Failure at the Hague

The other day, the Hague conference on global climate change concluded without reaching an agreement. It is indeed sad that efforts to tackle the world’s biggest environmental challenge has failed on account of the technical differences between the EU and the US. In fact, the unbending stance taken by the US ravaged the outcome of the twelve-day long conference. The manner in which the conference ended also shows that signatories have yet to work out a global policy on the environment.

The Kyoto obligations signed in 1997, sets the deadline of 2012 for cutting the emission level of green house gases by over five percent compared to the 1990 level. One of the key mechanisms for cutting the emission from burning oil, gas and coal, is a planned market among 38 industrialized countries so that a mechanism can be worked out by which they can claim emission reduction if they sell clean technology to developing countries. This is a kind of trade in emission. Of the industrialized countries, the US accounts for a quarter of greenhouse gases. It pollutes massively with little sacrifice. No wonder then that the US still objects to the Kyoto obligations. The Hague round was the sixth in a series of Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN’s Convention on Climate Change (UNCCC).

For the first time, over 180 signatories attended the Hague conference to hammer out the contents of a treaty requiring rich countries to trim pollution from fossil-fuels on which they built their wealth. It is unfortunate that the Hague round failed to reach consensus on technical questions such as ‘how the carbon market can be worked out and policed?’ One problem arising here is how to punish countries which persistently violate the Kyoto obligations apart from the agreement on funds to help poor countries. The "sink issue": whether forests help the fight against global warming or make it worse, became a fertile ground for the EU-US squabble. This largely contributed to making the Hague round a sad farce.

It is sad but true that the Hague round abandoned the promise of global cooperation to protect planet Earth. Had the US not demanded a mechanism to help ease the cost of meeting the Kyoto targets, things would have definitely been different. It is a painful halt for which the US has to be blamed more than the EU. The US failed to or refused to recognise the potential catastrophic implications of global warming. Its demand to consider trees and farmland as assets for meeting the Kyoto obligations should not become a criterion. Even developing countries have expressed their resentment against this. Signatories of Kyoto obligations must, therefore, come together to introduce a policy that trims emission when they meet in six-months time even if the US continues to balk.

Land rights : Next priority for ex-Kamaiyas

By Dilli Bahadur Chaudhary

On 21st November, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) announced a $3.5 million project aimed at ensuring sustainable liberation from bonded labour of some 75,000 men, women and children who were freed from decades of grinding poverty and debt bondage" on July 17, 2000. This project, funded by the United States Department of Labour, "propose(d) direct action targeted at bonded labourers and their families to secure effective release from bondage, and sustainably reduce their poverty through training and education, livelihood improvements, and service provision."

Though the announcement was welcomed as good news by officers at some non-governmental organizations, it did not seem to have been greeted with enthusiasm by ex-bonded labourers (ex-Kamaiyas) themselves. In fact, as a recent press coverage from far western Nepal shows, the ex-Kamaiyas in far western Nepal are preoccupied with an issue that was not touched upon in the ILO announcement at all: the issue of each ex-Kamaiya family's right to its own a piece of land before any donor-funded multi-year rehab work begins.

Indeed, just last Friday, on the 24th, almost 7000 ex-Kamaiyas staged protest rallies in Dhangadi, Kailali in front of the offices of Chief District Officer, District Development Chairman and the Kailali head of the Department of Land Reforms. Police had to use sticks against the protestors, seriously injuring 18 ex-Kamaiyas, who were rushed to the hospital. Later, to protest against such police brutality, the ex-Kamaiyas blocked the main road in the bazaar for an hour. The ex-Kamaiyas ended the protests demanding 10 katthas of land for each freed family and issuing a 14-day ultimatum to the government not to neglect them anymore and to take their demand for land into serious consideration.

Against this backdrop, if we take the struggle for freedom, which ended successfully on July 17, 2000, as the first phase of the Kamaiya Mukti Andolan (movement for emancipation of bonded labourers), then this continuing struggle for land has now become the Movement's second phase. Having land of their own, preferably in their own villages, is very crucial for ex-Kamaiyas, who have always worked as agricultural labourers. This issue of land is crucial because our experience in the fields shows that each ex-Kamaiya, now living in makeshift camps in dire conditions, wants to take care of his family's needs for permanent housing and a reliable supply of food before getting involved in any NGO-run skill-training activity, whether that activity is launched by the ILO or some other organisation.

People often ask me why help launch Andolans for Kamaiyas, one after another, when perhaps other means were available. I am not sure what they mean by other means to help the Kamaiyas. But the reason we help launch Andolans, after carefully detailed consultations with the Kamaiya themselves is this: We've learnt the hard way that "the standard NGO approach" of running one project after another ostensibly to help the targeted group, does not work to ensure that the fundamental rights are not violated.

Let me give an example: Many NGOs, including the one I am associated with, had been running "project-oriented" activities on behalf of the then Kamaiyas at least since 1990. Our national laws have always been clear that the practice of bonded labour was and is illegal, with punishment procedures clearly spelt out. One would think that with the law and donor-funded multiple social projects on our side for that long a time, the lot of the Kamaiyas would have improved substantially. This, alas, was not to be the case.

So, what we realized was that programs on literacy, heath and sanitation, carpentry and so on were fine in and good in and of themselves. But as long as the Kamaiyas remained in bondage with their fundamental rights grossly violated day in and day out in our democratic country —there was little sense in continuing to run skill-development programs for them. In retrospect, the "project-oriented" approach also diminished the importance of litigation for us. As long as we remained busy with social service projects to help the then Kamaiyas, there was little incentive for us to seek legal redress — though, in all honesty, given how slowly the cases move through the courts in Nepal, we did not hold out much hope for legal solutions. Hence, the first phase of the Andolan this past Spring, demanding specifically for freedom from debt bondage. The Andolan was successful in reaching its goal precisely because it got out of the "standard NGO mold."

In declaring freedom, the government made a public commitment to rehabilitate ex-Kamaiyas as soon as possible. But four months have gone and precious little has been done for a speedy rehab of the ex-Kamaiyas. There are those in Kathmandu who, seeing the hardships faced by the ex-Kamaiyas in temporary camps, never tire of denouncing the government for allegedly acting in haste "without doing proper homework" as though a social movement can be planned a priori in detail with every outcome clearly foreseen!

Given how the government has failed even to use its existing knowledge and resources to help the more than 3000 displaced ex-Kamaiyas now living in temporary camps since July, it is wishful thinking to say that the government should have done its "homework" prior to making its announcement in July.

Now that the Movement has entered its second phase, the government should take its commitment seriously and view the demand for land as a reasonable one. The ex-kamaiyas are well aware how Nepali governments, in the recent past, have routinely doled out, in far western Nepal, pieces of undesignated land, often in large measurements, to its sympathizers from all across Nepal. Using such examples, the ex-Kamaiyas could actually ask for more. But in asking only for 10 Katthas per family, they are focusing on a compromise, which at least allows them to live and take care of their family with dignity, while being secure enough to look for work in agriculture or small industry. If the government says that there is no land available, then the ex-Kamaiyas will be happy to point out chunks of undesignated land.

After all, the justification of the second phase of the Kamaiya Mukti Andolan is that until the ex-Kamaiyas know where they are going to live permanently as free citizens, only pouring donors' money into projects with dubious outcomes will be like repeating the mistakes of the last 10 years all over again. That is why, institutions such as the ILO, in what appears to be their rush to be not left out of
the game altogether, are better off first siding with the ex-Kamaiyas in demanding for their land rights before releasing a single paisa.

(The author is the president of Backward Society Education (BASE) and the convenor of the Kamaiya Mukti Parichalan Samiti)

In need of more bandhs

By Amar Pradhan

Kathmanduites love bandhs, they say. If you come across two people talking about bandhs, you can’t miss out on something like, "We really need days like these, so that the roads can at least take a day off and provide some clean air to gulp."

I too shared the same line of thinking about these bandh days. Like most people, I believed bandhs once in a while did a world of good to the fast falling environment. But after my latest experience with a bandh that didn’t come off (Feb 16), I was struck with some fascinating ideas. The best part of this bandh that sort of opened in the end was that the roads resembled the look of the capital in the 70s—you could count the number of cars plying on the street. Apart from those Dashain days, one can’t remember when the capital looked so cool.

Here, I extend my sincere apologies to all hotel entrepreneurs who raised Cain, but let me tell you that this piece of mine is inspired by environmental aspects. Though it hurt the hotelwallahs as the situation turned out to be something like rubbing salt into a wound because of the cancellation at the last minute, but Kathmanduites couldn’t have asked for more. I found one gentleman shouting, "If only I could call a bandh every day." This fully explains the importance of bandh for the people of Kathmandu valley. The upcoming bandh scenario may dishearten this gentleman, but I can tell you there are hundreds of reasons for calling a bandh at least once a week. It does reduce petrol consumption.

Environmental gossips apart, each and every Kathmanduite was surprised by the manner in which the bandh was called off at the last hour. Such a last minute pull it was, some young guys were found demonstrating on the streets next morning. It also provided some, to use their favourite phrase of late, they said the last minute withdrawal smacked of ‘match fixing’.

Another blessing I had after the call off was that I was able to take my coughing daughter to a doctor without much hassle. But some kind of shock awaited me as I made my way into the hospital. A frustrated hall porter was telling his mate, "How can they call
it off ? It’s all money you know, (so
and so) was bribed..." I was amazed at the details of his report and the frustrated but determined tone of his voice led me to ask, could something like this have happened. If so, then I must say there’s scope in street politics as well.

Newspaper headlines had cried out the reasons for the call off—a slash of four rupees per litre in kerosene. But Kathmanduites looked neither sad nor happy at the final outcome. The situation was something like burying or setting on fire, it won’t make much difference to a dead body. I think whatever they said, they said it right—Kathmanduites were dead long ago.

PM feels let down by babu raj

By Kuldip Nayar

Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee does not agree with my contention that agricultural produce or the dairy products have suffered because of unfair competition from abroad. "This is a myth, not based on facts," he says. When I tell him that even Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal has criticised the Centre on this point, Vajpayee says: "Badal too is wrong."

If this is so, why does the government not explain how subsidised butter from Europe or subsidised food grains from Australia or the US pose no danger to a milkman or a farmer in the country? I request the Prime Minister that the steps taken to promote globalisation and economic reforms should be spelled out so that people can themselves decide whether their fears are unreal.

Here, Vajpayee agrees with me and says: "We should talk to people." But I have not seen any effort on government’s part to explain how India will gain in the long run. People, increasingly feel that economic reforms are against their interests. They see the conglomerations of multinationals as another East India Company taking shape to enslave the country, first economically and then politically. Foreign cartels are gaining muscle. The Prime Minister laughs at the premise which, he believes, does not exist.

I narrate to him my travels in the country and warn him that more and more people are getting marginalised. Small units are going out of business and medium scale establishments are changing hands, from Indians to foreigners. One does not feel like eating after seeing the destitution in Bihar, Orissa and the Eastern UP. Even the prosperous states of Punjab and Haryana have been affected. Vajpayee does not contradict me but points out that the number of people below the poverty line has come down. Probably so, but nearly 30 crore -- 34 per cent of the population -- are still poor.

When I met Vajpayee at his residence a few days ago, I had not read the World Bank Country report which drew New Delhi’s attention to the widespread poverty in India. It says that the gains the country has made from the beginning of the 1990s have not reduced poverty. The reasons, the report adumbrated, are the same ones which we have heard ad nauseum: "The nature of agricultural growth, poor human development record, weak governance in poor states, crumbling infrastructure and lack of anti-poverty programmes." Has the World Bank ever discussed its own role? Why have its investments shown poor results? Probably, it has concentrated on more gigantic projects. Probably, there is a lesson in what Lal Bahadur Shastri told his colleagues at the first cabinet meeting: "I am a small man and believe in small projects with small expenditure so that we get quick results."

Again why the World Bank fails to report that foreign investors are making whopping profits and remitting them to their own country instead of reinvesting them in India. Profit motive is understandable but it hurts people in India when it is mere exploitation. The government should have taken some firm steps whereby most of the profits earned would have been ploughed back, at least for some years. Worse, multinationals have pocketed concessions without fulfilling export obligations they gave in writing to do so. Neither the government has pursued the matter, nor have the beneficiaries felt.

Of course, the World Bank’s advice is to accelerate economic reforms. Too trite, too hackneyed. It has nothing else on the agenda. People have begun to wonder whether reforms are the only way to fight poverty. Inflation is nearing seven percent while the growth rate has fallen to five percent. Of course, the dollar is 10 percent costlier than last year. Reforms are means, not the end. If they fail to help India develop or make a dent in poverty they are of little use. In fact, it is time we took stock of the situation.

"Why don’t you appoint a commission of experts and eminent people--not politicians--to assess achievements and failures on the economic front so as to know whether we are on the right track? I make this suggestion to the Prime Minister. He does not reject it but lapses into silence as if he is examining what I have said. I spell out my proposal. The commission should go over the reforms to measure the good or harm they have done and determine how we should proceed. It has to be a quick job because outside pressure to go to the next phase of reforms is building up.

The Prime Minister has no hesitation in saying that the reforms sought to be introduced should be debated in public before they are implemented. He emphasises that reforms are for people, not the people for reforms. He feels that reforms should be debated publicly, not presented as a fait accompli, either in the shape of ordinance or some other measures. Why the development is not up to the mark or why it is so halting? We come to the conclusion that it is primarily the bureaucracy which has failed the country. The government’s own servants put hurdles in the way to progress. Unmindful of public good, they invoke archaic rules-- red tape--to see that even routine work does not proceed in a normal manner.

The Prime Minister should initiate measures which can make the administration quick, purposeful and clean. He agrees with me but asks how? There is no doubt that the various administrative reforms commissions have done very little. It is no use covering the same ground again and again. Still we grope in the dark to find a way to make public servants accountable.

In essence, it means doing away with the babu raj, which is ridden with rules and regulations that do not make sense. How do we make people in government offices and public sector undertakings conscious of their duty towards the people who pay their salary? I really do not have any answer to this question. Mahatma Gandhi tried to change man but he failed. I share this thought with the Prime Minister.

Is corruption the real problem? Yes, mostly. Corruption in the bureaucracy cannot go if it continues to be prevalent at the political level. I suggest the enactment of the Lok Pal Bill straightaway. "Yes," the Prime Minister says. We are back to the discussion on how to improve government machinery. He feels that the performance of his government would have been more marked and meaningful if the bureaucracy had cooperated with it. The best of proposals, he believes, have been stalled or slowed down by the abnormally large bureaucracy which is adept in putting impediments, not clearing them.

This is not surprising. It is said that the administration in Pakistan worked well and fast initially. When the pace slowed down, a study was conducted to find out the reasons. The general impression was that the spurt of enthusiasm had slackened after the creation of Pakistan. But the reason turned out to be different. The study showed that when the government began its work at Karachi, there were no files since the duplicate ones prepared for Pakistan had not arrived from Delhi. The work slowed down when Pakistan built its own files -- and its own precedents which the clerks and assistants cited at every stage!