Pollution Control and Environment Governance

Concept of Environmental justice in Nepal

Introduction

Environmental problems are getting more attention in recent years in academic field, political and government agencies, media and grassroots level as well. Hardly a day passes without hearing increased air pollution, water pollution, increased solid waste in city areas, landfill sites and associated conflicts, loss of forest and biodiversity, problems in managing natural resources and so on. Such increased concern helps to design some technical, social and legal mechanism in order to address and improve protection and preservation of nature and environment. Despite signature improvements in environmental protection over this period, people continue to live in unsafe and unhealthy physical environments. The environmental justice movement emerged in response to environmental and social inequalities, threats to public health, unequal protection, differential enforcement and disparate treatment received by the poor and less privileged people (Bullard 2001).

Fair treatment of all people of caste, ethnicity, race or income groups for the equitable distribution of benefits of environmental conservation or hazards of environmental degradation is known as environmental justice (Adhikari and Ghimire 2002a). It regards the meaningful participation in planning, or implementation of any environmental projects or policies or decision-making mechanism, as well as access to authority for information and justice in matter of environmental and resource utilization. EPA defines the goal of environmental justice as to ensure all peoples, regardless of race, national origin, ethnic background or income, are protected from disproportionate impact of environmental hazards (EPA 2001). The ultimate goal of environmental justice is sustainable livelihood for all sectors of a society.

Environmental Justice for poor people

It is the poorest that suffer most by environmental degradation and have least access to environmental resources all over the world but nature of injustice is quite different in developed and developing country. In developed country, societies have already urbanized and people need not directly depend on natural resources for their livelihood. Therefore common environmental injustices in those region includes- not preserving nature and its wildness, dumping of municipal and other waste materials near the communities of color or low income group and establishing hazardous industries and waste facility sites close to poorer neighbourhood. Such inequalities are outcomes of unfair distribution of social and political power and awareness level in a community. In response of such injustices a movement was emerged in USA beyond a decade ago, which was termed as movement of environmental justice. In 1991 the first summit of National People of Color Environmental Leadership (USA) adopted 17 “Principles of Environmental Justice” as a guide for organizing, networking, and relating to government and nongovernmental organizations (Lee 1992). It put the issue on international radar screen. Since then several debates, discussions and researches were carried out to conceptualize the issue more clearly and more broadly which help to spread the concept in other regions and countries.

In Nepal natural resource has been the main mean of livelihood for majority of poor, disadvantaged and landless rural people as the case of most of the developing countries. The main role of nature at least for here is to serve needy people who take care of it and to provide material support for their living. Therefore the movement of environmental justice includes all movements and campaigns, which help livelihood security of affected communities. Adhikari (2002) defined livelihood security as the capacity of the individual or the household to improve their various assets (Physical, financial, human, social and political) so that even they are struck by disaster of various types, they are capable to cope with them and regain their assets

In our case environmental justice can be regarded as ‘Environmentalism of Poor’ as it addresses health security and other livelihood security issues for poor, less privileged and minority people or communities. Environmentalism of poor deals with social conflict with an ecological content (today and history), of the poor against the (relatively) rich, not only but mainly in rural context (Guha 1989). It accentuates the defence of livelihood and communal access to natural resources, threatened by state or the market as well as reaction against environmental degradation caused by unequal exchange, poverty and population growth (Martinez-Alier 1998).

There is arising logic to give preference on environmental security like food security. Food security ensures access of each individual to enough quality food as practicing from generation whereas concept of environmental security ensures access to safe and secured environment. However the opportunity to exercise both of these securities can be achieved by the condition for secured civil right. Environmental right and justice cannot be separated from civil rights although environmental right along with many other social, economical and cultural rights are not included in fundamental civil right to live in safe and healthy environment while solving many cases related to degraded environmental limiting the right to life (Shrestha 1998).

In Nepal with the promulgation of the kingdom of Nepal 1990, cases in the field of increasingly coming up before the Supreme Court. The court has also recognized the environmental problem under public interest litigation and delivered many environmentally friendly decisions and principles ( Bhattarai 2000). One of the important cases on this aspect is the case of Surya Dhungel v. Godavari Marble Industries (P.) Ltd. In the case petitioner alleged that the respondent (Godavari Marble) is destroying the ecology of Godavari hill and thereby threatening the biodiversity of the valley by its marble mining operation. The Supreme Court of Nepal issued a verdict to the respondent to apply necessary mechanism for effective environmental protection.

We can simply say that environmental justice can be achieved only after we have secured civil right. Most of the degradation of environmental right is created in such situation when affected communities are unable to protest them. Therefore civil rights such as free press, right to information, right to speak and write freely, free electron and right to participate in any organization or group are preconditions for environmental justice. Unless all of these preconditions are met, affected communities cannot raise their voices and protests that result continued degradation of nature and environment.

Status and problems of environmental justice in Nepal

It is clear that no researches were carried out in the name of environmental justice in Nepal except very few legal studies (Adhikari and Ghimire 2002). However many works and studies related to environment and natural resource management included the different aspects of environmental justice. Another interesting conclusion that can easily be drawn is most of the cases of injustices in environmental matters are emerging from the roots of our social structure because environmental injustice also reflects our social disparity. Therefore caste, class, gender, unawareness and political power have been main causes to affect environmental justice. Some of commonly found injustice issues are briefly described in following paragraphs.

Community forestry, widely appreciated for its success, is seen as one of the ways to safeguard forest with participation of local people and at the same time it benifits them. But sharing of benefits from community forest has not been always fair and equitable. Occupational castes, which are commonly recognized as lower castes in our social structure are denied access to nearby forest (Graner 1997). Similarly the contribution to community forest in terms of labour, money, or time is ineqitable. Poor and powerless sections of the society are spending enough physical labour whereas upper section are holding control through management and paper-work though they spend little time period. Discrimination happened mainly to so-called lower caste and poor people as well as women because they lack skill on paper work and keeping account. There is also inequity in participation on decision making process for forest management as well as other social work (Poudel 1998). There are difficulties for these deprived sections in order to participate on decision making process, as they are not well informed about meetings and other programs. In such a way lacking of ‘transparency’ is aiding to create injustices.

The next problem as revealed by many studies is related to women. Women are found politically weak which hinders them to have resources ownership and domination in society (Gautam 2001). Forest guard considers them adversary since they visit forest area more frequently to fulfil daily requirement of their family. Families with women and children members have to face difficulties since committee separates short duration on cutting wood logs and fire wood as well as sparing night time to use water for irrigation (Pun 2001).

Many projects and programs hardly consider minorities to encourage for participation. For example encouraging only Gurungs in Gurung village or Brahmin-Chhetris in those communities where they dominates is unjust to minorities. Studies related to eco-tourism shows that benefits from tourism industry mainly goes to the side of urban-based entreprencurs and few local but elite persons whereas burdens raised by tourism – say for example in the form of degradation of forest, price increase of labour as well as daily use of food items, deterioration in local cultural practice and hazards of western consumerism – come up to the side of local farmer of families with low income. Although poor people get some work opportunity as porter and like, there is also exploitation and injustice to porter not getting subsistence level of salary or medical, clothing, foot wear and similar facilities as compared with their work risk.

Park people conflict is also a form of injustice occurring around the protected areas established mainly for protection of wildlife and tourism. Depredation of crop and domestic animals by wildlife of such conservation area and not getting compensation for such destruction is the main problem (Adhikari 2000). Sometimes human casualties also happen around national parks. Displacement of local inhabitants in the name of creations or extension of protected areas without giving any appropriate alternative way for subsistence used to be common practice in the past (Baghhchand 2001). Displaced people feel uprooted from their communities and environment, and as a result face various social and health problems, which lead to various changes in their cultural patterns. Similarly, indigenous or tribal people, maintaining their generation to generation, are also prohibited to utilize local natural resource (Ghimire 2001). This results in their livelihood crisis.

Urban environmental justice problems are quite different from rural. In an urban setting, most of the injustice issues root in the management of solid waste, for example, dumping of waste material near the slum and marginal neighbourhoods without giving adequate information regarding its hazardous consequences (Shrestha 1993). Similarly polluting rivers by disposal of sewerage, lacking access to clean drinking water, air pollution, adulteration and pollution essentially produce more impacts on poor than rich since poor people are usually exposed directly to such hazards and unable to manage protection measure owing to lack of resources.

Improving environmental justice

In fact, environmental justice, in the context of Nepal should aim at enhancing and improving livelihood of poor, less privileged, minority and affected people in sustainable way since they have depended directly on natural resources for subsistence. That also applies to urban part since air pollution affects more seriously the health of poor people, as they cannot afford for treatment. In such condition their livelihood is adversely affected.

Environmental justice is a movement which rises from public spare; we can attain the sustainable conservation of nature and environment as well as the highest level of environmental equality. This movement is essential not only for pressing the state agencies for fair distribution of benefits and adverse impacts of the environmental conservation and deterioration, but also for sustainable development. We have already discussed about what sorts of political, social and economical preconditions are required to advance such movements.

Generally secured civil right of affected community can ensure environmental justice, which further requires participatory democratic system with enough prospects of discourse. In such political system decision-making should be accountable to the consequences of their decision and voices from grassroots level should have easy and significant access to decision-making body. But it seems quite impossible in capitalist system with such rapid trend of globalization.

It will be a long process to achieve above-mentioned condition of justice and fair treatment. From the short-term viewpoint, different development projects should have a regard for environmental justice. Following points can be recommended for consideration and further discussion:

1. Socio-economic structure should be studied in the affected or to be affected (by any projects or programs) places or communities. It will get to know how people are made happen to face health and environmental hazards.
2. Some cultural, social or economic factors enhance the discrimination and injustices created by programs or politics related to environment and resources utilization.
3. Formulation, implementation and monitorind of new plans, policies, programs and projects require active public participation. Therefore authorities and decision makers should provide enough scope for worthy participation. Public participation should be maintained right from planning stage.
4. Generally affected communities deserve more concern, which are also called environmental justice community of concern (EJCOC). It is composed predominantly of persons of lower caste, tribal or ethnic minorities or a substantial proportion of persons below the poverty line. EJCOC can be a target for policy-makers in environmental reparations or remedies to compensate or restore environmental quality and to provide environmental security.
5. Alternative means for livelihood should be investigated and planned to correct existing injustices and to protect from additional adverse impacts.
6. Adequate information should be provided to affected communities and other concerned individual. Moreover improving the awareness of public on existing legal provisions, and easy access to information are other factors that help in having improved access to environmental justice.
7. There are many indigenous communities who make their livelihood by utilizing natural resource. Therefore new policies and program should not affect them in discriminatory way.
8. During the designing phase of study of environmental impacts, opinion of socio-economically less privileged sectors of a society should be well incorporated. Public hearing should be carried out in local language at the time and place favoured by such people to ease their participation and access to information.

References:

Adhikari, J. (2002). Environmental justice and sustainable livelihood security: Perspectives from grassroots. Studies in Nepal history and Society. Kathmandu (in press)

Adhikari, J. And S. Ghimire (2002a) Vatavataniya nyaya sandawali (A glossary of environmental justice). Martin Chautari, Kathmandu

Adhikari, J. and S. Ghimire (2002b). A bibliography on environmental justice in Nepal. Martin Chautari, Kathmandu

Adhikari, K. (2000). An assessment of crop damage by wild animals in the eastern part of the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. M. Sc. Thesis (Zoology), T.U. Kathmandu Nepal

Baghchand, U. (2001). Those evacuated from park on the road (in Nepali). Himal 11(08): 20

Bhattarai, C. (2000). Public interest litigation for biodiversity conservation. In: Jaibik Bibidhta Samrakshan: Srot Sangalo (Biodiversity Conservation: A Collection of Resources in Nepali), L. Belbase and N. Belbase (Eds.), pp. 177-197. Pro public, Kathmamdu

Bullard, R. D. (2001). It’s not just pollution. Our planet. United Nations Environment Program. Internet: http://www.orplanet.com/imgversn/122/bullard.html

EPA (2001). Environmental Justice. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Internet: http:/es.epa.gov/occa/main/ej

Gautam, N. (2001). What makes a community forestry successful? A comparative analysis of a successful and unsuccessful community forest in Kaski district, Nepal. B. Sc. (Forestry) Thesis, T.U.

Ghimire, S. (2001). Interrelations between national park and people. Srijana. 10: 28-31. Chitawan Study Centre and Ecological Service Center, Chitawan.

Ghimire, E (1997). The political ecology of community forestry in Nepal. VArlag Entwickungspolitik Saarbrucken (VSE). Freiburg Studies in Development Geography, No. 14. Germany

Guha, R. (1989). Unquiet wood: Ecological change and pheasant resistance in Himalaya. Oxford University Press, Delhi

Lee, C. (1992). Proceedings: The first national people of color environmental leadership summit. United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. New York

Maritnez-Alier, J. (1998). Environmental justice (Local and global). In: The Cultures of Globalization, F. Jameson and M. Miyoshi (Eds.), pp. 312-326. Duke University Press, Durham

Poudel, H. (1998). The impact of Community forestry program on the less privileged people: Case studies from Dolakha district. M. A. Thesis (Sociology), T.U. Kathmandu

Pun, S. (2001). Role of gender in Sali Nadi (Shankhu Raj Kulo) Irrigation management: A case study. In: Challenges to Farmer Managed Irrigation System: Proceeding of International Seminar on ‘Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems’ held on 28-29 March, 2000, U. Gautam and S. Rana (Eds.), pp. 59-73. Kathmandu, Nepal

Shrestha, A. (1993). A case study of the social aspect of solid waste management in Kathmandu. M.A. Thesis (Sociology-Anthropology), T.U., Kathmandu

Shrestha, K. (1998). Fundamental right for clean environment and environmental justice. In: Environmental Law and Justice, N. Belbase and C. Bhattarai (Eds.). IUCN Nepal, Kathmandu