|
Time for India to learn from Oregon
In Punjab's Barnala district, farmers have fought for months against
acquisition of land for a private venture. In Nandigram, police
brutality to ensure setting up of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) has
left many dead before the idea was scrapped off. India appears
clueless while it tries to strike a balance between land requirement
for Special Economic Zones and protection of fertile farmlands — in
the immediate aftermath of agrarian protests in Nandigram and
elsewhere.
The nationally emerging concept of capping the SEZ land area is not
the answer. It can easily be circumvented by building under
different proxy names. Instead of a single project of 10,000
hectares, the developers will simply come up with two projects of
5,000 hectares.
The other idea, advocated by the neo liberals, of limiting state
role in land acquisition and let the developers purchase directly
from farmers is also fraught with the danger of unleashing a land
mafia and consequent use of muscle power to make the reluctant
sellers agree to part with the land. Secondly, this will lead to
complete marginalisation of the rural landless labourers.
It is time to look towards the American State of Oregon, with its
innovative land use policy, as a possible role model.
Farmland preservation in the face of growing urbanisation had been
at the top of the charts of American domestic politics along with
inner city crime ever since the post war automobile boom led to
urban sprawl.
Oregon started growing rapidly in the late 60s as a spin-off effect
of Silicon Valley's growth. The concerned people of Oregon, under
the leadership of farsighted Governor Tom McCall, enacted a
comprehensive planning law in 1972 in an effort to regulate urban
sprawl, while encouraging clean industries and economic growth. The
crux of the concept is better land management through setting up
urban growth boundaries for the cities based on a long-range 15 to
20 year growth perspective.
Cities identify growth boundary that contains enough, but no more,
vacant land to accommodate future demand. As a result new projects
are encouraged to be either as `in-fill' over existing vacant lands
or in brown field sites by rebuilding over old and dilapidated
structures — rather than as green field projects in rural areas.
Growth boundaries are not permanent. Cities adjust and expand their
boundaries as needs change. Planners spend endless hours over
`coffee and bagel' in Town Hall meetings, patiently explaining new
development proposals and listening to suggestions of the local
community. A far cry from the King Canute like edicts of the Indian
planning system, which decides on location of mega projects without
taking local issues into consideration.
Over the years, the Oregon plan had been reasonably successful.
Advancement in satellite imaging and spatial database management
software makes it possible to adopt a similar land management policy
in the Indian context. This is particularly essential in high
population density regions such as south Bengal or environmentally
susceptible areas like Goa and the Himalayan foothills.
Looking in retrospect, the Greater Calcutta industrial belt is
perhaps the fittest case where urban regeneration based on brown
field development needs to be encouraged. Take a cruise along the
River Hooghly, and you will come across a vast panorama of 19th
century industrial landscape — now derelict. Much of the new growth
can be accommodated here — if only the Bengal government can
persuade the labour unions and the management to a settlement.
To avoid future Nandigram like incidents, it is necessary to develop
district level spatial plans — to identify growth areas for future
investments along with alternative employment generation for the
affected people — and then gradually build up the land use database
up to the panchayat level.
To balance the need for industrialisation and farmland protection,
it is necessary that States take land management and planning up to
the grass roots level.
25
April, 2007
|
Read Also