The Central government is discussing ways to make it possible to clear forests for industrial purposes without securing the mandatory consent from the tribal gram sabhas (village councils) concerned. The idea is avoid amending the Forest Rights Act, meant to return the rights over forest land to the tribes. Environmentalists argue that this will further compromise the rights of indigenous tribes. The counter-argument is that strict environmental laws pose a hurdle to growth and hinder progress. Rashneh Pardiwala, an Ashoka Fellow and co-founder of Centre for Environmental Research and Education (CERE), tells Manavi Kapur that the solution to this conflict lies some in the middle. Edited excerpts:
How can the government ensure the environmental rights of endangered tribes and communities in India if not through the Forest Rights Act?
Managing our forests in a sustainable manner requires a democratic and participatory approach, and the Forest Rights Act 2006 serves as an important tool to manage our natural resources in an equitable manner. The rights of the tribal communities have also been addressed in other laws like the Panchayats (Extension To The Scheduled Areas) Act 1996, the Rights to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and National Forest Policy 1988 - all of which have provisions to protect and involve tribes in the land use change of their forest resources. However, with the government constituting high-level committees to review various environment acts, the extent of which the environment is left protected or exposed to ravage is to be seen.
India has often been seen as an unfriendly country for industries because of its environmental legislature, especially when one looks at the Vedanta and Posco cases. Have these laws and acts really helped protect the environment?
We need to honestly assess if over the decades India has been an unfriendly country towards industry or towards our environment and natural biodiversity. The evidence is before us, irrespective of whether we choose to see it or not. For every instance of one mega project facing environmental hurdles, there are half a dozen other smaller projects that have wrecked environmental damage with little opposition. I think the development versus environmental debate will continue to rage until we, as a democratic civil society, learn to move beyond the 'either-or' approach and work unitedly to truly practice sustainability in an environmentally-sound, socially-equitable and financially-viable manner. We need a paradigm shift in our thinking, in our consumption patterns, in the way we manage our resources, in the way we conduct business, in the way we frame long-term policies and even in our law, where one act needs to be in sync with the other. Our environmental laws, at times, have helped protect the environment and at times, have been made a complete mockery of. So finally, it all depends on the hand that yields the knife, on whether it is used as a scalpel to save a life or a dagger to take a life.
How can industry ensure growth while keeping in mind environmental concerns?
I firmly believe that industrial expansion can occur simultaneously with environmental sustainability in mind. It is a question of selecting the right alternative with a long-term perspective to achieve a balance between growth and minimum or reversible or reparable environmental impact rather than short-term immediate gains. Our laws provide for that option wherein the environmental impact assessment aspect studies the feasibility of a project, while also safeguarding the rights of all affected communities, both living and non-living. However, the law needs to be followed in both letter and spirit, which is often the grey area. However, I must acknowledge that a number of large multinational companies in India are taking their environmental responsibilities very seriously, are consciously weighing profit versus planet and are open to dialogue on greening their systems and processes. I believe India, under the right political, business and community leadership, can crack the code of sustainable development.
How can the government balance development with conservation?
Development is important, but we need to be "resource literate". The question of scale affects the balance where industry alone is not to blame, but also the ever growing consumption patterns of a burgeoning population where greed grossly supersedes need. If every corporation - small, medium or large - begins to drive change within its control, like creating greener products, it will be far easier to achieve the equilibrium between development and environmental safeguards. At CERE, we consult with companies on their corporate social responsibility strategies to achieve that delicate balance. We work hand-in-hand with them to constantly improve operations and take small steps in ensuring that business growth leaves as little an environmental footprint as possible and move from reduction to neutrality to positivity. The paths and goals are difficult, but finally a few industrialists and environmentalists are trying to work in tandem for a mutually-beneficial common cause.
