Empowering the nation through Economic Literacy

iEE

 Institute of Economic Education

(A Div. of KnowledgeFountain)

Economic Literacy Initiative is dedicated to Late Nani A. Palkhivala

Give instruction to a wise man and he will be yet wiser.

|    Home    |    About Us   |   Aims & Objectives    |   The Director's Desk    |    Resources    |   Contact Us   |

Certificate Course in Economic & Environment Literacy

Who Should Join?

How You'll Benefit?

How to Take Admission?

Sample Lessons

Certification

Environment Literacy Course

Sample Lesson

Introduction

ENVIRONMENT - WHOSE CONCERN? 

Life and Environment are interdependent. The recent years have witnessed increasing tendency for environmentalists and activists to work together towards a common goal. Nevertheless, environment has rather become a slogan for the development report, which does not cover environment as an issue. The right of individual to pure and healthy environment can be conceived as an emerging matter of debate.  

The right to safe environment has been given a constitutional status in nearly 150 countries and it is forcing its way into the International law. India has taken a lead to provide environment a constitutional status. The Constitution 42^nd Amendment Act 1976 adds an article to the part IV of the Directive Principles as under, "the state shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country".  

Article 51A of the Fundamental Duties prescribes, "it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including the forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures". But merely placing it in the Constitution would not solve the problem. Our activities have definitely endangered the greenery of our earth.  

Environmental issue is whose concern?

It is ours-it should be the paramount duty of the state and its citizens to protect the ecosystem and its environment. It is definitely true that whole issue lies on one and only one concern i.e. economic disparity. With almost 2/3 of our population living under sub-human conditions the poverty must be regarded as the biggest problem.  

It is true that economic disparity also brings environmental stresses. 

These issues are synonyms particularly in the context of developing countries. In fact, poor economic policy and developing strategy has been the major setback of environmental restraint in the country. Environment is not only a biotic factor but has a cumulative impact as it is made up of air, water, soil, land, forest, human being and every visible and invisible entity. Impact on one leads to imbalance on other.  

Development is another fundamental right which poses a threat to environment. One is definitely at the cost of another, what should be at stake? To answer this a United Nations conference on environment and development also referred as "Earth Summit" was held at Rio in Brazil on 3rd - 14th June 1992.  

The outcome of this conference was the idea of sustainable development. It highlighted that economic and social development and environmental protection are interdependent and mutually re-inforcing.  

There must be countless declarations and legislations regarding environment but they remain futile unless the last man down is not aware of what they are. The benefits of the implemented policies should boil down to the lowest in the rung. This reminds us Gandhian philosophy, which advocates that development should begin with the villages.  

Unfortunately exactly opposite has been the direction in the present scenario. Decentralized development has been so slow that by the time we will reach villages whole village environment would have been distorted.  

It is desolating to acknowledge that we have failed both in management of human and natural resources. The notable resources where the economy of the rural country revolves are forest, water, mines and agriculture, the immediate subsistence. Do we have a clear policy for any one of them in the country?  

Here are few examples, which allude to our poor strategy and environmental restoration approach. Environmental restoration up till last decade was taken in isolation. Forest, soil and water management strategies were considered in seclusion. It was realized lately in the last decade that these factors cannot be segregated but human component and its behaviour along with the resources have to be integrated for better outcome.  

The policy towards our major resources has not been given deep contemplation, the poor forest policy prevented villagers due right on their resources. Rights of age old panchayats have been curtailed. This provoked the villagers to protest against the Governance. The Chipko Movement is one of the examples of the resentment.  

The aftermath did not cater to the needs of the forest dwelling community but threatened their traditional forest protection initiative. The forest fire of Western Himalayas in 1995 causing loss of millions of forest trees and wildlife is another glaring example of mismanagement. Earlier villagers in a communal action used to put out and control forest fires as their tool of forest management. Now loss of rights has made them indifferent and they simply ignore factors hampering the status of the resources around them.  

Water - the another significant resource with has met the similar fate. Water available regimes and their intricacies have not been well understood. Criticism of our drafted water policy has been often heard. The Great Himalayas are known as the water bank of the country, but its residents are devoid of potable water and irrigation facilities.  

The dams constructed for irrigating the agricultural lands have not shown much encouraging sequels. Big dam projects are placed in priority but traditionally occurring water mills and small hydro-electric projects are totally ignored.  

The power from bigger dams are generated for metropolitan cities and industrial sectors but power needs at the village level for various agro processing, work or domestic consumption is not taken into account.  

Since environment issues begin from the villages it is inevitable to involve the local community in every process of development leading to improved environmental conditions. Environment in villages is content since centuries. The community had been sustaining both biotic and abiotic factors. Mishappening began when forest and abiotic factors were given the priority than human issues.  

Earlier the rural society lived in harmony. The produce matched with the needs of the populace, be it of any kind. Development strategy entered in a different way all together. Local human resource began to lose their jobs with the advent of new products from industry or developed sectors.  

Local blacksmiths, carpenters, masons and many such began to find their survival difficult. Science and technology approach was centralized. Newer products snatched the jobs of the poor. New forest acts deprived the local mass of their pursuits. This distorted the inter-dependence in the villages. People started migrating to other places in search of livelihood, which led to vacuum in one and overcrowding in other.  

Had the science and technology development been in decentralized way, the traditional human skill would have up held itself in the community. Such unfamiliar steps disrupted total environment sustainability of community which is reflected today in various degrading environmental forms.  

In the present scenario of environmental problems there are some community efforts which give example for planners to follow. Environment should preferably be defined from human aspect than resource or other angles.  

We should learn lessons from the communities to maintain the environment. If we are able to solve the problems at village level we may reach our goal. Learning from grassroots will disentangle all the environment related complications. We will have to keep community's will in mind while brooding upon the problems arising out of environmental degradations.  

This cannot be possible from any other approach than having people's involvement in the task. Their association will only be possible when their age old traditions are respected and coupled with newer wisdom of development.  

The above approach can only take us to the villages for environmental protection appeal. The country having majority of people living in the villages (80%) can only give answer to all dilemmas.  

The campaigns for resource-based education should be encouraged. Increasing abuse of the natural resources together with expanding population have greatly multiplied the problems. The counter-attack to all the problems would be a constructive knowledge transfer process, which would play an important role in development activities and lead to a wiser and more responsible use of the available resources.  

By and large, resource awareness is lacking. Either the resources are lying untapped or over-exploited. The participation of the community is often found lacking.  

The resources are normally controlled by the power where the common person does not have any access. The reason for such situation is unawareness.  

A policy meant to create an organized knowledge-transfer system, which empowers community of their rights on resources, should be formulated. This would not only make possible the best use of our resources but all will reap the fruits. Present policies are either not effective or are not implemented.  

The reason obviously is the exclusion of community from different sectors in policy making. Policies can only be effective when the concerning community is also involved and it is only possible through productive knowledge transfer. It is an important task to be dwelled upon for the progress and development not only on regional, national but on international perspective.  

In this special module you will be given quality study material to enable you to understand the close link between economic development and our ecological obligations. You will realise that no economy can function (and survive) in environmental vacuum. No progress is sustainable without ensuring environmental sustainability.  

Our future will be in grave danger if we keep exploiting the resources of our mother-earth mindlessly.  

Sustainability means utilising resources in such a way that the needs of the future generations will not be affected. Rightly said, “We don’t inherit the earth from our forefathers, we have borrowed it from our children.” 

In many parts of the world we see total devastation of nature and economies there have become impossible to sustain. There are limits to growth. Because the earth has a limited ‘carrying capacity’, to give an example, if everyone aspires to attain the American standard of living, then we shall need five earths!!! 

The developed world (the North) is consuming natural resources many times more than the poor and developing world (the South). There are heated debates on North Vs. South.   We have a common destiny as we have only one planet earth. Poverty anywhere is dangerous to prosperity anywhere. So it is high time for us all to take the rapidly degrading environment into consideration when we think of rapid economic development. 

Nature does not forgive for our mistakes.  

Students of economics must understand critically the umbilical cord relationship between environment and human progress.  In this Environmental Literacy Module the endeavour is to give you critical understanding of global trends in environmental sustainability and the emerging areas of problems.  

It is earnestly hoped that students of this program will become Knowledge workers’ and spread their knowledge of reality to more and more people to enable others to take intelligent decisions. 

We live in an era where we have to make hard choice. It is now or never.  We have to chose between ‘Sustainable Development or No development’. No one has ever won war against nature.  

Ninth century BC Mayan civilisation, which was highly advanced, perished because of soil erosion. Their agriculture failed and with it the very civilisation. 

Today, the term ‘Security’ is getting different meaning. We have to ensure ‘food security’, ‘water security’, ‘energy security’. Mere military security is irrelevant in today’s world of rapid globalisation and economic integration. 

Every thinking person must develop understanding of what is actually happening around. We must not think in narrow terms of nation and nationalism. As Gandhiji said, “Humanity is our true nationality.” We are custodians of the future and we have to utilise natural resources in most sustainable way. We owe it to our future generations. 

 We earnestly expect students to ponder over the knowledge made available to them. Strive hard to take it to more and more people. Talk about environmental sustainability, write about it, awaken people. 

It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

ENVIRONMENT AS FACTOR OF PRODUCTION

(Environment is a definite factor of production like labour, capital, rent, etc. This is because the state of environment ultimately decides the supply and demand side of other factors. Thus, economy is directly dependent on the state of environment which decides the availability of and accessibility to resources. Given below are some vital environmental aspects which decide the business environment at local, regional, national and international level.)  

1
THE POPULATION CHALLENGE 

During the last half-century, world population has more than doubled, climbing from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 5.9 billion in 1998.  Those of us born before 1950 are members of the first generation to witness a doubling of world population. Stated otherwise, there has been more growth in population since 1950 than during the 4 million preceding years since our early ancestors first stood upright.   

This unprecedented surge in population, combined with rising individual consumption, is pushing our claims on the planet beyond its natural limits. Water tables are falling on every continent as demand exceeds the sustainable yield of aquifers. Our growing appetite for seafood has taken oceanic fisheries to their limits and beyond.  Collapsing fisheries tell us we can go no further. 

The Earth’s temperature is rising, promising changes in climate that we cannot even anticipate. And we have inadvertently launched the greatest extinction of plant and animal species since the dinosaurs disappeared.   

Great as the population growth of the last half-century has been, it is far from over. U.N. demographers project an increase over the next half-century of another 2.8 billion people, somewhat fewer than the 3.6 billion added during the half-century now ending.  In contrast to the last 50 years, however, all the 2.8 billion will be added in the developing world, much of which is already densely populated. 

Even as we anticipate huge further increase in population, encouraging demographic news seems to surface regularly.  Fertility rates, the average number of children born to a women, have fallen steadily in most countries in recent decades. Twice in the last 10 years the United Nations has moderated its projections of global population growth, first in 1996 and then again in 1998.  Unfortunately, part of the latter decline in population projections is due to rising mortality rather than declining fertility. 

In contrast to the projected doublings and triplings for some developing countries, populations are stable or even declining in some 32 industrial nations. Compared with the situation at mid-century, when nearly all signs pointed to galloping population increases for the foreseeable future, today’s demographic picture is decidedly more complex. 

Anyone tempted to conclude that population growth is becoming a “non-issue” may find this book a reality check.  Despite the many encouraging demographic trends, the need to stabilize global population is as urgent as ever.  Although the rate of population growth is slowing, the world is still adding some 80 million people per year. And the number of young people coming of reproductive age—those between 15 and 24 years old—will be far larger during the early part of the next century than ever before.  Through their reproductive choices, this group will heavily influence whether population is stabilized sooner rather than later, and with less rather than more suffering. 

In addition, population growth has already surpassed sustainable limits on a number of environmental fronts.  From cropland and water availability to climate change and unemployment, population growth exacerbates existing problems, making them more difficult to manage.  The intersection of the arrival of a series of environmental limits and a potentially huge expansion in the number of people subject to those limits makes the turn of the century a unique time in world demographic history. 

The rate of global population growth has been slowing since the 1960s,when birth rates began to decline in many countries as a result of changing cultural, religious, and socio-economic cues.  As families moved to cities, large numbers of children were no longer needed as agricultural labourers; they became instead an economic burden for families. The increasing reach of radio and television altered the aspirations of billions of people, while rising school enrolment and economic progress exposed young men and women to opportunities beyond family life.  Meanwhile, the growing acceptance and availability of family planning afforded couples a viable means to reduce the number of children they chose to have.  Taken together, these trends helped lower the growth rate of world population from its peak rate of 2.2 percent in 1963 to 1.3 percent in 1998. 

Although still an issue of global importance, population growth carries greater urgency in some countries than in others.  In contrast to mid-century, when populations were growing everywhere, growth rates now vary more widely across countries than at any time in history.  Some countries have stabilized their populations while others are expanding at 3 percent or more per year—a rate that yields a 20-fold increase within a century. 

Some 32 countries, with 12 percent of the world’s people, have essentially achieved population stability, with growth rates below 0.4 percent per year. With the exception of Japan, all 32 are in Europe, and all are industrial countries.  Some of these, including Russia, Japan, and Germany, are actually projected to see population declines over the next half-century. 

In another group of 39 countries, fertility has dropped to replacement level—roughly two children per couple—but populations will continue to grow for several decades because a disproportionately large number of young people are moving into the reproductive age group. Among the countries in this category are China and the United State, the world’s first and third largest countries, which together contain 26 percent of the world’s people. 

At the other end of the spectrum, the high-growth end, seven countries are projected to triple their populations before they stabilize.  Another group—59 countries, mostly in Africa—is set to double and in some cases nearly triple their populations by 2050.  A third group of developing countries, also 59 in number, fall short of a doubling in the next half-century, though they are still far from population stability. 

Among the more rapidly growing countries are three large ones facing enormous increases in population in coming decades. 

Ethiopia’s current population of 58 million is projected to nearly triple, as shown below:

 The 20 Largest Countries Ranked According to Population Size, 1998, With Projections to 2050 

Source:  Population Reference Bureau, “1998 World Population Data Sheet,” wall chart (Washington, DC:  June 1998); United Nations, World population prospects:  The 1998 Revision (New York:  December 1998).  

It climbs to 169 million in 2050. Pakistan’s population is projected to go from 142 million to 345 million, nearly surpassing that of the United States.  Nigeria meanwhile, is projected to go from 122 million today to 244 million, giving it slightly more people in 2050 than there were in all of Africa in 1950.  Given the environmental constraints already facing these countries, especially the growing scarcity of water and cropland, it is unlikely that their projected population increases will actually materialize.  The question is whether lower than projected growth will be realized because of societal choices to moderate growth, or because nature ruthlessly imposes its own constraints. 

Although the rate of world population growth is slowing, far more people are now added tot he planet each year—some 80 million—than in 1963, when the growth rate crested.  This is because of the momentum inherent in population growth, a momentum that requires decades to exhaust. This illustrates the importance of early action to stabilize population.  It also suggests why the reproductive choices of the generation now entering adulthood are so important: the consequence of their choices will be felt for decades to come. 

As the global population locomotive hurtles forward despite pressure applied to the demographic brakes there are hazards on the tracks ahead.  A number of limits to sustainability are being surpassed, or are about to be. This books looks at the consequences of population growth for 19 environmental and social dimensions of the human experience, and concludes that any number of imminent hazards could trigger a demographic train wreck. 

In this respect, we are part of a long tradition dating back to 1798 when Thomas Malthus, a British clergyman and intellectual, warned in his “Essay on the Principle of Population” of the check on population growth provided by what he believed were coming constraints on food supplies.  Nothing that population grows exponentially while food supply grows only arithmetically, Malthus foresaw massive food shortage and famine as an inevitable consequence of population growth. 

Critics of Malthus point out that his pessimistic scenario never unfolded.  His supporters believe he was simply ahead of his time.  On the bicentennial of Malthus’ legendary essay, and in an era of environmental decline, we find his focus on the connection between resource supply and population growth to be particularly useful. We move beyond Malthus’ focus on food, however, to look at several resources—such as water and forests—whose supply may be insufficient to support projected increases in population.  We also examine social phenomena including disease and education, and analyze the effect of population growth on these. 

The results of our analysis offer further evidence that we are approaching—and increasingly broaching—any number of natural limits.  We know that close to a tenth of world food production relies on the over-pumping of groundwater, and that continuing this practice will mean a substantial decline in food production at some point in the future.  We know that both atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and the Earth’s surface temperature are rising.  We know that we are the first species in the planet’s history to trigger a mass extinction, and we admit that we do not understand the consequences of such a heavy loss of plant and animal species.  In short, we know enough to understand that the growth in our numbers and the scale of our activities is already redirecting the natural course of our planet and that this new direction will turn affect us. 

The relationship between these natural limits and population growth becomes clear if we contrast key trends projected for the next half-century with those of the last one.  For example, since 1950 we have seen a near fivefold growth in the oceanic fish catch and a doubling in the supply of fish per person, but people born today may well see the catch per person cut in half as population grows during their lifetimes.  Marine biologists now believe we may have “hit the wall” in oceanic fisheries and that the ocean cannot sustain a catch any larger than today’s. 

Similarly, the finite area that can be cultivated for grain is worrisome natural limit as population increases.  Grainland per person has been shrinking since mid-century, but the drop projected for the next 50 years means the world will have less grainland per person than India has today.  Future population growth is likely to reduce this key number in many societies to the point where they will no longer be able to feed themselves.  Countries such as Ethiopia, India, Iran, Nigeria, and Pakistan will see grainland per person shrink by 2050 to less than one tenth of a hectare (one fourth of an acre)—far smaller than a typical suburban building lot in the United States. 

Meanwhile, with the amount of fresh water produced each year essentially fixed by nature, population growth shrinks the water available per person and results in severe shortages in some areas.  Countries now experiencing this include China and India, as well as scores of smaller ones. As irrigation water is diverted to industrial and residential uses, the resultant water shortages could drop food production per person in many countries below the survival level. 

The fast—deteriorating water situation in India was described in July 1998 in one of the India’s leading newspapers, the Hindustan Times: “It our population continues to grow as it is now….it is certain that a major part of the country would be in the grip of a severe water famine in 10 to 15 years”.  The article goes on to reflect an emerging sense of desperation.  “Only a bitter dose of compulsory family planning can save the coming generation from the fast-approaching Malthusian catastrophe.”  Among other things, this comment appears to implicitly recognize the emerging conflict between the reproductive rights of the current generation and the survival rights of the next generation. 

As difficult as it is imagine the addition of another 2.8 billion people to the world’s population, it is even harder to grasp the effects of the rising affluence of a growing population.  As we look back over the last half-century, we see that world fuelwood use doubled, paper use increased nearly six fold, grain consumption nearly tripled, water use tripled, and fossil fuel burning increased some fourfold. 

The relative contribution of population growth and rising affluence to the growth in demand for various resources varies widely.  With fuel wood use, most of the doubled use is accounted for by population growth.  With paper, in contrast, rising affluence is primarily responsible for the growth in use.  For grain, population accounts for most of the growth, since consumption per person has risen only 30 percent since 1950.  Similarly with water.  For fossil fuels, the growth is use is rather evenly divided between population growth and rising consumption. 

Any meaningful assessment of the future pressure on resources must take into account both population growth and rises in affluence.  Consumption per person of various resources among societies can vary from 5 to 1 for grain, as between the United States and India, for example, to easily 20 to 1 for energy.  While population growth in some 32 countries has stabilized, and many more countries have stabilization as a goal, no country at any level of affluence has announced or even seriously contemplated limits on consumption per person. 

The challenge to nations presented by continuing rapid population growth is not limited to natural resources.  It also includes social and economic needs, including education, housing, and jobs.  During the last half-century, the world has fallen further and further behind in creating jobs, leading to record levels of unemployment and underemployment.  Unfortunately, over the next 50 years the number of entrants into the job maker will be even greater, pushing the ranks of unemployment to levels that could be politically destabilizing.  And as homelessness is already a serious problem in most large.  Third World cities, the housing situation for additional urban dwellers is increasingly dismal. 

The Earth is more crowded today than ever before.  And although our numbers continue to grow, the size of the planet on which we live remains the same.  Future population growth has the potential to further degrade and deplete resources, such as topsoil, ground water, and forest cover, as well as to reduce the resources available to each person.  Moreover, population growth strains the capacity of governments to provide basic social services, such as education and health care, for each citizen.  This combination of environmental degradation and social shortfalls can ultimately result in any number of unpleasant scenarios that can undermine future progress. 

Here the U.N. population projection released in December 1998 is used, which shows world population expanding from 6.1 billion in 2000 to 8.9 billion in 2050, a gain of 2.8 billion.  While this is judged by U.N. demographers as the scenario “most likely” to materialize, it is by no means an inevitable development for the next century for two reasons. First, the U.N. projection does not take into account possible environmental or social constraints on population expansion. And second, couples worldwide may choose to have fewer children than the U.N. projections assume.   In summary, the U.N. projections do not account for the possibility of human actions—both intended and unintended—to alter our demographic destiny. 

The U.N.’s projections are mainly demographic, based on historical data on fertility, mortality, and average life span and on the likely course of current social and political phenomena such as refugee movements, wars and the spread of AIDS.  No effort was made, however, to incorporate factors affecting national carrying capacities, such as the adequacy of water supplies or cropland.  Indeed, because the projections are based exclusively on demographic assumptions and do not take into account the environmental and social limits to carrying capacity, they should be viewed as a first pass rather than the final word on estimates of future population. 

In this sense, the projections may be misleading because they give the impression that projected population increases are likely, when in reality ecological and social life-support systems may collapse long before they can materialize.  To cite a single example:  Yemen’s projected growth during the next 50 years from 18 million to 59 million seems unlikely for the desert nation, which already has only 0.03 hectares if grainland per person and faces severe water shortages and dismal socio-economic indicators. 

The 19 dimensions analyzed in this book help to put the U.N. numbers in perspective by sketching some of the parameters—ranging from disease and conflict reduce population growth in some countries below the levels projected.  By raising mortality levels, these constraints can drive down the very population growth rates that first bred the constraints.  We consider some of these possible feedback loops in Chapter 21, where we assess the feasibility of the U.N. projections and discuss “demographic fatigue”—the growing inability of poor governments with burgeoning populations to cope with new threats to society. 

A more hopeful path is for population growth to be stabilized by intelligent and humane economic and social policies.  In addition to the medium-level projection, the U.N. offered two alternatives, which differ from the most likely projection in how many children couples worldwide eventually decide to bear (and how quickly they get there). As of 1998, the world average stood at roughly 2.7 children per couple.  The high-level projection, which assumes that couples will eventually settle at 2.6 children, puts population at 10.7 billion by 2050; the medium-level projection used throughout this book assumes that couples will have on average 2.1 children, with population reaching 8.9 billion by 2050; the low-level projection, which assumes that couples will end up having 1.6 children, puts population at 7.3 billion by 2050. 

Though this low level trajectory may seem rather optimistic, most demographers agree that fertility declines faster today than in the past.  The socio-economic, political, and cultural landscape that influences fertility levels now shifts rapidly, so that the transition to low fertility levels occurs quickly.  Over the last few decades, demographers have been surprised again and again by the rapid decline in the number of children couples choose to bear throughout the world. Even as recently as a decade ago, demographers would have been hesitant to project that fertility rates would be as low as they are today in many developing countries. 

Nonetheless, the transition to lower fertility levels cannot be taken for granted.  Settling at the lower population trajectory depends on a renewed commitment from the international community to maintain the dominant global trend towards fewer children per couple.  In Chapter 21 we discuss the changes in policy that all nations—especially those where population is still growing rapidly—will need to adopt to further slow population growth. 

Several questions stand out in trying to look beyond Malthus.  Will countries with rapid population growth take control of their reproductive destinies and quickly shift to smaller families?  Or will they fail to do so, and instead watch the resulting spread of disease, hunger, or social disintegration lead to rising death rates?  In a world facing many problems as it prepares to enter the next century, stabilizing populations may be the most difficult challenge of all.                           

ab

| Admission Form  |