Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2044417

Tahini Bhushan

B.A. (Economics, Political Science,

Sociology)

3rd Year

Christ University

Poverty Alleviation and

Sustainable Development-

The case for India

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2044417

Abbreviations

WCS - World conservation strategy

WCED- World commission on Environment and Development

UNDP- United Nations Development program

MDG- Millennium Development goals

HIV- Human Immunodeficiency syndrome

TB- Tuberculosis

GDP- Gross Domestic Product

NRHM- National Rural Health Mission

SSA- Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan

IUCN- International Union for Conservation of Nature

Abstract

What does any literature on sustainable development have to say about poverty? Directly it says little, but in the Brundtland definition there is slight recognition given to the issues of equity within and across the generations. Intragenerational equity arises because “we want to meet the needs of the present” keeping the needs of the future generations in proper perspective and hence poverty alleviation is a key feature of it. Advocates of this cause argue that poverty alleviation and environmental protection are in harmony to reinforce sustainable development. But instead of any progress, there has been sustained failure of most of the attempts made in the development scenario by the state, auxiliary organizations or the NGO’s.

This paper attempts to focus on some of the key issues and problems related to poverty and sustainable development in India from the perspective of ecological balance. Although there is high level of uniformity in content and approach towards poverty alleviation programs in India there is great variation in the results achieved across the states. In this paper I have analysed the institutional changes and other factors that have led to increase in poverty in India and seek answers to questions like- Do natural resources make a significant contribution to the real income earned by the poor in the short, medium or long term in a country like India? Are the risks faced by the poor affected by a decline in the quality or quantity natural resources? What is the effect of economic policies within the ecological framework on the poor and the rich? How do we monitor the impacts of natural resource degradation on poor people’s income and variability in their income?

Developing countries over the past four decades have witnessed a regression and have become about six times poorer than they already were. Where does India stand in these rankings despite all the economic progress it has made after the economic reforms of the 1990’s? The world in wake of certain major issues like terrorism has been made to understand the intricacies woven by poverty and hence a country like India with its diversity can prove to be the most fertile ground to study such intricacies. Apart from bringing forth the problems of the poverty alleviation in the country, the paper attempts to suggest some policy solutions which would bring about a paradigm shift in the whole structure.

Keywords- Intragenerational equity, poverty alleviation, problems and policy measures.

The History Economist Kenneth Boulding once remarked1-

“Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is

either a madman or an Economist.”

Within this lies the concept of Sustainable Development. It actually defines the limits within which a concept like Sustainability operates. Firstly, It deals with possible consequences of crossing the Biophysical limits of the Society and Secondly, to respond to this as a call for adjustment in the Human behavior to prevent those unforeseen consequences. With regards to the consequences there is enough evidence in the literature on wealth and sustainable development that has enough warnings on what may go wrong if we ignore the Pre-emptive signs and continue with our so called compatible-with-nature Economic growth. Sustainable Development actually became a part of the WCS agenda after the Brundtland commission report titled “North and South: A program for survival and common crises” was published in 1983. The commission defined sustainable development2 as “Development that

meets the needs for the present without compromising the ability of future generations to

meet their own needs”. One of the earlier attempt (Pearce, Markandaya and Barbier, 1990) at redefinition remarked that Development can only be sustainable when it ensures that No

Generation in the future would be worse off than the present generation. That welfare should not fall over the time. Also the definition given in the report leaves room for vagueness, How will we identify the alternative paths towards Sustainable Development is actually depended on the matter of indiscrete human choice and man is known to circumvent his ways for his own benefit. Because of all this Environment has become a political platform where the concerns are voiced about change in the way of thinking without actually addressing the change in the fundamentals and because of this a certain section of society has to pay for the benefits enjoyed by the other. This divide was first voiced out in the open in the Stockholm conference of 1972 where it was declared “Poverty is the greatest polluter” by India. It was also contended that “needs” as mentioned in report refer to the affluence rather than the basic needs that should actually be integrated in the development model. But as experience reminds, this has not yet happened and hence the need to address the concepts like intra-generational equity, poverty alleviation and Sustainable societies.

1 Boulding K., The economics of coming spaceship earth. In: Environmental quality in a Growing Economy. New York: Harper and Row, 1966; 3-15.

2 WCS report “Our common future”; popularly known as the Brundtland report ; IUCN 1980.

Why the need for Sustainable Development? As given in the Brundtland definition there is inference to the “equity” within and across the generations. Hence the concept of Intragenerational equity which ensures that the needs of the present generation are met and this cannot be completely fulfilled as long as the deprivation of the well being of the generation is not eliminated. Intragenerational Equity also includes the needs of the future generations and one would agree to the fact that this would require elimination of poverty. The two possible reasons for this contention would be-

1) The benefits of Development have been distributed unevenly and the income inequalities created have become persistent and ever increasing, it can be deduced that certain section of society has been deprived of the necessary resources. The concept of “A-dollar-a-day” is helpful in explaining this because it sets a specific limit for what is needed to meet basic necessities. Although this would not be able to measure the welfare in exact sense but it makes it easier for us to define Poverty.

2) Environment has been severely affected because of this Development and existing social structures have been devastated, with only few benefiting out of from this Modernism and the result has been that inequality has become permanent inter and intra generational feature. Now from a political point of view, it would be easier to discuss about alleviating poverty rather than talk about inequality which no one prefers to give importance to.

Whatever be the reason, one fact which is universally agreed upon is that focus on poverty within the context of Environmental Degradation and Natural Capital is justified.

Poverty- The greatest Polluter?? The accusation made by a developing country like India cannot be discarded as an inflammatory rhetoric against the developed world because it clearly shows the divide between the “North” and the “South” (as referred to the two sides in the Brundtland report) and how environmental issues have been politicised to suit the needs of the affluent. One of the popular notions in the Public Policy making is that Poverty leads to Environmental Degradation. Many studies conducted in past either blame the Rural masses for the degradation or their activities for this degradation. But what I find as a curious anomaly is that it is the question that is being asked the other way round i.e.-

“IS it increasing poverty caused by combination of many factors that is contributing to

degradation or IS it Degradation caused by Disasters (man-made and natural) and

policies of the state that has led to increase in Poverty?”

SO, WHO’S THE CULPRIT?

3

Now, consider the present statistics-

• India has 41.6% living below the newly defined new international poverty line of $1.25 (PPP) (As per the World Bank estimates 33% of the global poor now reside in India)

• Poverty in USA is of cyclical nature roughly between 12 to 13%. So how can it be inferred that it is the poor of the world that are contributing to environmental degradation? The statistics and the picture prove that despite having high percentage of poor, India’s ecological footprint is way smaller than that of United States. Most alarming fact is that if the entire world starts living North American way it would take 3 planets like Earth to support the population. Hence, Increase in Poverty is correlated with Environmental degradation; Leave apart

the myth that it is the cause of the Degradation.

Poverty in India and the Environment that stands in Ruins

India’s population (estimate March 10, 2008) is approximately around 1.13 billion with GDP of approximately US$ 1 trillion and per capita income US$ 797 (UNDP, 2007).The population is projected to overtake that of China’s (the most populated) by 2025. At present, The Indian Government’s health spending is at approximately 0.99 per cent of GDP, lagging behind other developing countries in the region such as Bangladesh and Indonesia! India also needs to up its total social sector spending up to 30% in order to meet the 3 key MDG’s (infant mortality, maternal mortality and HIV, TB and malaria).The statistics are alarming and the solutions not within the reach. The policies with regards to basic needs of the poor has never laid emphasis on structural changes what has happened is that the diverse and complex social and cultural paradigms dictate the political and economic scenario and within these arenas, the factors operating cause damage to the natural capital, leading to more severe conditions for the poor to survive-

3 Source: Donella meadows, “Our footprints are treading too much earth”.

POVERTY IN INDIA

4

Factors promoting the nexus between Poverty and Environment

1) Too much reliance on Economic Growth model-

Ever since Economic reforms of 1990’s, the graph has shown an upward incline, but then what was not clear was the impact of such reforms on the poorest sections of the society. Not that there were no poverty before the 1990’s, what actually happened was that instead of uplifting the poor to cross the poverty threshold, the conditions worsened for them. The initial assumption was that growth models would increase the Human well being but what happened was different. Promotion of export oriented large scale agriculture and forestry (which reduced the forest cover from 33% to 13%) and major unplanned investments in agriculture further aggravated the situation. Such policies resulted in permanent change in the circumstances of the poor making it more difficult for them. Also change of government lead to change in the policies from time to time but then the damage could not be undone and this mechanism is in reality used for displacement of people so as to make way for new projects (Sardar Sarovar Dam on Narmada River which displaced approximately 32000 people without any adequate compensation). The displaced people are forced to migrate to new areas which are not suited for sustainable agriculture, whether it makes them poorer or not is for one to deduce but it definitely makes them more environmentally damaging in their practices.

2) Failure of institutions-

The institutions operating in economic, social and political scenario are marred with bias and are outdated in their practices. They have failed to adapt to the technological and Demographic changes in the society. Land reforms are not of any help to the farmers and lack of institutional credit has exacerbated the situation (The present Agrarian crises and

4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India

farmers suicide is the result of such outmoded system). Local and parastatal institutions have deteriorated in the due process of modernization and examples show that their standards with regards to catering to the needs of the rural and the urban poor have fallen down considerably. Development at community level is lacking. Also the government focus on the health sector is minimal (as shown in the budgetary figures) and hence the human resource base of the country is very fragile. To compensate for the standards, the poor adopt environmentally damaging methods to survive i.e. using of firewoods for cooking purposes, no sustainable cropping pattern, and food habits that utilize minor forest produce in large quantities. Urban poor are forced to live in more unhygienic conditions and they are actually creating communities which cause much damage to their environment. Also the Gender biased nature of the social institutions also contributes to the damage. An interesting study done in Linder-Rahr’s5 paper analyses the effect of income and gender on tree planting. He finds that tree planting increases with female number of household members and decreases with female income but decreases with male number of household members and increases with male income. All round effects are not clearly visible but this paper actually suggests a complex relationship of gender composition and environment. In India such study will highlight the effect of imbalanced gender equations in the society and the impact it has on the Environment.

3) High Population Growth rate-

Almost all major studies conducted (De Janvry and Garcia 1988; Cleaver and Schreiber, 1994; Lopez 1992; Lopez and Scoeria; 1996) list out high population growth as the major factor contributing to environmental degradation. Against this school of thought stands the Boserup hypothesis which states that as the as land becomes more scarce, agriculture is intensified and productivity per unit area increases. But then this has not happened in the Indian scenario. Increase in population density beyond the carrying capacity has lead to people spilling to urban areas and has lead to degradation of the environment in both rural and urban setups. The problem lies in the fact that while average population growth rates may decline with per capita GDP, people who rely more on natural resources are locked in the cycle of poverty in which high fertility rates are maintained and this puts pressure on environment.

4) Belief in Environmental Kuznet’s curve-

The school of thought actually believes that relationship between GDP and the quality is “U-shaped”; which states that quality of environment deteriorates with per capita GDP increase and then it improves after a critical value of per capita GDP has been reached. But this view is actually inappropriate and misleading from a policy viewpoint because in a country like India, this has never been feasible. The increase in GDP has resulted in more pressure on environment where poor have major contribution. It’s a typical care of rich getting richer and poor falling into a deeper abyss of despair.

5 Linde –Rahr. (1998),”Rural reforestation: Gender effects on private investments in Vietnam” working paper,

Dept. of Economics,Gateborg university.

Hence by enumerating these factors, what I have tried in the column is to highlight the fact that politics of sustainable development has created a cyclical relationship between the poverty and environmental degradation.

Where do we go from here? In this paper I have tried to explore why poverty alleviation is needed to disrupt the cycle of environmental degradation. This can be undertaken only when certain points form the core of any policies are directed towards improving the conditions of poor and the environment Firstly, it should be realised that adjustments in the policies about the environment or in the ambience of the environment would hurt the poor more than the rich. The vulnerable are often the one who use the marginal resources and are dependent upon the common resources of the community. The resources available to the poor are far more less to provide for in case of contingencies and what they (poor) are forced to do, taxes the environment. Research done by Kadekodi (1995) found that when water shortages occur then it is the poor who are the most affected by it. Also when measures are taken to improve the degraded environment, measures undertaken in form of Environmental regulations actually hurt the poor more because it will lead to unemployment and even high prices for goods. High population growth rate can be curbed not by clearing more forests to make room for them but by bringing a structural shift in the paradigm through education and awareness. What I have tried to identify in this paper is –

• The need for a country like India to bring about a change in the fundamentals of its societal structure.

• How environment and poverty are linked and they share a dependent relationship.

The Basics of Sustainable Development

Also what I have understood is that, economic growth cannot be abandoned just because of the fact that poor who have least exposure to the growth have less deteriorating impact on the environment. Sustainable development should ensure:-

• Help for the poor so that they have more options and are not forced to exploit the environmental resources.

• People centered initiatives. (In India, scope of NHRM, SSA, population policy needs to be widened)

• The Developed world needs to leave its NIMBY syndrome (not-in-my-backyard) and see that they do not use the resources of third world for their own selfish motives.

• LASTLY, it needs to be realised that Human beings are the resources and they need to work in harmony with the environment. References

� Stuart L. Hart (1997), Beyond Greening: Strategies for a sustainable world,

Harvard Business review.

� A. Markandya (2001), Poverty alleviation and Sustainable development:

Implications for the management of natural capital, International Institute for

Sustainable Development.

� Julian Agyeman and Tom Evans (2003), Towards Just Sustainability in Urban

communities: Building Equity rights with Sustainable Solutions, Sage

publications, American academy of Political science.

� Jonathan M. Harris and Neva R. Goodwin (2003), Reconciling Growth and the

Environment, working paper no.03-03. Global Development and Environment

Institute.

� John Cairns. Jr. (1997), Defining Goals and Conditions for a Sustainable world,

Environmental health perspectives, Vol. 105.National Institute of Environmental

and Health sciences.

� Rinku Murgai and Martin Ravallion (2005), Employment Gurantee in Rural

India- what would it cost and how much would it reduce the poverty?, Special

Article, Economic and Political Weekly ,July 30,2005.

� Mahbuba Nasreen, Khondokar Mokaddem Hosain and Debashish Kumar Kundu

(2006), The interrelationship between Poverty, Environment and Sustainable

Development in Bangladesh: An overview.

� Jonathan M. Harris (2000), Basic Principles of Sustainable Development, working

paper no.00-04. Global Development and Environment Institute.

� K.R. Nayar (1994), Politics of ‘Sustainable Development’, Economic and political

weekly, Vol 29.

� John. G. Clark (1995), Economic Development Vs. Sustainable societies:

reflections on key players in a crucial contest, Annual Review of Ecology and

Systematics, Vol. 26.

� C.H. Hanumantha Rao (1992), Integrating Poverty Alleviation Programmes with

Development strategies: Indian Experience, Economic and Political

weekly,Vol.27

� Bhupat. M. Desai and N.V. Namboodiri (1998), Policy strategy and instruments

for Alleviating Rural Poverty, Economic and political weekly, Vol. 33.

� Sussane D. Mueller (2006), Rural Development: Environmental Sustainability

and Poverty Alleviation: A critique of Current new paradigms, DESA working

paper No. 11, Economic and social affairs.

� Jayant Sathaye, P.R. Shukla and N.H. Ravindranath (2006), Climate change,

sustainable development and India: Global and National Concerns, special

article, Current science Vol. 90.

� Samuel Paul (1989), Poverty alleviation and participation: the case for

Government- Grassroots Agency collaboration, Economic and Political weekly,

Vol. 24.

� Jean Dreze and Amartya sen(2000), India-Economic Development and social

opportunity, Oxford India paperbacks.

� P.Sainath (2008), Everybody loves a good drought-stories from India’s poorest

districts, Penguin India paperbacks.

� Thomas L. Friedman (2007), Hot, Flat and Crowded-why the world needs a green

revolution-and how we can renew our global future, Allen Lane.