Is the environment hurting GDP?

That we need economic development to meet our most pressing challenge of bringing 400-500 million citizens out of poverty and deprivation is unarguable. Economic growth is the only way to create jobs and help people achieve their aspirations. Take a poll anywhere in India today and if asked to choose,a vast majority of Indians would choose economic development over environmental protection. It’s not necessarily right,but it reflects the priorities as people see it. Wallets will win over the environment for a vast majority.

What the current debate is doing is spotlighting the nature and consequences of this economic growth. The general perception of the exploitative nature of a large number of investments has helped fuel the recent backlash against the anything-for-economic development model. However,neither is the extreme alternative practical. India is a large nation with serious challenges that have to be met through economic development. This is a given and some costs in terms of environment will have to be borne by the nation. The challenge is to quantify the environmental costs and to ensure that these are the minimum possible as we develop a more consistent approach to environmental regulation.

First,we need an alternate sustainable development model (SDM),which unlike the catchy-sounding but spending-oriented slogan of inclusive development should be defined very specifically. The crux of our SDM must be that communities determine their own fate,not a Central minister or his bureaucrat sitting miles away. Such a model will empower communities to force developers to consider the potential benefits of economic development (jobs,taxes etc) versus the potential costs to environment at each stage. So,if the tribal communities in Orissa seek to preserve their traditional lands in the way they have tilled it for generations,they would have their way. There will evolve different types of development zones. Some may prohibit development completely,others may encourage non-polluting and non-mining investments,a few may encourage mining subject to adequate returns to the local community etc. Communities that are eager to embrace economic development and creation of jobs will welcome investment,managing environment costs subject to a national framework.

Apart from this involvement of communities,there is a need for more transparent regulations. Notwithstanding the current minister’s pro-active actions,there are lingering questions: is this part of a consistent set of regulatory actions or is this political? The fact that there is such a question being posed is argument enough to move to a more credible and modern environmental regulation. A US-style Environmental

Protection Agency at central and state levels is what we need. Politicians and bureaucrats don’t make for either good or credible custodians of the environment.

The author is MP and convenor, ABIDEe task force for a better Bengaluru

Sunita Narain

The cost of repairing the damage we do to the environment is huge. So it cannot be the economy first and the environment later

The answer to the question of whether environment or industry comes first is much more clear than its counterpart concerning the chicken and the egg. It is evident that without environmental management and safeguards,there can be no development. The reason is twofold. First,development is based on natural resources—the environment,be it water or forest or land—and its degradation will invariably lead to losses for the economy. Second,the costs of repair of the damage we do to the environment,in terms of our health or in terms of pollution,are exorbitant and will also cost the economy big time. So,it cannot be GDP first and environment later. This just does not work.

But what can be negotiated is the balance that we strike in making development work. There is no doubt that industrial growth will lead to environmental damage. The question is how this damage can be averted or minimised. In other words,we have to find governance structures that are robust and credible enough to take these decisions in the interests of all.

Indian industry has erred in its understanding of the challenge of balancing the demands of development and environment. First,it has not realised that in our country,environment forms the survival base for large numbers of people. Therefore,the destruction of environment impinges on their lives. It destroys their forests,which give them firewood,building materials or livelihoods. It destroys their land,which too gives them livelihoods. It pollutes their rivers,which in turn degrades their only source of drinking water or irrigation. Protecting the environment is critical for the living economies of millions of people in India. Their occupations are as important for economic growth as industry is and must continue to be. It is also clear that today’s modern industry are not able to offer replacement economic options to the very poorest in the country. It has no business,therefore,to destroy what it can never repair.

Also,industry has never invested in improving the regulatory systems in India. In fact,in the past decade or so,as industrial growth has intensified,the aim has been to belittle the environmental clearance mechanism and to outsource and ultimately corrupt the processes of decision-making. Worse,industry has worked diligently to mock and negate the only process via which they would listen to people’s problems—the statutory public hearing,done before clearance is given to any project. So,we have a much maligned and institutionally weakened environmental regulatory system. This is not good for taking decisions which work in the interests of both industry and environment.

Finally,industry has not internalised the inherent problems of trying to fix environmental damage as it creates these problems. It still believes that it can first pollute and then clean up. But that will not work,as affordable technologies are limited in our world. The business of pollution is expensive,we must realise. The challenge of balancing the development and environment imperatives requires rethinking growth and making economies work in the interests of all. Not pitting growth against growth.

The author is director,Centre for Science and Environment