Dr. Narasimhan, of the botany department of Madras Christian College, lectured on environmental problems in India. He divided up environmental issues into four conflicting concepts, that through conflict create environmental problems. These issues are incongruencie between 1) ecology and development 2) livelihood and development 3) population and resource management and 4) globalization and localization. He also added pollution as a fifth environmental issue. He summarized two case studies of particular environmental issues that highlight his defined conflicts of environmental issues. Issues with Silent Valley National Park and Kerala’s electricity demand and Narmada Dam and population effects exemplify Dr. Narasimhan’s definition of environmental issues.
Silent Valley National Park, located in Kerala in the South of India, is considered a hotspot of biodiversity. A biodiversity ‘hotspot’ is generally defined as an area with over 500,000 species with 30% of its original habitat still in existence. The National Park is located in the southern part of India’s Western Ghat mountain range. The National Park was only created after Kerala attempted to build a hydorelectic dam to satiate Kerala’s growing energy demands. The attempt to build the dam was met with two NGO’s outcry and protest and the spawn of pro-environmental social movement to protect the National Park. The project was abandoned and national park status was given to the area. The conflict of needs and priorities over the area is representative of Dr. Narasimhan’s list of conflicts that create environmental issues.
Firstly and most obviously, conflicts between ecology and development resonate with Kerala’s proposed energy plan. Such an old, unique, and fruitful ecosystem is a prime example of ecology as a priority in policy. The rainforest is over 50 million years old and hosts multiple endemic species. If its intrinsic value and endemic life does not justify its protection, the ample ecological services its provides will. Water, soil, and air quality are higher in areas in and around natural and old areas. Also, medicinal plants and fungi can be found in these areas. Also, such areas are hotbeds for academic research. Conversely, Kerala’s development goals were only in attempt to provide more electricity to more people. Rather than building or revamping a coal power plant, Kerala’s government initially decided to try a less air pollutant option: Hydro-electric energy. Hoping to provide Kerala with 120 MW of energy, Kerala began implementing the project. Population growth and urbanization are two reasons for needed increased energy, signifying the conflict between population and resource use. Another of Dr. Narasimhan’s conflict is livelihood versus development. An improved livelihood for Kerala’s population would include both increased number of people and area of land with access to electricity as well as improved infrastructure to handle higher energy demands of its population. Improved infrastructure could handle higher energy demands from preexisting areas of electrical demands correlate with higher ‘luxury’ type energy demands. In this way, higher electricity demands whether for necessity or luxury are still ‘livelihood’ priorities that conflict with development.
The second case study Dr. Narsimhan presented was the issue with the Narmada Dam. This environmental issue was less focused on ecological issues—though still important in this issue, and more focused on direct negative impacts to human populations, specifically indigenous tribes and the rural poor surrounding the river basin. The massive project sought to create 3,200 dams on the Narmada River and its subsequent finger rivers. The project contains two large scale, multi-purpose dams. Overall, the dam system sought to provide irrigation and drinking water for surrounding populations, both urban and rural. In practice, the dam cost more money that was expected and flooded a higher area than expected. More people were displaced than were expected. The government wrote it off as an economic loss. Some ecological issues were raised in the development project including interrupted fish migration patterns. I see, out Dr. Narimhan’s conflicts, livelihood and development and population versus resource management as the largest issues within the dam. Dr. Narimhan raised an interesting point, asking “Development for whom?” The dam was designed to provide larger quantities of drinking water, but flooding more villages that intended prompts the developer to consider whose livelihood is being benefitted.
Both of these case studies focus on environment issues in the frame of choices. Weighing the benefits and costs of projects must be considered from all perspectives to make appropriate decisions. I enjoyed Dr. Narimhan’s dissection of environmental problems in India. I think separating different interests from each other allows for objective decision making in projects.