H-ASIA: CFP Seminar on Globalisation and India's Environment, Bombay, Feb. 2001 (fwd)

[Anthony DCosta <dcosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

FYI

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa
Associate Professor				Ph: (253) 692-4462
Comparative International Development		Fax: (253) 692-5718		
University of Washington			Box Number: 358436
1900 Commerce Street				
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Call for papers: Seminar on Globalisation and India's Environment, Bombay,
February 15-16, 2001
************************************************************************
From: Shekhar Krishnan <kshekhar@xxxxxxxxxx>

Dear Friends,

Attached is the note on the seminar we are planning on Globalisation,
Liberalisation and India's Environment on February 15-16, 2001. I would
appreciate your participation. Please let me know if you are interested,
and whether you can present a paper, act as discussant, or participate in
some other way. I would also appreciate your suggestions for others who
can be invited. Please feel free to bounce this to others. A formal
invitation follows.

With best regards,

Carol Upadhya
Department of Sociology, SNDT Women's University, Mumbai
<cupadhya@xxxxxxxx>, <socsndt@xxxxxxxx>
_______

UGC National Seminar on Globalisation, Liberalisation and India's
Environment:
Emerging Trends and Debates

Post-Graduate Department of Sociology
S.N.D.T. Women's University
Churchgate Campus, Mumbai 400 020
<socsndt@xxxxxxxx>

February 15-16, 2001


Globalisation and liberalisation are being heavily promoted by
international institutions such as the World Bank and by many liberal
economists as the route to economic development, especially for
'developing' countries. But these policies, which include freer
international trade, increased foreign investment, deregulation, and
structural adjustment, have come in for sharp criticism from a broad
spectrum of non-governmental organisations and social movements, as
displayed so vividly in Seattle. While opposition to globalisation has
been voiced by diverse social movements, some of the most prominent
critics have been environmentalists, such that the debate on
globalisation has come to be closely linked with environmental issues --
a conjuncture that has thrown up new questions, issues, and research
agendas.

In India, liberalisation and globalisation have been among the most
significant and contested developments of the last decade. The apparent
inevitability of globalisation and of a more market-oriented, open
economy has added a new dimension to the debate on environment and
development. Many activists and intellectuals argue that globalisation,
in addition to aggravating poverty and inequality, can only accelerate
the process of environmental degradation in the country, posing a threat
to the livelihoods of the majority of the people and to the long-term
development and ecological integrity of the country. According to them,
liberalisation policies have promoted privatisation and commercial
exploitation of the country's natural resources, investment in polluting
industries by foreign capital, growth of export-oriented agriculture at
the expense of sustainable food production, and loosening of
environmental protection regulations. Activists have also highlighted
issues such as the adverse impact of the new IPR regime on biodiversity
and agriculture, and the ecological destruction caused by export oriented
industries as well as by World Bank funded projects. This pattern of
development, they claim, will only benefit a privileged few and the
corporate sector (multinational and national), while doing immense harm
to India's ecological base and to the poor by restructuring the
distribution and utilisation of natural resources. On the other hand,
support for the new economic policy has come from unexpected quarters,
and several activists and intellectuals argue that liberalisation,
because of the accompanying technological changes and economic growth,
will in the long run provide better livelihoods for people as well as
greater environmental protection.

The purpose of the seminar is to examine closely some of the issues that
have arisen about environmental change in India in the context of
globalisation. It will provide a forum for the presentation and
discussion of recent research, advocacy work and other initiatives by
academics, activists, journalists and others on a wide range of topics,
with the aim of generating constructive debate. Some of the broad themes
that could be addressed at this seminar include:

1) Agriculture, rural livelihoods and food security.

How have the GATT and WTO agreements and recent changes in economic
policy affected Indian agriculture, food security, the livelihoods of
farmers and agricultural workers, and the rural environment (soil,
water)? What has been the impact on rural ecological systems of the
import of agricultural products, increasing multinational participation
in the agricultural sector and the promotion of agribusiness, and the
shift to export-oriented agriculture in some regions? MNCs have increased
their penetration into the market for agricultural inputs, especially the
seed market, stimulating sharp controversies over the patenting of seeds
and the introduction of genetically modified seeds. Why have some
farmers' organisations led the battle against MNCs on issues such as
biotechnology and IPRs, while others have welcomed liberalisation in the
agricultural sector? Relaxation of land ceilings and dereservation of
agricultural land in some states are other aspects of the liberalisation
process that have implications for food security and the rural
environment.

2) Threats to biodiversity.

A number of processes linked to globalisation have been identified as
being potentially detrimental to India's biodiversity: the TRIPs
agreement under GATT and WTO rules that mandate the recognition of
intellectual property rights in life forms; patenting of seeds and other
genetic material; biotechnology and the development of genetically
modified seeds and food products; the introduction of new technology,
seeds and export-oriented crops in agriculture; and the entry of MNCs
into the food sector. What are the specific linkages between these
developments and biodiversity loss in different regions? What may be the
impact of the recently formulated Biodiversity Bill 2000?

3) Privatisation of common property and public resources.

A trend towards privatisation of common property resources such as water
has been observed in several regions; to what extent is this linked to
liberalisation, and what are the ecological implications? Similarly,
environmentalists claim that forest land is being privatised and
commercialised in the name of  'eco-development' programmes (many
sponsored by the World Bank). What has been the impact of liberalisation
on the utilisation of public goods and the access of the poor to basic
resources such as water, land and forests?

4) Promotion of export-oriented production.

Activists argue that the promotion of export-oriented production under
the new economic policy often focuses on activities such as shrimp
farming and deep-sea fishing which are not only ecologically harmful but
also destroy the resource base of local people, without providing
compensation. What have been the ecological and social consequences of
such 100 per cent export oriented activities, especially in the coastal
zone? Is the emphasis on exports in tune with the earlier mantra of
'sustainable development'?

5) Liberalised trade, increased FDI and pollution.

Liberalisation of trade, increased foreign investment, and the spatial
reorganisation of industry are frequently cited as causes of increasing
levels of pollution in industrialising countries. It is argued that
globalisation allows industrialised nations to adhere to stricter
environmental standards in their own countries while making profits from
the third world (Bhopal being the prime and now symbolic example). For
instance, liberalised trade has facilitated the export of toxic wastes
from industrialised countries to the less developed world, often under
the guise of recycling. On balance, what has been the impact on air and
water pollution of the increased flow of FDI into India and of freer
trade? To what extent does the push to implement liberalisation policies
and to conform to WTO agreements take precedence over the enforcement of
environmental laws in India? Or are stricter environmental standards
being enforced to conform to ISO norms and the like?

6) Privatisation of infrastructure development projects.

The opening of power generation and infrastructure projects such as road
construction to private foreign investment is a controversial issue, with
an environmental angle that has been highlighted by people's resistance
movements such the one against the Enron project. What is the
government's record on the environmental regulation of such projects
given over to the private sector? Is there a contradiction between
environmental laws and policies and the drive to attract foreign
investment and to develop infrastructure facilities? The liberalisation
of land acquisition rules to facilitate investment in infrastructure
projects and new industries is a related issue with implications for the
livelihoods of local people and for the environment.

7) Urban environment.

The spatial reorganisation of manufacturing by MNCs through outsourcing
and subcontracting has fuelled the typical pattern found in developing
countries of rapid and unplanned urbanisation and expansion in the
informal sector economy, resulting in extremely adverse environmental and
health conditions in the cities. Deindustrialisation and the growth of
unregulated 'tiny sector' manufacturing have also occurred in Indian
cities, but can this process be linked directly with liberalisation? Are
there other connections that can be made between globalisation and the
deterioration in urban environments? For example, recent efforts to ease
Mumbai's traffic congestion and to make the city more attractive to
foreign and domestic capital by building numerous flyovers and improving
roads is a solution that caters primarily to private vehicles, creating
more road traffic and therefore more air pollution. Similarly, the rapid
development of commercial property without corresponding infrastructure,
slum demolition drives without rehabilitation of slum dwellers, the
complete neglect of slum redevelopment and public transport projects, and
the emphasis on 'beautification' rather than basic needs such as water,
reflect not just bad planning but a particular vision of Mumbai as a
'global city'.


We invite papers and presentations on any of the above themes or other
related topics, and we also invite suggestions for additional themes.
Abstracts should be received by December 15, 2000, and papers by January
31, 2001.
_____

Shekhar Krishnan
58/58A, Anand Bhavan
201, Lady Hardinge Road
Mahim, Bombay 16
India
=================================================================