Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sukinda Pata: A Case-Study on Changing Perspectives of Commons and Commons Management due to Industrialization in Odisha
Banikanta Mishra, Sudhir Pattnaik, Debendra Sahoo
Draft: Please do not quote without the permission of one of the authors.
*Professor of Finance, XIMB (Xavier Institute of Management – Bhubaneswar), Bhubaneswar 751013, Orissa, India ([email protected]), Editor, Samadrusti, Bhubaneswar 751021, Orissa, India ([email protected]), and Author & Columnist, Sukinda Pata, Jajpur District, Orissa, India 755026 (Mobile: 98616-70448) respectively. The authors are immensely grateful to Nilamadhab Nayak for conducting excellent household surveys. The authors also thank XIMB Research Associate Sagarika Mishra for her help in preparation of the questionnaire and in analysis of the data, Birendra Nayak, Anita Mishra, and Sagarika Mishra for accompanying the authors for the pre-survey visit of Sukinda Pata, and Birendra Nayak and participants at the13th IASC (International Association for Study of the Commons) International Conference at Hyderabad, India on 10-14 January 2011 for their insightful comments.
Sukinda Pata: A Case-Study on Changing Perspectives of Commons and Commons Management due to Industrialization in Odisha
This paper analyzes, based on a household survey, the reaction of local people to the proposed ash-pond at Sukinda Pata, a village near the planned steel-hub of Odisha, proposed by the Jindal Stainless Steel, and the social, economic, and environmental impact of the ash-pond. In fact, one of the things that the world needs to explore is – in the words of Orissa’s best socio-economic analyst, Birendra Nayak - the effect of activities in the “invisible commons” like mines and ash-ponds on the “visible commons” like rivers and land.
Key words: Sukinda Pata, ash pond, industrialization, Jindal Stainless Steel, bio-diversity, socio-economic analysis, ground water contamination, environmental pollution
In this case-study, we analyze, in a specific village of Odisha, Sukinda Pata, located near the proposed steel-hub at Kalinga Nagar in Jajpur district, the attitude towards a specific aspect of industrialization, namely, the construction of an ash-pond. This article draws almost exclusively on three articles that appeared in a vernacular fortnightly (Sahoo 2007a, Sahoo 2007b, Sahoo 2010). An excellent history of the political-economy of Sukinda is also going to be available soon (Sahoo 2011).
When coal-fired power is generated, the combustion creates two kinds of wastes or residues. The fine particles that rise with the gas are called “fly ash”, while those that do not are termed “bottom ash”. These ashes can be stored in a landfill or in an ash-pond. In the first case, it is mixed or conditioned with water at the power-plant, and the damp ash is transferred to the landfill where it is compressed in layers; when the landfill is packed, the surface is covered with earth, seeded, and reclaimed for potential future use (University of Kentucky 2010). In the second instance also, the ash is mixed with water at the power plant, but then pumped in to the ash-pond as slurry; when the ash settles, water from the pond is transferred to the power-plant for recycling. When the ash-pond gets full, either the ash is dug out and transported to a landfill or some permanent disposal site, or a new pond is created (ibid).
ASH-POND DISASTERS
A 2007 study by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) of USA revealed that there are 60 locations in that country where coal-ash is suspected or proven to have polluted water (Bruggers 2009). “Selenium, a byproduct of the coal processing that can cause fish and bird deformities, was implicated at more than 20 of the sites, including Belews Lake in North Carolina - a cooling lake for another Duke Energy power plant” (ibid). By 2007, the ash-pond at the Gibson Power Plant of Duke Energy of USA had “tainted both a new wildlife sanctuary for endangered birds and the drinking water of the small
2
community of East Mount Carmel” (ibid). In fact, in 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and former plant owner Cinergy opened a wetland to attract endangered terns that were found nesting on piles of ash-ponds at the plant. It was realized two years later that the water from a nearby cooling lake and a fishing hole used by these two entities in building the wetland was contaminated by selenium from the ash ponds. “Duke Energy inherited the problem when it acquired the plant in 2006” (ibid). The issue assumed national and international attention and prominence when 2.6 million yards of coal-ash in a TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) ash-pond breached the bounds on 22 December 2008 and buried hundreds of acres of land in six feet and billions of gallons of sludge (Biello 2008). A combination of rain and accumulating sludge was believed to have contributed to the disaster (ibid).
Closer home, the issue became significant when, on the last day of year 2000, irreparable loss was caused by breach of the ash-pond of Nalco (National Aluminum Company) in Anugul district of Odisha. It was followed by a similar incident at the ash-pond of NTPC (National Thermal Power Corporation) in September this year. In fact, a report in a local daily, edited by a prominent ruling-party MP, gives alarming figures for ash-pond-led pollution in the district (Dharitri 2010). By now, more than 15 projects in the district produce above 85 MT (million tons) of coal per year, which are partly used by various power, steel, and alumina plants and partly exported. The 3000MW (megawatt) power plant by NTPC, 960MW captive one by Nalco, and a 460MW one by Talcher Thermal Power have been set up at Kaniha; they use around 20 MT of coal per year to produce power. Overall, these coal-based power-plants produce 30,000 tons of dry ash per day. Since this ash is not properly handled, there is an alarming situation of pollution in nearby villages, so much so that, sometimes it is difficult for people even to stay home. Layers of ash are getting deposited on wells, ponds, water reservoirs, and trees. Environment Protection Act 1986 and Dry Ash Management Rules 2006, that requires companies to use the ash, seems to have gone for a toss, as the firms are using only 13 percent of the ash and depositing the residual 87 percent in ash-ponds. Water shortage is not permitting the wetting of dry ash; therefore, dry ash is flying all around the area. There are also rumors that some companies are planning to intentionally release the dry ash into rivers.
PROPOSED JINDAL ASH-POND AT SUKINDA PATA
Sukinda Pata (SP hereafter) is a village located in the south-eastern part of Kalinga Nagar, the proposed steel-hub of Odisha that witnessed the death of twelve tribals and one policeman on 2 January 2006 in the wake of protest by local people against commencement of construction work by Tata Steel and generally against reckless industrialization in the area that was attempting to throw them out of their land. Jindal Stainless Steel, which has a plant in Kalinga Nagar, has been planning to set up an ash-pond in SP for its 500 megawatt power-plant around that hub. The proposed ash-pond was expected to displace of livelihood 40,000 farmers as well as 5,000 traditional fishermen dependent on nearby rivers. SP has not only 6,500 acres of fertile land
3
where multi-cropping is done, it is also rich in bio-diversity and a glorious example of sustainable living.
A public-hearing was conducted in September 2005 by the State Pollution Control Board towards granting of the environmental clearance of the Central Pollution Control Board to the above-cited power plant. People and organizations from around Kalinga Nagar and intellectuals and well-known denizens of the nearby Jajpur Road municipality participated in the hearing and pointed out about the pervasive pollution that this plant would cause. Though the company had not mentioned about the site of the ash-pond in it Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) booklet that it had published prior to the public-hearing, many in the audience talked about the planned construction of the ash-pond in SP and highlighted the socio-economic significance that the village had assumed in the lives of the region. Some even pointed out about the unique “wetland characteristic” of SP and demanded withdrawal of the plan for setting up the thermal plant in the first place. The company had given some data about the location and environment of the approximately 300 acres that it needed inside Kalinga Nagar for the thermal plant. But, though the area required for the ash-pond was of an equal magnitude, the company, in its EIA, had neither mentioned about the location of the proposed ash-pond nor about its environmental impact. Still, the firm seemed to get away with it.
For a while, in a section of the land given to it by the government, the firm had cleared a 100-hectare area of sal, kino, kendu, mahwa, and different trees, including medicinal ones, that was the habitat of jungle animals, some of them rare and endangered. But, the firm had failed to displace tribals that have been living in the area for generations. Besides, a few months before the public-hearing, farmers of SP area had formed a Farmers Protection Committee and pledged to fiercely oppose any attempt by the government to handover SP land to corporations. They had also written to the Central Revenue Divisional Commissioner about their objection, pointing out the close relationship of SP with agriculture, cattle-raising, and fishing by the 35,000 local people living in five gram-panchayats and nearby villages and a part of Jajpur Road municipality. In November 2006, tehsildar of Sukinda issued individual notices to farmers, which sparked off stiff opposition from the local farmers, who demanded cancellation of the proposed ash-pond.
4
CHANGING PERSPECTIVES
Any serious reading of the history of commons will indicate how perspectives on commons have witnessed changes with changes taking place in the political economy of the state. The development paradigm that the Indian state followed after its inception in 1947 (after its liberation from the clutches of the British) and the pace of acceleration it achieved in the 1990s following the economic-reform projects have in a great way influenced the State’s approach towards commons. It also has brought about unexpected changes in the perception about commons by the common people who depend in a given territory on a particular common resource (valley, wetland, lake, pond, river, forest, or land) for their livelihood.
5
As history suggests, the erstwhile rulers of Sukinda did not view its wetland commons as something potentially profitable from any commercial point view. The ruler’s perception of SP did not contradict the public perception on SP. There was no “development” framework in the recorded history of pre-independence Sukinda. Therefore, the perspective on commons was a shared perspective, though contradictions between the ruler and the ruled persisted in several other areas. In the post-1990 period, particularly when a large patch of land in Sukinda tehsil was declared as the future steel-hub of Orissa, SP, the largest wetland common in Orissa, got threatened. After 1994, ten steel plants and sponge-iron factories, one after another, came up very close to SP. The elderly farmers and fishermen who have seen SP as a Kamadhenu (the all-wish-fulfilling cow of the Hindu mythology), giving them the happiness of the Heavens during all the seasons in a year both for the land haves and also for land have-nots, started feeling the heat. The perspectives on SP started changing with the beginning of the process of rapid industrialization in the belt, which brought along with it the glamour of finance capital creating new and unthinkable situations in that area, including attracting the youth towards money. The youth, who for many reasons were not keen to soil their hand in the agricultural land and muddy waters, started looking at the common - SP - as something which would bring instant prosperity for them if converted in to a use for the upcoming industry. For them, Jindal’s proposed ash-pond in the heart of SP is something which would bring them good money and along with it all that money can bring to the area, like buying fashionable motor-bikes, electronic gadgets, and branded foreign liquor as well as tour to new areas and metropolis. And this at a time when the state has got one of the highest numbers of unemployable youth in the country. Though, for the elderly, SP remains as a Kamadhenu, for the confused youth, it is a hen laying golden eggs that should be finished at one go to get all the golden eggs hidden within her (to achieve instant prosperity). The inter-generational divide in the perspective on SP has been brought about primarily because of rapid industrialization of the area where land is now seen as a commodity. Therefore, SP cannot be expected to get a better treatment, since there is a convergence of perceptions on SP held by the state, the corporate, and the youth. The institutions of the state such as the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary unwittingly or otherwise do everything possible to strengthen this changing understanding of SP. This is also the reason why the resistance to the proposed Jindal ash-pond in the heart of SP has got elders as the main force, the youth being on the other side of the fence.
It is also important to understand the concept of government in the post colonial situation and how it is being internalized by the newly liberated common-men. The concept of government has got so much in to the common men’s head that they have been made to see the images of government even in the backyard of their house. With the formation of the modern state in India after independence, even resources used bythe common-men for centuries (at a time even when there was no government or political-agency claiming total monopoly over resources) were started being treated as state resources. The common-men also started accepting this concept under the belief
6
that the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people and, therefore, would not betray the trust bestowed on it.
The trust of the common-man was taken for granted. The eminent-domain status enjoyed by the colonial state got extended to the new state of independent India without any debate: meaning that the State shall continue to have the ultimate right over any patch of land even if it deprives its citizens of their natural right to life. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (amended in 1984) stands testimony to the eminent-domain status enjoyed by the Indian state. It is only in tribal areas of the country that one finds significant exceptions, as the tribals never recognized the authority of the colonizers over their territory and resources throughout the British rule. This is the reason why the British had to enact different legislations for “agency areas” which never challenged the rights of tribals over their resources. Therefore, the tribes did not have any reason to accept the eminent-domain status of the Indian state vis-à-vis the resources surrounding them. This contradiction between the State perspective on resources (including the commons) and perspective of tribals is getting reflected in many of the resistance movements today in central India. This is also one of the main reasons why Maoists are spreading their organization among the tribals in resource-rich areas. One would find an interesting reflection of this contradiction of perspectives on commons in Kalinganagar or Sukinda region. One may call this an inter-community divide in the perspective on commons. While on one side of the road (dominated by non-tribal communities) that takes one to SP, one finds a generational divide on the understanding of SP, on the other side (inhabiting tribal communities) one would find a strange consensus cutting across age and generation on the understanding of resources including that of SP.
HISTORY OF LAND-SETTLEMENT AT SUKINDA PATA
In 1949, government ordained that farmers in SP would keep three-fourths of their crop. Zamindari system was abolished in 1952. So, farmers expected that government would give them legal ownership of their land. Even the Tenancy Reform Act in 1955 did not solve their problem. By that time, handing over land to land-lord families by fake “hand-written leases” had been in vogue for more than a decade. Thus, paradoxically, though the government had accepted the proprietary right of the farmers to three-fourths of their produce, it had not acknowledged their legal right over their land. In the post-independence era, the main hurdles to granting this right were the land-lord-loving, corrupt officers and people’s representatives in the revenue department.
During the people’s movement in 1956, farmer leaders of SP conveyed the grievance to their familiar Nabakrushna Choudhury, the then chief minister (CM) of Odisha. He admitted that farmers’ claim to their land was justified and promised that, during the subsequent land settlement, farmers would receive their land titles and the land revenue would be determined. He also told them that he would direct the revenue department to determine a land-cess temporarily and accordingly instructed it to be set at five rupees
7
per acre. Farmers were relieved that after a while they would get the land titles. The revenue department took five years to merely fix this temporary royalty, and it was finally done in 1961. Land settlement began in Odisha in 1985, when the settlement camp came to SP and made ledger-entries and detailed recording about land ownership. The settlement-officer deposited all the paperwork in the Sukinda tehsil office and left. Farmers were eagerly waiting to receive their land titles. 1990 came and went and so did 1991. Not getting their titles till 1992, farmers went to the tehsil office to investigate the matter. They were told that land of SP had been declared as anabadi (uncultivable) land and, therefore, no leases would be given on this land.
Odisha’s CM at that point was Biju Pattnaik, father of Odisha’s current CM, Naveen Pattnaik. Farmers had heard that he was contemplating to set up a steel-hub, named Kalinganagar, in Sukinda. People in other parts of Sukinda were excited about this plan. Denizens of SP also got quite excited about it; they expected that the demand for vegetables, fish, and milk in the area would go up manifold, pushing up their income. They remained lost in this sweet-dream for the next two years. But, by the end of 1994, they reckoned that they needed to have the titles to their SP land, since they would be fined if they cultivate anabadi land. 1995 elections were approaching. Farmers met the tehsildar, collector, and the central RDC (revenue divisional commissioner) and conveyed their complaint. They alleged that the government was unjustly declaring as uncultivable land they have been cultivating from generation to generation for centuries. In a meeting with the state’s revenue secretary and other officials, farmers’ representatives demanded that the issue be reviewed and farmers granted titles. The officials told them point blank that the government would not reconsider its decision and that the farmers could approach the courts if they had any objections. Farmers did not have the courage to fight against the government in the courts to obtain their land titles; nevertheless, they continued to grow crops in their SP land and earn their livelihood. Till date, the government has not passed any restriction or ban order on this activity.
What is a matter of serious concern here is that, the very land on which the local farmers enjoyed tenancy-rights and which they have been cultivating for centuries under the Marhatta and English rules to earn a permanent livelihood, the current government snatched away under the pretext that it is uncultivable. This is a burning example of the state’s misuse of its administrative power. One does not require much knowledge of law to realize that the government has violated the revenue acts of the country to undertake this anti-farmer step. A farmer’s claim to his nijchas land is acknowledged even prior to the British rule – in fact, their revenue act also recognized this. In fact, the Settlement Report by the British settlement-officer Maddox points out (Appendix-B, page 120) as follows. “Nijchas is ordinary rayati land. The landlord cannot acquire any right of occupancy in it.” The laws of the state in independent India had acknowledged that the farmers had the right to this land of theirs (at the old cess rate from 1949 to 1961 and at the new rate from 1961 to 1991, when India and Odisha embarked upon a destructive liberalization-led industrialization). Interestingly, settlement work at SP was done at the same time as it was in other parts of the state; but, ultimately, farmers did
8
not receive their titles. This strategy of robbing the farmers of their ancestral land clearly reveals the dictatorial characteristics of the so-called “democratic” government. Even landlords and kings in our country never engaged in such heinous tactic.
BIODIVERSITY OF SUKINDA PATA
SP is as full of natural variety as it is rich in bio-diversity. It is 30-40 meters above the sea-level. It is endowed with 400 acres of quagmire, somewhat like marshy clay land. It has relatively sandy, alluvial soil as well as upland and lowland enriched by layers of silt. One of the uniqueness of the area was the slow-moving water in stretches of wetland; this slow motion avoids land-erosion.
In summer, when there is water-crisis in other regions, one can get water from the ground here with slight digging. The wetland of this area provides plenty of grass land to cows and buffaloes. So, for hundreds of years, herdsmen, in search of grazing land, have been coming here with their buffaloes during the summer.
In 1876, during the construction of the Patia anicut, the Jokadia dam was built to regulate the water-flow from Denei, Gandaanaala, and other mountain springs and channel it to the Patia River. Gandaanaala is enriched by water-flow from the hilly areas of Sukinda and some selected hilly areas of the Kendujhar district (in Odisha). In the rainy season, sometimes the flooding of Gandaanaala becomes severe and keeps land around - and even away from - SP submerged for weeks. Fertile silt gets washed in by this flood-water; this has enriched SP and has made its north-side agricultural land, near the bank of Gandaanaala, suitable for winter crops. Similarly, Chandia-Kacheri Gaan water-stream emerging from the Badashuli mountains has made SP fertile for hundreds of years. In the relatively upland area in its eastern and western parts, paddy cultivation takes place in the rainy season. Even if there is irregular or scarce rainfall, the flood water from Brahmani-Kharasua and mountain streams and mini-canals fill up the area and meets the water shortage for late-autumn harvesting in a natural way. The land on the Western part of SP, which is harnessed for late-autumn harvesting, gets water even during times of low or no rainfall, making it appropriate for winter crops. Total land suitable for such winter crops is around 1,500 acres, spread across three gram-panchayats near SP.
When water enters SP and maroons its marshland, one gets an opportunity to appreciate its bio-richness. After flood water enters SP, local people collect around 100 tons of fish, crabs, and edible aquatic animals over the subsequent three months. Among these are found climbing fish, sheat, eel, and gudgeon. They multiply by lakhs in the flood-water, and SP gets filled with fishes. They grow in the paddy fields as well as in the upper-head of the canals and streams. Folklore still narrates how local people survived during famine by collecting fishes, crabs, water-nuts as well as roots of water-lily and lotus; even people from faraway famine-stricken places came to SP for survival.
9
Almost a century back, seeds of Dalua rice were sown in SP. No bullock or plough was necessary for farming. In the fertile land and amidst water, seeds used to germinate and grow, and rice was reaped after four months, in summer (end of spring). Yield then was far higher than that of the current improved varieties of rice. In upland, castor, mustard, ragi, gram, biri, and mung were cultivated. The method was completely natural: just sow and reap. Only now are we talking about natural farming; no one knows how many hundreds years back this started in SP.
Those days, there was no vegetable farming in SP. From the fertile wetland, people collected seasonal leafy vegetables like madaranga, sunsunia, and kalama and ate them. They also did fishing in the SP rivers to meet their consumption needs, and fishing was not confined to the fishermen. Round-the-year consumption of fishes and crabs was in fact a part of the modus vivendi of people of all classes in the villages. One saw thousands of thantia crocodiles roaming around during the floods in SP. Even baula and ghadial crocodiles were also seen, though in fewer numbers. Besides, the long stretch of SP’s wetland was the permanent abode of many birds, as they got plenty of food and security here; many birds – mainly belonging to the swan species - visited SP for 3-4 months every winter. Till 1960, many aquatic birds were seen in SP in large numbers; even now, 10-15 varieties are seen every winter. At other times – during the majority part of the year - cranes and herons roam around the area with gay abandon.
In 1938, some late-autumn paddy varieties began to be harvested in rainy season. Coriander farming began in winter. Sugarcane farming also started. After World War II, vegetable farming began; cultivation of Dalua rice was brought down – area under this was down to only five hundred acres by 1970. Vegetable farming has increased manifold. A lot of land has been brought under paddy cultivation in rainy season. Biri, mung, groundnut, and the like are harvested in winter.
VALUING THE WETLAND OF SUKINA PATA
The socio-environmental value of SP’s land is far higher than its “market price”. We have tried to present here an overall picture of what locals typically earn per year from SP’s farm land, grazing land, and water. Towards this, we have taken into account the average annual agricultural income during the last five years after subtracting labour costs and fertilizer expenses. For computing the milk production of the livestock, we have taken into account the contribution of 1000 buffaloes that come to SP from villages within 5-10 kilometers; we have also accounted for the milk given by the well-bred varieties of cows over roughly 200 days in a year. That apart, it is not only the villagers of the five gram-panchayats of SP that collect fish, crabs, and other edibles from the water; villagers at the highlands collect – till December, and sometimes April - crabs and fishes that move uplands of the 10-15km flow during floods through the canals and
10
streams connected to SP. Besides these, we also have included some aquatic species that are not sold in the market but are used traditionally as food by some communities. Green leaves collected from SP are sold during almost eight months a year in the weekly hat 15km away and also in the vegetable market of the nearby Jajpur Road. In summer, koilekha seeds are collected and sold to pharmaceutical companies in need of them. Because of the medicinal properties of flowers of the madar plants of SP, people come from Kolkata in winter to collect it. Sale of lotus flowers collected from Mantirapat is nothing in comparison to the sale of their petals and seeds to the traders coming from Medinipur in West Bengal. Cheaper lotus-leave-plates substitute sal-leave-plates for serving food during social and religious festivals in villages within a ten kilometers radius. Around 50,000 people depend upon SP for livelihood, collection of livelihood necessities, and employment. We have incorporated in it people from the five local gram-panchayats and a part of the local municipality, people coming to SP for cattle-rearing and collection of natural food, and those having indirect business links with various agricultural, fishing, and animal-husbandry activities in the locality. According to this estimate, summarized in Table-1, SP area generates an annual income of more than 22 crore rupees (around five million US dollars at the current exchange-rate).
One can value SP from another perspective. Wetland plays an important role in protecting biodiversity and checking global warming. There is also consensus about the contribution of wetland towards regulating reduction in the level of groundwater. Some environmentalists have estimated the value of wetland as a source of natural water supply. A news item on 5 March 1994 in Statesman, the Indian daily, had reported that a renowned environmental-management periodical of California had suggested in 1981 that the value of an acre of wetland from this perspective is US$6,000. So, the value of the 5,000 acres of wetland of SP would be US$30 million, which, at the current exchange-rate of approximately Rs.50 per US$, translates to around 150 crore rupees per year. If we take this as a perpetual flow, applying some basic financial principles, we can estimate its value at present (present value as we call it) to be 1,500 crore rupees. But, the rate at which environmental degradation and global warming is taking place, it would perhaps soon become worth Rs.15,000 crores!
EFFECT OF THE ASH POND
Jindal’s 500MW thermal power-plant would burn 835.20 tons of coal per day. This would produce 3163.20 tons of ash daily. Thus, annual ash amount would be 11,54,568 tons. Of this, 9,39,655 tons (slightly over 80 percent) would be fly-ash and the residual 2,14,913 tons heavy alloyed bottom-ash. By the end of five years, the bottom ash deposit would have surpassed 11 lakh tons; this would exceed 23 lakh tons by the end of ten years, 46 lakh tons by end of 20, and 58 lakh tons by end of 25. All the base data used here are in the company’s reports, which had been collected from the Environmental Impact Assessment Report presented by it during the public-hearing in September 2005.
11
It is not possible to rescue SP’s ground water from the adverse effects of bottom-ash, which contains silica, copper, lead, iron, chromium, zinc, mercury and radioactive elements like thorium, uranium, and cadmium. There are two reasons for that. First, it is not feasible to prepare a solid base for the ash-pond, since its porous, soft, and marsh soil – which is marooned by flood water during rain and is not seen to dry up even in summer - does not have any solid layer; so, however strong the concrete embankment, the possibility of it developing holes and collapsing is extremely high. Second, the company has suggested that it would give clay-layer to make the ash-pond impervious; but this is clearly impractical. During the floods in the rainy season, severe top-pressure in the groundwater is a natural phenomenon, since, even if one makes a ten-feet deep pond and surrounds it with a 30-40 feet high ridge, there would be five feet water in summer. So, the top-pressure would not allow the clay-layer to stick to the bottom of the ash-pond; instead, it would float in the water and mix with groundwater in the SP area, polluting it with its toxics.
Though the firm has not stated where it would take the 300 acres of land that it requires for then ash-pond, it has clearly stated that the ash-pond would become full with the ash generated in five years. It has also not clarified how it would manage the ash after these initial five years. Yet, one would expect that, just as Nalco Thermal Power Plant and Talcher Thermal Power Plant empty their ash-ponds by releasing the ash in them to River Brahmani during the rainy season, Jindal would similarly release its ash into River Kharsua. If it does not do that, then it would either close the power-plant after five years or look for 300 acres of land every five years for a new ash-pond. If the ash is released into the flood-water during the rainy season, when there is 20-30 feet of water on the 5,000 acres of land, the toxic elements like sulphur dioxide, nitrate oxide, and carbon monoxide that are mixed with the ash would destroy the fertility of land. This would lead to a situation where large parts of land would become unsuitable for agriculture, and even vegetables grown there would go down in quality – and, thus, in demand. Besides, the then-poisonous grass in its grazing-lands would make the domestic animals sick. Once this happens, many farmers would be forced away from farming and livestock management and possibly look for jobs in the local industrial units. This in turn would weaken their opposition to industrialization in and of the area. What a magnificently clever long-run strategy!
DATA
We visited Sukind Pata and toured around the area to get a feel of the biodiversity and its environment. Door-to-door surveys were also conducted by field-investigators in 115 households of SP. Some interesting observations are given below.
Interestingly, people are not willing to admit their income in any recorded format. So, figures quoted by them are 50-80% of their actual net income. That apart, people have gauged the distance from the Sukinda Pata by taking the distance from the crop lands or the proposed ash-pond. This has been mostly corrected. It was quite impossible to
12
get responses from the section of the populace that supports the ash-pond on the ground that it is the price one pays for industrialization; they were not willing to vent their opinions publicly or put it in writing. Similarly, the “intellectuals” of Jajpur Road, the nearest big city, were reluctant to open up, though many of them are for big industry.
ANALYSIS
Table-2 gives some summary statistics. Average annual income highlights that the typical family in SP is reasonably well-off even in financial terms, leave alone the joys of living in an environment of natural beauty and biodiversity (which is, of course, under serious threat due to industrialization). Table-3 highlight an interesting information: that the closer the panchayat is to SP, the more likely are the people to have shifted away from cultivation during the last few years; the correlation is indeed quite high (-65%); but it is also true that relatively younger folks stay close to the Pata. Of course, those staying closer to the SP also have had lower income (correlation 86%) and one wonders whether this anyway influences their decision to shift or is influenced by the changing ecology around the Pata. Table-4 highlights that the closer on is to SP the less likely is he or she to expect to benefit from industrialization. Table-5 reveals that the greatest livelihood challenges in SP, the area around which is getting industrialized at a fast pace, are lack of irrigation water, environmental pollution, unpredictable rain – all due to industrialization. In fact, Table-6 delineates that villagers realize the shape of things to come. They perceive that, with growing industrialization of the area, destruction of grazing field, ground water pollution, air pollution, loss of crops would become inevitable part of their lives and – contrary to the dreams that corporations sell them to get their support and land - there would be no employment to take care of them. Table-7 highlights that there is absolutely no support for the ash pond; but, as we have stated earlier, there could be a sampling bias. But, that notwithstanding, some people reckon that a section of the society my gain due to industrialization. During our tour, we had sensed that the younger generation – inexperienced as it is about the world – is the segment of the society that supports industrialization and perhaps the ash-pond too, as a price to pay for industrialization.
CONCLUSION
It is undeniable that the ash-pond would kill Sukinda Pata’s biodiversity and its socio-economic strength. But, given the industrialization-mania that the state government is suffering from, whether local people would ultimately be able to drive sense into the government’s head and thereby preserve the area’s “natural wealth” is hard to say. One only hopes that wisdom would dawn upon the state!
13
The changing nature of the political economy of the Indian State has considerably influenced not only the government’s attitude towards commons, but it also has indeed created sharp divisions within the society, among communities, and between generations; this is evident in all areas where commons are located, including SP. The single largest factor playing a role in widening the perceptions is externally induced or injected capital which is not rooted in the soil but raises different expectations among sections of the society depending on the nature of their relationship (past and imaginary) with a particular resource or commons. SP stands as solid testimony to this change. Though FRA (Forest Rights Act) 2006 is being viewed as something challenging the authority of the state in forest land, there seems to be an urgent need to enact laws which would ensure the conservation of unique commons like the SP and ensure their sustainable “use” (or rather “exploitation”).
LITERATURE CITED
Biello, David (2008): “Toxic Ash Pond Collapses in Tennessee”, Scientific American, 23 December, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=toxic-ash-pond-collapses, Accessed 5 December 2010.
Bruggers, James (2009): “Concerns over Ash Pond Pollution Grows”, USA Today, 26 February (Updated 2nd March 2009), http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-26-ashponds_N.htm, Accessed 5 December 2010.
Dharitri (2010): In Odia: “Bhayankara Pradushana Ashanka” (“Severe Pollution Anticipated”), Bhubaneswar Edition, 7 December: 4.
Sahoo, Debendra (2007a): In Odia: “Sukinda Pata Heba Paoonsha Pokhari” (“Sukina Pata would Become an Ash-pond”), Samadrusti, Vol:1 (15), 16-31 January, 5-10.
Sahoo, Debendra (2007b): In Odia: “Durvikhya Belara Jeebana Rekha - Sukinda Pata” (“Lifeline During Famine – Sukinda Pata”), Samadrusti, Vol:1 (16), 1-15 February, 13-17.
Sahoo, Debendra (2010): In Odia: “Sukinda Patare Paoonsha Pokhari” (“Ash-pond in Sukina Pata”), Samadrusti, Vol.4: (23), 1-15 June, 27-29.
Sahoo, Debendra (2011): In Odia: Sukindara Rajanaitik Arthanaitik Itihas (History of Political-Economy of Sukinda), Samadrusti Publications: Bhubaneswar, Forthcoming (March).
University of Kentucky (2010): “Coal Combustion By-Products (CCBs): What Happens to Them?”, http://www.caer.uky.edu/kyasheducation/whathappens.shtml, Accessed 5 December 2010.
14
Appendix - I
Questionnaire: Sukinda Pata
Name of Village/Block:
Panchayat: _________________
District: ________________
Gender: Male/Female:
Age:_______________
Profession:__________
15
Annual Income:_____ (Family Size: )
1. What is the distance of your village from Sukinda Pata?
2. What do you do (profession) and since when are you doing this?
3. Since when is your family (you or ancestors) living here?
A) < 20 years B) 20-50 years C) 50-100 years D) >100 years
Only if answer is A
i) Did you move to this place by your free will?
a. If yes, why?
b. If no, what circumstances forced you?
ii) What livelihood challenges did you face there (earlier place of stay)?
iii) Has the current place given you a better chance to face those challenges?
a) If yes, how?
b) If no, why not?
4. What livelihood challenges do you face in your present place of stay?
5. What was your principal profession 10-15 years ago?
6. Did you enjoy the activity/profession? Why or why not?
16
7. What is your principal profession now?
8. Do you expect that you will forever be engaged in this profession? Why or why not?
9. What else can you do if the current profession does not give you a good life or becomes extinct?
10.How much do you earn per year from your current profession?
11. Is the earning sufficient, or do you engage in some other secondary activity?
12.Are you depending upon the rivers for your livelihood?
If yes, then,
a) Directly (irrigation, fishing, etc.)?
b) Indirectly (please elaborate)?
13.Are you depending upon the forest for your livelihood?
If yes, then,a) Directly (collecting firewood, NTFP, etc.)?
b) Indirectly (please elaborate)?
17
14.What would you do if these commons (rivers and forests) are destroyed?
15.What actions have you personally taken to protect the rivers and forests?
16.What actions has your community taken to protect the rivers and forests?
17. If the proposed ash-pond is constructed here, how would it affect your livelihood?
18.Are you willing to pay those prices for industrialization in this area?
A) If yes, why?
B) If no, why not?
19.Have you raised your voice in support or opposition of the ash-pond?
A) If yes, how often?
B) If no, why not?
20.Suggest some kind of industrialization which will keep all your needs fulfilled, would not increase pollution, and would not destroy natural resources.
18
21. If you are a farmer, then
A) How many and what crops do you grow per year?
B) Where and to whom do you sell what you grow/produce?
C) How much do you make per year on the average?
D) Does the income give you & family a decent life?
E) Why did you not choose any other profession?
F) Due to the changes taking place here, have you not got any new job or better profession that can give you “better” living?
22. Is there any particular section of your society that has benefited from the industrialization that is taking place around you?
If yes, what fraction and in what way(s) have they gained?
23. Is there any particular section of your society that has suffered due to the industrialization that is taking place around you?
If yes, what fraction and in what way(s) have they suffered?
19
