The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : The National Environment Policy

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Sep 30, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

The National Environment Policy

By N.R. Krishnan

The National Environment Policy emphasises that what is good for the environment is also good for the economy and that environmental protection cannot be considered in isolation from the development process.

THE DRAFT National Environment Policy 2004 released in August by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) for public discussion is a welcome initiative. It is more a strategy paper than a policy pronouncement. The directive principle of state policy on environment has been articulated in Article 48A of the Constitution introduced by the 42nd Amendment in 1977. It says: "The state shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country." Likewise, Article 51(A)(g) laid down protection of environment as one of the fundamental duties of every citizen. Any restatement of these sentiments as new policy would have been superfluous. What is needed is a comprehensive strategy for environmental conservation. The NEP provides that and something more.

The NEP emphasises the often-overlooked truth that what is good for the environment is also good for the economy and that environmental protection "cannot be considered in isolation" from the development process. A fair trade-off between environmental costs, as far as they can be ascertained and monetised, and economic development imperatives is possible and desirable. The NEP is, however, quick to qualify that where money cannot compensate for loss of an environmental good, cost-benefit analyses and trade-offs are better avoided.

The draft policy accords priority to conservation of life-supporting systems such as land, forests and water. The causes of land degradation in India are many, ranging from the direct (water and wind erosion, loss of forest cover, and water logging) to the indirect (fragmentation of land holdings, inadequate tenure rights, wasteful subsidies on agricultural inputs such as water and power).

The NEP's prescription of adoption of "science-based and traditional land-use practices" developed "through research and development" for combating land degradation is too vague and general. Further, land degradation is often the result of unsustainable and incompatible land-use engineered by the market. The progressive deterioration of tracts once under cultivation into pastures and barren lands is a common feature in India. Two tragic manifestations of inappropriate land use are the spate of suicides in farming communities in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and the migration of the rural poor (`eco refugees' as M.S. Swaminathan once described them) to urban areas in search of employment. Enough is known of the nature of the problem and of measures to mitigate it. What is needed is more extension of knowledge already available rather than more research.

Forest and wildlife conservation has been the forte of the MoEF. The NEP breaks new ground in pleading for "legal recognition of the traditional rights of forest dwelling tribes" to "remedy a serious historical injustice." This, however, calls for a major overhaul of the Indian foresters' prevailing mindset that looks upon forests as garrisons to be protected against marauders and of the legal dispensation that extinguishes all traditional rights in protected areas. With 4.5 per cent of the country's land area already under some form of protection or the other, unrest among the populations traditionally dependent on the forests for sustenance is growing. Despite this situation, the NEP advocates that more areas be brought under the protected area network. A better solution, as the NEP itself acknowledges, is to encourage participative management of protected areas on the lines of the joint forest management programme already in existence.

Forest policy, for historical reasons, has been considered to be outside a general land-use policy. When the country's population was about half its present strength and economic development was minimal, forests could remain secluded and administered as such. In the changed circumstances of today, such an approach would be anachronistic. Consider the friction the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Forest Policy of 1988 have generated between the Centre and the States. Both the legislation need to be revisited urgently.

Biodiversity conservation has received adequate attention in the NEP. But here again, practice has departed from precept as demonstrated by the composition of the National Biodiversity Authority and the State level committees as announced in the April, 2004 notification of the MoEF. An important object of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 is to check piracy of biomaterial and traditional knowledge and to enforce intellectual property rights (IPRs) over them. This would call for representation of bodies having administrative powers and expertise in these areas on the central authority and the State committees. Unfortunately, the Department of Revenue (which is concerned with prevention of illegal imports and exports), the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (which has expertise in IPR matters), the Department of Science and Technology, and the Department of Biotechnology are not represented on the regulatory bodies constituted under the Biodiversity Act.

While dealing with freshwater resources, the NEP expresses alarm over the wasteful and inefficient use of surface as well as ground water and points to a slew of actions that need to be taken for conservation. The policy does refer to levy of proper user charges to reflect water scarcity and calls for a review of the subsidies now being extended to the agricultural sector. Agriculture consumes nearly 80 per cent of the country's utilisable water. Surprisingly, the NEP makes no reference to the National Water Policy document already available.

Expectedly enough, NEP dwells on subjects such as air quality, mountain ecosystems, wetland conservation, creation of environmental awareness among the masses, and spreading environmental education.

There are, at least, three notable omissions in the NEP. Of these, energy has much relevance to environment particularly in the context of global warming. The day is not far off when India, the sixth largest emitter of greenhouse gases (which cause global warming), would be compelled to accept some limits on its emissions. This possible development has to be viewed in the light of the country's growing energy needs.

According to the "Hydrocarbon Vision 2020" prepared by the Planning Commission, even in 2020 the country will be dependent on fossil fuels such as coal and oil for a major share of its energy requirements. The implications of this prognosis for India's contribution to global warming as well as on air quality at home are clear. The first will be enhanced and the second will deteriorate. The NEP is silent on these developments.

Urbanisation has a strong adverse impact on environmental quality. The NEP rightly starts with the premise that the environmental problems of India arise mainly out of its large and growing population. The assimilative capacity of the environment for wastes is seriously challenged by the pattern of population distribution. Currently, about 30 per cent of the country's population lives in urban areas and this is projected to reach 40 per cent in the not-too-distant future.

Spatial planning of population centres and related activities has been found to be an effective tool in alleviating environmental problems abroad. The NEP has given short shrift to urbanisation and human settlements. One expects this lapse to be corrected in the final document.

The NEP is silent on the role of urban local bodies in environmental improvement. These institutions are poorly endowed with finances and lack expertise in managing the local environmental problems. To cite an example, the Municipal Waste Management Rules, 2000 have yet to be enforced in most urban areas due to financial and other constraints. Capacity building among the staff and devolution of adequate powers to them by the State Legislatures should find a place in the NEP. The 73rd Amendment to the Constitution provides the backing for initiatives in this regard.

Finally, the NEP has not recognised adequately the potential of the State Governments in improving environmental quality. After all, most of the subjects that would fall under the definition of the term `environment' are within the law-making powers of the State Legislatures.

Certain recent events have generated a feeling among State Governments that their acceptance of the Centre's actions is being taken for granted. There is little dialogue between the Centre and the States on environmental matters. With their variegated environmental and developmental needs, States would prefer smaller conclaves than the present annual meeting of State Ministers in New Delhi. One hopes that in its final form, the NEP would come up with suggestions on an appropriate consultative mechanism.

In the final analysis, the draft NEP, 2004 forms a good discussion paper. One should expect it to generate much interest among industry, academia and civil society.

(The writer is former Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

STOP THE KILLINGS

AUSTERITY AT LAST

The Kerry-Bush contest

The National Environment Policy