Ecologocal destruction: the Rot & the Remedy..

Book Review

Ecological Meltdown - Impact of unchecked human growth on the earth’s natural systems

Asheem Srivastav and Suvira Srivastav

In a recent article in Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, Paul R.Ehrlich and robert M.Pringle observe that, in the absence of a rapid, tranformative intervention, the earth's biodiversity will gop "up in smoke" (PNAS, August 12, 2008).

There are several disturbing pointers to the impending crisis: trees that are vital for averting desertification and arresting the increase in greenhouse gas emmissions are felled at a perturbing rate- one estimate has it that, at the, at the current rate of destruction, rainforests across the world will be wiped out in 40 years; the oceanic zooplankton- a critical element in the food chain as well as the oxygen cycle- has declined at an alarming 73% since 1960; and the increase in greenhouse gas emmissions, especially carbon dioxide, has the potential not only to cause global climate change, but also to threaten living organisms in different oceans by raising the acidity level.

CAUSES

That there is, unmistakably, the human hand or influence behind all these factors is reflected in several recent publications, including the Millenium ecosystem Assessment. Through their analysis of the causes and implications of ecological meltdown, the authors of this book seek to convey the same message.

The first of the eight chapters in the book sets the tone by speaking about species extinction and the need for conservation. The second dwells on how population growth contributes to ecological destruction, while the third chapter highlights the multiple threats to ecosystems. The precarious condition in which the protected areas and their inhabitants find themselves as a consequence of human greed is depicted in the next two chapters. the rest of the book focusses on the remedies for the ecological destruction set in motion by the anthropogenic activities.

Asheem Srivastav and Suvira Srivastav argue that the ongoing conservation effoprts at the national and global levels through multilateral agreements and with international funding are useful only as a sort of 'first aid' and are not good enough to treat the "deep wounds" that are inflicted on the ecosystem. They contend that the notion of sustainable development needs to be revisited urgently if an ecological meltdown is to be averted.

Apart from population growth, unbridled consumption demand is held out as another vital cause for ecological destruction. But the authors fail to acknowledge the important role played by the divergence in consumption patterns of the haves and the have-nots.

For instance, the regional estimates of the ecological footprint prepared by the Global Footprint network reveal that the combined ecological influence of north America and the European Union( with a total population of about 780million) is more than that of Asia (comprising about 3,500 million people). The book is good in identifying the causes and implications of the ecological meltdown, but it puts forth hardly any new idea for tackling the problem. For instance, the authors discuss at length how consumption of wood fuel leads to degradation of forests, but fail to explore why a vast majority of the rural population is compelled to depend on wood for their fuel needs. Nor are the health implications of this continued dependence discussed.

SOLUTIONS

Use of improved stoves coupled with curbs by local governments on drawing fuel wood from a live tree will cut down not only the health-related social burden but also the household sector's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, in the developing countries, off-grid solutions involving renewable resourses have the potential to meet the energy needs of the poor, without pushing the Earth to the brink of disaster. The authors could well have focussed more on solutions to the problem.

In fact, a number of solutions have been in discussion for quite a few years now, and many of them are prima facie doable. Ehrlich and Pringle, in their article cited at the beginning, suggest some feasible pathways to avert an ecological disaster. Unfortunately, the academic community, which is all-too-familiar with the 'solutions', does not see their 'implementation' as part of its job description. Preventing an ecological meltdown lies not so much in the hands of cutting-edge science as in the ability of the academia to educate society at large. The Srivastavs, through their simple narrative, have sought to serve this objective.

Courtesy: The Hindu. This news item appeared in The Hindu as a book review on Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Posted by- Ananya Bose, First year, NLIU.

Biggest census of Marine life

It has been the biggest and most comprehensive attempt ever to answer that age-old question: how many fish are there in the sea?

Published on 2 August, a 10-year study of the diversity, distribution and abundance of life in the world's oceans, the Census of Marine Life (COML), estimates there are more than 230,000 species in our oceans.

COMPREHENSIVE

The survey covers “from coast to the open ocean, from the shallows to the deep, from little things like microbes to large things such as fish and whales,” said Patricia Miloslavich of Universidad Simon Bolivar, Venezuela, the co-senior scientist of the COML.

More than 360 scientists have spent the past decade surveying 25 regions.

The results show that around a fifth of the world's marine species are crustaceans such as crabs, lobsters, krill and barnacles. Add molluscs (squid and octopus) and fish (including sharks) and that accounts for up to half the species in the seas.

The charismatic species often used in conservation campaigning — whales, sea lions, turtles and sea birds — account for less than 2 per cent.

The surveys have also highlighted areas of concern for conservationists.

“In every region they've got the same story of a major collapse of what were usually very abundant fish stocks or crabs or crustaceans that are now only 5 per cent-10 per cent of what they used to be,” said Mark Costello of the Leigh Marine Laboratory, University of Auckland.

“These are largely due to over-harvesting and poor management of those fisheries. That's probably the biggest and most consistent threat to marine biodiversity around the world.” The main threats include overfishing, degraded habitats, pollution and the arrival of invasive species.

But more problems loom: rising water temperatures and acidification thanks to climate change and the growth in areas of the ocean that are low in oxygen and, therefore, unable to support life.

MOST DIVERSE REGIONS

The most diverse regions identified by the COML are around Australia and south-east Asia. “It's also a hotspot for terrestrial biodiversity and this has been known for about 100 years,” said Costello.

“It looks like that region with the coral reefs has always had a very high rate of speciation. It also has a very diverse range of habitats — from the deepest areas of the oceans to large areas of shallow seas, which can support coral reefs.”

Australian and Japanese waters contain more than 30,000 species each. Next in line are the oceans off China, the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. — © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2010

Courtesy: Guardian Newspapers Limited; This story was published in The Hindu on August 5, 2010

Posted by: Shivendu Joshi

Unexamined danger off the shores

Crisis management tools are no substitute for prepared preventive action, which has been found wanting in the case of several off-shore oil rigs in Indian waters.

In April this year, a BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded, caught fire and collapsed, killing eleven people and triggering an oil spill on a scale not experienced since the Exxon Valdez spill in1989. The full impact of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, including its catastrophic effect on the marine environment, the fishing industry and regional tourism will only be fully evident in the years to come but it would be reasonable to believe that in its wake, governments across the world would be carefully re-examining the drilling operations off their own shores.

In the post-catastrophe examination of Deepwater Horizon from a regulatory perspective, the blame has fallen squarely on the weakness of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in the United States in that it did not require a “worst case scenario” analysis. Any major project in India requires an EIA; that is, a focused and extensive examination of the possible environmental effects of any activity in the terms of the EIA Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in 2006. All offshore oil and gas activities which were set up after the notification automatically fall into Category A set out in the Notification; that is, they require an environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests based on the recommendations of a Central Environmental Appraisal Committee. A series of Right to Information applications filed by this writer to determine how closely the environmental impact of India's offshore petroleum installations have been examined revealed disturbing results, including on the manner in which these responses are given.

Ironically, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, whom one would have expected to be most concerned, responded to an RTI query regarding the possibility of oil and gas pollution in Indian waters with a bland statement that the matter had been disposed of in the Ministry and that the relevant authority was the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons, falling under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.

The response to an appropriate RTI query from the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons was more revealing. It indicated that there are 36 offshore installations falling within India's Exclusive Economic Zone that have been installed in or prior to 2006. Of the 36 installations, 25 fall in the richer oilfields in our western waters. ONGC is the joint venture partner in most of these blocks, and the major international commercial players include RIL, Niko Resources, Cairn and Hardy. The oldest of these is in the Panna Mukta field off the western coast, set up in 1986.

Logically speaking, the older an installation, the more likely it is to use outdated technology or to suffer from the wear, tear and strain inflicted by ocean waves and currents. However, since the EIA Notification only came into effect on September 14, 2006, only the six most modern installations are covered in its ambit. The other 30 offshore installations have not been subjected to the same environmental scrutiny. This fact raises the serious question — if these installations are not covered by the EIA Notification, then has a thorough environmental examination been done by any authority at all?

The Ministry of Petroleum has issued the Petroleum (Safety in Offshore Operations) Rules, 2008. However, these Rules are broadly worded injunctions to conduct operations in a safe manner and to immediately notify the government in case of an accident or “release of hydrocarbon or other noxious substances whereby safety of…marine environment is likely to be endangered.” The rules impose no specific environmental conditions at all and their effect is largely to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

The Oil Industry Safety Directorate (OISD) is the authority for all offshore drilling operations. Before an installation may commence operations, the OISD must give its consent to operate and also conduct safety audits on installations. When queried through an RTI application about the lack of environmental assessments for installations prior to 2006, the OISD denied responsibility, implicitly kicking the ball back at the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

Most critically, even where these rules and procedures exist, their objective is confined to the safety of people and installations, and not the environment. While the limited objective is honourable in itself, it does not substitute for the elaborate and holistic environmental survey that a complete EIA provides for.

The problem is exacerbated by the attitude of some of the parties involved. A query directed at ONGC as to the number, nature and location of their installations was answered with the cryptic “Confidential and cannot be shared”. The Directorate General of Hydrocarbons was happy to provide the same information in detail, which leads one to wonder how confidential it was in the first place and on what basis the determination is made that a citizen of India may be denied information which another arm of the government freely provides.

The most important rule in environmental law and jurisprudence is the precautionary principle, which may be stated broadly to say that one need not wait for definite proof of a danger to justify guarding against the risk. The genesis of the EIA mechanism is this understanding that an audit of the environmental risk associated with each project needs to take place before any danger is given an opportunity to arise. The reason that the approach espoused by environmental law is so cautious and forward looking is that, while environmental disasters are unlikely, they are also catastrophic in scale when they do take place. While ONGC and the OISD have their own oil spill units and the Coast Guard is mandated to tackle any danger that may arise, these are crisis management tools and no substitute for prepared preventive action by the government.

Moreover, India is also a party, since 1995, to the Law of the Seas Convention of 1982. Articles 204, 206 and 208 of this Convention cast a duty on the state-party to prevent pollution and assess the risk of any potentially polluting activities, and provide that such rules, practices and procedures may be no less stringent than international standards. Besides our own interest, there remains upon us an international obligation to prevent and monitor any threat to our marine environment.

What emerges from this RTI investigation is a worrying pattern of abdication of responsibility and duty. If the Directorate of Hydrocarbons, the Oil Industrial Safety Directorate, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas or the Ministry of Environment and Forests are not, collectively or individually, responsible for the environmental assessment and compliance of 30 oil and gas installations, then who is? Surely the presence of a possible danger is justification for a full investigation and audit by the most qualified Ministry. This lacuna in regulation and preparedness in an exceedingly sensitive area calls for urgent redress. A good first step would be for the Ministry of Environment and Forests to frame a set of rules providing for a comprehensive survey and audit of the offshore installations that predate the 2006 EIA Notification. Preventive action should be the mantra. Ex-post facto legalistic justifications sound abysmally weak in the face of ecological disasters and their devastating impact, as is evident from the happenings in the Gulf of Mexico.

- Satyajit Sarna

(Satyajit Sarna is a lawyer at the Delhi High Court. He may be contacted at satyajit.sarna@gmail.com)

Courtesy: The Hindu. This news item appeared in the Hindu as an Opinion on Saturday July 31, 2010

Posted by: Shivendu Joshi, Final Year, NLIU