Populism over environment

Closure of the Sterlite plant did not follow due process

The government of Tamil Nadu has ordered Vedanta Limited, the operator of the Sterlite copper smelter near Thoothukudi, to shut down the plant following lengthy protests by local people that eventually turned violent. The plant, which has been in operation since the mid-1990s, has long been a focus of popular protest. It has had mixed fortunes over the two decades of its operation, including periods when it was under administrative orders of closure, a Rs 1 billion fine imposed for pollution by the Supreme Court in 2013, and consistent opposition from fishermen. These protests were re-energised following an apparent gas leak in 2013, and have taken on additional political significance in the unsettled politics of Tamil Nadu after the death of former chief minister J Jayalalithaa. The state government — which may have felt it had been backed into a corner — took the decision this week through the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to close the plant permanently. 

There can be no compromise about the need for effective and fair environmental regulation of heavy industry. However, there are some significant aspects of this particular case that give rise to concern. For one, as Vedanta will no doubt argue in court, due process may not have been followed properly, which in itself is poor governance. Previous attempts to shut down the Sterlite copper smelter have not endured legal challenge for similar reasons. Before taking such drastic action, principles of natural justice suggest that the company should have been allowed to first explain what pollution control, abatement and mitigation systems it has or plans to put in place. Some protestors have argued that this lack of due process means the Tamil Nadu government is not, in fact, enthusiastic about shutting down the plant, which was inaugurated in 1994 by Jayalalithaa herself. In general, however, it is important to emphasise that due process must be central to the application of the environmental regulation. Without that, important environment-friendly actions can descend into mere populism and opportunism for political gain. 

When the Supreme Court heard a matter related to the plant's closure some years ago, it noted the smelter's importance to Indian industry. This is an argument that still holds true. The Thoothukudi plant accounts for more than a third of India's copper production, and is the world's seventh largest producer of copper. About 160,000 tonnes of the 1 million tonnes produced by the unit is exported. According to the company, the plant contributes 3.3 per cent of Tamil Nadu's state GDP, and its shutdown will impact more than 30,000 jobs directly and indirectly, as well as 800 small and medium enterprises. This is clearly a major issue for the Indian economy and should have been dealt with speedily and with greater sensitivity to law. 

India's industrialisation is non-negotiable, and the creation of an industrial base and manufacturing jobs should be a major political priority. Naturally, this should not come at the expense of stringent and people-friendly environmental regulation which takes into account the effects on local communities. Yet the answer is rarely to order the wholesale closure of plants, but instead to ensure the application of laws and the levying of proper deterrent fines. Protests should be seen as a call for more clear and transparent application of the law, not as a venue for petty politicking. The Sterlite saga is not over, but so far nobody has emerged from it unscathed.