Quarter of a century after the publication of 'The Limits to Growth' of the Club of Rome, environment is now very much at the centre-stage once again of development discussions around the globe, both among academicians and the policy makers.

'The Limits to Growth' had served its purpose of awakening the world to the environmental issues, the consequential establishment of environment study centres around the globe, and emergence of many environment friendly technological innovations. But these seem not to have been enough.

The credit for bringing environment back to the central agenda should go to recent publications of two reports, which have rightly drawn massive international attention.

The first one is on 'The Economics of Climate Change' prepared by the well-known development economist Nicholas Stern of England, and the other on marine resources prepared by mainly marine-biologists from Stanford University in California.

The second one predicts that, if the present trend of exploitation continues, the existing marine species would disappear completely by 2050.

While this definitely would have an indirect impact on Manipur, I would rather refer to the Stern report for its wider relevance.

While talking of environment, I would also like to mention of another report of the World Bank dealing with the relationship between poverty removal and the issues of tropical forests.

This report is soon going to hit the stands, and, I am sure, would definitely give a further impetus to the new debate on the environment. I would give a brief of its main arguments but a lengthy discussion may be improper since the report is yet to come to the market.

The Stern Report:

It is a big report having six parts of 27 chapters and 575 pages without the covers. Emphasising the need for urgent attention and policy action the Report categorically writes: "Much of the debate over the attribution of climate change has now been settled as new evidence has emerged to reconcile outstanding issues.

It is now clear that, while natural factors, such as changes in solar intensity and volcanic eruptions, can explain much of the trend in global temperatures in the early nineteenth century, the rising levels of greenhouse gases provide the only plausible explanation for the observed trend for at least the past 50 years. Over this period, the sustained globally averaged warming contrasts strongly with the slight cooling expected from natural factors alone."

In plain language, it means that the blame for environmental degradation now should go to human activities.

The other important messages of the report are:

1. the climate system is more sensitive than we have ever imagined;
2. the climate change itself is going to trigger further greenhouse gas increases;
3. if the present trend of emissions continue, we are going to experience global warming "far outside the experience of human civilization";
4. there would rise in sea levels due to warming and the "collapse of the ice sheets";
5. the ethical principle of leaving the environment to future generations in at least as good a condition as we inherited should be respected; and
6. mitigation and adaptation measures are immediately called for.

The forthcoming report of the World Bank works on two realities – first, the reality of fast depleting tropical forests, and secondly, the forests as shelter and livelihood to some of the poorest people. This policy oriented report emphasizes the need for appreciating the local level or contextual issues of environmental degradation and poverty dynamics.

Our Tipaimukh Project:

Going through all these reports, I just cannot help thinking about the environmental issues facing our land of Manipur, despite being a layman on this. It goes without saying that the forests in the State have been degrading right in front of our eyes.

Every trip on any direction with a gap of only a few months would establish new areas of degradation, and even the climate changes during recent years are quite perceptible to everyone of us. So Manipur is in a critical juncture locally and globally in so far as environment is concerned.

It is exactly at this point that we now see a hectic revival of the Tipaimukh Dam controversy with the announcement of the plans of the Government for public discussions.

Well, I, for one, have always wanted to know more about the Tipaimukh project and share opinions on it. But, I feel, the protagonist (government) as well as the antagonists have displayed elements of trying to ride roughshod over the other. In fact, this has prevented quite a many of us to join in the debate. But I think we now need a broader base of the debate.

Let me clear my current position before I proceed. I am neither for the Dam nor against it.

Nevertheless, I strongly feel that the project needs a complete review ab initio, right from the beginning. I owe an explanation of my stand now.

First, as all have been emphasising, the project has a big paternity issue. As someone functionally based in Guwahati in the mid-1990s and active participant in the policy debate there, I also know for sure the original kick for starting the project. The proposals and approaches so far have failed to shred this legacy.

Secondly, I must tell you, the detailed project reports are of no help in this direction. I understand that the Government of India is yet to have a comprehensive guideline for rehabilitation and resettlement.

However, a detailed project report should not be trying to take advantage of it. But while going through the project reports, one is really shocked to find in cost calculation that such costs would be settled in consultation with the State government.

Thirdly, now the project authorities say, as evident from the media reports, that public discussions on the project are being scheduled.

This I feel this really violates the norm of project preparation. The perceived values of the people should have been established before the preparation of the detailed project reports and taken into account in the calculation of costs.

In other words, as economists would put it: the values perceived by the stakeholders should have entered into the cost function of the project. Now, I fail to appreciate the meaning and implication of holding of public meetings after global tenders have already been floated.

Fourthly, in a context of heavy environmental degradation we are going to submerge a large forest area. This would have the implication of localising the present pressure on forests to a reduced and restricted forest area. The second-round environmental implication of this cannot be neglected and should be entering into the cost function of the project as well.

I am afraid the above are some of the issues not yet appropriately addressed by the protagonists of the project. In these circumstances, what I would like to suggest is not shelving of the project altogether, but the detailed project report as it exists today calls for a complete relook.

In other words, there is no harm in going for a new report on the project with some of the issues taken into account and addressed in a very transparent way.

Better be late in starting the project instead of paying unanticipated heavy prices later.