Getting it all wrong

SOME institutions, especially the bigones, never learn. In the corridorsof the World Bank (WB) and the GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF), there isgreat excitement about the eco-development project that is being formulated tosaw India's national parks and sanctuaries. The nearly Rs 118-crore projectwill focus on eight protected areas(Buxa, Gir, Nagarhole, Palamau, Pench,Periyar, Ranthambhore and Simlipal).And critics are being dismissed, sayingthat they do not know when a goodthing is being presented to them.

Exactly the same point of view wasexpressed to me nearly 12 years ago byJohn Spears, the then forestry adviser tothe WB, and Cathy McNamara (RobertMcNamara's daughter), who wasworking with the US Agency forInternational Development on forestry.Everybody was really excited then aboutthe just-launched WB social forestry projects. I expressed my doubts, saying thatmuch better afforestation models, basedon people's management and control,were being developed in India itself -by people like Chandi Prasad Bhatt andPriya Ratna Mishra - and that the WBmodel would not work because it wastoo dependent on the forest bureaucracy working as the overlord. Theywere all taken aback. Spears, trying to befunny, asked back, "So, are you againstall aid?" I decided to be equally rude."No, not really," I said. "But I am, whenit is given in a mindless manner, as inthis project." I added, "Today, youhave the power of money. So you willnot listen to me. But 10 years later, Iwould love to meet you and find outwhat happened- Except that we wouldhave lost 10 years in the process."

Spears has Since left WB. But socialforestry projects are now clearly regarded a failure and the general attention ofthe people interested in afforestationhas moved on to a relatively more participatory strategy called joint forestmanagement. And we have lost a decadein the process.

Now that GEF has been set up toprotect the world's biodiversity and theWB must pitch in to save the world'senvironment, the new thrust ark isprotecting India's nature parks, whichare facing massive people versus parkconflicts. Instead of addressing thescientific and management questionsrelating to the involvement of people inmanaging parks, and ensuring thatall the economic returns go to them, anew hand-out scheme called the eco-development approach is being workedout: people living in and around parkswill be given some sops.

Nobody is asking whether such astrategy, so dependent on the wildlifebureaucracy and hand-outs, is affordable by the Government of India for allits protected areas. Nobody is bothering, once again, to look at alternativestrategies being developed locally - byAvdhesh Kaushal of the Rural Litigationand Entitlement Kendra in Dehra Dun,for instance - to develop a people-managed nature park.

Let us be very clear, that the firstproblem of forest-based people isnot poverty but disempowerment bywildlife laws and programmes and theerosion of their environmental rights touse their habitat. If you alienate the people, then, as economists put it, the'transaction costs' will inevitably go up.That, no amount of dole will ever help.

I am fully convinced that all that thisWB/GEF project will do is to pump in alot of money - mind you, largely asloans which will be recovered - intothe wildlife bureaucracy, just as socialforestry projects did for the forestbureaucracy, and its results will definitely be anti -people.

International agencies have willinglybecome victims of the games thatthe Indian bureaucracy loves to play -get more money for itself withoutany accountability, without a system ofpenalties in case of the projects notdelivering. The WB and GEF want to saveIndia's biodiversity, and their projectofficers will easily fall in line with thebureaucracy's games. In the end, it willnot be the WB or GEF officers or those inthe ministry of environment and forests(MEF) who will suffer; it will be Indiaand her parks which will suffer.

Other strategies, locally developedand more sensible, will remain ignoredwhile the moolah lasts. And India willlose another decade. Once the project iscompleted, WB will not worry about itsresult. Its only interest will be recovering its loan, with interest. The WB willbecome richer, even if precious time islost and India's environment becomespoorer.

All good governance systems teachus that development and managementefforts should have cost-effectiveness,peoples' involvement, stakeholder participation and control, transparency,democratic ways of functioning anddevolved decision making. But howmuch of that exists in this eco-development project? Consultants and expertssitting far away from the nature parksare trying to understand what peopleliving around these parks want, anddevelop programmes accordingly. Thisapproach is destined to go wrong fromthe very outset.

I now wish I had told Spears veryclearly, "Yes, I think all WB aid is badbecause it is so utterly mindless." I alsowonder, like my colleague, SunitaNarain, who recently pointed out in adebate the Centre for Science andEnvironment organised on India'swildlife conservation policies: "Why is itthat after undergoing all the stages ofmetamorphosis, we still end up as acaterpillar and not a butterfly?" If thisis true for the MEF, it is equally truefor the WB.