Contentious Development

The pursuit of economic development can often be contentious and tricky, ironically more so in the developing world. This is because the number of stakeholders (or those concerned and willing to make some noise anyway) is greater in developing countries.  

It is due to a dual effect. On the one hand, minority groups with no access to resources or wealth have until now not had any outlet to voice their grievances in the public domain or an effective platform from which to seek their rights, but that has changed dramatically. The proliferation of sensationalist 24-hour news channels has at least played a hand in ensuring that issues confronted by minorities and indigenous groups are now brought into our living rooms and stare us in the face. Prior to this reach of the news media, these were merely abstract concerns.  

On the other hand, increased incomes and increased levels of education have led to increased levels of awareness in the developing countries. This has given shape to a boisterous civil society that is sometimes well-informed informed but never shies away from pinpointing something or someone to criticise. This civil society is loud, animated, laps up any attention it can get and sometimes craves for it.  

This has meant that decision-making in many contentious development issues – especially those that purportedly pit the ‘powerful state’ or the ‘evil multinational’ against the ‘hapless individual’ – is not sole preserve of the government alone. Nor is a bilateral agreement between an investor and the government sufficient. Other interested stakeholders include environmental groups and those petitioning for the rights of local inhabitants who stand to lose their livelihoods and their way of life as a result of the proposed activity or investment.  

Often, a belligerent civil society can be overly critical of any proposed investment by a multinational. Sometimes it can also appear rather foolish in the process. However, all of that notwithstanding, its presence and its actions ensure there is greater awareness of issues, and that prevents governments from acting unilaterally.  

In the week gone by, this was in evidence in India where the Supreme Court disallowed Vedanta Resources from mining for bauxite from the Niyamgiri Hills in eastern India till such time the Dongria Kondh tribe, which lives in those hills, agrees to let it do so. The tribe holds the Niyamgiri hills as sacred and has voiced its opinions against the proposed mining plans, arguing the mines would rob them of their way of life and destroy their religious and cultural traditions.  

The gram sabhas of two of the affected districts have been given three months by the Supreme Court to offer their views on the proposed mining project to the ministry of environment and forests for review, after which a final decision will be made in another two months. The Court made it clear that the tribe’s right to worship its deity has to be “preserved and protected” and that the tribe’s views must be considered.  

In the circumstances, it is a reasonable judgment for it does not place an outright ban on mining activities in the area and brings the tribe into the decision process. Vedanta, if it is to have any chance to access the abundant bauxite in the area, needs to allay the fears of the tribe. The entire process will likely be messy and long-drawn, but it offers all stakeholders with the chance to walk away with something and can lay the basis for a project on more secure foundations.