BOOK REVIEW. No forest standing

The policy narrative on environment issues is changing, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent remarks back home and in Canada providing ample proof of this. From an earlier approach that purportedly scrutinised industrial projects on environment grounds, holding up the occasional one, we have moved to a set-up where ‘automatic’ clearances shall be the norm. Policy paralysis, we are told, is over.

A new ‘sustainable growth’ formula is pretty much in place — regulate green emissions not by focusing on forest cover (which absorbs carbon dioxide) but by reducing the emissions intensity of growth through renewables.

This means the proportion of energy generated by coal will steadily fall and be replaced by a rising role for solar, hydel and nuclear power, even as absolute coal-based power output rises. The current view is that growth requires firing on all energy fronts; the only concession that can be made to the environment is to alter the energy mix over time.

It is with this audaciously minimalist agenda that Modi has staked a claim for world leadership on climate change. This goes well with the nationalism of the day that asserts that developing countries such as India need to grow more before making emission reduction commitments.

Forest cover will be taken care of through stringent afforestation norms, in exchange for industry enjoying easier access. The TSR Subramanian Committee suggests that ‘no-go’ areas for industry should be restricted only to regions enjoying 70 per cent canopy cover — which account for less than 15 per cent of total forest area.

How does this compare with the UPA’s environment regime? Green Signals , a book by former environment minister Jairam Ramesh, makes it clear that he was not on the same page as Manmohan Singh. Therefore, his book reveals that on the intervention of the PMO, the ‘go’ areas for nine coal fields increased from 53 per cent to 71 per cent of the total area under them. Perhaps, sadly for Singh, the UPA policy was “a coal block having 30 per cent or more area under forest cover is ‘no-go’.” The Subramanian panel provides a deal-sweetener for industry here.

The former Prime Minister is no less a growth champion than Modi, even if he lacks the latter’s public speaking skills. The perception that the environment ministry is intrinsically anti-development emanated from the top echelons of the UPA, with industry and the media acting as spokespersons. Ramesh says he became controversial for implementing the law rather than otherwise.

By reproducing his speeches and articles, Ramesh maps out a larger framework within which environment policy should be framed, which is not in evidence now. For instance, he explains that forests absorb about 10 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions; for this proportion to keep pace with rising growth, forest cover should rise from 21 per cent of India’s area, or 70 million hectares, to a third.

How ‘compensatory afforestation’ can bring degraded forest cover (40 per cent of forest area) under canopy, even as this government opens up pristine spaces, is hard to fathom.

There is no attempt now to view the environment as a livelihood issue. This is despite the fact that 250 million are dependent on forests for their livelihood, a population not much less than all of urban India.

The Subramanian Committee says that gram sabha consent should be done away with. As Ramesh says: “India simply cannot afford to follow the ‘grow now pay later’ model of development... (This is) because most of what is called environmentalism in India is not middle-class ‘lifestyle environmentalism’, but actually ‘livelihood environmentalism’ linked to daily issues of land productivity, water availability, access to non-timber forest produce…”

Ramesh became controversial for bringing about a policy shift on climate change. The book explains his position that ‘the right to pollute’ approach cannot work anymore, with India figuring prominently in the annual increase in emissions.

But the book could have clinched the issue with a stark reminder — the disparity between the carbon footprint of India’s rich and the poor, with the top 10-15 per cent maintaining lifestyles comparable to the average European or American. But Ramesh, a suave Congressman, tends to waffle on the growth vs environment debate.

Not surprisingly then, the UPA’s commitment to reduce emissions intensity does not seem more ambitious in scope than what Modi is saying today. But Modi’s tone is nationalistic, which implies that the ‘right to develop’ is the default mode of this government.

It will not give in to the global greens — such as the ‘five-star activists’ of Greenpeace. It is a tone that appeals to the neo-middle class, which equates future well-being with more consumption; ‘the West and its NGOs envy our progress’, they would argue.

Ramesh delves into environment economics that exposes growth as a limiting concept, a realisation that does not seem to have sunk in with the current crop of policy advisors. For instance, to the extent the GDP eats into the stock of natural capital, the savings of the economy stand depleted, compromising future growth. EF Schumacher explained that half-a-century ago.

As for restraining consumption, the Prime Minister in his Vigyan Bhavan address to State environment ministers earlier this month, seemed to take a casual view. He said that our ancient civilisation was too well versed in conservation practices — “we only need to look at how village folk recycled old clothes and threaded needles on a moonless night” — to be lectured by the West, the cradle of material excess.

Ramesh, of course, does not tell us that the UPA could have fared better as a green watchdog — which begs the question as to why industry whined so much.

The Economic Survey 2014-15, of all documents, plays down the ‘policy paralysis’ argument. It says: “Perhaps contrary to popular belief, the evidence points towards over exuberance and a credit bubble as primary reasons (rather than lack of regulatory clearances) for stalled projects in the private sector.”

The book Churning the Earth: The Making of Global India by Aseem Shrivastava and Ashish Kothari paints an unflattering picture of the UPA’s green record.

“The MoEF clears 80-100 projects every month…as of early 2009, MoEF has over 6,000 projects to monitor through six regional offices and a staff of two to four officers per office…projects granted environmental clearance are monitored only once in three to four years…no centralised record of non-compliance is maintained by the MoEF…”

Add to this the diluted environmental clearance mechanism introduced in 2006 and the iron ore mining violations, and it’s hard to understand industry’s angst.

Ramesh rightly argues for a credible regulatory apparatus. But Modi’s ‘Make in India’ rush is imbued with an anti-environmentalism that may leave no forest standing.

COMMENT NOW