Author: cprindia

TALK BY DR DIPESH CHAKRABARTY
CLIMATE RESEARCH

Watch the recording (above) of a talk on 1 March, 2016, by prominent historian, Dr Dipesh Chakrabarty discussing the emergence of the “Anthropocene” (an epoch when human activities have a significant effect on nature), the implications for how we think about climate change, and the blurring of the boundaries between natural and social sciences.

Dr Chakrabarty is the Lawrence A. Kimpton Distinguished Service Professor in History, South Asian Languages and Civilizations at the University of Chicago. He is currently working on two books, provisionally entitled The Climate of History (Chicago) and History and the Time of the Present (Duke).

In the seventh instalment of a monthly op-ed series in the Hindustan Times entitled ‘Clearing the Air,’ Professor Navroz K Dubash outlines five important messages from his recently-released edited book, ‘India in a Warming World: Integrating Climate Change and Development.’

Headlines this week warned that much of Mumbai and its suburbs could be under water due to climate change-related sea-level rise by 2050. Across India, 36 million people — equivalent to the population of Telangana — currently live below the elevation of an annual average flood in 2050.

This is the latest in a string of dire predictions. An ICIMOD assessment of the Hindu Kush suggests a 90% decline in glaciers through this century could place 86 million people in river basins at risk of food and water insecurity, and affect 10 times that number indirectly. Not all studies are projections. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds that warming already experienced between 1981 and 2009 has reduced wheat yields by 5%. Emergent “attribution” science finds that a number of extreme weather events — floods, droughts, and heatwaves — in South Asia are partially attributable to human-induced climate change.

While the exact contours of the future are hard to predict, there is little doubt that climate change carries huge, negative implications for India. While India has historically, and justifiably, focused on our immediate development concerns — eradicating poverty, providing jobs and livelihoods, enhancing access to energy services — it is increasingly clear that climate is salient to development. There is no longer a pathway to development innocent of climate change.

The Indian policy conversation has to shift decisively from whether to address climate change to how to do so, but as part of a larger development challenge. A new collection of essays, India in a Warming World (full disclosure: I edited the volume), brings together scholars, policymakers, and practitioners to explore this question. At least five important messages emerge.

First, to recognise the interplay between climate and development, it is useful to take a sector-by-sector approach, and apply a “multiple-stressors” and “multiple-objectives” framework. Thus, for water, climate change is an additional stressor that can exacerbate existing stressors of urban development, industrial pollution, water-intensive cropping, and land-use change. And the objectives toward which we must manage and harness water are not just climate resilience, but also fair distribution, ecosystem flows, and economic efficiency, among others. This approach helps maintain the balance between development and climate, while accounting for the complexities of sectoral challenges.

Second, this approach can help identify clear areas where there are synergies, and where trade-offs exist, between development and climate objectives. An example of synergies include public transport, which promotes liveable cities and reduces air pollution. Greater efficiency in energy and water use also addresses multiple objectives with no trade-offs. Focusing on adaptation in vulnerable areas such as coastlines also bring large pay-offs. However, an example of a trade-off is the shift to commercial cooking energy such as gas, which brings enormous development gains, but may have climate downsides; in such a case, development imperatives have to be paramount. Fortunately, there are likely far more instances of synergy than trade-offs.

Third, climate change provides an opening, and even an imperative, to look beyond short term fire-fighting to longer term strategic visions of India’s development pathway. For example, the United Nations climate process requires India to produce a “mid-century strategy”. Given that we are locked into some warming, investing in climate adaptation is paramount. But we can also use this process to reflect on the viability of our current development path that has resulted in toxic air and unsustainable waters, quite aside from climate impacts. It also allows us to explore opportunities to remake our electricity sector, and take advantage of recent decline in renewable energy costs to build a competitive low-carbon economy. Climate change provides an opportunity to strategically reflect on both shortfalls and opportunities and set a course correction.

Fourth, these approaches require a high degree of analytical capacity, coordination ability, and strategic intent in climate governance. India will have to do better than thinly staffed climate “cells” in various ministries and departments. Emergent climate institutions need to engage more fully with researchers, develop coordination mechanisms across departmental silos, transcend the separation across national, state and local levels, and create bodies, perhaps akin to a National Security Advisory Board, to chart a strategic course. To understand climate and development in its complexity, make the right trade-offs, and be strategic, India requires improved governance and enhanced institutions.

Finally, climate diplomacy remains important, but with a dual function. Historically, India has focused on ensuring equity in climate outcomes. This remains important, especially as pressures for mitigation action grow with evidence of the scale of climate impacts. But equally, as a deeply vulnerable country, India has to push vigorously for more and more effective, global action on reducing emissions. India should strive to transform global climate politics in response to growing urgency, rather than being content being a relative leader in a class of laggards.

Navroz K Dubash is a Professor at the Centre for Policy Research, and the editor of ‘India in a Warming World: Integrating Climate Change and Development.’ This is the seventh article in a monthly op-ed series in the Hindustan Times entitled ‘Clearing the Air.’ The original article, which was posted on November 2, 2019, can be found here.

Read more in the Clearing the Air series:

India needs environmental governance
Green industrial policy is a timely idea for India to explore
Our clean air plan is a missed chance
Can India grow now and clean up later? No, it can’t
How to avoid the middle income trap
Existentialism with Equity: The Climate Dilemma

Watch the full video (above) of the webinar on ‘Closing the Enforcement Gap: A Practice Guide for Environment Justice Paralegals’ moderated by Manju Menon from CPR.

The webinar is a guide to the lessons from four years of work done by paralegals in India to assist affected communities to seek legal and administrative remedies in over 150 cases of non-compliance, as well as learnings from colleagues working on these issues in Africa and Asia. The guide includes vivid case stories and pictures of paralegals in action. The full guide can be accessed here.

The webinar discusses the Practice Guide for Environmental Justice Paralegals and elaborates on how paralegals and communities can use the law to address environmental harms.

Click here to access the note on the methodology and here for the same note in Hindi.

Find the translation of the paralegal practice guide in Hindi, Gujarati, Odiya, Kannada, Indonesian Bahasa, and French.

The Mormugao Port is located at Vasco bay in the Mormugao taluka of Goa at the point where the Zuari river meets the Arabian Sea. This region is home to thousands of fisherfolk from the Karvi community who live along the beaches of Mormugao, Salcete and Tiswadi talukas. It is a natural harbour that provides safe haven for ships and fishing vessels during storms, like it did in 2017 when cyclone Okchi hit this coast. The lives and livelihood of these fisherfolk are intrinsically linked to the activities of Mormugao port as they have had to share their customary livelihood areas – the sea and the beaches – with the port. This has resulted in them competing for space for their daily activities like fish landing, boat parking, net mending, and even housing with the port and its infrastructure development on the landward side, and competing with larger shipping vessels for navigation space and access to certain parts of Vasco bay.

The Mormugao Port was commissioned by the Portuguese in 1885 and over many years developed 5 berths for import and export of oil, cashews, wine, iron ore, etc. Iron ore export gained importance after 1948. After liberation in 1961, the Mormugao Port was declared a Major Port by the Government of India in 1965. It was after this that major infrastructure developments began at the port and by 1994, the port had built its 11th Berth and soon after this coal handling began in earnest. Mormugao Port Trust (MPT) is now one of India’s oldest and largest ports with 11 berths of which 6 are leased out to third parties. The port handles cargo like coal, iron ore, woodchips, steel coils, gypsum, bauxite, ammonia, other dry bulk, petroleum, oil and lubricants (POL), and also services cruise ships.

In March 2017, it came to light that the MPT was in the process of seeking environment clearance (EC) for three proposals to expand and modernise its existing facilities. Residents of Vasco and the fishing villages around the site realised this when notices for public hearing under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006 were issued in local newspapers. Of these, two proposals were for coal handling capacity enhancement and modernisation of existing Berth 5a 6a and Berths 8 & 9 and barge berths respectively. This was despite long standing resistance from the people of Vasco da Gama in Mormugao taluka and other citizens of Goa against coal handling and resultant pollution.

It was in this backdrop, that a community led groundtruthing study was initiated in April 2018 by Old Cross Fishing Canoe Owners Co-op Society Ltd, Baina Ramponkar, Fishing Canoe Owners Society, Destierro Fisherman Association – Vasco, Goenchea Raponkarancho Ekvott (GRE) and the Centre for Policy Research (CPR)-Namati Environmental Justice Program with support from concerned citizens of Vasco and the Federation of Rainbow Warriors. Impacts that community members were facing due to coal handling at MPT were identified through multiple discussions and the main issues that emerged were:

Increased coal dust in the homes and other areas near the port as a result of open coal handling at the berths, open transportation by trucks and wagons.
Respiratory issues like asthma attacks especially in children and the elderly.
Water pollution from spillage during transport of coal through waterways in barges and washing of barges. Runoff from the stockyard into Vasco bay was also cited, where the fisherfolk of Kharewado, Baina and Desteiro primarily go fishing on a daily basis.
Threat of eviction of fisherfolk living along the beaches abutting MPT in Kharewado, Baina and Desteiro areas for expansion of port activities and road connectivity.
This grountruthing study is also an attempt by the affected community members to understand the environmental impacts of these berths, link them to the regulatory requirements and push for the compliance of the same.

The findings of the study can be accessed here.

Coastal commons for private tourism and entertainment?
PART 1 OF A SERIES ON ‘COASTAL REGULATION’ BY THE CPR-NAMATI ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COASTAL GOVERNANCE RIGHTS

More projects on the coast will put public beach space and fishing and coastal communities at risk

In the last week there have been two news reports on an impending new Marine and Coastal Regulation Zone (MCRZ) Notification replacing the existing Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011. As per the news reports, two big changes in the offing are to open the ecologically sensitive areas of the coast for tourism projects, and lift the ban on reclamation for commercial and entertainment purposes. These changes will have a significant negative impact on millions of locals whose lives are dependent on the coast and its ecological health. They are already paying the price for current illegal violations, captured in narratives below, but the proposed changes will completely sideline their interests.

Background of the CRZ Notification, 2011

CRZ Notification, 2011 governs development on the 7500 km long coastline of India. It notifies 500 metres of land from the sea all along the coast as CRZ, and prescribes a different set of regulations for rural, urban, ecologically sensitive and water areas that are demarcated within this zone. CRZ Notification, 2011, in its original form, allowed tourism in urban and rural areas but not in ecologically sensitive areas of the CRZ. It also put in safeguards such as:

not allowing tourism related structures to be constructed within the first 200 metres of the high tide line (HTL) – this zone is termed as No Development Zone (NDZ) in view of coastal vulnerability;
a 20 metres wide gap between two structures to allow public access to the beach;
and no withdrawal of groundwater within the first 200 metres of the HTL to avoid saltwater intrusion into the groundwater aquifers.
However, these safeguards were removed for urban areas through an amendment to the Notification in February, 2015.

Reclamation for commercial and entertainment purposes is a prohibited activity under the CRZ Notification, 2011. But in 2015, the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) allowed reclamation of sea for construction of roads, memorials and monuments.

Voices from the ground

As per the latest news reports, the MoEFCC is looking to lift the ban on reclamation completely and permit tourism in coastal areas that are ecologically sensitive. Opening up areas for additional activities makes sense only when the existing activities and demands are being handled well. The CPR Namati Environmental Justice Program has recorded several cases of CRZ violations that are related to illegal reclamation and tourism activities. These violations pose significant impacts on people living around such activities. These cases, as described by CPR-Namati’s enviro-legal coordinators below, illustrate how millions of fisherfolk, artisanal salt producers and bivalve collectors are forced to alter their lives in order to make room for ‘new development opportunities’. Reduced income, longer distances to access their sites of work and water sources, or even shifting their sites of work are examples of alterations they are pushed to make. They also find themselves at the receiving end of the negative environmental impacts that are a fallout of the operations of these projects. Thus, their lives and livelihoods, which are closely tied to the ecological health of the coast and unrestricted access to common spaces such as beaches, creeks and estuaries are put to risk with policies that undermine their existence and need for coastal space. The stories below highlight the impacts of tourism projects and reclamation activities for commercial purposes on the coast and the locals.

In the first story Vinod Patgar talks about the inconveniences faced by the coastal communities of Uttara Kannada, Karnataka because of some inherent biases in the CRZ Notification that have given a push to tourism and development.

Government response to coastal violations

These three stories show how commercial activities and tourism projects sidestep the traditional livelihoods of coastal people by committing gross violations of the Notification. These violations go unchecked because the violators have political connections, enjoy favours from government agencies or are seen as symbols of development. Enforcement mechanisms of CRZ law seem to be unable to deter violations on the coast.

CPR-Namati’s enviro-legal coordinators have spent two years bringing well drafted complaints to the notice of district level coastal committees and coastal zone management authorities at the state level, and seeking remedial actions in close to 20 cases. They meticulously build evidence of violations and produce it with these complaints, and yet have to write to these institutions incessantly, and visit their offices at least 3-4 times before they even get an official recognition of the problems faced by the communities. Even after obtaining an official acknowledgment of the problems and their links with the CRZ violations, remedies are not easy to come by.

All the above stories underline the challenges faced in extracting enforcement and remedies from institutions – more stories on impacts of CRZ violations and efforts of the communities at mitigating those can be found in the recent report on effectiveness of environmental laws. If this is the current situation, opening the coasts for more such activities will mean bigger costs and risks for the fishing and coastal communities.

This piece can also be accessed in हिंदी

The other pieces in this series can be accessed below:

Is it the end of participatory coastal planning?
States ask Review Committee to loosen up the Coastal Regulation
Crucial aspects of proposed Marine Coastal Regulatory Zone Notification revealed
In conversation with Dr Shailesh Nayak – the man who led the review of coastal regulation
The proposed Marine Coastal Regulation Zone (MCRZ) Notification
A tale of two reviews: How two governments amended a coastal land use law
The Supreme Court’s guiding principles for coastal regulation
Coastal Regulation Zone Disputes before the National Green Tribunal
CRZ drives a wedge between communities in Mumbai

India’s long coastline of close to 8000 kilometres covers nine states and five union territories. Not only is it home to wetlands, several species of fish, reptiles, crustaceans, corals, mangroves, it also supports the livelihood of around 3300 fishing villages.

An important law that seeks to regulate and manage this diverse stretch, is the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification. A Notification was first issued in 1991, under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), 1986 that regards 500 metres from the High Tide Line (HTL) all along the coast as CRZ. Certain changes were made to the Notification of 1991 and a new Notification was issued in 2011. The amended law of 2011 continues to enable the concerned Coastal Zone Management Authorities (CZMAs), District Level Coastal Committees (DLCCs), and the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to protect and conserve these areas.

A breach of this notification can be challenged before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), both as an appeal as well as seeking remedies on the grounds of it being a substantial question related to the environment. Since its establishment in 2010, the NGT is the primary judicial body for all adjudication under the CRZ.

Since 2012, the principal and zonal benches of the NGT have heard numerous cases concerning violations of the CRZ law. The CPR-Namati Program has attempted to identify the more common disputes, limiting it to three sets of disputes. These have been elaborated upon and substantiated with the help of seven judgments from the NGT, below:

Determining the regulatory authority for certain activities in the CRZ area

One set of disputes which were argued before the NGT is determining whether the State Coastal Zonal Management Authority (SCZMA) is the appropriate regulatory authority for the coastal zones.

The case which best highlights the NGT’s position in this regard is that of Alexio Arnolfo Pereira v. State of Goa (2014 SCC OnLine NGT 6655). In 2013, the State of Goa passed the ‘Tourism Policy for construction of temporary seasonal structures, beach shacks, huts and others 2013-2016’, which is commonly known as the ‘Shack Policy’. This policy was challenged by Alexio Arnolfo Pereira, a resident of Goa, as being contrary to the provisions of the CRZ Notification of 2011. Pereira stated:

The CRZ Notification empowers the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) to regulate activities in the CRZ areas.
He also argued that the Tourism Department of Goa, under the guise of the Shack Policy, was usurping the regulatory powers of the Goa Coastal Zonal Management Authority (GCZMA) by granting permission for shacks/huts on the beaches for tourism purposes.
Thus, the questions before the NGT were: i) whether the temporary seasonal structures in the CRZ areas would require the GCZMA’s permission or not, and ii) whether the current practice for granting No Objection Certificates was as per the CRZ Notification, 2011 or not? Though the NGT decided that the Shack Policy was correct since it did necessitate the organisers of the temporary structures to take necessary permissions from the GCZMA, there were still innumerable shacks in the area which had been set up without any necessary permissions.

Similarly in Kamburam Dharma Paripalana Araya Samajam vs. Kozhikode Corporation and Others ( (22.09.2015 – NGT) : MANU/GT/0160/2015)), the petitioners, a society representing traditional fisher folk brought forth a complaint against certain indiscriminate and illegal constructions on the Kamburam beach. The contention was that since the total investment in the project was in excess of Rs. 5 crores, the project would thus need clearance not only from the Kerala Coastal Zonal Management Authority (KCZMA) but also from the MoEFCC. This argument was advanced on the basis of the 1991 Notification. The 2011 Notification however had no such provision, and as per the 2011 Notification, permission of the MoEFCC would only be required in cases where the built up area of the project exceeded 20,000 square metres. Thus, the petition was dismissed since the constructions had been done only after taking the necessary permissions from the appropriate authority, i.e., the KCZMA.

Another such situation arose when, in the case of Libertina Fernandes v. Goa Coastal Zonal Management Authority (2015 SCC OnLine NGT 61), the appellant’s main contention was that the GCZMA had no authority to direct the demolition of a property, which was admittedly constructed in the CRZ. The contention in the case was that the Village Panchayat was the competent authority to direct demolition of the property by following the course of action contemplated under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The permissions for the property had been taken in the years 1986-1987 under the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayat (Regulation of Building) Rules, 1971. These rules allowed the Village Panchayat to issue regulations only in case of a non-permanent building, the cost of which did not exceed Rs. 20,000. The disputed building, however, was made of steel and concrete and the cost ran into crores. The NGT was of the opinion that the 1971 Act and the CRZ Notification, 2011 are not necessarily conflicting legislations and can operate simultaneously. This is because the object and purpose of the Acts were quite different. Since the construction was in the CRZ area, permission of the GCZMA was required under the law. The absence of any such permission was seen a blatant violation of the CRZ law and the property was ordered to be demolished.

Developmental Activities vs. Livelihoods Rights of Coastal Communities

The second kind of dispute, which emerged from the thicket of NGT decisions, pertained to a clash between historical livelihood use of coastal areas by communities and developmental activities on the coast.

For instance, in Ramdas Janardan Koli and Others v. Secretary, MoEFCC and Others ((27.02.2015 –NGT):MANU/GT/0056/2015)), the traditional fishermen from villages situated in the Uran and Panvel Talukas of Raigad district sought compensation from the City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd (CIDCO), Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) and Oil and Natural Gas Company (ONGC). Their claim was that the widening and deepening of the sea for an additional fourth berth in the JNPT area was impairing the regular tidal water exchanges and in turn affecting the egress and ingress of the fishermen’s traditional boats to the sea through a creek near the JNPT. Further, land reclamation in the area had led to removal of mangroves and this large scale destruction of mangroves had reduced the breeding of fish in the area. Both of these affected their traditional right to catch fish and on this basis the fisher folk claimed compensation. The NGT came to the conclusion that the JNPT, CIDCO and ONGC were responsible for damaging the environment and affecting the livelihood of the fishermen in that area, and ordered the organisations to pay an amount of Rs. 95,19,20,000 to 1630 families.

In Wilfred J. v. MoEFCC ((02.09.2016 – NGT) : MANU/GT/0113/2016)), the MoEFCC issued an Environmental Clearance (EC) and CRZ clearance for the Vizhinjam International Deepwater Multipurpose Seaport on 3 January 2014. This clearance order was challenged in four different petitions. The petitioners ranged from people concerned about the environment, and social workers to local fishing communities and individual fisher folk. The petitions were clubbed and heard collectively. The proposed site for the seaport was south of the Vizhinjam fishing harbour. The coastal and offshore waters of the area was used by the fishermen in the district. These fishermen had been using the existing harbour to venture out safely into the sea during the rough monsoon months for almost 40 years. The establishment of the port thus threatened the basis of their livelihood. With respect to the the CRZ clearance, the main contention of the appellants was that the site where the port was to come up was ‘an area of outstanding natural beauty’ as per the Kerala Coastal Zonal Management Plan of 1995, and was thus classified as CRZ-I (ecologically sensitive areas and other geomorphological features which are important to maintain the integrity of the coasts are classified as CRZ-I) under the 1991 Notification. The NGT however recognised that the 2011 Notification had superseded the 1991 Notification. They thus examined the 2011 Notification, and observed that the categories of classification as referred to by the appellants had been specifically excluded from the 2011 Notification. The appeal was thus dismissed. The NGT however recognised the importance of strict compliance to the EC and CRZ Clearances and an expert committee was set up to guarantee that the project proponents ensure compliance.

The nature and extent of permissible activities within the No Development Zone

The scheme of the CRZ Notification is such that it demarcates the area upto 500 metres from the coast into four distinct zones. Of these, in CRZ III (areas which have not been substantially built up, are relatively undisturbed and do not fall under CRZ-I or II, are earmarked as CRZ-III), the area of 200 metres from the High Tide Line on the landward side is the No Development Zone (NDZ) (Clause 8 (III) (A) of the CRZ Notification of 2011). The third set of disputes is related to activities in the NDZ where only repairs and reconstructions of existing structures are usually permitted. Further, it is stated that the repairs and reconstructions must not exceed the authorised floor space index, plinth area and density (Clause 8 (III) (A) (ii) of the CRZ Notification of 2011). For traditional coastal communities, however, the construction and reconstruction of dwelling units is permitted between 100 and 200 metres of the NDZ (Clause 8 (III) (A)(ii) of the CRZ Notification of 2011).

In the cases of Kashiram Jairam Setye v. Anil Hoble (2015 SCC OnLine NGT 117) and Marie Christine Perdriau v. Goa Coastal Zonal Management Authority and Others (2015 SCC OnLine NGT 23), the legality of certain structures constructed within the NDZ were challenged before the NGT. In Kashiram’s case, the initial permission granted for the purposes of the re-roofing and re-tiling was instead used to carry out expansions and set up a bar and restaurant. The bar and restaurant were in turn polluting a nearby river by way of sewage discharge. In Marie Christine’s case, the GCZMA had granted permissions to repair and renovate a particular structure in the NDZ area. The case of the applicants was that the structure did not exist before 1991 and that the permission was being misused by one of the respondents to set up a resort. In both these cases, the NGT was of the opinion that the constructions were in violation of the CRZ Notification since they had been set up for commercial purposes, which is not permissible in the NDZ.

Conclusion

The three kinds of disputes point out that:

The NGT has recognised that the CRZ Notification empowers the SCZMAs to regulate the nature and extent of permissible activities within the CRZ. To that effect, it has ensured that the authority bestowed upon the SCZMAs is not replaced by any other authority.
While the NGT has not restricted or reversed large-scale land use change within the CRZ, it has emphasised that the projects must adhere strictly to compliance norms and not affect the livelihood rights of coastal communities.
The NGT has also made it clear that heavy penalties can stem from non-compliance of conditions and safeguards specified in the clearance conditions.
With respect to permissible construction activities within the NDZ of the CRZ III, the NGT has not allowed constructions for commercial purposes.
The previous pieces in this series can be accessed below:

Coastal commons for private tourism and entertainment?
Is it the end of participatory coastal planning?
States ask Review Committee to loosen up the Coastal Regulation
Crucial aspects of proposed Marine Coastal Regulatory Zone Notification revealed
In conversation with Dr Shailesh Nayak – the man who led the review of coastal regulation
The proposed Marine Coastal Regulation Zone (MCRZ) Notification
A tale of two reviews: How two governments amended a coastal land use law
The Supreme Court’s guiding principles for coastal regulation
CRZ drives a wedge between communities in Mumbai
To learn more about the National Green Tribunal, read this piece by Shibani Ghosh, here.

Collapse of the Indo-Pak NSA level talks
CPR FACULTY ANALYSE
INDIA-PAKISTAN POLITICS SOUTH ASIA

In light of the collapse of the Indo-Pak NSA level talks, CPR faculty provide a rounded analysis:

In To The Point with Karan Thapar, Srinath Raghavan talks about how the government’s approach to Hurriyat with respect to talks with Pakistan has not been properly thought through.
G Parthasarathy speaks on India Today that Indo-Pak talks must be bilateral with no place for a third party.
In Nothing But The Truth, Shyam Saran provides a detailed analysis of the collapse of the Indo-Pak NSA level talks.
Sanjaya Baru provides a historical perspective to Indo-Pak talks with Barkha Dutt on NDTV.

Janabhivyakti, the Centre for Policy Research-Namati Environmental Justice Program and Oxfam India have jointly conducted a groundtruthing study of environmental violations in the Bodai-Daldali bauxite mine located in the Kabirdham district of Chhattisgarh. A groundtruthing study is the process of comparing the facts as mentioned in official documents with the impacts being reported by affected communities.

The methodology included undertaking group discussions with the affected communities. During the group discussions, impacts which the communities were facing were discussed first. This was followed by brief discussions on the various laws and institutions which are available for dealing with impacts arising out of environmental violations.

Based on that, the major observations of this study were:

Prevalence of dust pollution due to transportation of uncovered trucks, blasting and drilling.
Poor status of land reclamation and afforestation of reclaimed land.
Non-compliance with health and safety of the workers engaged in mining operations.
Incomplete and inadequate process of Rehabilitation and Resettlement.
These were also confirmed by government reports and independent research studies. These reports and studies date back to the year 2007, and some of the impacts have been in existence since the beginning of the mining operations, and have been recorded in the aforementioned reports.

The full groundtruthing report can be accessed here.

FULL VIDEO OF THE SEVENTH EVENT IN THE SERIES
AIR POLLUTION

Watch the full video (above) of Anumita Roychowdhury in conversation with Dr Navroz K Dubash examining the kinds of strategies that have been effective in improving Indian air quality regulation and governance. Anumita discusses the major turning points in the campaign for clean air and the challenges faced in implementing mitigation actions. While emphasising on the role of scientific evidence, the judiciary, and public awareness, as well as the need to mobilise key actors for change, Anumita shared lessons learnt along the way and stressed on the need to re-envision the policy challenge of air pollution in an integrated manner.

About the Panelists:

Anumita Roychowdhury is the Executive Director – Research and Advocacy, and Head of Air Pollution and Clean Transportation Programs at the Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi. She co-authored the book ‘Slow Murder: The deadly story of vehicular pollution in India’ in 1996 that catalysed the Right to Clean Air campaign in India. She has written and spoken extensively on air pollution and issues relating to transport. Over the years she has participated in many global and national forums on environmental issues and is also associated with various regional networks on air pollution and transportation. In 2016 she was awarded the Haagen-Smit Clean Air Award for 2016 (in the category of International Air Pollution Policy) by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Dr Navroz K Dubash is a senior fellow at CPR and coordinator of the Initiative on Climate, Energy, and Environment. His research and policy interests include climate change policy and governance, the political economy of energy and water, the regulatory state in the developing world and the role of civil society in global environmental governance. In 2015 he was conferred the 12th T N Khoshoo Memorial Award in recognition of the impact of his work on Indian climate change policy and the international discourse on global climate governance.

This is the seventh event in the Clearing the Air Seminar Series, organised by the Initiative on Climate, Energy and Environment (ICEE) at the Centre for Policy Research (CPR). The series aims to promote sustained and informed public understanding around the data, impacts, sources and policy challenges involved in clearing Delhi’s air. While it focuses on the context of Delhi, the series also reflects on the fact that the problem extends far beyond Delhi. The seminar series presents the work of experts in a range of areas to help promote informed public discussion about what changes are needed, what is possible, and how to get it done. Clearing the air in terms of knowledge and public information, we hope, will make a small contribution toward actually clearing Delhi’s air. Information about previous events held as part of the Series can be found here.

The question and answer session that followed the conversation between the panelists can be accessed here.

By Santosh Harish, Shibani Ghosh and Navroz K Dubash

The Big Challenge
Air pollution levels are unsafe across the country, all-year round. While pollution levels spike to dangerously high levels during the winter in north India, those in several parts of the country are poor or worse for large parts of the year. High pollution levels are not restricted to cities; several industrial areas along with rural areas across the Indo-Gangetic plain are also polluted. There are several kinds of pollutants in the air: particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur. Fine particulates (PM2.5) form a useful proxy indicator for air pollution. The population-weighted annual average concentration of PM2.5 across the country, estimated using satellite data, was 91 microgram/m3 in 2017 – more than twice the national standards.1

Air pollution is a public health emergency. The health impacts of poor air quality are staggering and of growing concern as we discover the full range and degree of its effects with new research. Air pollution is estimated to reduce the average life expectancy of a child born in India by 2.6 years.2 In 2017, air pollution is estimated to have contributed to one in eight deaths in India.3 Cardio-respiratory diseases and lung cancer in adults, and acute lower respiratory infections in children, are the more commonly known impacts of air pollution. In addition, new research indicates a much wider range of health impacts of air pollution such as on birth weight, child growth, obesity and bladder cancer. There is growing evidence on the adverse impacts of pollution on cognitive abilities in children.

Multiple sources contribute at different regional scales. Industries, power plants, vehicles, waste burning, road and construction dust, and household sources are significant sources of air pollutions. At the national level, household burning of polluting fuels for cooking and heating purposes form the single largest contributor to average PM2.5 exposure (in addition to the exposure to PM2.5 within these households themselves).4 Industries and power plants that burn coal are the second and third largest sources of exposure at the national level. Within cities, other sources like transportation, construction dust and waste burning play an important role. Because of these different geographical scales of influence, pollution control measures need to target different sources at appropriate levels. These different sources and scales make the role of the central government critical in framing policy at regional and national scales, coordinating implementation across states, and providing necessary financial and technical assistance.

The Existing Policy Framework
The National Clean Air Programme (NCAP), launched by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) in January 2019, looms large over the newly elected government’s policy landscape. The NCAP identified 102 non-attainment cities – which have particulate matter levels that exceed the annual standards – and set a reduction target of 20-30% by 2024. However, in its approach, the NCAP is a status quo-its document, which adheres to city-specific templates from the past, and wholly misses addressing governance gaps. It reinforces India’s policy response to air pollution, which has largely been reactive and overly reliant on administrative solutions. The existing regulatory design has proved to be entirely inadequate to meet the scale of the problem, and the monitoring and enforcement capacity of government agencies (such as the pollution control boards) is insufficient, especially for dispersed sources of pollution like vehicles, stubble and waste burning. An effective air pollution control strategy must break away from the status quo, and instead strategically prioritize key, implementable actions.

Air pollution reduction needs greater commitment from the executive. So far, pollution control has largely been driven by the judiciary. The new government should assume leadership in crafting and implementing an effective national air pollution reduction strategy. This could take different forms. One important example is empowering and giving greater autonomy to pollution control boards (PCBs) to discharge their responsibilities and act against polluters. Currently, interference in the functioning of these boards is visible in multiple ways: (i) the boards are typically led by generalist bureaucrats despite court judgments that have backed domain experts for chairpersons and member secretaries;5 (ii) their funding is often dependent on grants-in-aid by the state governments; and (iii) routine administrative decisions like hiring need approval from the environment department. State PCBs also seem to be facing a trade-off between their functions of monitoring and enforcement, and promoting ‘ease of doing business’. All of these curtail their ability to discharge their statutory mandate effectively.

The new government should also enable resolution when there are complex political and economic factors contributing to a polluting activity. For instance, consider the case of stubble burning where Minimum Support Prices, groundwater management, farm mechanization, the agrarian crisis, and unfavourable meteorology all contribute to episodic peaks in pollution in north India. Banning burning or subsidizing technical solutions such as ‘Happy Seeders’ are unlikely to solve the problem, unless some of the structural factors mentioned above are tackled through political negotiation.

A New Policy Agenda
Strengthening the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP)
NCAP was a missed opportunity to outline a systematic strategy. Beyond the national outreach and the reduction targets, it is a compilation of ongoing efforts, and leaves the details of new efforts to future action plans. Specific gaps include:

NCAP is largely a continuation of the traditional policy approach of developing long lists of unprioritized action points. It does not put implementation capacity at the heart of designing our mitigation policies, thus risking non-implementation.
The programme is urban-centric, focusing on a limited group of cities, and following the National Capital Region template by relying on city action plans. However, air pollution is not restricted to cities, and air quality in cities is typically influenced significantly by sources from outside. Addressing this problem requires moving the conversation towards addressing pollution at regional ‘airshed’ levels, and having more flexible system boundaries for air pollution control. The NCAP does not outline a road map for defining these airsheds and developing processes that cut across jurisdictions and departments.
NCAP misses addressing governance gaps directly. It introduces new committees at the central and state levels, and declares that individual ministries will ‘institutionalise’ action points in their charge. However, it does not specify what institutionalizing entails, and who would be held responsible if targets are not met, and what legal or financial implications would follow.
To strengthen the NCAP, there is a need to focus efforts on a prioritized shortlist of solutions in the short term, improve the enforcement capacity of the PCBs while increasing their accountability, and begin extensive consultations about governance reforms needed in the longer term. We elaborate on these below.

Prioritizing concrete actions
Given the number of sources that contribute to the problem, and the many mitigation efforts needed (several of which are included within NCAP), how do we prioritize policy efforts? Prioritizing solutions needs active consideration of the implementation capacity needed to introduce measures and enforce them. In addition, we need to ensure that the programme does not adversely impact vulnerable groups.

In particular, with dispersed sources of pollution, such as transportation, households, waste burning and construction dust, administrative solutions that require monitoring and enforcement are likely to fail. Instead, enforcement could work better for policy changes targeted at higher, more centralized levels, where possible. For instance, with vehicles, although there is a pollution control mechanism in place, several issues inhibit inspections from being a reliable way to keep the on-road fleet within standards. These include low rates of compliance among vehicle owners in getting tested and compromised inspections (poor calibration of testing equipment and corrupted inspection results). Policy changes aimed higher up in the manufacturing process, such as the requirement to comply with Bharat Stage VI norms, are likely to be better implemented.

Keeping these factors in mind, three key priority areas within the NCAP are identified below.

Power plant emission norms
India’s formal regulatory infrastructure has traditionally focused on ‘point sources’, with good reason. Industries and power plants burning coal are the second and third largest sources in India (only behind the numerous but highly dispersed household sources of emissions), in terms of contributions to average national exposure to air pollution and the resultant burden of disease. Power plants are the largest source of sulphur dioxide and a major source of nitrogen oxide. Sulphur and nitrogen oxides are key precursors that react with other substances to produce secondary particulate matter. MoEFCC introduced new emissions standards for power plants in 2015, which required the installation of pollution control equipment. Although the power plants were required to comply with these standards by 2017, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) later announced that the compliance date had been pushed to 2022, as per a timeline prepared by the Central Electricity Authority. Ensuring that these standards are complied with, and the requisite control equipment installed by this revised timeline, if not at an accelerated rate, is critical.
Revamp Ujjwala to increase LPG use
The Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (Ujjwala) is an important initiative. While primarily an energy access programme, it has also tackled household solid fuel use, which is the largest contributor to pollution exposure in India. Ensuring universal continued usage of clean cooking fuels should therefore be a critical pillar of our air pollution control efforts. To facilitate continued usage of LPG, the government needs to ensure that prices are affordable for the beneficiaries, and in parallel, run campaigns to change behaviour and attitudes. This is unlikely to be a rapid transition, but some important first steps have been taken. ​
Invest in public transportation
Reducing transportation emissions would require a combination of ensuring easy access to affordable public and non-motorized transport, while simultaneously working on reducing emissions from the vehicles on the road. Investments in clean public transport can reduce transport emissions as well as make mobility easier and cheaper, thereby improving the quality of life in cities. Planning the public transit strategy for the long term is key.

Strengthening regulatory capacity
The formal air pollution regulatory architecture in India is built around the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and rules and notifications issued under these. As per existing law, the state PCBs have very limited flexibility to take action proportional to the polluting activity.7 Currently, they can send show cause notices, shut down industries through a closure notice or by shutting access to utilities, cancel regulatory consents, or initiate criminal prosecution by taking the industries to court. With court cases taking several years to reach any meaningful conclusion, PCBs rarely pursue this route, and restrict themselves to either a rap on the wrist through show cause notices, or shut down the industries – making enforcement expensive and ineffective.

Strengthening the ability of the PCBs to tackle point sources could provide a pathway to a broader reform process. In the long term, India needs a modern environment governance structure with teeth, nimbleness and resources to plan and drive a multi-sectoral strategy. NCAP is largely silent on how this structure could look, and on a road map for reforms. We outline below near-term and long-term milestones to strengthen regulatory capacity.

In the near term, PCBs must be resourced better, and in parallel, be made more accountable through disclosure efforts.
Increased resources of PCBs: Human resources currently available in PCBs are not sufficient to meet their mandate. There is a need to rapidly expand their capacity, particularly on the technical side. In the short term, existing vacancies in the CPCB need to be filled with qualified people. Working with CPCB and the states, filling up vacancies in the state PCBs should be another area of priority. Increased staff resources should translate to increased inspections and monitoring.
Increased accountability through public disclosure of regulatory data: The operations of the PCBs are extremely opaque, and it is unclear to the public where the big polluting sources are, and whether they are compliant with regulatory norms. Ensuring that PCBs release regulatory information (details of consents granted, inspections, online monitoring data, enforcement actions, etc.) into the public domain would make the industries and state PCBs more accountable to local communities, civil society and the media.
Longer-term reforms will require extensive dialogue; therefore, it is important for the government to start deliberations early. We outline below three broad elements for change that should be considered in the reforms process.

Remove legal barriers for effective enforcement: There is a need for statutorily empowering PCBs so that they can initiate systematic and proportional responses to polluting activities. Amending the law to allow for a more diverse regulatory toolbox, which includes both existing powers and additional ones such as levying financial penalties, would increase the flexibility of the PCBs and make them more responsive.
Institutionalized airshed-level management: Tackling air pollution effectively requires looking beyond administrative boundaries and focusing on reducing emissions across the ‘airshed’ over which pollutants disperse. This will need new modes of coordination across city and state administrations, and across line departments; it may also require the creation of new authorities with wider jurisdictions. Airshed level regulation will require a regulatory rethink and would involve extensive consultations which should commence on priority.
Development of a sector airshed approach: The long-term strategy will need a careful application of sectoral approaches at the airshed level, or the national or state level, which utilize an appropriate combination of administrative, technical, economic and behavioural solutions.
Concluding Remarks
Air pollution is a complex problem, with multiple sources operating at different regional scales, under the jurisdictions of disparate agencies, and requiring a variety of mitigation measures. We need to unambiguously acknowledge the terrible impacts of air pollution on our health, move beyond the urban-centric approach, and tackle each of the big sources with a sense of urgency. The policy for tackling air pollution needs to shift from the reactive approach we have taken so far to one that is more systematic: focusing on some efforts in the near term, and beginning the process to reform our environment institutions to make them better resourced as well as more nimble and effective in the longer term.

Other pieces as part of CPR’s policy document, ‘Policy Challenges – 2019-2024’ can be accessed below:

The Future is Federal: Why Indian Foreign Policy Needs to Leverage its Border States by Nimmi Kurian
Rethinking India’s Approach to International and Domestic Climate Policy by Navroz K Dubash and Lavanya Rajamani
India’s Foreign Policy in an Uncertain World by Shyam Saran
Need for a Comprehensive National Security Strategy by Shyam Saran
A Clarion Call for Just Jobs: Addressing the Nation’s Employment Crisis by Sabina Dewan
Time for Disruptive Foreign and National Security Policies by Bharat Karnad
Multiply Urban ‘Growth Engines’, Encourage Migration to Reboot Economy by Mukta Naik
Schooling is not Learning by Yamini Aiyar
Protecting Water while Providing Water to All: Need for Enabling Legislations by Philippe Cullet
1 Health Effects Institute, ‘State of Global Air 2019’, http://www.stateofglobalair.org/.
2 Ibid.
3 K. Balakrishnan et al., India State-Level Disease Burden Initiative Air Pollution Collaborators, ‘The Impact of Air Pollution on Deaths, Disease Burden, and Life Expectancy across the States of India: The Global Burden of Disease Study 2017, Lancet Planet Health 3: e26–e39 (2019).
4 S. Chowdhury et al., ‘Indian Annual Ambient Air Quality Standard is Achievable by Completely Mitigating Emissions from Household Sources’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116(22): 10711-10716 (2019).
5 See, for example, Techi Tagi Tara v Rajendra Bhandari & Ors (2018) 11 SCC 734.
6 GBD MAPS Working Group, ‘Burden of Disease Attributable to Major Air Pollution Sources in India’ (Health Effects Institute, 2018).
7 S. Ghosh, ‘Reforming the Liability Regime for Air Pollution in India’, Environmental Law and Practice Review 4 (2015): 125-146.