Presenting the paper at the Symposium on State of Art in Transnational Pressure on Land (TPL) and Food Security in South Asia on May 8, 2013 in Lalitpur, Kathmandu, Nepal, Gopal Krishna, a public policy analyst and founder of Toxics Watch Alliance (TWA) dwelt on his paper "A
preliminary inquiry into threats from business enterprises to land, water and
food in the Himalayan watershed".
The abstract of the same is as under.
An early 19th
century US author, Mark Twain said, "Buy land, they're not making it
anymore". In a book titled ‘The Landgrabbers’ published in 2012, Fred
Pearce, the author starts his reportage of ongoing land grab world over from
Africa, Southeast Asia to Latin America with this quote from Twain. Prior to
him Time magazine wrote a Memo to the US Congress in 2009 wherein it cited this
very statement of Twain to argue that that the US government can respond to the
financial crisis of 2007-2009 by buying land or real estate. It gave a caveat
that ‘Buying land may be complicated because fraud is sometimes difficult to
detect. Land in the ocean could be sold as dry land…” and suggested creation of
"land inspectors" for verification. To begin with this paper argues
that the proposition of Twain is factually and scientifically incorrect because
rivers if they are allowed to flow freely have a natural land-building
function. Rivers are constantly in the process of land building. This function
of there is impeded by misplaced structural engineering interventions at the
behest of business enterprises or flawed policies of the governments. This is
especially true about Himalayan river basins.
Land and water are
ecologically linked in a natural system called a watershed. The paper considers
Himalayan watershed as a better reference point than South
Asia because rivers of Southeast Asia and China are also to be kept in mind. This is important
because when watershed is examined both land and water has to be examined in
the ecosystem in which they exist. In approaching a specific ecosystem there is
a compelling logic to overcome the truncated approach of dealing with land,
water and food as separate compartments.
The paper submits that
land and water policies of countries of Himalayan
watershed vis-à-vis business enterprises merits review along with their
relationship with proposed water grid,
energy grid, infrastructure grid
and data grid in the Himalayan watershed in particular. This
is required in a backdrop where there are attempts underway to create a common
land market by creating mega databases linking individuals with specific land
titles.
The paper explores the
commercial forces behind the diversion of rivers through the proposed
Interlinking of rivers project and the downstream concerns in the matter of
proposed diversion of Brahmaputra which seem to be an exercise akin to
re-writing the geography of the Himalayan watershed. Interlinking of rivers is
the world's biggest project. If the topography of the Himalayan watershed is
analysed, it will become evident see that there can be no acceptable way of
making a water network in the country as it entails diverting the natural course
of the rivers, which would lead to several Aral Sea type disasters (where two
Siberian rivers were diverted). Networking rivers does not mean drawing some
mega litres from one river and pouring it into another like one does with
containers or even with canals. The ramifications are much wider because a
river is not only the water that flows or the channel which holds the flow. A
river is the dynamic face of the landscape. In the drama of history, the ecosystem is not the stage setting; it is the cast.
The Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 512 of 2002 in the Supreme Court of India is a historic case. In
its judgment on February 27, 2012, the Supreme Court directed the Government of
India to revive the long-dead, dangerous and disastrous idea of diverting rivers
for interlinking them. While the judgment is based on a flawed assumption that
there is consensus and unanimity among the states and perhaps the neighboring
countries for Interlinking of rivers (ILR), the project, if implemented, could
spell an ecological collapse in the Himalayan watershed. This entails
unprecedented level of land use change with grave ramifications for food
security due to drainage congestion and water logging as has been the case in
the Kosi basin due to flawed Kosi treaty.
Like India, Chinese government too plans dams on the
Tsangpo-Brahmaputra. Its plan to build a 40,000 MW dam on it at the Great Bend
will have adverse downstream impact. Such plans ignore the role of free flowing
Tsangpo-Brahmaputra for centuries. There is an eerie silence about such
projects and their possible environmental impacts. These plans need to be
reviewed by situating them in the Himalayan watershed.
This watershed nurtures ten of the world’s most
important river systems including Amu Darya, Brahmaputra, Ganga, Yellow, and
Indus rivers. The characteristics of this watershed and its intricate
ramifications have not yet been thoroughly studied. The relationship between
Himalayan temperature, snow, glacier, rain, river and land building is still to
be understood and factored in the decision making of the business enterprises
and governments. It is clear that altering this relationship is bound to be
have unintended consequences for the entire South Asian region.
Some 3 billion people are dependent on this
watershed for their livelihoods. For instance, agriculture makes up 21% of
India’s GDP and 10% of China’s. Some 80% of Afghans derive their livelihoods
from agriculture. In Pakistan, agriculture provides 25% of its GDP.
Himalayan civilizations have been nurturing
themselves with the rich alluvial deposits left after annual floods subsided
for centuries. It is these alluvial deposits that contribute to land building
which has not been recognized by likes of Twain and Pearce. The same has not been
factored into the policies and programs of the governments and business
enterprises in the watershed.
The paper examines the massive resource takeovers that
are spurring conflict in 130 districts out
of 602 districts of
India. The
ongoing land takeover in India is captured in new findings released recently
and illustrated on a map recording recent protests in 130 of India's 602
districts most of which took place in 2011 and 2012. The Indian government acts as a facilitator to
the whole process rather than the main player. It is supporting the
conventional new Greenfield foreign direct investments, merger and acquisition
purchases of existing firms; public-private partnerships; specific tariff
reductions on agricultural goods imported to India through the negotiation of
regional bilateral trade and investment treaties and double taxation
(avoidance) agreements. The largest single line of credit approved by the Exim
Bank so far has gone to Ethiopia ($640 million) for its Tindaho Sugar Project
and it is also widely expected to facilitate Indian investments. The soft
loans, with an annual interest rate of 1.75 percent, are to be repaid over 20
years.
Indian companies are
the second largest investors in the Ethiopian economy with approved investments
worth nearly $5 billion and land lease agreements for over 4.4 lakh hectares
across Ethiopia, 1 lakh hectares of which has been granted to a single
Bangalore-based company, Karuturi Global Ltd. International. The land lease
rate in Punjab's Doaba region is a minimum of Rs 40,000 per acre. In contrast,
in most African nations, the land lease rate in terms of Indian currency comes
to Rs 700 per acre. This means that for every one acre in Punjab, Indian
investors can own 60 acres in Africa. With a per capita land holding of 1.5
acre in Punjab, agriculture is ceasing to be a sustainable
activity. The paper will attempt to comprehend the ramifications of this
phenomenon.
In a significant development, in India Land Acquisition Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Bill, 2011 is about
to be passed by the Indian Parliament that argues for a perfect land market,
unrestrained urbanisation and industrialization. In effect, it will lead to
increased control of agricultural land in the hands of companies of all ilk and
compromise the food security of the present and future generations. The Bill does not disclose how Government of India is
involved in land acquisition in other countries and how it will deal with it. The paper will dwell on the
weaknesses of this legislation.
India’s last Budget Speech, the Finance
Minister read, “In September, 2012, Government accepted the main
recommendations of the Dr. Vijay Kelkar Committee.” This acceptance of
recommendations of the Kelkar Committee merits rigorous scrutiny by the Parliament
and the informed citizens. It merits
attention. In Ethiopia land is owned by the state after a communist government
came to power. Using such legal status of land Government of Ethiopia is
facilitating takeover of its land by companies from China, India, Saudi Arabia
and others.
At page 23 of the Kelkar Committee
report in para 3.3 regarding ‘Disinvestment Receipts, it has been suggested
that “On the disinvestment front, in our assessment, Government should raise
Rupees 30,000 crore in the next two years. In this regard, we would like to
reiterate the Finance Commission’s recommendation that the current system of
using disinvestment proceeds for meeting expenditure targeted towards creating
capital assets should be continued. Over
the next 24- 36 months, there is yet another policy instrument for raising
resources for development and that is monetizing government’s unutilized and
underutilized land resources. These resources can finance infrastructure needs
particularly in urban areas. Such a policy has been effectively utilized in
many countries including USA, France, Canada, Australia and China. For monetizing land resources, the potential
is considerable given the under utilized prime lands of PSU’s, Port Trusts,
Railways, etc. Towards this we recommend setting up of a group to work out the
policy framework and institutional modalities. These higher levels of
disinvestment will be changing the composition of the balance sheet of the
public sector enabling the replacement of capital assets with those that are
more in line with emerging and new needs of the national economy.”
The recommendation of sale of
government owned lands for private purpose, which has been acquired for ‘public
purpose’ since 1894 is grave act of breach of public trust. In fact the land
which has been acquired in access of the need since 1894 should be returned to
the original owners. This recommendation appears to be a product of lobbying by
real estate mafia. Land acquisition act enacted for British India by the
British government empowered the government to acquire immovable property at,
what was deemed to be, a fair and reasonable price for construction of roads,
canals or other public purposes. This 1894 Act replaced all land acquistion
laws of 1824, 1839, 1850, 1852, 1857 and 1870 was applicable to undivided India.
This Act is relevant to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Independent India
adopted the 1894 Land Acquisition Act.
Given the fact that the government
has accepted in principle that government owned land can be sold to private
entities, it can safely be concluded that following the British Government’s
path, in independent India central government
is grabbing lands using some 17 legislations for land acquisition. Besides
these there are state legislations for the same.
Since February 2, 1899,
the land acquisition process has been carried in India out under the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which has been amended 17 times in
pre-independence and post-independence. The amendment made in 1962 permitted
acquisition by the State for a Company ―"which is engaged or is taking
steps for engaging itself in any industry or work which is for a public
purpose." The amendments made in 1984 in blurred any differentiation
between acquisition for a State purpose and ―acquisition for a private
enterprise or ―State enterprise by amending section 4 of the original Act to
insert the words ―or for a Company after ―any public purpose. As a consequence, the Courts have interpreted
this amendment to mean that any notification of acquisition issued under
section 4 need not specify whether the acquisition is for a ―public purpose or
for ―a Company.
The power
of the government to take private property for public use was established in
the colonial times but the power of the government to turn the land acquired
for public use into private property is illegitimate and must be challenged.
Kelkar
Committee report claims that in USA, France, Canada, Australia and China, there is a policy
to sale government owned land to private players without providing any
reference is questionable.
The fact is
that Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development's report on in the
matter of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Bill,
2011 has examined the role of the governments in the countries mentioned in the
Kelkar Committee report.
About USA,
it says, "After the acquisition of land for private companies became
highly controversial, and several State Supreme Courts, including those of
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Illinois and Michigan, placed bans on the acquisition
of land for private companies, the then President George W. Bush issued
Executive Order No.13406 on 23 June 2006 mandating the Government to acquire
land only for ―the purpose of benefitting the general public and not merely for
the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given
ownership or use of the property taken."
In European
Union, "There is no provision in their laws for the acquisition by the
State of land for private enterprises."
In Canada,
"The Canadian Expropriation Act of 1985 allows expropriation but only on
an exceptional case-by-case basis where the ―real right is required by the
Crown for a public work or other public purpose, but not to further the
commercial interests of a private company."
In
Australia, "There is provision for land acquisition in the Northern
Territories but that is primarily aimed at protecting the interests of the
local aborigines and their traditional rights to community ownership of land."
In China,
"All land is owned by the State and, therefore, it is allotment by the
State rather than acquisition by the State which determines the purposes for,
and entities to which, land is made available."
If land
acquired for public purpose is planned to be sold to private parties, it
becomes evident that the acquisition of land which was done in the name of
public purpose was ultimately meant to benefit the private entities. Therefore,
the reference to the policy of these countries in the Kelkar Committee report
appears irrelevant. This incorrect reference seems to have been made with
ulterior motives to benefit private entities.
It is clear
that in all developed democracies, private purchase of land, not State
acquisition, is the norm. There is no provision in their laws for the State
acquisition of privately held land for profit-making private enterprises, nor,
by extension, for public-private enterprises.
The report
of Government of India appointed D. Bandyopadhyay headed Expert Group dealt with
the magnitude of the large scale land acquisitions. The report was prepared for
the Planning Commission in 2008. The report noted that around 60 million were
displaced during the period 1947- 2004, involving 25 million hectare land
including 7 million hectare of forest and 6 million hectare of other common
property resources. Only a third of the displaced persons of planned
development have been resettled. These findings were presented to the
Parliament in May 2012. These displaced people have the first right over the
government owned land.
Instead of selling the
government owned land to private entities as per the recommendations of the Kelker Committee,
land which is a precious natural resource and is the main source of livelihood
in the country should be distributed among the landless. As per 'Economic
Survey of India 2011' over 1.8 crore rural families in India are landless. The
fact is that even the landless are dependent on land for their livelihood.
Securing Himalayan
watershed is important also because transnational and national business enterprises
are taking over land to turn their fictitious financial capital into tangible
capital unmindful of long term environmental and livelihood consequences. Such
an approach has given birth to conflicts over control over land and natural
resources above and below its surface. These conflicts are likely to aggravate
more in future. Academic discourses and peoples movements appear to be
overwhelmed by the massive scale at which myopic landscape changes are being
engineered to monetize land and everything attached to it. In such a context, the
paper examines the how commodities market –both present and future- is exerting
pressure on land, water and food. In the paper food is treated as virtual
water. Drastic land use change has the potential to cause serious public health
crisis because of food and water insecurity. Unless the political economy that
gives immunity to those indulging in vandalism of watershed is understood and
the immunity is withdrawn, the Himalayan region is under a logical compulsion
to move towards a precipice.
Post a Comment