By Anubhav Mishra
The environment is not only what surrounds us, but it is also what affects our lives in every way we can think of- our life expectancy, livelihood, the standard of living, and even our rights. The right to a clean and safe environment is not recognised as a privilege but as a natural right and a healthy environment is a pre-requisite for the enjoyment of our human rights. Environmental policies of the state play a huge role in our lives but were hardly considered at par with other laws till the Supreme Court recognised the Right to Healthy Environment as a Fundamental Right in the Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar case in 1991. Due to this change, causing environmental harm is now recognised as a human rights violation by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
However, this has not deterred successive governments from ignoring the value of the judgement. Increasing pollution in India and its adverse consequences set a perfect stage for a national debate from both the public and the policymakers. Yet, the only real discussions that took place were two weeks before and after Diwali- when the destruction of our air is right in front of our eyes. Unfortunately, the human psyche does not wake up to the fact that our environment is being destroyed every single day. Our mind observes the environment either as hopeless, failed cause, or even with confidence that its destruction will not affect our generation. (Not so) Surprisingly, it will.
Imperialism and Environmental Destruction
Pre-modern forest lands were present in three categories: tribal kingdoms, undiscovered land and forested regions(for the enjoyment of the royalty). As civilizations expanded, so did their population which meant more land for farming and less land for ecological balance and biodiversity. For certain communities, forestry was equivalent to the supreme power (or in a simpler sense, God), and for a few other communities, it was their livelihood based on forest produce. These communities protected dense forests in ecologically fragile regions. This kind of a social understanding prevailed in most ancient and medieval empires. While kings promoted cultivation to feed their empires, very dense forests were either maintained by the tribes that thrived on it or self-regulated by nature itself.
By the 16th century, socio-political developments in Europe marked a departure from feudalism. Commercialization of agriculture and rural artisanship became attractive (especially in Mughal Bengal). The guild system (a guild was an association of artisans and craftsmen akin to a cartel) declined and small-scale production capitalised on the fall of these monopolies and cartels. The new value for entrepreneurship brought about industrial capitalism. The First Industrial Revolution in the 1760s created a new era of efficiency where mechanized industries replaced hand production. Textiles and other consumer goods were produced at largely affordable and competitive rates, while development in railways, iron and steel and chemicals created better public infrastructure. By the mid-19th century, the population of the world was exploding and so was the demand for commodities. Increased production and opening of markets created a huge demand for natural resources.
However, the leading industrial nations had little of these resources in their homeland, so they began exploring outside the Continent. The European powers carried out several imperialistic adventures and by early 19th century, European nation-states conquered most of Afro-Asia either by direct colonial administration or subdued through advanced military and economic influence. With the consolidation of colonial power, commercialization was introduced to increase revenue in the colonies that translated into reckless exploitation of natural resources, from the soil for agriculture to mining operations. In India for example, the destruction of forests during the colonial period was a direct result of the commercialization of the forests through the Forest Department. Such detrimental policies were also applicable to the French colonies like Madagascar. The world wars and the expedited demand for resources were met by the destruction of forests and with it the forest dwellers’ communities. Obviously, the concept of resource exploitation did not originate with colonialism and imperialism, but the process significantly fast-tracked due to imperial policies which promoted commercialization.
Even in the post-decolonization era after the Second World War in the 1950s and 1960s, the new nationalistic governments did little to protect their environment until the environmentalist movement gained traction worldwide. Concerns were raised about releasing large quantities of chemicals into our environment without fully comprehending the effects, in the form of pesticides, fertilizers and even emissions. Issues of pollution and environmental degradation posed a threat to all countries because this was not a state-centric issue. Rather environment is an issue with international dimensions. First of all, pollution in a particular will undeniably affect the neighbouring countries or the world at large and secondly, the environment is not aware of man-made borders, thus nations cannot operate in a vacuum on the issue of the environment. International cooperation was necessary and the state-centric nature had to change.
The United Nations General Assembly had passed numerous resolutions concerning the environment and that was taken as the groundwork for the countries to establish the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in the Stockholm Conference in 1972. While the developing countries did not particularly cheer at the idea, their support ensured that the UNEP could engage in constructive activities. The UNEP played an important role in the development of various multilateral environmental agreements like the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and with it the 1987 Montreal Protocol. As a result of these treaties, in particular, the production of ozone-depleting substances has been slowly reducing and the ozone holes slowly recovering.
The exact role and direct effect of these agreements are debatable but the symbolic nature of these agreements cannot (and should not) be discounted. The treaties provided an impetus to environmentalist movements within the nations.
Environment and ‘Development’
Everyone in the 1960s and 1970s (just like today) wanted the economy to expand, and for economic development, some environmental disruption was justified. The neo-liberal consensus believed that the decision on a particular development plan or project should take place on a case-by-case basis through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Simply put, EIAs are legal instruments that analyse the environmental consequences of a plan, policy or project. The advocates of EIA believed that expert-based scientific assessments and public participation would provide the best of science and democracy. EIA became the tool for the global sustainability drive. By the 1990s, EIAs had become an important condition imposed by International Financial Institution, and in some cases, even national banks. The United States recognised the tool in 1969, the European Economic Community (a predecessor to the European Union) in 1985, and India in 1995.
Several interest-groups termed it as an over-regulation, while the government has defended the concept as a necessity. EIAs, since the 1980s, have formed the bedrock of implementation of environmental law throughout the world. Public consultation is meant to provide a platform to the people whom a project would directly impact, and to allow the people and the developer to legally engage. While the law has been severely misused and flouted in nearly all countries, it is mostly due to the low priority and lack of implementation on the part of the state, not because the concept is flawed.
Modern environmental laws also apply to industries, specifically in cases of industrial disasters. Countries apply ‘strict liability’ to address non-compliance in industrial disaster cases (strict liability is a principle where aa company is at fault for environmental disasters even though without his/her fault). India, however, uses an ‘absolute liability’ principle where the standard is higher than ‘strict liability’. Usage of such a high standard for scrutiny of environmental law has led to an overall reduction in the number of industrial disasters worldwide.
India’s Environmental (F)laws
The Indian government passed the Environment Protection Act in 1986, 2 years after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy was an industrial disaster caused due to negligence and inadequate regulations. The 1986 Act was an umbrella law to implement various other laws like the Forest Conservation Act, the Air Act and Water Act. It was interesting to observe that the law was made under Article 253 of the Indian Constitution which confers treaty-making powers on Parliament, thus the government implemented the decisions of the Stockholm Conference in 1972. Other laws have been passed to prevent exploitation of Scheduled Tribes, especially in Scheduled Areas (areas where tribal population is predominant) and through the protection of their collective rights over land, the law has protected the ecological systems prevalent in several tribe-dominated regions. Even the Supreme Court (in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India) laid out the principle of ‘absolute liability’ for industrial disasters.
Even though the principles are very progressive, the implementation is inadequate, faulty and regulations are known to be flouted. Lack of accountability has crept in as a norm. There is a need for better implementation of the laws with better transparency and accountability. Inconsistent application of environmental laws hurt the country’s economy-at-large because big businesses have enough resources at their disposal to engage in lobbying efforts or court hearings, but small and medium-sized firms working in the same industry do not have the same amount of resources. Inconsistent application of laws hurts the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, which not only employ more people but also create a competitive industry to the benefit of both consumers and labour markets. Vague environmental laws and the politicization of a scientific discipline must be discouraged to protect the ‘very soul of the Indian economy’, that is a small or medium-sized business which can make India ‘Atmanirbhar’. However, that in no way translates into removing the regulations altogether.
The government’s draft Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2020 removes essential regulations that are not just required for typical environmental needs, but also industrial disasters. Removing the last resort against mismanagement of natural resources with exemptions and weaker safeguards is atrocious on nature. Reducing the level of scrutiny on industries may or may not improve the manufacturing capability, but it will increase the number of industrial disasters.
The EIA framework, even in its present form has failed to address the issue of safety and negligence. In just a couple of months, India witnessed no less than 3 industrial disasters: the Vishakhapatnam Gas Leak, Neyveli Boiler Blast and the Oil India blowout. Lowering the standard of regulations cannot address an implementation issue. 2 out of the 3 above-mentioned disasters (the Vizag Gas Leak and the Oil India blowout) were projects that flouted EIA guidelines. This is an example of the chaos inconsistent laws create.
Economic and Environmental Recovery
Contrary to popular belief, the coronavirus pandemic is not leading to a resurgence of nature. A recession is contracting industrial activity which in turn means less pollution and cleaner air and water, but that is not forever. When economies recover by early 2021, pollution is set to rise. Illegal activities violating environment and wildlife norms will rise because of the poverty caused by the pandemic.
However, a recession demands a more active and decisive government. In a time when unemployment is sky-rocketing and consumer demand has suffocated, a green model of recovery could help in allaying the effects of the downturn. A well-thought-out plan for the conservation of forests and a fundamental shift towards renewable energy sectors can create a huge amount of jobs with adequate training. It will put money in people’s hands along with real jobs when they need it the most and revive industrial demand. It will allow people to live a fuller life in a cleaner and safer environment. The human species have limited knowledge on various subjects, one of them is the very environment we live in. None can fully comprehend the idea of ecological balance, but its disruption can create the worst disasters in recorded history.
Accordingly, humans must use natural resources for our progress and economic development, but not overstep the boundaries established by customs and legal principles that have stood the test of time. Systematic mismanagement of resources incurs a debt to nature, which must be paid by the future generations. Deregulation may inflate the GDP numbers in a short-run, but there is no long-run without the environment. Unlike humans, nature does not discriminate, neither does its wrath.
References:
1. Padukone, N. (2010). Climate Change in India: Forgotten Threats, Forgotten Opportunities. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(22), 47-54. Retrieved July 17, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/27807078
2. Guha, R. (1983). Colonialism, Capitalism and Deforestation. Social Scientist, 11(4), 61-64. Retrieved July 17, 2020, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3517025
3. Economic and Political Weekly Editorial. (May 2, 2020). Undemocratic Evasion of Environmental Responsibility. Economic and Political Weekly, (18). https://www.epw.in/journal/2020/18/editorials/undemocratic-evasion-environmental-responsibility.html
4. Economic and Political Weekly Editorial. (May 2, 2020). Undemocratic Evasion of Environmental Responsibility. Economic and Political Weekly, (18). https://www.epw.in/journal/2020/18/editorials/undemocratic-evasion-environmental-responsibility.html
5. Menon, M. & Kohli, K. (June 24, 2020). EIA Legitimised Environmental Destruction. Now Govt ‘Renovates’ it for the Worst. The Wire Science. https://science.thewire.in/environment/eia-2020-environmental-degradation-draft/
6. Friedman, L. & Rosen, J. (June 17, 2020). The Environmental Justice Wake-Up Call. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/climate/climate-environmental-justice.html
7. The Hindu Editorial. (July 2, 2020). Lax on safety: On Neyveli and Visakhapatnam disasters. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/lax-on-safety-the-hindu-editorial-on-nevveli-and-vizag-industrial-disasters/article31965538.ece
Comments