Globalization

The integration of the world economy is not only reshaping business but also reordering the lives of individuals, creating new social classes, different jobs, unimaginable wealth, and, occasionally, wretched poverty.

The word ‘global’ is 400 years old. The concept of globalization is much younger. It was coined in the 1960’s, but it took till the ‘80’s before it gained popularity. In the 90’s globalization became a buzzword and scientists recognized the significance of the concept. So, it took till the end of the Cold War before the interaction between economic, political and technological processes caused such a speed up in border-crossing processes that the word ‘globalization’ became popular.

Various dimensions or aspects of globalization have been identified, the most important of which are economic, political, and cultural.

There are obviously few positive aspects of globalization. Contemporary globalization represents a real revolution in human affairs. It is a massive change in the way that civilization is organized.

 But the problems  posed by the globalization are too many. There are four sets of problems and issues associated with rapid glo-balization. The first of these is the weakening of the political authority of the state with no substitute authority in sight. The second is an increase in the risks of spreading economic maladies. The third is cultural simplification and destruction. Last, but not least, is something that could best be  called increasing ecological insecurity.

Global governance structures is a crucial aspect of the globalization process.

Global Environmental Governance

As environmental concerns become more pressing, they are climbing higher on the international political agenda.

Globalization in its many guises poses enormous challenges to traditional governance structures. National governments are said to be ill suited for managing environmental problems that transcend borders, whether via air and water currents or through global commerce. Yet, international environmental governance is so much centralized that the policies are being dictated by outside agencies and the national governments to protect environment come up with policies which rather than protecting the environment, have an adverse affect as local considerations are simply ignored.

At its core globalization represents a coup d'etat a covert political revolution led from above and bringing a profound restructuring of power, globally and nationally. Under this new global system, national sovereignty is becoming meaningless, and real decision-making power is being  transferred to a centralized global regime dominated by a wealthy elite of the west.

We are currently experiencing  what is being termed as unprecedented global integration. The end of the Cold War saw the dominance of a set of ideas relating to the free-market economy and liberal democracy. This cleared the way for the creation of a truly global economy, one integrated market. This is historically unprecedented, and will have unprecedented consequences.

 We are repeatedly told that nowhere in contemporary world politics is the need for effective governance more apparent than in the realm of the global environment. Along with nuclear war, the problem of environmental destruction stands as the most disturbing testimony of human power to transform the face of the Earth.1 Governments face enormous pressures, from their citizens and from each other, to address problems of pollution, natural resource degradation, and ecosystem destruction. But in an ecologically interdependent world, acting unilaterally is often not an effective response to these problems. The result is that governments are impelled toward collective action and cooperative behavior, in which they construct mechanisms for international, indeed global, environmental governance. But the issue which disturbs us is that in the name of global environmental governance, we completely ignore the needs, aspirations and pivotal role of local communities which have been fighting for the preservation and protection of the environment. It is this which can be termed as centralization and which in our considered opinion is something which would do no good to the environment protection.

 We think that the word governance is a more encompassing phenomenon than government. It embraces governmental institutions, but it also subsumes informal, non-governmental mechanisms whereby those persons and organizations within its purview move ahead, satisfy their needs, and fulfil their wants.2  It is disgusting to note that in the environmental governance the role of local communities  which are best preservers of the environment and worst victims of environmental degradation is being denied.

Defined in this manner, it becomes clear that governance includes a wide range of mechanisms intended to respond to a diverse array of problems. Moreover, focused specifically on the international dimensions of environmental problems. The past two decades have seen the construction of an increasingly dense network of international agreements, institutions, and other mechanisms for governing the global environment. Some of these mechanisms are explicit, highly formalized arrangements, such as multilateral treaties negotiated among sovereign governments with very little or no role for the local communities.

As is often the case in world politics, the mechanisms of global environmental governance have been created in patchwork fashion rather than as part of some overall design. For many problems, including those as varied as desertification, toxic waste and global warming, effectively institutionalized mechanisms are non-existent, ineffective, or in their infancy. In other cases multiple, overlapping, and at times contradictory mechanisms of governance can be identified, as seen in the various efforts to slow or manage the destruction of tropical forests.

Overall, it is difficult to look at the past two decades and conclude that the problems are not outpacing the responses. As Mostafa Tolba, Executive Director of the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), reported on the release of a major assessment of environmental trends from 1972-1992,

“On the one hand public concern has been growing steadily, as manifested by the growing power and influence of 'green consumers'. ... On the other hand, the pace of government action has faltered.”3

Environmental problems are not new. Many regions and localities were grappling with issues of pollution, ecosystem destruction, and natural resource degradation long before the industrial revolution, or even before the emergence of the modern nation-state system in the seventeenth century. But today the political struggles over whether and how to respond to such problems are increasingly being played out in international, even global, terms. Governments, both individually and collectively, face mounting pressures to act cooperatively in response to environmental problems. One obvious set of pressures for global environmental governance comes from the poor fit between the world's political map and its dominant ecological patterns. Rivers, watersheds, weather patterns, forests, deserts, and mountains rarely fit the bounded logic of the territorially based nation-state system. For example, three-fourths of the world's 214 major river systems are shared by more than one nation--either because the river in question forms the border between countries, or because it links countries in an upstream-downstream relationship.4 Yet that does not mean that we frame global environmental policies  irrespective of local situations.

By its very nature, the concept of governance defies simple typologies and easy definition of components. One obvious manifestation is the growing number of international environmental accords. By one estimate there are now more than 650 such international agreements in operation.5 Many are relatively narrow agreements--bilateral accords on specific environmental problems or regional agreements engaging small numbers of countries on narrowly defined issues. But the list also includes several major international accords, including agreements on ocean pollution, acid rain, preservation of the ozone layer, the international trade in endangered species, and environmental protection in Antarctica. Most of these have been implemented in the two decades since the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE), although a few key agreements such as the Antarctic Treaty, the Atmospheric Test Ban treaty, and the International Convention for the regulation of whaling, stem from an earlier era.

The ecological effectiveness of these agreements is difficult to measure, and appears to vary substantially. Litfin points to several barriers to regime effectiveness, including the frequent lack of formal enforcement mechanisms, the decentralized character of the activities being regulated, and the difficulties of monitoring compliance.

The effort to promote reform and adaptation among existing international institutions has proven far more difficult than the effort to negotiate intergovernmental accords in relatively new policy realms. Although existing organizations and institutions may at times see a benefit in "colonizing" a new policy arena such as the environment, there has been substantial resistance to adapting longstanding procedures. Thus the World Bank has on the one hand increased its lending for positive environmental projects, and even proven willing to incorporate at least some environmental cost-benefit assessments in the screening of traditional projects. But the Bank has been far less effective in moving beyond the traditional project-based mentality of development to a more environmentally sound, holistic approach to promoting sustainable livelihoods and the satisfaction of basic human needs.

Over-Centralization-

Many believe that governments are now being pressed by the forces of globalization to transfer policy functions and political authority "upwards" to supranational entities, "downwards" to provincial and local governments and "sidewards" to private corporate and NGO actors.  But the fact remains that it is the “upwards” which is the norm not the “downwards” and “ sidewards”. The environment situation and the over centralization which it provides for is the speaking testimony of “upwards” trend.

On the one hand, many functions that formerly resided in national governments are now  believed to be moving inexorably toward regional and global institutions. The process of Economic and Monetary Union in the European Union is only one apparent confirmation of this tendency; expansion of the powers of the World Trade Organization and recent proposals for a world central bank are others.
Globalization in these popular views has meant a pulling  apart of traditional roles of national governments in favor of international organizations on the one hand and more local forms of government on the other, and a rolling back of traditional government in favor of the private sector...The supposed trend toward deregulation can also be seen as re-regulation: old forms of regulation may disappear, but government intervention in new areas (environment or consumer protection) and in new forms appear at the same time...the demands for regulation of the private sector have not declined, but the content of that regulation has shifted to the politically popular protection of the environment, labor rights, and consumer welfare.

Environmental Governance in India, like any other aspect of governance, as an idea and at the level of conceptions, made a promising beginning.  After initially raising a lot of hope it has lost its way and got so bogged down in politics and administrative inefficiency that the common man got compelled to look elsewhere for overcoming the environmental problems faced by him. 

The major problem with the law and its implementation concerning the environment, is the tendency to centralize power of decision-making.  This, as a matter of fact, has turned out to be inimical to good environmental governance.  It is quite understandable if the policy-making power is centralised with an apex expert group.  But, as a matter of fact, the problem lies in the bureaucratized structure that is at the helm of affairs in the form of the agencies of the Central Government, that has the final authority of deciding on all aspects of environmental management. While scope only exists in the law for delegation of powers of implementation as to different aspects  of environmental administration.  In making such a provision, care has been taken to ensure that the delegatee has to be nominated by the Central Government, the parameters of its functioning clearly spelt out by the latter and that would perform its assigned functions, under the direction, authority and supervision of the Central Government.6  The Centralization of Power is so much that even the subordinate legislation under Environment Protection Act, framed by the Central Department of Environment and Forests, override any other Central or State legislation.7  Rule-making, laying down procedures for implementation and the power to issue directions to protect, maintain and improve the quality of the environment are all vested in the Central Government. The Central Government wields immense powers of decision-making as to every conceivable aspect of environmental management.  Environmental clearance as to major developmental activities require central clearance.8  De-reservation of reserve forest or use of forest land for non forest purpose is possible only with the prior approval of the Central Government.9 The current thinking as to administration of the pollution control regime, on the part of the Central. Government appears to be in favour of arming the Central Pollution Control Board with many of the functions that are being exercised by the State Boards.10

There is so much centralization in forest laws that the state governments can not even construct a school, build a road or  lay an electric line without permission from the central government. The commissions set up to look after the forest interests are packed with people with very little knowledge and commitment to the cause of eco- system. They rather prefer the interests of forest mafia, corporate houses. As a matter  of fact they are just pseudo- environmentalists. As a result of this nexus, we are enacting such laws or coming up with such policies which have the impact of throwing those very people who for centuries have been the sole protector and preserver of forests and for whom forest is nothing but their mother.

In spite of having the same forest laws and the same forest bureaucracy, the State of Uttraranchal has nearly 65% forest cover even though 70% of its population is fully or partially dependent upon the forests.  The question to ponder about is, why this happened? It is  because of self made rules by the community. As opposed to its mother state of Uttar Pradesh, which has less that 5% forest cover. In fact out of a total of 70 districts, nearly 40 districts in Uttar Pradesh have a forest cover of less that 4%. Ten districts are pegged at having a green cover ranging from 1 to 5 percent. Yet another 10 districts fall under the  5-10 per cent category while two have been registered as having a forest cover of 15 per cent level only. 11

Our experience with Van Gujjars has convinced us that they hold forest to be a living , dynamic entity that needs to be protected and taken care of in much the same way as a mother takes care of her child. Emotional attachment to the forests in which they have their dwellings is another conspicuous feature of this eco-friendly community, which views humans and nature as partners in the independent web of life. Moreover, since the forest area is a source of their livelihood, they have a vested  interest in conserving their abode. On a philosophic plane, Van Gujjars consider forests to be a veil that keeps them insulated from the evils of the world around them.

As a  matter of fact it is they who must be entrusted with the task of protecting and preserving forests. But it is disgusting to note that all our laws which emanate from top and at times are borrowed or dictated from abroad do not consider this peculiar aspect of our country. The over- centralization of laws  instead of doing any good is doing great harm to our eco system. All talks about decentralization seem meaningless as a closer look of  laws in relation to protection of forests and environment in our country reveal that decentralization is  just another myth. Our policies are too far from the ground realities.  There is a very little realisation and appreciation of the contribution being made by this community to the preservation of forests and sustenance of the eco system at large.  As opposed to this, they are in fact being terrorized with oppressed methods to leave the area marked to Rajaji National Park coving almost 80,000 hectares and forced to move into a resettlement colony built at Pathri – a marshy stretch without any vegetation near Hardwar. A  study of the Van Gujjars’s impact on their immediate environment carried out by the Centre of Rural Development Studies, Wye College, University of London revealed that “ The crown cover of the park remained relatively unaffected by lopping and there was an increase in ground vegetation in areas with lopped trees which would decrease the possibility of erosion.”

 It is astonishing to note that just 15% of the forest wild life lives in the so called protected areas where only poachers and tree fellers can go. All the cases of poaching are reported from these areas only. On the other hand, 85% of the wild life is outside these forest areas where  day in and day out wild animals kill women and children. The highly centralized and faulty wild Life Protection Act, 1972 in spite of recent changes fails to understand the basic dynamics of the problem. The recent changes in  this law also have the effect of strengthening centralization and achieve nothing beyond that.

 One is at loss to see that the priorities of wild life protection are also decided at the global level to please the global community. The famous tiger project and subsequent elephant project are the examples in hand. There are projects about crocodile, rhinoceros etc. As to protection of elephants , no one has bothered to assess how many elephants our forests can sustain. We completely ignore the fact that a large number of elephants are killed  in Africa every year and USA and Japan are the major importers of ivory. There is also some talk about having a wolf project just because the western children books have lot of stories about this particular animal.

 It is a shame that highly centralized environmental laws do not  bother to take in to account the rights of nomads who are already facing a great problem due to the creation of new nation states such as Pakistan, Banladesh,  Due to the creation of these new states the area of their movement has got restricted. They space which their forefathers used to enjoy is no more available to them. The concept of protected areas and national parks have almost taken away not only their right to live in the environment of their choice but also the right to livelihood as they heavily depend on the forest to earn their livelihood as well.

 Then there is a big question mark about the constitutionality of these centralised laws as the same go against the very spirit of constitutional ideals as incorporated in fundamental duties and 73^rd and 74^th Amendment of the Indian Constitution.

Article 51 A (g) which lists ten fundamental duties of Indian citizens explicitly says that it shall be the duty of every Indian citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.

How can citizens of this country play a meaningful role as to preservation of forests, wild life and environment when the laws on these  treat them as a threat to the environment. These laws in fact come in way of citizens duty to fulfil the constitutional obligations. It is disgusting to note that those very proud citizens of this country who have been following this duty  for centuries without Article51A which was inserted in 1976 by the 42^nd Constitutional Amendment are being thrown out of forests. On the principle that as these duties are obligatory on citizens, the State should also observe them, the apex court has, with reference to Article 51(g), issued orders  for stopping quarring.13

Similarly, it has issued directions declaring disputed areas as “ reserved forests” under Section 20 of Indian forest Act,1927.14  In Subhash v. State of Bihar15, the Supreme Court went so far that it held  that Articles 14 ( Right to Equality), 21( Right to Life) and 51(g) are to be read together.

 Similarly , Article 48A of Directive Principles Chapter of Indian Constitution clearly lays down-

 “The state shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.”

  In Satish v. State of U.P,16 it was held that through the public interest litigation brought out by an institution on  the basis of Article 21, the duty under Article 48A can be enforced.

It emerges from the above discussion that protection of environment, forests and wildlife is the sacred duty of state as well as citizens and both should fulfill the same with utmost dedication and honesty. The state can  not fulfill its duty by just passing laws which leave no room for the citizens to perform their duties. Moreover a critical study of our environmental laws leaves no doubt in  our mind that the these laws are not enacted even by the central government out of its own free will but are rather dictated by international bodies and organization in the name of uniform standards of global environmental governance.

Article 40 of our Constitution clearly lays down fundamental principle of governance of this country i.e. the   State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self government.

Its our profound belief that this kind of centralization is not only against   article 51A(g) and Article 48A but also against the article 243G which talks of powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats. It clearly lays down that Panchyats must be  endowed with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government. In addition the 11^th Schedule specifically includes soil conservation, minor forest produce, social forestry and farm forestry and maintenance of community assets as areas which would come under the jurisdiction of Panchayats. The XI’s Schedule does lists several items which have a bearing on the protection of environment and forestry yet no meaningful role in the environmental policies is being given to these institutions of local self government.

 Any environmental policy which gives no role to these local institutions of self-government does comes in conflict with the scheme of Indian federalism (which has in fact been held to be the basic structure of our constitution), concept of devolution of power and decentralization. The downward distribution of power and not the centralization of power is  the cherished principle and sacred goal of our constitutional democracy.

Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kedra

68/1, Rajpur Road, Surya lok Colony, Dehradun-248001

Tel: 0135- 2746071, 2745539 Fax: 0135-2741913

E-mail: rlek@sancharnet.in ; rlek@vsnl.com;

Web-site: http://www.rlek.org/