|
Controlling river pollution
It is imperative that rather than having a reactive approach, we need to think of a proactive approach to provide a practical and a sustainable solution to river pollution, writes M Ashiqur Rahman
RIVER water is considered polluted when it is altered from the natural state in its physical, chemical and microbiological composition and when its suitability for any safe and beneficial use becomes questionable. The signs of physical water contamination may become obvious through bad taste, offensive odours, unchecked growth of aquatic weeds, decrease in the number of aquatic animals, floating of oil and grease, colouration of water and so on. However, more intensive laboratory testing is required to determine the chemical and microbiological water quality parameters such as pH (to measure the level of acidity or alkalinity), dissolved oxygen, biological and/or chemical oxygen demand, phosphorus and nitrogen ion concentration, dissolved solids, heavy metals, salinity, coliform bacteria count and so forth.
Generally, our rivers are being polluted by the discharge of untreated industrial effluent and urban wastewater, agrochemicals, sewage water, storm runoff, solid waste dumping, oil spillage, sedimentation and encroachment. The water quality also depends on effluent types and discharge quantity from different types of industries, types of agrochemicals used in agriculture, and seasonal water flow and dilution capability by the river system. The river Buriganga is a typical example of serious surface water pollution in our country. In the present scenario this river carries only wastewater during the months (November to April) of the dry season becoming toxic during this period. The level of pollution is so high that no aquatic species can survive in it and the situation is getting worse day by day. Test results during the dry season at eight points along the river found the level of dissolved oxygen within 0.6 to 1.8 mg/l at five points and zero at other points. The requisite level of oxygen is more than 5 mg/l for the survival of aquatic lives. In fact, the Buriganga has become a dumping ground of all kinds of solid, liquid and chemical wastes which are generated by the activities in and around the river. Studies show that up to 18,500 cubic metres of liquid wastes, 19,000 kilograms of solid wastes and 17,600 kilograms of biological oxygen demand load go into the Buriganga each day from these sources. The Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Authority sources confirmed that huge quantities of discarded polythene deposits are unearthed near Sadarghat area during dredging.
Like many other countries of the world, river pollution control in Bangladesh has been a burning issue for at least the past two decades. Moreover, abundant research has been undertaken and many recommendations have been forwarded to protect the rivers from further pollution. At the government level since the late 19th century several rules, regulations, policies and strategies have been formulated and a fairly comprehensive set of environmental laws exist to save our rivers from pollution. However, the implementation and enforcement of the policies and the regulations have so far been very ineffective, leading to poorer river water quality. In addition, in many cases the policies and strategies seem far from being practical in terms of their implementation. Though it may appear to be a nightmare to overcome this serious problem but the reality is that we need to get to the core of the problem and implement strategies to safeguard these precious natural resources for the sake of our own survival. It is imperative that rather than having a reactive approach, we need to think of a proactive approach to provide a practical and a sustainable solution to the problem.
The pollution problem of our rivers have become complex because of its multidimensional nature. There are social, economic, political and environmental dimensions to this issue which need to be addressed simultaneously while attempting a sustainable solution to the problem. It is a mammoth challenge for developing countries like Bangladesh where a speedy economic growth is requisite without compromising with the conservation of the natural environment or endangering the livelihood of a particular community such as the fishermen or the farmers.
Like many other developing countries, river pollution control in Bangladesh relies on expensive and somewhat outdated technological solutions transferred from the ‘west’. Moreover, these technologies from industrial countries are not always suitable or easily adaptable to the socio-economic and environmental conditions of developing countries. So far emphasis has been given either on treatment of pollutants through the set up of effluent treatment plants or augmentation of rivers to increase the flow through the construction of river water diversion structures. Even the relocation of the pollution causing agents may not capacitate a permanent solution to the problem unless the pollutants are controlled at their sources through adopting proactive approaches such as cleaner production, recycling and resource recovery mechanism.
Experiences in countries like the United States, Australia and China show that the proactive approaches are being implemented voluntarily by the polluters to reduce their pollutants once the ‘market-based’ mechanisms are introduced. In these systems polluters are not told how much they can pollute or what technology they must use, but their choices will have financial consequences and this will influence the choices they make. With these policies, emission constraints are not source-specific; rather they provide equal incentives to all polluters by increasing the marginal costs of pollution. Moreover, several stakeholders such as producers, consumers, users, government authorities and local community members get directly involved with this process. The importance of inclusion of all the stakeholders (both who generate and manage the pollution) to develop an effective approach for pollution control cannot be undermined.
It is obvious that to protect our rivers from further pollution we need to look beyond the ineffective conventional policies and strategies. We need alternate, innovative and integrated approaches to be implemented to overcome this problem. In this regard, provisions of monetary incentives, rewards and recognitions for the polluters who reduce their pollution may work effectively for reducing the amounts of pollutants which are being discharged into the rivers. The direct involvement of community and civil society can also play a great role for this purpose.
The rivers of Bangladesh suffer from the pollution problem mostly during the dry season (November to April) but the assimilation and the dilution capacity of most of our rivers increase dramatically during the wet season (May to October). This phenomenon of the rivers overrules the application of a uniform acceptable level of the pollutants throughout the year. This opens the possibility for using ‘non-uniform reduction’ measures for the polluters and thus offers flexibility to them in terms of reducing their harmful pollutants for the water bodies.
Another significant issue is that different polluters have different levels of capacity to reduce their pollutants. Some are better off than others to control their pollutants. This tendency opens the opportunity for the application of a tradable permit system for water pollution control. This system allows pollution to be reduced wherever it is least costly to do so and a ‘cap’ guarantees the total allowable emissions are not exceeded. For instance, the Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme of Australia leads the world in using such economic instruments for the effective protection of waterways. This scheme involves a number of point sources of salinity in the Hunter River and the average river salinity has been halved since the scheme commenced in1996, while economic activity and employment have grown substantially. It has thus become a classic example of win-win situation for all the stakeholders who are involved with the use of the river.
Regular monitoring of river water quality (physical, chemical and biological composition) is an important aspect to control river pollution. However, this is an expensive and time consuming ongoing activity which might be difficult for any government agency like the Department of Environment alone to perform the task on a regular basis. Even the powerful agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States assign this task to the community with assistance from the local administration. In Bangladesh we may think of exploring this option to ease the monitoring activity of hundreds of rivers in our country.
We need to shift from the nightmare of river pollution management to the serenity of our beautiful rivers by any means. In summary, a suggestive list of prescription is given below to help make this issue a reality.
* An action plan with its processes has to be developed on the basis of the prospective market-based instruments.
* The method of permit allocation and lifespan of permits need to be addressed.
* An information system should be established to provide potential participants relevant information on river water pollution.
* Procedures for compliance monitoring must be identified for designing a new program.
* A package of incentives, appreciation and recognition of the industries and other polluters who do better work in reducing their pollutants should be developed.
* A system of assessing the environmental reputation of the industries should be developed to measure as criteria in financial lending process.
* A guideline has to be developed for introducing the community monitoring system.
* The concern of the local community regarding the pollution has to be formally recognised by the regulatory authority.
* A strong market pressure should be created on the polluters to shift to cleaner production technologies.
* Environmental education should become mandatory from all primary to tertiary level of educational institutes.
As we would all agree the time has come to take actions to protect our rivers from further degradation and before nature takes revenge on us. However, the prerequisite of taking any action is that we need environmentally aware and enlightened people for the purpose. Awareness about the negative consequences of our harmful activities which ultimately affect our precious natural resources including rivers can minimize the damage caused to them in many folds. That is why it is high time to stress on environmental education from the primary to the tertiary level of studies in our country because learners of today are the leaders of tomorrow.
M Ashiqur Rahman, a senior lecturer of the North South University, is currently on a study leave to pursue PhD in environmental management at the University of Sydney, Australia.
Barack Obama’s hundred days
The United States president reaches a landmark in office with the achievements of his first term already in the balance, writes Godfrey Hodgson
FRANKLIN Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated on March 4, 1933. ‘This nation asks for action,’ he said in his inaugural address, and he answered the call. By the time Congress adjourned on June 15, he had sent it fifteen messages and persuaded it to pass fifteen major pieces of legislation. And they were major. They included the Banking Act and the Glass-Steagall Act, separating commercial and investment banking; the Agricultural Adjustment Act to establish a policy to save American farming; and the National Industrial Recovery Act to do the same for industry. He set up the Tennessee Valley Authority and sponsored an international financial conference, passed numerous reforms of the mortgage industry and took the United States off the gold standard.
These were the famous ‘hundred days’, in the course of which Roosevelt saved American capitalism and – some would say – saved American democracy as well. The period set a standard by which the wisdom and effectiveness of future presidents was to be judged.
In 1961, media judgement of the achievements of John F Kennedy’s first hundred days in office was harsh (and the president was no less self-critical). He had been far from inactive. But his successes were seen as having been cancelled out by the catastrophic failure of his attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro’s regime in Cuba. Kennedy, asked how he liked being president, answered wryly that he had liked it better before the Bay of Pigs.
Even JFK’s humiliation could not compare with the original hundred days, which measured the interval between Napoleon’s escape from exile on the island of Elba and his decisive defeat at Waterloo.
Barack Obama approaches the end of his first hundred days in office with a record that lies somewhere between those of Roosevelt and Napoleon. He has been as active as FDR; avoided any disasters; and has certainly not met his Waterloo. This is, then, a good moment to assess how he has performed so far in terms of what he wants to achieve, and what his supporters expect from him.
In the world’s eye
FOR President Obama to do better than his predecessor internationally was always going to be easy. For George W Bush was disliked by huge numbers of the world’s people, and an even larger proportion of their leaders; indeed, the degree of loathing exceeded that visited on almost any other American president.
But Obama has not just basked in the widespread relief at his arrival in the White House; he has also acted well. He said on his first day in office that he would close the Guantánamo prison camp, and is working on it; within a few more days he had struck the note the world wanted to hear on Iraq, on torture and on climate change.
His meetings in Europe and Turkey for a series of summits on April 2-7, 2009, and in Trinidad & Tobago for the Summit of the Americas on April 17-19, were an almost unqualified success. People everywhere liked and trusted him. (The one partial exception was his urging the European Union to accept Turkey as a member: the reaction in Washington if France’s Nicolas Sarkozy were to urge the United States to accept Mexico as the fifty-first state!)
Only gradually has it emerged that while Obama may understand the world’s anger at the Bush administration’s hubris and rudeness, his own foreign policy in many ways is set to continue the established themes of American policy. He might be ready to draw down US forces in Iraq; but only to send more to Afghanistan. He might have appointed excellent regional special envoys – Richard Holbrooke, George Mitchell, Dennis Ross; but with no expectation of dramatic progress in their areas of responsibility.
Obama’s public demeanour may be hugely welcomed across the world. But the US under his leadership will still pursue many of America’s great-power goals. The fist might open into a handshake, but his remains a project for a new – if less aggressive – American century.
In the domestic arena
AT HOME, as the hundred days end on April 29, President Obama’s record is even more ambiguous. No one doubts his determination to drag the American economy out of the quagmire. Many doubt whether his administration (studded as it is on the financial side with those most associated with the policies that caused the trouble in the first place) knows how to do the job.
Equally, no one doubts the sincerity of his reform agenda. But many doubt whether, given the slowdown of the economy and the ballooning of the budget deficit, he will be able to advance his social and environmental goals: introducing universal healthcare insurance, investing on a significant scale in public education, and reducing America’s dependence on imported energy.
Only a fool, said JP Morgan, would ‘go a bear’ on the United States. But a very large number of fools did ‘go a bull’ on a scale that has come close to ruining the world’s strongest single economy (and thus, in a globalised economy, to ruining everyone else’s).
Indeed, what President Obama’s first hundred days illustrate is the limited ability of the American presidency to respond to the country’s real needs. The glamour, the excitement and the appeal of the US presidency were graphically on view at the inauguration on January 20 – but almost immediately the limitations of presidential power were apparent.
This is highlighted by the fact that key offices in the treasury remained unfilled for weeks at the height of the worst financial crisis since the early 1930s – because a constitutional provision requires high offices to be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, ensuring a slow process at the best of times.
It is also clear in the president’s difficult relationship with Congress. The legislative process in the House of Representatives (which controls money bills) is encrusted with the new system of ‘earmarks’ and other special interests that tread close to the borders of corruption. In the Senate, an administration’s need (thanks to comparatively new conventions) to in effect win three-fifths of the votes to pass legislation makes the process lengthier. In both chambers, the committee system – cumbersome and exposed to special-interest lobbying – is now closer than ever to paralysis.
The problems are compounded by the fact that among the many high-minded people in Congress, there are few towering figures. In part, this is because the public sees the political system as dominated by presidential will and presidential action – an illusion that the media (and especially) television has reinforced. The president is portrayed as dynamic, the Congress and other institutional rivals as bumbling. The use of phrases such as ‘commander-in-chief’ and ‘leader of the free world’ for the president, contrasted with the supposed parochialism and self-interest of senators and congressmen, further exaggerates the contrast.
In the balance
ALREADY, as the hundred days come to an end, older political realities have reasserted itself. The forces of inertia look heavier than ever. The Obama administration acted with decisiveness and energy to recapitalise the banks. The bankers simply took this as an opportunity to strengthen their balance-sheets and keep paying themselves bonuses. The country’s manufacturing industry is in such a poor shape that Fiat is seen as a potential saviour for both Chrysler and General Motors. The faint signs of revival on Wall Street contrast with the bleak outlook on Main Street, where real-estate values continue to fall and unemployment continues to rise.
When I travelled across the United States at the time of the inauguration to discuss The Myth of American Exceptionalism [Yale University Press, 2009] – a book that is very critical of aspects of American democracy – I was constantly asked how I could say such things when America had just elected Barack Obama. My reply was twofold: that the double task of reforming the inequalities and the inefficiencies of American society while rescuing an imploded financial system seemed almost beyond the strength even of the strongest president; and that in any case the presidency did not now have the powers or the influence it would need to complete this task.
The presidency, after all, was far from all-powerful even in Franklin Roosevelt’s day. FDR complained that getting the Washington government, and especially the US navy, to do what the president wanted was like punching a pillow. In All Things to All Men: The False Promise of the Modern America Presidency (1980), I showed in detail how Roosevelt had responded to challenges as frightening as those confronting Barack Obama by using a range of instruments – the Congress, the Democratic Party, the permanent government, and the press and radio – to lessen his isolation within the constitutional system. ‘By the end of his twelve years in the White House’, I wrote, ‘the temporary shift in the balance of power between the President and the Congress resulting from then dramatic initiatives of the Hundred Days had become the way Washington worked.’
‘For all that’, I went on, ‘he had done nothing to change the rules of the game. He had simply shown how it was possible to win most of the time. In so doing, he had greatly heightened expectations – both in Congress and in the nation – of what his successors would be able to accomplish.’ FDR’s presidential domination is not the way Washington works today.
The fact that Roosevelt was president during a period of unprecedented crisis at home and abroad may have strengthened his authority as well as testing it, yet this still did not permit a permanent change. The six decades since Roosevelt’s death have seen all of his successors, several of them men of great force of character and formidable political skill, fail to make the system work as well as he did.
Harry Truman, working with the presidency as Roosevelt had left it to him, did as well as anyone. Dwight D Eisenhower did better, as historians now recognise, than his liberal critics thought at the time. Both John Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson, activist Democratic presidents, complained vociferously of their powerlessness and railed against the constraints of the system.
After them, the president’s situation became even harder. Richard M Nixon was driven from office amid scandal. Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were derided, then defeated. Ronald Reagan came to the White House announcing that government was the problem, not the solution, a belief that did nothing to make government more effective. George HW Bush was an excellent foreign-policy president, but unsuccessful at home and defeated in a re-election bid. Bill Clinton only narrowly avoided ejection and George W Bush became a model of unpopularity.
If the American president has (as the textbooks say) to perform the roles both of an elected monarch and a consecrated prime minister, the record of the past two generations suggests that the monarchical attributes of the office have fared better than its administrative and political fortunes.
Barack Obama has in his first three months confirmed his possession of formidable political skills. The question must be whether they will be enough to help him transcend the very real constraints and weaknesses of what is constantly, but inaccurately, described as the most powerful office in the world.
openDemocracy, April 27. Godfrey Hodgson was director of the Reuters’ Foundation Programme at Oxford University, and before that the Observer’s correspondent in the United States and foreign editor of the Independent
Begging free Dhaka
The national parliament passed a law last month against begging on the streets. Despite the law, begging goes on unabated.
Dr Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel laureate, once said that Bangladesh will become hunger free within a very short time. He and his organisation, in their own way, working towards that goal.
I would like to request Dr Muhammad Yunus to take up some projects so that Dhaka as well as other big cities becomes free from beggars.
Sheuly Haque
Tarash, Sirajgonj
Human face and civility in politics
The political scenario presented in the media nowadays demonstrates that Bangladesh is lacking human face and civility in politics. Our two popular leaders are making them controversial. People are watching them closely and expecting them to live up to the expectation of the people and their political promises. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, is a popular and well known personality throughout the world including Bangladesh.
I hope that our viewers had the opportunity to watch the swearing in ceremony of Hilary Clinton as secretary of state in her office. Hillary Clinton is an example of civility in politics and represent the human face of American foreign policy which has so far been seen a ‘hawkish’ face. Our leaders could also learn civility in politics and give up mud slinging — a failed game played in the past.
A reader
Via e-mail
Obama’s 100 days
Every single day over the last 100 days whenever I have opened the newspaper, I read something positive that Obama has done. What a BIG change to all the miserable and bad news of the past eight years!
Sharmin
USA
* * *
It is too soon to make any comments about Obama’s progress as a president but surely he needs to look at his foreign policies and the mistake already made by America, for example, the general perception of the people is that America fully supports the Israelis when it goes on to kill the Palestinians without giving regards to their basic human rights, Geneva Convention, etc.
Zubair
Via e-mail
|
Next on Quick Comments
| |
a) Power struggle throws local admin in disarray: MPs find UNOs on their side in row with upazila chairmen (New Age, April 29)
b) Textbook crisis forces many schools to defer exams (New Age, April 29)
c) IMPACT OF PROCUREMENT PRICES: Rice prices increasing steadily in wholesale markets (New Age, April 29)
d) BKMEA for suspension of gas supply to more fertiliser plants (New Age, April 29)
|
‘Quick Comments’, (01713-065-354, letters@newagebd.com, quickcomments@gmail.com ) seeks the readers’ instant reaction ondifferent national and international issues. Comments should be brief, not exceeding 150 words. Submissions should mention ‘Quick Comments’ and will be subject to editing for quality and clarity..
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
