Death by Zealot

The good people of the so-called developed world are concerned about environmental damage by development, climate change due to de-forestation and all that. They are right to be so concerned. But I wonder if they realize how their good intentions are interpreted by zealot bureaucrats in remote places. As those bureaucrats see it, they have a duty to follow the law, and anyone found approving projects which have not followed the Federal environmental procedures will get a serious slap on the wrist or worse.

Now here’s a good project: clearing a road which had been built decades ago but which had become impassable due to fallen trees, dilapidated bridges etc. Using village labour at a cost of a few thousand dollars we can clear enough road to allow bicycles through and thereby allow the residents of many villages to bring their produce to market. What possible argument could there be against this project? Indeed it was approved by a careless, rebellious or maybe simply well-intentioned person in the office of a respectable development agency. But he shouldn’t have approved it, and received a written reprimand for allowing it through. Had he not considered that opening such a road could allow more poachers to kill the animals in the forest? And that it could cause erosion? Etc etc? A full-fledged Environmental Impact Study should have been done (at a cost far greater than the project itself).

This sad story repeats itself daily. We are offering small grants for infrastructure improvements. A particular favourite is to build toilets so that school children do not have to go behind the bushes. A very sensible public health intervention, one would think, reducing the risk of spread of disease very substantially. NOT ALLOWED! Have you thought about where the effluent will go? Have you thought about the impact of construction activities on previously undeveloped land?

Another favourite is to rehabilitate classrooms by replacing the roofs and plastering the walls. NOT ALLOWED! Have you considered the extra run-off from the metal roofs? Have you thought about the impact that the construction labour might have on the locality?

One could (should?) fight back. One should point out, for example, the risks of cholera and worse that the present conditions present; or the fact that a few square metres of roofing will make the difference between going to school and not going to school for many children. One should argue that such little projects, a tiny drop in the ocean for a development agency, mean a tremendous amount to the poor villagers. Yes, but . . .

The person who rejected our little projects may well, privately, have had the same view, but to her the law had to be followed. No amount of discussion is going to change her decision: the law is the law. She had a duty to stop these projects: the environmental risks were, according to the official guidelines, too high.

Eventually we got the matter raised at a higher level, and her decision was, much to her chagrin, overturned. It was agreed that, in order to comply at a token level, we could do a community-led environmental impact assessment.

Meanwhile, the grievance felt by the person whose decision was overridden may come back to haunt us: she has other ways of throwing her weight about.