I really have no problem with the World Bank
I write this because of the continued ineptness of its policies. It makes us lose time and direction again and again. Just look at the latest so called water privatisation programme of the Bank and
Search Results
-
-
Talk technology, not subsidies, to benefit the poor
The C Rangarajan committee to review prices of petroleum products says that the government should increase the price of liquefied petroleum gas lpg
-
The poor? They are the government's problem
Everybody knows one hand of the government does not know what the other is up to. But it does make a difference when a proposed programme of the government contradicts and, perhaps, even fatally
-
Old-style corruption better?
A journalist from the International Herald Tribune asked my opinion about what he called modern forms of lobbying that us multinatio nals operating in India engaged in. He was investigating
-
2006: The waterloo year
<img src="image/20070115/5.jpg" align="right"> THE year 2006 will go down as environment's watershed year. This is not because this year we have had extraordinary success in environmental management; there was also no environmental disaster <i>per se</i>. This year must be remembered because the task of environmental management has come to be even more contested and even more challenged. Protests against environmental degradation have grown. But so have efforts to deny environmental concerns or to dilute regulations.
-
When markets do work
Some innovations change lives. A favourite of mine is the village milk collection system, a cooperative model. There s a dairy in the village, people bring in milk, the dairy in
-
Bottled water costs us the earth
The botted water industry is global in nature. But it is designed to sell the same product to two completely different markets one water rich and the other water scarce. The question is whether this
-
Witness to opposition (Editorial)
Every chair of the community hall of the Shree Shantadurga temple in South Goa's Quepem taluka was taken. In a few minutes, the public hearing for Shakti bauxite mines was to begin. Then there arose a whisper: the temple had objected to the hearing being held in their premises; it was being called off. It was the second time the hearing was convened and this time, too, the villagers told us, the 30-day notice rule had been violated. The panchayats were informed just two days ago that people should state their objections, if any, to the expansion plan of the bauxite mine-an increase in production from 0.1 million tonnes per year to 1 million tonnes, requiring an increase in mining area from 26 ha to 826 ha-in this forest- paddy region of Goa's hinterland. From the open window I could see a large police battalion gathering. The whisper grew to a shout. Hefty transporters- owners of trucks to carry the bauxite-were shouting the expansion must be cleared. Within minutes, villagers responded. The voices became more strident; both sides were close to a fight. Things settled only when the local MLA insisted with district officials that the hearing be held as scheduled. The hearing began. The company was requested to explain its project-a Powerpoint presentation in English was simultaneously translated into Konkani. A lot of fluff and technical verbiage followed: the geology of the region; the drilling techniques to be used; how bauxite was critical to the country's development; how all clearances had been granted for extension of the mining lease; and how the company would ensure that environmental damage was mitigated at all costs. Listening to the presentation, everything seemed taken care of. The company would stabilize waste dumps by planting trees, backfilling the pits so that rejects were minimized; it would not breach the groundwater table and, to top it all, it would set aside money for environmental management. But this was before the residents- from politicians to villagers to church representatives-got up to speak. They ripped through the environmental impact assessment report prepared by an unknown consultant. They explained the company had got the number of people living in the area, and even the existing land use, completely wrong. The company claimed most of the land it would mine was 'wasteland'. This, people explained, was a lie because the company was eyeing communidade land (common land) they intensively used for agriculture or grazing livestock. Thus, mining here would massively harm them, a fact completely neglected in the environmental impact assessment. As speaker after speaker rose, it became awfully clear that even though the mine was coming up in the backyard of these people, the statutory environmental impact assessment could simply gloss over what would happen to people's land, forests, water or livelihood. I then checked the report. There was not even a map that identified for me habitations or agricultural fields. The report said, rather glibly, there were no surface waterbodies in the vicinity of the project. It then concluded the project's use of water, for spraying on roads and pits, would have no impact on availability for people. The river Sal, some distance away, was discussed for environmental impacts; even the Arabian Sea. But the numerous village streams, which flow from the hills and irrigate the fields found no mention. At the hearing, villagers counted the streams. The area used to be extremely water- scarce. But the government spent substantial money under the national watershed programme to build check dams, plant trees and increase water recharge. As a result there was now enough water for good harvests. Villagers wanted to know why the same government, which had first invested in improving their water security, was now hell-bent on pushing an activity that would destroy their lives. I wasn't surprising when all those gathered agreed unanimously that the mines must not be allowed under any circumstance. The people said the regulatory clearances-the mine closure plan, the mine management plan-were worthless or even fraudulent. The company, already mining in the area on much smaller land, had flouted every existing condition, broken every trust. Life, they said, was already a living hell because of this small mine; what would happen if it expanded? More land taken, more streams destroyed, more rejects piled high for rains to turn into silt? The questions we must ask are: how could the regulatory institutions even consider giving clearances for an expanded mine area without first checking the company's compliance record? Does this not speak of the weak and non-existent capacities of our regulators to manage the mines so that local or regional environmental damage is minimized? Does this not suggest that people who live in these areas are doomed, because once clearance is given there is nobody to check if the stipulated conditions are met? Should I be surprised I was witness to complete opposition by people to the project? What next? My colleague Chandra Bhushan tells me the rest is fairly predictable. The minutes of this public hearing will be sent to the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. Its expert committee will deliberate, or sit, on the matter for a few months (as it is controversial). Then it will call the company to explain how it will take into account the issues raised by the people. An improved Powerpoint presentation will be made by another consultant; more deliberations will follow; new conditions will be laid down. With these conditions the expanded mine will be cleared, people's opposition be damned. I hope he is wrong. Let's track this one. The future might be different. Writer is Director, Centre for Science and Environment
-
Till the very last rupee
The budget this year provided 15 per cent higher allocation for health and 20 per cent for education. However, this may not mean that more children will learn to read or write or more doctors will be available at public health centres. In the present context, outlays are supposed to be considered ends in themselves. While higher outlays are welcome, there is an urgent need to measure outcomes, the actual effectiveness of a government scheme. A clear index of deliverables is what will lead to other reforms: rewarding states that are doing it right and implementing mid-course correction in areas where the scheme fails to take off. A paragraph towards the end of this year's budget speech shows that the government is beginning to wake up to this need: "I think we do not pay enough attention to outcomes as we do to outlays; or to physical targets as we do to financial targets; or to quality as we do to quantity. Government therefore proposes to put in place a Central Plan Schemes Monitoring System (CPSMS) that will be implemented as a Plan scheme of the Planning Commission.' It is heartening to see an acknowledgement of a long-felt void. As the government disburses more money, there is an even greater need to track it better, to find out a rupee's worth in intervention A versus B or its performance in different states. For now, one has to depend on a few private NGOs/research institutions who fulfill this need: For example, Pratham, an NGO working in the field of primary education, comes out with an annual survey called ASER that has some startling findings on Sarva Siksha Abhiyaan, a Centrally-sponsored programme that aims to put all children into school, even in the remotest parts of India. They found the number of days a teacher is actually teaching in class is abysmally low. They had a percentage for children who are in secondary school but can neither read nor write. There is no government agency that comes up with similar data. India is wasting precious resources if teachers are not found in classrooms after two decades of the existence of this "flagship programme'. The government did make an effort to come out with an "outcome budget' but, according to experts, it was not even worth the paper it was written on. It had never-ending tables with targets achieved in the form of numbers. Drinking water reports had data on the number of taps and villages covered but not the quality, quality and availability of water that is distributed. The outcome budget stops short of measuring important aspects like absenteeism and who is accessing these services created by these schemes. Anyone reading it will be no wiser if she wants to find out where to put the money the next year. Once government has evolved the mechanism of measuring these outcomes, it can take the next step: link performance with outlays for states. Infant mortality rate, extent of immunisation, literacy for women, feeding programmes should be systematically collated to form a clear index. Central share of the scheme's money should be transferred based on the performance of states on this index. The fuzziness on performance has another implication too: the government is not able to under-take mid-course correction. For example, the Supreme Court has asked the government to universalise the Integrated Child Development Programme. With no improvement in malnourishment figures for children, which are higher than that of Sub-Saharan Africa, there is clearly something wrong. The government is starting from scratch in trying to figure out what is going wrong. A fresh committee has been set up to brainstorm, without any data to arrive at clear answers. The number of anganwadis set up each of the last five years, state-wise, is available. But it has no information on whether the anganwadi worker actually comes there, feeds children in the 0-6 age group with supplementary nutrition, takes care of their health and immunisation needs and pays special attention to malnourished children. N.C. Saxena, who is a court-appointed commissioner for monitoring the mid-day meals and the ICDS programme, is a strong votary for measuring outcomes versus outlays. In an article, he goes as far as to suggest action against officers who indulge in bogus reporting of figures. For instance, in Uttar Pradesh, the number of fully immunised children being reported by the state government was almost 100 per cent in 2002-03. A rapid household survey found only 30 per cent of children to be fully immunised. "Such cases of flagrant over-reporting should not go unpunished,' he says, stressing on the need for independent agencies verifying data for the government and then disseminating it widely. Such steps will need a complete change in bureaucratic mindset. This signal from the finance minister, hopefully, will not go unnoticed if India is serious about inclusive growth.
-
Farm loan waiver: a closer look and critique (editorial)
A. Vaidyanathan Loan waivers are at best temporary palliatives to the problems facing rural India. Regrettably, the powers that be and the powers that want to be have rarely been willing to confront the difficult and complex problems. The decision to waive farm loans on an unprecedented scale announced in the latest Budget has attracted widespread comment. Almost all political parties have welcomed the move. In fact, most of them were vociferously clamouring for such a measure to relieve the farm sector from a "crushing' burden of debt. The Budget speech has announced the decision to waive farm loans and also estimated the cost (Rs. 60,000 crore) that government has to bear. It does not spel l out the basis of the estimate nor of the institutions, loan categories, and class of borrowers that will be covered by the scheme. Several aspects need to be clarified: 1. By definition, the scheme can apply only to those who have outstanding loans with institutions. Nearly three-fourths of all rural households and 60 per cent of farm households report that they do not have any outstanding debt. All households with outstanding debt may not have outstanding institutional debt. Thus the large majority of even farmers will not benefit from the waiver. If only farmer loans are eligible, the proportion of beneficiaries will be even smaller. 2. Both access to institutional credit and the proportion of outstanding debt are skewed in favour of larger farms. Cultivator households with less than 2 hectares account for 85 per cent of all farm households; and report a lower incidence of debt (46 per cent) and of outstanding debt (30 per cent) than the overall average. 3. Institutional loans include direct lending (to meet needs production as well as consumption) and "indirect lending' for allied activities (such as input distribution, trading, transport and processing of farm produce). The latter comprise about half of outstanding loans of cooperatives; 55 per cent in regional rural banks; and a little under half in scheduled commercial banks. There is hardly any justification for waivers on indirect loans. 4. The magnitude of outstanding debt of rural households, going by National Sample Survey (NSS) data, is less than outstanding debt reported by the institutions in the cooperatives and substantially so in regional rural banks. Since both are intended to lend mostly in rural areas, this difference suggests that they also carry a sizeable portfolio of non-household, non-rural loans. 5. The basis of the estimate that the waiver will cost Rs 60, 000 crore is far from clear. There is good reason to believe that a generalised waiver of all overdues will benefit non-rural borrowers to a considerable extent; that the large majority of rural households, including those in the below 2 hectares category will not benefit; and that the magnitude of benefit accruing to them will be considerably less than Rs.60, 000 crore. Benefits in rural areas will accrue to a rather small fraction of households and the magnitude of relief to the beneficiaries is likely to be considerably less than the cited figure. Larger adverse effects These considerations argue for a close second look at the rationale, scope, and intent of the scheme. But it is also necessary to warn the public of the larger adverse effects of waivers on the rural credit system. Supporters of the scheme argue that this one time relief is a necessary measure to address the current agrarian crisis and that it would enable farmers to restart on a clean state. But this has been said every time in the past when such waivers were announced. Experience shows that waivers encouraged borrowers to presume that they can sooner or later get away without repaying loans. It reinforces the culture of wilful default, which has resulted in huge overdues and defaults in all segments of organised financial institutions. The deterioration in the cooperative credit system is, in large measure, due to the conscious state policy of interference in the grant and recovery of loans. Cooperatives have by far the greatest reach in terms of accessibility, number of borrowers, and delivery of credit to the rural population. Concerned by their near collapse, the Central government set up a task force to suggest ways to arrest the trend and revive them. The task force suggested radical changes in the legal and institutional framework essential to enable and induce cooperatives to function as autonomous and self-regulating entities. It emphasised the need to eliminate government interference in grant of loans, recovery processes, and waiving of dues from borrowers. Against spirit of reforms The Central government accepted the recommendations. Extensive consultations with States led to a political consensus to accept and implement the reform package. The Central government has committed to provide around Rs. 18,000 crore to clear accumulated losses over a period of time and linked to actual fulfilment of specified conditions. Most States have since given their formal commitment to this effect and agreed to abide by the conditions for availing of Central financial assistance. Supervised implementation is under way and has made significant progress in several States. This programme thus already covers a significant part of what is being attempted in the current waiver scheme. It is ironical that the decision to go for a general waiver comes even as the above reform programme is under way. It obviously goes against the central thrust and spirit of the reform programme. Since the proposed general waiver is wholly underwritten and funded by the Centre, the need for the kind of restructuring and conditionality attached to central assistance is likely to be questioned. Doubts will be raised and pressures will build to dilute or even to override the programme. It is very important that the government clarifies its position on the status of the current reform programme and how such pressures can be contained so that apprehensions about the prospect of much-needed institution reform in cooperative credit institutions are to be allayed. Loan waivers are at best temporary palliatives to the problems facing rural India. Significant and sustained improvement in the welfare of the rural population is not possible without a faster pace of growth in the rural economy and an improved quality of education and health services. Increased public spending will not achieve this. It is essential to address deeper problems rooted in the overexploitation and degradation of land and water; government policies that encourage wasteful use of resources; the inefficiency of public systems responsible for implementing programmes, regulating the use of common service facilities, and ensuring quality infrastructural and support services. Regrettably, the powers that be and powers that want to be have rarely been willing to confront and address these difficult and complex problems. The chances that their attitudes will change are far less in the current state of intense and contentious competitive politics. That does not augur well for the future of rural India. (Dr. A. Vaidyanathan, a development economist, is Honorary Fellow of the Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.)
-
Move over boys and girls, the men are here: the future of climate negotiations and why India wants the Accord
<p>Somebody recently asked me why India supported the Copenhagen Accord. It is correct to say that the proposed accord has no meaningful targets for emission reduction from Annex 1 (industrialized countries). Global emissions will increase or reduce at best marginally. So it will be bad for the world’s efforts to combat climate change. We are victims of climate change.
-
Energy politics (part 1): BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico: will it force change?
<p>As I watched President Barack Obama speak on the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico many thoughts crossed my mind. <br />
-
Rainwater Harvesting- Bangladesh
<p><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong>Rain Water Harvesting</strong></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong><img alt="Rain Water Harvesting-Bangladesh" src="http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/country/bangladesh/rainwater_harvesting_hl.jpg" style="width: 525px; height: 297px;" /></strong></span></p> <p>Rainwater harvesting is one of the feasible options of fresh water sources in the coastal areas of Bangladesh and recently a lot of initiatives and programme were undertaken to promote and install rainwater harvesting systems both in the coastal and arsenic affected areas in Bangladesh. Moreover, every year the country is also blessed with ample rain. The average annual rainfall in Bangladesh is about 2200 mm, seventy-five percent of it occurs between May and September.</p>
-
The parallels between EU financial crisis and carbon market collapse
<p><em>Extreme caution needs to be taken while mulling of linking different carbon markets</em></p> <p>Ever since the green shoots of carbon markets sprung up in countries outside the European Union (EU),
-
Renewable Energy Newsletter
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border: 11px solid rgb(4, 120, 209); width: 620px;" width="550"> <tbody> <tr> <td colspan="3" height="10px"> </td> </tr> <tr>
-
Food Safety in Bhutan
<p><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong>Food Safety in Bhutan</strong></span></p> <p><img alt="Food Safety" src="http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/country/bhutan/foodsafety_hl.jpg" style="width: 530px; height: 300px; border-width: 2px; border-style: solid;" /></p> <p>Bhutan regulates public health and safety in regards to food under the Food Act of 2005.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-FA05_13-0"></sup> The Food Act establishes the National Food Quality and Safety Commission and the Bhutan Agriculture and Food Regulatory Authority ("BAFRA"), both of which are overseen by the Ministry of Agriculture. While the Ministry of Agriculture is singularly authorized to author regulations under the Food Act, the Minister of Agriculture may delegate authority to ministries responsible for health, trade, and customs.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-FA05_13-1"></sup></p>
-
International Workshop on Microhydels
<p>Microhydels, in which water from a river tributary or water springs is diverted into a channel and is brought down through a pressure pipe to run a generator for producing electricity, are set up in
-
Doha can still be a success
<p>Very different global rules are needed for human wellbeing</p> <p>Averting climate change does not need emission reduction pledges, timetables and a common legal framework.</p> <p>Climate governance
-
Uttarakhand hills with solar power don’t prefer ‘taar wali bijli’
<p>It was half past four in the evening when we reached <em>Garbadhar</em>. It took us about 4 hours and two flat tyres along the <em>Kali river</em> from <em>Dharachulha</em> to get there. The Border
-
India’s leadership challenge in the climate negotiations
<p align="center"><img alt="" src="http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/media/iep/homepage/msanwal_blog.jpg" style="width: 605px; height: 118px; float: left;" /></p> <p align="center"> </p>