Jairam is not so green

By Gaurav Sharma
25 Apr 2010

Under attack from his colleagues for delaying development projects, Jairam Ramesh gets unprecedented support from environment activists for his green agenda. However, the facts disclose that he is not yet willing to change the environmentally destructive development philosophy of his government.

Jairam Ramesh, the Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Environment and Forests (E&F), who received bouquets and brickbats in equal measure from media, scientists, and fellow ministers for imposing moratorium on commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal in February this year, has once again come under attack for alleged slow pace of environmental clearance of development projects proposed by other ministries.

Environment activists, who are quite impressed by the recent pronouncements of the E&F minister, have responded by mobilising support in favour of Mr Ramesh. But a detailed analysis of the data of forest clearances approved by the MoEF since Mr Ramesh has taken its charge reveals figures which could silence both the pro-Ramesh and anti-Ramesh forces.

Last month, three cabinet ministers, Road Transport Minister Kamal Nath, Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde and Water Resource Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal complained to the Prime Minister that Ramesh’s ministry was delaying environment clearances for key infrastructure projects.

Consequently, PM had to step in and ask the Planning Commission to formulate a procedure that will help put environment clearances on a fast-track. Although Mr Ramesh may be becoming unpopular in his cabinet, he has earned accolades from environment activists for his stand on some of the environmentally sensitive projects.

His several decisions in recent months to cancel, postpone or downsize projects perceived to be harmful to environment have made him an unlikely hero of environment activists and nature lovers. So much so that many of the activists who have been severest of critics of successive governments’ environment and development policies have recently written letters to the Prime Minister and Congress Party president showering praise on Jairam Ramesh and requesting the PM to let him work freely as the custodian of India’s environment and forests.

However, his earnest approach towards protection and conservation of forests has not always been the same. Perhaps, the minister realized the widespread scepticism among enlightened citizens towards working of E&F ministry after holding public consultations on Bt brinjal which eventually led him to put moratorium on it in February 2010. The post moratorium praise heaped on him by people probably played a crucial role in re-alignment of priorities by the articulate and sensitive minister.

If we look at the MoEF figures of forest clearances for various projects in 2009, it is evident that Jairam Ramesh was quite liberal in giving permission for clearing forests for infrastructure projects in the first 6-7 months of his tenure as E&F minister. Though, his approach is more conservative now but still he continues to take pride in clearing most of infrastructure projects coming to his ministry.

In an interview to an English newspaper few days back, Mr Ramesh himself disclosed, “Before I came here I also subscribed to the general theology that environment and forest clearances can be speeded up. If you had asked me then, I would have also said, push comes to shove, projects could have been cleared faster. But having come here and seen the system and multiple stakeholders involved and the need to look at long term issues...”

After assuming office on May 22, 2009, Jairam Ramesh cleared 13642.99 hectares of forests for various projects by 31st December 2009. In addition to that, 55339.95 hectares were removed from the list of forest areas and allotted to cultivation and habitation areas in Ropar district of Punjab. In comparison, a significantly lesser forest area of 7597.52 hectares was cleared by his predecessor during January to May 2009, before Mr Ramesh was given the task to protect India’s forests.

Out of 13642.99 hectares of cleared forests between June and December 09, Kamal Nath’s ministry (Road and Transport) received the lion’s share. Mr Ramesh allowed clearing of 2202.382 hectares of forests to construct roads and highways. It is another matter that Mr Nath’s ministry has not even been able to reach the halfway mark of his ambitious projections made in 2009.

Of late, the E&F ministry has woken up to the cause of illegal mining. Jairam Ramesh, in his new avatar as anti-mining green crusader, imposed a moratorium on mining activities in Goa. Sadly, this decision came far too late to reduce the impact of mining and was taken only after the minister came under severe criticism for failing to protect Goa.

The moratorium on mining in Goa was followed by a wider study jointly conducted by the E&F and coal ministries, which found that as much as 35% of coal mines are located in ‘no go’ zones’. Though Mr Ramesh might have expressed shock over these findings but it was under his instructions the E&F ministry divested 3812.092 hectares of forests for the purpose of mining activities within a span of seven months (June to Dec 2009). What environmentalists do not know is that during the first five months of the year 2009, his predecessor gave permission for clearing only 1133 hectares forest area for mining purposes.

The E&F ministry under Mr Ramesh, during the seven month period (Jun-Dec 09), also cleared 1250.509 hectares of forest area for the purpose of generating power, even if it led to massive deforestation.

The states which incurred maximum loss in terms of forest areas due to liberal clearances by Mr Ramesh are Orissa, Gujarat and Chattisgarh.

Orissa, abundant in natural resources and one of the dream destinations of mining giants, tops the chart where 2805.563 hectares of forests were destroyed during the first few months of environment friendly minister’s tenure.

While 1102.167 hectares of forest area was cleared in Gujarat; Chhattisgarh witnessed the diversion of 910.515 hectares for the so called development projects. Out of this figure of 910.5 hectares, 883.22 hectares of forests were sacrificed only for mining. In comparison only 323 hectares of forest area was cleared in the Maoist affected Chhattisgarh from January to May 2009 before Jairam Ramesh took the charge at MoEF. Similar figures for other states also reveal that initially Mr Ramesh was more liberal in granting environment clearances than his predecessors.

But, for the past few months, since public consultations on Bt brinjal took place, in fact from January 2010, the minister has been treading the path cautiously in giving forest clearances to the infrastructure projects.

Consequently, this sudden transformation in the approach of E&F ministry under Mr Ramesh has come under attack for stalling the infrastructure projects of different ministries lately.

However, it would be naïve to conclude that an environmentally enlightened Jairam Ramesh is reversing the trend.

From January 2010 till date, road and transportation ministry has already been allocated 438.6405 hectares of forests in comparison to 2202.382 hectares cleared between June and December 2009.

Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde had also complained about Ramesh’s anti-development drive. But the forest area cleared for power projects during his tenure is much higher than the area cleared from January to May 09.

Of late, mining seems to be the utmost concern of Ramesh as he put a hold on the mining activities in Goa. But the forest area cleared for mining during the first three months of this year is not negligible either. In comparison to the 3812.092 hectares cleared between June and December 2009, the favourite minister of environmentalists has given a go-ahead to clear 471.669 hectare forests till now.

But, Jairam Ramesh, the chief strategist of ruling party during the last two parliamentary elections, knows well to impress people with big words and little actions without altering the agenda set by his leaders in the party and the government. As if overcome by guilt for being blamed for stalling development projects, he exclaimed in the recent interview, “With a rate of acceptance of over 95% for environmental clearances and 85% for forest clearance how can you say we are stopping economic growth?”

India asleep over asbestos risks

By Krishnendu Mukherjee
23 Apr 2010

World over, for long, asbestos is known as being dangerous to human health. However, India, a dumping ground for asbestos, has no effective protection or restitution available.

Vasu Narayan Pujari worked for Hindustan Ferodo Limited for forty years. When he retired he was given a certificate commemorating his long service with the Company and asbestosis with an eighty percent disability. Asbestosis is an incurable disease affecting the lungs of people exposed to asbestos, a mineral which because of its unusual properties has widely been used globally in the manufacture of diverse materials from cement to textiles.

Exposure to asbestos can also cause malignant lung cancer and mesothelioma, a rare cancer strongly associated with asbestos exposure. Vasu Pujari is one of over a hundred ex-workers of Hindustan Ferodo Ltd, a former brake-lining company in Mumbai which closed in 2006, who are claiming compensation for asbestos-related diseases. If settled, it will be the largest asbestos claim in India's history.

Whilst this is certainly welcome news for the affected workers themselves, the figures illustrate the woeful lack of compensation provided for asbestosis-related diseases in India. A 2005 study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, estimated that there are nearly seven thousand workers with asbestos-related diseases in India. However, given the lack of proper monitoring by statutory authorities, the healthy worker effect (where those who have difficulty in working because of illness are simply dismissed), and the large number of undocumented workers working with asbestos, the figure is likely to be much higher.

Over one hundred thousand workers working with asbestos in India are likely to be at risk. A recent application under the Right to Information Act 2005, filed by the Corporate Accountability Desk, reveals that over the last twenty years only fifty-three workers have been compensated for asbestos-related diseases under the Employees' State Insurance Act 1948, the statutory scheme for the compensation of low-paid workers for personal injury or disease derived through employment. This clearly indicates the huge gap between the number of workers who sustain asbestos-related diseases through the negligence of their employers, and those who are ultimately compensated.

The legal provisions for compensation themselves may also shed some light on these figures. The Employees' State Insurance Act is a piece of welfare legislation which was enacted in the post-war period, on the lines of similar laws in the UK at the time, in order to provide protection to workers. Asbestosis and lung cancer were added as occupational diseases, for which compensation could be claimed, under the Act in 1985. The Government, however, failed to amend the Act so that those who had left their employment with a company, in addition to those currently employed, could also claim compensation. In the case of asbestos-related diseases this is a major injustice. Asbestosis has a normal latency period of 10-20 years, whilst mesothelioma has a latency period of 20-40 years. Therefore, many workers will have left their employment either voluntarily, or as part of the "healthy worker effect", without these diseases being diagnosed.

Further, under an alternative scheme for obtaining compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act 1923, a claimant can be embroiled in the labour courts for many years in his/her struggle for compensation against the previous employer. For instance, a case lodged in 2004 in the Bandra labour court against Hindustan Composites Limited, the successor to Hindustan Ferodo, has been blighted by delays with no end in sight. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court holding in the case of Consumer Education & Research Centre v Union of India, that companies would be strictly liable for causing asbestos-related diseases to their employees, most companies are going scot-free.

Whilst the use of asbestos has been banned in many countries, including the European Union since 2006, India is importing and using asbestos in higher quantities, with the number of factory units using asbestos rising steadily. A related issue, is the fact that there is very little monitoring being done by statutory authorities on where imported asbestos is being used, or the effects of its use on workers.

The Rotterdam Convention 2004, which India bought into force in 2005, has prescribed five forms of asbestos which should undergo the Prior Informed Consent procedure. This procedure requires Convention signatories to provide national risk evaluations and any information on regulatory actions taken. However, in reply to a Right to Information Act request filed in October 2009 to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (the regulatory Ministry from the importation of asbestos), the Ministry admitted to: "not maintaining the list of importers of asbestos, country of originator of asbestos, and manufacturer of asbestos etc". Correspondingly, it is apparent that without such information no proper risk evaluation, nor decisions on regulatory action, can be undertaken.

All this can only lead to one, rather depressing, conclusion. India has become a dumping ground for a substance which has been known to the world since the 1930's as being dangerous to human health, and there is still no effective protection or restitution available. As Vasu Pujari knows, as he gasps for air at every step, a country which ignores its "asbestos time-bomb" today, will repent at its leisure.

Thou shalt not question GM food!

By Devinder Sharma
03 Mar 2010

The proposed National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill threatens the very essence of democratic values and freedom.



If Indian govt has its way, such agitations against GM food will land people in jail
The ghost of Emergency is back. In fact, it is going to be much worse than the Emergency period. During the infamous Emergency era, anyone could be arrested for questioning the powers that be. If the Ministry for Science & Technology has its ways, you can be arrested for simply questioning the safety of your own food, if it is genetically modified.

As massive police action against Maoists, called Operation Green Hunt, is underway in the tribal regions of India, the government is now getting ready with yet another policing campaign to silence people's voices demanding safe food. Armed with the proposed NBRA, the government will now unleash a war against its own citizens. Their crime: they demand to know whether what they are being forced to eat is safe or not.

The unprecedented muzzle on the right to freedom of speech of every citizen forms part of the proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) bill that is likely to be introduced in the Budget session in Parliament. Denials notwithstanding, Chapter 13 section 63 of the draft bill says, "Whoever, without any evidence or scientific record misleads the public about the safety of the organisms and products…shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year and with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees or with both."

During Emergency, you faced jail for your political differences. But if the proposed BRAI bill becomes legislation, you will have to in addition pay a fine.

Even critical journalist writings can land the writer in jail. And those who dare to protest or cause obstruction to experiments too can be hauled up with imprisonment and/or fine or both. People's right to know more about the experiments conducted to determine environment and health safety too have been taken away. Article 27 (1) of the bill seeks to keep the information related to research, approval and science of the GM products out of the purview of the Right to Information ( RTI) Act.

The National Campaign for People's Right to Information finds the definition of "confidential commercial information" under section 2(h) limiting and restricting in the sense that any and all documents submitted to the Authority for research, transport or import of organisms and products will not be available for public scrutiny. Further, Section 81 overrides the RTI Act 2005 when it says: "the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act to have overriding effect."

That something as simple as food should invite such coercive measures to stifle critical voices is clearly a pointer at the desperation to push the seemingly unhealthy GM foods down our throat. Otherwise there seems to be no justification for even drafting such a law that gags public opinion. GM crops are known to be devastating to the environment and ecology, and the push for its acceptance undermines the task of biodiversity conservation. This goes against the recommendations of the Swaminathan Task Force Report, which said: "the bottom line for any biotechnology regulatory policy should be the safety of the environment and the economical and ecological sustainability of farming systems."

No wonder, the draft bill also says that the BRAI will set up its own appellate tribunal, which will have the jurisdiction to hear arguments on the issues concerning biotechnology. In case of any disputes, petitioners can only approach the Supreme Court of India.

Any regulatory mechanism should inspire public confidence, and not take away the right to question the science and the process. Already the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), which is the apex body for environmental clearance for the GM crops, has come under a lot of flak for being a rubber stamp for the biotechnology industry. The moratorium on Bt brinjal announced by the Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has clearly brought the need for a more open, transparent and accountable regulatory mechanism.

Still worse, I don't understand the urgent need that is being shown to set up a fast-track single window clearance for the controversial GM crops. Even in the USA, the Mecca for GM crops, the clearance system comprises three windows -- the US Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). Even then, the US regulatory process has been questioned time and again, and has been found to be faulty.

In India, the decision to approve GM crops, would essentially wrest with three member expert committee of the Department of Biotechnology. This has been given a go-bye. Moreover, the fact that the bill has been listed for introduction in Parliament with no space for discussion of its contents shows what is in store ahead.

Why we should oppose Bt brinjal?

By Devinder Sharma
11 Feb 2010

Though the government of India has cancelled the GEAC approval for commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal, majority of people remain unaware of the facts related to the controversy. Here are FAQs to help the readers:

Brinjal is in the eye of a storm. With the Environment & Forest Minister Jairam Ramesh putting a moratorium on the introduction of what could have been India's first genetically modified food crop - Bt brinjal - the nation has been saved from a poisonous food.

Based on the wide ranging public consultations held across the country, Jairam Ramesh's decision has also come as an indictment of the scientific regulatory process. At the same time, the Minister has for the first time questioned the need to go in for GM technology when there were other pest management alternatives, much safer environmentally and for human health, available.

As expected, the historic decision has opened up a can of worms. Agricultural scientists and the private seed companies have come under a cloud, and therefore an orchestrated media campaign has been launched. It is therefore important to explain some of the hotly debated aspects of the decision, which are getting lost in the din of accusations and counter-allegations. Let me answer some of the frequently asked questions.

Bt brinjal and GM crops are important for a country which has more than 1 billion people to feed.

There is no GM crop in the world which increases productivity. In fact, most of the GM crops actually reduce productivity. The US Department of Agriculture admits that the productivity of GM corn and GM soya is less than that of the normal varieties.

There is no shortage of food in the world. We have 6.5 billion people on Earth, and we produce food for 11.5 billion people. If more than 1 billion people are going to bed hungry globally, it is because of the faulty distribution process rather than the unavailability of food. The same holds true for India, where one third of the population cannot even buy food that is available. Poor people find it even difficult to buy wheat and rice at Rs 2/- a kilo. The question therefore is not of production but access and distribution.

Bt brinjal increases productivity. So why stop it?

This is not true. Bt gene acts more or less like a chemical pesticide which is sprayed from outside, whereas Bt produces a toxin within the plant.

If the Bt gene increases productivity, then some may argue that chemical pesticides also increase productivity. Can scientists accept that chemical pesticides increase productivity? But in case of Bt crops, they don't mind creating a false illusion to misguide the farmer.


How can Bt brinjal adversely affect farmers?

Bt is a biological pesticide. It releases poison in the plant. It has been established that compared to Bt biopesticide sprays, the concentration of Bt toxin in Bt brinjal is one thousand times more. Bt biopesticide sprays are harmful, imagine the impact Bt brinjal toxin will have on the environment.

Bt crops releases a toxin in soil through the roots. It has affected beneficial soil microflora, and studies at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) have proved this. There have been animal deaths from grazing on Bt cotton leaves in Andhra Pradesh, and Haryana. The GEAC has simply brushed this aside even though the Andhra Animal husbandry department has warned farmers not to let their livestock graze in Bt cotton fields.

Genetically modified crops also create superweeds, which are not controlled by any chemical. Georgia province in America is fast turning into a wasteland due to massive infestation of superweeds. World-over, 26 countries are now facing the menace of superweeds. GM crops also destroy biodiversity by contamination. India is the Centre of Origin for brinjal, and therefore needs to be more than cautious.

Bt is supposed to kill sucking pests like pink bollworm in cotton, and fruit and shoot borer in brinjal, thereby reduce pesticides consumption. This however does not hold true for long. In China, which was promoted as a silver-bullet case, cotton farmers growing Bt cotton are now reported to be spraying 8 per cent more pesticides than on non Bt crops and thereby incurring losses. Resurgence of secondary pests has been observed in China (like mealy bug in Punjab), as a result of which farmer's total usage of pesticides increases. This report is based on a study conducted by the Cornell University.

In India too, insects are developing resistance to Bt cotton. That is why the need to bring in Bollgard-II with two Bt genes. But no scientific study is being undertaken on pest resistance in Bt cotton.

Even in America, where herbicide-tolerant crops are prevalent, the usage of herbicides has increased. There are several USDA reports stating this.

Bt crops are safe for human consumption. So why are people expressing concern?

Numerous experiments all over the world have shown that Bt in particular and GM in general poses tremendous health risks. Even Monsanto's own studies on rats in Europe have demonstrated that the animals have terrible problems with their body organs- kidney, liver, pancreas, blood etc, and also can result in serious diseases and allergies. Some studies in Austria have recently shown that GM also leads to infertility.

All those scientists who dared to question the human safety aspect were hounded out of their jobs by the proponents of the GM industry. The only human safety trial conducted so far establishes that the alien gene in the human body does transfer to the gut bacteria. This can have serious implications. But no further tests are allowed to be conducted anywhere in the world on human safety.

Bt brinjal is one thousand times more poisonous than the Bt biopesticide sprays. If Bt biopesticide sprays can kill insects, imagine what would happen to human bodies after consuming food that has one thousand times more toxins inside.

These deformities can pass on from generation to generation, like some studies on pesticides have now shown.

But the GEAC, the regulatory authority, had conducted enough tests on human safety. So why worry?

Adequate scientific tests to determine human safety of the genetically modified food were not performed. Instead of the 29 tests that should be conducted before GM food is allowed to be served, the GEAC had expressed 'satisfaction' with some 4 to 5 tests and that too done in a shoddy manner. Interestingly, the GEAC says that it had conducted tests as per the international protocols, but the fact is that there are no accepted international scientific protocols so far.

Even in tests on rats, the tests have been conducted only on ten rats for 90 days. The results show that the rats did suffer serious abnormalities in kidney, liver and blood. These have been simply brushed aside as 'biologically insignificant'. This is shocking considering that Bt gene releases poison in the plant. How can the GEAC simply ignore the health abnormalities seen in rats, even if it is on one rat?


The normal life span of rats, corresponding with the human beings, is for 2 years. Since it has now been found that the impact of chemical pesticides for instance are passed on from generation to generation, and are even felt in the third generation, the human safety tests for Bt brinjal need to conducted for several generations. After all, we are going to eat Bt brinjal all through our life. How can its safety be determined by rat studied for only 90 days and that too inconclusively?

We know that smoking cigarettes for 2-3 weeks does not cause cancer. To know whether smoking cigarettes can cause cancer you have to tests for several generations. Why is the industry not willing to perform tests for several generations in rats to know the health impacts from continuously consuming genetically modified crops?

GEAC is an expert committee. Why doubt the recommendations of the expert committee?

The GEAC recommendations were rigged. The GEAC had set up an Expert Committee -II (called EC-II) which had some members who were also involved in developing Bt crops. This was a sure case where a conflict of interest was evident. How can people who develop GM crops also sit on the approval process?

The norms and bylaws of the EC-II were lowered to suit the interests of the private seed companies. All experiments were conducted by the private companies, and the GEAC had accepted the data provided by the private seed company. Let us also not forget that the private seed company had refused to share the analysis with the general public, and it was only after the Supreme Court's directive that the research data was made public.

The entire regulatory process is a sham. Jairam Ramesh's decision is clearly an indictment of the GEAC. The report is full of unscientific conclusions and inaccuracies. At the same time, the report blatantly ignores the dangerous impact of Bt brinjal on the body organs of rats and other animals, and also the environment. The chairman of EC-II himself has said that he is not sure of the health impact of Bt brinjal.

Let us have an open and transparent debate on the regulatory process. If the GEAC decision is found to be wrong and unscientific, the chairman of GEAC should be put to trial. After all, we cannot allow anyone to play havoc with the lives of the masses.

Farmers are better judge of a technology. Why not leave Bt brinjal as an option for the farmers to use, if he finds it useful?

This is a joke. If we leave harmful technologies in the hands of people, the world would die an unnatural death sooner than later. Cigarette smoking for instance cannot be left to people. Even though every packet contains a bold statement 'cigarette smoking is injurious to health' and yet its sales goes on increasing. Because it was unhealthy and dangerous, governments have stepped in and banned its usage in public places. Was that a wrong decision?

Similarly, GM crops cannot be left to the farmers to decide as an option. Farmer too gets influenced by the marketing blitz of the companies. The entire State machinery -- Agri Universities, Farm extension depts, companies and the media have been promoting GM crops. With such a powerful marketing blitz how do you expect the farmer to make informed choices? Also, if the farmer was so sensible, the usage of chemical pesticides would not have multiplied to the present dangerous levels.

Already farmers are committing suicide because of the faulty technologies imposed upon them. How many more farmers do we want to be killed before stopping the killer technologies from being used?

Act green, get bonus!

By Shankar Sharma
03 Feb 2010


Environmentalists call Tehri dam in Uttrakhand as a major ecological disaster

Our forests, rivers, coastal areas and the overall biodiversity are immensely valuable and crucial for the health of the nation. Therefore, any initiative to reward their protection should be welcomed.

Union Minister for Environment & Forests Jairam Ramesh has indicated that the government is considering 'Green Bonus' for protecting forest cover. This is a novel idea to encourage the states to adequately protect forest cover. This proposal could help Himalayan states which rely on commercial exploitation of the forest wealth for revenue generation since they do not have many other avenues.

Uttarakhand is a good example in this regard. The officials think that since the state has large hydro electric potential, it should fully exploit it. Since electricity demand within the state is not huge, it plans to set up more than 100 hydel projects and sell power to other states. Obviously, setting up so many hydel projects will accelerate depletion of forest cover and degrade the rich bio-diversity of the state.

The other Himalayan states like Himachal Pradesh and Sikkim are also keen on exploiting their hydel potential on an accelerated basis. Even though some of the hydel projects in Sikkim are facing many hurdles because of environmental and social concerns, a majority of such proposals in Himalayas should be of major concern from bio diversity aspect alone.

Arunachal Pradesh is another state where huge hydel potential (totaling about 40,000 MW) has been identified. Many large-size hydel projects on river Subansiri, Lohit, Dibang etc are being proposed. The deleterious impacts of such big hydel projects on rich bio-diversity and poor tribals of nearby areas, though well known for decades, are sadly ignored by the policy makers.

Since revenue needs of these mountainous states are crucial, they should be helped to explore many other alternatives available. These states should realize the dangers of exploiting the forest wealth on an unsustainable basis by damming the rivers. Providing adequate financial incentives to conserve and develop the forest wealth on a sustainable basis can be a good idea. Such an initiative must be designed to also encourage non-Himalayan states like Karnataka, Kerala, Maharastra and Goa to arrest the destruction of forest cover there. A large number of power projects being planned in the vicinity of Western Ghats in these states without due diligence is a matter of serious concern.

Recently, Mr Ramesh commented that, "the health of the Himalayan glaciers is poor and we need to take immediate remedial measures." But, will the large number of proposed hydel projects in Himalayas not negate 'immediate remedial measures'? The same argument holds true in case of hydel /coal /nuclear power projects in the vicinity of Western Ghats.

The economic, environmental, and social impacts including many cultural and heritage impacts of building large dam based power projects cannot be ignored any longer. World Charter for Nature was adopted by consensus by UN General Assembly in 1982. It has provided some guiding principles for protecting biodiversity. Two key principles are: (a) activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature should be avoided; (b) activities which are likely to pose significant risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination; their proponents shall demonstrate that the expected benefits clearly outweigh potential damage to nature, and where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed. Since forests are the predominant source of bio-diversity, the protection of forest wealth can not be more emphasized.

A recent report by Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) - "Achieving 2010 Biodiversity Target: India's contributions" - has copiously described the rich bio diversity in the country, the threats to it and the tall claims about the remedial measures taken. But without holistically reviewing the present practice of issuing environmental clearance to almost all projects presented before MoEF, policymakers can not take any credit for contributing to the conservation of global biodiversity.

As per State of Environment Report 2009 by MoEF, India is a mega diversity country and despite having only 2.4% surface area of the globe, it has 7-8% of the recorded species of the world. It is also home for 11.8% of the plant species documented so far. The National Forest Policy 1988 envisages one third of the geographical area of the country to be covered by forests and trees, and considers it as essential for economic and ecological security of the country. But as per the MoEF report 'Achieving 2010 Biodiversity Target: India's contributions', at present this figure is only 23%, of which forest cover alone accounts for 21%. Hence it is critical that we do not loose the pristine forest cover anymore, but increase it, as early as possible, to the target figure of 33%.

The United Nations programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in developing countries is a collaboration between FAO, UNDP and UNEP. REDD is accepted as a critical step in addressing the threat of Global Warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that deforestation is now contributing close to 20 per cent of the overall greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. Forest degradation is no less responsible for emissions from forest ecosystems. Therefore, IPCC says, there is an immediate need to make significant progress in reducing deforestation, forest degradation, and associated emission of greenhouse gases.

As per a study report "Bio-diversity Impact of Large Dams" prepared for IUCN / UNEP / WCD, the value of ecological functions as well as resources of the environment (both terrestrial and aquatic) has been estimated to be about $33 trillion per year, which is almost twice the global GDP. Bio-diversity is of immense value for the humans and the world as a whole. As per the Convention on Biological Diversity it will be a wise policy to apply Precautionary Principle and take necessary action to conserve Bio-diversity before components of it are permanently lost. Since forests are the major source of bio-diversity, we need to take into account the potential value of ecological services associated with forests in the country.


As per the report 'Economics of Climate Change' by Nicholas Stern, emissions from deforestation are estimated to represent more than 18% of global emissions. Hence, curbing deforestation is a cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

While it may appear that exploiting the natural resources can accelerate economic development of our communities, there are also credible risks of upsetting the delicate equation of ecological sub-systems. Hence an objective study of all the issues concerning a sustainable development model will be critical for the long term welfare of not only the people in the mountain states, but also of lower riparian states. The potential of revenue generation for the state through hydel generation should be carefully viewed in this context.

Amongst various 'developmental activities' in India, large size power projects lead to massive destruction of forest wealth, as has been noticed since independence. Whether it is due to the drowning of forests in dam waters, or due to forest clearance to set up buildings, hydraulic structures & transmission lines, or due to the need to open up more coal mines etc, large tracts of rich evergreen forests have been irrevocably lost all over the country.

As per the Integrated Energy Policy of the Planning Commission - "by 2031-32 the power generation capacity must increase to nearly 800,000 MW from the current capacity of about 160,000 MW inclusive of all captive power plants." 90% of this additional 640,000 MW capacity is projected to come from coal based and dam based power projects. Such a large number of coal based and dam based power projects will have massive impact on the extent and quality of forests & bio diversity in the country. Scaling up of conventional power capacity in a short period will also have far reaching consequences on social, environmental and economic aspects of our society.

There are many benign alternatives to building hydel projects as a means of revenue. Similarly, various better substitutes to dam based or coal based power projects can be explored to meet our electricity demand. Hence the need is to initiate policy measures to ensure that every state considers biodiversity as of immense value to our country, and reviews projects from a holistic perspective to ensure a sustainable development model.

Keeping in mind the multi faceted importance of adequate size and quality of forests, it is in the long term interest of our society to objectively review various developmental processes being followed now wherein the forests are not being given their due credit. Bio-diversity, including forests, rivers, coastal areas are crucial for the health of the nation, and hence will need appropriate valuation. In the light of these facts, the Green Bonus idea is a good initiative.

Historic decision awaited on BT Brinjal

By Pandurang Hegde
30 Jan 2010

Youth opposing introduction of Bt Brinjal in India

The public consultations on Bt Brinjal have brought to the fore strong resentment among people against increasing corporate influence over government policy making.

The debate on introduction of Bt brinjal has reached its crescendo in the corridors of power. The Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar and the Minister for State for Science and Technology, Prithviraj Chouhan, have expressed their support for introduction of Genetically Modified (GM) food in India, adhering to the approval given by the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee). In contrast to this, the Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, has adopted a cautious approach. Responding to Agriculture Minister's open support of GM food, he sent him a letter stating, "We have to take decisions that have far-reaching consequences with the greatest degree of caution, and transparency and after ensuring that all stakeholders have been heard to their satisfaction."

In order to hear the stakeholders, the Environment Minister is holding consultations in few cities, and has sought opinion of governments of states having large acreage of brinjal. This participatory process might look too elitist, but it is definitely going to build the transparent process towards the final decision. In these consultations across the country, overwhelmingly the response has been against the introduction of GM food crops. Following Kerala, several state governments have either out rightly opposed or expressed concerns about introduction of GM food crops.

Much to the chagrin of GM food supporters, Karnataka, the state at the forefront of IT and BT technology, has also come out with a report against introducing bt brinjal in the state.

This overwhelming negative response from all the quarters has alarmed the corporate interests lobbying for the introduction of GM technology in agriculture and food. Now they are making their last-ditch efforts to 'influence' the central government to get approval for the first GM food crop in India. With huge financial backing, these lobbyists have the capacity and experience to manipulate policy making process for safeguarding the interests of agri-corporates. Earlier they succeeded in securing approval for bt cotton despite stiff opposition from the scientists and farmers. Though cotton is not a food crop, but the central government ignored the fact that the cottonseeds are an important input for cattle feed in India, paving way for GM contamination in the food chain among millions of people.


Having by-passed all the obligatory long-term studies to assess bt cotton's impact on health, the seed companies are reaping the windfall by monopolizing the cotton seeds market, in many cases with the explicit subsidy support of state governments! The never-ending farmers' suicides in bt cotton growing states has had little impact on the policy makers to stop the onslaught of GM industry. Having found a foothold in Indian soil through bt cotton and observed the reluctance of policy makers to act decisively against culpable MNCs, GM interests are now readying themselves to test the first GM food crop through bt brinjal.

However, their objective is not limited to the vegetable crop of brinjal, in fact it is a litmus test before opening the flood gates for other GM food crops. Having earned thousands of crores from the sale of bt cotton seeds over last few years, the multinational seed monopolies are aiming to control the huge market of staple crops of rice and wheat.

Will the Environment Minister be able to take a decision to safeguard the health and environment of the nation? His endeavors to consult the states, and the public hearings in different cities, seem to be a genuine attempt to elicit opinions from diverse stakeholders. Nevertheless, it will be expecting too much from him to act against the powerful agri-corporates. In an administrative set up, where jettisoning the national interests in favor of parochial short term gains is fast becoming a norm, the GM lobby will find an entry, from front or backdoor, sooner or later. If blocked, these seed corporations would not hesitate to release bt brinjal illegally, as they did with bt cotton in Gujarat, forcing the government to reconsider its decision. Even contamination of the food crops is feared.

Thus, the final decision regarding bt brinjal has historical importance as it will eventually take away the farmers' control over their seeds and their independence to grow what they want. This will lead to monopoly control with political and economic leverage over millions of farmers. Eventually, both the growers and the consumers will bear the brunt of health, environmental and economic impacts of GM seeds.

Jairam gets hot and cold at Copenhagen

By Bhaskar Goswami
Copenhagen, 16 Dec 2009

Inside view of Bella Centre, the heart of action
(photo: Bhaskar Goswami)

Frequent change of stance and partners has not helped India's cause in the ongoing Copenhagen conference.

After a disastrous beginning with "The President of Maldives called up but I did not have the time to take his call", Minister Jairam Ramesh ought to have slowly got into the grind of negotiations at Copenhagen. However, piqued by the push away from Kyoto Protocol to a single treaty binding all nations, Ramesh labelled Australia as the "Ayatollah" of single track! He also abandoned a meeting with Australia's Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, stating that he was "too busy". The rate he is going, he may well be left with not many friends at Copenhagen.

Not that Ramesh desperately needs friends as he seems to have smoothed out the rough edges of BASIC partners (Brazil-South Africa-India-China). However he has failed to patch the cracks among the G77+China grouping which were apparent when African countries staged a walkout from COP negotiations on Monday. When Australia retaliated by blocking talks on emission reduction by rich countries, the UNFCCC stepped in and suggested India and Australia to bilaterally sort out the issue which was unacceptable to Ramesh.

The draft texts and the intractable stands taken by the developed and developing countries will make a deal at Copenhagen difficult. While the negotiations have numerous unresolved issues, in lay terms there are five key areas of clear divisions between nations (apart from finance and technology transfer):

The base year of 1990 versus that of 2005 for emission cuts are keeping negotiators divided; later the base year, higher can the emissions go for most countries.
The cap in temperature increase at either 1.50C or 2.00C is a major point of contention between developed, developing and emerging economies. For island nations to survive rising seas, temperature must be capped at 1.50C. But the rest of the world, including India, is unwilling to concede.
China and India are insisting on cuts in emission intensity - emission per unit of GDP. These cuts are anything but real cuts in overall emission especially for India where bulk of the GDP is from a low-emission sector (services). Increased GDP due to expansion of services will bring down India's emission intensity but not necessarily the overall or per capita emission, as is being pointed out by developed countries.
Developed countries want international bodies to be able to monitor, report and verify (MRV) emission cuts which is being steadfastly resisted by India; no surprises here given the questionable record on transparency and accountability of the Ministry of Environment and Forests in granting fast-track clearances to polluting industries.


Amongst all this discussion, the critical role played by agriculture in climate change has hardly found any takers at Bella Centre. Agriculture contributes around 17 percent of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, primarily due to practice of industrial agriculture. If one factors in industrial dairying and animal farming, food miles, trade in agri-commodities, food packaging, etc., the share of agriculture to GHG emission could zoom over 40 percent.

Minister Ramesh has a golden opportunity to actually bring about meaningful cuts in emissions by advocating sustainable agricultural practices. And this need not be at the behest of rich countries. If India plans to save its agriculture it will in any case have to tread this path. This will, however, require tremendous political lobbying back home as there are business opportunities for industrial agriculture input producers and suppliers: in fertilisers, pesticides, chemicals, irrigation pump-sets, tractors etc.


With the date for several Heads of States dropping in at Copenhagen approaching fast, the pressure on negotiators from major countries to deliver on a deal is very high. The unresolved issues reflected as square brackets in the draft texts remain while available indications are that India believes Kyoto Protocol can be saved only if Copenhagen fails. This is despite the USA not subscribing to the KP. Right now, nobody wants to be in India's shoes: it initially passed the baton over to the USA, borrowed it back after protests back home and at the Bella Centre, and is now moored somewhere in the middle of the track unsure which way lies the finishing line.

Reclaim Power!

What with bulk of the civil society denied admission to Bella Centre, trouble is brewing. The UN initially goofed up by accrediting almost double the numbers than what Bella Centre can hold. Now with Heads of States dropping in and the intensity of protests likely to go up, the organisers have announced that fresh passes will be issued to NGOs seeking entry at the Bella Centre with a caveat: not all will be eligible and the eligibility criteria will not be spelled out either! No wonder NGOs are up in arms against the UN.

Meanwhile, Climate Justice Action (http://www.climate-justice-action.org/) call to take over Bella Centre on December 16 and turn it into a People's Assembly is running full steam and hundreds of protesters are marching towards the convention centre. Violence is expected and law enforcers are out in full strength.

New drafts appear, but differences persist

By Bhaskar Goswami
Copenhagen, 12 Dec 2009

Fearing failure of Copenhagen conference due to widening rift between developed and developing countries, two new drafts are issued for negotiations to bridge the divisions.

Time is fast running out for the climate negotiators (photo: Bhaskar Goswami)
The morning of 11th December sprung twin surprises for delegates: The Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) and the AWG on the Kyoto Protocol (KP) issued draft texts for negotiations. Both the texts were issued by the respective Chairs without a prior announcement. Since both developed and developing countries appeared surprised and exuded mixed responses to this, it seems that Yvo de Boer, the UN Climate Chief might have decided to take things back in his hands… about time!

The 7-page LCA text did not evince much discussion to begin with but in a bit many delegates expressed their reservations, including USA, Bolivia and several African nations. The draft appears as a please-all document to begin with.

Firstly, the global temperature rise above pre-industrial levels ought to be capped at 1.50 or 2.00. Secondly, collective reduction of global emission ought to be at least 50-95 percent from 1990 levels by 2050; and thirdly, developed countries must reduce their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by at least 75 to more than 95 percent from 1990 level by 2050. Further, developing countries also must reduce their GHG emissions in the range of 25 (minimum) to 45 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.

This is a body blow to the developed countries, particularly US which will find it difficult to get the Senate to ratify a 1990 baseline for emission cuts and has therefore been demanding 2005 as the base year. Since US will be unwilling to agree to these cuts, EU will follow suit too. Further, developed countries have endorsed a 20 C temperature target while developing countries, especially the most vulnerable ones, want it to be capped at 1.50 C.

The AWG on Kyoto Protocol has spelled out further emission reductions for developed countries which is a welcome development. However, it has left out USA from its purview. Emission reduction goals that are set to expire in 2012 are sought to be extended to at least 2017. It will be quite difficult to get the developed countries to agree to the provisions as most of them are against a simple extension of Kyoto Protocol and instead want a single new treaty that would set curbs on emissions by all major nations.

What's on the table: three potential emissions goals for 2050, three developed-country targets for 2020 and two possible temperature targets to limit global warming.

Many developing countries, on the other hand, want a two-track approach: one that would extend Kyoto with its deep emissions cuts for the developed countries, while creating a new and non - (or less) binding accord for developing countries. The draft also leaves open the scale of financing to assist developing countries to curb emissions growth and to protect themselves against climate impacts. The draft is also silent on when emissions should peak and when should they begin to fall. Given these deep divisions it would be a Herculean task for the Chairs to reach an accord for "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."

India Speaks, Finally!

Finally, after five days into the negotiations, for the first time a Press Conference was held by the Indian delegation. The Chief Negotiator, Shyam Saran, who flew back to New Delhi apparently seeking a fresh political direction after the G77+China goof-up, is back along with Minister Jairam Ramesh. It is now known that Ramesh has been instructed not to stray from the line drawn by the cabinet.

At 7.00 PM Ramesh held a Press Conference where he said that he has held four key meetings since he landed in the afternoon: Todd Stern of US, Ed Miliband (UK), Xie Zhenhua (China) and Kamil Djemouai (Africa group). Ramesh said that he has conveyed two non-acceptable issues: India will not accept any binding cuts, and nor will it accept any global verification on targets.

Ramesh stressed that he will seek a FAB deal - Fair, Ambitious and Binding - a term ostensibly borrowed from the tcktcktck campaign (http://tcktcktck.org/), a global movement comprising of around 188 organisations. In a clear departure from the demand of island nations, Ramesh ruled out accepting a 1.50 C cap, thus driving a wedge through the G77. India will also not accept a peaking year as there is a massive backlog of rural electrification. Thus, cheaper but polluting options of power production in India will continue to find favour over allocation of massive funds dedicated to application of renewable technologies for electrification of remote rural areas.

India loses credibility at Copenhagen

By Bhaskar Goswami
Copenhagen, 11 Dec 2009

Biju Negi of PANAP, India at Copenhagen (photo: Bhaskar Goswami)

With news doing the rounds that the Danish Text was drafted after consultation with India, the emerging power is left with a lot of bad reputation in the ongoing climate negotiations.

One cannot help but feel a sense of pity for Yvo de Boer, the UN Climate Chief whose cup of woes seems to be overflowing. First came 'Climategate' which was followed by the leaked "Danish Text", though it is debatable whether de Boer personally had much to do with drafting the text since it aims to strip his organisation from most of the functions it has historically performed at the COP negotiations. Instead, the Danish proposal intends to rest it with the OECD countries.
With Denmark refusing ownership (or authorship!) of the text, de Boer has been left alone facing the ire of developing countries and civil society organisations; the latter's numbers as well as vociferous demonstrations at the Bella Center swelled manifold today.

No wonder de Boer looks gloomier than the overcast city.

Adding to his woes is a development that has brought negotiations to a grinding halt. A small island nation in the Pacific has stood up to the might of the world. Tuvalu earned the world's respect by demanding binding and immediately actionable emission cuts yesterday and the Chair had no choice but to put it on record that the negotiations are "suspended". However, the negotiations resumed soon after and everyone presumed that it is business as usual.

Tuvalu achieved the impossible by causing a suspension of COP negotiations yet again today. And this time round it is a suspension for real. Further, the Association of Small Oasis States (AOSIS) group has claimed that it has the support of 100 member countries that are against the provisions of the Danish text. In this melee, one country that has lost credibility and trust is India.

A small island nation of around 12,000 inhabitants achieved where negotiators and leaders of an emerging power - India - failed miserably. Yet again India broke bread with the sole super power of the world and sacrificed the interests of developing countries to secure a seat at the high table. It however remains to be seen whether that seat (on the UN Security Council as per Jairam Ramesh's leaked letter a month back) actually materialises. What does matter is that India today stands isolated at Copenhagen. No wonder India's Chief Negotiator, Shyam Saran, had to rush back to New Delhi to seek counsel and fresh instructions on how to get out of this mess. He is expected back at Copenhagen along with Minister Jairam Ramesh tomorrow.

There is however another viewpoint that is holding fort: the Tuvalu proposal is a fallback option of developed countries after the failure of the Danish Text. The next few days would possibly clear the fog on this issue.

Multilateral negotiations are always an opportunity for sharing "authentic and exclusive news". One such news doing the rounds today is that the Danish Text was drafted with full knowledge of and consultation with India. This is quite possible given that Jairam Ramesh had proposed something similar a month back. What is puzzling is the list of other countries that are now emerging as co-authors - Brazil, China, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Algeria. The tentacles of climate betrayal seem to have spread across continents that have virulently opposed any concessions for developed countries.

Meanwhile, newspapers today reported that the police confiscated paint bombs, shields and other gear from an empty property in the city next to which hundreds of activists are staying. While it is not clear whether any arrests have been made, Bella Centre and COP participants may not get to watch multicoloured walls… or blackened faces of negotiators who seem to have betrayed the cause for preventing further global warming. The big day however is Saturday when 60,000 demonstrators are expected to take to the streets marching from the Parliament to Bella Centre to demand a fair climate deal.

New study on Himalayan glaciers adds to climate confusion

By Swaty Prakash
10 Nov 2009

Two years back IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers were receding fast and could disappear by 2035. Now a geological study declares that such fears are irrational and not based on scientific facts.

If there was one word that encompassed feelings of confusion, rage, denial, relief and anger together, it would have best described the present state of the world's environmentalists today. The release of a government report that rubbished the global line of thought and claimed that there was no evidence of climate change causing "abnormal" shrinking of the Himalayan glaciers has left the world in quandary.

The report directly contradicts what the UN agency -the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - had said two years ago. IPCC, which evaluates the risk from global warming, had warned that the Himalayan glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could "disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner".

The Environment minister Jairam Ramesh, released the latest discussion paper "Himalayan Glaciers: A State of-Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change". The paper, brought out by V.K. Raina, former Deputy Director-General, Geological Survey of India, for the Ministry of Environment and Forests, is based on the findings of the GSI since 1956.

Glacier monitoring in the Himalayas started in the early 20th century, when GSI started making a repository of the data generated while studying 20 odd glaciers in the Himalayas. The analysis showed that most glaciers were retreating or showing degenerated conditions along the glacier front. The average annual retreat was around 5m with a few glaciers like the Pindari glaciers as exceptions which had an annual retreat of 8-10m.

Other features in the Report
All the glaciers under observation, during the last three decades of 20th century have shown cumulative negative mass balance
Degeneration of the glacier mass has been the highest in Jammu & Kashmir and the lowest in Sikkim, clearly showing a declining trend from north-west to north-east
Irrespective of latitudinal differences, glacier melt contributes to about 25% to 30% of the total discharge of glacier ice

The sediment load producing capacity of the glacier ice is to the order of 30 tonnes of ice per day per square km² during the melt season in a granite / gneissic terrain
Ice, forming a glacier in the Himalayas, in its vertical profile, can exhibit the characteristics of a cold glacier at certain levels and that of a temperate glacier at other levels

The report said that the studies also revealed that fluctuation of the glacier snout is not a simple phenomenon that can be attributed to climate change, but in fact is the result of complex regional and local phenomenon. A glacier snout, the front end of the glacier, is generally believed to reflect the health and state of a glacier. The monitoring of glaciers, sensu stricto, is restricted to the study of the glacier snout.

The report emphasises that Himalayan glaciers, although shrinking in volume and constantly showing a retreating front, have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat, of the order that some glaciers in Alaska and Greenland are reported.

In fact the Himalayas, over a period of the last 100 years, have been found to be behaving in contrasting ways. For example, Sonapani glacier has retreated by about 500m during the last one hundred years but Kangriz glacier has practically not retreated even an inch in the same period, the report said.

Siachen glacier is believed to have shown an advance of about 700m between 1862 and 1909, followed by an equally rapid retreat of around 400m between 1929 and 1958, and hardly any retreat during the last 50 years.

In yet another remarkable finding, the report claims the Gangotri glacier actually receded fastest at an average of around 20m per year till around 2000 AD but since September 2007 is "practically at a stand still". Some scientists had earlier warned that the river beds of the Gangetic Basin could run dry once glaciers go. However, such concerns are scotched by the report.

Unlike the popular understanding of the subject and the earlier researches, the report states that declaring that Himalayan glaciers are retreating abnormally due to global warming would be a hasty and premature statement. The snout movement of a glacier cannot be totally claimed to be a result of periodic climate changes unless observations is made over many centuries.

Meanwhile, environmentalists are taken aback by these latest findings. Many have said that they were unconvinced by the minister's arguments.

The IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri accuses Indian environment ministry of 'arrogance' for its report claiming there is no evidence that climate change has shrunk Himalayan glaciers.

"We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement," he was quoted as saying in an UK-based newspaper.

So while the different lobbies are fighting over which report is more comprehensive and valid, we the common men are waiting with our fingers ready, lest it be time to press the panic button or is it time already???

Economy first, Ecology last?

By Pandurang Hegde
30 Jul 2009

Riding high on its return to power, UPA government is in a hurry to accelerate India's GDP. But the economist Prime Minister will have to ensure that his overambitious economic policies do not further erode the nation's environment but perform in tandem with it.


The return of the UPA government for the second term at the Centre has had positive impact on the economy as indicated by the unprecedented buoyancy in the stock market. The phenomenon of economic liberalization initiated in the first term is bound to gather momentum during the second term. With the decimation of Left parties, the present government does not have to face the roadblock when implementing its economic and fiscal policies. The only stumbling block would be the environmental legislations that hamper the faster GDP growth.

In order to address this challenge of environment v/s economic growth, the Prime Minster has picked the smartest person from his group of ministers, Jairam Ramesh as a Minister of State for Ministry of Environment and Forests with independent charge.

After taking charge, the minister said "Environmental issues would not be allowed to become the stumbling blocks to economic growth." He clarified that the statutes and Acts that are in place for protection of environment will not be diluted, but he will make the ministry more "business like" and transparent. He also emphasized that there are clear instructions from the Prime Minister that in order to rescue the country from the economic recession, it is essential to create a favorable atmosphere towards establishing infrastructural projects.

On another occasion, Jairam Ramesh said "Mrs Sonia Gandhi has told me that the Forest Conservation Act is sacrosanct. That's the Bible for me."

Obviously, the Minister for Environment will need to satisfy two bosses who have spelled out different policy guidelines, which are contradictory. Or is it a ploy to misguide the environmental lobby? Though, we will need time to assess the impact of how these policy guidelines of the party and the PM is going to be implemented, we have the past experience of the UPA to foresee the priorities in their second term.

The policies of unbridled economic growth initiated after 1991 has had negative impact on the natural resources, especially on our basic capital of soil, water and air.

The modern granaries of India are Punjab, Haryana and irrigated parts of UP that produce wheat and rice to feed the majority of the population. However soil and water in these regions are poisoned with excessive use of chemicals and pesticides. As a result people in Punjab are facing the threat of cancer epidemic.

The food that is produced from these regions and supplied for PDS (Public Distribution System) may definitely please the people and satisfy the political bosses. However, it fails to meet the nutritional needs of the majority as it lacks in micronutrients that are essential for the survival. The deeply entrenched chemical and pesticide lobby has already caused havoc with our soil and health of the citizens of India.

Similarly in the case of water, the scarcity is not only increasing but due to global warming, the country is facing the biggest challenge to supply pure drinking water. It is ironic that 99 per cent of the rivers in our country are polluted leading to destruction of the fresh water availability. The industrial units and sewage that are drained into the rivers with total disregard to the pollution control legislations are the main culprits.

The Prime Minister would like to accelerate the process of such industrialization along rivers and the coast to boost the economic growth. This will have to be achieved only through dilution and negation of environmental statutes that have already begun. The adverse impact on the livelihood of the common man and fisher folk is to be dealt with the "inclusive growth" welfare policies for the aam admi by the state.

The time has come to address the basic issue of development, to see how we generate employment while regenerating the natural resources, not destroying it. Pumping in Rs 35,000 crores towards NREGA, as well as farm loan waiver of Rs 25,000 crore may have won the elections for the UPA, but it has not contributed towards building the basic capitals of soil and water. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Environment that is supposed to be responsible for protecting these assets has become the main agency towards its destruction.

This has happened due to the overemphasis on false economic policies that negated the contribution of ecological security. The policies that have caused destruction are hailed as success in terms of generating higher GDP, but the loss of natural resources and its negative impact is hardly taken into account. We need to learn form our neighbor Bhutan, for having evolved the unique concept of Gross National Happiness (GNH) instead of GDP. For them the ecological security is important for economic well being of its citizens. It follows the principle of "Ecology is Permanent Economy".

Unfortunately, for the UPA government led by the economist Prime Minister, the economy is the first priority. His assumption is - "once we are 'developed', the ecological concerns would be taken care of, there is no need to be cautious about the impact. We will borrow technology from developing countries to deal with the problem, and add to our GDP". That is a good strategy but unfortunately we cannot import the basic capital for our survival -- the soil and water!

Let us hope that while making addition to economy, ecology is not relegated to wilderness but gets a better deal in UPA's second innings.