The Indian State appears clueless while it tries to strike a balance between land requirement for SEZ 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 5000 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 marginalization of the rural landless labours – the poorest of the lot will be hit the hardest.
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 urbanization had been in 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. As leafy suburbs and campus like corporate offices, connected by wide expansive freeways started springing up gobbling up farmlands - alarm bell started ringing amongst the people – forever nostalgic about the sepia tinted images of a pastoral paradise.
Oregon started growing rapidly in the late sixties 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 of urban growth boundary for the cities based on 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 proposal 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 similar land management policy in Indian context. This is particularly essential in high population density regions like 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 need to be encouraged. Take a cruise along the River Hooghly, and you would come across a vast panorama of 19th Century industrial landscape – now derelict and standing as mute spectators of a past glory. 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.
With the onset of globalisation has begun the era of high economic growth. 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 Panchayet level.
Incidentally, the 74th Constitutional Amendment, way back in 1992 had advocated District level planning. But even after 15 years this has largely been a non starter across the country – largely due to apathy at the State level.
To balance the need for industrialisation and farmland protection, it necessary that states take land management and planning up to grass root level.
new page 