The agenda for environment

The ministry of environment and forests got a new minister, Jairam Ramesh, who took charge just a few days before World Environment Day on June 5. Recognised for his penchant for infrastructure growth and the role of industry, it came as little surprise that most TV media channels on June 5 focused their debates on the prospects for India’s environment and forests under such a proponent of economic growth — especially when he was widely interpreted as having stated that the environment would not be an impediment to economic growth!

“The environment ministry is being seen as a regulatory hurdle in the process of the economic growth,” said Ramesh after taking charge of this ministry, which evoked cheers from the industry and choked the environmentalists. In the same breath, he clarified that this would not amount to a dilution of any standards, but that he would aim to make the system time-bound and transparent. But the damage was done by the headlines. In a similar fashion, almost a full week later, in another media interview the minister said, “Ecological security in a framework that promotes economic growth is what the country is looking for.” This statement clearly indicates that the minister considers ecological security to be secondary to economic growth. His statement would have been more appropriate had he said ‘economic growth that takes place while preserving our ecological security is what the country is looking for!’

The issue is not so much with the semantics as it is with the message that is being conveyed as also the signal on our understanding of long-term sustainable growth versus short-term economic gains. Prime minister Manmohan Singh in a flurry of messages to different ministries/levels of government last week has delightfully stressed the need for better coordination among them. His message, delivered in no uncertain terms, must be heeded by his colleagues. After all, it is the prime minister’s office, which is reported to have requested the ministry of statistics and programme implementation to work out a system of computing India’s green GDP. An estimation of green GDP should lay bare the manner in which India is exploiting its wealth (stock) of natural resources to generate a flow of services for short-term gains. The minister for environment should reassure the people of India that his ministry is safeguarding their current health as also the future of their coming generations.

Fortunately, and in a relatively short period of time, the ministry of environment and forests has started signalling its intent to take its job seriously and more professionally than in the past. The emphasis on tiger conservation, protecting India’s coastal zones, development of biospheres, forest protection and the setting up of an environmental protection agency are all steps in the right direction. Such a flurry of announcements is possibly unprecedented for this ministry and the environmentalist in all of us should wish all such efforts the best of success. It is, undoubtedly, true that India has an extremely robust legal framework in place to protect its environment — it is the compliance and enforcement mechanisms that need to be strengthened. Additionally, a key initiative would be the complete overhaul of the ineffective environmental appraisal process adopted at present for developmental activities. The state environmental institutions that have been languishing in ignominy should seize the opportunity to stand up and be counted.

A key test that the new minister will have to face very soon is that of climate change. With the next Conference of Parties scheduled for Copenhagen in December 2009 with the critical mandate of carrying climate commitments forward, the minister would, even in the run up to Copenhagen, have to quickly come to terms with all the nuances of this extremely complex debate. The issue at stake would not be only about whether India takes on any commitments or not. At stake would be India’s leadership position vis-à-vis both the developing countries as well as the world, at stake would be the government’s credibility among its own population and their belief in its ability to protect their long-term interest — relating to both mitigation actions and adaptation, and at stake would be the future of humanity!