New Page 1

Corporate v/s Local: Large-scale interventions, regional, national and corporate interests vs. local mountain communities and downstream municipalities

Mountains have transformed significantly during the past century, paying a heavy price for its development by way of loss in natural assets, pristine beauty and cultural heritage. Following on the downstream development model, most mountain regions have had negative return on investment. Devoid of rich cover and free flowing streams, most regions seem to be on the verge of collapse. One wonders if the `water towers for the 21^st century’ (Mountain Agenda 1998) have received the treatment they deserved?

Providing assured fresh water supplies of 30 to 50 per cent, today these towers themselves need water to support life, food to sustain the poor and resources to maintain the life-support systems. And, in the name of support these have received technologies, which were at best suited for the lowlands and the plains. From road building to industries and from hydropower to drinking water, technologies best suited for the plains were transported upwards. Also, energy and resources have been extracted from the hills to support technology development, but little or no re-investment has been made in local community welfare or environment. The results are for everyone to see.

The opinion is unanimous that large-scale infrastructure projects (such as roads and hydroelectric projects) have not been beneficial to the mountain communities due to their goal being to provide power to the State or powerful stakeholders. Not only have such technologies been environmentally insensitive, the approach and methodology of implementation has had little regard to peoples’ concerns and ecological systems.

Mountain areas all over the world have a lot in common and yet differ a lot by virtue of their topography, culture, and socio-economic and geopolitical conditions. Consequently, one technology that might work exceedingly well in one area may prove to be a disaster in the other. The case of tunneling for building better roads or water channels has been an interesting case in point.

While the technology has been tuned to avoid blasting in the Austrian Alps, it's blasting continues to ruin the Indian mountains. Clearly, technology upgrading and related management issues need to be resolved in such cases. Such instances point out to the need for more research to integrate regional differences and local wisdom in developing location-specific recipes for eco- and people-friendly mountain infrastructure. Community priorities including gender concerns have rarely been considered in the entire process of technology development and transfer. Consequently, while many areas were electrified, the women and poor communities did not have resources to pay for it. However, the point here is that technological intervention in isolation may not offer the intended solutions unless the mountain communities have the necessary resources to pay for the services. Livelihood strategies must be integrated with technological intervention to pave the way for smooth adoption of the technologies.

Learning from the past?

A hydroelectric project at Maneri in Uttarakhand state of India has learnt little from the past. Water stored at the reservoir in Maneri is transported through an underground tunnel to another location for electricity generation. During the Uttarkashi earthquake in the mid-1990s, two villages of Jamakh and Didsari were at the receiving end, suffering massive damages through loss of humans, cattle and property. The choice of blasting technology in fragile mountain system was counted as the contributing factor.

In contrast, a two-century old tunnel for water transportation continues to serve the community without any side effects. Maletha is a small village at the banks of river Alaknanda nearly 90 kilometers from Rishikesh. This village appears like a manmade oasis in the wilderness due to single-handed efforts of a man called Madho Singh Bhandari. Bhandari was an official in the court of the King of Tehri and was pained, as his fields were dry despite the mighty river flowing in the vicinity. Records indicate that Madho Singh dug a tunnel through the mountain and brought water to his village. The tunnel is an excellent piece of engineering and despite its age it continues to irrigate farmers fields in the village. Though smaller in scale, the tunnel offers an example of ingenious engineering.

Summarised from Pooran C. Joshi

Moving the decision-making process from the national capitals to the region, it was argued, would help communities come closer to sharing their concerns and priorities. Redefining governance is an important issue and its integration with the planning processes a significant step in decentralising the decision-making process. The process of development, it was concluded, must be transparent at local, regional and national levels so that participation of the local people in each stage of an intervention can be encouraged. In addition, the role of civil society in developing people-centred policies was also recognised. With local governance laws existing in several countries, the challenge is to recognise their significance in the light of sustainable mountain development.

Community decides

Not only is the question of control crucial, there are also ways of allowing the local communities to benefit. In the case of Tyrolean in Austria, the company building and operating hydropower stations are owned in most cases by the regional government. But this also may not guarantee that the local people in the mountains benefit, as the interest of even the regional government may not necessarily be in line with the local interests. Hydropower stations have considerable impacts on the mountain environment. Some of the consequences cannot be estimated beforehand. For instance, changes in water flows affect the moisture status and have consequences for pastures and arable land. Sometime even water from one catchment area is diverted to another catchment and used to fill a dam in another valley. Therefore, in this area there is a sort of royalty paid to the (farming) community as justification for unmeasurable potential damage. The farmers have to provide plans of investment for this money, which totals to substantial amounts. If they fail to come up with communal farming investment projects, the community can use it for any communal purpose.

Contributed by Markus Schermer

Mountain regions, in many countries of the developing world, are staking their claim for independent identity. But unless these new states create their own vision about mountain development, much of their struggle for independent identity would carry little meaning. This clearly needs a political will for change. But there is a word of caution here - regional control of resources will not guarantee benefits to mountain communities because the interest of even the regional government may not necessarily be in line with the interests of the people.

A decentralised decision-making process alone can ensure equity (social, political, economic, educational) for mountain communities and communities in low-lying areas and also equitable distribution among people in mountain areas. Poverty and inequality are the major causes of stress (environmental, political, economic) in mountain areas. In areas of high inequity, major interventions such as roads, electricity, tourism and industries are more likely to make the situation worse than in areas, which are more equitable. Equity holds the key to harmonious development.

Stakeholders' participation at all levels of decision making ensures that the communities make informed choices. For instance, communities in and around Manali, India, benefit from tourism but also suffer cultural loss as they have been driven into it out of choice. Had they been well informed and given a choice, the scene could have been different. Even if they had opted for tourism itself, they may have levied some form of taxation to cover the damages. This is an area that needs more work by researchers, sociologists, anthropologists and others. The example of Tryolean Alps in Austria is perfect example of communities’ stake in decision-making process.

It was further argued that if planned with full participation of the mountain communities, the technologies selected would be environmentally benign and benefits shared equitably, within and without the region. There is a need to focus on vegetation though. From its management to protection and expansion as a strategy for harvesting and conserving water must be central in mountain development for maintaining the long-term value of mountains as a valuable water resource.

By making informed choices, communities can enforce billing of unmeasurable ecological damages into the overall cost of intervention. In the mountain context, it is just about beginning to happen. But the situation will not change so long as local communities are not given power/ ownership of managing their land resources including water and forestland. So long as permission is given in the Capital and the loan is sanctioned by a bank in the Capital without first taking the approval of the local people (in many cases we have not even created the social institutional mechanisms), the protests by local people are treated as a law and order problem and not a genuine issue.

Who decides?

A private sector company has been given a license by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in India to utilise the large deposits of limestone for cement manufacturing in Chamba. Communities allege that despite the negative remarks given by the local forest officials on the project's likely environment impact on the forests and the ecology of the area, the Government has gone ahead with its plans. On its part, the company has assured usual environmental compliance. If previous experience with cement manufacturers in the State is anything to go by, people doubt if that will ever be adhered to.

However, the company used populist measures to cover itself. It has undertaken to create an airstrip in Dalhousie, a tourist place near Chamba, and widen the road all the way to Chamba. While the company assures employment to the local people, the government has been assured a royalty of Rs 16 (1USD=Rs 47) per tonne of cement.

People feel that the government has bargained community's interest. The airstrip is essentially in the company's interest to air lift its senior officials and engineers, argue the local residents. In terms of assured employment, only cheap labour will be hired from the area as technicians and engineers would come from elsewhere. Widening of the roads is more for the purpose of transporting cement, its benefits if any are incidental. People further contend that the details of the project were never discussed with the affected communities.

Contributed by Sudhirendar Sharma

Though green accounting is a complicated matter, it is becoming relevant in the context of globalisation. Communities in the Philippines are apprehensive of big agribusiness. With mountain regions being biodiversity rich, transnational companies buy the rights to these seeds and patent them. From what the farmers have heard, these corporations have already patented okra (Abelmoscus esculentus), which they use to fortify vitamins made in factories. Only a well-entrenched local governance system based on sustainable principles can thwart the onslaught of such exploitative interests.

When talking about technology transfer, integration (with indigenous technology) and merger should to take into account other extended issues such as patent rights, localisation/ indigenisation and rights of the communities who are directly and indirectly going to be effected by whatever the form of technology transfer it be, including genetically modified crops.

Conclusion
Technology is not only a mechanical innovation but also an indigenous skill and metabolic innovation which mostly comes from local people. But if people decide in favour of large interventions, there is nothing that can be done.

People need connectivity (with the rest of the world or region or country), infrastructure, and a balanced development approach of which the cost is estimated not only economically but also in terms of environmental and long-term efficacy indicators, to address the issue of marginality of mountain communities.

But large-scale technological interventions must have a starting point - then, if they are valid, they expand exponentially. The lowland people must understand that the benefits and `disbenefits’ they receive from the highlands, such as water and floods, are directly related.