The problems of development in India are exceedingly complex. There is an intricate nexus between development and environment as development is based on natural resources.
Development requires use of natural resources - that often leads to excessive depletion and degradation.
Excessive depletion of resources happens when drawals are intensive and not within the limits of resource rejuvenation and hence threaten resource sustainability.
Degradation is often a result of poor infrastructure and weak enforcement of laws and regulations. Degradation happens due to uncontrolled release of pollutants.
Natural resources are our capital or assets. Natural resources include not just water, soil or land, forests or fuel reserves but also biodiversity and our air sheds. The latter two components are often forgotten and not considered in the "ecological accounting". We are doing pretty badly on the natural asset management in general. Problem often compounded is how do we "monetize" these assets that people and decision makers understand.
Its logical that protection, conservation and enhancement of natural resources should be an inclusive activity in the overall canvas of development. In fact, actions for sustainable management of our natural resources, should be part of any development plan be at policy, plan, program and project levels. That is a common sense but often uncommon in practice.
There is no separate consideration therefore on development and environment. There is nothing like development vs environment. Environment has to be inclusive, to guide and propel sustainable development.
We find that debates are often held to stop development for the interest of environment. This is logical when the paradigm of development has a weak environmental perspective. Compromising on environment in such instances should be highly discouraged as any "injury" or "damage" to the environment can question the very sustainability of development.
So, when development plans are proposed that disregard the environment, we should be careful to decide whether we want the development to happen in an environmentally unsound manner at all, or do we go for development only on economic grounds - and limited to short term returns.
We certainly should not. It does not make an economic sense.
Damage to environment has cost implications. Resources when severely depleted are no longer available and cost much more. Degraded resources need "corrective" measures that require substantial investments. And then there are adverse impacts on health, ecosystems and economic activities like agriculture where costs incur and productivity suffers. Above all, there are public protests, reputation risks and possibilities of pulling out of investors on the principles of environmental ethics.
We need to be sure therefore whether the management of natural resources is an integral part of the development plan. Resources management must be sustainable and appropriate infrastructure and institutional arrangements for monitoring and enforcement should be in place. This will ensure that resource depletion and degradation are minimal and do not harm the wholesomeness of the environment and so the development economy.
In fact, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process has been developed for this very purpose. Ideally, tool of EIA is to be used concurrently to prepare the project/program/plan. When done so, EIA helps to integrate environmental considerations right from project/program concept to design and to implementation.
The EIA process allows public participation and scrutiny and hence the development plan enjoys social acceptability and social inclusion. Higher forms of EIA such as Regional EIAs (that are not legislated in India) add a great value as here we consider impacts on a regional scale and on a cumulative basis considering the carrying capacity of the environment or the regional resource base. Strategic EIAs (legislated in countries like China) provide inclusion of environmental and social considerations at policy level or most upstream.
Unfortunately, in India, EIA is still considered as a "permitting" tool and more of a "terminal process" - and further limited only to appraisal of projects and not of plans and policies. There are very few examples where EIA is concurrently followed by the developer.
It is not surprising therefore that there are instances when the development project has to be rejected as environmental considerations are not well factored.
Note that reasons of rejection should not be viewed as only environmental and social but environmental, social and economic. Any compromises on the front of environment or natural resources has its costs and associated risks that can question viability, effectiveness and sustainability of the proposed investments.
So, indeed one finds that on occasions rejecting a proposal on a development project or a plan is worth for the sake of environment (and for the development project itself!). Understanding the true spirit of tools like EIA and ensuring its good practice will only lead to less of such situations and help us to move towards smart sustainable growth.
Recent Comments