Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Handbook of Climate Change and India Development, Politics and Governance Edited by Navroz K Dubash - A Review

This handbook has 28 papers in five parts covering a wide spectrum of issues with a comprehensive introduction by the editor and a foreword by the then Minister of Environment and Forests Mr Jairam Ramesh reflecting the Government’s recent approach and current perspectives.

The first part comprising five papers address the science of climate change and implications to India through macro-perspectives and micro-examples. While issues of sea-level raise and adaptation of horticulture in the Himalayas are indicative, this section could have included some work on the implications to arid zones in India which hosts the maximum number of people and is already in an agrarian crises. The concluding paper in this section by Ramachandran is very useful to understand the complexity of collaborative scientific research and the pitfalls in the process as adopted by the IPCC and the Indian Government.

The second part is short comprising two articles of this short history of climate science. The first one being excerpts from Centre for Science and Environment’s pioneering attempt to bring per-capita emissions to the centre stage by taking the then prevailing notion head-on. The first person account of Chandrasekhar on the making of UNFCCC reflects the tensions that go on behind the negotiations and clearly indicates the polarization among developed and less developed countries since its origin.

The third part focuses on the process and concerns of international climate negotiations presenting views from within and outside. Sandeep Sengupta traces the history and India’s role and Lavanya eloquently articulates the complex principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ (CBDRRC), which has been often talked about by the Government. The next long paper Jayaram et al, exhaustively describe the carbon-budget approach and the need for a transition to such a regime. The utility of such an approach in providing a temporal dimension to the CBDRRC merits deeper work and understanding to provide for actual entitlements from global to local levels. The next article by Rao, touches upon the equity and ethical issues. This is an area where the handbook could have covered more ground, especially as Indian CSO’s were among to recognise the ethical aspects of climate change and not just because reviewer himself being a part of the network that was established in 1994. As the article points out, unless there is a common ethical basis, the negotiations will continue to be jockeyed around.  The article by Pradipto Ghosh on India’s position is more a clichéd attempt at justifying the stand of the State and its unsustainable development pathway with a feeble attempt to garner technology and resources while the next paper by Raghunandan points out how such a position has outlived its utility and reflects upon the continuing adhocism of the State and call for a coherent framework based on more positive approaches that can also translate into domestic action. The reflections of outsiders on the position of India seem predictable. The view from Europe dismisses the idea of per-capita emissions and rather tame in including the fact that the implications were unknown in the past.  The view of Bangladesh and Philippines seeking a focus on embarking on new development path is understandable but seems aspirational rather than pragmatic as all the countries continue to develop in the same model of high material use. The important highlight of the reflection from China is the need to ward off the isolating tendency of the west, as the development needs of both countries are similar. In contrast, the view from USA focuses more on the differences between India and China and pushes for bilateralism with the USA.

The next long section, Part IV of the handbook looks at the domestic politics of climate change and begins with an article by the editor who provides an excellent overview to capture the trends. Lele’s paper on the Indian environmental movements and their approaches to climate change reflects the diversity and rather tricky position while approaching the responses and highlights the dilemma faced by people from different initial positions in using climate change as tool to critique the current growth paradigm. Chakravarty and Ramana elucidate the debate on ‘hiding behind the poor’ and how the intra-country disparities are only the ‘latest manifestation’ of the disparities between the rich and poor in India. Suresh Prabhu points out to important lacunae in our Parliamentary democracy where the Executive has all powers vested in them in international engagements. The excerpts from the Parliamentary debates indicate a rich understanding of the parliamentarians. The party biases and contextual reflections in the situation of global events strengthen the contention of Raghunandan of adhocism at the highest level. Two articles by Tarun Das and Simone Pulver address private and corporate sector views. It clearly indicates how well entrenched corporate India is in the echelons for power and how co-benefits drive the agenda rather than a deeper concern for climate change. Jogesh provides a statistical and deeper content analysis of the trends in reportage in print media. He alludes to how from a small number of spokespersons there is a diverse and more nuanced reporting on climate.

The Part V of the handbook explores sectoral views for integrating climate change and development, a focus of the various Climate missions being evolved by the Government. The first article on energy Girish Sant (whom we unfortunately lost recently) and Gambhir, addresses the two major areas of energy and climate concern namely power and transport. It elaborates on the two sectors and warns of consequences of accepting emission limits in the next two decades or buckle to pressures of declaring a “peaking year”. Mukhopadhyay and Revi reflect upon urbanization as an inevitable consequence of growth and suggest a variety of institutional and operational mechanisms. Rajeswari Raina poses the question whether sustainable climate friendly systems for agriculture is possible. While reiterating agriculture as a sector that is a net energy producer and an ideal carbon capture medium, the ultimate goal can be achieved only by re-building the human and ecological systems in rural India. Kulkarni and Thakkar wade through the complexities of water resources in the context of climate change and seek to peg this as an opportunity to the failing water management regime in the country. It is redeeming in the vast handbook to find them reflect that solutions to water management just do not lie within the sector alone and the need for wider integration is absolutely essential. Gopalakrishnan posits the question whether the climate talks over reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation of forests (REDD) and its extended version including afforestation are real solutions for mitigation or they are another instrument in the continuing saga of exploitation of the poor in the name of conservation. He clear analysis indicates that this might be more of a false solution. Patwardhan and Neharji broadly analyse the S&T situation in India and draw up a brief agenda for multilateral processes in the introduction and adoption of climate friendly technologies.

The section could perhaps have a critique of whether such sectoral approaches are themselves tenable for integration and as it unfolds, the missions themselves seem to repackaging of the current activities of the different sectors.

The last part comprises two articles by very senior bureaucrats who have been thickly engaged with the debate and reflect their deeper understanding. Shyam Sharan writing on mainstreaming climate change clearly argues that despite a shift from disposability to durability, we are not irretrievably locked into the high energy and resource intensive path and should build upon our civilizational legacy and lead in redefining the path lest we hit the dead end. Looking at the geopolitics of climate change, Nitin Desai concludes that while there is a significant debate, climate diplomacy is unlikely to shift the global balance of power but might be useful in forging cooperation in other areas.

The subject itself is vast and opinions often diverse as the editor himself states “there is certainly no intent to paper over the disagreement or seek premature consensus, but rather to promote dialogue by deepening understanding within India, and with its international interlocutors”.  Thus the volume is more for a climate change buff, rather than on a general reader for whom it would be difficult to easily understand and assimilate the range of issues. The editor and authors must be complimented for meeting the objective to cater to the demand for informed and knowledgeable perspectives.

Finally, the cost of the book (Rs 1250), is high for the poor Indian researcher but a book which should be an essential collection of all the libraries catering to climate researchers.


Monday, February 11, 2013

Vedanta in Niyamgiri – Decade of Obfuscation



After the farcical public hearing conducted on the project on the invitation of local people and a fact finding by our team from mines minerals and PEOPLES, we visited the area in late 2003. We realized that lands, including village forests and grazing land and even protected forests were already acquired and even encroached upon by the refinery and other related activities. The State and the Central Government and particularly the Company and the District Administration were at their devastating best. Villagers had very little clue about the vastness of the destruction. Today the entire world knows about it and people in Niyamgiri have been relentlessly demonstrating against the project which is floating on violations.

 Over this decade, the Vedanta Aluminium Projects have had their legal twists and turns and has entered its second decade of litigation when in the order dated 06/12/2012, the Supreme Court put this up for further hearing on 11.01.2013 in the WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 180 of 2011.

Suppresio veri Suggestio Falsi - 

The group has been obfuscating the facts since the beginning and to its convenience stating in different affidavits that the mining and the plants are integrated or stand-alone. In reality the impact of the project extends across all the components for which the group has initiated regulatory engagement. The various components and the manner in which each one has been presented is a classic example of the definition of untruth – suppresio veri, suggestio falsi!

The Niyamgiri Mines entails the following downstream actions and the total land and fresh water resources that will be consumed in the next 20-30 years is as follows:


Project
Original
Expanded
Area Now (Ha)
Area Expanded
Total
(Ha)
1
Bauxite Mine at Niyamgiri Hills
3 MTPA
15.48 MTPA
660.75

664
2
Alumina Refinery at Lanjigarh
1 MTPA
6 MTPA
664.69
1343.2
2007.89
3
Red Mud Pond

Will need further land
473
2200
2673
4
Ash Pond

264
541
805
5
The Captive Power Plant at Lanjigarh
75 MW
150 MW



6
The Smelter Plant at Jarsuguda
0.25 MTPA
1.6 MTPA
192
375
507
7
Captive Power Plant at Jharsuguda
675 MW
1350 MW



Total Land Area Legally Taken Away in Ha
6656.89


Per Day Now
After Exapansion
Yearly in ML
8
Water Pumping In Tel River for Lanjigarh
15 MLPD

56 MLPD

4500
16800

9
Water for Jharsuguda from Hirakud
112

40600

Total Water Consumption Per Year in Million Liters
57400
10
Forest Land for Refinery & Mining (CEC)
58.943
672.018


730.961
11
Forest Land at Jharsuguda
Claim no Forest Land is required (Violations Reported)
0
Total Forest Land
730.961
It is unfortunate that neither the executive nor the judiciary is able to appreciate the cumulative impacts that are caused by such a decision. This table does not include the coal mines for the captive power plants as they will also entail a significant impact.

The November 2007 order by the Supreme Court was based on the understanding that the project will be handled by an Indian entity as Vedanta Resources was not a reliable company. The current and proposed structure of Vedanta clearly points out the total control of Vedanta on the projects.
Tryst with other Regulators not revealed

Orissa High Court’s rejection of the plea on the expansion of the illegal expansion of the refinery was categorical. It was here too that the company argued on the expansion and availability of bauxite.

 



 and after losing out at the National Environmental Appellate Authority and failing in the review petition in the NGT the company is currently trying to shift attention on the violation under the Forest Rights Act.

The December 6 Order of Supreme Court

“The Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India has submitted that the decision of the Central Government and the impugned order  passed  by  the  MoS,  Environment  and  Forests, Government of India, are mainly based on  the  provisions  of  the  Scheduled   Tribes   and   Other   Traditional   Forest   Dweller (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
              
In view of the stand taken by the Solicitor General, the provisions of the aforesaid Act have come under consideration and it would be necessary for this Court to examine the import and reach of the Act.  Any decision of the Court on the construction of the Act will have a bearing not only on the proposed project and the mining operation in the bauxite mines at Niyamgiri Hills, but is likely to have a widespread impact on the economic and social life of the country.
                
We, therefore,  direct  the  Union  of  India  to  file  an  affidavit making clear its stand  on  the  Act  and  spelling  out clearly how it understands the provisions of the Act.” (emphasis added)

Also before proceeding further in the matter,  we  wish  to know the status of the proceedings under  Section  6  of  the  Act before the Gram Sabha for the villages on the slopes of  Niyamgiri Hill that are likely to be affected by the  proposed  project  and the  mining  operations  on  the  top  of  the  Hill.   The State Government is directed to file a detailed affidavit bringing on record the steps taken by the Gram Sabha under Section 6 of the Act.

The State should also have the original records of those proceedings available for our perusal when the matter is next taken up.

The Legal Standpoint – The Bare Act

The Section 6 (1) of the Act as rightly pointed out by Hon Justice Aftab Alam wrests the sole authority of vesting rights to the gram sabha. Perhaps this is the real import of the reversal of the historical injustice to this republic. The Forest Acts progressively consolidated the powers to decision making over forests and its use to the Central Government and the Forest Rights Act directly vests it to the smallest unit of self-governance. Any other interpretation would render it hollow and completely undermine the process.  The section reads

6. (1) The Gram Sabha shall be the authority to initiate the process for determining the nature and extent of individual or community forest rights or both that may be given to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers within the local limits of its jurisdiction under this Act by receiving claims, consolidating and verifying them and preparing a map delineating the area of each recommended claim in such manner as may be prescribed for exercise of such rights and the Gram Sabha shall, then, pass a resolution to that effect and thereafter forward a copy of the same to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee.
Therefore the Union of India is duty bound to ensure that these rights are respected irrespective of the number of projects and has no role in the vesting of the rights per se as would be the status of the State Government.
Enablement – The real role of the State
The State’s role would be in providing the requisite tools and techniques to undertake various tasks envisaged under the section of the act. The State however has usurped this role and on the contrary given an impression that some largesse is being bestowed upon them. Instead of enabling the communities, Gramsabhas the States have been using Section (6) Clause 3 Independent of Section 2
The section 6(2) presents a case for the aggrieved and the grievance redrressal system. This authority of appeal has usurped the role of the vesting authority. The section reads as follows:
(2) Any person aggrieved by the resolution of the Gram Sabha may prefer a petition to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee constituted under sub-section (3) and the Sub-Divisional Level Committee shall consider and dispose of such petition:
Provided that every such petition shall be preferred within sixty days from the date of passing of the resolution by the Gram Sabha;
Provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case.
And the Section 6(3) reads
(3) The State Government shall constitute a Sub-Divisional Level Committee to examine the resolutions passed by the Gram Sabha and prepare the records of forest rights and forward it through the Sub-Divisional Officer to the District Level Committee for a final decision.
This is definitely the most singular cause for the delay in delineation of areas covered by rights vested by gram sabhas by Scheduled Tribes and other Forest Dwellers.
Thus by highlighting the issues of global economy some specific constitutional and legal issues are involved and it narrows down the perspectives of a case that has entered its second decade of litigation. There are other important and key clauses in this act itself, such as consent for any change in land use or access beyond the fundamental aspect of vesting itself that has been pinpointed by the Hon Court.
Unequivocal Statement of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs 

Further in his recent letter to the Environment Minister, the Minister for Tribal Affairs has unequivocally mentioned that the provisions of the act will have a bearing on the Vedanta Judgement and hence should not be diluted at any costs.
Complete Violation of Environmental Laws and their failure of the groups appeal in relevant forum
So far the case has been heard on the issue of the Forest Rights. The number of violations in relation to the other laws that the group must comply with have also got to be taken into account in any decision on the matter. The entire proceedings in the NEAA and NGT were on the EC which was granted in April 2009, which was not a subject matter of the earlier decision by the Supreme Court as the cause of appeal arose because of a fresh decision by the MoEF.
After several hearings, appeals for revision by the group the NEAA finally delivered this order
“14.        From the submission of the Appellants and the Respondents, it is clear that the Vimta Lab EIA of 2005 on the basis of which the EC was granted, was never in public domain for people to express their views/concerns during the two Public Hearings held in Raigada and Kalahandi during 2003, leading to non-compliance of Ministry’s Notification. Further a perusal of rapid EIA by Vimta Labs reveals that it lacks analysis in respect of human miseries which the project is likely to inflict. However, except for some minor variations, there is a marked similarity in the two reports and whether the Tata AIG report could have provided some basis to the Ministry to incorporate additional safeguards or mitigative measures can best be assessed by the Ministry itself through its expert arm viz the Expert Appraisal Committee.
                The Authority therefore remits the matter to the Ministry with direction to revisit its Environment Clearance including the aspect of public hearing and take appropriate action. Till this process is over, the Environment Clearance stands suspended. The appeals are disposed accordingly. No Costs.” (Emphasis added)
 
When the group preferred a review with the National Green Tribunal, the Tribunal ordered on 28thJuly 2011
The continuing violation of the FC Act also indicates that the group has no interest in remedying the situation.
 
Human Rights cannot be ignored
A number of human rights violations have taken place and continue. Amnesty International has brought out a series of reports indicating how blatant and persistent the violations have been and are being conducted at the behest of the company.
 In 2013 any nation aiming to be high on the League of Nations cannot turn a blind eye.  Though the NHRC has been investigating a number of them, including one in which the company has filed a fabricated case on five women of stealing scores of tonnes of steel and metal. The irony is these women, two of whom had feeding babies in their arms, were in prison for months only to be later found that this was at the instance of the company’s contractor in response to the demand of these women for fair wages.
Thus a group which has become a veritable “periodic-table” of illegalities must be made to realize that the judicial system though prone to delays will not deny justice to the people affected.
The next hearing on the case is fixed for 18th of Febraury, 2013.