Tribal communities, the forests, the fisher folk and the river: whither water justice?

Abstract

Excessive exploitation of and skewed access to dwindling water resources raise serious water justice concerns. Environmental justice movements and related literature have raised critical questions regarding the unequal distribution of the costs and benefits of a development paradigm that is founded on excessive exploitation and appropriation of natural resources. This paper explores the growing relevance of a water justice framework that addresses both the social and ecological aspects of water use and appropriation, with reference to a four-decade long water conflict over the Chaliyar River in Kerala, South India. It highlights how ecosystem degradation and denial of justice go hand in hand. The paper argues that the framing and articulation of the conflict in a partisan manner led to the glossing over of certain critical features, thus preventing a full view of water injustices. It also failed to inform subsequent policies and practices in this regard.

Keywords:

• water justice
• environmental justice
• water degradation
• skewed access
• Kerala

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dik Roth and Margreet Zwarteveen for their insightful comments and suggestions. Critical comments from two anonymous reviewers are also gratefully acknowledged.

Notes

1. Common-pool resources are resources where one person's use subtracts from another's use, and where it is often difficult to exclude other users outside the group from using the resource. Examples of typical common-pool resource systems include lakes, rivers, irrigation systems, groundwater basins, forests, fishery stocks and grazing areas. Common-pool resources may be owned by national, regional or local governments; by communal groups; by private individuals or corporations; or used as open access resources by whomever can gain access (Ostrom and Hess 2008).

2. In response to the first point made by Dryzek, Miller argues that, while environmental resources may not be as amenable to distribution as goods, the impact of policies that relate to natural resources do not affect all individuals and communities in the same way. Both the costs and the benefits are disproportionately allocated, thereby raising the issue of distributive justice (Miller 1999 in Hiskes 2006). With regard to the second point of difference (of environmental impacts being “risks” rather than “goods”), Hiskes states that environmental risks need to be viewed as the “progenitor of rights”, as they are harms or threats against which people should have rights, thereby extending the argument that environmental values should not be excluded from social justice theories.

3. “The struggle for environmental justice is not just about distributing risks equally but about preventing them from being produced in the first place” (Faber 1998 in Agyeman and Evans 2004).

4. One of the largest business houses in the country, which has set up industries in sectors such as textiles and fibres, aluminium, cement and chemicals.

5. The first agreement between the company and the Government of Kerala in 1958 stipulated that the government should supply 1.6 lakh tons of bamboo and reed at the rate of Rs. 1 per ton. In 1974, it was increased to 3.6 lakh tons at the revised rate of Rs. 22.50 per ton. In less than a decade, almost the entire Nilambur forest vanished, following which the bamboo forests of Wayanad, Kozhikode, Palghat and Nenmara were also leased to the company. The 1988 agreement further revised the quota of eucalyptus, bamboo and reeds which the government was bound to supply at the rate of Rs. 250 per ton. The open market prices of bamboo were much higher. Government patronage of the Grasim Rayon industry resulted in a huge loss of material and financial resources, as well as destruction of large stretches of forests (Seethi 2000).

6. The daily water requirement of water liberally drawn from the Chaliyar River was 52,000 m³. The daily raw material requirement (bamboo, reed and eucalyptus) was 5415 tons per day (George and Krishnan 2002).

7. While the company cited non-availability of raw material as the main reason, it was clear that people's protests did play a role.

8. In Kerala, forest area refers to both natural forests and plantations. The latter have been raised after felling of natural forests as well as on degraded forest land.

9. Excerpts from the agreement“The Company shall have the exclusive right and license  …  to fell and cut bamboos for the purpose of conversion into rayon grade wood pulp … ”. The ear marked areas were referred to as Contract Areas. If the contract areas are not capable of yielding to the Company the said quantity of bamboos annually, the Grantor shall permit the company to fell and remove bamboos from such other areas in proximity of the contract areas to be specified hereinafter  …  the grantor undertakes that the contract areas and additional contract areas will be exclusively reserved for the company and he will not during the continuance of this agreement grant any lease or concession within this area to any other person. (Agreement signed between the Govt. Of Kerala and Grasim Industries in 1958)

10. Captive plantations are raised purely for the purpose of meeting the raw material requirements of various forest-based industries.

11. Shola-grasslands are patches of stunted evergreen tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests found in the valleys amid rolling grasslands in higher montane regions of South India. Invasive introduced species are a threat to this high altitude ecosystem, especially acacia and eucalyptus (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/shola).

12. A lakh is one hundred thousand.

13. While mechanical pulping requires less water and bleaching, and thus generates less waste, chemical pulping produces more chemical waste, particularly sulphur compounds and organic waste.

14. On 2nd April 1997, the Chaliyar Action Council, who was spearheading the protest against the company, organised a major march to the Government Secretariat at Trivandrum. They demanded that the Government should take over the pollution control process in the company and that the Birlas should pay for the same. They also demanded that the sulphuric plant within the factory, which was one of the major causes of pollution, be shut down. In response, the government constituted the Sengupta Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. B. Sengupta from the Central Pollution Control Board. The report submitted by the Committee in August 1998, made 28 recommendations to be implemented.

15. The Indian terminology for local self-government institutions. The Rayons factory was located in Mavoor panchayat. Vazhakkad panchayat was located across the Chaliyar River.

16. Elected president of the local government (the panchayat).

17. While talking about the impact of pollution, people in the area recall vivid images of “thick black smoke from the factory chimney” “waves of foul smell, coming on and off, as if a septic tank has been kept open”, “thick, viscous liquid with a lot of wood chips in it” and a “lot of sluggish and dead fish in the river” (George and Krishnan 2002).

18. Judgement delivered by Justice Narendran, Kerala High Court (30 March 1982) (George and Krishnan 2002).

19. This information was derived from conversations held with farmers in the area.