Mrudul Godbole
12-08-2012, 03:13 PM
‘The concept of progress now is illusory’
Published: Thursday, Aug 9, 2012, 11:20 IST
The genial, lanky man who opens the door to greet you hardly looks like one who should be in the thick of a controversy. But the report of a panel chaired by Madhav Gadgil is today at the centre of a heated debate — that originally hinged on the Western Ghats, but has since been enlarged. Gadgil, in a free-wheeling interview with Subir Ghosh, dwells at length on the Ghats and minces no words about the so-called schism between development and environment.
The report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), which was chaired by you, is in cold storage. After all the work, where do you stand now?
I think I managed to get a very good response, at least from civil society, besides some people in the administration as well as the political system. And possibly, for the first time, a lot of people are reading what has been very objectively recorded about what has happened (in the Western Ghats over the years). I see the report, apart from its specific recommendations, as being a fairly comprehensive documentation. This is something I think is worthwhile. It should reach out to people. Many people, especially the urban middle classes who certainly play a role in terms of public pressure, are simply not aware of the facts on the ground. Our report attempts to get this information out to people. It has certainly got people thinking. I think, in a way, it was a very good thing that they (the government) did not release it to the public, leading to demands that it should be released because people were very curious. Come to think of it, I was looking at a website a few days back and I was surprised to see that a private coaching centre for competitive exams had questions about the Ghats in a sample set. And, mind you, this was for a clerical grade exam for banks. So, if people studying for clerical positions in banks are aware of the issue, I must imagine there is a large number of people who must now be abreast with the (Western Ghats) issue. This is bound to be positive response from the government in the long run. I don’t think it can be dismissed that readily. This may lead to some debate and developments. Even the political class seems to have been taking cognisance. Let’s see what happens.
In other words, if not anything, people are definitely more aware of the Western Ghats issue, by and large?
Definitely. A Malayalam language weekly in Kerala dedicated an entire issue devoted to the Western Ghats developments. Many of the panel members too contributed to the edition. I myself keep writing in a number of Marathi publications. There are some publications that are planning thematic special issues too. By seeing more people becoming aware, the government will eventually have to act.
Given the range of recommendations in the report, many of them were even seen as very stringent. Do you think it was too much for the governments (the Union and states) to take?
The mandate itself was very clear, and we did not step outside the mandate at all. The mandate, among other things, included making recommendations about ecologically sensitive zones, their delineation, etc. The panel’s report has been accepted, though not acted upon. The conclusions were evident. But we certainly realised that all of it cannot be set aside, like those pertaining to the protected areas. We have suggested a set of guidelines, and we have also talked about a starting point for a grassroots level debate. And these are not to be taken as final. A people-oriented process should be set in motion to decide on the exact measures that need to be put in place. It was not a question just of regulatory measures; we have also made a lot of promotional suggestions. One of the positive steps that all the governments can readily accept is to start giving farmers special payments like Australia does for sequestering carbon in the soil. These are things where there is no question of being stringent. Maybe it goes against the interests of the chemicals and fertilisers industry, which is what the government wants to support (and not the farmers). But they cannot openly say that. This apart, we had pointed out that there are a number of laws which are being violated. We need proper monitoring of what is happening and we must have a system in place which will be effective.
Since you mention governments, which one do you think was the most vocal in going against the WGEEP report?
None of them have communicated anything directly to me. Going just by newspaper reports, it is very difficult to judge. For instance, in Karnataka, they seem to be talking more about the UNESCO’s World Heritage Site (WHS) status to the Ghats than our report.
You talk of UNESCO. Do you think there was a contradiction in the approach of the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF)? On one hand, it wanted the UNESCO tag, and on the other it wants to sit on the WGEEP report.
In a way, they are now under moral pressure to look at our report seriously. Because the WHS status calls for a much more limited measures. The Ghats need a much more comprehensive strategy.
One IUCN status report even called for the implementation of the report…
The IUCN recommendations were very clear that it would not like the status to be granted without the government initiating serious action on our report.
But somehow the government pulled it off at the St Petersburg meeting…
I have participated in these (inter-governmental) meetings. I was once the chairman of the science and technology panel of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). So I have seen how these international negotiations are conducted. It is all a political game, and the country representatives lobby and may (or may not) end up getting anything. It is not any kind of straightforward honest transaction.
So the WGEEP report too has become another political game?
(laughs) Maybe.
I’ll come back to the UNESCO factor. One of the criticisms from civil society was that communities were not consulted during the process. On the other hand, your report dwells at length on community participation in decision-making. How do you react to that?
That is the way the ministry’s group which prepared the UNESCO proposal functioned. But the IUCN report was transparent in admitting that there were no consultations. Out of the 39 sites, they had only a single consultation in Satara, Maharashtra. That too was a superficial consultation. One of the persons in that team had earlier been with the UNEP and knew how to impress and lobby. He projected the proposal as if there had been hectic consultations. It made no sense. But that was apparently bought by various governmental representatives at St Petersburg. But yes, I am personally happy with the UNESCO tag. That’s because it puts additional pressure on the government to do something.
And then it becomes an international obligation to protect the Ghats?
Yes, it does.
The government had called for responses from the public after finally putting up the WGEEP report on the website. And then the MoEF said that another panel would look into your panel’s report. Given this messy situation, what’s going to happen?
Many have communicated to me that this 45-day consultation with this Internet-accessing, English-speaking sections of the people is extremely inadequate. The report should be translated into local languages and enough time given for the people to respond. Most of the people on the ground do not know English, and fewer have access to Internet. You need a more genuine and broader consultation. As a beginning this is good. But it is inadequate too. The same has been stressed in a number of responses to the ministry, which were copied to me. Let’s see what happens now.
One talks of the government, what about governance itself?
This is a perspective that we must take on board. Currently, our industry is addicted to making easy money by being allowed to flout laws. I understand that there are thermal projects (in the Ghats area) that have imported polluting technologies that are already banned in Europe. You get it cheap and bring it to India, and flout India’s environmental laws. Because the administration is so corrupt you can get away with it and make a lot of money. It is wrong to think that such a culture can be a base for industrial growth. We already have a major balance of payments problem. We export goods worth Rs 60 for every Rs 100 that we import. We are meeting the deficit, so to speak, through FDI and that investment comes only because we allow abuse of environment and social justice, besides allowing these large profits. Our exports will suffer further because countries in the West are already pulling us up for flouting environmental and labour norms, for instance. This imbalance will grow if we persist in this culture. We have to have proper industrial conduct. Our report has an entire section on environmental misgovernance. We have to start governing ourselves well, if we have to ever think of making progress. The concept of progress is illusory right now.
And so, you think the development versus environment debate will become more strident in the coming days?
Only if you accept a completely false definition of development. Read the writings of development economists. Amartya Sen, for instance, repeatedly says that 8% growth is not really development. As he says in one of his books, development is freedom from hunger, pollution, unemployment. There has to be a greater facility for people to engage in the political and social decision-making processes. None of these things is happening in this mad pursuit of 8% growth. I don’t think you should call it development.
Published: Thursday, Aug 9, 2012, 11:20 IST
The genial, lanky man who opens the door to greet you hardly looks like one who should be in the thick of a controversy. But the report of a panel chaired by Madhav Gadgil is today at the centre of a heated debate — that originally hinged on the Western Ghats, but has since been enlarged. Gadgil, in a free-wheeling interview with Subir Ghosh, dwells at length on the Ghats and minces no words about the so-called schism between development and environment.
The report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), which was chaired by you, is in cold storage. After all the work, where do you stand now?
I think I managed to get a very good response, at least from civil society, besides some people in the administration as well as the political system. And possibly, for the first time, a lot of people are reading what has been very objectively recorded about what has happened (in the Western Ghats over the years). I see the report, apart from its specific recommendations, as being a fairly comprehensive documentation. This is something I think is worthwhile. It should reach out to people. Many people, especially the urban middle classes who certainly play a role in terms of public pressure, are simply not aware of the facts on the ground. Our report attempts to get this information out to people. It has certainly got people thinking. I think, in a way, it was a very good thing that they (the government) did not release it to the public, leading to demands that it should be released because people were very curious. Come to think of it, I was looking at a website a few days back and I was surprised to see that a private coaching centre for competitive exams had questions about the Ghats in a sample set. And, mind you, this was for a clerical grade exam for banks. So, if people studying for clerical positions in banks are aware of the issue, I must imagine there is a large number of people who must now be abreast with the (Western Ghats) issue. This is bound to be positive response from the government in the long run. I don’t think it can be dismissed that readily. This may lead to some debate and developments. Even the political class seems to have been taking cognisance. Let’s see what happens.
In other words, if not anything, people are definitely more aware of the Western Ghats issue, by and large?
Definitely. A Malayalam language weekly in Kerala dedicated an entire issue devoted to the Western Ghats developments. Many of the panel members too contributed to the edition. I myself keep writing in a number of Marathi publications. There are some publications that are planning thematic special issues too. By seeing more people becoming aware, the government will eventually have to act.
Given the range of recommendations in the report, many of them were even seen as very stringent. Do you think it was too much for the governments (the Union and states) to take?
The mandate itself was very clear, and we did not step outside the mandate at all. The mandate, among other things, included making recommendations about ecologically sensitive zones, their delineation, etc. The panel’s report has been accepted, though not acted upon. The conclusions were evident. But we certainly realised that all of it cannot be set aside, like those pertaining to the protected areas. We have suggested a set of guidelines, and we have also talked about a starting point for a grassroots level debate. And these are not to be taken as final. A people-oriented process should be set in motion to decide on the exact measures that need to be put in place. It was not a question just of regulatory measures; we have also made a lot of promotional suggestions. One of the positive steps that all the governments can readily accept is to start giving farmers special payments like Australia does for sequestering carbon in the soil. These are things where there is no question of being stringent. Maybe it goes against the interests of the chemicals and fertilisers industry, which is what the government wants to support (and not the farmers). But they cannot openly say that. This apart, we had pointed out that there are a number of laws which are being violated. We need proper monitoring of what is happening and we must have a system in place which will be effective.
Since you mention governments, which one do you think was the most vocal in going against the WGEEP report?
None of them have communicated anything directly to me. Going just by newspaper reports, it is very difficult to judge. For instance, in Karnataka, they seem to be talking more about the UNESCO’s World Heritage Site (WHS) status to the Ghats than our report.
You talk of UNESCO. Do you think there was a contradiction in the approach of the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF)? On one hand, it wanted the UNESCO tag, and on the other it wants to sit on the WGEEP report.
In a way, they are now under moral pressure to look at our report seriously. Because the WHS status calls for a much more limited measures. The Ghats need a much more comprehensive strategy.
One IUCN status report even called for the implementation of the report…
The IUCN recommendations were very clear that it would not like the status to be granted without the government initiating serious action on our report.
But somehow the government pulled it off at the St Petersburg meeting…
I have participated in these (inter-governmental) meetings. I was once the chairman of the science and technology panel of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). So I have seen how these international negotiations are conducted. It is all a political game, and the country representatives lobby and may (or may not) end up getting anything. It is not any kind of straightforward honest transaction.
So the WGEEP report too has become another political game?
(laughs) Maybe.
I’ll come back to the UNESCO factor. One of the criticisms from civil society was that communities were not consulted during the process. On the other hand, your report dwells at length on community participation in decision-making. How do you react to that?
That is the way the ministry’s group which prepared the UNESCO proposal functioned. But the IUCN report was transparent in admitting that there were no consultations. Out of the 39 sites, they had only a single consultation in Satara, Maharashtra. That too was a superficial consultation. One of the persons in that team had earlier been with the UNEP and knew how to impress and lobby. He projected the proposal as if there had been hectic consultations. It made no sense. But that was apparently bought by various governmental representatives at St Petersburg. But yes, I am personally happy with the UNESCO tag. That’s because it puts additional pressure on the government to do something.
And then it becomes an international obligation to protect the Ghats?
Yes, it does.
The government had called for responses from the public after finally putting up the WGEEP report on the website. And then the MoEF said that another panel would look into your panel’s report. Given this messy situation, what’s going to happen?
Many have communicated to me that this 45-day consultation with this Internet-accessing, English-speaking sections of the people is extremely inadequate. The report should be translated into local languages and enough time given for the people to respond. Most of the people on the ground do not know English, and fewer have access to Internet. You need a more genuine and broader consultation. As a beginning this is good. But it is inadequate too. The same has been stressed in a number of responses to the ministry, which were copied to me. Let’s see what happens now.
One talks of the government, what about governance itself?
This is a perspective that we must take on board. Currently, our industry is addicted to making easy money by being allowed to flout laws. I understand that there are thermal projects (in the Ghats area) that have imported polluting technologies that are already banned in Europe. You get it cheap and bring it to India, and flout India’s environmental laws. Because the administration is so corrupt you can get away with it and make a lot of money. It is wrong to think that such a culture can be a base for industrial growth. We already have a major balance of payments problem. We export goods worth Rs 60 for every Rs 100 that we import. We are meeting the deficit, so to speak, through FDI and that investment comes only because we allow abuse of environment and social justice, besides allowing these large profits. Our exports will suffer further because countries in the West are already pulling us up for flouting environmental and labour norms, for instance. This imbalance will grow if we persist in this culture. We have to have proper industrial conduct. Our report has an entire section on environmental misgovernance. We have to start governing ourselves well, if we have to ever think of making progress. The concept of progress is illusory right now.
And so, you think the development versus environment debate will become more strident in the coming days?
Only if you accept a completely false definition of development. Read the writings of development economists. Amartya Sen, for instance, repeatedly says that 8% growth is not really development. As he says in one of his books, development is freedom from hunger, pollution, unemployment. There has to be a greater facility for people to engage in the political and social decision-making processes. None of these things is happening in this mad pursuit of 8% growth. I don’t think you should call it development.