[Reader-list] Jairam Ramesh speaks

[Ravi Agarwal]

Dear all,

Thought this may be of interest to some. It is unusually honest in its
approach, coming from a sitting Cabinet Minister, even though now honesty
may be the only corner left, in the face of blatant power play at work in
environmental decision making now- as he himself accepted three days ago in
a public meeting.
best
ravi





1

*THE HEDGEHOG AND THE FOX REVISITED**: SOME*

*FURTHER REFLECTIONS ON THE GROWTH-ENVIRONMENT*

*DEBATE IN INDIA*

*Jairam Ramesh*

*Minister of State (Independent Charge), Environment & Forests*

*Government of India*

Text of the Lawrence Dana Pinkham Memorial Lecture delivered on the occasion
of

World Press Freedom Day and Convocation of the Asian College of Journalism,

Chennai, May 3rd, 2011

2

*I*

I am delighted to be here this evening. When I received the invitation

from my friend Mr. Sashi Kumar I had only one question---will I be

asked to wear those awful gowns and quirky hats associated with

graduation ceremonies? On being assured of a more civilised dress code,

I readily accepted.

It is actually a triple-header ballgame today as might be reported in

Wikileaks—ACJ’s Convocation, World Press Freedom Day and the

second Lawrence Dana Pinkham Memorial lecture.

The ACJ has quickly acquired a formidable reputation for itself—I say

this as the father of a young man who joined ACJ two years back but

quickly realised that he wanted to be a don and not a scribe.

This is the 20th anniversary of the World Press Freedom Day declared by

the UN General Assembly and today we renew our faith in an

independent media as a pillar of an open, liberal, democratic society and

reaffirm that independence, whatever be the provocation and howsoever

strong be the reason provided for some regulation every now and then,

especially by the electronic media.

I know of Professor Pinkham only by reputation and clearly he was a

man of great erudition, thoroughly progressive in his values as well as

being unusual in having lived and worked not just in the USA but also in

China and India. Not many can claim that distinction—not even Mr.

Ram! Doing some background homework on Professor Pinkham I

discovered that he was the son-in-law of Harry Dexter White generally

acknowledged as one of the two founding fathers, albeit the junior one

to John Maynard Keynes, of the Bretton Woods Institutions, namely the

IMF and the World Bank. White, it might be recalled is seen by many

Americans as a Soviet spy—the bipartisan Moynihan Commission of

Government Secrecy said as much in 1997 although Robert Skidelsky the

author of the magisterial three-volume biography of Keynes is kinder to

White when he says: “*There is no question of treachery, the accepted*

*sense of betraying one’s country’s secrets to an enemy. But there can be*

*no doubt that, in passing classified information to the Soviets, White*

*knew he was betraying his trust , even if he did not thereby think he was*

*betraying his countr*y”. Professor Pinkham bears a heavy cross or

deserves kudos depending on which side of the fence you are for

mentoring a young Mr. Ram, one of ACJ’s founder Trustees, over four

decades ago.

3

*II*

One of the most celebrated essays of the 20th century was Isaiah Berlin’s

*The Hedgehog and the Fox*. The noted philosopher drew upon a

fragment of verse by the Greek poet Archilocus –“the fox knows many

things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing”—to delve into Tolstoy’s

view of history1. Tolstoy, of course, is of immense relevance to us in India

because of his profound influence on the Mahatma. Today, I want to use

this metaphor to reflect on the current debate on unbridled economic

growth and environmental conservation. I suppose metaphors from the

animal kingdom are only to be expected from a minister dealing with

wildlife issues on a daily basis! Incidentally, the famous distinction

between “positive” and “negative” liberty relevant to any discussion on

freedom for the individual and of the press was first drawn by Berlin

himself in a set of lectures at Oxford in 1958.

My point is simple-- India needs to be liberated both from the “high GDP

growth hedgehogs” and the “conservation at all costs hedgehogs”. I don’t

exaggerate and I am not caricaturing. The population of prickly

hedgehogs of both varieties is sizeable, with a footprint on the public

discourse that is disproportionate to their numbers. Moreover, the

Internet and other social media has greatly facilitated the emergence of a

networked *community *of hedgehogs. But what India needs more of is the

smooth fox—cunning and crafty--to find the balance between high

growth and enduring conservation. The hedgehog is an ideological

crusader supremely convinced of the rightness of the cause while the fox

will admit of doubt and uncertainty. The hedgehog does not know how to

make concessions to the other point of view while the fox will use

linguistic qualifiers liberally—“yes but”, “maybe”, “perhaps”. The

hedgehog has feet on the accelerator but the fox works on the clutch

forever changing gears to deal with varying traffic conditions.

But don’t get me wrong. Hedgehogs actually have made, and continue to

make great contributions. Look at the world of science and literature

which is full of people who are singularly focused and reach the

Mt.Everest of accomplishment in their respective fields. At the same

time, what I am really driving at is that sticking to one big idea is an

anathema in policy making in an open society of astounding diversity

because the hedgehog view is unresponsive and inattentive to the

untidiness and complexity of real life.

1 The American academic Gerald Larson has recently written a most
interesting

article on Gandhi as a hedgehog and Tagore as a fox in the Rabindranath
Tagore

150th birth anniversary commemoration volume brought out by Marg
Publications.

4

*III*

Environmentalists just don’t get it as far as economic growth is

concerned. True GDP growth rates have their limitations as a measure of

progress and welfare. But that is the best summary metric we have. It is

imperfect but useful nevertheless as a broad indicator of how the

economy is performing. Now, why should we even be bothered with

sustaining high GDP growth rates, growth rates in the region of at least

8-9% per year in real terms—that is, after adjusting for inflation?

Very simply, high GDP growth rates help generate revenues for the

government that could then be used in programmes deemed essential.

Thus, between 2004 and 2009, the launch of the National Rural

Employment Guarantee Act and the loan waiver was made possible by

the average annual real GDP growth rate recorded of 8.6%. More growth

means more revenues for governments. In just five years between

2005/06 and 2010/11, for instance, the Central government’s gross tax

revenues doubled. More revenues means increased spending on welfare

programmes—I leave aside the larger and equally important question of

how effectively these revenues are actually being spent.

High GDP growth rates fulfil yet another need---they help generate jobs,

provided, of course, the structure of growth itself is labour-absorbing.

Some informed estimates are that India’s labour force will increase by

anywhere between 80 million and 110 million2 over this decade—a

staggering addition, as compared to just 15 million for China. 40% of

these jobs in India have to be created outside the agricultural sector—

that is in industry and services. Given this demographic reality, a high

GDP growth rate drawing on high growth in agriculture and

manufacturing especially and better spread geographically across the

country assumes special significance

2 The Planning Commission and ILO estimate is 80 million while Goldman Sachs

estimates it at 110 million—the increase being attributed to increases in
the labor

force participation rate due to a favourable age structure.

5

A high GDP growth rate requires investments—both public and private.

These investments will materialise only if there is clarity and consistency

in policy. Energy is a key requirement. But if environmentalists oppose

hydel projects on R&R grounds, coal projects on deforestation grounds

and nuclear projects on risk factors, how will India generate the energy

needed to sustain a high GDP growth rate. It is the height of romantic

delusion—and a dangerous one at that—to think that a country of over

1.2 billion that added 18 million annually over the past decade can meet

its energy requirements through solar, wind or biomass energy. But that

is exactly what most environmentalists would have us believe.

*IV*

Likewise, the growth-wallahs just don’t get it as far as the imperative for

environmental protection is concerned. Why can’t we follow the “grow

now, pay later” approach as the growth-fetishists often advocate? I

would suggest four reasons why such an approach is not acceptable.

First, increasingly environmental campaigns and movements across the

country reflect basic livelihood concerns of tribal and other

disadvantaged sections of society. Second, air and water pollution is

beginning to have serious public health impacts in state after state.

Third, climate change is a reality and will affect India in a more profound

manner than any other country because of our vulnerabilities across so

many dimensions—monsoon, coastal areas, forests, glaciers to name just

a few. Fourth, we must bequeath something to future generations since

unlike in most parts of the world, population will continue to grow in

India as we move to reap our demographic *karma *by adding at least 400-

500 million by the middle of this century.

If the environmental activists do not fully appreciate the absolute

essentiality of expanded wealth creation, the growth-jehadis fail to see

the wider ecological context in which growth or for that matter the

existence of the economic cycle and human life cycles inevitably depend.

In a largely tropical country with unevenly distributed rainfall, trapping

and saving water is vital for towns as much as villages. The centrality of

soil conservation and of keeping the fertile land productive needs no

emphasis. Less well-known but equally critical are a whole range of

ecosystem services, of mangroves or of wetlands. If the growthchampions

were to pause a bit, they will see that many of their premises

come from an early 20th century delusion that technology and growth

have made nature redundant.

6

*V*

Thus, this much should be self-evident and obvious—that India needs to

straddle both worlds at the same time—the world of high GDP growth

and the world of meaningful ecological security. But what is self-evident

and obvious often tends to get forgotten. And this is where, I might add

parenthetically, you media types come in. Hedgehogs make for good

copy with their clarity and certainty. Foxes don’t with their ambiguity

and their “on the one hand and on the other” approach.

Thus, in certain sections of the media, the growth hedgehogs are

champions of a new India while the enviro-hedgehogs are Luddites3

intent on sabotaging India’s emergence as a major world power. In some

other sections, the enviro-hedgehogs are heroes (and quite frequently

heroines) saving India from loot and plunder, while the growthhedgehogs

are harbingers of doom and destruction. It is interesting that

the growth-hedgehogs are acclaimed largely in the English-speaking

media (especially in what are called the “pink papers”) whereas the

enviro-hedgehogs are the toast of the regional and vernacular media.

Here is a topic for a doctoral dissertation, no less.

To get back to the question of balance, the virtue and the need for it is

incontrovertible. Working the balance, however, is easier said than done.

Quite often consistency becomes a casualty since a solution is sought to

be found based on specific circumstances and conditions. But I feel that

if there is clarity and transparency, the charge of lack of consistency can

be effectively countered. And this is precisely what I have ventured to do

through two specific innovations.

The first is through the practice of “speaking orders”. It is not for me to

say whether I have succeeded or not but I am encouraged by what Pratap

Bhanu Mehta wrote thus in The Indian Express (a newspaper that is a

growth hedgehog I might add and therefore not always friendly to me)

on February 17th, 2011: “*The cabinet needs to adopt a practice perfected*

*by Jairam Ramesh: govern with what are called speaking orders. These*

*are orders that clearly and publicly explain why certain decisions have*

*been taken (whether the reasons are compelling or not can be debated).*

*But at least government will not fall into the trap leaving it unclear who*

*took decisions and why*”. In the past two years, I have issued such

3 Actually the word “luddite” is used very loosely these days. Luddites, as
E.P.

Thompson has argued persuasively in *The Making of the English Working
Class,*

acted more from a sense of self-preservation rather than from an atavistic
fear of

technological change itself. They were *selective *in their
opposition—unlike today’s

counterparts.

7

“speaking orders” on public issues like Bt-brinjal, Vedanta, Posco,

Jaitapur, Navi Mumbai and Adarsh. I see it as a way of communicating

to the public the contours of the middle path. Not everyone is happy of

course. But at least all motivations are in the public domain for critical

analysis.

The second innovation is the system of public consultations. This began

with the Bt-brinjal case where over a thousand people attended such

half-day long interactions in Bangalore, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Nagpur,

Ahmedabad, Chandigarh and Bhubaneshwar. Then when the CRZ-1991,

that is the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 was being

redrafted public meetings were held in Chennai, Puri, Kochi, Goa and

Mumbai. A third time I went on Bharat Darshan in search of the middle

path was when the Green India Mission was being finalised and public

views were sought in Guwahati, Vishakapatnam, Dehradun, Mysore,

Pune, Bhopal and Jaipur. All these public consultations were organised

by the Ahmedabad-based Centre for Environment Education and all

proceedings were video-graphed and put on the Ministry’s website. It is a

back-breaking process and very often the public consultations can easily

get out of hand as I discovered on a couple of occasions since we Indians

as a rule are excellent talkers but very poor listeners. But they are an

important means of establishing contact with a larger constituency and

for engaging them in the process of decision-making.

I think it was the late Professor Nurul Hasan who once reportedly said—

Indians are a unique bunch; when confronted with a choice they will try

and take both! Well, that luxury will not always be available and I am

afraid that tough, unpopular choices will have to be made. Not always

will conflicting objectives be reconcilable. That is why my approach has

been to make the trade-offs explicit and make the choice in full public

glare. This approach will work in the short-term but what we need to do

is to develop a methodology that integrates the costs and benefits of

environmental protection fully into our GDP calculations. What does

10% annual real rate of GDP growth that is now within our grasp really

mean, if we consider the costs of environmental damage, depletion of

natural resources, and pollution that this growth will entail? The only

way to answer these critical questions in an objective manner is to obtain

clear numbers of the environmental costs that the growth process entails

– i.e., estimate “green” national accounts.

8

In this connection, I am happy to report that we are setting up an expert

group to develop a roadmap for India to be able to report “green”

national accounts by the year 2015. I have succeeded in convincing

Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta of Cambridge University, perhaps the

world’s leading luminary and expert in the field of environmental

economics, to chair this expert group, which will also have a couple of

very distinguished economists. The work of this “blue-ribbon panel” will

be of great importance in our being able to follow a balance between

rapid growth and conservation since, quite frankly, what we cannot

measure we cannot monitor and what we cannot monitor we cannot

manage.

*VI*

Working the balance (which, I submit, is somewhat different from the

middle path which is a sort of a 50:50 approach) also needs regulatory

innovations. That environmental protection requires regulation is

beyond doubt. That regulations and laws themselves need to keep pace

with the times to reflect the unique demographic pressures and

developmental imperatives we confront also cannot be denied. But can

we have regulations without regulators because very often the regulators

can become a source of needless harassment and corruption? We must

think creatively. Of course, the growth hedgehogs would want the

regulations themselves to go or be diluted or be subject to
selfcertification

all of which are unacceptable. The enviro-hedgehogs would

like an army of inspectors to police the implementation of the

regulations.

A beginning is being made to move to a market-friendly system of

regulation. With the help of four of the world’s leading economists at

MIT, we have launched a pilot project in Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and

Maharashtra to implement regulations for air pollutants. This marketbased

system is broadly akin to how the USA dealt with the acid rain

problem in the late eighties and early nineties through the introduction

of tradable permits. It goes beyond the traditional command and control

“inspector-raj” systems, which have inherent limitations that we know.

These innovative systems leverage technology and harness markets to

ensure better compliance with our environmental laws and regulations.

The scheme will fundamentally transform how we do pollution control.

It will rely on online real-time monitoring of pollution loads of industrial

units, based on which a system of “emissions trading” will be

established. Emissions trading will allow the regulator to set a cap on the

aggregate level of pollution permitted, and then allow a self-regulating

system to ensure that pollution does not exceed this cap.

9

*VII*

Working the balance also demands basic institutional changes. Writing

in the Indian Express (yet again!) on March 25th, 2011, Jerry Rao had

this to say: “*Why does not Jairam Ramesh as part of his legacy to the*

*country remove the power of discretionary approvals from his ministry*

*and hand it over to an independent Environment Commission to be*

*statutorily established and charge this commission with the tasks of*

*granting and monitoring approvals? ....In giving up control, Ramesh will*

*meet resistance from many in the political and bureaucratic*

*establishment. But if he wishes to go down in Indian history as a Sher*

*Shah, a Munro or a Curzon, this is his golden opportunity. Let’s hope he*

*grasps it”.*

Well, much as I admire Sher Shah, Munro and Curzon I am under no

illusions that I am anywhere close to achieving or even hope to achieve

even a very miniscule fraction of what these great men accomplished. I

am also not quite sure if a medieval monarch or two imperial

administrators are the best role models in our own democratic age. But a

small beginning is being made. We are now in the process of setting up a

National Environmental Appraisal and Monitoring Authority (NEAMA).

This will be a professional, science-based autonomous entity tasked with

environmental appraisals and monitoring of compliance conditions.

Once appraised by NEAMA, projects would be sent with a

recommendation to the Minister of Environment and Forests for

approval.

This final approval by the Minister is necessary to ensure that the

principle of executive accountability is maintained. Jerry Rao will not

like it but when the Minister of Environment and Forests is pilloried in

Parliament on some decision or the other, the Minister cannot take

recourse to the “but NEAMA is totally independent of me” type of

argument. And in any case at least in the case of a political figure even if

it is a member of the Upper House, there is some sense of public

accountability totally absent in a purely technocratic body---the

functioning of an independent Genetic Engineering Approval Committee

(GEAC) in my own ministry prior to 2009 and whose functioning people

like Jerry Rao would approve of, is a good case in point.

10

NEAMA will mark a major improvement over the current system

(wherein the Ministry does appraisal and approval of new projects) in

several ways. First, NEAMA will be a full time entity of professionals,

tasked with environmental appraisals on an ongoing basis, instead of the

current system of appraisals done by environmental appraisal

committees that are ad hoc and meet about once a month. In this sense,

it will convert a slow ‘batch’ process into a continuous process, bringing

greater rigour in the appraisal process, while avoiding unnecessary

delays. Second, the creation of NEAMA will address the ‘conflict of

interest’ issue by separating the process of appraisal and approval. While

NEAMA will be tasked with appraisal of new projects, the Ministry will

be responsible for final approval. Third, NEAMA will maintain its own

real-time and time-series databases on pollution loads across the

country, which it will use to appraise proposed projects, instead of

relying on data provided by project proponents as is the current practice.

This will provide much greater objectivity in the appraisal process.

Fourth, NEAMA will have a well-equipped system to ensure compliance

with the conditions imposed on new projects that are granted

environmental clearance.

*VIII*

I spoke earlier of the role of the media in eulogising hedgehogs and

giving somewhat short shrift to foxes. That is because today’s media is

increasingly impatient with ambiguity, is increasingly intolerant of

shades of grey seeing the world only in terms of black and white. This

attitude vitiates the public discourse and debate and does not allow for

easy compromise and consensus. As I mentioned earlier, hedgehogs

being more persuasive and articulate and being purveyors of a single and

simple powerful message are loved by the media. But foxes are selfcritical

eclectic thinkers open to updating or reworking their beliefs and

view of the world when faced with contrary evidence and views.

Hedgehogs tend to stretch their one good idea—and the only one they

have—but beyond a point the stretch becomes counter-productive and

like all stretches reaches a breaking point.

I am convinced that a “working the balance” approach is the only way

ahead. But this should not mean that we refuse to recognise that there

may well be occasions when we will be faced when growth and

conservation goals are irreconcilable. There are limits to this having your

cake and eating it too. A coal mine bang in the middle of a very dense

forest area or in a protected area like a tiger reserve is simply

unacceptable and the nation has to accept that unpleasant reality. When

this happens, a decision has necessarily to be taken that will displease

11

one side or the other. Bouquets will be offered from one side and

brickbats thrown from the other. And there will be no consistency—

today’s bouquet offerer can well and indeed has ended becoming

tomorrow’s brickbat hurler and vice versa.

Twenty years ago, India embarked on its historic economic reforms

programme. Fiscal sustainability was one of the three pillars of this

programme—the other two being abolition of industrial licensing and

freeing international trade from administrative controls. Today, as we

look ahead to the next two decades, we must not only be anchored in

fiscal prudence but equally look the ecological sustainability of our

growth trajectory. Is a 9%+ real rate of GDP growth envisaged as the

target for the 12th Five Year Plan that will commence on April 1, 2012

environmentally acceptable? What will that growth, essential as it is,

demand from our forests and our water resources, for instance? What

will it take to ensure that this growth is along what is these days being

called “a low-carbon” pathway. If 100,000 MW of power capacity has to

be added to ensure a 9%+ GDP growth rate, what should its fuel mix be

so as to ensure that we don’t end up repeating the same mistakes that the

USA and China have made—after all, a perennial latecomer like India

does have advantages that it can learn from others?

*IX*

I started with the great philosopher Isaiah Berlin. Let me end with one of

my favourite authors the distinguished palaeontologist Stephen Jay

Gould whose last book before his untimely death in 2002 was called *The*

*Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magister’s Pox. *In his Introduction to this

wonderful book, Gould recalls Erasmus’s version of the Archilochian

contrast: “*Multa novit vulpes, vernum echinus unum magnum” or*

*roughly, “The fox devises many strategies; the hedgehog knows one great*

*and effective strategy. *He goes on to write: “*The power and attraction of
*

*Archilocus’s image lies, rather obviously in its two levels of metaphorical
*

*meaning for human contrasts. The first speaks of psychological styles,*

*often applied for some practical goals. Scramble or persist. The second,*

*of course, speaks to favoured styles of intellectual practice. Diversify
and*

*colour or intensify and cover”*. I am, in this lecture, concerned with the

former where pragmatism, flexibility and skill in reinvention is the

constant need. Of course, I take Gould’s caveat—that too great a

flexibility may lead to survival of no enduring value. You have to watch

out however--being a fox should not degenerate into behaving like a

chameleon.

12

This being a convocation address, I suppose I must end with some advice

to all of you youngsters about to enter that greatest temple of learning

(and earning)—the University of Life. The best advice I can give you in

light of what I have said today is read Berlin. Be “hedgehoggy” but

develop the traits of a fox. And a fox need not be looked down upon, as

we often tend to do. I can do no better to convince you of what a fox

could mean when I recall that joke—blasphemous to recall in Chennai

perhaps. It goes like this: Q: Who is the only Indian politician to have a

Hollywood studio named after him; A: Rajaji with the studio being 20th

Century Fox!

That is as good a place to end this lecture as any.

Thank you.