A CONVERSATION BETWEEN NEELANJAN SIRCAR, BHANU JOSHI, ASHISH RANJAN, AND RICHA BANSAL
ELECTION STUDIES POLITICS PODCAST
The Uttar Pradesh (UP) state elections of 2017 saw the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, script an unprecedented and unexpected landslide victory in the state.
In the 12th episode of CPR’s podcast, ThoughtSpace, (above), Richa Bansal talks to Senior Fellow Neelanjan Sircar, and Research Associates Bhanu Joshi and Ashish Ranjan, who spent months conducting intensive field research in UP, to deconstruct BJP’s victory.
Drawing on their experience from the field and analysing available data, Sircar, Joshi and Ranjan explain the strategy that catapulted BJP to a historic win, as well as what this means for UP’s future, and for the general elections of 2019.
A CONVERSATION BETWEEN RICHA BANSAL AND SENIOR FELLOW NAVROZ DUBASH
PODCAST CLIMATE RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order to promote US energy independence and economic growth, which can potentially damage global efforts to limit climate change.
In the 14th episode of CPR’s podcast ThoughtSpace, Richa Bansal talks to Navroz Dubash to unpack the implications of this order further, and understand how it will impact India’s strategic interests, including the role India can play, going forward.
A CONVERSATION BETWEEN RICHA BANSAL AND FELLOW DR NAMITA WAHI
PODCAST LAND ACQUISITION RIGHTS
The Land Rights Initiative at CPR recently completed a study of Supreme Court cases on land acquisition in India from 1950 to 2016. This study examines land disputes along various metrics, as well as analyses litigation under the newly enacted Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) for the three year period, 2014 to 2016.
In the 15th episode of CPR’s podcast ThoughtSpace, Richa Bansal talks to Dr Namita Wahi, a Fellow at CPR who heads the Initiative, to unpack the findings of the study, delving particularly into the massive imbalance between the state and land-losers, including possible ways forward.
A CONVERSATION BETWEEN RICHA BANSAL AND SENIOR FELLOW MANJU MENON
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RIGHTS PODCAST
Manju Menon, Senior Fellow at CPR, leads research on environmental justice with her team, in collaboration with another organisation called Namati. In the 16th episode of CPR’s podcast ThoughtSpace, Richa Bansal talks to Menon to unpack her research, including the context; how the research is put to action on the ground through training personnel to find solutions; and the impact this action research project has had.
A CONVERSATION BETWEEN RICHA BANSAL AND T R RAGHUNANDAN, ADVISOR TO ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVE
BUREAUCRACY POLITICS PODCAST
Corruption is a systemic problem in India and a recently released report categorised states in India by their level of corruption. T R Raghunanadan, an advisor to the Accountability Initiative (AI) at CPR, is a pioneer on corruption work and was the programme head of the first website launched to address the issue called ipaidabribe.com. In In the 18th episode of CPR’s podcast ThoughtSpace, Richa Bansal talks to Raghunandan to understand corruption systemically; break down the different types of corruption and the various ways in which both the state and citizens can tackle it.
Raghunandan also wrote a series on blogs on corruption for the AI website, listed below:
The Corruption Survey – A Critical Analysis
Perception and Incidence of Corruption – A Critical Analysis
Crafting a Meaningful Measure for Corruption: Some Suggestions
A Useful Measure of Corruption: How it can be Designed
Measuring People’s Thoughts, or Corrupt Transactions?
PART 6 OF A SERIES ON ‘COASTAL REGULATION’ BY THE CPR-NAMATI ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE PROGRAM
COASTAL GOVERNANCE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RIGHTS
After three Right to Information (RTI) Applications and a file inspection, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) shares the draft MCRZ Notification, 2017 but full details are yet to be revealed.
On 22 March, 2017, leading national dailies carried the news of the existing Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011 being replaced by a new framework called the Marine Coastal Regulation Zone (MCRZ) Notification, 2017. It was clear that a new law was on the anvil, but its contents were not publicly available. The ministry had only shared copies of the “stakeholder” meetings on MCRZ, in response to an RTI application earlier. A copy of the proposed MCRZ Notification, 2017 was accessed by Meenakshi Kapoor of the CPR-Namati Environment Justice Program following a file inspection on 23rd May 2017. Yet again, the ministry failed to disclose suo moto the proposal to amend the CRZ Notification despite directions of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in 2008 and 2016 and the government’s commitment to transparency.
The draft notification proposes significant changes to the manner in which the coastal zones are to be managed and regulated for variety of activities. The proposed changes are not only a change in nomenclature with the word “Marine” appended to the law, but have far reaching social and ecological implications:
Temporary tourism facilities will be allowed in Ecologically Sensitive Areas (MCRZ I). CRZ Notification, 2011 does not allow temporary tourism facilities in CRZ I areas.
Development in urban areas (MCRZ II) to be regulated as per prevailing local laws. CRZ Notification 2011 allows development in CRZ II areas as per the town and country planning norms of 1991. This was done to acknowledge the need of the local town and country planning norms to be aligned with Coastal Regulation Zone notification, which was issued for the first time in 1991.
Housing and basic infrastructure for local inhabitants will be allowed after 50 metres from the High Tide Line in rural areas (MCRZ III). The CRZ Notification, 2011 permitted houses for coastal communities after first 100 m of CRZ III areas.
State and Union Territory Governments are to prepare tourism plans for their respective MCRZ areas. No such tourism plans are mentioned in the CRZ Notification, 2011 (see detailed comparison between the current and the proposed Notification here).
Area under MCRZ will depend only on tidal demarcations (High Tide Line (HTL) and Low Tide Line (LTL)). Whereas, the CRZ Notification, 2011 links the CRZ area with Hazard line in addition to HLT-LTL demarcation (see details here)
While the notification proposes changes to coastal regulation, the details of the new clauses lie in the 10 annexures that are to go along with the MCRZ Notification. The proposed MCRZ accessed contains mention of these annexures, however, they were not made available at the time of the file inspection. These annexures cover the following aspects of coastal regulation:
I- Methodology for HTL-LTL demarcation
II- Guidelines for preparation of Marine Coastal Zone Management Plans (MCZMP)
III- List of tourism zones
IV- Kinds of Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs)
V-List of the ESAs in each coastal state and Union Territory
VI- Guidelines for constructions in MCRZ I
VII- List of areas that need special shoreline protection measures
VIII- List of municipal towns
IX- Guidelines for development in MCRZ III areas
X- Guidelines for preparation of tourism development plans
XI- List of minerals and hydrocarbons that can be extracted with due permission (despite a prohibition on mining in the MCRZ) in each state and Union Territory.
XII- Composition, tenure and mandate of National, State and District marine Coastal Zone Management Authorities (MCZMA).
XIII- Guidelines for collection of fees and usage of MCRZ fund
XIV- Guidelines for preparation of Integrated Island Management Plans
Since 2014, the entire process of reviewing and revising the CRZ Notification, 2011 has been a closed-door exercise. Instead of the Ministry inviting suggestions and feedback from coastal communities, researchers, urban planners and legal experts on the implementation of the CRZ Notification and proposals for reform, there has been reluctance to share the details of this review.
For over a year and a half, despite repeated RTI applications, the report of the committee that reviewed the CRZ Notification, 2011 was not made public (read how CIC directed the MoEFCC to disclose the report). Four of the nine amendments made to the notification in the last three years were issued without seeking public comments on those (see details here).
This file inspection revealed that even the ministries that were asked to provide comments on the MCRZ Notification on 20 March 2017 were also not provided full information related to the MCRZ, in particular the annexures. In April 2017, the Ministry of Earth Sciences and Ministry of Tourism requested the MoEFCC to share copies of these annexures before they furnished their comments on the draft.
Researchers, activists, fishing unions and coastal communities have been persistent in their efforts to have an informed and participatory review of the primary law governing India’s coastline, the CRZ, 2011. Fisher groups across the country have written to the Ministry based on what was revealed in the news reports, as there has been no attempt by the government to involve them. Such a participatory review is critical because changes in the coastal regulation will have a direct bearing on over 3200 marine fishing villages and several million residents living across India’s coastline.
Watch the full video (above) of the talk by Pronab Sen, where he deconstructs what he calls the ‘puzzle’ of Indian urbanisation. According to him, contrary to global experiences, in India, migration began to decelerate when less than 25 per cent of the country’s population came to reside in urban areas.
His talk addressed the need to understand this unique development experience in India, and aimed at raising more questions than providing answers.
Pronab Sen is currently the Country Director for the International Growth Centre’s India Central Programme. He was also the first Principal Economic Adviser at the Government of India’s Planning Commission.
The Q&A session that followed can be accessed here. More information about the event can be found on the event page.
AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PANELISTS AT THE CLEARING THE AIR SEMINAR SERIES
AIR POLLUTION
On 1st February 2018, the Initiative on Climate, Energy and Environment (ICEE) in partnership with the Urbanisation focus area at CPR organised a panel focusing on how transportation impacts air pollution in the Delhi NCR, looking at possible solutions, both immediate and long-term. The following Q&A is based on the discussion between moderator Mukta Naik (CPR) and panelists Sumit Sharma (Fellow and Associate Director at Earth Science and Climate Change group of TERI), Parthaa Bosu (air pollution expert), and Amit Bhatt (Director of Integrated Urban Transport at WRI India).
Vehicles are often underplayed as a source for air pollution. Yet they are obviously both a significant source as well as an opportunity for intervention in a rapidly urbanising context. How would you characterise the contribution of vehicular emissions to the air pollution issue in Delhi NCR and beyond?
Sumit Sharma: To begin with, India’s ambient air quality standards are far higher than WHO norms so even air that is ‘clean’ by our standards is not really clean or healthy. When one goes down from all-India to city-level pollution data, the figures are alarming. In urban areas, vehicles contribute a significant share to air pollution, particularly PM10/PM2.5, but also NOX, VOC and BC emissions. There is no single factor influencing the contribution in Delhi NCR or beyond but it is impacted by vehicle density in a location, age of vehicles on road, fuel type, and speeds at which vehicles are moving.
Parthaa Bosu: Vehicular emissions are a function of the fuel quality, adulteration, and its monitoring, including a lack of technology to measure adulteration. In Delhi NCR and beyond, we see that vehicular traffic on the road is not just conventional urban transport (whether private or public), but also increasing volumes of freight. With penetration of e-commerce there’s been an explosion of “Urban Freight”, which has both direct as well as indirect ways of contributing to air pollution. Enforcement is also a problem: stipulated older vehicles are officially not allowed to ply in Delhi NCR, but they continue to do so.
Amit Bhatt: Our understanding on the impact of transport emissions on health is still evolving. However, physical exposure to pollutants is an important factor. This exposure is the maximum during commuting. In Delhi NCR and beyond, exposure levels will vary depending on the type of vehicle and time of commute, and understanding this micro context is important.
Delhi–NCR has seen a number of policy responses to the problem of vehicular pollution, such as shifting of transport vehicles to CNG, Odd-Even scheme etc. Despite this, the problem continues to persist and even worsen. Why have the earlier policy responses to vehicular pollution not worked adequately? Are current responses likely to face the same fate?
Sumit Sharma: Historically, policy responses to pollution, in Delhi NCR and beyond, have largely driven by the court without adequate understanding of the full context – for instance, shifting of polluting industries out of central Delhi to upwind areas such as Bawana is not helpful since the pollution will be blown back towards the city. Given that transport is a major contributor to PM 2.5, the move towards cleaner Bharat Stage–VI fuel is essential. However, this will only prevent emissions from increasing further and not reduce it from the present level. In terms of improving fuel standards, India has been an early mover, but these gains have been constrained by increase in the number of vehicles as well as presence of old vehicles on the road.
Parthaa Bosu: Fuel quality is a major issue, which has not been given adequate importance. Merely shifting a section of transport to cleaner fuels will not help as vehicles of older technology are still plying. Fuel standards must be nationwide. The PUC emission testing system for vehicles is also broken.
Availability of quality public transit is an important factor. While investments have been made in Delhi’s public transit system, it still does not adequately dis-incentivise owners of private vehicles. It is still cheaper and/or faster to use private vehicles, especially after the recent Metro fare hike. Multi-modal integration and last-mile connectivity remains as a deterrent for people to take public transport. Poor gender planning of a city also has bearings on air pollution, every individual should feel secure to travel on their own, else they will depend on personal vehicles for completing the trips or last mile.
The urban freight sector has not been factored into policy planning for emissions. With the e-commerce and logistics market expanding rapidly in Delhi-NCR and other urban centers, this is also likely to be a major source of pollution. There is no transition plan for trucks – merely restricting their entry or diverting them will not help in the long run.
The lack of scrappage policy means that vehicles which are old or burn dirty fuels have just moved from Delhi to NCR, and then slightly beyond. PM2.5 can travel more than hundreds of kilometres, so banning old vehicles in Delhi while allowing them ply just 20 or 50km away cannot be a solution at all.
Amit Bhatt: Policy has hitherto disproportionately focused on transport vehicles without restricting private vehicles. In Delhi, the reduction in emissions due to transition of public vehicles to CNG was offset by the large increase in private vehicles. Even public transit has not expanded adequately – Metro coverage is slowly increasing but the bus fleet is well below the number required. Due attention needs to be paid to modal share in transport planning- less than 15% of Delhi moves by car, 25-30% by 2-wheeler. The share of buses is falling, but given buses offer least exposure, they should be prioritised.
The Central Government’s plan of transitioning to an all-electric fleet needs to include massive infrastructural expansion for electric vehicles, and a plan to deal with the vehicles that will have to be replaced. There is a serious lack of policy clarity- if we are pushing aggressively for e-vehicles by 2030, there is no roadmap for the transition.
What should be the policy priorities for reducing vehicular emissions? Where do you see quick gains?
Sumit Sharma: I would say, in the context of fleet age, there is a need to have a scrappage policy and invest in modernisation of vehicle fleets. Similarly, responses during episodic peaks are important but not sufficient: the odd-even scheme, for instance, had only limited efficacy. There also needs to be better monitoring and dissemination of information to help the commuting public take informed decisions regarding commuting and transportation.
Parthaa Bosu: Policy solutions to pollution must consider a national approach, while at present they are too city-centric for a problem that is regional and even trans-boundary. For instance, a registry of in-use vehicles is needed. Finally, the policy vision must be long-term and not restricted like all the earlier initiatives which were short-term or focused on only a small segment of the vehicular population.
Amit Bhatt: As I said earlier, from the perspective of reducing exposure, public buses must be prioritised. Focusing on reducing commute time to reduce exposure by giving priority to public transport might also offer quicker gains, for example the odd-even did not succeed in significantly bringing down pollution levels, but it did reduce exposure and this should become an important public debate too.
CPR faculty analysed the reasons behind the failure to implement the Act in a series of articles and reports.
The State of the Nation report co-authored by CPR’s Accountability Initiative reviewed one of the key clauses of the RTE Act, which made it mandatory for private schools to reserve 25% of seats for children from economically weaker sections.
In an op-ed for the Pioneer, Ambrish Dongre suggested methods for streamlining reimbursements by state governments to ensure that this provision was met by private schools.
Kiran Bhatty, in an incisive article in Governance Now, pointed out that a complete lack of understanding of education within the ‘rights framework’ has meant that no district in the country shows compliance with RTE norms.
The Sarva Shiskha Abhiyan budget brief produced by the Accountability Initiative tracked budgetary allocations by the government for Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, the primary vehicle for implementing RTE, and how this has been steadily reducing over the years.
PART 8 OF A SERIES ON ‘COASTAL REGULATION’ BY SHIBANI GHOSH FOR THE CPR-NAMATI ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RIGHTS COASTAL GOVERNANCE
Shibani Ghosh is an environmental lawyer and Fellow at CPR.
The Supreme Court of India has often been commended for its vital role in protecting the environment. One of the areas of environmental concern where the Supreme Court’s involvement has been crucial is the protection and conservation of India’s coastal environment. In the context of the proposed amendments to the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification 2011, a law that permits varying degrees of land use in demarcated coastal areas, Ghosh looks at three judgments of the Supreme Court. These judgments not only express deep concern about the state of India’s coastal environment and the urgent need to protect it, but also establish the principles that the Court thinks should guide government’s action on the environment generally and the coasts specifically.
The three judgments
The first judgment was delivered in Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action v Union of India [(1996) 5 SCC 281]. It highlighted that Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs) which were to be prepared by State Governments had not been finalised despite the passage of the statutory period of one year. It also challenged the amendments made to the law by the Central Government in 1994 to relax certain prohibitions.
The Court directed the Central and State Governments to finalise the CZMPs. On the issue of non-enforcement of environmental laws, the Court observed that ‘[e]nactment of a law, but tolerating its infringement, is worse than not enacting a law at all. … Continued tolerance of such violations of law not only renders legal provisions nugatory but such tolerance by the enforcement authorities encourages lawlessness and adoption of means which cannot, or ought not to, be tolerated in any civilized society’. The Court also found two of the 1994 amendments – that reduced the no-development zone (NDZ) – to be illegal. It asked the Central Government to consider constituting State and National Coastal Zone Management Authorities (CZMAs) for the effective implementation of the 1991 Notification.
In a landmark judgment in S. Jagannath v Union of India [(1997) 2 SCC 87], the Court referred to expert reports to identify the adverse impacts of coastal pollution caused by non-traditional and unregulated prawn farming. It held ‘[t]he purpose of the CRZ Notification is to protect the ecologically fragile coastal areas and to safeguard the aesthetic qualities and uses of the sea coast. The setting up of modern shrimp aquaculture farms right on the sea coast … is per se hazardous and is bound to degrade the marine ecology, coastal environment and the aesthetic uses of the sea coast’. The Court decided that prawn farming industries were prohibited in the coastal regulation zones under the CRZ Notification 1991 and their functioning was in violation of various other laws. It, however, excluded traditional systems of aquaculture from this prohibition.
In Vaamika Island v Union of India and Ors. [(2013) 8 SCC 760], the issue before the Court was whether certain properties on an island in the Vembanad Backwaters of Kerala should have been categorised as CRZ 1, which restricts its rebuilding or expansion, in Kerala’s CZMP. The Court held that the properties had been correctly categorised, and that the owner had violated the law by constructing on these properties. The Court upheld the High Court’s direction to demolish the illegal structures.
Guiding Principles
From a review of these judgments, it is possible to identify at least three principles that should guide environmental decision-making by the executive.
First, protection and conservation of our environment is the paramount objective of Indian environmental laws, and decision-making processes under these laws should support the furtherance of this objective.
In Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action, the Court assessed the government’s amendment to allow any construction within the NDZ, i.e. the area within 200 m from the High Tide Line (HTL). The Court invalidated this amendment holding that ‘[n]o suitable reason has been given which can persuade us to hold that the enactment of such a proviso was necessary, in the larger public interest, and the exercise of power under the said proviso will not result in large-scale ecological degradation and violation of Article 21 of the citizens living in those areas’. On the second amendment that relaxed the NDZ for tidal rivers from 100 m from HTL to 50 m, the Court did not see any reason to support a blanket reduction. It concluded that the reduction had been done for ‘extraneous reasons’. The Court held that ‘we are unable to conclude that the said amendment has been made in the larger public interest and is valid. This amendment is, therefore, contrary to the object of the Environment Act and has not been made for any valid reason and is, therefore, held to be illegal’.
In S. Jagannath, the Court held that ‘[k]eeping with the international commitments, and in greater national interest, the Government of India and the Governments of the coastal States are under a legal obligation to control marine pollution and protect the coastal environment’. The Court also highlighted that ‘[a]ny activity which has the effect of degrading the environment cannot be permitted. Apart from that the right of the fishermen and farmers living in the coastal areas to eke their living by way of fishing and farming cannot be denied to them’.
In Vaamika Island, the Court supported the Kerala High Court’s judgement on the CZMP categorisation as the ‘direction was issued by the High Court taking into consideration the larger public interest and to save Vembanad Lake which is an ecologically sensitive area, so proclaimed nationally and internationally. Vembanad Lake is presently undergoing severe environmental degradation due to increased human intervention and, as already indicated, recognising the socio-economic importance of this waterbody, it has recently been scheduled under “vulnerable wetlands to be protected” and declared as [critically vulnerable coastal area]’. It affirmed the High Court’s order of demolition of illegal structures based on a previous decision of the Supreme Court in Piedade Filomena Gonsalves v State of Goa [(2004) 3 SCC 445] wherein the Court had held construction raised in violation of CRZ cannot be lightly condoned.
Second, environmental decision-making must benefit from expert knowledge and inputs, and for any decision which is at variance with such knowledge, the decision-maker should provide clear reasons.
While assessing the validity of the 1994 amendments in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action, the Court considered the recommendations of the Vohra Committee, an expert committee constituted by the Government to consider tourism development in coastal areas, keeping in mind the requirements of sustainable development and protection of fragile coastal ecology. Striking down the two amendments allowing construction in the NDZ, the Court observed that ‘no satisfactory reason has been given by the Union of India as to why it departed from the opinion of the Expert Committee and that too in such a manner that the concession which has now been given is far in excess of what was demanded by the Hotel and Tourism Industry’.
In S. Jagannath, the Court opined that ‘before any shrimp industry or shrimp pond is permitted to be installed in the ecolog[icall]y fragile coastal area it must pass through a strict environmental test… There must be an environmental impact assessment before permission is granted to install commercial shrimp farms… The assessment must also include the social impact on different population strata in the area. The quality of the assessment must be analytically based on superior technology’. This led to the direction to the Central Government to constitute an authority to oversee the protection of coastal areas.
Third, the government cannot arrogate to itself unbridled discretionary powers to dilute environmental norms.
In the absence of proper guidance on how to exercise such powers, the cost to the environment, and the people dependent on it, could be very high. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action, while invalidating part of the 1994 amendments, the Court found that the Government had given itself excessive discretionary powers to relax prohibitions in the NDZ. The Court observed that the amendment ‘which gives the Central Government arbitrary, uncanalized and unguided power, the exercise of which may result in serious ecological degradation and may make the NDZ ineffective is ultra vires’.
As we witness an escalation in environmental conflicts, a blatant disregard for statutory processes, and a deliberate move towards diluting environmental norms, it is instructive to look back at judicial precedents that invalidated previous government attempts to dilute coastal regulation.
Shibani Ghosh would like to thank Yogini Oak for her valuable research assistance that has informed this piece.
The other pieces in this series can be accessed below:
On 10th January 2024, CPR received a notice from the Ministry of Home Affairs cancelling its FCRA status. The basis of this decision is incomprehensible and disproportionate, and some of the reasons given challenge the very basis of the functioning of a research institution. This includes the publication on our website of policy reports emanating from our research being equated with current affairs programming.
During the tenure of our suspension, we sought and obtained interim redress from the honourable Delhi High Court and will continue to seek recourse in all avenues possible.
This cancellation comes after a decision to suspend the FCRA status in February 2023. These actions followed an Income Tax “survey” that took place in September 2022. The actions have had a debilitating impact on the institution’s ability to function by choking all sources of funding. This has undermined the institution’s ability to pursue its well established objective of producing high quality, globally recognised research on policy matters, which it has been recognised for over its 50 years’ existence. During this time the institution has been home to some of the country’s most distinguished academics, diplomats and policymakers.
CPR firmly reiterates that it is in complete compliance with the law, and has been cooperating fully and exhaustively at every step of the process. We remain steadfast in our belief that this matter will be resolved in line with constitutional values and guarantees.
