Author: cprindia

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PANEL DISCUSSION HELD AS PART OF THE CLEARING THE AIR SEMINAR SERIES
AIR POLLUTION ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

On 7 March 2018, the Initiative on Climate, Energy and Environment (ICEE) at the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) organized a panel discussion on ‘Municipal Solid Waste as a cause of Air Pollution’ as part of the ongoing Clearing the Air? Seminar Series on Delhi’s Air Pollution. The panelists were Ravi Agarwal, founder director of Toxics Link, Nalini Shekhar, co–founder of Hasiru Dala, and Dr Seema Awasthi, founder and director of ICUC Consultants Pvt. Ltd., and the panel was moderated by Arkaja Singh, Fellow, Centre for Policy Research.

The panel discussed some of the best practices on waste disposal that can help reduce exposure to airborne toxins from municipal solid waste. Some of the strategies suggested give primacy to waste workers, whereas others emphasize on technology, infrastructure and management.

We have identified some important points that came up during the panel discussion and presented them in the form of a Q&A below. Videos of the panel discussion and the power point presentations made by the speakers can be accessed here.

What are the locations and kinds of exposures to various kinds of pollutants, particularly air borne pollutants that take place in the total disposal cycle of solid waste?
Ravi Agarwal (RA): The IIT-Kanpur report (Sharma and Dixit, 2016) attributes 8-9% to open burning of municipal solid waste as a source of PM10 and PM2.5. Waste is a very complex material which emits a cocktail of pollutants including harmful gases other than the classic pollutants and the regularly monitored PM10 and PM2.5. However, most of them are not accounted for due to the complexity of the waste stream. Dioxin is a highly toxic chemical pollutant generated from incinerators. While worldwide there are incineration standards, in India, despite very high dioxin exposure with serious health implications, there have been till recently no regulations for emission of dioxins. There are several dispersed sources of air pollutants from waste which are also not yet measured.

Most regulations are aimed at the end of the pipe emissions, undermining the complexity of the waste stream and the potential of pollution from each stage of the waste disposal cycle.

Seema Awasthi (SA): Nearly 35 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases like methane are estimated to be produced from dumpsites annually worldwide (as per the data from the International Solid Waste Association in 2015) The effluent gases from open waste burning include smoke, black carbon and other toxic fumes with low levels of dioxins and furans.

What are the pollution standards and regulations that govern waste disposal? Do they adequately consider the risk of air pollution? What are the main loopholes in the current regulatory and governance system?
RA: The existing standards are technological standards pertaining to the end of the pipe emissions reduction in the waste cycle. The new MSW Rules of 2016 acknowledged the need to formulate standards at each step in the complex waste stream. It is also the first time that the incineration standards were incorporated into the rules. However, there is a lack of will to support campaigns like that create awareness about the environmental dangers of open burning of waste.

The Sukhdev Vihar/ Okhla Timarpur incinerator is the one where a project with high capital investment was permitted without any environmental approvals.

A research document ‘Be careful with that cure’ by Toxics Link on dioxins emissions from medical waste incineration led to the change in incineration owing to cost of standards for dioxins. The Biomedical Waste Rules were formulated in 1998, and these were subsequently amended in 2016. This is also probably the only incineration law in the world that still prohibits the incineration of chlorinated waste across different waste categories.

Formulating environmental standards is easy. But to acquire skills and equipment, and attain a high quality regulatory system requires capacity building on the ground which is missing in the Indian scenario. For example, there is a 0.1 ng TEQ (nanogram Toxic Equivalents) limit on dioxin and furans but there is no ability to comply with it in India. Furthermore, in India, importance is given to waste disposal rather than reducing airborne emissions. There is a rush to install high cost technologies without adequate understanding of their regulatory or operation ecosystems. Decisions on using the technology for managing waste need to be based on logical assessment of the suitability of the proposed technology in terms of deriving the best cost to benefit ratio. High end, expensive technologies are often promoted by the business lobby. For example, plasma technology was proposed for waste to energy generation by a company in Gujarat that managed to get the standards for this technology incorporated in the 2016 MSW rules. However, plasma is a very high end technology, and internationally is used for destruction of chemical weapons. Its usability for MSW management in India is doubtful.

Standard making is a semi political, semi science based process and is also not always linked with health data; but is often designed on the basis of what is perceived to be achievable. There is no credible primary study on actual emissions from waste or their impacts on health.

SA: According to the 2016 MSW Rules, door to door management system should be in place that ensures collection of segregated waste. The responsibility to collect waste segregated as dry waste, wet waste and domestic hazardous waste (including sanitary waste etc.) lies with the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). As per the 2016 Rules, the bulk generators have to manage the waste they generate, whereas the city government is concerned with the waste generated by the households and small commercial units. The waste collectors/pickers transport the waste to the primary collection point. In big cities, the waste is further compacted in transfer stations or is transported to a processing facility. As per the rules, organic waste or waste with high calorific value should not be dumped or disposed.

Funds for installation of required infrastructure for waste management have been provided under the Swachh Bharat Mission. However, the challenge remains in sustainable operation of the projects and generation of funds for operation and maintenance by the city governments.

What are the main technologies and approaches for dealing with municipal solid waste?
SA: The philosophy of 3Rs – Reduce, Reuse and Recycle – is an efficient way to manage waste. Segregation implies more efficient waste management which reduces the amount of waste reaching landfills; thereby reducing the amount of waste that may have to be incinerated, leading to reductions in emissions. Another method is ‘Zero landfilling’ which aims at processing all the waste before it reaches the landfill. This concept also helps in addressing the issue of paucity of land for landfill sites in growing cities.

Rules prohibit the dumping of organic waste with high calorific into the landfill site. Biomethanation is a viable technical solution for processing such organic waste. Various technologies for incineration can be applied for dry waste and mixed waste. Refuse derived fuel (RDF) method is used for dry and wet waste where the waste is segregated, dried and made into pellets which are then used as fuel.

The JNNURM promoted windrow composting as a method of efficient management of organic waste. The compost generated from most of the windrow composting plants, however, failed to meet the standards of compost that could be used for agricultural purposes. Hence, the smaller cities are now encouraged to use segregate wet waste for composting. For large cities, currently, waste-to-energy options are being promoted mainly because they enable handling large quantities of waste in smaller areas, reducing volume significantly, generating only 15-20% of rejects in the form of ash and inerts. Simultaneously, we get energy as the end product for which the Government of India provides subsidy to help make the project finacially viable.

Biomining with scientific closure is an option being explored to manage the huge quantities of waste lying in the open dumpsites in almost every city of the country. Through biomining, one can segregate and recover useful material lying within the big waste mounds, thereby reducing waste footprint, resulting in reclamation of land that could be used for construction of scientifc landfill or waste processing facility. However, biomining is an expensive process and can only be adopted by those municipalities which have adequate capital for setting-up the required infrastructure.

50% of Bangalore households are now segregating their waste. How has this come about? What has been the role of the city authorities, and the waste workers, both formal and informal, in achieving this?
Nalini Shekhar: The informal waste pickers working with Hasirudala are filling the gap by providing a waste management system, which the local government could not provide. With the help of the waste pickers, 1050 tonnes of waste is being managed, which is resulting in saving 84 crore rupees per annum for the city. The waste pickers are recognized as extremely skilled labor and in Bangalore city they have been issued identity cards with the city logo and signature of the municipal commissioner, on the initiative of Hasirudala. ‘No burning of waste’ campaign of Hasirudala was the first campaign centered around the role of waste pickers. Bangalore is the first city to have a MoU with the waste pickers. Around 80% of the city’s waste is no longer burnt by the waste pickers.

Hasirudala has managed to involve the government. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) helped in setting up of nearly 180 dry waste collection centers in about two years. Every ward now has a dry waste collection center for non organic waste. All these dry waste collection centers are managed by waste pickers. Dry waste is collected twice a week in every ward with the help of waste pickers. Further, the waste pickers are given work orders in their name to collect dry waste, while the wet/organic waste is collected by contractors.

The three-way waste collection, i.e., dry waste, wet waste and sanitary waste, was also initiated in Bangalore with the help of waste pickers. The separate category of sanitary waste came into being in 2017 with the intervention of Hasirudala. It is considered as municipal solid waste while being collected, and is considered as biomedical waste for disposal.

Reduction of waste is also important and Karnataka is the first state to pass a legislation banning one time use plastic. Waste workers showed readiness to give up on making more money out of more waste collected at the cost of public health. The ban has only been successful due to citizen participation.

The reject waste collected from households has reduced from 310 g per household per day to 95 g due to better segregation of waste. This was the initiative of the for-profit HasiruDala Innovation Pvt Ltd catering to 33,000 households a day. The waste pickers are not only recognized as skilled labour force but are also seen as entrepreneurs and Hasirudala’s interventions have targeted their innovation skills in all its programs.

What are the challenges concerning location and maintenance of landfill sites? What are the possible solutions to saturated landfill sites?
SA: The issue of solid waste management has become so pertinent in the present times because the quantum of waste generated has increased tremendously. Limited land and resource availability with the municipalities makes waste management a challenge in big cities. It is also an issue with smaller cities which lack the resources and infrastructure for efficient waste management.

In our country, only 70% of the total waste is collected and only 20% of the total waste generated is treated. The remaining 80% finds its way to the landfill (Planning Commission, Govt. of India. 2014). Nearly 90% of the population in South Asia does not have access to waste collection and disposal, as per the data from the International Solid Waste Association in 2015.

Landfill fires are a big cause of concern as they are a source of air pollution. Decomposition of organic waste, in the absence of oxygen, generates methane and carbon dioxide. Methane has a high calorific value and makes the landfill site vulnerable accidental fires. High temperature and pressure conditions are also conducive for starting a fire within a landfill. Burning of waste to reduce its quantum is also sometimes the only option for smaller cities with inadequate infrastructure for waste processing.

According to the Rules, the waste rich in organic contentment, recyclable waste and dry waste with high calorific content should not reach the landfill sites and has to be recycled or processed to a useful end product. In the case of saturated dumpsite, the dumpsite should be properly closed following the prescribed scientific procedure.

In scientifically operated landfill sites, the excavated space is covered with an impervious liner to prevent groundwater pollution and the waste, strictly the rejects, is covered daily with 15 cm soil layer after being dumped. After the landfill is full to its capacity, it is closed with an impervious liner (clay, HTPE etc) followed by soil cover and green grass cover. However, due to the lack of resources the standard procedure is not followed. The Gorai site in Mumbai is the only site where a landfill site has not only been successfully closed but the CDM credits are being used for managing the project.

AUDIO RECORDING OF A TALK BY ANANT MARIGANTI
URBAN SERVICES

Listen to full audio recording (above) by Anant Mariganti on how the waste economy and different forms of work relating to waste management interact with each other in the city of Hyderabad. With waste management being as much about urban governance as about urban informality (actors and institutions involved), the talk analyses the process in an urban setting through focusing on communities.

Mariganti is the Executive Director of the Hyderabad Urban Lab and a geographer with a PhD from the University of Minnesota.

FULL VIDEO OF CPR-CSH WORKSHOP
CLIMATE RESEARCH

Watch the full video (above) of the talk by Ankit Bhardwaj and Radhika Khosla where they present a comprehensive literature review that synthesises the growing research and salience of the topic. In doing so, they describe the recent trends and characteristics that mark Indian cities’ approaches to climate change.

A deeper perspective has been shown by examining the case of a single city, Rajkot and describing how this second city is using existing governance arrangements to promote climate efforts, and the ways in which the efforts can be scaled. The workshop ends with a discussion on the mainstreaming of these emerging climate actions into the broader set of urban development goals.

Ankit Bhardwaj is a Research Associate at CPR’s Initiative on Climate, Energy and Environment and works on characterising India’s multiple transitions and using a multi-objective approach to integrate climate and development objectives at the city level in India

Radhika Khosla is a Fellow at CPR and works on the integrated nature of India’s energy sector to examine the linkages between energy, development and climate change, particularly in urban areas.

The question and answer session that followed can be accessed here. Find all available videos of previous workshops here.

BY THE ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVE AT CPR
SANITATION SOCIAL SECTOR SCHEMES BUREAUCRACY

The Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) marked its third anniversary this year. With only two more years to go to meet targets, what are we seeing as priorities for the Mission? Have they changed?

Devashish: Let us state upfront that there are in fact two ways of discerning priorities. The first is what the officially stated government priority is – available through the programme norms and guidelines. But there is also the priority that gets translated on the ground – what has been carried forth by implementers based on their own capacity and understanding. There is often a significant gap between the two. The recently released, updated implementation guidelines indicate that the priorities of the mission are witnessing a forceful reorientation towards the initial ideal of a community-led, sustainable movement. These revisions also seem to address several of the concerns raised by media and civil society and signal the right intentions.

More specifically, the guidelines include detailed instructions on the monitoring and verification protocol, as well as administrative capacity issues like manpower and trainings. They are also more focussed on the sustainability of the ODF (Open Defecation Free) status beyond mission activities , such as, what is being called ODF ++; issues related to toilet technology; and the need for greater attention to behaviour change with interpersonal communication as a means of bridging the access usage gap.

These are not new focal areas but a more explicit statement of principles the mission has always espoused. That they are reinforced three years into the five-year mission period suggests that the Centre sees the gaps in the programme, and is urging mid-term course correction. However, in the context of the current push to meet targets within a specified deadline, unless we find ways to strengthen implementation, there is a danger that these guidelines and principles will dissipate as they travel along the bureaucratic channels to the ground.

The government has consistently maintained that the objective of the mission is not only construction but behaviour change. With seven states already declared ODF and others striving for the status, do we have data available on toilet usage?

Devashish: This is the biggest gap in the existing monitoring framework of the sanitation sector. As we mentioned last year, collecting usage data is complicated, and quantitative data in this regard is often unreliable. At present the NSSO (National Sample Survey Office at the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation) is an important source of toilet usage numbers. However, their approach to capturing it is fraught with problems.

For example, the wording of the question itself is a concern. It asks whether ‘members are using latrine’. This comes across at once as leading and accusatory and is likely to bias the respondent into answering in the affirmative. Further, no attempt is made to talk to other members of the household and verify what the respondent answers on their behalf. As RICE institute also notes, how you ask the question, whom you ask, how many times you ask, all have implications on the answer. There are also seasonal variations – usage tends to change during the rainy seasons, for example. We ourselves faced this problem in our survey when we got different answers to the question – where do you normally go versus where did you go today!

Avani: The other, more current source of tracking usage is the Swachh Survekshan, conducted annually by the Quality Council of India on behalf of the central government. Here too, however, the same shortcomings can be noted. Their approach is even more curtailed and they only ask the respondent ‘does any member (of the household) defecate in the open sometimes?’

The implications of this approach are evident from numerous stories on the gaps between access and usage. The concern that ODF Panchayats are not truly ODF has been flagged by AI and others previously. Recognising this, the guidelines have laid out a detailed monitoring and verification process and need for continued engagement with ODF Panchayats and villages after declaration, rewards for Panchayats that perform well, and other measures to ensure that official declarations do not become an end in themselves. Moreover, this time the guidelines focus on the use of independent qualitative studies in order to ascertain the status of usage. This is definitely a positive step. More focus needs to be given to collecting regular, independent data through different methods on tracking usage and compliance to policy.

Then, what can be said of the status of toilets that have already been built?

Devashish: Aside from everything else, it is very clear is that toilet construction is happening on a massive scale. While the latest Swachh Survekshan found that 90% of toilets are being used regularly, other independent estimates tend to be more conservative. One also often finds ground reportage based on anecdotal evidence claiming that many toilets are unusable and employed for storage and other purposes. The truth is likely somewhere in between. Of the millions of toilets being constructed, many are likely being used and many are probably not. While one may argue about where this proportion lies, it is safe to say that the ODF states are not truly free of open defecation. It would be more accurate to say that they are relatively freer of open defecation than before.

Avani: While this sounds positive – it is also a cause for worry. We have seen this already happen in the push for school toilets and specifically girls’ toilets. A few years ago the government had launched a Swachh Vidyalaya campaign. All focus and attention was on meeting the target of 100% toilet construction in all schools in the country. On Independence Day 2015, one was greeted by a congratulatory message on the completion of the target of constructing over 4.15 lakh toilets in 2.61 lakh schools. Consequently, the focus shifted away from school toilets towards individual household toilets. However, a look at the data suggests a large number of schools still not having access to a functional, usable toilet. According to ASER 2016 (Annual Status of Education Report), more than 30% of schools did not have a functional and usable toilet. A recent survey we conducted in a district in Rajasthan in nine Panchayats also found a significant lack of usable toilets in public facilities.

The Swachh Bharat Mission has been critiqued for placing emphasis on toilet construction while not being able to adequately render other policy aspects such as awareness raising for toilet use. What is your understanding of the situation?

Devashish: ODF is possible only if each and every person uses a toilet, each and every day. However, given the difficulty in capturing and tracking usage, the current ODF declaration process equates construction and usage, implicitly presuming that all those who construct toilets also use them. Not only is this not a valid assumption, it necessitates that ODF declarations be based on the only available quantitative measure, namely SBM construction targets, which are outdated and an inexact estimate of the actual toilet needs. For example, if a Panchayat had a mandated target of a 100 toilets, they declare themselves ODF as soon as a 100 toilets are constructed. That this Panchayat might in fact need 150 toilets, or that only 50 of these constructed toilets are actually used, are not always considerations. There are several instances of Panchayats being hurriedly declared ODF, often in a matter of weeks, under top down pressure.

Avani: Just to add, it’s important to remember that ODF is a process not an end in itself. However, while the goalpost may have changed from toilet construction to ODF, the problem is that this message has not fully been translated to the ‘implementers’ on the ground. And that is where I even question the SBM Dashboard. We all know the saying that what gets measured gets done, and for anyone who has seen the MIS (Management Information System) dashboard – the thing that stands out is a ticker counting the number of toilets constructed. Ironically, the Ministry’s own SBM idea book states that ‘[The SBM] approach necessitates adoption of the right processes, an understanding of actual outcomes and ability to resist a target driven approach.’ I would much rather the SBM-Dashboard instead showcased actual success stories – of the champions and ideas and innovations that different administrators have used. There are plenty of those and those should be highlighted and celebrated, not just the toilets constructed. In the absence of that, the main focus which is meant to be on catalysing a community-led social reform movement will be at odds with the adopted approach of targets and strict timelines that are imposed in the current ‘mission mode’ of functioning. Mass reform to overturn an engrained social norm is unlikely to take place in this timeframe, and the beleaguered frontline bureaucrats are clearly aware of this. They have no resort therefore but to focus on hard numbers and enforced target completions because that is the only approach which will achieve what is being asked of them.

What are the challenges that you foresee for the Swachh Bharat Mission in the coming years?

Devashish and Avani: As the name indicates, Swachh Bharat is a mission mode programme, which in government parlance means that it is a high intensity, limited duration scheme meant to achieve a specific purpose, namely, ending the practice of defecating in the open.

It must also be recognised that this approach is inevitable not just in the sanitation space but across every major government programme in the current governance environment. The work of Profs. Pritchett et al. of Harvard University on government capability and success of large development programmes helps shed light on some of our systemic problems. They posit that a system with weak institutional capability (they characterise India’s institutions as being moderately capable) when pressed to reach unachievable goals, will find solace in ‘mimicry of form without substance’. In effect, top down, large scale, target driven programmes which do not account for local realities and ask ‘too much of too little, too soon’ will inevitably devolve into chasing nominal success indicators, focussing on tangible outputs rather than outcomes. The much lauded political will driving SBM, coupled with existing weak institutional capability, is leading to ‘premature loadbearing’, a breakdown of the intentions, and inability to escape this capability trap. Simply put, our systems are not robust enough to meet the objectives, and adding top-down pressure is counterproductive to say the least.

Swachh Bharat is not a typical scheme – and for measuring its success it can’t be treated as one either. Again quoting from the Ministry’s own Idea book, it states that SBM implementation requires a lot of ‘unlearning’. For administrators, the schematic implementation usually requires a blue print which needs to be followed often in a top down manner. There are checklists, reports, money, and beneficiaries. Swachh Bharat instead is a Jan Andolan – a movement that needs to be built through shared understanding and collective action. There are no beneficiaries but owners, no ‘right process’ but complete flexibility based on the ground situation. These are subtle changes in language between saying this is our target and let’s do anything and everything to achieve it versus if we want to become a country that practices safe sanitation to improve public health, what is the enabling environment needed for it.

Consequently, there are many challenges that are now emerging, some requiring immediate attention while others needing sustained efforts.

The first of these challenges is to ensure the veracity of the granted ODF status. It is important to ensure that the 2,73,315 villages declared ODF so far, and the others to come, are truly free of open defecation. This is essential because in a mission mode programme, the likelihood of continuing efforts towards an objective that has already been (even nominally) met is limited. Visits to ODF Panchayats make it evident that work does indeed stop cold as soon as the declaration is made.

Second, is a question of sustaining the ODF status once achieved. As we mentioned, freedom from open defecation must be seen as a process rather than a one-time outcome. Given the ultimate objective of reducing the morbidity burden of sanitation related diseases, it must be ensured that not only are ODF villages truly ODF but that they remain so.

Third, a significant challenge is that of ensuring consistent and sufficient water supply. Not only is lack of water found to be a barrier to toilet usage and maintenance, the implications on additional labour for women charged with carrying water are also a concern.

Finally, it is important to remember that Solid Liquid Waste and Faecal Sludge Management (FSM) are integral aspects of safe sanitation. While the SBM-Gramin guidelines speak about a twin pit toilet, which does not require emptying out of faecal sludge matter – for most households who can afford to build a toilet – the chosen method is a septic tank or a single pit toilet. The implications of this may not be visible today but it is a public health crisis in the making and thus must be addressed today.

In the absence of FSM services, there are only two possible outcomes of the exponential growth in toilets. The toilets will fill up in a few years and be rendered defunct, or our traditional FSM mechanism, namely manual scavenging, will be resorted to. Not only will this perpetuate an exploitative social system, but it will also give rise to a public health emergency. This might sound alarmist but this waste will, in the absence of alternatives, be disposed in open land or water sources, as it is today. Instead of disperse accumulation of faecal sludge over a period, we will find it being released in a concentrated form, reversing all the gains that the preceding years have seen.

There is no doubt that a true and complete Swachh Bharat is a challenge for a country like India. But for Swachh Bharat to succeed, we need to highlight its successes and but equally importantly discuss the constraints to ensure course correction. It is only then that we will be able to meet our goal.

FULL VIDEO OF THE PRESENTATION AND PANEL DISCUSSION
ELECTION STUDIES POLITICS

Watch the full video (above) of a short data-driven presentation by Neelanjan Sircar unpacking the results of the Gujarat elections, followed by a panel discussion between Prashant Jha, Mahesh Langa, Ruhi Tewari and Gilles Verniers.

Bringing together experts from academia and media, the event analyses BJP’s victory in Gujarat, and its relevance for national politics in India.

Neelanjan Sircar is Senior Fellow at CPR.

Prashant Jha is Associate Editor at Hindustan Times.

Mahesh Langa is Senior Associate Editor at The Hindu.

Ruhi Tewari is Associate Editor at ThePrint.

Gilles Verniers is Co-Director of the Trivedi Centre for Political Data at Ashoka University.

The question and answer session that followed can be accessed here. The presentation from the event can be accessed here.

INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION OF THE CPR-TCPD (TRIVEDI CENTRE FOR POLITICAL DATA, ASHOKA UNIVERSITY) DIALOGUES ON INDIAN POLITICS
ELECTION STUDIES POLITICS

Watch the full video (above) of a short data-driven presentation by Neelanjan Sircar unpacking the results of the Karnataka elections, followed by a panel discussion between Sreenivasan Jain, Manisha Priyam and Sugata Srinivasaraju.

Bringing together experts from academia and media, the event analyses the electoral performance of the BJP (Bhartiya Janata Party), Congress (Indian National Congress) and JD(S) (Janata Dal-Secular) in Karnataka, and the relevance of the election outcome for the 2019 Lok Sabha election.

Neelanjan Sircar is a Senior Fellow at CPR.

Sreenivasan Jain is Managing Editor at NDTV.

Manisha Priyam is Associate Professor at the National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA).

Sugata Srinivasaraju is Co-Founder and Editorial Director at The State.

The question and answer session that followed can be accessed here.

The presentation from the event can be accessed here.

About the CPR-TCPD Dialogues

This was the first event in the CPR-TCPD Dialogues on Indian Politics series, launched in a partnership between Centre for Policy Research and Trivedi Centre for Political Data (TPCD) at Ashoka University. This is a monthly event that brings together academicians, policy and political practitioners, and civil society actors to grapple with important social and political issues in India. It provides a forum for intellectually rigorous, non-partisan commentary to strengthen public discourse on politics in India. In these polarised times, debates on politics in India have tended to be increasingly noisy, blurring the lines between critical engagement and partisan endorsement. This dialogue series is an effort to carve out a space for critical, nuanced engagement to understand the changing dynamics of Indian political parties, the impact of new and emerging social movements and the use of new instruments of mobilization in our polity.

 

FULL AUDIO OF TALK
IDENTITY DISCRIMINATION POLITICS

Listen to the full audio of the talk (above) by Manoj Mitta, where he discusses various instances of impunity in cases of anti-Dalit violence. Citing incidents of delay in commencement of trials in cases of anti-Dalit attacks, failure to act against influential accused, and violence against Dalits with police impunity, he highlights the underlying patterns that delay and deny justice to Dalits in India.

Drawing from official documents, Mitta has authored critically acclaimed books on two episodes of communal violence:When a Tree Shook Delhi: The 1984 Carnage and its Aftermath (co-authored with HS Phoolka, 2007); and The Fiction of Fact-Finding: Modi and Godhra (2014). He is currently researching atrocities against Dalits for his next book.

More information about the talk can be found on the event page.

 

BY CPR-NAMATI ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Issues related to environment can manifest in various forms. From rivers being polluted by industrial activities to beaches being used as dumping sites by the municipality, the effects of environmental degradation are far-reaching. Often these are a result of non-adherence to provisions of legal directions for environmental compliance by various actors.

Normatively, all industrial activities, under the ambit of law, have to comply with pre and post environmental clearances. Additionally, they may also have to comply with terms and conditions in existing lease documents, land transfer agreements, court judgments – all of which require a clear institutional framework, robust administrative agencies, and proper remedial actions in case of violations.

The second and updated version of the CPR-Namati ‘Handbook on Legal and Administrative Remedies for Environment Justice Practitioners’ presents a range of possible scenarios of non-compliances that are likely to occur across geographies and industrial sectors, and remedial actions that can be taken to address these.

The Handbook has been developed with the objective of providing those affected by environmental non-compliances with a ready guide to address such violations through appropriate legal means. For this purpose, it has been translated in four languages, including Hindi, Oriya, Gujarati and Kannada.

The Handbook draws on the action research carried out by the CPR-Namati Environment Justice Program in Gujarat (Kutch, Valsad, Gir Somnath, Jam-Kambhaliya, Dwarka districts), Karnataka (Uttara Kannada district), Chhattisgarh (Sarguja, Janjgir-Champa and Korba districts) and Odisha (Keonjhar district).

It provides the reader with a ready reference list of remedial laws in cases of different types of non-compliances. It also provides case studies of how the Program’s para legal practitioners on the ground assisted affected communities in preparing robust legal evidence to seek justice.

In addition to the laws, the Handbook provides an overview of institutions that can be approached for information and remedial measures. It details the processes required for obtaining permissions from these institutions and the monitoring and compliance systems in place for each institution.

The full handbook can be downloaded here. Translations in Oriya-English, Gujarati-English, Kannada-English, Romi-English and Devnagri-English can also be accessed.