sustainability and wise use of natural resources.. are we compromising
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainability and Wise Use of Natural Resources …..Are we compromising?
By Tapas Kumar Ghatak, Geophysicist Domain Expertise in :Urban Environment and
Spatial Mapping
What is the Global ThoughtAbout
Economic growth and sustainability …….. are they mutually exclusive? Striking a balance between uncontrolled with sectorial economic growth and sustainability….. is it possible? …….perhaps we neither recognize nor understand the connection between the Economy and the Earth.…… Perhaps our sense of understanding of such interdependence has been buried by our search for happiness with possessiveness through materialism and economic growth.…….perhaps we would not know what to do if our nations rather we fail to attain higher GDP and our businesses do not make a profit.
So.. are we compromising???• The thought of so called GDP growth without the existence
or not being able to replenish the natural resources has not so far hit our group as yet.
• Is it Because our Voices of sustainability yet to rise toward its peak?
The anxiety is mounting about our process and ability to achieve sustainability, that is, our greed to meet our present needs
while ensuring that future generations will be able to meet their needs.
Concern for the environment which was so far known as Nature has Now matured
• People from government to private enterprise decided to act and take appropriate action.
• Members of the Civic Societies across the world also came forward
• Various group of thinkers in politics, business and science also lined up in the front.
All are univocal about unbounded growth of population, pollution and depletion of natural resources would cause the collapse of physical
growth on earth along with its habitats.
In the last decade, more voices have joined the choir
• Now the realisation started building between the economy and the sustainability of society and environment.
• These new voices add volume and harmony to the chorus, suggesting that we seek alternatives to economic growth perhaps by measuring well-being in terms other than GDP or profit.
Limitless economic growth counters sustainability
Short terms, the benefits of economic growth are many: 1.The more is the businesses and more the nations grow and profit.2. The more individuals have jobs.3. more resources and better quality of life.
Yet in order to grow, the economy also grips on natural resources and emits waste that pollutes the air and threatens
the delicate climate on which life not only survives but also depends.
Behind the scenes is, the unlimited use of limited natural resources
• Fuel like coal , oil and gas that facilitate economic growth and by technological advances that extract the last dregs of energy from the earth.These counterbalancing forces undermine the foundation upon which economic growth is built and, over the long term, create a huge gap and
as time progresses which will swallow up the economy, environment and society itself.
• The continued emphasis on the economic growth it is being established today is diametrically opposed to sustainability of our planet in particular and its life within, in general.
• There has been a progress in developing alternative energy sources to divert us from carbon-based energy, but it is time to bring an end to limitless growth, to rethink our priorities, to conserve and also to reinvent.
SO WE ARE COMPROMISING WITH SUSTAINIBILTY WHEN WE ARE RACING FOR DEVELOPMENT
An Introspection:
How the Global process effects the Local habitation and growth
A direct Impact analysis:
The Kolkata Context
Kolkata Now and Then THEN:-•One of the biggest cities of the world having functional category of services-cum-industry.•In the process, the town, later city, underwent several stages ranging from a garrison town to a company town• and then to a provincial city and then to the headquarters of the Government of British India.
Intermediate Period• Loss in the administrative hierarchy by the
shift of the territorial headquarters to Delhi.• Impact of Industrilasion which were
developing around Calcutta. This city got a major share of the post – world war I industrialization.
• It also started being known as a center of culture, renaissance, films, literature, scientific surveys and other institutions.
NOW• Calcutta has several unaddressed issues as well.• It has been known for its poverty in spite of the
richest people who live here.• One of the major contributing factors to the growth
of this city is its ever-increasing population.• No definite planning programme could be conceived
during the middle part of the century with the growth rate of the city.
• Settlements were erratic, illegal and emotionally biased. Planners had no option but to allow a natural path for its growth.
Is this Non –Sustainable Development can be termed as
“ Man Made Disaster?” and
Are we really ready for the Such Urban Disaster Management?
• “Although the incidence of major natural disasters has not increased, their effects are becoming more severe in the Third World because of the growing numbers of people and structures located in hazard-prone areas. Millions of people in these expanding urban populations are potential victims of disasters of cataclysmic proportions, and even the political and economic stability of many nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America can be threatened.”
Spencer W Havlick
How Much We actually know about my City
And
How Much we actually Bother to know
1792
1817
1852
Early 20th Century
We were and We are
proud what we had
An Introspection of the use of our Natural
Resources which we had….
And what we have….
Urban Area
Rural Area
Vacant Area
Vegetation
Agricultural Field
Predominat Wetlands (East
Kolkata)
Land Use Pattern Analysis (KMA)Land Use Pattern Analysis (KMA)
Year 2005 (1722 sq.km.)
Urban AreaUrban Area Rural AreaRural Area WetlandsWetlands VegetationVegetation Agricultural FieldAgricultural Field Vacant LandVacant Land
Year 2014 (1900 sq.km.)
Maximum Decline
KalyaniBanshberia
Uluberia
Howrah
Barasat
Barrackpore
Kolkata
Baruipur
Kalya
ni
Barrackpore
Barasat
Kolkata
Maheshtala
Baruipur
Location of BorewellsLocation of BorewellsSouthren Part of KMASouthren Part of KMA
Piezometric Depression: KMC area
7m - 10m
1998
HIGHEST RISK AREA
HIGH RISK AREA
MODERATE RISK AREA
Kmc Ward Wise (depression) Risk Areas
Based on NRSC Data 2006
AND THE OBVIOUS EFFECT
Aqua Info• District/ village wise inventory• Area of water bodies• Bathymetry• Aqua culture• Pisi culture• Wise use• Ownership• Community Use• Pereniality• Some more local informatiom
Aqua India :Part of Hoogly Dist. with No of Water bodies (village wise)
Mouza Name No of water Body
Akna 3Amarpur 36Amdabad 16
Benabharui 26Bhushnara 36Charkona 20
Dharma pur 44Erenga 44
Jagannathbati 17Jarura 79
Kamdeb Pur 118Khanagar 16
Khulihanda 44Kodalia 40
Maheshpur 28Narayanpur 18
Noapara 171Patul 29
Sankar Bati 41Simla 131
Sugandha 50Chandanagar Municipal Corporation 1389
Name of Catchment Basin Area of Catchment new (Sq. Km)
Total Population (As per census 2001)
Howrah Drainage Channel 118 1626615
Rajapur Drainage Channel 68.21 327241
Borajala Drainage Channel 55.8 216646
•Dankuni Drainage Channel 210 1239548
Bagher Khal 92.48 401,952
Nawi Khal 114 2304613
Beliaghata Khal and Bangur Cut 220 4223266
•Kaorapukur Khal Charial Khal and Boat Canal 176 2,046,894
•Tolly's Nala 16 583847
•Panchammgram Cannel 46.13 926281
Details of Drainage Basin of Kolkata Metropolitan Area
LAND FORM MAP OF
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN AREA
Dankuni Drainage channel
Panchannagram Drainage Channel
Tally Nala
Kaorapukur, Charial Khal and Boat Canal
Livee Area ( Sq. Km), Pop X 1000, Pop Density X 1000Back Swamp Area ( Sq. Km), Pop X 1000, Pop Density X 1000
Shrinkage of Drainage basins
Type/Year Habitat Land
Wet land Agriculture Land
1922 30% 17% 53%
2004 70% 10% 12%
Increase in habitat Land more than 100% since 1947
The Cumulative Effect
WE AND
OUR GROWTH
year Population X 1000
1,971 7,078.96
1,981 9,249.91
1,991 11,021.92
2,001 13,205.7
2,011 14,057.99
Population history [1]
KMA Annual population change
[1971-1981] +2.71 %/year [1981-1991] +1.77 %/year [1991-2001] +1.82 %/year [2001-2011] +0.63 %/year
This lists ranks buildings in Kolkata that stand at least (72 metres (236 ft), Only completed buildings and under-construction buildings
(Only topped out are included in few selected ward ( 2012-2015 ?)
INTERFERANCE WITH URBANISAION
Map Showing Solid Waste Generation Data Source KMC
PROCESS OF RELOCATION SHOULD BEGIN FROM HERE
INDUSRIES AND
POLLUTION
TOTA
L N
O. O
F IN
DUST
RIES
IN
THE
WAR
DS O
F KM
C
050
100150200250300350400450
No. Of
Industry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Ward No.R O G050
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
No. of
Industry
26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Ward NoR O G
0
50
100
150
200
250
No. of
Industry
51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75
Ward No.R O G
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
No. Of
Industry
76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100
Ward NoR O G
NO
. OF
RED
INDU
STRI
ES
IN T
HE W
ARDS
OF
KMC
Ward wise number of Inflammable Unit Of KMC
Ward Wise Public Open Space In KMC
A SPECIFIC CASE STUDY OF DISASTER IN MY CITY :
RISK IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONE OF KMC
KMC
24 WARDS OF KMC UNDER CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONE
KALI KRISHNA TAGORE STREET
A.P.
C.RO
Y RO
AD
A.J.C
.BOS
E RO
AD
A.J.C.BOSE ROAD
H O
O G
H L
Y R
I V
E R
NORTH
BOUNDARY OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONE OF KMC AREA
KHID
DERP
ORE R
OAD
PARK STREET
DETECTION OF VULNERABLE WARDS OF
KMC WITH GIS
Looking Deeper By
A Micro level
Risk Analysis
Ward No
Elevation 0pen Space Drainage Ground water
Water logging
Urbanisation
Industry
13 LO Minimum Poor Average L L M14 LO Minimum Poor Average Marginal L H
29 LO Minimum Poor Average L L M30 LO Minimum Poor Average Moderate L M31 LO Average Poor Average L H M32 LO Average Poor Average L M M
33 LO High Poor Average Marginal H VH34 LO Minimum Poor Average Acute H VH35 LO Minimum Poor Average L M M
WARD WISE RISK IN BORROGH 3
Borough No
Ward No Constrains potentials
Criteria Nature Criteria Nature3 33 1. Physiography
2. Slope Direction
3. Water Logging.
4. Decadal Growth.
5. Industry.
6. Sewerage
7. Waste
8. Slums
9. Ground water
10. Units with Inflatable storage
1. Sharp Multidirectional surface slope
2. towards North and west of the ward
3. Marginal , 2-4 hrs about 1 Km
4. 10% ( Marginal)
5. Very High ( 340 , census 2004)
6. 14%(existing) 14% ( Proposed) 0f existing Road
7. Waste( MT)/Area -3000 MT, High Waste(MT)/1000 person/yr- 120 MT Marginally high
8. Pockets: 44, Family 4780 9 High
9. Depletion of Water level prominent, Marginally High
10. No: 50 Fire Risk Very High
1. Canal and water ways
2. Wetlands & Water bodies.
3. Park/open Space (no), and per 1000 person
1. Very Prominent in the South and West.
2. No: 20, area 21% Very High
3. No 12, area 0.27 per 1000 person, Good
Criteria for Wards base Analysis for action plan Identification Boro 3,Ward 33
Data Source: Elevation/Slope-:- World bank, KMDA, IIT KGP, Canal:- World bank, KMC, Industry, : Industry Census; KMDA, WBPCB( JICA Project),Water Logging:- World bank, UNICEF, Open Space/Park :- KMC, Sewerage: KEIP, Solid Waste:- KMC, Slum: KUSP, KMC
Borough No
Ward No Constrains potentials
7 58 1. Physiography
2. Slope Direction
3. Water Logging.
4. Decadal Growth.
5. Industry.
6. Sewerage
7. Waste
8. Slums
9. Ground water
10. Units with Inflatable storage
1. Very high surface slope from 0.05m to 6m
2. Surface slope towards Central and North West.
3. EXTREAMLY ACUTE, 12 Hrs to few days in few pockets
4. Low.
5. High ( No 219. Census 2004)
6. 7%(existing) 3% ( Proposed) of existing road
7. Waste( MT)/Area -2400 MT,High Waste(MT)/1000 person/yr- 206 MT very high
8. Pockets: 554, Family 20700 very High
9. Normal.
10. No: 25 Fire Risk Medium
1. Canal and water ways
2. Wetlands & Water bodies.
3. Park/open Space (no), and per 1000 person
1. Very Prominent in the South and North.
2. No: 101, area 15% Very High
3. No : 7 area 0.0.08 per 1000 person, Low
Criteria for Wards base Analysis for action plan Identification Boro 7, Ward No 58
Data Source: Elevation/Slope-:- World bank, KMDA, IIT KGP, Canal:- World bank, KMC, Industry, : Industry Census; KMDA, WBPCB( JICA Project),Water Logging:- World bank, UNICEF, Open Space/Park :- KMC, Sewerage: KEIP, Solid Waste:- KMC, Slum: KUSP, KMC
Borough No
Ward No Constrains potentials
12 108 1. Physiography
2. Slope Direction
3. Water Logging.
4. Decadal Growth.
5. Industry.
6. Sewerage
7. Waste
8. Slums
9. Ground water
10. Units with Inflatable storage
1. Very high surface slope from 0.01m to 5m
2. Lowest in the Central part, low in the eastern part
3. Not reported
4. Very High
5. High ( No 140, Census 2004)
6. 0.007%(existing) 7% ( Proposed) of existing road, Very low
7. Waste( MT)/Area -660 MT,average Waste(MT)/1000 person/yr- 96 MT high
8. Pockets: 14, Family 2770
9. Normal.
10. No: 14 Fire Risk low
1. Canal and water ways
2. Wetlands & Water bodies.
3. Park/open Space (no), and per 1000 person
Criteria for Wards base Analysis for action plan Identification Boro 12, Ward No 108
Data Source: Elevation/Slope-:- World bank, KMDA, IIT KGP, Canal:- World bank, KMC, Industry, : Industry Census; KMDA, WBPCB( JICA Project),Water Logging:- World bank, UNICEF, Open Space/Park :- KMC, Sewerage: KEIP, Solid Waste:- KMC, Slum: KUSP, KMC
Constrains and Potential Leads to Negativity Analysis
and is generally followed by
Preparedness and Mitigation
WHY DID IT HAPPEN
WHEN WE ARE
Politically +ve
• Stability• Vision• Willingness• Involvement • Knowledge• Participation
Economically +ve
• Sufficient flow of fund• International fund• National fund• State fund• Private fund• Joint Venture Fund
Literally +ve
• Highly concuss• High literal percentage• Concentration of
Knowledge center • Literal Heritage• International Recognition
DO These leads to…….
URBANDISASTER Or
RISK IF NOT, Then why
are we threatened ?
Minimum Physically Infrastructure • Minimum Increase in roads/ Highway / Bridge/ flyover • Stagnation in drainage: minimum modernization• No Pvt. Participation in holistic way• No legal binding on sewerage connection• No financial obligation of sustainability
Insignificant Social Infrastructure
• Improper Utilization of knowledge center• Improper distribution of health Centre• Prominence of social divide• Disintegration among social groups• No common platform for citizen interaction• Minimum Stake holder’s participation • No Financial Stake
PLANNINNG POLICIES
PLANNINNG POLICIES
What it should be…
What it is Now
=Development
& Sustainabilty
Where is Communities Involvement?
?
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
• Identification of Apolitical - Organised Communities e.g Educational Institutes, Housing Societies, Slum Dweller, Local Traders(?), Markets(?).
• Identification of Resources persons from the various Groups.
• Interaction and Awareness Building• Circulation of Easy and simple IEC materials
1. Establishing Institutional mechanism for disaster prevention. 2. Emphasis on information collection and analysis.3. Situation Analysis for early warning system4. Mitigation of the impact of disasters5. Preparedness and response 6. Capacity building and Community resource development
INSTITUTIONAL PARTICIPATION
THEN What Next ? For a Perfect Sustainable Planning: Specially
which effects the community maximum
like Disaster, The Must is…..
PARTICIPATE, PLAN AND
PERFORM
CONCLUSION?????
Frankly I do not know…
If you have, let us Share