A deluge of environmentalism

The recent flashflood disaster in Uttarakhand, which claimed thousands of lives, has stoked the simmering fires of the ‘environment versus development’ debate in the country.

The development of hill areas, in particular, whether they are situated in the Himalayas or the north-east or the west, has been the centre point of this debate. A common refrain in this discourse is that these areas, being ecologically fragile, should be insulated as much as possible from human interference. The Uttarakhand disaster has come in handy to the proponents of minimal or no interference to press home their point.

Environmentalists have been quick to proclaim the disaster as manmade. They even quoted observations from the Performance Audit Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Uttarakhand’s hydropower projects to support their view. As expected the governments, both at the Central and State levels, have chosen to take the opposite view.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests, caught between its loyalties to the Centre of which it is a part and to the environment whose guardian it is supposed to be, has assumed a low profile, pointing out in the process that had its December, 2011 Notification declaring the 130-km long stretch from Gomukh (the place of origin of the river Alaknanda) and Uttarkashi as an eco-sensitive zone been put into effect, the disaster would have been contained considerably.

By implication, the State government of Uttarakhand, whose stewardship had changed hands from one political party to another in recent times, has been shown to be guilty of scuttling the move by having the operation of the notification put on hold. In fairness to the State administration, holding freak weather as primarily responsible for the disaster would not be far wrong. Though the State government and the large number of tourists who throng the Himalayan shrines every summer would be fully aware of the vagaries of weather and possible heavy showers, landslides and other disruptions en route , it would be too much to expect them to anticipate a cloud burst that would set off flash floods.

National problems, no less

It was unfortunate that the weather turned inclement at the peak of the tourist season magnifying the tragedy. In other months, the loss of human lives would have been far less and confined, more or less, to the local population, a fact that would have made the disaster pass off with no greater notice than that accorded to the earthquakes that strike the region now and then.

Given these factors, it is natural for any administration to claim that the blame for the recent tragedy cannot be laid at its doorstep.

Uttarakhand finds itself in an unenviable position. Carved out of the vast Uttar Pradesh in November 2000, the hilly State with 70 per cent of its land area under forests and served with poor infrastructure has few options for development compared with States in the plains.

It has to harness its two distinct assets, namely hydropower potential and the timeless appeal of its places of religious and tourist interest for growth. But how does it benefit from these two assets if it is visited by the curse of ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’?

Uttarakhand’s dilemma is one to be shared by the entire country for its failure to develop its two avenues of growth would leave the rest of the nation also impoverished.

Take power, for instance. Given power shortages that would stretch well into the future, and compulsions to cut the country’s emissions of global warming gases through harnessing alternative energy sources, hydropower that can be tapped from the fast flowing Himalayan rivers offers an excellent solution.

A conscious decision to spurn this opportunity would be unconscionable.

On an emotional plane, the people of the nation at large steeped in religion and culture look upon a pilgrimage to the Himalayan shrines as a high point of spiritual attainment, no matter the hardship and privation involved.

And, last but not the least, Uttarakhand has great strategic importance and has to have adequate communication infrastructure to support the movements of defence forces.

It is obvious then that if the State remains underdeveloped for whatever reason, the nation would suffer in more ways than one.

The problems being confronted by Uttarakhand are, in effect, national problems and hence have to be tackled as such.

Eco factor in development

In view of the State’s unique ecological features its development should be modelled by integrating environmental factors fully into the development process.

For this to happen, the development strategy should gel with the demands of the natural environment and should not be one in which environmental concerns act as a mere add-on to development.

For a State with a low population and starting virtually on a clean slate, Uttarakhand should find this requirement a lot easier to follow than many other States.

This means that industries whose activities are inherently harmful to the environment such as mining and metallurgy, timber extraction and chemicals should be discouraged.

On the other hand, generation of climate-friendly hydropower, light and medium engineering units, Information Technology-related industry, tourism, hospitality, healthcare and fruit and food processing industry should form the core of development.

Further, environmental compatibility should extend beyond the range of activities covered by the present laws governing environmental clearances. Of immediate concern to the State would be the preparation of a disaster management plan or if one exists to evaluate it in the light of recent happenings.

It was indeed unfortunate that State-level official machinery was nowhere visible in the affected areas.

In this respect, Uttarakhand could learn something from southern States such as Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu where, following years of experience with cyclone damage and mitigation, effective protocols have been put in place for providing warning, rescue, movement and relief before and after natural disasters.

Symbiotic ties

While stressing the primacy of environmental concerns in the economic development of Uttarakhand, one needs to keep in mind that such concerns are only a means to an end, and not an end in themselves.

Given the aspirations of the people in the hill areas, particularly the youth, and the vast vista of opportunities that lie ahead of their counterparts in other parts of the country, it would be counterproductive to see the preservation of the environment as an end in itself and rob the youth of their legitimate hopes.

To quote Madhav Gadgil “thoughtless conservation” and “reckless development” are “destructive of nature as well as livelihoods.”

At the ground level in Utttarakhand, there are agitations in favour of hydro projects and against them. These may be inspired by a sense of public spiritedness or at worst by private motivation but both are avoidable.

The relationship between the natural environment and people is a symbiotic and not an adversarial, mutually excluding one. Green development is all about accommodating nature and people.

(The author is Former Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests)

COMMENT NOW