Arguendo Series : Crisis in our backyard - Jaan debo, Jameen debo na...! (part I)

By Abhishek Joshi :

A sleepy town Jaitapur in Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra was finally kicked out of its slumber by visiting French President, Nicolas Sarkozy on December 10th, 2010. He was not visiting the villagers to break bread with them as the “new in” concept followed by most of our young gregarious politicians but in Delhi shaking hands with Executive ensuring that they are well grasped so as not to slip the opening of India’s billion dollar lucrative nuclear power generation market. Joint declarations from French and Indian bureaucrats self patted their backs on the growing bilateral cooperation and assured assistance to India for securing its permanent membership in the Security Council. This included accommodating the elusive “P” word for us, which we continue to prod and plead, now as a tradition to any and every visiting delegation,” Sir...pls just once...!

Having said, eventually an agreement was signed for the construction of 1st set of 2 third generation nuclear reactors and supply of nuclear fuel for 25 years. French nuclear firm Areva SA and Indian state owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India signed this multibillion dollar (USD 9.3 Bn) valued agreement. The total generated capacity would be 9900 MW once commissioned and one of the largest nuclear power generating stations in the world. This further to be financed “again” by a consortium of French financial institutions and OECD which would continue to “protect” the clauses of general agreement and contract. We have a history on this but save this for future discussions.

Village Madban as the site chosen and Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project (name owing to the nearest port) modalities were announced. The decks were cleared covering up for the trust deficit which Indian government continued to had with successive world lords until the “Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill (2010) was passed by the Parliament in August 2010. Controversial to the core, cleared without bearing consequences and consensus within the parliament, abjuring complete responsibility to the masses with sole objective of following the diktats and seen serving the masters, the bill was presented as the “only achievement of the incumbent government” and “through consistent dogged pursuit of our Prime Minister despite stiff opposition this year”

The bill prohibits an act of “class action suites” in India (much prevalent globally) in safeguarding any liability which could be brought to the fore in event of a nuclear disaster. The bill further states that total liability for a nuclear incident shall not exceed 300 Mn Special Drawing Rights, approximately 2100 Crores at current exchange rates. Even within this amount, the liability of the operator (in this case Areva SA) shall be Rs 500 Crores. If the liability exceeds Rs 500 Crores, the central government shall be liable for the amount exceeding Rs 500 Crores, limiting it again upto SDR 500 Mn.

The balance is tilted for the operator since he would have a “right to recourse” against the supplier and other individuals responsible for the damage under certain conditions. What could be achieved of these "certain conditions” if the operator chooses to exercise its right to recourse in due time, even the neo- liberals in their believes, including the ones who remain involved to get this through would know.

Not to be missed, smacking of Government of India bureaucratic standards matches to its hilarious propositions, when the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (under who’s jurisdiction Nuclear Power Projects are commissioned) will have to notify a nuclear incident within “15 days” from the date of a nuclear incident occurring.

Further the track record of successive Indian governments in relating to the spirit is evident in the Bhopal Gas Incident, where claimants have all but received any compensation since 1984. The ones received were as less to Rs 28 to a far more generous of Rs 1200 as compensation for loss of life. Moreover, the impact of a nuclear disaster could be a holocaust compared to Bhopal incident which has left 200,000 people with permanent injuries reported to eye problems, respiratory diseases to neurological disorders, cardiac failure secondary to lung injury, female reproductive difficulties to birth defects among children born to affected women. The Indian government has and still after 25 years continues to stand on its denial negating the impact of any permanent injuries caused by the incident. Meager justice which followed is quite a testimony to these instances.

Having set the background, let’s come back to Jaitapur. Well it’s on the Arabian Sea Coast in Ratnagiri district in south western part of Maharashtra. The district is part of the Konkan region in Western Ghats, which includes a thin strip costal line of Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts. Ecologically rich agricultural area, these Ghats was previously being applied to UNESCO MAB to be listed as a protected World Heritage Site. This also forms part of seismically sensitive area classified by our own government under “Earthquake hazard zoning of India”. Jaitpur falls under Zone IV a “high damage risk zone” which makes it all the more susceptible to cataclysmic events.

Trouble consistently has been brewing as opposition to the site and Nuclear Power Plant as a whole since 2006 when a court case was filed by Janhit Seva Samiti, Madban in Mumbai high court, which initially stayed any “developmental” initiatives lifting it completely in matter of few months. This lead to sporadic incidents of mass rallies organized collectively by the villagers in 2009 and early January 2010 when officials visited the plant site citing compulsory land acquisition of some 938 hectares from five villages. The villages resisted the move by refusing to accept the cheques and most importantly their presence. A Public hearing meeting building up to Environmental Impact Assessment Report prepared by NEERI was conducted by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board on behalf of MoEF had 600 objections being filed by the authorities was never released and delivered to 3 out of 4 Gram Panchayats within the district. Abetting the controversy which followed the quite overzealous MoEF sometime (and picky most of the time) claimed to have cleared the assessment report in flat 80 days from its first initial submissions with no explanations cited on the objections so been filed.

This despite the fact that most of the villagers across these districts have remained united and firm in their demands and continue to agitate on the site location citing environmental concerns of an already fragile eco-system, forced displacement, loss of livelihood, radiation effects and most severely no policy being defined for Radioactive waste disposal. This despite the fact that Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) department of disaster management has criticized the site location not so politely and even pressing ahead accusations of eroding the social and environmental development by distorting facts without calling in for collective participation and transparent sharing of information of the project with its own citizens.

(to be continued)

Farmers struggle for survival

By Himanshu Shekhar :

Despite tall claims about positive impact of globalization, India is still considered as a nation of farmers and about 70 percent of its population still relies on agriculture for livelihood. A section of economists says repeatedly that the contribution of this sector in GDP is coming down day by day. However, Congress led UPA government pretends to be concerned about the condition of farmers and agriculture but in terms of policy the government appears to be anti farmer. In fact, agriculture sector of the country is facing a number of challenges and these problems are making the survival of a farmer very difficult.

These problems are pressing farmers to quit agriculture and think over other options for survival. Take an example of Punjab. This state was a driving force in Green Revolution. A recent study done by Punjab Agriculture University is showing the bleak picture of farming of the state. According to the study, every ninth farmer in the state has left farming in the last 25 years mainly because of low income from agriculture and 22 percent of them have joined labour market. The condition of the small and marginal farmer is more terrible and their satisfaction level is quite low in comparison with the large farmers. The report cites, as many as 70 percent of the large farmers expressed full satisfaction, while the figure for small and marginal farmers was only 23 percent. If this is the case of Punjab then the condition of other states can be easily understood.

According to government estimates, 44 percent of Indian farmers are not interested in agriculture. Between just the Census of 1991 and that of 2001, nearly 8 million cultivators quit farming. The census of 2011 will tell us how many farmers quit farming in this decade. Farmers are not getting expected return on their investment in farming. Production cost of agriculture sector is increasing day by day but farmers are not getting better returns. That’s why Indian farmers are realising that their love affair with intensive agriculture is on the decline.

The government and Metrological department is claiming that monsoon was very good this year and its positive impact will reflect in production. But, they forget to mention that a number of states are facing the problem of drought. Orissa, West Bengal, Bihar and Jharkhand are in the list of worst hit states by drought and farmers of these states are in severe crisis. According to government data, West Bengal received 16 per cent less rainfall than normal between June 1 and September 8, while Bihar and Jharkhand got 25 per cent and 48 per cent less rainfall, respectively, than normal.

West Bengal has declared 11 of its districts are drought-hit, while Bihar has given a similar status to 28 out of 38 districts. All 24 of Jharkhand’s districts have also been declared as drought-hit. Union government announced a package of Rs 500 crore for these states. Every farmer will get Rs 500 per hectare as diesel subsidy. But, the million dollar question is how much of these will really reach to a farmer?

A couple of years ago, the government announced a loan waiver of 71,000 crore for debt ridden farmers but in that particular year farm suicide went up. The loan waiver year of 2008 saw 16,196 farm suicides in the country, according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). Compared to 2007, that’s a fall of just 436. According to the NCRB, there were at least 1,99,132 farmers’ suicides in India since 1997. The share of the Big 5 States or ‘suicide belt’ in 2008 – Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh – remained very high at 10,797, or 66.6 per cent of the total farm suicides in the country. It’s shocking to know that the national average for farm suicides since 2003 stays at roughly one every 30 minutes.

It means, farmers are not getting the benefit of scheme like loan waiver. These schemes appear very good in document but on ground level these schemes fails to deliver any difference. It doesn’t mean that there is no use of scheme like this. A scheme like farm loan waiver and easy credit to farmers at nominal rates can make a difference in agriculture sector but the way of implementation must be different. Government must keep these schemes away from corruption and develop a proper and effective system to keep a tab on these schemes.

Union government is trying hard to rope corporate farming. Major corporate houses from all across the world are evincing interest in corporate farming. But, agriculture analysts have a different view. They are in favour of empowering small and marginal farmers to make this sector profitable and effective. According to them, small farmers and their cultivation communities must be at the centre of any strategy to tackle poverty and increase food security and productivity. The role of small farmers is vital in our economic system. It’s needless to say that small farms play a major social role. They tend to spend their income on local goods and services, boosting local economies, and are more likely to employ people than adopt capital-intensive technologies. Analyst consider small farmers as ecologically sound because smallholders manage a large share of our water and vegetation cover, and farm far more sustainably. They reduce soil erosion, use water more efficiently, protect biodiversity, and preserve soil fertility.

This is high time to re-orient the focus, for, from the time of liberalization, the ‘development’ done in the name of the small farmer has left him worse off and hungrier than before. In the 2006 Working Group on Distressed Farmers report, its chair, Sardar Singh Johl, said so explicitly, “Mostly small and marginal farmers, as well as tenant farmers and farm labourers, bear the brunt of crop failures. Therefore, the target group for preferential treatment should consist of small and marginal farmers, as well as tenant farmers and farm labourers.” The reasons for the crisis are largely systemic, said the Working Group report.

Inadequate farm income coupled with limited non-farm opportunities have led to distress conditions in most of the cases. “Other contributing factors are increasing input costs, non-availability of quality seeds, increasing pesticide usage, de-skilling, supplier-induced demand in the input market, inadequacy of institutional extension services and research, market uncertainties, declining public investments, and additional household/consumption requirements,” the report added. If policymakers are really concerned about the problems of agriculture and farmers, then they have to once again think over the current agriculture policy and take some appropriate steps, which can deliver some positive result. Otherwise, farmers’ struggle for survival will continue.