Sunita Narain: Eco movements: the way ahead

DOWN TO EARTH

Weak institutions will only hamper what promises to be an arduous journey.

This is a unique year for India's environmental movement. 2004 marks the 20th anniversary of the Bhopal gas tragedy, when a horrendous chemical accident killed thousands and condemned many more to living death.

It is also the 30th anniversary of the Chipko movement, when women of the Himalaya hugged trees to protect them from the axe of wood loggers.

These two big events, which have changed the course of India's environmental history, also teach us about what needs to be done in the future. Therefore, 2004 is also the time to take stock of the strengths and weaknesses of the environmental concern in India.

In this context, let me tell you of my visit to an environmental graveyard recently. No, it's not a toxic dumpyard I'm talking about, but instead, the ministry of environment and forests, responsible for planning and managing decisions on India's environment and forest issues.

At no time in the meeting I attended was there any clarity on the purpose of the actions being considered, no debate on the methods of getting the work done and, certainly, no intention to understand why what was being discussed was never really implemented in the real world.

This should not surprise us. This is what government is meant to be. But it should worry us. We cannot ask for sound environmental management if we have weak and inconsequential institutions charged with its management. It is simply not possible.

How has this come to be? Environmental concern in India began in the early 1970s; Indira Gandhi, then prime minister, speaking at the Stockholm conference on environment; the Chipko movement; and the first legislations to protect wildlife and prevent water pollution.

Then in the 1980s, the institutional framework followed and the department of environment was created. In this phase, the aim of the regulation was to stop the environment from being denuded.

The Forest Conservation Act of 1980 is an example where legislation was enacted so that forests could not be diverted for non-forestry purposes without clearance from the Central ministry. It was a phase when the country centralised various powers so that it could make "conservation" effective.

In 1984, the gas disaster in Bhopal made India realise painfully the toxicity of the industrial economy it was building. This gave birth to the 1986 Environmental Protection Act (EPA), which became the omnibus legislation that regulated air, water and land from environmental pollution and mismanagement.

The EPA, being a child of this horrific tragedy, gave citizens the right to file cases against industry. It legitimised the role of citizens in managing the environment.

By the late 1980s, concern grew into programmes: the Ganga cleaning programme and the mission to afforest 5 million hectares of land were launched.

The 1990s inherited these programmes and institutions. But there was no time for implementation. For the 1990s had another legacy: the intensification of economic growth and liberalisation. New and urgent problems of water and air pollution, and toxic waste emerged in this period.

This was the watershed decade for the institutions as well. At this time, the ministry of environment began to metamorphose in reverse: a beautiful butterfly "" a young and dynamic agency "" became the ugly caterpillar of an institutionalised bureaucracy.

It became more and more obsessed with its own procedures and processes and less and less relevant to the real problems in the outside world.

And the world did not stop for it. The environmental crisis grew: intense economic change saw to it. The problems, now more complex, needed solutions now more nuanced. New structures and organisations took the place of the decaying formal institutions.

On the one hand, the space was occupied by an active judiciary that began to take over the management of environmental concerns. The courts soon realised they could pass orders but they could not implement them. So they innovated institutionally.

They created what are now known as empowered committees, to monitor the implementation of the court decisions and oversee the change. All in all, they took control. On the other hand, citizens groups supported by the media became the active watchdogs and managers of the environment.

So, by 2000, the ministry of environment and forests was buried. But nobody wrote its obituary. It was only dead for all practical purposes.

This is where we stand today. By the end of 2004, we know Chipko's lessons have been forgotten and that Bhopal is all about unfinished business.

This is a period when the country is bound to see greater thrust for economic growth and intensification of the use of natural resources. The environmental journey in some respects has only just begun.

But this time we are proceeding with weak institutions on our side. What, then, is the way ahead? We will continue exploring that next fortnight.