Photo courtesy Flickr/dodo_anji

“In bureaucratic system obedience to power and self-goals have pushed self-consciousness and uprightness into darkness.”

These words, written by a forest department official in his retirement letter were in response to the mining controversy that has brought the state of Haryana under scrutiny for indiscriminate mining policies. Following a stern report by the Central Empowered Committee of the Supreme Court, the state of Haryana (which neighbours Punjab), has finally stepped up towards stopping the unsustainable mining in the Aravalli range. The Supreme court has ordered a ban on all mining activities in the region.

But is this a little too late? Despite the lapse of a seven year lease that had ravaged the range, and a Supreme Court labelling the area as a prohibited mining zone, the Haryana government proceeded to auction two quarries in the area earlier this month.  The Forest Survey of India made satellite imagery available to the public that clearly documents the land change:  water bodies in the area have dried up and the region is suffering severe droughts.  According to this article, local people have said that not only have nearby lakes dried up in the space of three months but also that large scale sand mining was taking place, “damaging the water retention capacity” leaving few traces of the lake and “truck marks all around”. There are clearly bureaucratic loopholes aplenty, allowing the culpability to bounce from the irrigation department to fisheries to mining. The unchecked mining also played an important role in decreasing the ground water level.

The mining groups argue that the high demand for construction is forcing them to look beyond the outer limits of the national capital and to mine indiscriminately, bringing to the fore once again the often used argument of the perceived conflictual nature of development and environmental sustainability in India.

The Centre for Science and Environment recently released a  report detailing the “environmental and social footprints of mining in India”. In it, it highlights the sheer lack of regulation in mining that has spawned a booming illegal trade, adversely affecting the environment and not allowing for any recourse to legal aid by the people who work in the mines or live in the surrounding areas.  The states tend to turn a blind eye because of the profits and the overall ‘development’ that ensues.

Unsustainable mining practices are rampant all over India. Parts of Karnataka that have witnessed unsustainable mining now suffer from a host of problems: from a lack of access to water, to unsafe and illegal labour conditions, health problems, environmental devastation and pollution. Orissa is another good example. The already palpable pressure on land will only get more severe, and although the government has brought out a national biodiversity plan which lays out best practice guidelines, Indian authorities need to really take control of biodiversity conservation and land change, step up initiatives to protect the natural habitat, and soon. A sustainable approach would of course require addressing the issues mentioned before: the problems of EIAs , inclusion of participatory methods, introduction of regulation and importantly better accountability of those in public service and positions of power.   

Last week, from the midst of COP-14 in Poland, I reported that the major developed countries were engaged in something of a waiting game on emissions targets, each waiting to see what others would do before announcing their own.  

As you may remember, on Wednesday of last week Canada, Australia and Japan pulled the text on 2020 emissions targets from one of the conference texts.  The absence of the targets (25-40%) left states waiting to see if others would commit before they did in a classic example of game theory.

Australia put itself in the best position in this game by delaying announcement of its targets until today–two days after the end of the Poznan COP-14.  It has now pledged a 5-15% cut by 2020, as well as an auction-based cap-and-trade system covering 75% of emissions.  Permits will be auctioned with a maximum price of A$40, with the system becoming operational by mid-2010. 

The emission target is much lower than other major developed countries, especially in Europe and increasingly the USA where targets are 20%.  You’ll also notice that this number is a range, and not a particularly narrow one.  If ‘other countries’ (read: USA, Canada, Japan) do not take on targets themselves in Copenhagen–meaning that there would not be a global emissions cut for developed countries–Australia will take the 5% option.  If a global deal is reached then the numbers move up, presumably on some kind of undefined sliding scale.  The definition of these numbers will, in turn, shape the domestic carbon market price. 

Effectively, Australia has managed to keep it hand in the game by allowing itself some room for maneuver into the future.  It has the advantageous position of having made a commitment but also allowing itself remaining competitive by altering that commitment in such an uncertain political process.

From the inside, however, this position looks less advantageous; Prime Minister Rudd is under significant pressure from the mining lobby in Australia, who, according to reports in the corridors at Poznan, were pushing for the abandonment of the cuts completely.  On the other hand, Rudd has consistently run on a green political platform, building expectations from both NGOs and European Leaders over the past year of major emissions cuts.  

Rather than a carefully calculated game theory move, Australia’s announcement today is more of the sum of the pressures Rudd faces from various sides.  

An interesting question to emerge from this announcement is just how many more countries will use this ‘targets range’ in their discussion about interim targets this year.  The EU has said 20%, with a possibility of 30%; now Australia is 5 to 15%.  Are we seeing the overcoming of traditional game playing where an early mover incentives other change?  Maybe in this, the most complex of games, countries will all set ranges and then simply negotiate to a common point–thus partially overcoming some of risk taken by the earlier players, which has often disincentivised action.

It’s certainly a ‘one to watch’ for 2009.