The New Nation - Internet Edition

World Bank entry spells doom for tigers

K Ullas Karanth

The old Exxon ditty, "Put a tiger in your tank", has been adopted by the World Bank. Reportedly prodded by its president, Robert Zoellick, the Bank will announce a new global initiative to save tigers. The 'signature tiger event' in Washington DC on June 9, will be co-hosted by several international conservation groups. Because such interest in wildlife conservation has been rare at the very top hitherto, there is much excitement within and outside the Bank.

Many conservation NGOs see the Bank's tiger initiative as an opportunity to insert a preventive filter on destructive impact of the Bank's developmental projects-dams, highways, mines-on wildlife habitats. Some hope that the Bank (and its ally, the Global Environmental Facility, GEF) can leverage China to curb its rapacious trade in tiger body parts. Others see more money in the pipeline to save tigers in the wild.

Sceptics, on the other hand, see the tiger initiative as a public relations ploy. They suspect that Bank simply wants to lend more profitably to high-growth economies of India and China, simultaneously green-washing its warty environmental visage.

The World Bank has so far failed to generally acknowledge the damage it has inflicted on wild lands through its development projects. However, the institution is unlikely to wear sack-clothes and ashes in public now for it's past sins.

Although this is a global tiger initiative, the Bank desperately needs Indian involvement to maintain credibility. For all its problems, India harbours some 1,500 wild tigers. China has only a handful left, with 5,000 more captives waiting to be butchered, although domestic trade is still banned.

Consequently, there is a covert campaign to compel India to seek the Bank's assistance to save tigers. Officials are dangling before the Indian government the World Bank's "convening power", "expertise in tiger conservation", and "innovative business models" as baits.

Tiger conservationists in India-even those who do not viscerally hate the World Bank-are wary of this simultaneous courting of the Indian government and conservation NGOs. They have reasons to be worried about what happens on ground when the Bank focuses its models, hybridising conservation with development, on tigers.

What I saw unfold in my study area of Nagarahole-one of India's best tiger habitats-a decade ago provides a good example of what can happen with the Bank's intervention. The India Ecodevelopment Project (IEDP -1997-2003), sponsored by the World Bank- GEF combine, had worthy goals: enhancing conservation capacity of reserve managers; reducing negative impacts of local communities and engendering their support for wildlife protection. These goals were to be achieved by spending Rs 360 million over five years-roughly 8 times the usual budget of the reserve. The money was to be routed through hands of reserve officials or consultants.

For the record, I argued against the project, pointing out that clever verbiage covered naked avarice built into the project. I predicted several negative consequences: massive funding would attract corrupt elements in the bureaucracy leading to a collapse of protection; the deficient protective staff would shift attention towards lucrative 'development works' and 'habitat management; no credible education, monitoring or research could occur through the consultancy schemes proposed; the urgent and critical need to reduce human densities inside the park through fair voluntary relocation projects would get sidelined. Despite huge investments, the project would damage wildlife and habitats without increasing local community support.

Unfortunately, I was proved right.

The problems with the project were structurally rooted. Ecodevelopment tried to hybridise conservation with development in entirely inappropriate ecological and institutional contexts. The project pumped vast sums of money through a self-serving network of forest officials, consultants or 'civil society' outfits that mushroomed overnight. Apprehensions of conservationists went unheeded.

Responding to the crisis, Ajjinanda Poovaiah, an activist of the NGO, Wildlife First, filed a well-researched complaint before the Karnataka Lokayukta (state ombudsman) in February 2003, alleging official corruption and mismanagement under the project.

He offered prima facie evidence for penetration of commercial tiger and elephant poachers, resurgence of illegal logging, habitat damage through needless manipulations and financial fraud in Nagarahole.

The Lokayukta, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India, conducted a thorough field investigation with assistance from the complainant. This investigation and linked official inquiries showed that forest protection had virtually collapsed in Nagarahole during the project period. An uncontrolled fire had scorched 9000 hectares (15 per cent of the park area) in 1999. Not only had killings of elephants reached a new peak, professional tiger poachers from central India had crept in during 2002.

At least 12,000 timber trees worth Rs 51 million had been cut and smuggled. Natural habitats had been destructively manipulated-Rs 7 million misspent applying chemical fertilizers to bamboo culms was a typical example. Under the village ecodevelopment corruption had run riot.

According to the Lokayukta's report, estimated total losses were at a staggering Rs 60 million based on a partial sample. Unable to ignore this stench of bad publicity, the government prematurely terminated the Nagarahole project, leaving the World Bank red-faced. Dozens of forest officials, high and low, are now facing prosecution based on the Lokayukta's indictment.

Project design and evaluations were reduced to a farce by the incompetence of Bank staff and consultants. P K Sen, former director of Project Tiger, estimates consultancies and Bank overheads consumed 45 per cent of project funds.

Five years later, other than a laughably self-congratulatory documentary film made by a consultant-and stumps of illegally felled trees and bleached elephant bones in the forest-there is little to show for the 'expertise' and 'innovative models' the Bank inflicted on the unsuspecting tigers.

World Bank's apologists will shrug all this off as a failure unique to Nagarahole, claiming Bank's conservation approach has worked wonderfully at other IEDP sites. However, straws in the wind suggest that much the same thing happened elsewhere too.

The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for 2006 severely criticized the project, specifically mentioning irregularities to the tune of Rs 120 million detected in the village ecodevelopment schemes at Buxa, Gir, Pench and Nagarahole reserves.

A sincere official who refused to partake in this bonanza was hounded out of Ranthambhore. Even in the Periyar project-which is a poster boy for the IEDP -all is not well according to a study by Sanjay Gubbi from Wildlife Conservation Society: negative human impacts, which the project hoped to reduce, are mounting.

There is little evidence of increased public support for conservation. Assessment of another Bank project, in Kalakkad-Mundanthurai by Arjunan of Pondicherry University, shows the same pattern. Therefore, the World Bank's claims about the special expertise it will bring to tiger conservation rings somewhat hollow.

The government must consult widely and reflect seriously about the Bank's tiger initiative. At least one thing has changed since IEDP swept through last time: the robust Indian economy can now afford to save the national animal without recourse to huge international loans. Acting on the Tiger Task Force's recommendations, the Prime Minister has ensured there is enough money-Rs 6,000 million in the current plan-for protecting tigers.

The real challenge lies in spending the money wisely, resisting temptations of the World Bank's 'convening power' and 'expertise'.

CSE/Down To Earth Feature Service

Court rejects South Africa's water policy

S V Suresh Babu

In a landmark ruling on April 30 the High Court (HC) of South Africa announced prepaid water meters cannot be imposed on residents of Phiri-a township in Soweto outside Johannesburg. The judge, M P Tsoka, also ordered to provide residents of Phiri 50 litres per capita per day (lpcd) of free basic water, setting aside the city's decision to limit free water to 25 lpcd.

This was in response to a petition filed in July 2006 by Lindiwe Mazibuko and four others living in the poor settlements in Phiri. They challenged the 2004 decisions of the city of Johannesburg and its water utility, Johannesburg Water (Proprietary) Limited (JW), which they saw as infringement of their right to water. The petitioners argued the decision to limit free basic water supply to 6000 litres per household per month was based on the false assumption that a household comprised 8 persons. That was not the case, pointed out Phiri's petitioners, as most households supported on an average 16 persons. Following the HC ruling, battlelines have been drawn with city managers deciding to appeal against the order. On May 14, the executive mayor of the city, Amos Masondo, made public the government's intention: "We believe the judgment has been distorted somewhat and would like to place our perspective on the matter. Our basis for appeal will be set out systematically in legal argument." Meanwhile, many have started removing their prepaid water meters or bypassing them. JW has appealed to residents to refrain from such acts.

Prior to 2001 Phiri received an unlimited amount of water on a flat rate. As most residents of Phiri were very poor, the collection of water charges was also poor and huge arrears accumulated. In 2001, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) made free basic water a people's right across South Africa guaranteeing 6000 litres per household at the rate of 25 lpcd.

The court observed that 25 lpcd or 6000 litres per household per month was inadequate. The order stated, "The minimum specified amount should be considered as floor and not ceiling."

In 2004 prepaid water meters were introduced by JW, but only for residents of Phiri. The rest of Johannesburg continued to receive their water supply through conventional credit meters.

Prepaid water meters had tough implications for the residents of Phiri. Once a household used up its free quota of 6000 litres a month the supply was automatically cut off. The consumer was then expected to buy water on pre-payment till the time they became eligible for the next month's free allocation. As these were extremely poor families that were often not able to cough up cash for water they practically went without water for 15 days in a month. Installation of prepaid water meters was part of the 450-million-rand 'operation Gcinamanzi' JW launched in Soweto-a project to minimize water wastage through an infrastructure revamp. In 2004 JW advised the residents of Phiri to opt for prepaid water meters; they were also told their water arrears would be written off if they did so. Water supply was to be cut off for all households without such meters in Phiri.

Judge Tsoka criticized the discriminatory nature of prepaid water policy: "I am unable to understand why this credit control measure is only suitable in the historically poor black areas and not the historically rich white areas. Bad payers cannot be described in terms of colour or geographical area. " Tsoka ordered: No customer is to be denied access to basic water services for non-payment if they prove their inability to pay.

Civil society organizations across the world welcomed this judgement. Ashfaq Khalfan, Coordinator of the Right to Water Programme of the Geneva based Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) said, "It is a warning shot against attempts to forcibly impose pre-paid water systems on the poor elsewhere in Africa and globally." COHRE was the amicus curiae in this litigation. Jackie Dugard, Acting Director of Centre for Applied Legal Studies who helped the petitioners says, "The judgment shows a sensitive understanding of the law, the city's obligations, but above all our clients' lives".

(CSE/Down To Earth Feature Service)

Slapped but will not submit

Sunita Narain

In the first week of April this year, a group of men came and stood outside the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi. They carried placards with offensive slogans directed at me. We understood the 'protesters' were ostensibly from an NGO we believed was a front for the pesticide industry. We also understood the picket to be the latest in a dangerous pesticide industry mindgame.

Let me explain. For the past few years, the pesticide industry, represented by its rich and powerful owners, has held press conferences across the country slamming CSE's research on pesticide residues in food, in the blood of farmers in Punjab and in the soil, water and food of diseased and deformed villagers of Padre in Kerala. During this period, we have received dozens of legal notices from this industry, threatening dire consequences. Every time we have replied to these notices, stating the facts, there has never been a follow-up. Instead, another notice for some other frivolous reason gets sent, threatening dire consequences. Initially, the industry targeted our research. The focus then moved to us -- to CSE -- before settling on me. A year ago, they hit a real low when they began circulating obscene cartoons of me that Rajju Shroff, owner of a leading pesticide company, had drawn.

In all this time, even as we refused to give in to the threats, we also respected their right to protest. This time, too, we decided to leave the picket alone. Then, a few days into the 'protest', a journalist with a city daily visited and recognised one of the protesters outside our gate. This was not an employee of the aggrieved pesticide company or a protesting NGO, he said. This man was a representative of a public relations company who had met him, on behalf of biscuit manufacturers, to make the case that government should allow processed food, instead of cooked hot meals, in the multi-crore school meal programme.

We were puzzled. Surely, Indian industry was too proud or forthright to hire protesters? Why would reputed public relations companies engage in dirty tricks and intimidation? We knew this kind of thing happened in the US, where corporations hired lobbyists and white collared goons. But was this now happening in India? We decided to investigate.

When we checked with all known names in the public relations business, nobody had heard of this company-Media Expressions Consortium. Finally, when my colleagues tracked it down to a small office based in a Mumbai suburb, a sinister canister of worms leaked out. The company, we learnt, represented the biggest of the polluters -- the plastic industry and pesticide industry -- as well as others, like the biscuit manufacturers, to defend their interests. The company boss proudly told my colleague he was out demonstrating in front of our office. But in the same breath he told her he had nothing to do with the protest. We realised why. His was a 'shadow' affair. This was the new face of Indian business -- the hidden lobbyist who could skilfully make out cases for clients in different ways, from power-point presentations to physical protest, all on hire, for a price.

Clearly this is now the toolkit of industry to deal with dissent-to suppress public opinion and to subvert decision-making via a fine public relations makeover. If you don't believe me just consider how, in this same period, the pesticide industry through its associations has filed countless cases against activists and scientists, but with an important difference. These cases derive from what is known in the US as SLAPP -- acronym for 'strategic lawsuits against public participation'. These are 'different' because the corporation (or its front organisation or lawyer) uses it not to get justice, but to threaten, intimidate and gag. The cases are filed not against institutions that can defend their interests but carefully target individuals and, in particular, professionals who refuse to prostitute their science to suit industry. The companies who file SLAPP cases rarely win in court, but make the defendants spend a huge amount of time and money running to

the courts to fight the case. This harassment discourages others from petitioning government on public issues. Industry's business is served.

A few years ago, the Pesticide Association of India, now called the Crop Care Federation of India, sent Y S Mohana Kumar, the lone doctor in Padre, a strong legal notice threatening massive damages. His crime? He had worked tirelessly among villagers afflicted with terrible mental and physical ailments that pesticide residue poisoning had caused, and had raised the issue publicly. Padre is a village devastated by the spraying of endosulfan; every house has a victim crying for justice. The industry continues to deny its shame. Instead, it continues to threaten and abuse. The latest victim is a retired government scientist who undertook the research that indicted pesticides for the ailments in poisoned Padre. Till she worked with the Ahmedabad-based National Institute of Occupational Health, industry and its agents did nothing. But the moment she retired, the attacks began. She has already received two legal notices, and more threats, we know, will follow. Industry wants to ensure that others learn from her example -- do not 'dare' to do science that works for public good.

Even as I write this, I know that the dirty tricks department of the pesticide industry is working over-time to find innovative ways to attack. Last week they decided to up the ante -- to target my house so that they can harass my 80-year old mother. But we all know there is too much at stake here to let a few sticks and stones break our bones.

(The writer is the editor, Down To Earth magazine published from New Delhi, India.)

Rainwater harvesting

Water is one of the most essential components for survival of life on the earthThe pressures on our water resources are growing. More houses are being built, our population is increasing, and we are all using more water. Per capita consumption increases but the water supply in Dhaka city is limited. Ground water accounts for nearly 100% of drinking water supply. Overexploitation of ground water has become a common measure to provide water, which has caused a series of environmental problems. The water table is continuously going down in Dhaka city as well as the peri- urban area in Dhaka city.

On the other hand, utilisation of rainfall is at low level .When water becomes more and more critical for human existence and development, it is necessary to pay greater attention to direct use of precipitation, especially in Dhaka city where surface and sub-surface water is short or their abstraction is very difficult and rainwater is the only potential or easy to exploit water source available. Under these circumstances, rainwater becomes a very important and reliable water source because it is accessible almost every where in Dhaka city. Rainwater that is captured and stored correctly is a safe, economical and sustainable source of quality water. Safety measures can be applied to the manner in which rainwater is captured, stored and dispensed. In fact some people argue that rainwater is safer than water supplied through mains or reticulated water systems. Our mains water is typically stored in dams, treated with chemicals such as chlorine to kill bacteria and make it safe, and then pumped through a network of pipes throughout the community. It makes sense to catch the rain that falls for free without chemicals.

Significant economic, social and environmental benefits can be achieved by using rainwater. By using Rainwater Harvesting systems to supply water for some, or indeed all of our requirements, you can reduce your dependence on mains water. Our water supplies are falling and water restrictions are in place in many communities to reduce our overall water usage and protect our supplies.

There is no better quality water available naturally than rainwater. Some say there are health benefits to using rainwater which is not treated with chemicals like our mains water is.

Rainwater falls for free - once you have installed a rain harvesting system, you use less mains water and can reduce your water bills. Rainwater Harvesting reduces the significant damage to our creeks, water habitats and organisms caused by storm water runoff. So we can easily harvest rainwater to mitigate potable water crisis in Dhaka city.

Neelufer Yasmin

MBSTU Tangail.

Industrial pollution

Industrial activities are a major source of air, water and land pollution, leading to illness and loss of life all over the world. The World Health Organization estimates that outdoor air pollution alone accounts for around 2% of all heart and lung diseases, about 5% of all lung cancers, and about 1% of all chest infections.

World sales in chemical products have multiplied nine times since 1970, increasing from 171 billion dollars to 1500 billions in 1998. Among the most polluting products are heavy metals - for example, mercury inside batteries, lead in gasoline - and pollutants made from oil (plastic…). Spreading into water, air, and land, heavy metals contaminate the entire food chain, including humans.

In Europe and in the U.S.A, the rates of testicle cancers have tripled over the last fifty years and breast cancer today hits 1 woman in 8, compared to 1 in 20 in 1960. Despite these facts, humans produce about 1000 new chemical substances every year that add to the 70,000 chemical molecules already available on the market. Although consistent progress in filtering and reprocessing has been made to stop the direct discharging of sewage into rivers or particulate into the atmosphere, industrial pollution still accumulates in estuaries or in the air. Traces of DDT - a very powerful and toxic insecticide that blocks respiratory organs - have even been found in the fat of Antarctic penguins. Moreover, industrial pollutions also last longer periods of time. What must be done with the existing 200,000 tons of nuclear waste and with the 5% that will remain dangerous over periods of thousands of years ?

The largest part of the global pollution comes from industrial countries which produce over 95% of all dangerous products. In these countries, regulations for treatment and elimination of industrial waste became so strict and costly that firms turn to developing countries to get rid of their waste. Countries exporting the largest amount of waste are Germany, the Netherlands, the U.S.A., the U.K., and Australia. After being over-used in the eighties, African countries signed the Treaty of Bamako in 1991 which prohibits the import of dangerous waste onto their territories. South East Asia and Eastern Europe are today's new clients. A recent survey shows that over half of the American " recycled " computers are in reality exported to China.

Here, poorly paid workers reprocess useful materials before burning the rest in the open air, which is source to highly toxic emissions. Furthermore, not only waste, but polluting factories and technologies tend to moves to least constraining world regions. Indeed, a number of products which are either forbidden or progressively banned from Northern markets can still be produced and purchased in the developing countries. Among these, we find 47 medicines and over 500,000 tons of pesticides.

Many countries ask for the creation an international law framework for production and transportation of toxic products. The "Basel convention on the control of trans-boundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal" has been ratified by 152 countries (not the USA), and came into effect in 1992. Some efforts are done to ban the most harmful pollutants.

During the Johannesburg Summit of August 2002, a new list of twelve toxic chemical products called POP (Persistent Organic Pollutants) has been prohibited. Also, the European Commission launched a project for a 'white book'. For the first time ever (according to the project) governments won't bear the duty and cost to check, after they have been marketed, if substances are hazardous or not: industrials will have to prove their safety before they become marketable! A revolution which requires effective control procedures even within developing countries. With no doubt such project would represent a positive step to enforce the polluter/payer principle. But other steps still need to be taken. Environmental management in industries is possible as show more and more initiatives. A growing number of industries need to be aware of this embark on environmental certifying process.

Sifat Munim Tanin

MBSTU Tangail.

Carbon capture and storage

The term "carbon capture and storage" (CCS), also known as "carbon capture and sequestration", refers to a set of technologies designed to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from large-point sources including coal-fired power plants to mitigate climate change. CCS technology involves capturing CO2 and then storing the carbon in a reservoir other than the atmosphere, instead of allowing it to be released into the atmosphere where its accumulation contributes to climate change.

Several different categories of strategies for storing carbon are possible and have been proposed; these include storing carbon in terrestrial ecosystems, the oceans, and underground in geologic formations. Terrestrial carbon storage refers primarily to biological carbon sequestration in the biosphere relying on the photosynthetic process of capturing and converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into organic carbon.

Ocean storage generally refers to the injection of captured CO2 directly into the oceans but also includes other mechanisms of enhancing oceanic uptake of carbon. Geologic carbon storage refers to the injection of captured CO2 into underground, naturally occurring geologic reservoirs that will trap the gas to prevent it from re-entering the atmosphere. Another proposed approach often referred to as mineral carbonation involves chemical reactions that transform the carbon in gas-phase CO2 into solid-phase carbonate minerals. Among these different carbon storage approaches, geologic storage has emerged as the method with the greatest potential for large-scale CO2 emissions reductions in the near term.

A complete CCS system involving geologic carbon storage includes four basic steps with different technologies required for each step: (1) capture the CO2 from a power plant or other concentrated stream; (2) transport the CO2 gas from the capture location to an appropriate storage location; (3) inject the CO2 gas into an underground reservoir; and (4) monitor the injected CO2 to verify its storage.

Technologies that are commercially-used in other sectors are currently available for each of these components. CO2 capture technology is already widely used in ammonia production and several other industrial manufacturing processes as well as oil refining and gas processing. CO2 gas has been transported through pipelines and injected underground for decades, most notably in West Texas where it is used to enhance oil recovery (EOR) of declining-production wells.

Some 3-4 million tons of CO2 per year is currently successfully stored underground at several locations, including Sleipner in the North Sea, Weyburn in Saskatchewan, Canada, and In Salah in Algeria. Technologies to monitor the carbon dioxide and verify its storage are also available. The integration and the scaling-up of the existing technologies to capture, transport, and store CO2 emitted from a full-scale power plant, however, has not yet been demonstrated, although this is the goal of the US Department of Energys FutureGen project.

The concept of engineering systems to deliberately capture and store CO2 has evolved in the past twenty years from a relatively obscure idea to an increasingly recognised set of potential climate change mitigation options.

While the technical feasibility of CCS involving underground storage in geologic formations has been demonstrated in other applications and several demonstration projects, this technology is unlikely to be used widely until regulations on carbon emissions are instituted so that reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere provides an economic benefit that will offset the cost of implementing the technology.

Although studies on the risks associated with injecting CO2 underground have found minimal concerns, widespread of adoption of CCS technology could also be limited by public acceptance due to the novelty of the concept as well as by uncertainties resulting from the lack of demonstrated full-scale integration of the technology.

Sifat MunimTanin

MBSTU Tangail.