Month: December 2021

READ THE BLOG BY ARCHANA SIVASUBRAMANIAN AND MANISH
TECHNOLOGY

The recently notified Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules”) are the result of multiple calls over the last few years for the regulation of digital content platforms, particularly social media intermediaries, OTT platforms and digital news services. Three particular strands of concern have coalesced into these calls: the growing menace of fake news, that has on occasion even resulted in deaths; the proliferation of online streaming platforms carrying un-moderated content that on other media (cinemas, television) has been subject to reasonably stringent regulation; and the increasing anxieties expressed over the power of “big tech” firms such as Twitter and Facebook, raising the need for regulations to curb their influence.

The IT Rules have come under criticism since their launch, with complaints of regulatory over-breadth and overreach. As many as five petitions have been filed in court challenging the Rules. Common objections include traceability, automated content removal, and takedown requirements for intermediaries; and the role of the government in grievance redressal for digital media and online curated content providers. Most of these objections have been articulated procedurally: that in seeking to impose these regulations, the rules are ultra vires the parent Act because they exceed the scope of what it permits, especially in terms of content blocking and takedown, and regulation of digital media platforms. These procedural objections are important, because delegated legislation is legally enforceable only when it is within the ambit of what is permitted under the parent law. However, while adherence to process is essential, there is a need for a strong substantive argument as well.

Recent experiences have shown us that a government that has Parliamentary majority can easily overcome procedural hurdles. And Parliamentary approval is not a guarantee for better regulations: take the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, enacted in response to judicial observations regarding the regulation of cable TV, which as a medium was as new to the country then as digital media and online curated content are today. It resulted in a Programme Code that is applicable to all TV content, which does not seem to have been subject to any serious scrutiny despite several provisions being extremely vague and problematic. It is this Programme Code that the IT Rules extend to online content as well.

The key to good regulation is taking a principled approach to the issue at large, rather than knee-jerk reactions to an immediate problem. In the past, courts have asked for stringent internet regulation only in response to PILs that have highlighted an immediate crisis: ads for pre-natal sex determination, rape videos circulating online, online content accused of hurting religious sentiments, etc. Even with the IT Rules, the apex court mentioned that the rules have “no teeth” and has called for a legislation as instead. The argument that the IT Act does not permit regulation of digital media and the same should be done through Parliament is necessary but not sufficient, because while it may stymie the present Rules, it does not consider the consequences of their provisions being translated into a law. Hence, it is fundamental to scrutinise these Rules on first principles.

What would this look like? Substantively, it would involve a nuanced exploration of Fundamental Rights, especially Article 19(1)(a) on freedom of speech and expression and look at whether restrictions being placed on them through the regulations are necessary, reasonable, and proportionate. Procedurally, they would engage with tenets of participatory democracy: wide-ranging consultations, with all stakeholders being given the opportunity to comment and all concerns being taken on board. Neither process seems to have been followed while drafting the present IT Rules.

If we look at the regulatory aspects of the IT Rules, they require firms to submit and comply, rather than appropriately incentivise conduct. This has also revealed new fears about how this regulatory approach can deter the exercise of individual rights, for the current course seems to indicate that the government is attempting – similar to its attempts with the Personal Data Protection Bill (“PDP Bill”) –to eliminate the power of digital firms through its regulatory muscle, instead of creating a stable Indian internet ecosystem that incorporates independent checks and balances. It is also important to note here that the new rules have been enforced without a strong data governance framework. Moreover, the I&B Ministry’s claim to regulate content under the IT Rules is contrary to modern practice, including the Indian experience, of having regulatory bodies independent from the Government.

The IT Rules are symptomatic of a new kind of regulatory ecosystem emerging in India, also reflected in the PDP Bill’s call for data localisation. Besides being devoid of a principle-based approach, they make it clear that political economy is at the heart of India’s internet regulation. Are they preliminary markers to a digital nationalism – an “aatmanirbhar bharat” that runs the risk of eliding the difference between the nation and the government in power? Should power over the internet be concentrated in the hands of the state, rather than individual users? Answers to these larger questions will come only from a deeper understanding of the political economy of the state. To get them, we must argue on first principles, and not just on procedure.

THE FIRST ARTICLE IN A FOUR-PART SERIES ON INDIA’S AIR POLLUTION IN THE HINDUSTAN TIMES
AIR POLLUTION ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The quality of India’s air needs to be addressed as a pan-India public health emergency. Air pollution was responsible for 12.5% of the total deaths in 2017, as per the most recent iteration of India State Level Burden Assessment. The World Health Organization reports nearly 100,000 deaths in infants to be attributable annually to air pollution in India. But deaths form only a part of the story — there is growing evidence of how it causes illnesses in nearly every organ of our body. It affects the elderly and babies still in their mothers’ wombs – newborns show traces of particulates in their blood stream. It affects all of us.

This article is the first of a four-part series by researchers at the Centre for Policy Research written in collaboration with leading air pollution researchers. We take stock of what we know about air pollution, and what we could do to improve the air quality in India. In this series, we focus on fine particulate matter (or PM2.5), a useful proxy indicator for air pollution. These particles — a complex mixture of solid and liquid particles, originating from different sources and comprising multiple chemical substances — are the most damaging, as they can penetrate the lung barrier and enter the systemic circulation. In this article, we will lay out four foundational facts about when, how much, and where we should worry about air pollution. In short, the answers are: most of the time, a lot, and all over India.

First, air pollution is a near year-round problem, even though we notice pollution much more during periodic spikes especially in winter (see figure). Many parts of India, especially in the Indo-Gangetic belt record poor air quality levels across the year. In 2018 (so far), PM2.5 levels were ‘poor,’ ‘very poor’ or ‘severe’ 56% of the time in Delhi (RK Puram), 49% in Patna and 32% in Kanpur. Conversely, it was ‘good’ for six days in Delhi, one day in Patna and 37 days in Kanpur. While it is understandable that we focus on the visible peaks, adverse health outcomes result primarily to high long-term exposure, not just pollution spikes. To understand the severity of the problem, we have to look at annual average levels of emissions.

Second, annual average emission levels in much of India are multiple times safe levels (see figure). Three quarters of India’s population lives in areas where levels of PM 2.5 exceed the Indian national standard of an annual mean of 40 microgram/m3. These norms themselves are four times the far lower levels recommended by the WHO (see figure). Big western cities such as London, New York City and Paris have air quality nearly at these levels, and make the news when some of their neighbourhoods exceed the WHO norms by a few microgram/m3. Our levels are not just somewhat higher but many multiples higher: 72 of 640 districts in India, primarily in Delhi, UP, Bihar, and Punjab, have annual averages 10 times the WHO levels. Even Beijing, infamous for its air pollution, had PM2.5 levels about half of Delhi’s in 2016. We often hear that India suffers from inadequate data and knowledge of air pollution. While India does indeed need much better data and more sensors – much of the data reported here is from satellite data – this uncertainty should not be a reason for inaction, since new monitors will only tell us what multiple above safe standards we are.

Third, air pollution is not just a city or industrial area problem but a regional problem. Satellite data shows that air pollution levels are especially poor across the entire Indo-Gangetic Belt stretching from Punjab and parts of Rajasthan in the west to Bihar in the east. To an extent, this is a curse of geography. Sandwiched between the Himalayas in the north, and the Vindhyas in the south, this belt becomes a virtual valley where outward dispersion is difficult. Thus, while cities contribute to their own air pollution through traffic, industry, and waste burning, they are also affected by emissions from the broader regional ‘airshed’. As a result, rural areas are frequently also polluted. In addition, emissions from cookstoves using solid fuels not only lead to high levels of indoor air pollution, but also account for an estimated quarter to a third of outdoor pollution. India is dealing with both modern sources of pollution such as industries and vehicles, as well as pollution from traditional practices such as cooking with firewood, and we need to tackle both.

Finally, PM2.5 levels have been growing. Across Punjab, pollution levels nearly doubled between 1998 and 2016. It is sobering that India’s air quality is worse than China’s even while its GDP (PPP) per capita is less than half that of China. Clearly, the environmental quality of India’s growth is not sustainable.

Any serious plan to mitigate air pollution has to be long-term in nature, target multiple sources, operate year-round, and focus on regions rather than cities. In subsequent articles, we describe the impact of air pollution on health, explore the different sources of air pollution and conclude with a reflection on an approach to air pollution across India.

Santosh Harish is a Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research. Navroz K Dubash is a Professor at the Centre for Policy Research. 

This article is the first in a four-part series on India’s air pollution. The original article, which was published in the Hindustan Times on December 19, 2018, can be found here. For more information on CPR’s work on air pollution, visit the Clearing the Air? project page. 

In this Series:

Understanding the curse of air pollution (1/4)

Public Health in India a Casualty of Air Pollution (2/4)

Delhi Has a Complex Air Pollution Problem (3/4)

Air pollution: India’s waking up, but there’s a long way to go (4/4)

CO-AUTHORED BY PARTHA MUKHOPADHYAY AND MARIE-HÉLÈNE ZÉRAH
URBAN GOVERNANCE

This policy research working paper presents the results of an investigation of selected census towns in northern India. Census towns are settlements that India’s census classifies as urban although they continue to be governed as rural settlements. The 2011 census featured a remarkable increase in the number of census towns, which nearly tripled between 2001 and 2011, from 1,362 to 3,894. This increase contributed to nearly a third (29.5 percent) of the total increase in the urban population during this period.

Only part of this evolution can be attributed to the gradual urbanisation of settlements in the vicinity of larger towns. Instead, the majority of census towns appear as small ‘market towns,’ providing trade and other local services to a growing rural market. The case studies of representative census towns in Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, and West Bengal show the role of increased connectivity and growing rural incomes in driving the demand for the small-scale and non-tradable services, which are the main sources of non-farm employment in these settlements.

The case studies also reveal that the trade-offs between urban and rural administrative statuses are actively debated in many of these settlements. Although statistical comparisons do not show a significant impact of urban or rural administrative status on access to basic services, urban status is often favored by the social groups involved in the growing commercial and services sectors, and resisted by the residents still involved in the traditional farming sectors.

The full policy research working paper can be accessed here.

BLOG SERIES BASED ON A CROSS COUNTRY STUDY ACROSS INDIA, INDONESIA AND MYANMAR
LAND ACQUISITION SOUTH ASIA

Land use change is defined as planned, government policy induced land transformations with anticipated or unanticipated environmental and social impacts, most often undertaken without prior informed consent of and/or due compensations for the affected, and abetted by failure of administrative or judicial remedies. The CPR-Namati Environmental Justice Program, supported by a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada, studied land use change in India, Indonesia and Myanmar, and found that the impacts of such land use change can be broadly categorised into three categories:

Displacement and dispossession: Individuals or communities lose their homes in exchange for none or meagre compensations, and are expected to relocate to areas identified as rehabilitation sites or migrate to new areas on their own.
Loss of livelihood: This relates to losing out or giving up access to parts of or entire areas on which livelihoods are dependent. This could include agricultural lands, fishing harbours, forest areas and grazing lands. This may occur separately or in addition to physical displacement, causing an incalculable impact on both livelihoods and quality of life.
Environmental degradation and pollution: This leads to a decline in fish catch, agricultural productivity, groundwater contamination, and other related impacts. These have lasting effects on the health, economy and social lives of individuals and communities as a whole.
The table below provides trends and examples of how different sectors have contributed to negative impacts for communities in India, Indonesia and Myanmar.

India

Indonesia

Myanmar

Displacement and Dispossession

A study by the Indian Institute of Technology, Rourkee, estimates that 50 million people have been displaced due to ‘development projects’ over 50 years in India. The study states that of the 50 million people, 16.4 million were displaced by dams, 2.55 million by mines, 1.25 million by industrial development and 0.6 million by wildlife sanctuaries and national parks
One of the largest dam-induced displacement projects in the recent decades has been the Polavaram Multipurpose irrigation project that involved submergence of 42,000 ha of land across the 3 states of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Odisha. The estimated number of people facing displacement is 1,17,034 across 276 villages (as per the 2001 Census). All the displacement is in the state of Andhra Pradesh.
From 1970 to 2008, there have been approximately 100,000 people who have been displaced by the creation of Protected Areas (PAs).
Around 40% of the project-affected and displaced people from 1951 to 1980 belonged to tribal communities.
Freeport McMoran’s investment in copper and gold mining in West Papua was the first FDI agreement that Suharto signed after becoming the president. It displaced 15,000 people.
The number of landless farmers has risen from a few to 30% from 2004 to 2009 in Sumatra.
The Jabotabek Urban Development project in the suburbs around Jakarta displaced 40,000 to 50,000 people.
An impending 480-megawatt hydroelectric dam in Seko in North Luwu district of South Sulawesi is looking to displace members of indigenous communities of Pohoneang, Hoyyane and Amballong.
Conservation areas cover 28.2 million hectares in Indonesia and have largely been about exclusion of communities.
Recently, in Labuan Bajo Komodo Conservation area there have been reports of sale and purchase of indigenous people’s lands without their consent.
‘Land grab’ is a widely acknowledged term to refer to the state-driven forced acquisition of land.
The Letpadaung copper project in Sagaing Region involved the acquisition of 6,785 acres of land, largely farmlands, from 30 villages. 245 families from 4 villages have been forcibly moved to resettlement sites. 196 families are refusing to move at the risk of forced eviction.
The Asia Highway, a large-scale project, has a section of it passing through Southeastern Myanmar, crossing 17 villages and 3 townships in Dooplaya and Hpa-an districts. The project was initiated without consulting the locals and has caused eviction from several of these villages.
The construction of Thilawa Special Economic Zone is a prime example of this. The military government started confiscating land from the local farmers in 1997, using the land laws prevalent then, offering very little or no compensation.
Loss of livelihood

The land acquisition law of 2013 in India has added a specific section on assessing livelihood loss through social impact assessments and ascertaining compensations for the same. It clearly laid down the definition of ‘Affected Families’ to include farm labourers, fishers, share croppers, forest rights holders, gatherers of forest produce and so on.
The Parsa East Kete Besan coal mine in Chhattisgarh involves land use change of 2,711.034 ha. The mine is located in the Hasdeo Arand region, which is home to a large population of tribal and other traditional forest dwellers.
In another case, the operations of the Coastal Gujarat Power Limited in Kutch in Gujarat, have impacted two important fishing harbours. This was marked by a reduction in fish catch, impacts of coal ash on fish drying activities, particularly carried out by women, and constrained access to the fishing harbour.
The state in Indonesia considers large tracts of land as ‘non-productive’ and gives them out to oil palm companies despite the fact that these lands have claimants under the customary law and many smallholders cultivate them.
In the case of PT KEM, the gold mine impacted alluvial mining being pursued by local people in East Kalimantan. The loss of livelihood could never be recovered as all those who lost their livelihood could not be absorbed as part of the workforce in the mine.
Fish population in Buyat Bay in North Sulawesi has declined due to PT Newmont Minhasa Raya’s submarine tailing disposal.
Recently fishermen in parts of Komodo conservation reserve have been denied access to their fishing grounds, which forces them to fish farther resulting in higher costs. Access to the forest part of the Komodo conservation area is also blocked for communities to collect firewood.

Farmers made landless, find it hard to secure jobs; the random jobs they pick up are unstable and pay very little.
The construction of Mone Hydropower Dam led to submergence of 13 villages. The government authorities deemed that they were not responsible for compensation or relocation allowance to the villagers because the displacement was not caused by land confiscation but by the flood.
30 villagers from Char Khan fishing village were asked to vacate the area for the first phase of Dawei SEZ – when 3 fishers refused to move, they were imprisoned for a month.
The Labutta Township Forestry Department sued 12 local farmers for illegally fishing, breeding prawns, and felling wood in a forest reserve.
Government-licensed mining has impacted small-scale jade collection. Now, some of them make a living by picking pieces of jade in the waste dumped by mining companies.
Environmental Degradation and Pollution

Around 49 areas have been declared unsafe for human habitation in the Raniganj coalfield area of West Bengal.
The Damodar River is the major source of water in the regions of West Bengal and Jharkhand and is perhaps the most polluted river in India as it receives wastes from many industries situated on its banks.
Studies have indicated that open cast quarries, coal washeries, thermal power plants, coke-oven plants, cement factories and fertiliser plants add to air pollution.
The construction of large dams and ports alters the relationship of water and land, destroying the existing ecosystem balance, hydrology and fisheries.
Air and water pollution and soil erosion are the two main issues that occur when large areas on landscapes get changed for the construction of roads and railway lines.
Freeport’s Grasberg in Papua gold mine spread across 2.5 million hectares of pristine alpine forests, lowland montane forests, freshwater swamps, mangroves and coastal ecosystems, dumps an extraordinarily large amount of waste (as per its own estimates 700,000 tons per day) into local streams.
Lake Limboto is situated right next to Gorontalo city and the land conversions for this ever-expanding city have taken a toll on it. In 1932, the lake used to span over 70 square kilometres but today it measures only 25 square kilometres in area.
In North Borneo, fisher interests and shipping uses are in conflict. The coastal law doesn’t give any priority to fisher people. It doesn’t recognise fishers’ first right to the sea and categorises areas for fisheries as well as activities such as tourism and mining under the same ‘general use area’ category. This creates a conflict between the coastal law and fisheries law.
The Tigyit Coal Mine spews dangerous chemicals and pollutes the water and air. The operations compromise access of communities to their fishing areas, farms, and forests. Waste from the mine is dumped either on the grazing lands or on the path to the grazing areas.
People living close to industrial projects, who most often are the ones initially displaced for initiation of these projects, find themselves facing pollution impacts on a daily basis. Toxic and harmful wastes are discharged in local water sources and garbage is dumped on their farms and grazing lands. Air pollution and decline in groundwater are other challenges they are forced to live with.
Lakes in industrial zones have been reported with high level of contaminants. Wastewater from the industries of Shwe Pyi Thar Industrial Zone is released indiscriminately into nearby water sources.
Often, these impacts do not occur in isolation – loss of land essentially leads to loss of livelihoods; many times relocations after land-loss force people to stay close to industrial and development areas facing pollution on a daily basis; and environmental degradation translates into loss of income for communities dependent on natural resources. The study, Understanding Land Conversion, Social Impacts and Legal Remedies in Asia, is an attempt to bring out the interconnections, complex nature and severity of these impacts by highlighting these and several other trends and examples of land use change through the detailed country reports and granular case studies.

This is the first blog based on the study carried out by the CPR-Namati Environmental Justice Program, and supported by a grant from IDRC, Canada.

The other pieces in the series can be accessed below:

Understanding the Strategies used to address the impacts of Land Use Change
Understanding the Outcomes and Remedies sought for impacts of Land Use Change
Detailed Studies of cases of Land Use Change Conflicts: Part I
Detailed Studies of cases of Land Use Change Conflicts: Part II

KEY FINDINGS FROM A STUDY BY THE LAND RIGHTS INITIATIVE AT CPR
RIGHTS LAND ACQUISITION

Though only 8.2% of the total population, the Scheduled Tribes (ST) constitute 55% of the people displaced since independence due to the construction of dams, mines, industrial development and the creation of wildlife parks and sanctuaries. Poverty and landlessness is rampant amongst the STs. 51% of all STs are below the poverty line compared to 40.2% for the national average, and 65% of the STs are landless as per the 2011 Census. Therefore, clearly, this group has disproportionately borne the burden of economic development.

This, despite the fact that the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Indian Constitution carve out a separate legal and administrative framework for certain designated tribal majority areas within the territory of India. The Fifth Schedule designates tribal majority areas in ten tribal minority states within peninsular India including, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa and Rajasthan. The Sixth Schedule designates such tribal majority areas in north eastern states, including Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura. Of these, Meghalaya and Mizoram are tribal majority states.

This begs the question as to why despite the existence of special constitutional and legal provisions for safeguarding the rights of tribals to land and also special affirmative action provisions for the STs, they continue to remain the most displaced, most vulnerable, and most impoverished of all groups in India. Through archival and field research in the states of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the CPR Land Rights Initiative project on ‘Land Rights in the Scheduled Areas of India, attempts some preliminary answers to this question.

Key findings

No data existed on the extent of geographical area in the Scheduled Areas. Based on extensive 2011 census village and district level mapping of data, the Initiative has determined that 10.5% of all India’s geographical area lies within the Scheduled Areas.
Based on Census 2011 data available with the Initiative, even though the Scheduled areas were designated tribal majority areas, on average today, only 30% of the population in the Scheduled areas is tribal. That is, in actual fact, the designated tribal majority areas are tribal minority areas today due to continuous displacement of the tribals.
On all three narratives of development, representation, and rights to land, the Scheduled Tribes are pitted against the dominant mainstream of Indian society. The power imbalance between the tribals and the mainstream society requires both protective laws and a powerful state disposed towards the protection of the Scheduled Tribes.
The special protective provisions in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules cannot be seen in a vacuum but have to be seen against the backdrop of a contrary legal regime of land acquisition, forest and mining laws, through which the state actively displaces and facilitates the displacement of tribals from the Scheduled Areas.
The protective legal regimes fail also because of meagre financial allocations for their implementation and active subversion or confused implementation of the regimes by the administration.
A presentation of the key findings are available in the video (above). The panel discussion that followed can be accessed here. The Initiative also analysed Supreme Court cases on land acquisition over 66 years, delving deep into the massive power imbalance between the state and land losers. A video recording of this analysis can be accessed here.