Author: cprindia

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

As persons affected with land use change grapple with displacement, loss of livelihood and environmental degradation, it becomes clear that they are rendered extremely vulnerable. In their fight for rights, as they employ multiple strategies to make their voices heard and influence decisions of those with power, it becomes important to understand their struggle that displays critical thinking, collective agency and pragmatism.

This blog discusses various stories of such struggles from India, Indonesia and Myanmar. These stories present a granular account of how land use change decisions result in varied set of impacts experienced for years, how these experiences turn into long standing land conflicts, the efforts made by affected communities to seek remedies and the counter efforts they face as governments and projects protect their investments and try to retain control over the narrative of growth and development.

India

Shree Maheshwar Hydro Power Dam, Madhya Pradesh

Maheshwar dam project has seen several investors pulling out of it.

The Maheshwar dam is built in Nimad, the South western region of the state of Madhya Pradesh, 2 km upstream from the town of Mandleshwar. The project is part of the Narmada Valley Development Plan under which 30 large and 135 medium-sized dams have been planned in the Narmada valley. With a generation capacity of 400 Megawatts, the dam put nearly 60,000 acres of extremely fertile agricultural land and over 20 villages under full or partial submergence. A large mass movement, comprising the local communities, farmers and environmental and human rights activists, has been protesting against the project as well as against the NVDP (Narmada Valley Development Plan) in general. The struggle in Maheshwar has been going on for more than 20 years.

Gevra Mines, Chhattisgarh

After March 2019, EAC will evaluate the pollution control measures of Gevra mines and based on it, will decide if the project should continue.

With over 10,000 million tonnes of deposits, the Gevra coal mine is the single largest source of power grade coal in India. The mine has been in operation since 1981, and land acquisition for the project dates back to 1979 with subsequent acquisitions in 2001 and 2009. There have been grievances that the acquisition has led to forced relocation, loss of livelihoods and insufficient compensation. People who were displaced have been resettled to colonies set up very close to the mine, and they complain of water contamination and pollution. In 2012, when it spread over an area of 4942 acres, it was the largest open cast mine in India. Still continuing to be the largest mine, today it has double the land area and spans across 9884 acres (4000 hectares) of land in Korba district of Chhattisgarh. Following an expansion of its production capacity, efforts to acquire more land began in 2014. On May 2, 2016, Korba witnessed a massive protest by SECL (South Eastern Coalfields Limited) against land acquisition for mining. Around 679 people from 41 villages protested at the site of the Gevra Mines. These villagers were all farmers who demanded jobs, rehabilitation and compensation as per the amended Land Acquisition Act. There is a proposal to further increase the capacity of Gevra Mines up to 70 MTPA (Million Tonnes Per Annum) in the near future amidst all the existing unaddressed grievances.

Myanmar

Myaung Pyo resists water woes

Original location of Myaung Pyo village has been razed to extract tin.

Heinda Tin mine in Tanintharyi Region of Myanmar has been in operation since the British Times. After the take-over of the mine by the Thai Company Myanmar Pongpipat and Mining Enterprise, a state-owned company, in 1999, the villagers of Myaung Pyo filed complaints of its ill effects. In 2012, the village was flooded due to the breakage in the mine’s tailing ponds and streaming of sediments from the mine into the local creek. The villagers filed a lawsuit against the mine and demanded compensation for the damages to their property. Alongside, the villagers have been engaging the regional level government to ensure that the mine complies with environmental safeguards. Approaching the company, administrative complaints, lawsuits and international redress—the villagers are reaching out to all possible avenues where mitigation of ill impacts and compensation for past damages is possible.

Thilawa residents brace for upcoming land transformation

Farmers, who would lose land in the second phase of development of the SEZ, hope to be compensated fairly for their losses.

The Thilawa SEZ (Special Economic Zone), located approximately 25 kilometers south of Yangon between Thanlyin and Kyauktan townships, is spread over an area of 2,400 hectares. First phase of the project (spread over 400 hectares) has led to forced displacement of 68 families. The compensation given to them was inadequate and the relocation site lacks basic amenities. The farmers, united as Thilawa Social Development Group (TSDG) reached out to Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the project financer, seeking improvements in the relocation site. While the impacts of the first phase are yet to be addressed, second phase of the project has begun. Alongside, individual factories are coming up on the land acquired for the project in the first phase. The land users and SEZ authorities are negotiating compensation for land acquisition in the second phase. In June 2017, 39 families were trapped because the Thilawa town officials had erected a wall around their homes claiming that the land belonged to the government.

Indonesia

Illegal Oil Palm Plantation of Rejeki Alam Semesta Raya in Kapuas

PT RASR has turned the land that was used by community members for planting rubber into an oil palm plantation.

PT RASR initiated oil palm plantation on 7000 ha of community land in Kapuas district of Central Kalimantan. The land was in use by the locals for cultivation of rubber and fishing. This led to an income loss for them. Farmers organised themselves in a group of affected farmers, demonstrated outside the company office and different government offices, registered formal complaints with the Regent and parliament of the district. In violation of the forestry law, the company also took over land in protected forest. This and people’s complaints led to cancellation of company’s permission to use the land. Despite all this, the company continued to work people’s land and forestland in question. After a series of failed mediations, some of the aggrieved farmers decided to reclaim their lands. Since 2016, the farmers have been harvesting oil palm on their lands on and generating income from the activity. However, they still seek a formal recognition from the government of their right over their land.

Community response to Arjuna Utama Sawit’s oil palm operations in Katingan district

Danau Bulat lake is silting up due to drainage canals built by PT AUS

In 2008, PT Arjuna Utama Sawit (AUS) took over land belonging to inhabitants of eight villages of the Katingan district in Central Kalimantan. The local community was using this land for horticulture plantations. PT AUS not only violated the moratorium on use of peatlands, it also dug canals and planted oil palm in peatland forest area as well. It dumped the waste from its oil palm factory into a nearby lake and the Katingan river. The company, although promised plasma agreements to the community, has yet to deliver on the same. Initially, the community did not protest the land grabs aggressively, but later on tried to reach out to the company and bring government’s attention to illegalities committed by the company. However, the company continued its operation ignoring communities’ complaints and efforts. In October 2017, the community members from one of the villages blocked work in PT AUS’s plantation area. They demanded execution of the promised plasma agreements and full details of the plasma scheme provided by the company.

PT AKT: The Biggest mining company of Borneo

PT AKT and PT Marunda Graha use Barito river for transport of coal extracted from over 40,000 hectares of land in Murung Raya

PT Asmin Koalindo Tuhup (AKT), the largest coalmine of Borneo took 2000 hectares of land from six villages of the Murung Raya regency of Central Kalimantan. The villagers, under pressure from the company, agreed to relinquish their agricultural lands at a price much lower than the market rate. Mining activities have led to contamination of the local water sources, the Hingan and Kohung rivers. Villagers have raised their concerns with the company and with local government departments. On losing their land-based livelihoods, the villagers had hoped that the mine would give them employment. In absence of state-sponsored basic infrastructure, they also expected facilities such as clean water, better healthcare arrangements and education from AKT. However, their hopes and expectations have only been met with empty promises. As of January 2018, the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of Indonesia had cancelled its agreement with AKT. In such a scenario, it is unclear who will take responsibility of remedying environmental destruction, offsetting loss of livelihoods and ensuring reclamation of land from which the coal has been mined out.

This is the fifth 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 Impacts of Land Use Change
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
The study reports on India, Indonesia and Myanmar including the above-mentioned case studies in full and an overview of the study’s methodology and findings can be accessed here.

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

As persons affected with land use change grapple with displacement, loss of livelihood and environmental degradation, it becomes clear that they are rendered extremely vulnerable. In their fight for rights, as they employ multiple strategies to make their voices heard and influence decisions of those with power, it becomes important to understand their struggle that displays critical thinking, collective agency and pragmatism.

This blog discusses various stories of such struggles from India, Indonesia and Myanmar. These stories present a granular account of how land use change decisions result in varied set of impacts experienced for years, how these experiences turn into long standing land conflicts, the efforts made by affected communities to seek remedies and the counter efforts they face as governments and projects protect their investments and try to retain control over the narrative of growth and development.

India

Shree Maheshwar Hydro Power Dam, Madhya Pradesh

Maheshwar dam project has seen several investors pulling out of it.

The Maheshwar dam is built in Nimad, the South western region of the state of Madhya Pradesh, 2 km upstream from the town of Mandleshwar. The project is part of the Narmada Valley Development Plan under which 30 large and 135 medium-sized dams have been planned in the Narmada valley. With a generation capacity of 400 Megawatts, the dam put nearly 60,000 acres of extremely fertile agricultural land and over 20 villages under full or partial submergence. A large mass movement, comprising the local communities, farmers and environmental and human rights activists, has been protesting against the project as well as against the NVDP (Narmada Valley Development Plan) in general. The struggle in Maheshwar has been going on for more than 20 years.

Gevra Mines, Chhattisgarh

After March 2019, EAC will evaluate the pollution control measures of Gevra mines and based on it, will decide if the project should continue.

With over 10,000 million tonnes of deposits, the Gevra coal mine is the single largest source of power grade coal in India. The mine has been in operation since 1981, and land acquisition for the project dates back to 1979 with subsequent acquisitions in 2001 and 2009. There have been grievances that the acquisition has led to forced relocation, loss of livelihoods and insufficient compensation. People who were displaced have been resettled to colonies set up very close to the mine, and they complain of water contamination and pollution. In 2012, when it spread over an area of 4942 acres, it was the largest open cast mine in India. Still continuing to be the largest mine, today it has double the land area and spans across 9884 acres (4000 hectares) of land in Korba district of Chhattisgarh. Following an expansion of its production capacity, efforts to acquire more land began in 2014. On May 2, 2016, Korba witnessed a massive protest by SECL (South Eastern Coalfields Limited) against land acquisition for mining. Around 679 people from 41 villages protested at the site of the Gevra Mines. These villagers were all farmers who demanded jobs, rehabilitation and compensation as per the amended Land Acquisition Act. There is a proposal to further increase the capacity of Gevra Mines up to 70 MTPA (Million Tonnes Per Annum) in the near future amidst all the existing unaddressed grievances.

Myanmar

Myaung Pyo resists water woes

Original location of Myaung Pyo village has been razed to extract tin.

Heinda Tin mine in Tanintharyi Region of Myanmar has been in operation since the British Times. After the take-over of the mine by the Thai Company Myanmar Pongpipat and Mining Enterprise, a state-owned company, in 1999, the villagers of Myaung Pyo filed complaints of its ill effects. In 2012, the village was flooded due to the breakage in the mine’s tailing ponds and streaming of sediments from the mine into the local creek. The villagers filed a lawsuit against the mine and demanded compensation for the damages to their property. Alongside, the villagers have been engaging the regional level government to ensure that the mine complies with environmental safeguards. Approaching the company, administrative complaints, lawsuits and international redress—the villagers are reaching out to all possible avenues where mitigation of ill impacts and compensation for past damages is possible.

Thilawa residents brace for upcoming land transformation

Farmers, who would lose land in the second phase of development of the SEZ, hope to be compensated fairly for their losses.

The Thilawa SEZ (Special Economic Zone), located approximately 25 kilometers south of Yangon between Thanlyin and Kyauktan townships, is spread over an area of 2,400 hectares. First phase of the project (spread over 400 hectares) has led to forced displacement of 68 families. The compensation given to them was inadequate and the relocation site lacks basic amenities. The farmers, united as Thilawa Social Development Group (TSDG) reached out to Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the project financer, seeking improvements in the relocation site. While the impacts of the first phase are yet to be addressed, second phase of the project has begun. Alongside, individual factories are coming up on the land acquired for the project in the first phase. The land users and SEZ authorities are negotiating compensation for land acquisition in the second phase. In June 2017, 39 families were trapped because the Thilawa town officials had erected a wall around their homes claiming that the land belonged to the government.

Indonesia

Illegal Oil Palm Plantation of Rejeki Alam Semesta Raya in Kapuas

PT RASR has turned the land that was used by community members for planting rubber into an oil palm plantation.

PT RASR initiated oil palm plantation on 7000 ha of community land in Kapuas district of Central Kalimantan. The land was in use by the locals for cultivation of rubber and fishing. This led to an income loss for them. Farmers organised themselves in a group of affected farmers, demonstrated outside the company office and different government offices, registered formal complaints with the Regent and parliament of the district. In violation of the forestry law, the company also took over land in protected forest. This and people’s complaints led to cancellation of company’s permission to use the land. Despite all this, the company continued to work people’s land and forestland in question. After a series of failed mediations, some of the aggrieved farmers decided to reclaim their lands. Since 2016, the farmers have been harvesting oil palm on their lands on and generating income from the activity. However, they still seek a formal recognition from the government of their right over their land.

Community response to Arjuna Utama Sawit’s oil palm operations in Katingan district

Danau Bulat lake is silting up due to drainage canals built by PT AUS

In 2008, PT Arjuna Utama Sawit (AUS) took over land belonging to inhabitants of eight villages of the Katingan district in Central Kalimantan. The local community was using this land for horticulture plantations. PT AUS not only violated the moratorium on use of peatlands, it also dug canals and planted oil palm in peatland forest area as well. It dumped the waste from its oil palm factory into a nearby lake and the Katingan river. The company, although promised plasma agreements to the community, has yet to deliver on the same. Initially, the community did not protest the land grabs aggressively, but later on tried to reach out to the company and bring government’s attention to illegalities committed by the company. However, the company continued its operation ignoring communities’ complaints and efforts. In October 2017, the community members from one of the villages blocked work in PT AUS’s plantation area. They demanded execution of the promised plasma agreements and full details of the plasma scheme provided by the company.

PT AKT: The Biggest mining company of Borneo

PT AKT and PT Marunda Graha use Barito river for transport of coal extracted from over 40,000 hectares of land in Murung Raya

PT Asmin Koalindo Tuhup (AKT), the largest coalmine of Borneo took 2000 hectares of land from six villages of the Murung Raya regency of Central Kalimantan. The villagers, under pressure from the company, agreed to relinquish their agricultural lands at a price much lower than the market rate. Mining activities have led to contamination of the local water sources, the Hingan and Kohung rivers. Villagers have raised their concerns with the company and with local government departments. On losing their land-based livelihoods, the villagers had hoped that the mine would give them employment. In absence of state-sponsored basic infrastructure, they also expected facilities such as clean water, better healthcare arrangements and education from AKT. However, their hopes and expectations have only been met with empty promises. As of January 2018, the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of Indonesia had cancelled its agreement with AKT. In such a scenario, it is unclear who will take responsibility of remedying environmental destruction, offsetting loss of livelihoods and ensuring reclamation of land from which the coal has been mined out.

This is the fifth 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 Impacts of Land Use Change
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
The study reports on India, Indonesia and Myanmar including the above-mentioned case studies in full and an overview of the study’s methodology and findings can be accessed here.

ACCESS THE WORKING PAPER BY PERSIS TARAPOREVALA
URBAN GOVERNANCE

The newly elected federal Government of India launched the Smart Cities Mission in 2015 with the stated purpose of improving the governance and infrastructural deficiencies that plague Indian cities. Missing, however, in the new programme was a cohesive understanding of a smart city. While the government documentation repeatedly implies infinite liberty for cities to self-define their understanding of ‘smartness’, the actions demonstrate that there is a larger idea of ‘smartness’ that the federal government seeks to implement. It is at this disjunction, between the rhetoric and practice of the Mission, that this paper finds its core research question – ‘What constitutes a smart city in India?’

The Smart Cities Mission stands at a proposed budget of over INR 200,000 Crore (INR 2,000 billion) for 99 cities with a combined population of almost 100 million people and could have a significant impact on the lives of Indians. The magnitude of the project and its potential to affect the lives of citizens as well as the governance and financial structures that regulate municipal life necessitate that the concept of the smart city in India be illuminated. Given the sheer vagueness of the Mission, the core of the paper focuses on providing an empirical reading of the Mission, singularly through government documentation, and delineates the following trends – 1) that the project categories are similar to former urban renewal programmes however individual projects in the Mission are more likely to focus on revenue generation; 2) sources of finances move rapidly from ambitious market-oriented processes back to more traditional state-sponsored urban regeneration plans; 3) the Mission claims to bolster local government but in practice seems to recentralise power away from municipal bodies to state-level bureaucrats; and 4) the Mission claims to represent the voice of its citizenry however the Mission utilises processes of participation that are deeply problematic and benefit privileged sections of society.

The working paper argues that it is imperative for the government and the citizens of India to understand the mechanics of the Mission in order to ensure clarity, accountability and to question whether the current structure of the Mission will achieve its stated goal of improving the governance and infrastructural deficiencies of urban India.

The research has generated a detailed working paper and a compact policy brief.

AS PART OF HABITAT3 PREPCOM3
URBAN GOVERNANCE

Centre for Policy Research is organising a side event at PrepCom3 on 26 July from 8.30 to 9.30 a.m. at Surabaya, Indonesia, on Small Towns and Informal Settlements: Can they Learn from Each Other? in partnership with Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD), France.

One of India’s leading public policy think tanks (since 1976), CPR has a robust body of work on urban issues, and is committed to contributing to the deliberations of Habitat III, a mega urban event to be organised in Quito, Ecuador in October by the United National General Assembly, with a view to reinvigorating the international commitment to sustainable urbanisation.

The PrepCom3 Conference in Surabaya from 25-27 July, organised in preparation for Habitat III, will see members of CPR’s urbanisation team participate in discussions on the draft New Urban Agenda, to be deliberated and negotiated by permanent representatives and permanent observers of the UN.

The CPR-IRD event intends to urge the New Urban Agenda to embrace urbanisation across scale in a manner that pays attention to the particular challenges of informal settlements and small towns that house the majority of the world’s population. The side event brings together researchers, practitioners, think tanks, NGOs and academia. It will focus on alternative sanitation solutions, suitability of existing solutions to small towns and informal settlements, and present experiences of ecological transition, particularly in the context of climate and environmental resilience.

Venue: Crystal 3, Convention and Exhibition Hall Grand City Convex, Surabaya, Indonesia

If you are in Surabaya for Prepcom3, do not miss this exciting event!

The list of speakers at the event include:

Dr Valérie Clerc, Research fellow, IRD-Institut de recherche pour le développement, Paris, France.
Rethinking informal settlements to the light of small towns, perspectives and limits.

Mrs Mukta Naik Senior Researcher, Center for Policy Research, New Delhi, India.
Finding innovative solutions to servicing small towns and informal settlements in India

Dr Gopa Samanta, Professor, University of Burdwan, West Bengal, India.
The sustainability of water and sanitation in small cities in India: A critical approach to current practices.

Mr Marco Kusumawijaya, director, Rujak Centre for Urban Studies, Djakarta, Indonesia.
Building knowledge and capacity for ecological transition and sustainable cities/settlements in Indonesia.

Dr Khairul Islam, Country Representative, WaterAid Bangladesh.
Institutional response to fecal sludge management: Learning from small towns.

Dr Shanawez Hossain, Research Fellow, Head of Urban, Environment and Climate Change Cluster, BRAC Institute of Governance and Development, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Learning from South Asia.

RESEARCH SHOWS HUGE GAPS AND ERRORS BETWEEN MAPS AND COASTAL AREAS, SEVERAL VIOLATIONS IN CONSULTATION PROCEDURES
COASTAL GOVERNANCE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The CPR-Namati Environmental Justice Program submitted comments on the Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs) of Karnataka and Gujarat. The research identified huge gaps and errors between maps and coastal areas and several violations in consultation procedures.

CZMP, the reference document that guides development on the coast, is currently under preparation across the nine coastal states and four union territories (UTs) of India. The deadline for the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to approve the CZMPs was September 30, 2018. While the CZMPs of Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Daman and Diu have been approved by the National Coastal Zone Management Authority, the plans for other states and UTs are currently in the making. The states of Maharashtra and West Bengal are incorporating the suggestions made by the National Coastal Zone Management Authority (NCZMA) and have received in-principal approval on their respective plans. Public consultations are currently ongoing in Gujarat, Goa and Andhra Pradesh.

Paralegals of the CPR-Namati Environmental Justice Program took part in the public consultations in the districts of Kachchh, Devbhumi Dwarka, Vapi and Gir Somnath in Gujarat and the Uttar Kannada district in Karnataka. They also submitted their comments to the respective State Coastal Zone Management Authorities highlighting the procedural violations, missed on-ground realities and other anomalies.

The submissions made to the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority regarding the draft CZMPs can be accessed here.

The submissions made to the Gujarat State Coastal Zone Management Authority can be accessed here.

FIND OUT HOW THEIR GRASSROOTS MODEL OPERATES IN INDIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

CPR-Namati Environmental Justice Program’s work on grassroots legal empowerment won the 2016 Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship. CPR researchers explain their work in India, and why this model makes a difference.

CPR and Namati’s work won the 2016 Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship. Can you tell us more about the work you do in India?

Since 2012, Namati and CPR have a unique partnership. Together we work to implement an action research project on legal empowerment for environmental justice in India. The project aims to improve the understanding of the institutional mechanisms and regulatory practices for protecting citizens from environmental impacts of industrialization and land use change.

We collect empirical data on how grievances or complaints are handled by specific agencies and what outcomes it leads to. The data from these cases helps us make evidence-based policy recommendations for institutional reform.

The legal empowerment method involves working through these cases with the involvement of those affected through trained community paralegals. Our trained paralegals work with the affected communities and the government, helping in crafting remedies that are meaningful.

Can you tell us more about the legal empowerment work on the ground, and what makes this model unique?

Namati practices the legal empowerment approach to solve some of the gravest justice problems of our time. In each of its programs, trained community grassroots legal advocates or paralegals, (also called grassroots legal advocates) treat their clients as empowered citizens rather than victims requiring an expert service. Instead of ‘I will solve this problem for you,’ Namati’s message is: ‘We will solve this together, and you will grow stronger in the process.’

Together, the paralegals and clients use different strategies and methods to determine the most effective ways to address justice challenges. In India, for example, we have worked on over a 100 cases related to pollution, loss of access to livelihood resources and damage to property. In all cases, the problems have existed for several years or have occurred repeatedly.

Paralegals trained by the program have been instrumental in bringing regulatory attention to these cases and assist in shaping effective remedies. Since we track every case systematically, we are able to use this information for systemic changes, like better policies for environmental regulation.

Plans for CPR-Namati, going forward?

Our plan over the next few years is that we hope to develop scalable models of participatory environmental regulation that focus on the experience of the environment by citizens and their resultant needs. We will work to implement these models in India and share what we have learned with legal empowerment practitioners around the world.

As a program that would like to respond creatively and productively to global environmental challenges, the goals for the Namati-CPR program are ambitious. There could not have been a better place than India to test this approach and learn from because India has a rich tradition of environmental values as well as a robust set of environmental laws. CPR’s long-standing research experience and engagement with national, regional and international policy is a unique asset to this program.

Which are the other countries in which you do similar work? And what areas do you span?

Namati and its partners currently work in eight countries: India, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Mozambique, Liberia and Uganda. We focus on enforcing environmental law, protecting community lands, and securing the rights to citizenship and effective healthcare. We also convene a global network of over 600 legal empowerment groups from 150 countries. The members are learning from one another and working together to make justice a reality for the billions of people who live outside the protection of the law.

To learn more about CPR-Namati Environmental Justice Program’s work, visit the dedicated page here.

Read Namati CEO Vivek Maru’s reflection on receiving the Skoll Award here.

CURATED COMMENTARY BY CPR FACULTY
SOUTH ASIA

The recent state of emergency imposed by President Abdulla Yameen in the Maldives followed by an arbitrary political crackdown has led to calls from the Opposition in the country, led by former President Mohammed Nasheed, for Indian military intervention – harking back to a similar intervention by India in 1988. However, the domestic and geopolitical context today is very different, especially given Yameen’s closeness to China. In these circumstances, CPR faculty analyse the choices India has – in the curated commentary below:

G Parthasarathy writes in The New Indian Express that ‘Yameen’s insensitivities to India’s security and economic concerns should be addressed imaginatively.’
‘With China seeking to capitalise on its support’ for Yameen, the Maldivian crisis has become a ‘defining moment’ for India, writes Brahma Chellaney in Project Syndicate, suggesting that ‘India’s best option is to hold out a credible threat of military action’, while simultaneously imposing economic sanctions with other democratic powers. Chellaney further elaborates on these sanctions in another article in the Hindustan Times.
In an interview with The Wire, Shyam Saran says that India should proceed cautiously unless China entrenches itself in the region, which is of strategic significance location wise.
In a discussion on NDTV, Zorawar Daulet Singh says that the Maldivian crisis should be a moment for India to think through the role it wants to play in South Asia, while G Parthasarathy adds that even though India does not have the economic and military power to balance China, China’s own behaviour is helping India get partners.

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PANEL DISCUSSION HELD AS PART OF THE CLEARING THE AIR SEMINAR SERIES
AIR POLLUTION ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

On 23 February 2018, the Initiative on Climate, Energy and Environment (ICEE) at the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) organized a panel discussion on ‘Crop Burning as a source of Air Pollution in NCR’ as part of the ongoing Clearing the Air? Seminar Series on Delhi’s Air Pollution. The panel was moderated by Harish Damodaran, Rural Affairs and Agriculture Editor, The Indian Express, and the panelists were Dr ML Jat, Senior Cropping Systems Agronomist and CIMMYT-CCAFS South Asia Coordinator, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); Pritam Singh, farmer from village Urlana Khurd, Panipat, Haryana; and Dr Rajbir Yadav, Principal Scientist, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI).

The panel explored the genesis of the problem of crop residue burning, why it has become a particularly thorny issue in the last few years, and what are the possible technological interventions available? It also discussed some of the key political, scientific, economic and social drivers that need to be considered while designing a long-term solution to the problem of crop burning.

We have identified some important points that came up during the panel discussion and presented them in the form of a Q&A below. The video of the panel discussion, and further details about the speakers, are available here.

Why has crop residue burning become particularly salient – environmentally and politically – in the last few years? Why is this problem witnessed particularly in Punjab, Haryana and parts of Uttar Pradesh, and not in other parts of the country?

Harish Damodaran: Punjab, Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh and parts of Uttarakhand have nearly 4 million hectares of rice and wheat cropping area. This area produces 34 million tons of rice stubble in a year and 23 million tons of residue is burnt. After the paddy is harvested starting mid-October, wheat has to be sown latest by mid-November. This is because in order to obtain maximum yield from the wheat crop, it has to be sown by mid-November to attain required growing period of 140- 150 days before it is ready for harvest in mid – April. The paddy stubble also has little economic value as animal feed. Therefore the most viable option available to farmers to prepare the field for wheat crop in such a short window period (15-20 days) is to burn the standing stubble. This short timespan in which the stubble is burnt coincides with the Diwali season in the country, adding to the winter time pollution woes experienced in the capital.

It a complicated problem but the solution has to come from within the agricultural community. As the farmer is the main stakeholder, for any policy design to succeed, he has to be part of the solution.

Dr ML Jat: Crop residue burning is a global problem. It is burnt in all parts of the country where combine harvesters are used and there are no incentives for the retrieval of residue from the field. It is done even in Bihar, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and the southern states. It is witnessed in other parts of Asia as well. There is a strong correlation between the use of combine harvesters specially for rice harvesting and burning activity as the rice stubble produced from combines is of little economic value to the farmer. The use of combine harvesters without considering the fate of the residue after taking out the grain is a case of ‘half innovation’ where a technology is introduced without holistically evaluating the benefits as well as the negative effects, which often prove detrimental in the long run.

Rice-wheat cropping system, wherever it prevails, leads to stubble burning, especially in areas where rice is harvested using combines. In southern India, burning is not as prevalent. Farmers there follow a rice-rice cropping system, and farmers resort to puddling (which is tillage of paddy field in the flooded soil conditions). However, in coastal parts of Andhra Pradesh and parts of Tamil Nadu, water scarcity is leading to a shift from rice toward maize cultivation, which in turn, is resulting in stubble burning.

Are there concerns regarding the available technological interventions to reduce crop burning?

Pritam Singh: The practical implications of the use of technology are often not accounted for. It is imperative to consider the farmer’s perspective before professing a new technology. Promotion of new technology also demands a change in the mind-set of farmers while creating awareness. The farmers need to be properly educated about the new interventions and community examples should be set to enable a wide spread use. For example, with the use of the Happy Seeder, the cost of production has gone up due to increased demand of urea in the field. The technology is also not economically viable due to the increased use of diesel. These inferences are drawn from practical application of the technology.

Dr Yadav: It is essential to let the farmers modify the techniques according to their needs as the diverse agricultural conditions in the country demand. Poor investment capacity of farmers, lack of machinery and herbicides, lack of awareness, lack of knowledge about the CA varieties and hybrids etc., are some of the pertinent issues that demand action. Also, the focus of the research in agricultural technology should be to design machinery compatible with small land holdings as the number of small farmers outweigh the big farmers in India.

What are the technological interventions and best practices possible to deal with the issue of stubble burning?

Dr ML Jat: Both in situ and ex situ agricultural management practices can be adopted to manage crop residue. Ex situ practices involve taking the residue away from the field and converting it to compost or baling rice residue for power plants (Lohan et al., 2018). However, there are trade-offs for ex-situ management of crop residues, and they are not always economically viable or sustainable. Labour availability and costs are a problem, and therefore composting is not an economically viable option for the farmer. Baling is also not a viable option as the baler costs more than 10 lakhs, and the operational window to use it is 10-15 days. For the rest of the year it lies unused, and even the depreciation costs cannot be recovered. Moreover, taking out residues from the field and not recycling them back are counterproductive for soil health.

The in-situ practices involve managing the residue at the site of production. There are technologies like Rotavator, and mulcher but they are not entirely suitable and could lead to higher production costs and delayed planting of wheat crop. The concurrent use of super Straw Management System (SMS) and Turbo Happy Seeder efficiently takes care of the residue and also brings down the operational cost of preparing the field for the next crop. It performs three operations at one go hence increasing time efficiency: shredding the harvested crop, spreading the stubble across the swath and simultaneously sowing the wheat seeds (Sidhu et al., 2015). Scientific studies have shown that it saves approximately 10 lakh litres of water on day one of seeding crop, increases profit amounting to Rs 20,000 – Rs 25,000 per hectare per year for a farmer. Gradually, it also leads to a reduction in the use of nitrogen fertilizers by the farmers. It eventually results in reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases from the agricultural fields. In situ management with technology that takes care of the crop residue, not only comes with multiple benefits to the farmer, but also helps them in reducing risks and increasing profitability and can be the plausible solution to prevent burning.

Dr Rajbir Yadav: The practice of Conservation Agriculture (CA) involves sowing of wheat seeds in the field with the standing residue. The immediate sowing not only increases the growing period of wheat but also helps the crop to deal with the lodging and heat stress. It is a very cost-effective measure that saves the cost of tillage operations and results in a benefit of Rs 2000 per acre to the farmer, along with higher yield which is generally 1-5 quintal per hectare due to prolonged duration of wheat crop. This practice can also be a viable method for managing stubble and prevent burning. In particular, planting two varieties of wheat namely HDCSW 18 and HD 3117 (developed at IARI) in CA conditions can comprehensively mitigate the need for crop residue burning.

The government also has to make environmental friendly technologies and measures rewarding for he farmers. Right now the farmers in these areas are forced to grow rice because that is economically most attractive. Some form of subsidies should be introduced. Crops like pearl millet (bajra) that have a much lesser ecological footprint should be made economically attractive to the farmers.

Harish Damodaran: One way to deal with the issue of rice stubble burning is to propose crop and varietal diversification. For farmers in the north western region, growing Basmati and Parmal varieties of rice is economically profitable. The problem of crop burning is mainly due to the Parmal variety of rice – which has high yields and brings a good price. Thus, farmers can be weaned away from growing that variety only if an equally lucrative alternative is presented. Maize is often proposed as an alternative, however, yields for Kharif maize are low. The government is promoting winter maize which gives a high yield. However, the winter maize matures in May-June when there is water scarcity. But moving from rice to ragi or bajra is not going to happen overnight. People are not willing to pay good prices for these crops and the government will not procure them. The solution has to come from within the agricultural community.

How can these interventions be made more economically viable for the farmers?

Dr Jat: Farmers’ income can be increased by reducing the cost of production. However, with the use of expensive machines, the cost of production increases and the burning also reportedly increases. Also, with the introduction of the GST, the cost of agricultural machinery has increased further. It is not only the issue of eliminating burning but the solution should essentially come along with multiple economic benefits to the farmer. Recently, the Union Finance Minister made an announcement in his budget speech to provide a subsidy of Rs 1000 crore to promote in situ management scheme to manage crop residue. According to the scheme, individual farmers will receive 50% subsidy and cooperatives groups will receive 80% subsidy for investments in farm machinery like Happy Seeder, Straw Management System (SMS) etc. This subsidy scheme has been proposed keeping in view inability of small and marginal farmers to make such investments and to promote a business model and service window through collective groups that have the potential to provide more services, covering more farmers and more area.

Lohan et al., ‘Burning issues of paddy residue management in north-west states of India’ 81 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2018) 693–706

Sidhu et al., ‘Development and evaluation of the Turbo Happy Seeder for sowing wheat into heavy rice residues in NW India’ 184 Field Crops Research 201-212 (2015).

PART 10 OF A SERIES ON ‘COASTAL REGULATION’ BY DR CHITRA VENKATARAMANI FOR THE CPR-NAMATI ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE PROGRAM
COASTAL GOVERNANCE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RIGHTS

Asymmetric rights to the coast fosters identity politics and housing insecurity.

One of the central tensions in the Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) Notification as it plays out in relation to the complex land politics of Mumbai, is the question of development in fishing villages and slums. This essay highlights the new tensions and boundaries created between urban communities by the notification as it confers different rights to slum dwellers and fishers.

At the heart of the problem, is not only the government’s inability to embrace complexity in its mapping and planning process for the coast, but also its avoidance of an important problem Mumbai faces – that of well-designed, sustainable, and accessible low-income housing.

Untenable categories

The 2011 CRZ categorises ‘Koliwadas’ (fishing villages) as CRZ III where as ‘slums’ are categorized under CRZ II – each category leads to different developmental potentials. Under the differing guidelines for these categories, those recognised as slum-dwellers have access to housing under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). However, those who claim their residential areas as ‘Koliwadas’ have the opportunity, albeit vaguely worded, to self-develop: to improve the conditions of their residential areas in line with the city’s development regulations. While on paper, such a plan might seem workable, it is hard to draw boundaries and clearly define areas as Koliwadas or slums on ground.

Fishing communities in Mumbai are often located within larger, hybrid, informal settlements, making it hard – if not impossible – to draw such strict boundaries around them based on identity. Since the CRZ places the burden of proof on the fishing communities and because of a lack of documents and surveys that clearly identify the location and extent of the Koliwadas in the city, the city’s fishers face the very concrete threat of displacement into SRA schemes. That is, unless they are clearly able to claim the identity of “traditional fishers,” they stand to not just lose the opportunity to develop their residential areas, but could also end up getting displaced as a result of a combination of factors that include developmental pressure, lack of infrastructure, and the unsustainability of fishing as a livelihood in the city.

At the heart of the problem is the form and process of the SRA, which has been severely criticised by many urban planners and advocates. For example, Rahul Srivastava and Matias Echanove write that not only does the SRA offer poor living conditions, it also cuts off avenues for informal economies to thrive and destroys complex living-working spatial relationships.

Creating tensions

In evoking the SRA as a solution for housing in urban coastal areas, the CRZ opened the doors for identity politics and this created new tensions between communities living side-by-side. While this pushes us to ask broader questions regarding the lack of low-income housing in the city, better policies and provisions for those who live in informal settlements (their identities and community affiliations notwithstanding), it is also important to trace how this different distribution of rights came to be, and what CRZ surveys and plans have to do with it.

In December 2004, when the Swaminathan Committee was still in the process of reviewing the 1991 CRZ, the Indian Ocean tsunami struck, leaving a trail of devastation along the country’s coast. This event had a significant impact on the committee and this is evident in the opening paragraphs of the report it eventually released a month after the tsunami. Indeed, the committee writes of the catastrophe caused by this event as one of the foundational reasons for having a robust policy that would safeguard the coast, its ecology, and coastal residents. Cognizant of the deep impact of natural disasters on low-income coastal communities, the CRZ was to provide the means for better housing and livelihood for this vulnerable population, while safeguarding the coast against exploitation through sustainable development.

The committee recommended that the previous restriction on constructing SRA schemes on coastal land be lifted for two main reasons: firstly, to provide some measure of protection for slum residents given their precarious living conditions, and secondly, because it identified slums as harmful and polluting to coastal and urban environments. It is important to note that the idea of the slum as ‘polluting’ is deeply problematic especially since a large part of Mumbai’s waste is released untreated into coastal waters. By contrast, the fisher communities were to be given land rights and housing provisions as a result of their dependency on the coast. Thus, the notion of vulnerability resulted in two radically different solutions in the CRZ notification, the SRA for slum dwellers and coastal land-rights for fishers. These steps obscured the interconnections between these communities and also shaped the subsequent political rhetoric of rights claiming after the 2011 notification was released.

Threat to Mumbai’s Koliwadas

The 2014 Shailesh Nayak committee solidifies the threat of displacement of fisher communities as it proposes to categorise all of the city’s Koliwadas under category II, opening up these areas for redevelopment under the SRA. It also reinforces and deepens the boundaries between those who live in the different informal settlements along the coast. The committee circumvents a central question: can we think of equitable, sustainable, pro-poor, pro-fisher housing and development models?

In order to answer this question, the CRZ Notification – particularly its maps and plans, which determine how the law will unfold across the urban terrain and in people’s lives – has to engage with the complex conditions and relations on the ground. Instead of shying away from complexity, the CRZ plans have to acknowledge and work with the interconnectedness of communities and the intricate relations between people, landscapes and the environment.

Chitra Venkatramani is an anthropologist at the National University of Singapore and is currently working on a book on cartography and the politics of the CRZ in Mumbai.

The previous pieces in this series can be accessed below:

Coastal commons for private tourism and entertainment?
Is it the end of participatory coastal planning?
States ask Review Committee to loosen up the Coastal Regulation
Crucial aspects of proposed Marine Coastal Regulatory Zone Notification revealed
In conversation with Dr Shailesh Nayak – the man who led the review of coastal regulation
The proposed Marine Coastal Regulation Zone (MCRZ) Notification
A tale of two reviews: How two governments amended a coastal land use law
The Supreme Court’s guiding principles for coastal regulation
Coastal Regulation Zone Disputes before the National Green Tribunal

 

A STUDY
COASTAL GOVERNANCE

The Centre for Policy Research – Namati Environmental Justice Program has recently completed a three-year-long study, the first of its kind, titled CZMAs and Coastal Environments: Two Decades of Regulating Land Use Change on India’s Coastline, analysing the functioning of Coastal Zone Management Authorities (CZMA).

Coastal Zone Management Authorities (CZMAs) were first constituted to regulate coastal land use and environments following an order of the Supreme Court (WP 664/1993) to implement the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification. While the CRZ Notification has gone through detailed reviews by eight committees and over 25 amendments, there has been no comprehensive review of the functioning of the CZMAs.

This study addresses a critical gap. Read the full report, the executive summary, and the CRZ report cards here.