Author: cprindia

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.

 

At least half of Delhi’s residents are estimated to be living in informal settlements, including jhuggi jhopri clusters, resettlement colonies, and unauthorised colonies. However, there is little assessment of their day-to-day experiences and interaction with state agencies.

The Cities of Delhi project at CPR addresses this critical need through its research, and, in particular, researcher Shahana Sheikh engaged in the public debate surrounding regularisation of unauthorised colonies in the lead-up to the Delhi election. Please find below a summary of this historical media outreach:

An op-ed on the lack of transparency in the regularisation of unauthorised colonies in Delhi.
Bringing in the policy perspective during a heated debate on NDTV Prime Time discussion on Delhi’s unregularised colonies.
Discussing multiple aspects of policies related to regularisation of unauthorised colonies in an interview with Ravish Kumar
Speaking on the ambiguities in the regularisation process of Delhi’s unauthorised colonies during an in-depth coverage of Kathputli Colony in Delhi.
With the aim of informing policy, the Cities of Delhi project will disseminate its findings during a two-day conference called ‘Urban Transformations in India’. For full details, visit the dedicated page and read an overview of the project findings in this report.

Listen to the 31st episode of the CPR podcast, ThoughtSpace (above) featuring Patrick Heller (Professor of Sociology and International and Public Affairs, Brown University) and Yamini Aiyar (President and Chief Executive, CPR).

ABOUT THE SERIES

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was recently passed in both houses of the Indian parliament, triggering large-scale protests across the country. What does the act mean for the future of Indian democracy? How do we understand the on-going protests and what are some of the political, economic and social implications of this movement?

In this mini-series curated by the CPR, we unpack these questions and shed light on what the next few months can have in store.

ABOUT THE EPISODE

The passage of the CAA led to agitations across the country. Since December 15, thousands of students, activists and ordinary people are out on the streets every day in every city. Latin American countries including Ecuador, Chile, Bolivia and most recently Colombia have experienced turmoil too. What are the parallels we can draw between the two regions? What do these protests say about the state of democracy across the world? And what are some of the lessons we can learn about peoples’ movements? In this episode, Yamini Aiyar speaks with Patrick Heller who sheds light on the subject.

Watch the full video (above) of the public lecture by David Armitage where he discusses the subject of his new book, ‘Civil Wars: A History in Ideas’. A well-respected historian, he is the Lloyd C. Blankfein Professor of History and former Chair of the Department of History at Harvard University,

Armitage begins the lecture, discussing how our age has normatively been referred to as ‘a long peace’ in terms of inter-state conflict, describing the 70 years since World War II, where we are said to have allegedly ‘won the war on war’ for the time-being.

He goes on to cite examples from the last few years of about 40 armed conflicts from Afghanistan to Yemen, excluding individual acts of terrorism, insurgency, and other forms of asymmetrical warfare, and talks about how, in the midst of this fragile ‘peace’, we are actually still at war.

This paper, authored as part of the New America US-India Public Interest Technologies Fellowship 2019, examines the privacy implications of drones in civilian airspaces. Though a technology with significant benefits, drones can also carry out extensive snooping and surveillance. As India transitions to a regulatory ecosystem supportive of drone technology, it is imperative that the attention of policy makers be directed to the various privacy harms that lie in store.

Here, the different kinds of harms are mapped into two: traditional privacy challenges arising from a spatial invasion by drones into private spaces, and big data risks on account of the business models that the drone industry has paved the path for. Dealing with the first category of risks, the paper argues that serious criminal enforcement, along the lines of what some States in the United States have pursued, is imperative to safeguard the private domain from the prying eyes of third parties. It also points out serious gaps in Indian constitutional jurisprudence when it comes to structural interventions like drone surveillance, and recommends an overall assessment of the impact on privacy baseline from such technologies when the judiciary evaluates their legality against the touchstone of the fundamental right to privacy. On the second kind of risk, the paper argues for privacy dashboards that help citizens evaluate the purpose of drone operations and assess whether equipments retrofitted alongside the drone are truly required to fulfil these purposes or merely meant to gather unrestricted amount of personal and community data.

The full working paper 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.

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.

India approaches an important new phase in our engagement with global climate change. The decisions India makes in the coming years will define how successfully we are able to bring together development and low carbon futures, and our potential to signal leadership on this issue globally. How do we make these decisions evidence-based and consistent with both our long-term climate and development goals?

In a new policy brief titled Building a Climate-Ready Indian State, Navroz K. Dubash, Aditya Valiathan Pillai and Parth Bhatia lay out a plan to revitalize climate governance in India. They argue for a structure that addresses the governance challenges of coordination, building consensus around change, and setting strategic direction.

What would this look like?

At its core, they propose a non-executive and statutory body, the Low Carbon Development Commission, which combines stakeholder views and deep analytical capacity to lay out low-carbon development pathways. A development pathway approach implies going beyond core energy and emissions policies by considering deeper economic choices such as patterns of urbanisation, industrialisation, and job creation.
They bind the system together through procedural requirements that push ministries to set sectoral goals and report on them, and give Parliament and the public a greater role in overseeing national progress.
They give life to the system through new climate capacities layered across government.
This work is informed by an open-access academic paper on the evolution of Indian climate institutions by Aditya Valiathan Pillai and Navroz K. Dubash, which was recently published in the journal Environmental Politics.