Seeking an alternate world- Making sense of going green with respect to the modern day development paradigm

Times they are a changing. Boy, can you feel it or what? Never before in modern, post industrial times has the common man been so aware of changes in rainfall, temperature, freak weather... the list is endless. Every other day, we read about new records being toppled in the these very categories. Climate and weather occupy more and more space in our newspapers alongside burgeoning development, pollution, and infrastructure woes. The mood is sombre and sometimes on edge, predicting various doomsday scenarios. There are calls for action, change, and even questioning the very way of life that we have grown so used to.

Within this environment of climate change and demands to reduce emissions of green house gases our nations are preoccupied with pushing up growth indices in order to convince themselves, and others who they hope to attract investments from, that we are doing fine. If anything at all, the 2007-09 recession years have shown us that current models of development and modern day economics have serious flaws. This model implies that nations have to keep ticking to stay above. In other words, this means that we have to keep selling, keep consuming, keep producing, keep extracting, keep mining,.. to project a healthy rate of growth. Sales have to be better than before to ensure that a business is afloat, no matter if the consumer needs it or not. This has lead to a world of misinformation, exaggeration and titillation.We buy because we dread the fall-outs of not doing so, we buy because we feel that we are being benefited, we buy because we feel we are doing well and we also buy because we don't want to feel left out. Along the way we have grown to believe in these globally disseminated messages of size, gloss and finesse. Modern day economics have meant that we have lost, or are rapidly losing, any connects with the way we lived earlier. With that is the disappearance of traditional knowledge systems of carrying capacity- how much to take, when to take, how to give back and so on. What all this means is the struggle to resurrect ourselves from the graves of climate change is arduous. The important question is 'how can we maintain both modern day growth economies, and do less harm to the environment simultaneously?'

20th Century Economics necessitates increased consumption. Today's green initiatives are overwhelmingly about clean energy. While this is essential, you cannot forget other aspects of sustainability. The old adage, 'too much of anything isn't good...' is perfect to describe the situation. For the building industry to do well, it necessitates more building (whether we need it or not); the building materials sector too needs to keep doing better that they did last year to retain value in the market; this only means more raw materials needed and so on. The same applies to the Automobile, Fishing, FMCG, Textiles, and essentially every fathomable industry. We have already out-consumed natures bounty in many ways. Entire oceans of fish are vanishing, various ores and minerals have been 'mined' dry, forests have been denuded....it gets clear where this is headed. The growth based valuation of modern day economics is sending us over the precipice.

So how do we see any credible green initiative in today's context? Essentially, it is about painting a picture of an alternate world. To borrow the slogan of the World Social Forum- "Another World is Possible".Are the answers all there? Gosh no! Each initiative is about exploring possibilities and building on promising ones. We need to stop looking for overarching solutions for current day problems, and rather find what is most appropriate to us in our respective regions. Some solutions may cross borders, yet many more would be specific and limited. As professionals, serious about seeking out alternate models of development, we need to  recognise what our roles are in the prevailing economy. We are either catalysts of change, slowing down the processes of decline, or, are charting new courses development wise. There are always the nay-sayers who would label such thinking as regressive, but they act as if there exists no other possibility.

What is important are the choices that we make. We need to constantly ask ourselves questions like, 'is this good for me in the long run?', or better yet 'Is this sustainable?' before we act on our choices. It is a tough one no doubt. This 'recent past' in the context of human history is also 'the memory of our times'. The challenge is unlearning the trappings of our lifetimes and seeking connects with the past and possible futures that would ensure long term sustainability. We have begun to get connected like never before... it is important we stay the course.

Two windows, two doors, toilet, kitchen... deconstructing housing schemes for the poor

The  final product of the Slum Resettlement project at Lazar Road in East Bangalore

Whenever you hear of the inauguration (or the building) of a housing set-up for the underprivileged and marginalised, it seems like the implementation of an 'inclusive' policy on the ground. Is it?
In most cases not. The sight of these reconstruction efforts only makes you wonder- were these people better off before such an intervention? Also, you cant but think that one could have done better (much, much better) in terms of design, construction.... and most importantly as an urban intervention.
Let us take the example of a resettlement project for a small scale slum colony in East (now more North) Bangalore. Consisting mainly of squatters, settled earlier as construction workers working on nearby projects, this colony of sorts had grown over the years to a strip that leaked on two sides of the nearby road. Soon enough, functions like a small church, and a few shops that catered to the local community and to passers-by sprung up.
The hutments were predominantly temporary structures, not very dissimilar from scores of such self erected structures that house nearly 30% of this city's population (or any other big city in this country for that matter). These structures were modest, just about an adults length in both length and breadth. Roofs covered with blue plastic sheets, or, canvas; ram-shackle masonry walls, just high enough to keep rain splash and pests at bay; cloth flaps for doors in some cases; you get the picture. There were the more fortunate ones who had built themselves slightly more 'pucca' (hardier structures) with Tin/GI corrugated roofing sheets, and full masonry walls, windows, doors et al. All the structures served mainly as shelter from the weather and as shelter to retire in after an exhausting work day. Most of the activities were carried out in the open; from washing clothes to preparatory activities for food, washing utensils, and other daily household chores. Bathing was out in the open, children defecated out in the open, the nearby railway edge (and embankment) served as an outdoor toilet for this community and passers-by. Women, conducted themselves in the privacy of the early hours of the day. There was no proper drainage or sewerage system in place and during the rains, conditions of living would get worse.
This slum is commonly known as the Desyeshanagar slum and has been a recipient of a JNNURM fund for rehabilitation... read housing for the slum dwellers. Some dailies in Bangalore had written, a while ago, of an 'unenviable'; existence of these Lazar Road slum dwellers and the delayed resettlement as promised to them by the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board (KSCB). Now, after a few years of waiting, four storey apartments have come up, painted white. These RCC framed structures with concrete block masonry walls come with living quarters and toilets for each family. The walls are plastered and there are windows and doors to all units. While there are issues of the allotments versus the original 112 odd families who called this slum home, I would like to focus on the homes that have been made.

The activities are still on the outside...

I am not sure that the beneficiaries are much better off than when they were living in their temporary tenements. Yes, these slum dwellers now have a 'pucca' home, but has the quality of their lives improved? One could remain satisfied by justifying the very fact that they now have shelter, toilets and sewerage, but is that all? Let's take a look at the built.

• Being four storey structures, there are three blocks, crowding on this not so wide a plot. That being the case, the gaps between these blocks are too narrow, with barely any light in the access stairs/corridors and the rooms that face this, even during the brightest of days. Each unit has two 3' x 4' windows provided for light, but effectively only one provides any amount of light due to the stacking of blocks. One gets a feeling of being boxed in as a result. This prompts the inhabitants to remain outdoors during the day, and through the evenings... similar to their earlier lifestyle. Perhaps it also has to do with their way of life.. They surely are a more social group.

The railway embankment continues to be a drying yard
for the rehoused residents

• As there has been no provision for these activities indoors, and also due to the dingy conditions, many activities like washing & drying of clothes, cleaning utensils, etc are still conducted outside. Once again there could be social reasons to the same and the new buildings have not catered to this.
• The buildings are merely products of a mathematical approach to design. In fact they are replicas of similar slum resettlement housing that is being carried out elsewhere in the city. These structures are just that, buildings without an iota of sensitivity.

Without a doubt one thing that has improved is the fact that they now have been provided some element of basic facilities like toilets with piping for water, and electricity. But, how have these buildings contributed in a general betterment of their lives? Could it have been any better with an in-situ upgradation initiative (as against such rehousing), with improved structures in place of their previous hutments, better drainage, proper paving where needed, service yards for washing clothes, access to clean drinking water, better power infrastructure, etc? The new buildings that have been provided are mere shells that do not seem to consider the dwellers or their social requirements as important and it shows in the design.
The primary objective of housing for slum inhabitants and the poor is about inclusion, about giving them a good respectable place as citizens of the city. If it was only an aspect of sanitation and providing facilities, then why couldn't one have considered what I have suggested in the above paragraph. Dignity of life does not seem to be a part of any rehousing scheme for the poor. They don't seem to have any right to aesthetics! Matchbox type tenements reflect a general apathy of the so called powers that be.

The stacking of blocks... too close for comfort, and light!

Of course, sustainability does not seem to figure in any of these developments. How do we act on a degree of far term thinking in what their access to utilities would be? The building systems and materials leave a lot to be desired. Even the current mandatory inclusion of Rainwater harvesting infrastructure has not been provided.

As we sign off from this case study, let us reflect on our attitudes towards these citizens of our cities and ask ourselves do the poor only need houses, not homes?

Ecotourism is not a trek to the forest

The ecotourism diagram

One of the headlines in a recent piece in the Times of India talks about how Ecotourism is ruining the flora and fauna in Nagarhole and Bandipur. Upon a quick read I discovered that the reporter had completely missed the point about ecotourism. This is alarming since such articles dilute the meaning of the term for readers. But this reporter is not alone in making this egregious error. 

I checked some websites, too, and discovered that the term ‘Ecotourism’ is being used freely to describe any sojourn to a wildlife sanctuary or jungle resort. These include both government agencies and private businesses that run lodges and safaris in the wilderness. This is merely re-dressing plain old-fashioned tourism in the garb of a neo-fad called ecotourism.

In essence there are hardly any real ecotourism programmes in the area which can be given the status of one. A quick glance at what the meaning of ecotourism is, as defined by The international Ecotourism Society (www.ecotourism.org) is the following:

“Ecotourism is about uniting conservation, communities, and sustainable travel. This means that those who implement and participate in ecotourism activities should follow the following ecotourism principles:

• Minimize impact of tourism activities..
• Build environmental and cultural awareness and respect.
• Provide positive experiences for both visitors and hosts.
• Provide direct financial benefits for conservation.
• Provide financial benefits and empowerment for local people.
• Raise sensitivity to host countries' (or regions') political, environmental, and social climate.”

Ecotourism- a comprehensive and sustainable  development model

While it is imperative that our tourism departments concentrate on, first, understanding what ecotourism is, and second, what initiatives to launch or support in which areas, we cannot blindly describe any trek to the forest to be an ecotourism exercise. What is happening to the Bandipur and Nagarhole, and certainly in other forest reserves as well, should not be condoned or tolerated even, but we first need the government to set up a proper framework for both government and private agencies (resorts, expedition companies, etc.) to come up with programmes that are truly core-ecotourism. In the absence of such a framework, no amount of complaining against businesses that merely comprehend the language of commerce; at least, more than they do of sensitivity to nature, or even ecotourism, will provide any solution for the long term.

Another point to note is that an ecotourism programme can be launched in non-forest destinations as well: e.g. temple tourism, arts and crafts, or agri-based village commerce resuscitation, or a visit to the Taj or other national treasures. The point is that a well-rounded programme is imperative beyond the cause of commerce alone.

Cuba at the crossroads

I read in the newspaper a few days ago (4th Nov 2011) that Raul Castro has allowed Cubans to buy and sell property. It perked my attention and on reading a bit further, I thought.... wow.... what a wasted opportunity.
It is being hailed, specially in the neighbouring US, as a lifting of state control on the economy, but somehow I cant stop thinking of the fantastic opportunity that Raul had to create history. This does not mean that I am in anyway sympathising with a fascist regime, or, that I not empathising with the beleaguered Cuban economy that is going through the motions. I am simply bringing a third world perspective.... let us not replicate the mistakes of the so called developed world. Such tales of sorrow resonate all across this country of ours.
Quite obviously, this reaction of mine is a displaced point of view, not knowing the true ground realities, but it begs some scenarios of what if....!
Cuba has some wonderful examples of a strong sustainable and flourishing organic agriculture, and to boot they have a resilient community that is still rich and celebrates the unique culture that is uniquely Cuban. In its communist foundations, Cuba stands for an equitable society. All ingredients for creating a sustainable planning model. So has Raul lost this very opportunity to create such a model?

Let us see some of the areas that could have been explored:

1. Property price variation based on weightage given to select criteria (as given in the consequent points). Indices of growth/appreciation would also be according to these factors. Difference in taxation also according to these criteria.
2. Property price control based on work-home commute corridors and distance of property from major/ potential mass rapid transit system hubs. The further away one stays from these corridors it would be fair to assume that stress on urban infrastructure to cater to these residents would higher. Therefore, the closer one is to work-home commute corridors, the greater the value of the property. The further you live from these commute corridors, the higher the taxation. 
3. Property control based on access to urban infrastructure like water, waste treatment, power etc. 
4. Valuation of asset on property and not property itself..... therefore gain from merely sitting on land will be discouraged. 
5. Tax sops to properties that do the following. The more independent they are, they more sops they get.:
• Those who grow their own food, 
• Those who provide for their own power
• Those who provide for their own water
• Those who manage their own waste
• Those who build sustainably

Of course, this applies to all states and not just Cuba, but I felt that their history gave an advantage to institute such measures.
There could be more to this list.....My reason to explore such alternatives is to see if that would lead to a more sustainable urban model. One that does not see urbanity spiral into a monster that chews into the countryside, one that does not create riches merely due to a speculative land market and so on. Also, such a wishlist need not find translation onto the ground in one Haussmann-ish move, but could be baby steps towards this.
Those like Raul sit on the crossroads of history, and like Frost suggested, could enter its chapters by taking the road less travelled.