Power to the people

The debate that took place recently on theTaper industry's demand to access stateforest lands for industrial plantations takes meback to a key, yet, unresolved governanceissue. The very first edition of Down to Earthhad carried a debate on the environmentalimpact of the policy of liberalisation, betweenthe proponents and opponents of the neweconomic regime. There, I had argued that itsimpact will be determined by the provisionsmade for adequate governance systems fordeciding upon the trade-offs that any capitalinvestment or development activity will bringabout, and keep them under control.

But the government is simultaneously liberalising the entrepreneur, as well as tightening its control over most of the naturalresource base, including the forests, waterresources, grasslands and the atmosphere. Asliberalisation increasingly spurs entrepreneurial activity, there will have to be some mechanism to decide upon the checks andbalances needed for an equitable and sustainable use of natural resources.

There has been no liberalisation in thisarea, and the government's track record isabsolutely atrocious. It has put all theseresources at the command of industry and therich and the middle class, without insistingupon any discipline, or charging them the truecost of their consumption. The result is thatour air is getting more and more polluted, sois our water, and our forests are no better off.Land degradation continues apace.

Sadly, no speaker emphasised the need fora new governance system'for these lands. Theministry of environment and forests' supportto the industry is an archetypal case of thestate swinging the natural resources in favourof the rich, without forcing them to pay forthe resources being put on their platter.

The paper industry argues that the newpolicy of liberalisation means that even state-owned forest lands should be made availableto it. But this is completely fallacious, as theeminent economist C H Hanumantha Raohas pointed out. If liberalisation means allowing market forces to control industrial development, then the decision to support industrial plantations on state forest lands goestotally against that philosophy. It will destroywood markets and lead to a state-determinedwood economy. If industry grows its ownwood, why should it buy wood grown by tribal communities, as part of joint forest management programmes, or from the farmers?

Checks and balances in the use of naturalresources will never emerge unless the concept of state property - promoted by the British - is given up. The country's commons should by law become-communityproperty. The state should intervene only incases where the communities fail to meetspecified objectives, or harm othercommunities. The communities have a vestedinterest in sustainable management of theenvironment and the natural resource base,because it is their habitat, their survival base.

Let no one think that comm -unities willoppose development. Most of them willstrongly favour it. But they will also learn fastif they undertake wrong development paths. Iam, therefore, convinced that the best way tomove towards a liberalised economy is notjust to liberate the entrepreneur, but also toempower local communities. The former willnot then negotiate the use of natural resourceswith the politicians and bureaucrats, whohave no-interest in these.

While so much has been written about thepaper industry and its demand for state forestlands, have you noticed that almost no forestofficer has come out openly on this issue,especially one who is opposed to this? I canunderstand the fears of serving officers. Butwhat about the retired ones?

I know that community empowerment isnot a perfect solution to achieve environmental sustainability. It will fail in many, many cases. But I am certain that it will fail in fewercases'than the present governance systemdoes. And the communities will learn fasterfrom their own mistakes. I am, therefore, certain that it is the best sirategy we have, or willever have. If we don't -move in this directionthere will be other similar cases of state actiondistorting natural resource@use, destroying theenvironment, and adversely affecting thosedependent on it. This is the biggest lessmi Ihave learnt from the recent debate.

Liberalisation must not just mean entrepreneur empowerment, but also community empowerment, so that the people will findtheir best checks and balances. So, what doyou think: will those political parties whichoppose the new economic policy take up thisissue as their forthcoming election agenda, orwill they just rant and rave in favour ofuntrammelled state power?