Vivek H. Dehejia
In all of the furore over the active and muscular approach being taken towards environmental protection by Jairam Ramesh, questions revolve around political (or politicized, take your pick) issues such as whether he’s going after non-Congress-Party-ruled states and others in this vein. Some decry his activism, suggesting it will kill commerce and choke off economic development, while others praise him as a Green Guru. Indeed, he can often be seen these days sporting a natty green bandi over his immaculately starched white kurta/pyjama, the perfect accessory to his two-tone flowing mane of hair.
Seriously, though, folks, in all of this fascination with Jairam’s persona, and, I will confess, I too am fascinated, the larger question hanging over his recent activism is entirely begged. That is this: Someone at the highest level of government decided at some point to embrace a model of “sustainable development” or “inclusive development” (to use two favourite cliches) that is pretty far over on one end of the spectrum. Killing the Vedanta project in Orissa was a signal of this. Thankfully, it now appears that Posco will go through, but question marks remain over other large-scale development projects, and about Jairam’s proposal to fence off a large part of our forests from any encroachment by industry or commerce.
Let me put it more directly: There is a trade-off between economic development and the environment. No amount of fancy talk about inclusiveness in development can whitewash that stark reality. Different societies, at different stages of development, will naturally choose different points on that trade-off: there is nothing irrational about that. It is understandable that an already rich country, such as those in Scandinavia for instance, will be willing to trade off a fair chunk of future growth, or current prosperity, for an immaculate environment. But for a poor country such as India, most people would say that we need more growth, to lift the hundreds of millions still in poverty up into a decent life in which they can at last start to feed themselves and their families. Such growth will be carbon-intensive, and will lead to environmental degradation. There are no two ways about that. The best we can do is to mitigate the harms, and do our development in the most eco-friendly manner that is feasible at reasonable cost.
One can speculate on the politics behind this scenario. As my previous post suggested, we believe that the Prime Minister would like, if he could, to pursue further economic reforms, but he is hamstrung by his political weakness. The Delhi cocktail party crowd will tell you that Jairam is close to the “family”, and therefore invulnerable. His aggressive pursuit of an economic model that tilts towards environmental protection and away from economic development must, therefore, be endorsed at the highest level. This reveals yet again the schism within the Congress Party, and the vast ideological distance that separates the few hundred yards between 7 Race Course Road and 10 Janpath.
Vivek H. Dehejia, economist and professor, comments on the politics of economics in India. You may follow him on Twitter @vdehejia.
Jairam responded to this in a recent interview
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2010/12/27/stories/2010122751400300.htm
“The fact remains that almost 95 per cent of the proposals for environmental clearances do get cleared and 85 per cent of the proposals for forests projects do get cleared, and on time.
I want to make it absolutely clear that the issue is not environment versus development, or conservation versus growth. The issue is: Do we want to follow the laws of the land?”
Prof. Dehejia, this issue of green vs. growth is classic short-term thinking vs long-term thinking; upfront costs vs life-cycle costs. Look at health patterns around mines and coal-fired power plants. The health of the environment directly affects the health of our people and in turn, the economic productivity of the country.
The differences are more sharper than you think in Kalahandi, Orissa where the Vedanta Plant was located. This is the district which is infamous for distress selling of children at Rs. 20. This should give an idea of the poverty in that area.
The talk about environmental issues is questionable ,since, the supreme had done a complete analysis of the project and suggested appropriate measures. The ad-hoc activism of Jairam ramesh’s environmental ministry is an indirect infringement of the judicial process as also rights of the state. Governance in India requires a more decentralised model, not a strong centre was was the case in the license raj era.
Surprisingly, Odisha is bearing the brunt , even, it has some of the best forest coverage (30% +) in the country. Some would say that Odisha is suffering for being the environmental sieve of India.
Ref: http://envfor.nic.in/fsi/sfr99/misc/ifcmap.html
The env ministry will really be appreciated if it gets into an implementation mode and ask all administrative units (Read Forest cover) to work to increase forest cover. The minister has become an activist. We cant have positions of responsibility indulge in left-wing activism in a democratic country. Where is Mr. ramesh’s accountability?
Pierre:
You’re right to point to life-cycle rather than short-term comparisons. The fact is, even taking present values at whatever discount rate may be reasonable, there is a trade-off between more stringent environmental activism and economic development – I see no escape from this. There is nothing irrational or immoral for that matter about societies at different stages of development picking different points from this menu. The notion that there is no trade-off and we can have it all, a clean environment and a high rate of growth, is simply illusory, in my opinion.
Umesh:
You raise some excellent points. Your final point goes to what I said in my conclusion. Evidently, Mr. Ramesh is being backed at the highest level in his environmental activism. Yet there is no policy statement from the PM, who is supposed to be in charge of over-arching development policy, on this. That is what I mean by the schism between 7 RCD and 10 JP.
Vivek,
I personally dont think the motivation is environmental. It is political. Now, we have his new scheme of bringing forest areas under direct central control. That is not a great idea. if you co-relate this with the mining draft bill of 26% for local areas(which is not a bad idea), this essentially involves creating more bureaucracy.