What goes around, comes around
Saturday, 1 May 2010
Mahmudur Rahman
There were some who questioned the Indian stance in standing up to the west on what now appears to have been a fairly unfair attempt to grind out a decision on climate change. Brushing aside the criticism, India quietly went about creating a new group that saw merit in the position and this has received support among SAARC countries at the Thimpu summit.
The view, shared by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is that there has been an attempt to hold developing nations responsible by default for a catastrophe that was not their creation. And while many international organisations often berate developing countries for their lack of attention to environmental issues, India has shown that it is serious.
Take for example the recent decision of the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forest to suspend work on the Maheshwar Dam in Madhya Pradesh. This is a classic example of what good governance is all about. Initiated by the state government to meet additional demands for power, the construction of the dam was handed over to a private company way back in 1992.However, protests flared among various groups seeking compensation for the displacement of 70,000 people whose livelihoods were thrown into risk.
Here was another case of confrontation between state and central governments on priority issues; this time round the central government put the issue of people before development.
Shortly before this Lafarge Surma Cement of Bangladesh were confronted with another ruling, this time by the Indian Supreme Court that ruled that the company's extraction of limestone from a quarry in Meghalaya was causing environmental degradation and operations were suspended from February 5, 2010. The Supreme Court brushed aside the arguments of India's Attorney General who pleaded that the ruling had "created huge direct and indirect employment in Bangladesh" and that this could spoil "friendly ties".
Under compulsion, the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forest then came up with a list of 31 conditions that the company will have to comply with in order to resume operations. The bulk of it is financial; paying five times the normal afforestation cost working out to India Rupees (IRs) 550 million with a retrospective interest of 9.0%. This rakes up the amount to nearly IRS 770 million. Added to this would be another IRS 360 million to be paid towards the development of health, education, irrigation and agriculture in the project area of 50 kilometres for the local community and tribal welfare. And all this even after the project had had the nod of the governments of India and Bangladesh and the approval of an expert committee.
In both cases the Indian government has put the interest of its people and country before development and even ties with a neighbour. In one case, a company has had to bear the costs, including retrospective penalties. In the other it will be the state government that has to come up with plans and the money to resettle those who have been displaced.
Bangladesh went through a similar exercise during construction of the Bangabandhu Bridge and the government's recent determined drive to yank out the land grabbers, river and lake encroachers has met with wide approbation. One only hopes penalties will follow. And while congratulating the Indian government for their disciplined stand and respect for the rule of law perhaps now they can appreciate and accept our assertions on the repercussion of the Farakka barrage on Bangladesh and its people. Perhaps too, somewhat akin to the penalties suffered by Lafarge for no real fault of theirs, the Indian government can offer something in terms of compensation for the damage of ecology, the desertification in the north and the livelihood, education, health and community losses by those affected. How the conversion of a mighty river into a whimpering one can be made up is anyone's guess. (The writer is a former Head of Corporate & Regulatory of British American Tobacco Bangladesh, former Chief Executive Officer or CEO of Bangladesh Cricket Board and specializes in corporate affairs, communications and corporate social responsibility.)
There were some who questioned the Indian stance in standing up to the west on what now appears to have been a fairly unfair attempt to grind out a decision on climate change. Brushing aside the criticism, India quietly went about creating a new group that saw merit in the position and this has received support among SAARC countries at the Thimpu summit.
The view, shared by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is that there has been an attempt to hold developing nations responsible by default for a catastrophe that was not their creation. And while many international organisations often berate developing countries for their lack of attention to environmental issues, India has shown that it is serious.
Take for example the recent decision of the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forest to suspend work on the Maheshwar Dam in Madhya Pradesh. This is a classic example of what good governance is all about. Initiated by the state government to meet additional demands for power, the construction of the dam was handed over to a private company way back in 1992.However, protests flared among various groups seeking compensation for the displacement of 70,000 people whose livelihoods were thrown into risk.
Here was another case of confrontation between state and central governments on priority issues; this time round the central government put the issue of people before development.
Shortly before this Lafarge Surma Cement of Bangladesh were confronted with another ruling, this time by the Indian Supreme Court that ruled that the company's extraction of limestone from a quarry in Meghalaya was causing environmental degradation and operations were suspended from February 5, 2010. The Supreme Court brushed aside the arguments of India's Attorney General who pleaded that the ruling had "created huge direct and indirect employment in Bangladesh" and that this could spoil "friendly ties".
Under compulsion, the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forest then came up with a list of 31 conditions that the company will have to comply with in order to resume operations. The bulk of it is financial; paying five times the normal afforestation cost working out to India Rupees (IRs) 550 million with a retrospective interest of 9.0%. This rakes up the amount to nearly IRS 770 million. Added to this would be another IRS 360 million to be paid towards the development of health, education, irrigation and agriculture in the project area of 50 kilometres for the local community and tribal welfare. And all this even after the project had had the nod of the governments of India and Bangladesh and the approval of an expert committee.
In both cases the Indian government has put the interest of its people and country before development and even ties with a neighbour. In one case, a company has had to bear the costs, including retrospective penalties. In the other it will be the state government that has to come up with plans and the money to resettle those who have been displaced.
Bangladesh went through a similar exercise during construction of the Bangabandhu Bridge and the government's recent determined drive to yank out the land grabbers, river and lake encroachers has met with wide approbation. One only hopes penalties will follow. And while congratulating the Indian government for their disciplined stand and respect for the rule of law perhaps now they can appreciate and accept our assertions on the repercussion of the Farakka barrage on Bangladesh and its people. Perhaps too, somewhat akin to the penalties suffered by Lafarge for no real fault of theirs, the Indian government can offer something in terms of compensation for the damage of ecology, the desertification in the north and the livelihood, education, health and community losses by those affected. How the conversion of a mighty river into a whimpering one can be made up is anyone's guess. (The writer is a former Head of Corporate & Regulatory of British American Tobacco Bangladesh, former Chief Executive Officer or CEO of Bangladesh Cricket Board and specializes in corporate affairs, communications and corporate social responsibility.)