The key environmental challenges that the country faces relate to the nexus of environmental degradation with poverty in its many dimensions, and economic growth. These challenges are intrinsically connected with the state of environmental resources, such as land, water, air, and their flora and fauna. The proximate drivers of environmental degradation are population growth, inappropriate technology and consumption choices, and poverty, leading to changes in relations between people and ecosystems, and development activities such as intensive agriculture, polluting industry, and unplanned urbanisation. However, these factors give rise to environmental degradation only through deeper causal linkages, in particular, institutional failures, resulting in lack of clarity or enforcement of rights of access and use of environmental resources, policies which provide disincentives for environmental conservation (and which may have origins in the fiscal regime), market failures (which may be linked to shortcomings in the regulatory regimes), and governance constraints.
Environmental degradation is a major causal factor in enhancing and perpetuating poverty, particularly among the rural poor, when such degradation impacts soil fertility, quantity and quality of water, air quality, forests, wildlife and fisheries. The dependence of the rural poor, in particular, tribal societies, on their natural resources, especially biodiversity, is self-evident. Women in particular face greater adverse impacts of degradation of natural resources, being directly responsible for their collection and use, but rarely for their management. The commitment of time and effort in collection of these resources has a direct impact on the capacity of rural women to devote time to raising and educating children, enhancing their earning skills, or participating in gainful livelihoods.
The poor are also more vulnerable to loss of resilience in ecosystems3. Large reductions in resilience may mean that the ecosystems, on which livelihoods are based, break down, causing distress. The loss of the environmental resource base can result in certain groups of people being made destitute, even if overall, the economy shows strong growth. Further, urban environmental degradation, through lack of (or inappropriate) waste treatment and sanitation, industry and transport related pollution, adversely impacts air, water, and soil quality, and differentially impacts the health of the urban poor. This, in turn, affects their capability to seek and retain employment, attend school, and enhances gender inequalities4, all of which perpetuate poverty.
Poverty itself can accentuate environmental degradation, given that institutional5 failures persist. For the poor, several environmental resources are complementary in production and consumption to other commodities (e.g. water in relation to agricultural production, fuel wood in relation to consumption of food), while a number of environmental resources are a source of income or food (e.g. fisheries, non-timber forest produce). This is frequently a source of cumulative causation, where poverty, gender inequalities, and environmental degradation mutually reinforce each other. Poverty and environmental degradation are also reinforced by, and linked to population growth, which in turn, depends on a complex interaction of diverse causal factors and stages of development. The social and economic context of population growth has been detailed in the National Population Policy 2000, which recognizes stabilization of population as a necessary condition for sustainable development.
Economic growth, in its turn, bears a dichotomous relationship to environmental degradation. On the one hand, growth may result in “excessive” environmental degradation through use of natural resources and generation of pollution aggravated by institutional failures. If impacts on the environmental resource base are neglected, an incorrect picture is obtained from conventional monetary estimates of national income. On the other hand, economic growth permits improvement in environmental quality by making available the necessary resources for environmental investments, and generating societal pressures for improved environmental behaviour, and institutional and policy change. Unsustainable consumption patterns, particularly in industrialized countries also have serious adverse impacts on the environment, both local, and global. The global impacts are largely manifest in developing countries, and further accentuate poverty.
It is increasingly evident that poor environmental quality has adversely affected human health. Environmental factors are estimated as being responsible in some cases for nearly 20 percent of the burden of disease in India, and a number of environment-health factors are closely linked with dimensions of poverty (e.g. malnutrition, lack of access to clean energy and water). It has been shown that interventions such as reducing indoor air pollution, protecting sources of safe drinking water, protecting soil from contamination, improved sanitation measures, and better public health governance, offer tremendous opportunities in reducing the incidence of a number of critical health problems. It is also evident that these environmental protection measures would be difficult to accomplish without extensive awareness raising, and education, on good practices with respect to public and private behaviour.
Institutional failures, referring to unclear or insufficiently enforced rights of access to, and use of, environmental resources, result in environmental degradation because third parties primarily experience impacts of such degradation, without cost to the persons responsible for the damage. Such rights, both community based and individual, are critical institutions mediating the relationships between humans and the use of the environment. Traditionally, village commons water sources, grazing grounds, local forests, fisheries, etc., have been protected by local communities from overexploitation through various norms, which may include penalties for disallowed behaviour. These norms, may, however, be degraded through the very process of development, including urbanization, and population growth resulting from sharp reduction in mortality, and also through state actions which may create conditions for the strengthening of individual over communitarian rights, and in doing so allow market forces to press for change that has adverse environmental implications. If such access to the community resources under weakened norms continues, the resources would be degraded, and the livelihoods of the community would suffer.
Policy failures can emerge from various sources, including the use of fiscal instruments, such as explicit and implicit subsidies for the use of various resources, which provide incentives for excessive use of natural resources. Inappropriate policy can also lead to changes in commonly managed systems, with adverse environmental outcomes.
Another major set of challenges arises from emerging global environmental concerns such as climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and biodiversity loss. The key is to operationalize the principle of common but differentiated responsibility of countries in relation to these problems. Multilateral regimes and programmes responding to these global environmental issues must not adversely impact the development opportunities of developing countries. Further, the sharing of global natural resources must proceed only on the basis of equal sharing per-capita across all countries.
There are different policies for forests, water and environmental pollution. But the experience in implementing these policies over the years has brought out the need for a comprehensive policy approach to the management of the environment in the country. Therefore, a new national environment policy was announced in 2006.
(A) Objectives of National Environment Policy (2006):
The following are the objectives of the national environment policy:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
1. Conservation of Critical Environmental Resources:
To protect and conserve critical environmental resources and invaluable natural and man- made heritage which are essential for life-supporting livelihoods and welfare of the society.
2. Inter-generational Equity:
To ensure judicious use of environmental resources to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
3. Efficiency in Environmental Resources Use:
To ensure efficient use of environmental resources in the sense of reduction in their use per unit of economic output and to minimize adverse environmental impacts on society.
4. Environmental Governance in the Management of Resources:
To apply the principles of resources. To apply the principles of good governance (i.e. transparency, rationality, accountability, reduction in costs and time, and public participation) to the management of environmental resources.
5. Enhancement of Resources:
Appropriate technology and traditional knowledge, managerial skills, and social capital will be used for conservation and enhancement of resources.
6. Livelihood Security for the Poor:
To ensure equitable access to environmental resources for poor tribal community, which are most dependent on environmental resources for their livelihood.
7. Integration of Environmental Concerns for Socio-economic
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Development; to integrate environmental concerns into policies, plans, programmes and projects for socio-economic development.
(B) Strategy for Conservation of Environmental Resources
The following strategy will be adopted for conservation of environmental resources in India:
1. Land Degradation:
The following steps will be taken to reduce land degradation:
(i) Encourage adoption of science based and traditional sustainable land use practices through research and development.
(ii) Pilot scale demonstrations and farmers’ training.
(iii) Promote reclamation of wasteland and degraded forest land through formulation and adoption of multi-stakeholder partnerships involving the land owning agency, local communities and investors.
(iv) To reduce desertification through action plans.
2. Forests:
The following strategy for conservation of forests will be followed:
(i) To formulate an innovative strategy for increase of forest and tree cover from the present level of 23 percent of the country’s land area, to 33 percent in 2012 through afforestation of degraded forest land, wasteland and tree cover on private or revenue land.
Key elements of the strategy would include:
(a) The implementation of multi-stakeholder partnerships involving the forest department, local communities and investors, with clearly defined obligations and entitlements for each partner, following good governance principles, to derive environmental livelihood, and financial benefits.
(b) Rationalisation of restrictions on cultivation of forest species outside notified forest areas.
(c) Enabling farmers to undertake social and farm forestry where their returns are more favourable than cropping.
(d) Universalization of the Joint Forestry Management System throughout the country.
(e) Formulating an appropriate methodology for reckoning and restoring the environmental values of forests which are unavoidably diverted to other uses.
(f) Giving legal recognition of the traditional rights of forest dwelling tribes and provide long-term incentives to the tribal’s to conserve the forests.
3. Wildlife:
In respect of wildlife conservation, the following steps would be pursued:
(i) Expanding the Protected Area Network of the country. It must be ensured that the overall area of the network in each biogeographic zone would increase in the process.
(ii) Paralleling multi-stakeholder partnerships for afforestation. Further, formulating and implementing similar partnerships for enhancement of wildlife habit in conservation and community reserves.
(iii) Encouraging eco-tourism at wildlife sites.
(iv) Implementing measures for captive breeding and release into the wild identified endangered species.
4. Biodiversity:
According to the National Environment Policy, a large- scale exercise has been already completed for providing inputs towards a National Biodiversity Action Plan. However, following measures would be taken to protect biodiversity at national level.
(i) Strengthen the protection of biodiversity hot spots.
(ii) Pay attention to the potential impacts of development projects on biodiversity resources and natural heritage.
(iii) Genetic material of threatened species of flora and fauna must be conserved on priority.
(iv) Conferring intellectual property rights for traditional knowledge.
5. Wetlands:
Wetlands, natural and man-made, freshwater or brackish, provide numerous ecological services. They provide habitat to aquatic flora and fauna. But now wetlands are under threat from drainage and conversion for agriculture and human settlements, besides pollution.
The key strategy for action will include the following steps:
(i) To set up a legally enforceable regulatory mechanism for identified valuable wetlands to prevent their degradation and enhance their conservation.
(ii) To formulate and implement sustainable tourism strategies for identified wetlands thorough multi-stakeholder partnerships involving public agencies, and local communities.
(iii) To take explicit account of impacts on wetlands of significant development projects during environmental appraisal of such projects.
6. Conservation of Man-made Heritage:
Man-made heritage reflects the pre-history, ways of living and culture of people. In the case of India, such heritage is at the core of our national identity. At the same time, considerable economic value, and livelihoods may be derived from conservation of man- made heritage and their sustainable use.
The following action plans would be required for their sustainable use.
(i) In setting ambient environmental standards, especially for air quality, the potential impacts on designated heritage sites must be taken into account.
(ii) Integrated regional development plans should be drawn up with participation of the local community with respect to shifting polluting activities and waste far away from sites.
(iii) Impacts on designated heritage sites must be considered at the stage of developing the terms of reference for environmental impact assessments of the projects.
7. Environmentally Sensitive Zones:
Environmentally sensitive zones may be defined as areas with identified environmental resources with incomparable values, which require special attention for their conservation. In order to conserve and enhance these resources, without impeding legitimate socio-economic development of these areas, the following actions will be taken.
(i) Identify and give legal status to Environmentally Sensitive Zones in the country.
(ii) Formulate area development plans for these zones on a scientific basis with adequate participation by the local communities.
(iii) Create local institutions for the environmental management of such areas.
8. Strategy for Sustainable Mountain Development:
Mountain ecosystems play a key role in providing forest cover, feeding perennial river systems, conserving genetic diversity and providing an immense resources base for livelihoods through sustainable tourism.
There has been significant adverse impact on mountain ecosystems by way of deforestation, submergence of river valleys, pollution of freshwater resources, despoiling of landscapes, degradation of human habitat, loss of genetic diversity, retreat of glaciers, and pollution.
Keeping in view, the following action plan for sustainable mountain development would be taken up:
(i) Adopting best practice norms for infrastructure construction in mountain regions to avoid or minimize damage to sensitive ecosystems and despoiling of landscapes.
(ii) Encouraging cultivation of traditional varieties of crops and horticulture by promotion of organic farming and enabling farmers to realize a price premium.
(iii) Promoting sustainable tourism through adoption of best practice norms for tourism facilities and access to ecological resources.
(iv) Developing strategies for particular unique mountains capes.
9. Strategy for Sustainable Coastal Resources:
Coastal environmental resources provide habitats for marine species, which in turn comprise the resource base for large numbers of fisher folk, protection from extreme weather events, a resource base for sustainable tourism, agricultural and urban livelihoods.
In recent years, there has been significant degradation of coastal resources, for which the proximate causes include poorly planned human settlements, improper location of industries and infrastructure, pollution from industries, and settlements, and over exploitation of living natural resources.
In keeping with these adverse effects on coastal resources, the following measures would be taken:
(i) To mainstream the sustainable management of mangroves into the forestry sector regulatory regime, ensuring that they continue to provide livelihoods to local communities.
(ii) To disseminate available techniques for regeneration of coral reefs, and support activities based on application of such techniques.
(iii) To embody considerations of sea-level rise in coastal management plans.
(iv) India has passed Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification in February 1991 and Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) to ensure protection to coastal environmental in India. Their rules and regulations are firmly founded on scientific principles. Specific projects should be consistent with the approval of ICZM plans.
10. Strategy for Conservation of Freshwater Resources:
The fresh water resources comprise the river systems, groundwater and wetlands. Each of these has a unique role and characteristic linkage to other environmental entities.
(A) River Management:
The following comprise elements of an action plan for river management:
(i) Promoting integrated approaches to management of river basins by the concerned river authorities, considering upstream and downstream inflows and withdrawals by reason.
(ii) Monitoring authorities will check pollution loads and natural regeneration capacities to ensure adequate flows and adherence to water quality standards.
(iii) To consider and mitigate the impacts on river flora and fauna.
(iv) To consider mandating the installation of water saving closets and taps in the building byelaws of urban centres.
(B) Groundwater:
Groundwater is present in underground aquifers in many parts of the country. The water table has been falling rapidly in many areas of the country in recent years. This is largely due to withdrawal for agricultural, industrial and urban use in excess of annual recharge.
In urban areas, apart from withdrawals for domestic and industrial use, housing and infrastructure such as roads prevent sufficient recharge. In addition, some pollution of groundwater occurs due to leaching of stored hazardous waste and use of agricultural chemicals in particular pesticides.
The following action plans are required in this direction:
(i) The efficient use of groundwater would accordingly, require that the practice of non-metering of electricity supply to farmers be discontinued.
(ii) To promote efficient water use techniques such as sprinkler or drip irrigation among farmers.
(iii) To support practices of contour bunding and revival of traditional methods for enhancing groundwater recharge.
(iv) To mandate water (rainwater) harvesting in all new constructions in relevant urban areas to enhance groundwater recharge.
(v) To support research and development in cost effective techniques suitable for rural drinking water projects.
(C) Policy for Pollution Abatement:
The following measures will be adopted to control the pollution at local and national level:
1. Water Pollution:
The following measures will be adopted to control water pollution:
(i) To enhance reuse of treated sewage and industrial waste water before final discharge to water bodies.
(ii) To set up common effluent treatment plants on cost recovery basis.
(iii) To take explicit account of groundwater pollution in pricing policies of pesticides and fertilizers.
(iv) To develop a strategy for strengthening regulation regarding the impact of ship breaking on marine resources.
(v) To promote research and development in the field of low cost technologies for sewage treatment.
(vi) To develop public-private partnership for setting up effluent and sewage treatment plants.
2. Air Pollution:
The following are elements of an action plan for air pollution:
To accelerate the national programmes of dissemination of improved fuel wood stoves, and solar cookers for rural women. To provide incentive based instruments for controlling air pollution
To provide adequate investments in low pollution mass transport systems with the help of public and private partnership. To give greater legal standing to local community and NGOs to undertake monitoring of environmental compliance, to promote reclamation of wastelands by energy plantations.
3. Noise Pollution:
The following would comprise elements of an action plan on abatement of Noise Pollution:
(i) Make appropriate distinctions between different environments in terms of setting ambient noise standards, e.g. rural versus urban , educational and hospital establishments versus other areas, daytime versus night time in residential areas; areas in the vicinity of rail, road and airport infrastructure etc.
(ii) Distinguish between noise standards and protection measures the context of occupational exposure, and environmental exposure to third parties.
(iii) Formulate noise emissions norms i.e. loudspeakers, automobile horns and fireworks ratings appropriate to various activities о ensure that exposure levels to third parties who are not participants in the activity do not exceed prescribed ambient standards.
Encourage dialogue between state/local authorities and religious/ community representatives on the adoption of enforceable specific durations, timings for use of loudspeakers or fireworks.
4. Soil Pollution:
The following are elements of an action plan on soil pollution:
(i) Develop and implement strategies for cleanup of pre-existing toxic and hazardous waste dumps, in particular, in industrial area and reclamation of such lands for sustainable use.
(ii) Strengthen the capacities of local bodies for segregation, recycling and reuse of municipal solid wastes.
(iii) Develop and implement strategies for recycle, reuse and final environmentally benign disposal of plastics wastes, including through promotion of relevant technologies, and use of incentive based instruments.
(iv) Promote organic farming of traditional crop varieties through research.
(v) Develop transparent, voluntary and science-based eco-labelling schemes.
(vi) Give legal recognition to, and strengthen the informal sector systems of collection and recycling of various materials.
(vii) Develop public-private partnerships for setting up and operating secure landfills and incinerators for toxic and hazardous wastes, both industrial and biomedical.
(D) Legal Framework:
There are already many laws to deal with the problems of environmental pollution in India. These are Environment Protection Act 1986, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, the Water Cess Act 1977 and The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. The law in respect of management and conservation of forests and biodiversity is contained in the Indian Forest Act 1927, the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 and the Biodiversity Act 2003.
The National Environment Policy is intended to be a guide to action: in regulatory reform, programmes and projects for environmental conservation; and review and enactment of legislation, by agencies of the Central, State, and Local Governments. . The policy also seeks to stimulate partnerships of different stakeholders, i.e. public agencies, local communities, academic and scientific institutions, the investment community, and international development partners, in harnessing their respective resources and strengths for environmental management. The dominant theme of this policy is that while conservation of environmental resources is necessary to secure livelihoods and well-being of all, the most secure basis for conservation is to ensure that people dependent on particular resources obtain better livelihoods from the fact of conservation, than from degradation of the resource. The policy also seeks to stimulate partnerships of different stakeholders, i.e. public agencies, local communities, academic and scientific institutions, the investment community, and international development partners, in harnessing their respective resources and strengths for environmental management.
The NEP totally ignores the need to provide an infrastructure for strategic intelligence suited to solving the complex environmental needs and problems of a variety of sectors and different segments of people. This means the state should be responsible for the creation of mechanisms of technology assessment, foresight, evaluation and benchmarking and stimulating demand articulation, strategy and vision development for the specific processes of appropriate technological and institutional change.
The NEP fails to emphasise on the need for the building and organising of systems for the development and dissemination of new practices of sustainable resource use for different sectors. The policy should create a flexible framework for providing different types of mechanisms for learning and experimentation by involving interested and affected groups and their associated people's organisations (e g development of incubation and bridging organisations for sustainable resource use practices). At present, the NEP assumes that contractual obligations under public private partnerships, and multi-stakeholder agreements will take care of this aspect. It puts very little emphasis on the creation of user and bridging organisations amongst the poor to make use of existing state level R&D and technology delivery infrastructure. Even when it talks of promotion of R&D, it does not explicitly identify the problems facing the poor in respect of environmental management as a priority area. Coming to the issue of proposed periodic review for policy updating, in the consultations to be taken up every three years with groups of diverse stakeholders, the NEP is able to think of participation from only researchers and experts, community based organisations, industry associations and voluntary organisations. There is no place for the participation of trade unions and mass organisations in the proposed consultations for the policy review. In fact, their participation should be made a cornerstone of the implementation process at all levels if the government is serious about the implementation of national environmental policy.
The analysis above shows that the revised NEP only furthers the neo-liberal agenda of the Indian government. Therefore we believe that a committee of the Indian parliament should be set up to deliberate on and further revise the NEP 2006 and its members should ensure that the nation does get an environmental policy which facilitates an effective transition towards an ecologically and socially just path of development at all the levels.
The policy interventions outlined in the document are informed by an extremely narrow approach to regulatory reforms. Its propositions are mostly focused on the problems of transaction costs arising out of the state regulation. The remedies it proposes lie essentially in the shift to the use of soft civil law, fiscal instruments and use of economic principles in economic decision-making. The revised policy talks of capacity building for the implementation of environmental management principles, but the marginalised groups are not an explicit target of the efforts to be made by the government. The policy document is completely oblivious of the obvious fact that environmental transformation is not an activity performed in isolation but one which involves a variety of actions within the system, of which the business groups and communities involved in the process of change forms part. Business groups and communities not only need instruments that focus on individual organisations (e g financial instruments), but also instruments that focus on making interventions at the systemic level.
The NEP totally ignores this systemic aspect of the management of environmental change; it fails to recognise that the processes of environmental change ask for (more attention for) system level policy instruments. These instruments are particularly needed to support systemic change management functions relating to the interface management, building and organising of environmental innovation systems. They also need to provide a platform for learning and experimenting; infrastructure for strategic intelligence and stimulating demand articulation; strategy and vision development for the specific processes of appropriate technological and institutional change. Even a cursory look at the strategies and actions with regard to different sectors makes it clear that the policy document does not envisage the use of such system-level instruments. It is beyond our imagination as to how is it even possible for the policymakers to conceive that India would be able to make a transition to ecologically and socially sound path of development without deploying such kinds of system-level instruments.
In case of India, the instruments of interface management are particularly important to bring about the convergence and better management of linkages. Interfaces involving diverse institutions and actors with varying interests (which may be often conflicting in nature) would need suitable coordination and dispute management to ensure that the disadvantaged sections do not suffer at the hands of powerful resource consuming actors. The NEP has little to say about how to evolve a mechanism for solving deadlocks, conflicts and holding of broad-based negotiations. The market cannot fulfill this function and this is an essential role of the state in the larger public interest.
The NEP 2006 derives its legitimacy from the inclusion of objectives such as to provide for intra- and inter-generational equity and integration of environmental concerns in socio-economic development process and from the commitment to be guided in the policy and partnership design by the principles such as internalising the environmental costs into planning process, precautionary principle, fixing strict liability (even in the absence of legislation or standards) and preventive action, all of which are well-intentioned. But the way the NEP identifies the causes of environmental degradation, it does begin to show that it has no intentions to make a clean break with the existing paradigm of development and conservation. For instance, the revised NEP states that "the loss of the environmental resource base can result in certain groups of people being made destitute, even if overall, the economy shows strong growth." But the measures it advocates fail to offer any succour to the poor to give better access to resources and capabilities. Many of the proposed regulatory reforms will be dependent on market-based instruments and would not provide a solution to those problems of environmental degradation that affect the livelihood security of the poor.
It is significant that the NEP pursues the current path of development rather than making it more ecologically and socially just. Even though the revised draft makes some effort to discuss the problems of tribals, women and urban poor, their access to resources is only discussed in forests and wildlife areas. It fails to address their problems regarding access to land, water and biomass resources. Further, the discourse of rights is replaced by an emphasis on "traditional entitlements" which cannot take care of the problems of the rural and urban poor. The NEP's vision of structural, institutional and policy interventions is embedded in the ideology of ecology of affluence. It is pertinent to note that though the NEP talks of the unsustainable consumption patterns in the industrialized countries that are having serious adverse impacts on the environment, both local and global, and are accentuating poverty in the developing countries, it is unconcerned how its own policy prescriptions for environmental management feed into the interests and lifestyle of the rich.
Conclusion
THE National Environment Policy (NEP) 2006 (so-called revised version) has been released by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) after a gap of two years when the draft policy had been circulated for public debate and responses. The policy claims that it has gone through a process of extensive consultations and incorporated the suggestions of concerned individuals and organisations. Reviewing the draft in 2004, the All India People's Science Network (AIPSN) had demanded that such a consultation was necessary for the policy to reflect the concerns of a majority of the people especially the dalits, adivasis, women and other sections of the working people. But it appears that the concerns expressed by both the AIPSN and other likeminded organisations have not been addressed in this policy. Rather the National Environmental Policy 2006 has gone a step further in laying the basis of deregulation of common property resources and the environment: a policy that has been aggressively pursued by the government of India in the period between the release of the draft policy and its finalisation. The interim period has seen a push towards the invasion of forested areas by transnational corporations, the liberalisation of environmental and forest clearances, and privatisation of water resources. Thus the development path that even the revised policy pursues is unsustainable and iniquitous in character and has a detrimental impact on the livelihood security of the rural and urban poor.