The year 2013 was a wasted one. How can 2014 be different? When I look back on the year, I think of a cacophony. There was huge dissent about the way we mismanage coal reserves; the Supreme Court shut down iron ore mining in Goa; later in the year, there was outcry about rampant and rapacious sand mining and the havoc it was wreaking on rivers. There were equally loud calls for the need for green clearance to all projects, from hydropower projects in the Himalayas to mines in dense forests of central India. One side wanted to shut everything down; the other side wanted to open up everything.
The polarisation was absolute. In my view, this has not benefited the environment's cause. It has certainly not changed the way we will manage our natural resources for sustainable and inclusive growth. This impasse will help nobody.
Take, for instance, the issue of building hydroelectric projects in the Himalayas. The dam builder-engineer lobby wants no restraint on construction of projects in this fragile ecosystem. In the Ganga basin alone, some 70 projects were on the cards to generate 9,000 megawatts of power. These projects together would "affect" - humanly re-engineer - some 60 to 90 per cent of the river's length and would dry up stretches completely. There was no method in this madness.
On the other side, there were equally strong views against construction of hydroelectric projects. The arguments ranged from religious beliefs - for instance, that construction would harm the Ganga's purity - to environmental concerns about the vulnerability of the Himalayas. The disaster that shook the mighty Himalayas, which killed more than 10,000 people and brought down buildings like a pack of cards, rightly reinforced their view. The ministry of environment and forests stepped in and declared the region ecologically sensitive. Under this notification, no hydroelectric projects would be allowed and construction of any other building would require permission from the ministry in Delhi.
But this is not tenable. Firstly, the ministry has no capacity to take environmentally sound decisions while awarding clearances for projects. It has absolutely no ability to ensure that the conditions it imposes on the cleared projects are adhered to. It has run its own internal systems to the ground, and twisted each issue, only to cause bureaucratic delays. With its current capacity, the ministry cannot implement the eco-sensitive zone notification.
Secondly, the notification in its current form will only lead to more corruption during clearances, as well as more resentment against the environment since genuine needs of the poor people will get affected. Meanwhile, over time, all the dams will be back. The Himalayas will become even more vulnerable and damaged. Local communities will suffer.
So in 2014, we need a different and more nuanced approach. In this case, it would mean accepting the fact that producing energy from flowing rivers is both a clean and renewable source of power as well as an important resource for the Himalayan states. It cannot be argued that no dam should be constructed, but projects that kill the river or damage the ecosystem should not be allowed. This is non-negotiable. And this can be done. For instance, at the Centre for Science and Environment, we have done exhaustive calculations that show rivers can sustain the generation of hydropower, provided there is agreement to set aside 50 per cent of the total flow for six months of the lean season and 30 per cent during the high-discharge monsoon season. Hydropower projects would need to be re-engineered so that they utilise water that the river can afford to part with - and not take all it has. Our estimation is that this will mean a reduction in the number of projects, but it will still mean the region will generate substantial power. In addition, we advocated that small hydroelectric projects - defined as those with a capacity of up to 25 MW - could not be considered green unless their construction was strictly regulated. Small is not necessarily right and green. In all this, the first right to energy should be given to people who live in the Himalayas.
But any change we desire in 2014 and beyond is not possible if the institutions for regulation, monitoring and enforcement are not substantially revamped and strengthened. At the start of 2014, the Supreme Court directed the setting up of a new national green regulator. But the fact is that in the current state of affairs, this will only add to convoluted and delayed decisions - not to those that secure environmental integrity.
We need to be serious about the intent and the mechanism of this institutional reform. We need a three-pronged approach. One, we need to make clearance assessments more coherent and comprehensive by simply linking assessments of the environmental, forest, coastal and wildlife impact of each project. Two, we should introduce much greater transparency to the decision-making process by making public hearings and prior informed content processes open and visible, and by ensuring that committees assessing projects are accountable. Three, we need a sharp and total focus on monitoring compliance and enforcement - and we must build capacity to do this. This would require state pollution control boards to be substantially revamped and strengthened. It would also need investment in monitoring systems that allow people to know about the state of their forests, river or air.
In 2014, it is time we took the crucial next step on environmental management - in other words, build the institutions that can bring the discourse to fruition. This is the agenda for the future.
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
