MACROECONOMIC POLICIES, LIVELIHOODS AND SUSTAINABILITY GLOBALISATION AND ITS ALTERNATIVES: A VIEW FROM INDIA¹¹⁰ ASHISH KOTHARI AUTHOR CONTACT: KALPAVRIKSH, APT 5 SHREE DATTA KRUPA, 908 DECCAN GYMKHANA, PUNE 411004, INDIA [email protected] Nandi Hillside Credit: Shyamal, Creative Commons ¹¹⁰ This essay is a shorter, modified version of chapters from a forthcoming book by the author and a colleague, Aseem Shrivastava, provisionally titled ‘Reclaiming India: Escaping the Globalisation Trap’. 176 18, September 2011 Globalisation and its alternatives: a view from India : PART I of the sheer numbers of people in- GLOBALISATION volved, or the global importance of AND ITS IMPACTS India’s biodiversity and natural re- NDIA n 1992, soon after heralding in sources, but also because increasingly I the new economic policies con- the Indian economy is playing an stituting globalization, the then international role. IFinance Minister of India (now its Prime Minister) Manmohan Singh Economic globalisation policies intro- FROM delivered a lecture on environmen- duced in 1991, include: a shift away LTERNATIVES tal aspects of the reforms in Delhi from an inward-focused model of (Singh 1992). His main argument self-reliance towards a stress on ex- GLOBALISATION A IEW was that environmental protection ports and imports, the opening up of requires resources, which would be various economic sectors to foreign ITS created by the new policies. How- investment, liberalization of regulatory A V ever, as we shall see below, things regimes, and a move from public have not played out as Singh argued. sector investments to privatization. AND Economic globalization in India has The impacts of these, include the had a severe ecological impact, with following, each of which will be ex- adverse effects on several hundred amined in more detail in this essay. million people who depend directly on nature for their subsistence and i. Rapid growth of the economy has livelihood. It is important to examine required a major expansion of in- this as a global issue, not only because frastructure and resource extraction, Credit: Archive www.justomedio.com 18, November 2011 177 MACROECONOMIC POLICIES, LIVELIHOODS AND SUSTAINABILITY and encouragement to wasteful in companies with notorious track consumption by the rich. The records on environment (and/or economy has tended to predominant- social issues), with demands to ly demand-led, with no thought further relax environmental and given to how much demand (and social equity measures. Domes- for what purpose) is to be consid- tic corporations, partnering with ered legitimate and desirable. The foreign ones or on their own, result is a significant increase in have also grown considerably in projects and processes with nega- size and power, and now make tive ecological and social costs. the same demands. ii. Liberalization of trade (exports and v. Privatisation of various sectors, imports) has had two conse- while bringing in certain effi- quences: rapid increase in exploi- ciencies, is encouraging the viola- tation of natural resources to earn tion or dilution of environmental foreign exchange, and a massive standards, and the neglect of so- inflow of consumer goods and cial services/goods for the poor. waste into India (adding to a rapidly rising domestic production). This Had Manmohan Singh’s assertion has created serious disposal and worked, by now we should have seen health problems, and impacted a spate of measures and programmes traditional livelihoods in forestry, to protect India’s environment. But fisheries, pastoralism, agriculture, the ecological crisis has only intensi- health, and handicrafts. fied. This chapter attempts to show that this is an inherent and inevi- iii. Environmental standards and reg- table outcome of the globalization ulations have been relaxed, or al- process. Just as the ‘trickle-down’ lowed to be ignored, in the bid theory does not work for the poor, to make the investment climate so too the ‘having the resources to ‘friendlier’ to both domestic and invest’ assertion does not work for foreign corporations. Governments the environment. are sacrificing more and more natural habitats and prime food- Two caveats growing land to make way for Two clarifications are necessary at commercial enterprises. In sync the outset. First, criticism of a number with this, goals of equity are being of sectors and activities below, does given up, for instance in the move not mean I am per se against them. to relax land ceiling laws to allow I am not saying there should be no industrial expansion. mining, no floriculture, no fishing, no exports and imports, and so on. iv. The opening up of the economy What is crucial is to ask not only to foreign investment is bringing whether we need these, but to what 178 18, September 2011 Globalisation and its alternatives: a view from India extent, for what purpose, and under and coasts, or farms and pastures. what conditions. These questions are simply shoved under the carpet in The example of minerals is strikingly il- the current model of ‘development’ lustrative. Between 1993-94 and 2008- under globalization. 09 mineral production in India has ris- en by 75%. India is now amongst the Second, many of the trends described world’s biggest producers of barites, below, are not necessarily a product of chromite, talc/steatite/pyrophillite, current globalization. Indeed many coal/lignite, bauxite, iron ore, kya- of them have roots in the model of nite/sillimanite, manganese ore, and ‘development’ we have adopted in crude steel (Ministry of Mines An- the last five-odd decades, and/or in nual Report 2008-09). This would underlying problems of governance, be a source of pride, were it not for socio-economic inequities, and oth- the inconvenient fact that most of ers. However, the phase of global- the minerals being demanded are un- ization has not only greatly intensi- der forested or poor rural areas, rich fied these trends, it has also brought in biodiversity, where communities in new elements that considerably are heavily dependent on the area’s enhance the dangers of this model to resources. Of the approximately India’s environment and people. 113,000 ha. of forest land that has been diverted for mining since 1980 Infrastructure and materials: (when it became mandatory for non- demand is the god forest use of forest land to be cleared With a single-minded pursuit of a by the central government), over double-digit economic growth rate, 70% has been in the period 1997- demand achieves the status of a god 2007, a clear indication that globaliza- that cannot be questioned. The need tion has dramatically raised demand for infrastructure or raw materials or for minerals. (Data from Ministry of commercial energy is determined Environment and Forests, obtained not by the imperatives of human by Kalpavriksh using applications un- welfare and equity, but by economic der the Right to Information Act). growth rate targets, even where, growth rates may have no necessary The ecological and social impacts co-relation with human welfare. have been horrifying. The blasted limestone and marble hills of the The last couple of decades have Aravalli and Shivalik Ranges, the therefore seen a massive increase in cratered iron ore or bauxite plateaux new infrastructure creation (highways, of Goa, Madhya Pradesh, and Orissa, ports and airports, urban infrastruc- the charred coal landscapes of eastern ture, and power stations). This has India, and the radioactive uranium meant increasing diversion of land, belt of Jharkhand, are all witness to the mostly natural ecosystems like forests worst that economic ‘development’ 18, November 2011 179 MACROECONOMIC POLICIES, LIVELIHOODS AND SUSTAINABILITY can do. Tens of thousands of hect- easier for mining companies, start- ares of land have been rendered ing with the 1993 National Mineral completely barren and unproductive, Policy. In 1996, the government with only a small percentage restored approved guidelines allowing pri- (mostly a euphemism for reclamation vate companies to get prospecting by a handful of mostly exotic species licences to areas upto 5000 sq. km, of trees, nowhere near the original as against the then limit of 25 sq.km. vegetation). (Vagholikar and Moghe In 2001, Foreign Direct Invesment 2003; Bhushan et al 2008; see also (FDI) upto 100% became possible. http://www.mmpindia.org/). In the period 2000 to 2009, permits for mineral reconnaissance went up Since 1991, some of the world’s larg- from 53,000 sq.km to 466,556 sq est mining companies are investing km. In 2006 a high-level committee in India. This includes Rio Tinto set up by the Planning Commission Zinc (UK), BHP (Australia), Alcan recommended a “seamless” transi- (Canada), Norsk Hydro (Norway) tion from reconnaissance permits Meridian (Canada), De Beers (South to prospecting licences and onto Africa, Raytheon (USA), and Phelps mining licences. Then in 2008, a Dodge (USA). Many of these have as new National Mineral Policy was bad or worse environmental and social brought in with the objective to records as India’s own mining com- make the regulatory environment panies. http://www.mmpindia.org/ “more conducive to investment and Multinationals.htm. technology flow”. The new policy encourages the move towards great- The direction of policy change has er mechanization, privatisation, and been towards making life much foreign investment, suggests that Agni Missile Credit: A. Milena, Ceative Commons 180 18, September 2011 Globalisation and its alternatives: a view from India environmental regulations become www.thehindu.com/2009/12/10/ voluntary, and assures companies the stories/2009121058660800.htm) seamless transfer mentioned above. (Ministry of Mines and Minerals, An- Exports: Selling our future nual Reports, 1999-2000 to 2008-09; Globalizing India’s economy has Planning Commission 2006; Saha- meant opening up natural resources to Sinha 2009; Ministry of Mines 2010; both domestic and foreign demand, Vagholikar and Moghe 2003). justified by the positive effect this will have on domestic economic growth.