange or research), is generally banned. This covers some 530 animals and 300 plants. Appendix II lists species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction, but for which trade must be controlled to avoid any such denouement. This is obviously a bigger category, covering 4400 animals and more than 28,000 plants. The third and last category comprises some 255 animals and 7 plants which countries ask CITES to help them protect.
India is most interested in the enforcement of CITES to curb the smuggling of tiger parts to China and other countries in South-East Asia, where people believe that these have curative properties. Indeed, while there is a great deal of controversy over who is responsible for the disappearance of tigers in this country - whether poachers (foreign or national or both) and/or tribals living within national parks and sanctuaries - there is no doubt that, were there to be effective surveillance by the customs at land, sea and airports, the trade would be considerably curbed. Just the sharing of information and better monitoring and coordination by the customs authorities of countries in this region would work wonders.
UNEP has launched the Green Customs Initiative to control what it terms "environmental crimes", among which the turnover in the trade in flora and fauna is estimated to range from $5 to $20 million a year. However, two of the biggest traded items - timber and fish - aren't covered by the treaty because these are not on the endangered list. The Faridabad workshop was to inform and instruct top customs officials from the region about different environmental treaties, most of which deal with harmful chemicals, and how the customs has a major role to play in compliance and enforcement.
Protecting plants
Readers may look somewhat askance at the need to protect plants. However, one has only to consider the enormous value to humans of many plants - as food, fuel and fibre, among other uses. We derive all our foodgrains from five or six staple plants, but there is no telling how many more there are, undiscovered in the wild, which can feed millions across the world. The threat of such plants dying out before they are even identified is similar to precious libraries of original manuscripts being burnt before anyone has read them.
Even today, some 30 per cent of all pharmaceuticals are derived from plants, although genetic engineering may gradually lower the proportion. In India, ayurveda is under serious threat because species are disappearing. Conservationists refer to rare plants in West Africa from which a substance several times sweeter than sugar can be extracted, but scientists have not yet been able to commercially exploit it.
During the protracted controversy over the Silent Valley hydel plant in Kerala in the early 'seventies, wild varieties of rice were discovered in Palghat district which possessed genes to withstand attacks of the brown plant hopper, a deadly pest which was devastating tracts of the dwarf Taichung varieties of rice grown throughout South and South-East Asia. Rice geneticists "married" genes from these Palghat (and Sri Lankan) varieties to the new dwarfs and the new variety was able to withstand the pest. This provides a glimpse of the tremendous value of wild plants.
Cultural beliefs
The tiger is particularly problematic for India because it is an iconic animal - so much so that the celebrated BBC Indian wildlife TV series, hosted by Valmik Thapar a few years ago, was titled Land of the Tiger. The CITES website (www.cites.org) in fact has a photograph of a majestic tiger on the prowl. The problem is compounded by the fact that Thailand has started breeding tigers on farms in order to "harvest" them for medicinal purposes.
In 2002, the Sri Racha (a corruption of 'Raja') Tiger Zoo sold 100 tigers - originally bred from a Royal Bengal pair - to Sanya Love World in China. They were widely alleged to have been bred there in captivity and slaughtered from time to time to be sold for their meat in Love World's restaurant. The Chinese denied this, since it would have violated CITES which only permits exchange of animals between zoos or for scientific purposes. Customs officers in many parts of the world may in future have to decide whether a particular consignment is genuinely from a farmed animal or has been poached.
Many conservationists like Nash take a pragmatic view of such trade and believe it can help assuage the seemingly insatiable demand for such animal parts. However, this should in no way come in the way of proper education of people who hanker over such products for purely traditional and usually irrational reasons. There is an almost exact parallel when it comes to Indian wildlife with the whale shark, one of the largest fish in the world, whose fins were cut off by fishermen off the Gujarat coast and shipped to South-East Asia for the renowned delicacy, shark's fin soup, a favourite on auspicious occasions. The helpless beasts were left to die in the ocean after their fins were cut off.
Fortunately, after a furore by Indian conservationists, this senseless slaughter and trade has been banned. The irony is that the fins actually don't impart any flavour to soup, which has to be augmented by species like abalone, but consumers blindly follow tradition.
Regulating the trophy trade
Nash told India Together that certain countries in east and southern Africa have issued a restricted number of hunting permits to cull old black rhino males. This serves two purposes: first, it earns the country a considerable amount of foreign exchange because the heads of these magnificent beasts are highly valued as trophies all over the wealthy world. Second, according to Nash, it eliminates old males and thereby helps to improve the genes of the species - a modern-day variant of "survival of the fittest"! However, Kenya has objected to this on the ground that smugglers who poach such rhinos in that country can attempt to export them through neighbouring countries by producing fake hunting licences.
Closer home, Pakistan has issued a restricted number of hunting licences - around six a year - to hunt the markhor goat, its national animal, which exists in the high Himalaya. US customs, have however, once confiscated such a trophy, assuming that it was poached, which is understandable when it comes to any rare species. Such concessions will always enrage die-hard conservationists, even as others argue that it raises revenues to protect the goats, restricts the number of licences to a manageable limit and thereby cuts down, if not eliminates, poaching. The jury is still out, but the common sense approach would be devote sufficient manpower and resources on protecting such species, which will reinforced by much stricter customs vigilance.
It should be noted that the original treaty regarding wild trophies was the London Convention of 1903, which was to govern hunting game in Africa and India. Times have changed and no civilized person today should be flaunting the heads, tusks or skins of animals from exotic corners of the world as some form of conquest, or even a form of neo-colonialism.
CITES, however, doesn't govern only living animals and plants but tusks and skins of dead animals as well. India has two such items - one as an import and the other which was both and import and export.
Jewellery made from red coral has been in existence for 5000 years, but the trade has dropped as smuggling is under surveillance. In 1984, some 450 tonnes were seized, which went down to 40 tonnes in 1990. Between 1990 and 2005, only an estimated 28 to 54 tonnes in all have been seized. From the Middle Ages, coral found its way from Rome (presumably harvested in the Mediterranean) to India. From the 17th century, there was a flourishing trade between Naples and Marseilles to India and West Africa. However, it is extremely difficult for customs officers to distinguish between three types of red coral, of which only Corallium is very rare and expensive.
The other item, which goes back some aeons, is ivory. Contrary to popular belief, ivory doesn't only consist of elephant tusks but also those of the narwhal (a long-toothed Arctic whale), killer and sperm whale, warthog, hippos and walrus. Cave paintings from the Cro-Magnon era depict people hunting mammoths for their tusks. The first ivory masterpiece in historical records is an arch which dates back to 2000 BC in Egypt. Even more surprisingly, such tusks are being recovered from the icy wastes in the extremities of the globe. In Alaska, carvings out of fossilized walrus ivory are in fact permitted today. Tusks of mammoths, which became extinct 16,000 years ago, are sought after.
However, faced with the dire threat to herds of African elephants, which declined by a half between 1970 and 1985, 119 countries at a CITES meet in 1989 decided to ban hunting elephants. African elephants are more sought after than their Indian counterparts because their tusks are bigger (as, indeed, are the elephants themselves). Indian craftsmen were far more adept at carving such tusks and till the ban, used to import African ivory. Most of this trade is now prohibited. There is some unhappiness in East and southern Africa, where herds are in fact increasing and the ban is sometimes thought of as a western imposition, without any concession to the revenue it could earn for poor countries in that part of the continent.
Sometimes, even with endangered species, truth can be stranger than fiction. In the current crisis over climate change, the sight of a lone polar bear struggling to keep afloat on a tiny ice floe has become the iconic image that goads countries and individuals to take action before it is too late. According to Nash, however, of 27 polar bear populations in the Arctic, 26 are actually increasing
River basin studies: A half-hearted attempt
The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) on River Valley and Hydroelectric Projects of the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Government of India has recently approved the Terms of Reference for conducting basin level studies of the Bichom and Lohit river basins in Arunachal Pradesh. The EAC has been constituted under the EIA notification 2006 to examine projects that apply to the Ministry for environmental clearance.
According to the TOR, the basin studies envisage "providing optimum support for various natural processes and allowing sustainable activities undertaken by its inhabitants". The Bichom and Lohit basins are among the river basins in the Himalayas where massive plans for building large dams and developing hydropower are being rolled out. More than a hundred projects with installed capacities totalling to 54,000 MW are at various stages of planning and implementation just in the state of Arunachal itself.
Often, a large number of dams are planned on single rivers or in single basins. For example, in the Lohit basin, a cascade of six projects totalling to 7918 MW are being planned, all within a length of 86 kms.
The need for basin studies
Such cascade-type development or a number of dams in a single basin raise the critically important issue of cumulative impacts. Often, the impact of all projects taken together is much greater than the sum of impacts of individual projects. Unfortunately, cumulative impacts are hardly ever assessed, as individual projects are planned and evaluated separately. One of the strongest criticisms against the recent plans of dam building has been the complete lack of any assessment of the carrying capacity - what level of development, and in particular the number of dams a basin can sustain - and of the totality of impacts of the number of dams and projects in the basin.
Indeed, when the impact assessment of even individual projects is patchy at best and often farcical, it would be too much to expect a proper cumulative impact assessment.
Against this background, the decision to undertake basin level studies in the Lohit and Bichom are welcome steps in the right direction. The TORs of the basin studies indicate that wide-ranging and extensive examination has been called for, as is necessary for any such study. The TORs call for "inventorisation and analysis of the existing resource base and its production, consumption and conservation levels, determination of regional ecological fragility/sensitivity based on geo-physical, biological, socio-economic and cultural attributes, review of existing and planned developments as per various developmental plans, and evaluation of impacts on various facets of environment due to existing and planned development."
The studies are to then assess the stress/load due to various activities and suggest environmental action plans that can involve preclusion or modification any activity and measures. Unfortunately, the good part ends with this. The way the studies have been structured ends up defeating the very purpose of carrying them out.
A self-defeating exercise
First and foremost, the basin studies have been effectively de-linked from the implementation of the projects as there is no requirement that the projects be conditional to the findings of the basin studies. Neither is there any explicit stay on the consideration and implementation of any of the projects pending the studies.
Logically, the basin studies should suggest what level of development, including hydropower projects, the basin can sustain. The projects should be planned based on this. However, the current planning and decision making turns this on its head. The numbers, locations, capacities, types and other details of the projects have already been decided. Many of these projects have already been allotted to (mostly) private developers who already have or would soon be approaching the Ministry for environmental clearance. In Bichom basin, the 600 MW Bichom (or Kameng) project is already under construction.
It is clear that the Expert Appraisal Committee understood this issue. The Minutes of its meeting dated 15 and 16 December 2008 record that "The committee noted that the study will be completed in two years and M/s WAPCOS has been entrusted with the job. In case, any project on this basin is submitted during this study period for environmental clearance, how the outcome of the study will help to take a decision could not be clarified." The obvious solution is to put on hold the projects till the studies are done. However, what the Committee decided is that "the report may be submitted within six months by reducing the TOR and the study should focus only on hydroelectric projects."
Thus, studies that would need about two years are to be done in six months (later this was extended to nine) with reduced TORs. How the outcome of such truncated studies would help rational environmental decision making is a question. It is clear that the environmental objectives have been sidelined with an eye to build as many dams as possible.
The TOR for the studies does state that they can recommend the "preclusion of any activity", which presumably means that they can call for any or some of the hydropower plants not to be built. In reality, such an outcome is highly unlikely, as is seen from the reluctance to explicitly put on hold the projects in the basin pending the results of the study. While the Committee has from time to time discussed with concern the possible impacts of large number of projects in a single basin, it has fallen shy of taking the right, but hard decision when actually dealing with the problem
For example, the Lohit basin study was originally envisaged and put forward as a condition while granting clearance for pre-construction activities to the Upper and Lower Demwe projects in March 2008. But the Minutes of the EAC meeting of July 2008, while discussing the basin study note that "Environmental Clearance to Demwe Upper and Demwe Lower HE Project should not be linked up with the completion of basin study." These two projects add up to 3430 MW, a full 43 per cent of the total 7918 MW planned in the basin.
Further, considering that the studies are to be paid for by the project developers - in proportion to the size of the projects they have been allotted - the conflict of interest is clear.
An earlier such basin study - to determined the carrying capacity of the Teesta basin in Sikkim, initiated in 2001 - at least had a condition that no project will be considered for environmental clearance till the carrying study is completed. That study took over five years. However, the MoEF violated its own condition and accorded clearance to several projects even before the study was completed. On the other hand, based on the recommendations of the study, the MoEF has asked the Sikkim Government to drop five hydropower projects above Chungthang, and restrict the height of those below it. This shows that findings of such studies are likely to require significant rethinking of dam building plans in the river basins.
Neeraj Vagholikar, who is with the environmental organisation Kalpavriksh and has studied dam projects in the North-East since 2001 says about the Bichom and Lohit studies: "The reluctance to put on hold individual project clearances till comprehensive river basin studies are completed puts a question mark on the utility of the entire exercise. Moreover, the river basin studies will now be much shorter exercises instead of the comprehensive ones envisaged earlier, which are necessary for proper environmental decision-making. It appears that the Bichom and Lohit studies are more likely to be used to create a justification for the large scale hydropower development already planned than protect the ecological integrity of these river basins. One of the two key outcomes proposed for the studies - to provide sustainable and optimal ways of hydropower development - is a clear indication that the environmental objectives are of secondary importance."
The silver lining to this is that the second key outcome specified by the TOR is to "assess requirement of environmental flow during lean season with actual flow, depth and velocity at different level". It is significant that the Committee has recognised the importance of environmental flows, the flows necessary to maintain the ecological existence of the river, an issue that is increasingly being acknowledged as critical to sound river basin planning. One has to wait and see if the studies would have the independence to recommend preclusion or modifications to some of the hydropower projects if this is found necessary to maintain environmental flows, and if so, whether such recommendations could be implemented.
While there are several other important issues with the basin studies not discussed here, there is one that is essential to point out. The TORs for the basin studies lay out in detail many parameters that need to be studied, field data that needs to be collected, but fail to require that the local communities be consulted and involved in the process. This is a major shortcoming, and an indicator that the studies are reinforcing the technocratic approach instead of a participatory one that is the essence of environmental decision-making.
Conclusion
The basin studies for Bichom and Lohit are examples of a good initiative gone awry. The Committee's recognition of the need for basin studies is a welcome step. It is clear that this is an acknowledgement of issues of cumulative impacts and carrying capacity that activists, researchers, academics, dam affected people and others have been consistently raising for the last many years. At the same time, it does not go to the logical conclusion and hence has become self-defeating.
What the Committee needs to do is to re-define the TORs for the studies allowing them the two years that the committee itself feels are necessary, and redesigning them to require meaningful participation of local communities and civil society. Meanwhile it should put the projects in the basin on hold, and make them conditional to the findings of the study. If this is done, it will be a significant step in the direction of environmentally sustainable and holistic approach to development
According to the TOR, the basin studies envisage "providing optimum support for various natural processes and allowing sustainable activities undertaken by its inhabitants". The Bichom and Lohit basins are among the river basins in the Himalayas where massive plans for building large dams and developing hydropower are being rolled out. More than a hundred projects with installed capacities totalling to 54,000 MW are at various stages of planning and implementation just in the state of Arunachal itself.
Often, a large number of dams are planned on single rivers or in single basins. For example, in the Lohit basin, a cascade of six projects totalling to 7918 MW are being planned, all within a length of 86 kms.
The need for basin studies
Such cascade-type development or a number of dams in a single basin raise the critically important issue of cumulative impacts. Often, the impact of all projects taken together is much greater than the sum of impacts of individual projects. Unfortunately, cumulative impacts are hardly ever assessed, as individual projects are planned and evaluated separately. One of the strongest criticisms against the recent plans of dam building has been the complete lack of any assessment of the carrying capacity - what level of development, and in particular the number of dams a basin can sustain - and of the totality of impacts of the number of dams and projects in the basin.
Indeed, when the impact assessment of even individual projects is patchy at best and often farcical, it would be too much to expect a proper cumulative impact assessment.
Against this background, the decision to undertake basin level studies in the Lohit and Bichom are welcome steps in the right direction. The TORs of the basin studies indicate that wide-ranging and extensive examination has been called for, as is necessary for any such study. The TORs call for "inventorisation and analysis of the existing resource base and its production, consumption and conservation levels, determination of regional ecological fragility/sensitivity based on geo-physical, biological, socio-economic and cultural attributes, review of existing and planned developments as per various developmental plans, and evaluation of impacts on various facets of environment due to existing and planned development."
The studies are to then assess the stress/load due to various activities and suggest environmental action plans that can involve preclusion or modification any activity and measures. Unfortunately, the good part ends with this. The way the studies have been structured ends up defeating the very purpose of carrying them out.
A self-defeating exercise
First and foremost, the basin studies have been effectively de-linked from the implementation of the projects as there is no requirement that the projects be conditional to the findings of the basin studies. Neither is there any explicit stay on the consideration and implementation of any of the projects pending the studies.
Logically, the basin studies should suggest what level of development, including hydropower projects, the basin can sustain. The projects should be planned based on this. However, the current planning and decision making turns this on its head. The numbers, locations, capacities, types and other details of the projects have already been decided. Many of these projects have already been allotted to (mostly) private developers who already have or would soon be approaching the Ministry for environmental clearance. In Bichom basin, the 600 MW Bichom (or Kameng) project is already under construction.
It is clear that the Expert Appraisal Committee understood this issue. The Minutes of its meeting dated 15 and 16 December 2008 record that "The committee noted that the study will be completed in two years and M/s WAPCOS has been entrusted with the job. In case, any project on this basin is submitted during this study period for environmental clearance, how the outcome of the study will help to take a decision could not be clarified." The obvious solution is to put on hold the projects till the studies are done. However, what the Committee decided is that "the report may be submitted within six months by reducing the TOR and the study should focus only on hydroelectric projects."
Thus, studies that would need about two years are to be done in six months (later this was extended to nine) with reduced TORs. How the outcome of such truncated studies would help rational environmental decision making is a question. It is clear that the environmental objectives have been sidelined with an eye to build as many dams as possible.
The TOR for the studies does state that they can recommend the "preclusion of any activity", which presumably means that they can call for any or some of the hydropower plants not to be built. In reality, such an outcome is highly unlikely, as is seen from the reluctance to explicitly put on hold the projects in the basin pending the results of the study. While the Committee has from time to time discussed with concern the possible impacts of large number of projects in a single basin, it has fallen shy of taking the right, but hard decision when actually dealing with the problem
For example, the Lohit basin study was originally envisaged and put forward as a condition while granting clearance for pre-construction activities to the Upper and Lower Demwe projects in March 2008. But the Minutes of the EAC meeting of July 2008, while discussing the basin study note that "Environmental Clearance to Demwe Upper and Demwe Lower HE Project should not be linked up with the completion of basin study." These two projects add up to 3430 MW, a full 43 per cent of the total 7918 MW planned in the basin.
Further, considering that the studies are to be paid for by the project developers - in proportion to the size of the projects they have been allotted - the conflict of interest is clear.
An earlier such basin study - to determined the carrying capacity of the Teesta basin in Sikkim, initiated in 2001 - at least had a condition that no project will be considered for environmental clearance till the carrying study is completed. That study took over five years. However, the MoEF violated its own condition and accorded clearance to several projects even before the study was completed. On the other hand, based on the recommendations of the study, the MoEF has asked the Sikkim Government to drop five hydropower projects above Chungthang, and restrict the height of those below it. This shows that findings of such studies are likely to require significant rethinking of dam building plans in the river basins.
Neeraj Vagholikar, who is with the environmental organisation Kalpavriksh and has studied dam projects in the North-East since 2001 says about the Bichom and Lohit studies: "The reluctance to put on hold individual project clearances till comprehensive river basin studies are completed puts a question mark on the utility of the entire exercise. Moreover, the river basin studies will now be much shorter exercises instead of the comprehensive ones envisaged earlier, which are necessary for proper environmental decision-making. It appears that the Bichom and Lohit studies are more likely to be used to create a justification for the large scale hydropower development already planned than protect the ecological integrity of these river basins. One of the two key outcomes proposed for the studies - to provide sustainable and optimal ways of hydropower development - is a clear indication that the environmental objectives are of secondary importance."
The silver lining to this is that the second key outcome specified by the TOR is to "assess requirement of environmental flow during lean season with actual flow, depth and velocity at different level". It is significant that the Committee has recognised the importance of environmental flows, the flows necessary to maintain the ecological existence of the river, an issue that is increasingly being acknowledged as critical to sound river basin planning. One has to wait and see if the studies would have the independence to recommend preclusion or modifications to some of the hydropower projects if this is found necessary to maintain environmental flows, and if so, whether such recommendations could be implemented.
While there are several other important issues with the basin studies not discussed here, there is one that is essential to point out. The TORs for the basin studies lay out in detail many parameters that need to be studied, field data that needs to be collected, but fail to require that the local communities be consulted and involved in the process. This is a major shortcoming, and an indicator that the studies are reinforcing the technocratic approach instead of a participatory one that is the essence of environmental decision-making.
Conclusion
The basin studies for Bichom and Lohit are examples of a good initiative gone awry. The Committee's recognition of the need for basin studies is a welcome step. It is clear that this is an acknowledgement of issues of cumulative impacts and carrying capacity that activists, researchers, academics, dam affected people and others have been consistently raising for the last many years. At the same time, it does not go to the logical conclusion and hence has become self-defeating.
What the Committee needs to do is to re-define the TORs for the studies allowing them the two years that the committee itself feels are necessary, and redesigning them to require meaningful participation of local communities and civil society. Meanwhile it should put the projects in the basin on hold, and make them conditional to the findings of the study. If this is done, it will be a significant step in the direction of environmentally sustainable and holistic approach to development
Awarded in haste, withheld
Some things make no sense whatsoever. On 12-13 June 2009, Vedanta Alumina Ltd (VAL), a world metals and mining giant was to receive the 2009 Golden Peacock Environment Management Award at Palampur, Himachal Pradesh (see here for more). The World Environment Foundation (WEF) and Institute of Directors are the two institutions behind the award. There is no way to understand this except as disregard - knowing or otherwise - of Vedanta's reputation.
A little education, then, for the benefit of these two institutions. In 2007, the Norwegian Council of Ethics had assessed its parent company Vedanta Resources and its Indian subsidiaries Sterlite Industries, Madras Aluminium Company (MALCO), Bharat Aluminium Company (BALCO), and Vedanta Alumina to judge whether the group was in breach of the council's Ethical Guidelines for investment. Following this, the Council had withdrawn its fundng, citing severe environmental damage and human rights violations linked to the group's operations in India.
While this was happening, a challenge to Vedanta's mining operations in Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa was pending before the Supreme Court of India before the forest bench. A monitoring body set up by this bench - as part of the T N Godavarman Thirumulpad v/s Union of India case - the Central Empowered Committee had recommended against the grant of approvals as the company had a history of irregularities in seeking both forest and environment clearances both for its refinery operations in Lanjigarh and proposed mining in Niyamgiri Hills of Orissa. Also critical was a strong movement against the mining by the Dongaria Kondh tribal community for whom Niyamgiri is a revered hill and deeply connected with their lives and livelihoods (see this earlier article).
The Supreme Court bench relied the Norwegian report even more than that of its own committee, and stated that it could not take the risk in handing over the mining operations to Vedanta. But the court, unexpectedly, had no qualms in allowing Sterlite Industries, Vedanta's subsidiary to work out a Special Purpose Vehicle with the Government of Orissa and Orissa Mining Corporation work out the best formula for mining. This was November 2007. (see here and here). All the modalities were discussed in court, and as an inexplicable formula the court granted its approval to Sterlite to mine in Niyamgiri Hills, subject to some conditions on 8 August 2008. It did not matter perhaps, that just about a month before in July 2008, the Martin Currie Scottish Trust Fund of Scotland also withdrew its 2.37-million-pound investment in Vedanta. This too was on the grounds of environmental and human rights violation by the company (see here).
Violations in other states
But Vedanta's stories don't start and end in the state of Orissa. Moving further to Tamilnadu there are two very stark and clear instances of the violations by Vedanta's subsidiaries. Sterlite's coppert smelter plant in Tuticorin is surrounded by fly ash and gypsum dumps. There are few villagers around who raise their voice against the air and water pollution being caused by the plant operations. There are days, says a local villager who did not want to be named, when they cannot open their windows due to the pollution, and some have chosen to live away due to the health hazards. This was verified around the site during inspection and discussions in May 2008 by Corporate Accountability Desk and Kalpavriksh members.
Official reports of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee (SCMC) on Hazardous Waste Management in the years 2004 and 2005 respectively, also point to the violations by the plant. The SCMC report states amongst other things, "The industry, as reported to the SCMC during the visit, is also emitting sulphur dioxide far in excess of the permissible standards particularly when the sulphuric acid plant is not operating. "
In the Kolli Hills of Tamilnadu, Vedanta's subsidiary MALCO was pushed to suspend its illegal mining operations in November 2008. This was following a petition filed in the Madras High Court by Piyush Sethia of Speak Out Salem presenting evidence that its bauxite mines had no permission under various environmental laws. Kolli Hills are part of the extremely biodiverse Eastern Ghats ecoregion, also dominated by primitive tribal groups. The hills are said to be guarded by Kollipavai, the local deity. (see here).
In Chhatisgarh it is the turn of BALCO. There is photographic evidence of 2007 of the overflow of red mud over the embankment which has spread down the side of a rivulet nar the Balco-Vedanta aluminium complex . In the mines at Kawardha-Daldali (district Kawardha) bauxite mines, there are pictures of 2007 where trucks are running on dirt roads spreading huge amount of dust in and around the area.
There is more. A public hearing for the environmental clearance for the expansion of the Lanjigarh refinery in Orissa took place amidst stiff opposition at Belamba village on 24 April 2009. Locally affected people had highlighted that the existing plant was already polluting the area around and it was causing severe health problems to both humans and animals (See video at this link). The public hearing had to be left incomplete by the concerned authorities, due to strong protests.
Jurors challenged
Today, over 170 organisations and individuals have come together to highlight all of this and much more to the Golden Peacock jury members, what they did not see, or chose to ignore. (See list of Jury members here). A letter embedded with various weblinks or email attachments with research studies, photographs and videos has been sent to the jurors, officials of WEF as well as India's newly elected Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh.
In all, this submission is no less than a comprehensive dossier attempting to highlight various well researched reasons to withdraw the award to the company and at same time initiate strong action. Addressed to the jurors, the letter seeks, "As jurors, you would have to explain how you chose to award a company that in the words of the Norwegian Government's Council of Ethics is clearly involved in "human rights violations." The dossier lays out a torrid controversy of fraud and financial malpractices shrouding this company. We hope, as jurors and persons of eminence, you would have the good sense to preserve your integrity by dissociating yourselves from this company in particular, and the Golden Peacock Awards, in general."
On 12 June, the Himalaya Niti Abhiyan (HNA) and activists from different parts of the country organised a protest outside the awards ceremony at Palampur, in tandem with the submission to the jury member with signatories from across the country. HNA also sent a letter dated 9 June to the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh requesting him to refrain from participating in the award ceremony. The letter also clearly rejects the sanctity of the award and it being conferred to Vedanta.
Following the furore, the jury has withheld the announcement of the award. Its members now contend that the full facts about the company were not brought to their attention earlier. Pending a second examination of the facts, it was announced that the award would be held back. None of the Himachal State government officials who were to attend the award ceremony did so.
A little education, then, for the benefit of these two institutions. In 2007, the Norwegian Council of Ethics had assessed its parent company Vedanta Resources and its Indian subsidiaries Sterlite Industries, Madras Aluminium Company (MALCO), Bharat Aluminium Company (BALCO), and Vedanta Alumina to judge whether the group was in breach of the council's Ethical Guidelines for investment. Following this, the Council had withdrawn its fundng, citing severe environmental damage and human rights violations linked to the group's operations in India.
While this was happening, a challenge to Vedanta's mining operations in Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa was pending before the Supreme Court of India before the forest bench. A monitoring body set up by this bench - as part of the T N Godavarman Thirumulpad v/s Union of India case - the Central Empowered Committee had recommended against the grant of approvals as the company had a history of irregularities in seeking both forest and environment clearances both for its refinery operations in Lanjigarh and proposed mining in Niyamgiri Hills of Orissa. Also critical was a strong movement against the mining by the Dongaria Kondh tribal community for whom Niyamgiri is a revered hill and deeply connected with their lives and livelihoods (see this earlier article).
The Supreme Court bench relied the Norwegian report even more than that of its own committee, and stated that it could not take the risk in handing over the mining operations to Vedanta. But the court, unexpectedly, had no qualms in allowing Sterlite Industries, Vedanta's subsidiary to work out a Special Purpose Vehicle with the Government of Orissa and Orissa Mining Corporation work out the best formula for mining. This was November 2007. (see here and here). All the modalities were discussed in court, and as an inexplicable formula the court granted its approval to Sterlite to mine in Niyamgiri Hills, subject to some conditions on 8 August 2008. It did not matter perhaps, that just about a month before in July 2008, the Martin Currie Scottish Trust Fund of Scotland also withdrew its 2.37-million-pound investment in Vedanta. This too was on the grounds of environmental and human rights violation by the company (see here).
Violations in other states
But Vedanta's stories don't start and end in the state of Orissa. Moving further to Tamilnadu there are two very stark and clear instances of the violations by Vedanta's subsidiaries. Sterlite's coppert smelter plant in Tuticorin is surrounded by fly ash and gypsum dumps. There are few villagers around who raise their voice against the air and water pollution being caused by the plant operations. There are days, says a local villager who did not want to be named, when they cannot open their windows due to the pollution, and some have chosen to live away due to the health hazards. This was verified around the site during inspection and discussions in May 2008 by Corporate Accountability Desk and Kalpavriksh members.
Official reports of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee (SCMC) on Hazardous Waste Management in the years 2004 and 2005 respectively, also point to the violations by the plant. The SCMC report states amongst other things, "The industry, as reported to the SCMC during the visit, is also emitting sulphur dioxide far in excess of the permissible standards particularly when the sulphuric acid plant is not operating. "
In the Kolli Hills of Tamilnadu, Vedanta's subsidiary MALCO was pushed to suspend its illegal mining operations in November 2008. This was following a petition filed in the Madras High Court by Piyush Sethia of Speak Out Salem presenting evidence that its bauxite mines had no permission under various environmental laws. Kolli Hills are part of the extremely biodiverse Eastern Ghats ecoregion, also dominated by primitive tribal groups. The hills are said to be guarded by Kollipavai, the local deity. (see here).
In Chhatisgarh it is the turn of BALCO. There is photographic evidence of 2007 of the overflow of red mud over the embankment which has spread down the side of a rivulet nar the Balco-Vedanta aluminium complex . In the mines at Kawardha-Daldali (district Kawardha) bauxite mines, there are pictures of 2007 where trucks are running on dirt roads spreading huge amount of dust in and around the area.
There is more. A public hearing for the environmental clearance for the expansion of the Lanjigarh refinery in Orissa took place amidst stiff opposition at Belamba village on 24 April 2009. Locally affected people had highlighted that the existing plant was already polluting the area around and it was causing severe health problems to both humans and animals (See video at this link). The public hearing had to be left incomplete by the concerned authorities, due to strong protests.
Jurors challenged
Today, over 170 organisations and individuals have come together to highlight all of this and much more to the Golden Peacock jury members, what they did not see, or chose to ignore. (See list of Jury members here). A letter embedded with various weblinks or email attachments with research studies, photographs and videos has been sent to the jurors, officials of WEF as well as India's newly elected Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh.
In all, this submission is no less than a comprehensive dossier attempting to highlight various well researched reasons to withdraw the award to the company and at same time initiate strong action. Addressed to the jurors, the letter seeks, "As jurors, you would have to explain how you chose to award a company that in the words of the Norwegian Government's Council of Ethics is clearly involved in "human rights violations." The dossier lays out a torrid controversy of fraud and financial malpractices shrouding this company. We hope, as jurors and persons of eminence, you would have the good sense to preserve your integrity by dissociating yourselves from this company in particular, and the Golden Peacock Awards, in general."
On 12 June, the Himalaya Niti Abhiyan (HNA) and activists from different parts of the country organised a protest outside the awards ceremony at Palampur, in tandem with the submission to the jury member with signatories from across the country. HNA also sent a letter dated 9 June to the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh requesting him to refrain from participating in the award ceremony. The letter also clearly rejects the sanctity of the award and it being conferred to Vedanta.
Following the furore, the jury has withheld the announcement of the award. Its members now contend that the full facts about the company were not brought to their attention earlier. Pending a second examination of the facts, it was announced that the award would be held back. None of the Himachal State government officials who were to attend the award ceremony did so.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
JBIC eyes stake in Indian infrastructure projects
Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), the international wing of the Japan Finance Corporation (JFC), a policy-based financing institution, is planning to pick up stake in Indian infrastructure projectsBesides providing export finance to Indian companies to source goods and services from Japan, JBIC is engaged in a phased programme for equity investments in infrastructure and environment projects.
There is a proposal for investment in an Indian power project, said Hiromichi Miyamato, representative (India, Nepal, Sri Lanka & Bhutan) on the sidelines of a seminar on emerging markets here On Thursday.
He, however, did not elaborate on the investment size and the name of the company behind the project. For any project to become eligible for investment from JBIC, a Japanese company must put in money (equity) into the project.
The Indian government has estimated that it would require $500 billion for infrastructure projects across various segments such as power, telecom, roads until 2012.
So far, JBIC has made equity investments in China Eco fund and a power project in Singapore, a company official said.
JBIC’s current exposure to India is in the form of loans and guarantees. The value of its outstanding loan portfolio was $1.1 billion, while it has extended guarantees of about $380 million, he said.
Meanwhile, senior officials from state-owned National Thermal Power Generation company, met Hiroshi Watanabe, president and chief executive of JBIC, for semi-commercial loan for capital expenditure under Leading Investment to Future Environment (LIFE).
The Japanese funding agency has set a target of lending $5 billion in two years under LIFE for projects involving clean power generation, energy efficiency improvement, water and urban transportation.
On the level of scope for investment flow from Japan, the JBIC official said interest has picked up from April. Investments had slowed down in the past six months as the global financial crisis intensified after Lehman Brothers’ collapse in September 2008.
JBIC is providing guarantees for Samurai Bonds, a yen-denominated bond issued by a non-Japanese firm or institution in order to encourage the use of Asian funds for regional needs, tap global markets and vitalise Samurai bond markets.
There is a proposal for investment in an Indian power project, said Hiromichi Miyamato, representative (India, Nepal, Sri Lanka & Bhutan) on the sidelines of a seminar on emerging markets here On Thursday.
He, however, did not elaborate on the investment size and the name of the company behind the project. For any project to become eligible for investment from JBIC, a Japanese company must put in money (equity) into the project.
The Indian government has estimated that it would require $500 billion for infrastructure projects across various segments such as power, telecom, roads until 2012.
So far, JBIC has made equity investments in China Eco fund and a power project in Singapore, a company official said.
JBIC’s current exposure to India is in the form of loans and guarantees. The value of its outstanding loan portfolio was $1.1 billion, while it has extended guarantees of about $380 million, he said.
Meanwhile, senior officials from state-owned National Thermal Power Generation company, met Hiroshi Watanabe, president and chief executive of JBIC, for semi-commercial loan for capital expenditure under Leading Investment to Future Environment (LIFE).
The Japanese funding agency has set a target of lending $5 billion in two years under LIFE for projects involving clean power generation, energy efficiency improvement, water and urban transportation.
On the level of scope for investment flow from Japan, the JBIC official said interest has picked up from April. Investments had slowed down in the past six months as the global financial crisis intensified after Lehman Brothers’ collapse in September 2008.
JBIC is providing guarantees for Samurai Bonds, a yen-denominated bond issued by a non-Japanese firm or institution in order to encourage the use of Asian funds for regional needs, tap global markets and vitalise Samurai bond markets.
Poll Finds Support for Action on Global Warming
With major legislation pending in the House, most Americans support government action on climate change – but with an eye on how it works and what it costs
In principle, support is there: Three-quarters in this ABC News/Washington Post poll favor government regulation of greenhouse gases, and 62 percent feel that way even if it raises prices. But fewer support a so-called "cap-and-trade" system – central to current efforts – especially as cost impacts rise.
Click here for PDF with charts and questionnaire.
Overall, 52 percent support cap and trade, down 7 points from a year ago, led by a 14-point drop among political independents, the crucial center of political consensus. Forty-six percent of independents now favor cap and trade, on par with Republicans.
Asked another way, support's at 56 percent overall if cap and trade significantly lowered greenhouse gases while raising electric bills by $10 a month. But at $25 a month, it drops to 44 percent, with 54 percent opposed. Specifically among independents, 58 percent favor cap and trade at $10 – but just 43 percent at $25.
A cap and trade system would have the government issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies could emit; they could buy and sell these permits depending on their emission needs. A vote on the measure could come as early as Friday.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the proposed bill would cost an average of $175 annually per household (about $15 a month); the Environmental Protection Agency puts it at $80-$111 per year (averaging $8 monthly). But congressional Republicans have warned of $3,100 in annual price increases.
President Obama, who urged passage of the legislation at a news conference Tuesday, holds majority approval on handling global warming, 54 percent. But that's down from 61 percent in April, amid some slippage for the president on several issues.
The change, again, occurred chiefly among independents, from 62 percent approval for Obama on global warming in late April to 52 percent now
Likely cognizant of cost concerns, Obama focused Tuesday not on cap and trade but rather on what he said would be cost savings and other gains produced by the legislation, saying it would "spur new energy savings," "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" and reduce pollution, all positive attributes in public opinion.
G8 – Obama is scheduled to take the issue to the international stage at a meeting of world leaders on climate change to be held next month in Italy immediately after the G8 economic summit there. On this, too, there's persuasion ahead: While most Americans support U.S. action, even if unilateral, this also has declined in the past year.
In a July 2008 poll, 68 percent said the United States should take action on global warming, regardless of whether other industrial countries, such as China and India, take similar steps. Today, 59 percent still hold that view – a majority, but less of one. (The decline was led by a 13-point drop in this view among Democrats, 12 points among women.)
Of the rest, 20 percent say the United States should act only if other countries do as well; 18 percent say it should not act at all.
GROUPS – There is strong partisanship on all these measures; for example, 69 percent of Democrats say the United States should act unilaterally, if necessary, on global warming; that drops to 59 percent of independents and 45 percent of Republicans.
Among other groups, there's a notable difference by age: Seniors are 10 points less apt than adults under 65 to favor government regulation of greenhouse gases overall; 10 points less apt to support it if it raises prices; and again 10 points less apt to back cap and trade. Support for cap and trade peaks, at 65 percent, of under-30s.
Costs, meanwhile, are particularly important to less well-off Americans. Among those making less than $50,000 a year, support for regulating greenhouse gas emissions drops by 17 points (from 75 percent to a still-majority 58 percent) if it raises prices; support if it costs $10 a month is 49 percent; and at $25, just 35 percent.
METHODOLOGY -- This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone June 18-21, 2009, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results for the full sample have a 3.5-point error margin; click here for a detailed description of sampling error. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.
In principle, support is there: Three-quarters in this ABC News/Washington Post poll favor government regulation of greenhouse gases, and 62 percent feel that way even if it raises prices. But fewer support a so-called "cap-and-trade" system – central to current efforts – especially as cost impacts rise.
Click here for PDF with charts and questionnaire.
Overall, 52 percent support cap and trade, down 7 points from a year ago, led by a 14-point drop among political independents, the crucial center of political consensus. Forty-six percent of independents now favor cap and trade, on par with Republicans.
Asked another way, support's at 56 percent overall if cap and trade significantly lowered greenhouse gases while raising electric bills by $10 a month. But at $25 a month, it drops to 44 percent, with 54 percent opposed. Specifically among independents, 58 percent favor cap and trade at $10 – but just 43 percent at $25.
A cap and trade system would have the government issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies could emit; they could buy and sell these permits depending on their emission needs. A vote on the measure could come as early as Friday.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the proposed bill would cost an average of $175 annually per household (about $15 a month); the Environmental Protection Agency puts it at $80-$111 per year (averaging $8 monthly). But congressional Republicans have warned of $3,100 in annual price increases.
President Obama, who urged passage of the legislation at a news conference Tuesday, holds majority approval on handling global warming, 54 percent. But that's down from 61 percent in April, amid some slippage for the president on several issues.
The change, again, occurred chiefly among independents, from 62 percent approval for Obama on global warming in late April to 52 percent now
Likely cognizant of cost concerns, Obama focused Tuesday not on cap and trade but rather on what he said would be cost savings and other gains produced by the legislation, saying it would "spur new energy savings," "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" and reduce pollution, all positive attributes in public opinion.
G8 – Obama is scheduled to take the issue to the international stage at a meeting of world leaders on climate change to be held next month in Italy immediately after the G8 economic summit there. On this, too, there's persuasion ahead: While most Americans support U.S. action, even if unilateral, this also has declined in the past year.
In a July 2008 poll, 68 percent said the United States should take action on global warming, regardless of whether other industrial countries, such as China and India, take similar steps. Today, 59 percent still hold that view – a majority, but less of one. (The decline was led by a 13-point drop in this view among Democrats, 12 points among women.)
Of the rest, 20 percent say the United States should act only if other countries do as well; 18 percent say it should not act at all.
GROUPS – There is strong partisanship on all these measures; for example, 69 percent of Democrats say the United States should act unilaterally, if necessary, on global warming; that drops to 59 percent of independents and 45 percent of Republicans.
Among other groups, there's a notable difference by age: Seniors are 10 points less apt than adults under 65 to favor government regulation of greenhouse gases overall; 10 points less apt to support it if it raises prices; and again 10 points less apt to back cap and trade. Support for cap and trade peaks, at 65 percent, of under-30s.
Costs, meanwhile, are particularly important to less well-off Americans. Among those making less than $50,000 a year, support for regulating greenhouse gas emissions drops by 17 points (from 75 percent to a still-majority 58 percent) if it raises prices; support if it costs $10 a month is 49 percent; and at $25, just 35 percent.
METHODOLOGY -- This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone June 18-21, 2009, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results for the full sample have a 3.5-point error margin; click here for a detailed description of sampling error. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)