Environment in KamatakaA Status Report

Ecological Economics UnitIlL'idtute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore

Reprinted from Economic and Political Weekly. Vol XXXIV. No 38. September 18. 1999Pagination as in Original

~~

Environment in KarnatakaA Status ReportEcological Economics Unit

institutetor SocIalaad EconomicChange,Baagalore

This paper presents an overview of the present status of the natural resource environment in Kamataka,namely, forest cover and pastures, land use, soil erosion, watershed development, livestock and fisheries,reserves of mineral ores and their exploitation, industrial pollution and urban environment. Apathy of theg~vemment machinery towards these environmental problems has provoked popular movements linked to

. people's access to natural resources and to health concerns. But an institutionalised approach to theseproblems is needed.

IIntroduction

TInS .paper presents an overview of thepresent status of the natural resourceenvironment in Kamataka, raising alsosome of the critical environmental issueswhich have emerged and responses to thesame. Environmental problems arise bothbecause of resource depletion and negativeexternalities caused by developmentprocesses and projects. To meet the goalof sustainable development, it is necessaryto address both types of problemsadequately. While it is difficult to givedefinite guidelines about what proportionof exhaustible resources can be exploitedby the present generation for its own useand consumption, there is some consensusabout renewable resources like fisheriesand forests that their exploitation shouldbe limited to the rate of regeneration. Evenabout exhaustible resources. we shouldperiodically review the rate of theirexploitation as against the stocks available,so that an informed judgment can be madeabout what the present generation shoulduse as against what can be bequeathed tothe future generations. Negative ex-ternalities likewater and airpollution inflictsevere welfare losses and reduce outputas well (for example, cement dust and airpollution reducing crop yields). Whilequantifying the impact of these externalitiesis beyond the scope of this paper, theirmagnitude would be assessed. Whereverappropriate or feasible, we also comparethe situation in Kamataka with the countryas a whole.

Cecil Saldanha brought out six state ofenvironment reports on Kamataka, the lastone released in 1993. Each of these reportscanied specialisedarticles on a few selectedaspects of environment in Kamataka. Thepresent report is inspired by Saldanha'swork but has a different format, being asynoptic overview of environment, tryingto do justice to most aspects within one

Economic and Political Weekly

paper using latest available information.Regrettably, issues related to managementof water and energy could not be includedhere, though water pollution is discussed.

The paper is organised as follows. InSection n, we deal with the state of landuse including forests and grazing land. Wedo not go into details of cropping pattern,but restrict ourselves to broad categoriesof land use. This leads us to a programmeof arresting soil erosion and promotingwater conservation through watersheddevelopment in Kamataka in Section m.1In Section IV, we deal with the state oflivestock and fisheries, which are renew-able resources. Mineral ores and theirexploitation come under exhaustibleresources, dealt with in Section V. Thisleads us to Sections VI and vn. respectively

. on state of industrial pollution and urbanenvironment in Kamataka. In dealing withthese issues, we also comment upon officialresponse to environmental issues inrespective sectors. Environment is tooseriousamattertobe lefttoofficialbureau-cracy alone. Environment lobbies andNGOs have alsoplayedan importantrolein alerting officials and people at large.about environmental problems.This willbe dealt with in the concluding section.

nLand Use, Forests and Pastures

Agricultureconstitutesthe majoruse ofland both in Kamatakaand the countryasa whole,but moreso in Kamataka.Takingtogethernetsownareaandcurrentfallows,it accounted for 59.1 per cent of totalgeographicalarea in 1958-59and 56.9percent in 1995-96in Kamataka, as against48.7 per cent and 51.3 per cent in Indiain the respective years. Though the pro-portion of land under agriculture hasdeclined slightly in Kamataka, andincreasedslightlyinIndiaovertheseyears,it still remains larger in Kamataka('fable I). The proportion of land underforests,as per legalstatus (not necessarily

September 18, 1999

>-

under actual tree cover), increased both inthe state and the country as a whole, from14.4percentto 16.1 percentinKamataka,as against 17.9 per cent to 22.4 per centin India during the same years. In spite ofour western ghats, the proportion of areaunder forests is thus seen to be lower thanthe country's average.

Permanent pastures, cultivable wastesand other fallows taken together can besaid to constitute broadly common propertyresources used for grazing. At least as perofficial data, the proportion of such landsdeclined only slightly from 15.4 per centin 1958-59.. to 14.5 per cent in 1995-96in Kamataka, but a little more significantlyfrom 15.7 per cent to. 11.6 per cent duringthe same years in India. The role of suchcommon property resources as a source offodder has been declining over the years,and correspondingly the role of fodderraised in private holdings, including foddercrops raised commercially, has beenincreasing. With population increase andeconomic development, prices of livestockproducts have increased significantlyenough over the years to make such a shiftaffordable to farmers, though this would.have certainly affected landless labour andmarginal farmers who have little or noland of their own as a source of fodder.Irrespective of trends as seen from officialdata, common property resources appearto have declined both in quantity and alsoin quality and productivity. There is reasonto believe that land under agriculture is

. underestimated and that area under grazing. lands is overestimated, mainly because

encroachments into the commons 'forcultivation are not reflected in offici81land use data. This was corroborated froma micro level study in Kamataka [Nadkarni.and Pasha 1991).

This observation could apply equally toforests, encroachments into which are alsocommon. This is quite ~part from the factthat even unencroached lands legally underthe forest department may have lost tJee

2735

cover due either to officially permittedclear felling or to unauthorised cutting andexploitation by people around the forests.1'here &Iealso other factors due to whichthe official land use data on forests do notreaUyreport the physical condition onand.This results in errors in both directions.In Uuara Kannada district, for example,due to some legal quirk, forest land.submerged under reservoirs or leased outfor cultivation totalling over 1,000 sq kmswas still reported as forest land in land usestatistics [Reddy et al1986:2 and 3]. Onthe other hand, in Shimoga, Chikmagalurand Dakshina Kannada, these statistics

. underestimate the extent of forest cover.This is because significant fractions ofphysically forested land are under thejurisdiction of the revenue department;only land under the forest department iscounted as forest land in official statisticswhatever its physical condition. Not aninsignificant part of the increase in thearea under forests in Table I, is becauseof transfer of lands from the revenuedepartment to the forest departmenl

With the emergence of remote sensingtechnologies. it was hoped that an 'objec-tive' and 'accurate' method of delineatingland cover was now available. However,forest cover statistics by different (andsometimes the saine) agencies show dra-matic differences that cannot be explainedsimply on the basis of difference indefinition. For example. the state of forestsreports of the Forest Survey of India haveindicated that 8 I percentofKodagudistrictis under forest cover, though cultivated

, areaas perofticialland statisticsaccountsfor more than 36 per cent. Forest Surveyof India's own maps published atI :2.50.000 scale for 1990 indicate only 35per cent area under forests including scrubvegetation. In general, reliable informationon forest condition at the meso-scale isstill scarce [Lele et al 1998a]. '

The most recent and reliable estimateof forest cover - natural and artificial,dense and open - in Kamataka as a wholecomes to 13 to 14 per cent of the state'sgeographical area [NRSA 1983; Sinha1988]. The forest coverestimated by NRSAfor India as a whole is also 14 per cent.Thedistrictwise distribution is not reliablyknown for the reasons stated above, butthe districts with greatest proportion offorest cover are Uttara Kannada (70 percent), Dakshina Kann~da (60 per cent),Shimoga (40 per cent), Chikmagalur (35percent), Kodagu (35 percent) and Mysore(30 per cent). [Menon and Bawa 1998;Bannur and Sharatchandra 1997]~

Over the years, there has been aconsiderable loss of forest cover in thestate. Taking a long period of 1920-90 infive western ghats districts, Menon andBawa (1998) concluded that the extent offorest loss varied from 13 to 53 per cent,due mostly to extension of cultivation andcoffee plantations and very little tosubmergence under reservoirs (Table 2).The largest loss of forest is seen to be inChikmagalur and Kodagu district wherecoffee plantations now dominate. Esti-mates of loss of forests in the state as a'whole are available from official sourcesfor the periods 1956 to 1981, and from198 I to 1998 (Table 3). In both periods,extension of cultivation has accounted forthe largest share among all factors,accounting for almost two-thirds duringthe latter period. and development projectsaccounting for one-third of the loss. Thesefigures do not indicate net loss of forestarea, for some of it has been compensatedby increase in forest area at least in quantity(area) if not in quality.

Between 1975and 1982, however, theextent of forest cover in the state seemsto havedeclinedbyonly I percent [NRSA1983] as compared to a decline of 3 percent for the country. Subsequently, the

TABLE I: LAND UnUSAnON PATTERN

forest .' cover appears to have remained.cons.ant or even increased slightly. Butthis increase comes in the form of forestplantations (typically monocultural andoften using exotic species) resulting fromafforestation activities, while the extent ofnatural forests continued to decline.2Mforestation activities since the early19805 attempted to promote mixed planta-tions, although with limited success[Saxena et alI997]. The long-term trendappears to have been one of shift fromclosed canopy forest to open canopy forest,and from evergreen to moist-deciduousvegetationtypes. Standing stock maynothave declined in the same proportion asforest canopy, since human use resultsoften in disproportionate pruning of crowns[Lele et al I998b].

The plant species composition hasdefinitely become less 'rich' as many rareand endangered plants were lost or renderedscarce. This happened during a prolongedphase of 50 years or more up to mid.eighties, during the drive towards replacingnatural forests by timber and othercommercial wood plantations. The declinein wild animal populations has been evenmore dramatic and visible [GadgiI1984;Daniels 1993]. At least one bird (the GreatIndian Bustard) is reported to be on theverge of extinction, and the Bengal Tigeris surviving only in protected areas. The

. reasons for this are a disproportionateincrease in forest fragmentation, erosionof habitat quality due to changes incomposition and densities, and significantpoaching pressures.

Forest degradation has also adverselyaffected the availability of fuelwood andsmall timber to local communities depen-dent on them in certain areas. The ban ongreen felling has reduced theofficial supplyof commercial fuel wood and timber also.Certain species like bamboo had depletedsignificantly even before the ban on green

(Area in '000 hectares)

Note: Agricltural use =current fallows + net cultivated area.Source: KarnatakiJ at a Glance 1995-96, Directorate of Economics and Statistics; Feniliur Statistics 1963-64 and 1996-97. FAI. New Delhi.

2736

...

Economic and Political Weekly September 18, 1999

~

Total Forest Non-Agricultural Barren Miscellaneous Cultivable Permanent Other AgriculturalGeographical Use Trees Waste Pastures Fallows Use

Area and Groves and Grazing

1958-59Kamataka - Area 18735 2702 804 885 370 663 1769 474 11068

Percentage 100 14.4 4.3 4.7 2.0 3.5 9.4 2.5 59.1India - Area 293972 52675 13563 32879 5711 20610 13112 12286 143136Percentage 100 17.9 4.6 11.2 1.9 7.0 4.5 4.2 48.7

1995-96Kamataka - Area 19050 3076 1230 801 326 444 1048 1284 10838Percentage 100 16.1 6.5 4.2 1.7 2.3 5.5 6.7 56.9

India - Area 304863 68421 22035 18975 3657 14468 11176 9703 1564281993.94 percentage 100 22.4 7.2 6.2 1.2 4.7 3.7 3.2 51.3

felling (around 1983)as the then systemofferedbambootopapcrmillsata nominalprice and there was no incentive forregeneration [Gadgil and Prasad 1978].The same thing happenedin a number ofnon-timber forest species like Cinna-momum sp and Myristica sp and a hostof medicinalplants(K S MuraIi,personalcommunication to Lele; FRUIT un-published data). The overall impression is .unmistakable that the long-term sus-

. tainabilityof these forests, especially interms of quality is in serious doubt.

A few comments on the official respon-ses to the forest situation are in order. Tillit least the mid-eighties, afforestationefforts were mainly oriented towardsmeeting commercial species like timber,softwood and fuelwood, reflected in theplantations of teak, eucalyptus and~urina. Even under social forestry phasefrom 1983 to 1992, the focus on thesespecies was not changed. In many cases,social forestry plantations reduced theavailability of grazing lands to villagers,who had to be content with lops and tops.This led to protest movements led byNGOslike Samaja Parivartan Samudaya and ledto a change of policy towards promotingMixed species plantations. Till 1992,however, the agencies of afforestation werethe Kamataka forest department and suchother government departments, operatingin a centralised, bureaucratic, prohibit-and-police manner.

From 1993 onwards, however. there hasbeen a visibly increased focus on theinvolvement of local communities inafforestation mainly under joint forestplanning and management (JFPM). Thisis supported by a £24 mn 'Western GhatsForestry Environment Project' funded bythe UK. The progress under the schemehas, however, been rather slow due toseveral futors: (a) restriction of the JFPM .

to only 'degraded' areas, which form asmall fraction of actual forest used bylocal communities; (b) inadequatedevolutionofcontroltolocalcommunities,(c) poor fit with social realities;3(d) problem of ensuring adequateincentivesto locals;and (e) lackof enthu-siasm among implementing forest staff[Saxenaet all997]. Thenumberof villageforestcommitteessetupunderthis projectup to September 1998 was only 400 inKarnataka,which compares poorly withthemorethan2,000setupinneighbouringAndhra Pradesh in a shorter time.

A clearly defined access to and exclusivecontrol of the resource by local users maybe a necessarybut not a sufficient conditionfor sustainable tnanagement. For instance,many 'betta' lands in Uttara Kannada

Economic and Political Weekly

whcreareca~hadexclusiveaccessif not ownership were degraded due toindifferenceto regeneration [Nadkarni etal1989; Lele ct all998b]. 'Baane' landsin Kodagu under privatised access haveall been converted to coffee plantations,and 'Jwmki' lands in Dakshina Kannadahave in many places been converted tocashcworthcrplantations. Thishighlightsthe basic tension between different rolesof forests. valued differentlyby differentinterest JI'O'IPs.Institutional innovationsthat enable local communities to becompensatedforprovidingglobalbenefitsfrom forests, and a political environmentand process committed to fairness andsustainability - both still largely missing- will be necessary for a successfulresolution of these tensions.

In sum, though Karnataka has beenendowed with a particularly rich forestflora and fauna and widely distributednetwork of pasture lands (including AmrutMahal Kavals4), Karnataka's post-independence record of conserving themhas hardly been encouraging. Forests andpastures have declined significantlyparticularly in quality, and regenerationefforts have had only a marginal successin addressing the problems.

IIISoU Erosion and Watershed

Development

Soil erosion is a major problem affectingthe state particularly in its dry or rainfedareas. According to official sources (IndianAgriculture in Brief, 25th ed 1994, pp 22-25], 11.4 million hectares out of the totalgeographical area of 19.05 million hectares,i e. 59.8 percent was degraded in Kamatakaduring the early 1990s. This proportion ismore than in the country as a whole, wherethe problem area is 53.2 per cent. Theproblem area includes both cultivated anduncultivated areas. Kamataka is a pio-neering state in taking up soil conservation

programmes,but only 30.6percent of theproblem area was treated up to 1992-93.Though it is higher than in the countryasa whole(20.9percent), there is stilla longwayto go. The old approachfocusedonlyon soil conservation which was not veryeffective.It hasnow givenplacetQa morecomprehensive and integrated approachof watersheddevelopmentwhichincludessoil and water conservation in dry andsemi.arid areas.

Watershed development ,is a holisticapproach to improve and develop the.economic and natural resource base ofeconomically disadvantaged and eco-logically fragile regions such as the dryand semi-arid areas. Instead of anadministrative region" watershed is the

TABLE 3 : Loss OF FoREST IN KARNATAKA,

1956-1981 AND 1981-1998

Purpose Area Pen:entageLost to Total

(Hectares) AmaLost

Source: 1956-1981 : Karnataka State Gazettea',

1982; 1981-1998 : Monitoring Report,. Karnataka Forest Department

District

TABLE 2: Loss OF FoRESTS IN WESTERN GHATS DISJ1Ucr5

(Area in sq bn.r)

Forest Loss Due to Per Centto Total Loss

1990 Agriculture Tea ReservoirsArea Per Cent and

to Total Coffee

Area

Extent of Forest and Scrub

Name 1920Area PerCent

to Total

Cbikmagalur 7184 5068Hassan. 6818 2205Kodagu 4098 3622Shimoga 10556 6330UttaraKannada 10251 9134

7132886089

2500721

146446377806

35II364476

55.881.028.093.192.6

42.018.371.50.00.0

2.20.70.56.97.4

Notes: (a) 1920 areas arc estimated using Survey of India toposheets and hence should be consideredas approximate. Dalafor 1990 were obtained from 1:250.000 FSI forest vegetation mapsproducedfrominterpretationof 1987.1989and 1991imagery. .

(b) Though tea and coffee plantations arc clubbed together, area under tea is not significant.Source: Menon and Rawa (1998).

September 18, 1999

..

2737

From 1956 to 1981Hydel project 41068 18.4Direct submersion 35840 16.1Rehabilitation of thedisplaced 25820 11.6Power lines 1688 0.8Colony roads andtownships 2121 1.0Mining 42676 19.2Other non-agricultural use 6297 2.8Extension of cultivation .67217 30.2Total 222727 100.0From 1981 Jo March 1998Hydel projects 5184 17.6lnigation projects 667 2.3Laying of railways 359 1.2Laying of transmission lines 399 1.4Construction of roads 14 0.0Mining/quarrying project 3343 11.4Others (including extensionof cultivation) 19460 66.1Total 29426 100.0

unir of area for development At least inKarnataka, watershed dev~lopmentprojects seek to improve aUtypes of lands,both government and private, cultivatedand uncultivated. It is not a mere soil andwater conservation orforestIy programme,but a strategy to increase the overallproductivity of the region as a whole.

Kamataka launched the district water-shed development programme (DWDP)in 19 selected watersheds, one in eachdistrict from 1983-84 onwards. In addition,there are programmes as under nationalwatershed development projects forrainfedAreas (NWDPRA), a model watersheddevelopment programme sponsored byICAR/CRmA, projects under rain-gaugestations, also an NGO sponsored pro-gramme like the PIDOW project inGulbarga district. The agency, the ap-proaches and manners of implementationof the projects differ. A unique feature ofDWDP is that it is managed by a singleagency - the dry land development boards,where all the concerned departments ofthe governmentare represented so as topromote integration and co-ordination.Until recently,the governmentsponsoredwatersheddevelopmentprojectsfolloweda top-down approach, but people'sparticipation is now being emphasised.

Starting from 1984, around one lathhectares of rain fed areas have been treated

every year under the programme, thecumulativetotal up to 1997 being 14.41lakh hectares. The average cost of treatmentper hectare worked out to be only Rs 2,825(State Watershed Cell, 1997). The areatreated so far (up to 1997) under watersheddevelopment programmes (excluding areastreated under earlier soil conservation

programmes) works out to be only 7.5 percent of the total geographical area of thestate. But this is still significant consideringthat it is confined to dry and semi-aridtracts (whichconstitute about two-thirdsof the total area of the state). However,there is still a lot morearea to be covered.

A recent evaluationstudy of 20 water-sheds in Kamataka based on satelliteremote sensing techniques has shown someencouraging and at the same time somedisturbing findings (RRSSC-SIDP 1998].The study involved a comparison between1988 and 1996 imageries. In most of thetreated watersheds, there was an improve-ment in agriculture, horticulture andforestry sectors; increase in irrigated areaand water bodies; increase in yields; anddecrease in fallows and extent of waste-lands. Gullies and ravines were treatedwith vegetative checks to arrest soil erosion.Afforestation and gap filling activitiesincreased biomass output as well. The

2738 .

;.~

overall improvements were rated amongthe 20 watersheds as ranging from 7 to27 per cent There were also a few worri-~me things like encroachments into non-arable lands, illicit cutting and Unregulatedgrazing there. Even if non-arable areas arebrought under forest cover, there was noassurance that it would remain there sincepeople's participation and commitment inthe use and management of comm~>Dorpublic lands was not forthcoming to thedesired extent. A similar need was felt irithe maintenance and p"?tection of develop-ment wodesundertaken. Frequenttransfers,untimely release of funds and inadequacyof funds also affected the programme.

Other studies of the impact of watersheddevelopment on crop yields, income,employment, stability of yields, and watertables have shown significantly positiveresults [Deshpandeand Nikurnbh 1993;Ninan and Lakshmikanthamma 1994;Lakshmikanthamma 1997]. An economicanalysis of a watershed (Mittemari) showedthat after deducting all the costs includingpublic capital investment and opportunitycost (due to grazing opportunity foregoneby people as a result of the projeci), theinternal rate of return was found to be I;J.5percent, which is encouraging [Ninan andLakshmikanthamma 1998]. We do nothave to compare this with high nominalrates of interest; since the cash flows werein real terms. They can be compared withreal rates of interest of 5 or even 8 per centquite favourably. Besides. the benefitstaken here include only the increasedproduction in agriculture and the forestrysector. and indirect environmental benefitsare ignored. If they are valued and takennote of, the rate of return would be higherstill. It was also found that small farmershave shared in the gains. The lack ofeffective participation of people inwatershed development has, however, beena constraining institutional factor ingovernment sponsored projects. Effortsare being made now to give more voiceto local level people's groups and NGOsin watershed development.

IVLivestock and Fisheries

Almost all families living in rural areasdepend directly or indirectly on livestockresources for their living. Thereexist strongcomplementarities between livestock andcrop husbandry. Though in terms of valueadded by livestock. its contribution tonational and state domestic product is nowabout 8 percent and 6 percent respectively,its economic importance is far greater thanwhat is indicated by these figures. It is stilla significant source of draught power, and

orgailicmanureobtained fromthis sourceis needed as a supplement to chemiCalfertilisers. The contribution of livestocksector to total agricultUra1 inputs, however,has been declining since the last twodecades or mo~, thanks to subsidisedchemical fertilisers and tractori~ation.

The livestockpopulation, however,hascontinued to increase both in Kamatakaand the countIy as a whole, though notsharply.Total livestock (coveredby live-stockcensus,excludingpoultIy)increased"by 32.3 per cent in India and by only 12.2

TABLE 4: (A) RESERVES OF MINERAL DEPOSm

(1995-96), (8) THEIR ANNuAL ExtRAcnoN

(1995-96), AND (c) THE NUMBER OF YEARS RJRWlUOt mE RESERVES MAY LAsT AT mE I'REsENr

LEVEL OF EXTRACTION

MineralOres

Reserves of Annual Tune.Mineral Extraction Leftto(Million (Tonnes) ExhaustionTonnes) (Years)

Bauxite 28.00 69,617 402Chromite 0.85 77,840 11Copper . 0.966 87,802 11Dolomite 325.00 46,693 6960Feldspar 164.64(1onnes) 1.201 137Fire Clay 8.44 2238 3771Fuller's

EarthGoldIron Ore

1.30 NA13.6I(tonnes) 1.45

929.00 11.609(mn tonnes)

Kaoline 94.46 4808 19646Kyamite 136O(tonnes) 2.848 478Lime stone. 17.253 8.023 2150

(mn tonnes)NA 52.21.17 26,20065.0 4,15,07026.8 24,412

NA.980

Lime ShellMagnesiteManganeseQuartzVana-dium 20,387 (tonnes) NA

NA44.7157

1098

NA

Nmes: .Time left to exhaustion, is obtained by

dividing reserves by annual extractionboth taken in same units.NA - data not available.

S(IUrce: Department of Mines and Geology,Government of Kamataka.

TABLE 5: PROPORTION INDUSTIlIAL UNm WTI1I

PoutmON TREAntENT PI..ANTs

(Percent)

Industries As on As onMarch 31. March 31,

1991 1996

For water pollution contmlLarge industries 65.8Medium industries 65.0Small industries NAFor air pollution contrplLarge industriesMedium industriesSmall industries

73.267.662.7

73.269.164.5

33.833.5NA

Source: Annual Reports of Karnataka StatePollution Control Board (KSPCB),1990-91 (pp 8-10) and 1995-96 (p 13).

Economic and Political Weekly September 18, 1999

per cent in Karnataka between 1%1 and1990. Though Karnataka accounts for 6.2per cent of the total area of the country,its share in the livestock population of thecountry was only 5.2 per cent in 1990.There is thus a little less pressure oflivestock population on land in Karnatakathan in the country as a whole. The densityoflivestock per hectare ofland taking onlyforests, agricultural land including currentfallows, pastures, cultivable waste andother fallows, was only 1.38 in Kamatakain 1990 (14th livestock census) whereasit was 1.71 in India as a whole.

The population of sheep and goats is 37per cent of total livestock iri Karnataka,which is slightly more than 35 per centfor India as per the latest livestock census(14th). The population of sheep actuallydeclined slightly (by 8 percent) in absoluteterms in Karnataka between 1960 and 1m,but the population of goats increased by34.3 per cent, which was much more thanthe rate of growth in total livestock (viz,12.2 per cent) noted above. The role ofgoats as a source of milk has declinedrelatively sharply; they are used mainly asa source of meat.

Growth in milk production has beenmuch more spectacular than growth in thenumber of female bovines. The latter (over3 years of age) increased only by 26.1 percent between 1961 and 1990 in Karnataka,while production of milk increased bya phenomenal 160 per cent between1976-77 and 1995-96. Cows accoun~edfor 54.9 per cent of total milk productionin 1995-96 (indigenous cows 35.4 percentand crossbred cows 19.5 per cent), andbuffaloes contributed 44.76 per cent. Theshare of goats is a negligible 5 per cent[GOK 1995-96]. The present per capitaper day availability of milk at 192 grams,though higher than earlier, is still lowerthan the ICMR norm of 250 grams. Muchof the increase in miIk production has beenachieved through a push to com-mercialisation of the dairy sector, involvinga shift from CPRs as a source of fodderto crop residues and commercial fodderand feeds. The role of CPRs in animalhusbandryremains important mainly forthe poor and for indigenous cattle andsmall ruminants.

The growth of poultry has been morespectacularthanthat of livestock,but lessso in Kamataka than in India. The totalnumberof poultry increased by 77.4 percentinKamatakabetween1961and 1990,and by 141 per cent in the country as awhole.

Livestock pressure on land has been atraditional source of worry to environ-mentalists and foresters in India. Forest

Economic and Political Weekly

policy in India since its early days hassought to regulate this pressure.There isevidence of such pressure having anadverse effect on regeneration capacity

. and composition of forests, as seen froma case study in Haliyal division (UttaraKannada)in Karnataka[Rai 1985].Whilelivestock is allowed to grow, and is pro-motedeveninpovertyalleviationschemes,'pastures and other common lands tosupport them are shrinking as noted above.Northern Maidan seems to be facing thisproblem more acutely than other regionsas seen from an analysis of village grazinglands in Kamataka [Nadkami 1990]. This'is tried to be made good by using cropresidues and other commercial fodder.Since cows of local breed and smallruminants continue to depend on commonlands, an increase in such livestock maycall for some measures for regulatinggrazing like rotational grazing and forsustainable management of pastures.. It isdifficult, however, on the whole to establishthat either in Karnataka or India, there isoverpopulation oflivestock. In fact, humanpopulation has increased much faster andthere has been no serious scientificinvestigation to support such ageneralisation [Mishra 1995:258].

Coming to fisheries, world fisheries arein a state of crisis and India and Kamatakamay be no exception. 'Fish have neverbeen more popular as sea food, nor morethreatened as marine wildlife...Scientists

warn that fish population and marin~ecosystems are in serious trouble'[Samudra July IS, 1996: 15]. This isbecause 70 per cent of the world's com-mercially important marine fish stocks areoverexploited, and modem fisheries areenormously destructive. It is estimatedthat about one-third of their fish catch iswasted. Marine biodiversity is under threatbecause of them (ibid: 15).Modem techno-logies, moreover, opened up fishing evenduring the monsoons, which has led tooverexploitation. There have been protestsin India against the openingofthe fisheriessector to multinationals and foreign vessels(Kurien 1995]. They do not confine todeep sea fishing and intrude into coastalzones reserved for country boats. On thewhole, fishery managers are oriented moreto maximising commercial exploitationand hardly evolve strategies for sustainableexploitation. Even the regionwise orcountrywise data necessary to monitorcurrent exploitation in comparison withsustainablefishcatchorwithregeneration,arehardlygatheredand published.Givinggreater scope to country fishermen andpreventingorregulatingwastefulpracticescould mean both greater income and

September 18, 1999

employment to the fishermen and alsosustainable exploi~tion of fisheries.

Fisheries contribute only 71 per centto state domestic product in India, whichis not very different from 77 per cent atthe national level.However, it is a sourceof livelihood to many fishermen .parti-cularly in the coastal districts of UttaraKannada and Dakshina Kannada. Inlandfisheries provide seasonal and sub-sidiary income andemployment,but theirrole also is considerablyless in Kamatakathan in states like Kerala and WestBengal.

The state has a coastal length of 300kms, 27,000 sq kms of continental shelfand 87,000 sqkms of exclusiveeconomiczone (EEZ), with about 3.03 lakh marinefishermen living in 202 fishing villages.Marine fish catch increased in the statefrom 1.61 lakh tonnes in 1980-81to 2.23lakh tonnes in 1996-97,an increaseof 39per cent. This can be compared with theestimated total resourcepotential of 4.25lakhtonnes perannumin the EEZand theannualcatchablepotential at 0-50 fathomdepth range is estimated at only 2.7 lakhtones. [GOK 1997:10-11].In the countryas a whole also as against the actual levelof exploitation of marine fish or 2.71million tonnes, the potential availableforexploitation is 3.92 million tones. All ofthis potential cannot, however, be con-sideredasavailableforsustainableexploit-ation.Regrettably,estimatesofannualrateof regenerationof marinefish and of whatcan.be considered as sustainableexploit-ation are not available.

The sources of inland fisheries inKamataka are 4,695 major tanks, 21,801minor tanks, 61 reservoirs and around9,000 kmsof riversand canals.Themaxi-mum waterspread area of tanks andreservoirs is about 4.15 and 2.16 lakhhectares respectively [GOK, 1997].Only87,675 fishermenare reportedto be activein inland fisheries.

Inland fisheries production increasedfrom46,652tonnesin 1980-81to 101,654tonnes in 1996-97, i e, by 118 per centwhich is much more than the rate of increasein marinefishcatchduringthesameperiod(viz, 39 per cent). What is remarkableisthat.this increase has come about inspiteof a decline in the number of tanks andshrinkage in their spread. Most of theinland fish is captured and traded in aninformal and unorganised way by poorpeople.Since mechanisedtrawlersarenotused in inland fisheries, the technologyused is much moresustainablehere.Eventhen there has been a worry about thesurvival of river fish such as mahseer,which is hunted for sport by adventure-

2739

IUkin. rich and not ItS a source oflivelibood. '

1be state also has about 8,000 hec:Wesof brackish water, out of which 4,200 areestimated to be..suitable for aquaculture.Of this, only 1,000 hectares are developed.At present, 'the average production ofcui. is around 800kgperhectare.1bereseems to be some unutilisecl potential in.brackish water in Kamatak. Butthisshouldbe done very cautiously, without everextending brackish water into paddy landsand contaminatin. ground water. It isnecessary to remember that acquaculturehas produced high and irrecoverableenvironmental costs where its expansionhas been at the expense of cultivated orcultivable lands by pumping in sea water.In response to a writ petition, the SupremeCourt has ordered that rio further shrimpor aquaculture farms be permitted, that nogroundwater be, drawn for acquacultureand that no part of agricultural lands andsalt pans be converted to c~mmercialacquaculture farms [Samudra 17, March1997:37].

VMineral Exploitation and

Environmental ImpactAs observedin the introductionabove,

it is a difficult task to judge what rate ofexploitation of minerals is advisable totakecare of the problemof depletion andreconcile the interests of the presel!tgeneration with those of the futuregenerations.Ithelps,however,to comparethe present rate of exploitation with thereserves still available for exploitation.1be number of years for which reserveswill lastat the presentrate of exploitationcan be directlycomputed from the abovetwo.Table4 here givesthis picture aboutthe mineralores in Kamatakain 1995-96.Afewmineralsareapproachingexhaustionwithinabouta decade,whicharechromiteand copper (II, years each), and gold(9 years).Thepositionregardingothers ismore comfortable. A debate is neededabout whether it is worthwhile pushingexploitationoftheformergroupofmineralsto exhaustionsosoon,andwhetherwe aregeuingcorrespondingreturnsfromitwhichjustify such exhaustion.

Kamataka is estimated,to have 1,092billion tonnes of granite (includingcoloured) on site, of which 391 billiontonnesare stated to be recoverable.1bereis no information on the production oractualexploitationof granite,but408,583tonneswere reportedto have been expor-ted from Kamataka in 1992-93 (Depart-ment of Mines and Geology, GOK).Coloured granites are scarce but no

2740

~_.

separate figurescouldbeobtainedon their was to di. trenches around the hiUs, 10reserves. metres wide and 2 metres deep, at the

Apart from depletion, another probleJD contours of 1,000, SOOand 200 metresWithmineraloreexploitationis theadverse altitude. On the upward side, trees likeenvironmentalimpactit creates[Saldanha sisal,eucalyptus,acacia,cassia,mahopny,1987].This is also a cost to be reckoned casuarinawereplanted.Fastgrowingtreeswhile judging the worthwhileness of and grass are also planted in betweenmineralexploitation.1be responsibilityof trenches.Treebeltsup to 200 metresweretaking~tionary steps to avoid or createdon eitherside of the riversand

. minimise the impact is on the miners,. .treams. Two rock -filleddams'havebeenMining generally causes deforestation as built to prevent mine wash ffOm pollutingthe miners are most often in forest areas. river Bhadra. A 100 metre high LakhyaNot only the mining sites. but also other dam has also been built to contain thesites useclfor dumping waste, constructing tailings generated from the project 1beroads and colonies for miners and such company is reported to have won severalother uses also take up land and lead to awards in recognition of the measuresdeforestation.Opencastminingalsol~, ' taken. It is hoped that other miningto land degradation, silting of reservoirs, companies also take similarmeasutes. Thetanks and rivers downstream, and. annual ore production now is 7.5 millionlandslides. There are other effects like air tonnes per year.pollution due to dust and noise pollution,which affects the health of miners. Oftenthe miners work in miserable conditions.Though risk to life may be reduced, riskto limbs and to their health are hardlytaken Care of. As a result, many workerssuffer from serious debilitating diseaseswithin a few years of their joining themines, and some of them may be compelledto stop wode. This is so not only in mineralexploitation but also in granite and otherstone quarries. Few labour inspectors evervisit such sites or try to improve the workingconditions of miners.

Kudremukh is one of the well knOWIlmining sites in Kamataka for extractingand exporting iron ore. KudremukhIronOre Company Limited (KlOCL) was setup in 1976 and started functioningeffectivelyfrom1982.1besite,Sestimatedto have 700 milliontons of weatheredoreand450 milliontonsof primaryore. It hasa lease area of 4,000 hectares, of which1,452 hectares are now under activemining.Theore to wasteratio is presently2:I. It has almost all the environmentalproblemsexpected in a mining project ina hilly forest area. Heavy rainfall in theareafurthercontributesto soilerosion andsiltation washing the dug up soils downthehill.KlOCL,therefore,tookup severalenvironmentalmeasurestominimisetheseproblems.SOneof the importantmeasures

VIIndustrial Pollution

Though policy and legislation for thecontrol of industrial pollution may lookstringenton paper, there is manya slip inexecution.1be implementationofpollutioncontrol in the nineties is certainly moreeffective than in the eighties. and far mOre ,

so as compared with the seventies. Eventhen we cannot say' that all the pollutionstandards are followed by all the industries.Even though pollution control boards havethe powers to close down offendingindustries" the action is hesitant and laxparticularly because of the fear of causingunemployment and distress.

It would be useful to have someindication of hard figures of how farpollution control laws are put into eff~taking the case of Kamataka. One suchindication is how many industrial unitshave at least set up treatment plants. Thiscan be seen from Table 5.

Though Table 5 relates to treatmentplants actually in operation, they may nOtneCessarily be operated all the while. Thisis done to save energy which is scarce andcostly. Even where the industries actuallyoperate the pollution control plants, all ofthem do not meet the standards prescribed.A recent study comparing pollution controlstatus in Karnataka with Netherlands

TABU! 6: TRENDS OF PouurANrS IN RIVERS IN SELECTED LocAl1ONS IN KARNATAKA

Note: NT -No trend in the parameter; UP -upward trend; DN -downward trend.Source: CPCB Annual Report 1992-93. pp 24-26 (extracted).

Economic and Political Weekly September 18, 1999

RiverslLocation Period Dissolved Biochemical TotalOxygen Oxygen Demand Coliform

Krishna at Tintini Bridge 1979-91 NT DN UPTungabhadra at UUanur 1979-91 NT DN UPBhadra DlS ofKIOCL 1979-9t NT DN UPCauvery at KRS dam (Balamuriltshetra) 1980-91 UP NT UPKabbani 1987-91 NT UP UP

showed thatthough in general the standardswere more lax in the fonner, compliancewas also more lax, particularly in respectof small industries [Kuik et alI997]. Whatis the regulatory machinery doing aboutit then?

As per the annual report of KamatakaState Pollution Control Board (KSPCB)for 1995~96(the latest available at the timeof writing), only 97 prosecutions werelaunched under Water Pollution Act and40 under the Air Pollution Act since theinception of the board in 1981. These coverthe cases of highly polluting and also otherindustries. The number of industriesordered to be closed down for non-com-pliance was only 22 till March 1994, whichincreased to 76 under both Water PollutionControl Act and Air Pollution Control Act

together. As a result of stricter imple-mentation of the law among 17 industriesidentified as highly polluting, the rate ofcompliance of pollution control is reportedto have improved from 27.9 per cent in1991 to 81.2 per cent in 1996 (as seen fromKSPCB annual reports for 1991 and 1996).

The extent of implementation of poll-ution control is reflected in ambient airand water quality. Illustrative informationfor Kamataka is presented in Table 6 herefor water quality (information on airqualityin cities is presented in the next section).It shows deterioration in water quality atall locations in regard to coliform, andeither no trend or upward trend fordissolved oxygen, and a mixed picture forbiochemical oxygen demand. This is hardlya rosy picture.

A major problem with pollution controlboards is inadequate finance and inade-quate technical staff to monitor all theindustrial units. They also take on theunnecessary burden of giving technicaladvice or guidance and take the blame iftechnology suggested does not deliver thegoods. There are now consultants availableon pollution control implementation whocan take over this work, and leave the taskof monitoring and taking legal action toKSPCB.

There are still several problem areas inthe state due to continued water and airpollution. A few illustrative examples aregiven here, separately for water and airpollution based on a districtwise report byKSPCB on the status ofindustrial pollutionin Kamataka [KSPCB 1995).

Both rivers and the sea are pollutc:dnoticeably in Kamataka and some of theproblem spots are identified as Bangalore(Vrishabhavati), Bhadravati, Dande'li,Davanagere, Harihar, Karwar, Kollegal,Kudremukh, Nanjangud, Shimsa andSrirangapatna. We take fourexamples here:

Economic and Political Weekly

(i) pollution generated by a group ofindustries (including small) in one location;(ii)pollution generated by one or two large

.industrial units; (iii) pollution generatedby a plantation industry (coffee estates);and (iv) marine pollution.

Peenyain Bangalore is one of the biggestindustrial areas in Asia, housing manyindustries of various sizes including smallindustries. Most of them have no orinadequate treatment facilities, especiallyfor small industries. Some 79 units let outover 5 million litresof effluents per dayinto the river Vrishabhavati which skirtsthe city on the western side and then joinsArlcavati, which is a tributary of Cauvery.Vrishabhavati was a clean perennial streamonly 20 years ago, and now stinks so muchthat it is a nuisance to neighbouring resi-dents. It was used for recreation (picnics)by city dwellers and fishing by villagersearlier. Now, there is a fear that pollutantsreach even aquifers and Cauvery. Most ofthe layouts near Vrishabhavati have noaccess to municipal drinking water andhave to depend only on ground water. Theauthorities concerned have shown callous

disregard of this problem and have notdone anything to reduce the pollution.Some of the pollutants are toxie, includinglead. The concentration of lead is assessedto be as high as 7.5 times the pollutionstandard. Other heavy metals like cad-mium, chromium, mercury and nickel arealso present. These metals are absorbedby crops and animals and enter food chain[Nag et al 1995].

Bhadravati is a major industrial centrein Kamataka. located on the banks of riverBhadra. There are two major public sectorindustrial units - Visvesvaraya Iron andSteel and Mysore Paper Mills. Thoughboth have installed pollution treatmentplants, they are not able to change thebrownish colour of effluents reportedlydue to non-availability of viable techno-logy. To make matters worse, sewage waterof the town and untreated effluents ofsmaller industrial units are also let out intothe river, making it into a' problem area.The air pollution caused by VISL is anotherdi~ension of the problem. There are similarwater pollution problems in Harihar,Davangere, and Nanjangud.

Plantation industry can also be a majorsource of river pollution. The pulpseparated from coffee seeds is an organicwaste, which is not found suitable for useas a fertiliser and is hence thrown intostreams. As Ii result, the BOD level insome of the streams randomly tested wasfound to be as high as 2,000-4,000 mg!litre as against the permitted standard of3 mgllitre for drinking water sources.

September 18, 1999

~.

Comparedto other majorcoastalstates,the discharge of industrial and sewagedischarges into th~ coastal waters ofKamataka is not high.6 We cannot takecomfort fromthefactthatAndhraPradesh,Oujarat, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Maha-rashtra discharge much more waste thanKamataka.MangaloreandKarwararetwoproblem areas of marine pollution.Mangalore is fast urbanising and bothmunicipal and industrial effluents arereleasedinto thesea,causingboththermal.and chemical pollution. Sewageis hardlytreatedbefore being releasedinto the sea.Industrial units further compound theproblem in a region which is consideredecologically sensitive and fragile. Thecaustic soda factory in Karwaris a majorsource of pollution, releasing mercuryand chlorine into the environment.Marine pollution, it is feared, may affectboth the quality and quantity of fishcatch. .

The air pollution problem is alsoillustrated with a few typical examples.The stonecrushingindustrialunitsaroundBangalore are a significant source of airpollution. The stone dust is known tocause silicosis, a lung related healthproblem.Mostof theseunitsaresmallandscatteredand donot find it viableto installequipment to preventor at least minimisestone dust. One of the solutions to theproblemis to restrainany unit from func-tioning whichis not able to do so.But thismeansdiscouragingsmallunitsandraisesequity issues because other firmscausingother forms of pollution are not similarlyrestrained.A cementfactorynearTumkuralso is considered a major source of airpollution. affectingcrop yieldsand healthof both humans and animals in the area.Though equipment to minimise airpollution is installed, the problem of

. irregularsupplyof power and low qualityof coal supplied are reported to be comingin the way of effective pollution control.The same problem also arises in Oulbargadistrict which also has cement manu-facturing units.

The state has a significant deficit inpower supply. However, power generatingprojects also create significant environ-mental problems. Major hydroelectric

.projects can lead to submergence of forestsrich in biodiversity and also of agricultu~lands and settlements, raising problems ofrehabilitation and resettlement. Hencemore attention is given now to thermalpower stations. But they also create theproblem of fly ash, not only polluting airbut also .requiring land for depositing flyash. Raichur Thermal Plant and also theCogentrix Plant welt illustrate this

2741

dilemma. Though both, of them haveequipment to reduce air pollution, the useof waste ash continues to be a problem.Jbere is need for further research into theUse of this because of the fear that ~bricks' n'Iadeout of fly ash develop cracksafter some time. There is little demand forbricks made of fly ash, and transport costsexcerbate the problem. According tonewspaper reports, research has shownsome scope for using treated coal ash asfertiliser in cultivated areas. In semi-arid

. areas, this is reported to be increasing thecapacity of the soil to absorb and conservemoisture and increase crop yields. If true,this is a promising breakthrough. illu-strating how waste can be converted intoan economic good while also solvingenvironmental problems,

vnUrban Environment

Rapid urbanisation in Kamataka, aselsewhere. has accentuated the problemsof urban environment on all the three main

fronts- water. air, and solid waste. Thoughthe rate of growth of urban population hass,lowed down as revealed by the 1991census, the urban environmental deterio-ration does not appear to have sloweddown. thanks to accelerating vehiclepopulation and inability of municipalcorporations to cope with environmentalproblems. The major problem areas ofurban environment in Karnataka areBangalore. Hubli-Dharwar. Mangalore andBhadravati. Gulbarga is also catching upin this regard. One prominent 'feature ofthese problems is that they are not confinedto municipal limits and engulf periurbanand rural areas as well. affecting not onlyagricultural lands but also acquifers con-taminating the only source of drinkingwater (viz. groundwater) in such areas.We briefly present these problems - water,air and solid waste. There are otherproblems also like sanitation particularlyin slum areas and traffic congestion. whichare not dealt with here.

Kamataka has 172 corporations andmunicipalities of which 139 have nounderground drainage and not evenprimary treatment plants. Among theremaining 33 municipalities. 26 havefunctional underground drainage facilitiesand only 15 have primary treatment plants[Saldanha 1992J. The bulk of the sewagewater is let out on land or into streamswithout any treatment, polluting drinkingwater sources. The perception that wateris scarce is yet to take hold both amongthe city dwellers and their representativesin municipalities and the bureaucratsmanning them.

2742

...--

Bangalore which had a population of4.13 million in 1991 and 4.85 million in1995 (estimated). receives 705 milliontitres per day (MCD) of fresh water or 145titresperdaypercapita.1besupplypositionis much better now compared with percapita per day supply of 711itres in 1961and 102 litres in 1981, though this is lessthan the prescribed norm of 200 titres perday per capita for Class I cities as perinternationa} standards. The total sewageflow was estimated at 438 MID (62 percent of water received)} The water supplyas given above does not include groundwater exploited. Similarly, sewage put intosoak pits also is not included in the sewageflow as given above. 1be Bangalore WaterSupply and Sewage Board (BWSSB) wasin established 1964 which is responsiblefor both water supply and sewage disposaland treatment. The main city. though notthe outskirts, had a fairly well managedsewage system installed in 195OS.whichhas now become worn out and damagedin several places. The abuse of sewers bydumping solid waste has exasperated theproblem. There are three sewage treatmentplants. which are being upgraded. Theircombined treatment capacity is only 346MID (79 per cent of sewage flow), whichis being expanded to 458 MLD. The latteris slightly above the present sewage flow.There are facilities for both primary andsecondary treatment.. The sludge removedfrom the primary and secondary clarifiersis used as fertiliser and brings some revenueto BWSSB (Rs 1.04 lakh in 1994-95).There are plants to set up tertiary treatmentwhereby the treated water can be recycledfor industrial use. The outskirts of the cityand slum areas do not have satisfactorysewage system. tbough the main city alsohas problems. particularly mixing up of

, storm water drains and sewage lines.The situation is even more dismal in

other cities and towns. Mysore gets 112.45MID (as in 1991) or 148 per capita per

day. It is rer°rted to generate 35.65 MLDof sewage. only 31.1 per cent of whichis treated and that too at the primary level.Both the treated and untreated wastes aredischarged on land, to keep the riverCauvery from being polluted. In the twincity of Hubli-Dharwad. the water supplyis 85.35 MLD. which is 119 litres per daypercapita. It generates 82 MID of sewage.1becity is yet to establish proper treatmentplants. and a part of the untreated sewageis treated as fertiliser and a part let out intostreams and tanks. This may have affectedthe quality of groundwater.

Since small industries discharge theirwaste water into municipal sewage ordrains, it aggravates the problem of waste

water treatment. The municipalities havethe burden of cleaning it up. They cancharge a user fee for this service to smaDindustries, and improve their fmancialresources to effectively treat waste water.

The quality of air in most of our townsand cities has worsened significantly inthe last two decades mainly due to vehicularemissions. In cities like Bhadravati,indUstrial pollution is also an additionalfactor. Both Bangalore and Mysore arecovered under the national ambient airquality monitoring programme. The mainpollutants monitored under the programmeare suspended particulate matter (SPM).sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen.Bangalore has shown higher levelsofSPMthan standards prescribed during peakhours, though on average it is close tomaximum permitted limit. (A majorproblem in assessing these figures is thelarge variation in readings both over spaceand time.) Only three spots in Bangaloreare monitored - Anand Rao Circle, AmcoBatteries. and Graphite India, but otherspots are also emerging as highly polluted,(e g, Richmond Circle, Sirsi Circle. andChord Road in Vijayanagar). AverageSPMlevels at Anand Rao Circle are abovepermitted levels. Even by the end of 19805,an area as large as 21 sq kms in the centraland south-central region of the study was

. found to have air pollutants above limitspermitted for residential areas [IISc I990J.The situation must have worsened todayboth in intensity and area covered.

An indication of the impact of airpollution in Bangalore comes from a paperpresented at a conference in Bangalore inDecember 1998 by C Rajashekara Murthywhich showed that blood samples ofBangaloreans had a lead concentration of20 micrograms per decilitre, which is twicethe permitted levels. Lead in blood beyondcertain levels is feared as leading to,braindamage. Another paper by H Paramesh atthe same conference showed that theincidence of asthma in Bangalore amongschool children in the age-group of 6 to15 years was as high as 24.5 per cent,which is attributed mainly to the airpollution (Deccan Herald, December 14,1998. p4). Regrettably, similar informationon other cities is not available.

Several suggestions have been made tQreduce air pollution in cities - better traffic'.management to relieve congestion,includingmoreroadsandflyovers,stricterimplementationof emission standardsonvehicles.phasingout leaded petrolby theyear 2005. replacement of two-strokeengines by four-stroke engines, andprohibition on diesel based passengercars.'

Solid waste is not only a nuisance

Economic and Political Weekly September 18. 1999

aesthetically but also a serious healthbawd. ""Itincreases rat popul8tion andspreads disease; When dry waste is nOtcollected, it is burnt by neighbourhoodpeople in unscientific ways releasing a lotof smoke and toxic gaSesin the air. Hospital

. waste is aparticularly serious hea1thhazard,since crows and other birds scatter thewaste from the dl,lmped sites. There have.been newspaper reports that used syringes

. " and other gadgets are recycled by un-scropulous traders.

It is estimated that generation of solidwaste in major cities is around SOkg percapita per day. The solid waste generatedin Bangalore is upwards of 2.180 tonnes"perday.About 8,000 workers are employedby the corporation and S,OOOmore byprivate contractors to coJlect and disposeof the waste. There are about 12,500 gar-

. bage bins and 2,000 more are being added.TI;1ecollection of waste is almost absentin outskirts and slums though the corpora-tion levies all the charges - property taxesand betterment levies - on the outskirts.

The incompetence of the corporationhas induced several voluntary efforts atwaste collection in neighbourhood areas,backed by financial contribution andsometimes organisational help of NGOs.In such areas. the citizens are persuadedto separate dry waste from organic wasteand hand them over in separate bags tothe boys who come to collect the waste.But the boys have often to separate thewaste themselves, for which they are"providedwith hand gloves. (Such voluntaryefforts however are yet to spread, becauseof the general feeling that when citizenspay property taxes to the municipalcorporation. the corporation shouldexercise this responsibility.) The organicwaste iscomposted by the voluntary groupswhich partly finances their endeavour.

The corporation also uses organic wastefor composting. But only 80 tonnes ofwaste per day is treated this way. Thecorporation no longer has landfill sites todump waste and has to find other waysof waste disposat Other cities also arefacing similar problems. Mysore isestimated to generate about 295 tonnes ofwaste per day (about 0.39 kg per capita),while Hubli-Dharwar generates about 215tonnes per day (0.3 kg per capita). Theproblems of Bangalore are thus muchbigger both in terms of per capita wasteand total waste generated. But the othercities have not created the same facilityfor recycling (like converting organic wasteinto compost) as Bangalore. There shouldalso be' concerted efforts to reduce percapita waste generated, such as dis-couraging p1astic bags, throw-away canS

Economic and"Political Weekly

andcups. and recycling packaging material.Hospital waste. is becoming a serious

problem in cities. Let alone small nursinghomes, even bigger hospitals dump wasteuntreated. Instead of acting as healingcentres, hospitals themselves become asource of disease. Bangalore alone isestimated to generate 1,400 kgs of medicalwaste everyday. The corporation workershandle this waste without the protection'of gloves and proper shoes. A mechanismis urgently needed for coUecting this wasteseparately from other waste and from allhospitals, nursing homes and clinics andincinerating them scientifically and lettingoff burnt air and gases through highchimneys. This waste should nOt enterorganic waste used for composting.

vmConcluding Observations

Apathy of the government machinerytowards environmental problems faced bypeople has since long provoked severalpopular movements in Kamataka. Twotypes of movements could be discerned:(a) those involving"livelihood issues linkedto people's access to natural resources;and (b) those involving health concerns,combined also with aesthetic con-siderations.

A major example of the former isKusnoor Satyagraha and the struggle ofthe Samaj Parivartan Samudaya againsttaking over of common property resourceslike grazing lands for planting commercialspecies required by industries. Theopposition to planting of commercialspecies in the name of social forestry ledto a significant change of policy. Theearlierbureaucratic'approach gave way toinvolving people in managing 'waste lands'or grazing lands and in reforesting themwith mixed species which people desired.Other examples are protests by fishermenand other local people against marinepollution by Caustic Soda Factory andMRPL pipeline, protests against develop-ment projects in ecologically fragile areassuch as in the western ghats and the coastaldistrict of Dakshina Kannada. Such

projects could deprive the local people oftheir access to forests, their paddy landsand arecanut gardens, apart from affectingdrinking water in some cases. ShivaramKararith, one of the most eminent writersin Kannada, was in the forefront of someof these movements, particularly in rallyingpeople against the Kaiga Nuclear PowerPlant in an ecologically fragile region ofUttara Kannada. SPS led a struggle againstriver pollution by Harihar Polyfibres.

An example of the second typeof popularprotest is the struggle against a further

September 18, 1999

~

denotification of 30 acres of what hasremainedof the well knownCubbonParkin Bangalore,an importantlung space fortbe city. It forced the 92 year old Justice

" Nittur Srinivasa Rao to join the protest inthe street, in which he was acompaniedalso by eminent persons like GirisliKamad.BvenD M Nanjundappa, deputy chairmanof the state planning board, issued a publicstatement against the denotification. This "

protest succeeded in making the stategovernment withdrawthe denotification.There were similar protests against theconstroction of a film complex at SankeyTank in Bangalore, which would havedestroyed many trees and habitatof birdsin the city.

There have also been con.structivemovements like the voluntary efforts atwastecollectionandreeyclinginBangalorereferred to above, which, however, are yet "

to spread wider.While popular movements can force

'government machinery to shake off itsapathyand also makepeopleenvironmentconscious, they are not by themselves a"solutionto environmentalproblems.Theirmajor limitation is that it takes time toorganise them and the damage may bedone in the meanwhile, though some ofthem emerged quiCkly enough to stallofficial moves as in the case of CubbonPark and SankeyTank. Suchorganisationmay be more difficult tn roral areas withscattered villages. It is necessary to takecareof environmentalproblemson a moreinstitutionalised,regular, automaticbasisinstead of relyingon occasionalknee-jerkreactions.Tighteningup ofenvironmentallegislationand its stricter implementationis called for, combined with economicdisincentives and incentives to makecompliance more automatic. A wider

" sensitisation to environmental concerns isalso necessary among city dwellers,medicalpersonnel,municipalcouncillors,governmentofficialsandpoliticalleaders,more than among the rural masses.

Notes

[This paper is prepared by M V Nadkami forEcological Economic Unit, Institute for SocialandEconomicChange (lSEC), Bangalore, making~ of inputs from Sharachchandra Lele, K NNinan. Syed Ajmal Pasha, B G Kulkarni, G SSastry, Ramakrushna Panigrahi and S Manasi orEcological Economics Unit. This is part of a ~comprehensive Kamataka Development Report.1999 (in progress) initiated by P V Shenoi atISEC.]

1 The issue of water management and irrigationis tackled in a separate cbapterofthe KamatakaDevelopment Report I999 (inprogrcss at ISEC).

2 Between 1987 and 1997,63,001 hectares were

afforested in. the state (which is only a littleover 2 per cent of area under forals u pet

2743

industrial units -: Visvesvaraya Iron and

" offICial land use data). Of this, the bulk of36,477 were afforested by Kamatab forestdepartment, 10,371 hectares under joint forestmanagement (1992 to March 1998), 7,989hectares by Mysore PIIpC( MiUs, 5,5 13 hectares

by Kamataka Cashew Development Cor-poration, 1,889 hectares by Karnataka ForeStDevelopment Corporation and 833 by DlylandDevelopment Board (which co-ordinates andundertakes watershed development projects).

3 lbough reservation for women and scheduledcastes and tribes is provided for in the con-stitution of village forest committees, casterivalries can pose a problem. Moreover, evenfarmers with exclusive access rights on forestsunder traditional institutional systems like'baanes' and 'bcttas' have the same access and

rights to forests under VFCs. This can createbitterness and conflict. The" JPM structure

is unable to distinguish between sectionswith different levels of dependence on theforests.

4 Under the erstwhile princely state of Mysorc,there was a network of pasture lands ('kavals') .

maintained particularly to promote a speciesof bullocks (Amruth Mahal) prized highly forsturdiness and draught power. They wereadministered by the animal husbandrydepartment. Many of these kavals have nowremained only in name, being heavilyencroached upon.

5 The measures stated in tbe text were as reportedby KIOCL officials, and as published in theirbrochures.

6 In million litres per day, the waste waterdischarged into the sea in descending order ofthe states is as follows: Andhra Pradesh - 2,466(of which 2, I I6 are from acquaculture); Oujarat- 566; Tamil Nadu - 378; Kerala - 151;Maharashtra-80; Kamataka-43; WestBengal- 22, Ooa- 12;Pondicherry- 6; Orissa- I(Source: Central Pollution Control Board, aspublished in CSO 199"7).

7 This seems to be an underestimate since about

80 per cent of water received is expected toOow into sewage.

8 See note 7 which is applicable here too.9 Diesel is significantly subsidised and produces

more carbon monoxide. While there may besome justification fordiescl-bascdheavy publictransport on social grounds, there is none forlight motor vehicles.

References

J Bannur, C R and H C Sbaratchandra (1997):'Land Use and Land Cover in DakshinaKannada District', DANIDA, Bangalore.

CSO (Central Statistical Organisation) (1997):Compendium on Environment StlJtistiCl,001.New Delhi.

Daniels, R J R (1993): 'Status of Avifauna ofKamataka' in Saldanha.

Deshpande R S and S R Nikumbh (1993):'Treatment of Uncultivated Lands underWatershed Development Approach - lnsti-tutional and Economic Aspects', Art,",Vijnana, Vol 35, pp "1-21.

Oadgil, M (1984):"'Status of Wild Mammals iriKamataka' in C J Saldanha (cd), Kamatakll:StlJleof Environment Report 1981-84, Centrefor Taxonomic Studies, Bangalorc.

Gadgil, M and S N Prasad (1978): 'VanishinaBamboo Stocks', Commerce, 136 (3497):1000.104.

2744

Notel: Kamataka - Area

OOK(Governmentof ~) (1995,.96):-ReportOilIlltegratedSampleSurveylorEstimaJioll of Productioll 01Mille. Egg. Wooland Meat lor the year 1995-96. DireCtorateof Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services,Bangalorc. "'

- (1997): Statistical Bulletin ofFisheriul996-97,Directorate of Fisheries, Bangalose." ..

USe (Indian Institute of Science) (1990): 'AirPollution and Incidence of Morbidity Con-ditions in Bangalorc City - Project Report',Department of Management Studies,Bangalorc.

KSPCB (KariIatakaState Pollution Control Board)(1995): Report to the' Meeting of SubjectsCommittee of 1995-96 (in Karnataka) (July),Bangalose..

Kuik,0 J, M V Nadkami,F H Oosterbuis,0 S .

Sastry and A E Akkerman (1997): PollutionControl in the South and the North: A

Comparative Alsessmellt 01 EnvironmentalPolicy Approaches ill India and theNetherlands, Sage, New Delhi.

Kurien, John (1995): 'Resistance to Multinationalin Indian Waters', Et:oltlgist, 25 (2 and 3):115-19.

Lakshmikanthamma. S (1997): 'Sustainability ofDryland Agriculture in India - A Case Studyof Watershed Development Approach', MDPublications, New Delhi.

Lele, S, 0 Previshkumar, M Ramanathan and

V Thangamani (1998a): 'Forest Monitoringin India: Counting What Counts' paper at theInternational Workshop on Capacity Buildingin Environmental Governance for Sustainable

Development at IGlDR, Mumbai, December8-10.

Lele, S, 0 Rajashekhar, V R Hegde, 0 Prevish-kumar and P Saravanakumar (1998b): 'Meso-

scale Analysis of Forest Conditions and ItsDeterminants: A Case Study from the Western

; / Ohats Region, India', Current Science,Vol 75 (3), pp 256-63.

Menon. S and K S ~awa (1998): 'Land CoverChange in the Western Ohats: 1920-1990',Department of Biology, University of Mas-sachusetts, Boston, Unpublished.

Mishra, S N (1995): 'India's Livestock Economy:A Perspective on Research', Indian Juurnal{if Agricultural ECtJnt,miL'S, 50 (3), July-September, pp 256-63.

NadlCami, M V (1990): 'Use anddManagementof Common Lands' in Cecil J Saldanha (ed)Kamataka State of Environment Report IV,Centre for Taxonomic Studies, St Joseph'sCollege, Bangalorc, pp 31-53.

Nadkami, M V and Syed Ajmal Pasha ( 1991):"'Developing Uncultivated Lands: SomeIssues from Kamataka Experience in SocialForestry', Indian Journal (if Agricultura~

EcollOmiCl, Vol 46(4), pp 543-54, Octob&-December.

Nadkami M V, with S A Pasbaand LS Prabhabr(1989): Political Economy of Fonlt Ule and.Management, Sage, New Delhi.

Nag, D "p, H R Rajtnoban, B K Rajan, K ~Babu and C R Venkatcsh (1995): 'A Pre1i-minary Study of Toxic and Metal Con-tamination ofVrisbabhavati RiverWaterfrom

Industrial Effluents Discharges', IlldianJournal 01 Environmental Pollution, VoliS(12), December, pp 899-902. "

Ninan, K N and S Laksbmikantbamma (1994):'Sustainable Development - The Case ofWatershed Development in India', Illter-IIOtiollOlJournal (if Sustainable Developmentand World Ecolugy, Vol I, December, UK.

- (1998): 'Social Cost Benefit Analysisof.Watershed Development ProjcctinKamatab',ISEC, Bangalore, (mimeo).

N R S A (1983) 'Mapping of Forest Cover inIndia from Satellite Imagery: 1972-75 and1980-82', National Remote Sensing Agency,Department of Space. Government of India,Hyderabad, Summary Report.

Reddy, A N Yellappa et aI (1986): IntegratedApproach lur Et:o-develtlpment 01 UttIJraKannuda District, Office of the Conservatorof Forests, dmara Circle, Kamataka Forest

Department, Dharwad (mimeo).Rai, S N (1985) 'Effect of Biotic Pressure on

Regeneration and Composition of MoistDeciduous Forests in Kamataka', Van VigyanVol 23 (I and 2), pp 13-22.

RRSSClSWDP - Regional Remote SensingService Centre (ISRO) and State WatershedDevelopment Programme (1998):Munittlring and Evaluatitm 01 Waterlhedlin Karnataka Using Satellite RemoteSensing, Technical Report,ISRO-NNRMS-TR-98-98, Bangalore. .

Saldanha. Cecil J ( 1987): 'Environmental Impact" of Quarrying and Mining in Karnataka' inC J Saldanha (ed) (1987), Karnataka -State(if Environment Reptlrt 1985-86, Centre forTaxonomic Studies, Bangalorc, pp 104-10.

- (1992) 'Urban Sewagein Kamataka'in C JSaldanha (ed), Kamatalw - The State ofEnvironment Reptlrt V,Centre forTaxonomicStudies, St Joseph's College, Bangalorc.

- (1993): KamataJca- The State of EnvironmentReport VI. Centre for Taxonomic Studies,St Joseph's College, Bangalore.

Saxena, N C; M Sarin, R V Singh and T Shah(1997): 'Independent StudyoflmplemcntatiooExperience in KanaraCircle', KamatakaForestDepartment, Bangalore.

Sinha, M(l988): 'Asscssmentof VegetationCovcrin Kamataka', Current Science. Vol 57(8),pp 418-21.

For the Attention of Subscribers andSubscription Agencies Outside India

It bas come to our notice that a large number of subscriptions to the EPW from outsidethe country together with the subscription payments sent to supposed subscription agents inIndia ha~ not been forwarded to us.

We wish to point out to subscribers and subscription agencies outside India that all foreignsubscriptions, together with the appropriate semittances, must be forwarded to us and notto unautborisedthird parties in India. ""

We take no responsibility wbatsocvcr in respect of subscriptions not registered with us.

MAHAGEIt

Economic and Political Weekly September 18, 1999