Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

NESREA releases latest environmental audit guidelines as experts get enlightened

The National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), Nigeria has unveiled its latest Environmental Audit Guidelines and Manual to shape performance across sectors in line with global standards. Speaking at a one-day capacity building workshop for NESREA Accredited Consultants and Staff on Environmental Audit Reporting organized in partnership with the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in India, the Director General of NESREA, Dr. Innocent Barikor observed that the audit reports received from consultants comes in different formats and lacks important information, which in some cases they do not reflect the actual status of the process of the operating facility. He also noted that the reports do not adequately cover the information included in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) developed during the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA); adding that it is intended to streamline the processes associated with undertaking and review of the environmental audits. “As we are aware, high-quality audit reporting is a foundation to environmental compliance and enforcement. Our reports are key instruments that guide policy, inform industry standards and ultimately shape environmental performance across sectors. “This workshop is sure to emphasize best practices for reporting, including enhanced environmental data interpretation, effective visualization and clear communication of findings and recommendations. This goal is to produce audit reports that are actionable and technically robust, providing clear guidance for industries and facilities to improve their environmental management practices,” he emphasized. While highlighting the significance of the workshop, Dr. Barikor explained that the engagement focuses on two important aspects of environmental auditing which are: International Best Practices and Current Realities in Environmental Auditing; and Enhanced Audit Reporting for Regulatory and Strategic Impact. Going forward, the Director General assured that the Agency will be verifying the parameters in the Audit Report submitted by consultants and will also take a decisive action against any consultant that engages in falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. “It will be important to let you know that the Agency is carefully monitoring the activities of the state field offices to ensure that staff do not obstruct or interfere with the work of NESREA Accredited Consultants. “As NESREA staff and accredited consultants, you are on the frontlines of environmental compliance, you play a critical role in safeguarding Nigeria’s natural resources and public health. This training will enhance your capacity to enforce compliance, identify areas for environmental improvement and contribute valuable insights to our ongoing environmental strategy,” he said. In her remarks, Ishita Garg of CSE who highlighted some loophole in the approach, stressing that most of the audit reports had enough of qualitative information but lacked in basic quantitative data like the production capacity, energy and water consumption, quantity of wastewater and solid waste generated. She pointed out the reports also have only one-year data which makes it difficult to compare the performance of the industry with the previous years. She added that in the absence of sufficient data, the whole audit process becomes ineffective.

NESREA unveils updated environmental audit guidelines

The National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) has introduced updated Environmental Audit Guidelines to address gaps in industry reporting and enhance environmental performance across Nigeria. The guidelines, unveiled during a workshop organized in collaboration with the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi, aim to streamline environmental audit processes. The event brought together over 350 participants, including NESREA-accredited consultants and agency staff. An environmental audit evaluates an organization’s operations to improve environmental performance and identify compliance gaps. However, previous reports were criticized for their lack of essential technical data, inconsistent formats, and inadequate coverage of Environmental Management Plans (EMP) outlined during Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). “The revised guidelines will ensure standardized and accurate reporting, with stricter oversight on data authenticity,” said Dr. Innocent Barikor, Director General of NESREA. He emphasized the agency’s commitment to verifying audit parameters and taking action against falsified reports. The collaborative effort with CSE resulted in guidelines focusing on quantitative data, such as production capacity, resource consumption, and waste generation, addressing previous shortcomings in reporting. “A comprehensive audit aids industries in improving efficiency, optimizing resource use, and ensuring compliance,” noted Ishita Garg of CSE. She highlighted the monetary and environmental benefits of robust audits and the importance of multi-year data for performance tracking. The Director of Inspection and Enforcement, Mr. Isa Abdussalam, added that the updated guidelines would not only assist industry stakeholders but also empower regulatory bodies to enforce compliance effectively.

Mobility crisis behind Delhi pollution

Despite taking several technology measures to curb pollution from vehicles, vehicular pollution has emerged as the top polluter in the capital city of Delhi. Explosive motorization, choking congestion and inadequate public transport services are undercutting the emission gains from technology measures in the transport sector of the city. This has emerged from the new analysis by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) that has shown how even after implementing the largest ever CNG programme for the public transport and local commercial transport, phasing out of 10-year-old diesel and 15-year-old petrol vehicles, restrictions on entry of non-destined trucks, introduction of Bharat Stage 6 emissions standards, and onset of the fleet electrification, vehicles are still the key polluter due to the growing mobility crisis.

“Continuously opposed”: Global South vexed at what went unsaid at COP29

For the first time at a climate conference, the Global South collectively warned about the effects of unilateral trade measures. In consultations with the Azerbaijani presidency at COP29, the G77+China group expressed “deep concern” that some developed countries’ one-sided protectionist policies will undermine their economies. In a statement seen by African Arguments, the bloc of 134 developing countries warned: “The rise in unilateral policies and actions in the political, economic and trade domains is a major threat to multilateralism and should be stopped…The use of a hard stick hitting on our heads and hands is not a solution to climate change response.” A major focus of the Global South’s consternation is the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Introduced in 2023, the regulation imposes a carbon tax on certain imports such as aluminium, steel, fertilisers and cement. Other countries such as the UK and Australia are considering imposing their own versions. The intention of these policies is to put a price on carbon and thus incentivise producers to adopt lower emitting practices. However, critics argue that these unilaterally imposed measures unfairly impact countries in the Global South that lack the resources to transition to clean energy. One study suggests that CBAM could reduce Africa’s GDP by $25 billion, which is about three times the amount of development aid the EU provides to the continent. “Many African countries are still reliant on carbon-intensive industries as they transition to greener economies,” Ali Mohamed, Chair of the African Group of Negotiators (AGN), told African Arguments. “We feel that imposing CBAM without adequate support for these transitions can harm their economies and reduce the resources they have for adaptation and resilience.” The negotiator explained that the Global South pushed for trade measures to be discussed at COP29 in Baku. “We want to ensure that climate policies do not become inadvertent economic penalties for vulnerable nations,” he said. However, he says, their calls were “continuously opposed” by developed countries. “Not this forum” At COP28 in Dubai last year, the BASIC Group – comprising Brazil, South Africa, China, and India – argued that the impacts of unilateral trade measures should be a separate agenda item. Developed countries, and the EU in particular, disagreed. As a result, such discussions were integrated into other negotiation tracks such as response measures. The response measures track includes discussions on how countries’ responses to climate change could have adverse impacts and how such impacts could be managed. At COP29, the BASIC Group once again proposed a stand-alone agenda item on unilateral trade measures. The G77+China echoed these calls in their statement and called on parties “to refrain from playing the game of ‘that forum, not this forum’”. This was a reference to developed countries resisting discussions by arguing that the issue is inappropriate to the conference at hand. At climate talks, Global North negotiators have said issues such as CBAM are to do with trade. At forums like the World Trade Organisation, they have suggested that carbon border taxes are questions of climate policy. For Mahendra Shunmoogam, Director of International Trade Policy for the Republic of South Africa, the distinction is nonsensical. “Things don’t operate in silos,” he says. “Climate change impacts trade and industrialisation and economic growth. Developed countries have been quite reluctant to recognise trade and other economic issues at COPs, but we can’t have these discussions separately.” Shunmoogam expressed similar concerns during COP29 negotiations as part of South Africa’s delegation. Some experts from the Global South believe that unilateral trade measures should be discussed at both trade and climate talks. The intergovernmental South Centre has elaborated on how measures like CBM violate WTO rules. Meanwhile, many have pointed out that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), under which COPs operate, explicitly calls on parties to “promote a supportive and open international economic system”. It warns that “measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade”. “Developed countries cannot make it go away” Despite the efforts of the Global South, developed countries successfully rejected comprehensive discussions on unilateral trade measures at COP29. Instead, parties agreed to establish a five-year work plan as part of negotiations on response measures to “analyse, assess and report on the impacts of measures taken to combat climate change, including cross-border impacts”. As the concerns of the Global South grow, however, developed countries may find it increasingly difficult to defer discussions. At the Third South Summit in January 2024, the G77+China criticised “unilateral and discriminatory border adjustment mechanisms and taxes”. After the G20 summit in Brazil, held at the same time as COP29, the Leaders’ Declaration noted similar concerns. The clamour to address the issue is only likely to increase. “The G77 has converged on the issue of unilateral trade measures,” says Avantika Goswami, Programme Manager for Climate Change at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). “Developed countries most likely cannot make it go away, much as they will attempt to. The concerns of the developing world are real.” Many in the Global South feel it is a great injustice that their countries are suffering from both the Global North’s historic actions in driving the climate crisis and from their purported solutions to it today. Measures like CBAM were imposed without consultation with developing countries that may be significantly affected. “Climate change began with developed countries industrialising and causing damage,” says Shunmoogam . “Now they are taking unilateral action like CBAM that perpetuates inequalities…The reforms now must happen within the multilateral system.”

Emissions from thermal power are flying under the radar of air pollution action

Air pollution in north India made headlines across the world when Air Quality Index (AQI) levels were recorded as over 1,500 a few weeks ago – unprecedented, experts said, even for a region that routinely ranks among the world’s most polluted. Though crop-residue burning contributes to such seasonal peaks, there’s a steady combustion source that is many times more polluting: thermal power plants. Seasonal burning of the paddy crop residue coincides with lowering temperatures and more stagnant winds, which causes a high level of pollutants to gather over the Indo Gangetic Plain over the winter. This curtain of smog is mostly made up of PM2.5 particles – very fine, toxic pollutants that are released on the combustion of fuels or burning of biomass. But pollution from thermal power plants is continuous, and responsible for a sizable pollution load annually. An analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) found that thermal power plants emit 10 times more kilotonnes of PM2.5 compared to crop residue burning, and over 200 times more kilotonnes of sulfur dioxide, another harmful pollutant. In the National Capital Region alone, thermal power plants emit 16 times more sulphur dioxide compared to stubble burning. “Despite the significant health and environmental impact of coal fired power plant emissions, regulatory enforcement on these power plants remains far less stringent compared to the seasonal restrictions and penalties imposed on stubble burning,” the analysis says. Curbing emissions from thermal power plants involves installing flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems, which filter sulphur dioxide – a precursor to PM2.5. Despite scientific consensus on the efficacy of FGD technologies, as well as existing mandates on their installation, the government has sent out mixed signals on the implementation of FGD. On November 19, the Ministry of Power sought an extension on the installment of FGD in thermal power plants. Also in November, the NITI Aayog, the government’s foremost think tank, suggested thermal power plants could do away with FGD technologies altogether. “The biggest problem is that there’s a lack of understanding among stakeholders when it comes to the importance and enforcement of FGD,” said Shreya Verma, Programme Officer of industrial pollution at the Centre for Science and Environment. “Casting doubts over the need for FGD indicates to industry that they can continue to be lax with compliance.” The first deadline for compliance with FGD is December 31, 2024, for power plants within a 10 kilometer radius of Delhi NCR. However, out of the four power plants that fall in this category, only one has fully complied, while another has partially complied, CREA’s analysis shows. India’s sulphur dioxide emissions are rising Coal fired power plants account for around 47% of India’s total electricity generation capacity, but are the source for over 70% of India’s power demand. Even though the government is making strides in establishing renewable energy capacity, coal continues to meet a bulk of the country’s electricity and power needs. As the world’s third largest producer of coal, India is also among the top emitters of sulphur dioxide. In 2022, India emitted 16% of the world’s sulphur dioxide, making it the world’s largest emitter of this gas. Sulphur dioxide emissions from thermal power plants have grown since 2019, according to satellite images analysed by CREA. Between June 2022 and May 2023, thermal power plants released approximately 4,327 kilotonnes of sulphur dioxide. In Delhi-NCR alone, sulphur dioxide emissions from thermal power plants were found to be 281 kilotonnes. Over the same period, burning 8.9 million tonnes of paddy straw in Punjab and Haryana resulted in 26.7 kilotonnes of particulate matter (PM2.5) and 17.8 kilotonnes of sulphur dioxide. Emissions from thermal power plants are “over 10 times and 240 times higher” than emissions from stubble burning, the analysis says. “The challenge is not confined to centrally run power plants. FGD installation is lagging in private and state operated power plants, and it’s these plants that have the maximum reduction potential,” said Manoj Kumar, an analyst at CREA and lead author of the paper. The highest concentrations of sulphur dioxide were found in central and eastern states, which house a large number of thermal power plants – the Mahanadi basin (covering Chhattisgarh and Odisha), around Biswanathpur (Odisha), and Govind Ballabh Pant Sagar (Uttar Pradesh). Installing FGD in thermal power plants can reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide from 4,327 kilotonnes to 1,547 kilotonnes, according to CREA. “This amounts to an overall reduction of approximately 64%, highlighting the tremendous potential impact of FGD technology on reducing air pollution from coal fired power plants,” says the analysis. Compliance has been lax The scientific evidence that FGD technologies reduce sulphur dioxide emissions is largely uncontested. Removing sulphur dioxide emissions can prevent the formation of secondary particles. Once sulphur dioxide is released, it can oxidize in the air to form sulphate aerosols, which form PM2.5. In 2022, the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi and the Central Electricity Authority found that FGD in 67 coal power plants could reduce surface sulphur dioxide concentrations by 55% within a 60 to 80 kilometer radius, and reduce surface concentrations of sulfate aerosols by about 30%, with reductions extending to 100 km from the emission source. Globally, India has indicated its support for technologies like FGD when it agreed to phase down unabated coal power (“unabated” refers to emissions without any reductions). But domestically, the installation of FGD technologies has been marred by delays in compliance and laxity in enforcement. Less than 1% of funds in India’s clean air programmes are directed towards controlling emissions from thermal power plants and other industrial sources, for example. India introduced compliance norms for emissions from thermal power plants in 2015, first stipulating that all thermal power plants should install FGD and meet emission norms by December 2017. This deadline for FGD installation was then revised twice, on the instance of the Ministry of Power and Association of Power Producers, with staggered timelines introduced to facilitate installation. According to the latest notification, issued by the Ministry of Environment in 2022, power plants within a 10 kilometer radius of Delhi NCR or cities having a population of more than a million people are required to meet compliance norms by December 31, 2024. These are Category A plants. Category B plans, which are within a 10 kilometer radius of “critically polluted areas”, are required to comply by December 31, 2025, while the rest of the power plants in the country must comply by December 31, 2026. Missing these deadlines will make plants liable to pay Rs. 0.2 to Rs. 0.4 per unit of electricity generated, depending on the period of non-compliance. Installing FGD can take up to three years. Out of 600 thermal power plants, only 44 have installed FGD systems, while bids for installation have been awarded for another 233 units. In its letter on November 19, the Ministry of Power requested each category deadline be extended by 36 months, citing “major constraints” in timely compliance. “These constraints are primarily limited to limited domestic manufacturing capacity due to limited vendor base, dependence on imports, and a sudden growth in demand to meet the stipulated timelines,” says the letter, which Mongabay India has seen. Ashwini Chitnis, an energy specialist and Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Social and Economic Progress, says the reasons seeking extensions have largely remained unchanged over the last ten years. “FGD is not a new technology. There’s a well-established global supply chain because installing it in the West and China is mandatory. We routinely import equipment for other aspects of the energy sector, such as say, for solar panels. More importantly, it is not as though any efforts are being made to install FGDs, and they are being delayed due to such constraints. So, repeatedly citing such vague reasons for missing deadlines is unacceptable”, she said.

Reimagining Plastic Waste Management in India

For Prelims: Plastic pollution,UN Environment Programme's Global Plastics Treaty, Electric vehicles,Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana,Dioxins and furans, Microplastics, Paris Agreement,Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016,Urban local bodies,Environmental Compensation, Hyderabad's Jawahar Nagar WTE plant. For Mains: Major Sectors in India that are Relying Heavily on Plastic, Challenges Emerging from the Mismanagement of Plastic Waste in India The global endeavor to address plastic pollution through the UN Environment Programme's Global Plastics Treaty has reached an impasse, revealing deep divisions between nations on how to tackle this environmental menace. While developed countries and island nations advocate for stringent production cuts to combat the pervasive environmental and health risks of plastic, many developing countries, including India, resist such measures, viewing them as economic threats. India's current plastic recycling capacity stands at merely one-third of its annual plastic introduction, underscoring the critical need for a comprehensive and proactive approach to plastic waste management. What are the Major Domains in India Relying Heavily on Plastic? Packaging Industry: Accounting for approximately 59% of India's plastic consumption, the packaging sector relies heavily on both rigid and flexible plastics for their durability and cost-effectiveness. The surge in e-commerce and retail has amplified the demand for plastic packaging solutions. For instance, the widespread use of plastic packaging during the Covid-19 pandemic facilitated the safe distribution of essential goods. Building and Construction: This sector utilizes plastics in pipes, insulation, and fittings due to their corrosion resistance and longevity. The government's "Housing for All" initiative has further propelled the use of plastic materials in affordable housing projects, enhancing construction efficiency and reducing costs. Automotive Industry: Plastics are integral in manufacturing automotive components like dashboards, bumpers, and fuel tanks, aiding in weight reduction and fuel efficiency. The push towards electric vehicles (EVs) has intensified the adoption of lightweight plastic materials to extend battery life and performance. Companies like Tata Motors have incorporated advanced plastic composites in their EV models to achieve these goals. Agriculture: The agricultural sector employs plastics in applications such as drip irrigation systems, greenhouse films, and mulching, which enhance water conservation and crop yields. The Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana promotes micro-irrigation techniques, increasing the demand for plastic-based solutions to improve agricultural productivity. Healthcare: Plastics are vital in producing medical devices, disposables, and packaging, ensuring hygiene and patient safety. The Covid-19 pandemic underscored the importance of plastic in manufacturing personal protective equipment (PPE) kits, syringes, and vaccine vials, facilitating mass immunization efforts across the country. What Challenges Are Emerging from the Mismanagement of Plastic Waste in India? Environmental Degradation: Plastic waste in India amounts to nearly 9.3 million tonnes annually, with 40% of it remaining uncollected, severely impacting rivers, soil, and marine ecosystems. Rivers like the Ganga significantly contribute to a major chunk of global riverine plastic pollution, disrupting aquatic biodiversity and food chains. Plastics take up to 500-1000 years to degrade, resulting in microplastic contamination in drinking water sources, posing a grave threat to ecosystems. Public Health Crisis: Plastic pollution significantly contributes to respiratory diseases due to open burning, releasing harmful carcinogenic chemicals like dioxins and furans. Additionally, microplastics have infiltrated the human food chain through water, seafood, and salt, raising serious concerns about long-term health risks such as endocrine disruption and infertility. In 2024, India to be among top 4 contributors of microplastics released into water bodies Economic Burden: India recycles 60% of its plastic waste—much higher than the global average of 9%. However, this is primarily driven by the informal sector, which employs 1.5 million waste pickers working in hazardous conditions, with little access to healthcare, insurance, or fair wages. This perpetuates socio-economic marginalization. Moreover, plastic pollution incurs heavy costs for India’s economy in the form of lost fisheries, tourism revenue, and damage to urban infrastructure. . Regulatory Gaps: Despite the ban on certain single-use plastics introduced in July 2022 and the establishment of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations, compliance remains weak due to limited monitoring and enforcement. Small-scale manufacturers, who make up 90% of the plastics industry, face high compliance costs, leading to resistance and ineffective transition to eco-friendly alternatives. A new Centre for Science and Environment report uncovers 70,000 fake certificates and low registration of major polluters, and banned items like plastic cutlery continue to be produced. Climate Change Nexus: Plastics are petroleum-based and their production and incineration contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. India’s increasing reliance on plastics in sectors such as packaging, agriculture (e.g., mulch films), and e-commerce exacerbates the nation’s carbon footprint. Additionally, energy-intensive recycling processes undermine India’s climate goals under the Paris Agreement. Socio-Cultural Barriers: India faces significant behavioral challenges in reducing plastic usage, as single-use plastics are deeply embedded in everyday consumption patterns. Public awareness about alternatives and proper waste segregation remains insufficient, limiting the success of government initiatives. Cultural practices, such as mass consumption during festivals, lead to seasonal spikes in plastic waste, overwhelming municipal systems. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) recovered 363 metric tonnes (MT) of solid waste from seven beaches in Mumbai after Ganesh Chaturthi in 2024. Lack of Circular Economy Solutions: India’s waste management infrastructure remains inadequate for handling the growing plastic burden. Only 12-15% of plastic waste is scientifically processed, while the rest is dumped in landfills or waterways. Innovative technologies such as pyrolysis and bioplastics, which could improve plastic waste management, are underutilized due to high costs and insufficient public-private partnerships. What is the Current Plastic Waste Management Framework in India? Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016: Focus on minimizing waste generation, preventing littering, and ensuring segregation and proper disposal. It introduces Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for producers, importers, and brand owners. The minimum thickness of plastic carry bags is raised to 50 microns, with rural areas also included for implementation. Plastic Waste Management (Amendment) Rules, 2018: Phases out non-recyclable, non-energy recoverable, or non-reusable multi-layered plastic (MLP). Introduces a registration system for producers under the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules, 2021: Bans specific single-use plastics by 2022 and mandates EPR for packaging waste. Increases carry bag thickness to 120 microns by December 2022. Plastic Waste Management (Amendment) Rules, 2022: Sets mandatory recycling and reuse targets, imposes environmental compensation for non-compliance, and promotes a circular economy. Plastic Waste Management (Amendment) Rules, 2024: Specifies registration, reporting, and certification requirements for manufacturers and importers. Expands definitions of "importer" and "producer," mandates certification for biodegradable and compostable plastics, and requires reporting of pre-consumer plastic waste.

Climate Change Crisis Being Seen As Investment Opportunity, COP29 A Disappointment, Says Top Official

Days after the year’s biggest annual UN climate summit ended with a $300 billion target for climate finance, India’s top environment official reaffirmed that COP29 failed to deliver, emphasising that the crisis of climate change is being viewed as a potentially commercially viable proposition — calling it the saddest part of the debate. “India made it abundantly clear, in words that were unambiguous and unequivocal, that this was not the deal that was to be accepted. It did not deserve to be the ultimate outcome. India made its point very strongly, and did not back down right down to the final negotiation of the text," said Leena Nanda, Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), during a public talk on climate in New Delhi. The two-week long tense UN negotiations had closed in Baku with a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) of $1.3 trillion, with developed nations committing just $300 billion per year by 2035 in climate finance to developing countries. Global South slammed the deal for being inadequate, with India recording its opposition at the plenary, calling it an “optical illusion". “Why are we not able to mobilise funds for mitigation? It is not that they are not there. They are being utilised for the purpose of investment. So, climate change as a challenge, this crisis, is being looked at as a potentially, commercially viable proposition. That is the saddest part of the entire debate and discussion," she added. The senior environment ministry official who was an integral part of India’s delegation at the recently concluded summit emphasised there will be no real progress until there is a clear definition of climate finance, and commitment on how $300 billion annually will be directed to developing nations. “The sentiment is widespread across the developing world, strongly voiced by India and supported by many other nations. COP29 failed to deliver," she added. Nandan also reiterated India’s strong opposition to the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), highlighting that G77+China agreed that it was fundamentally inequitable. “Instead of funds for decarbonisation, there is talk of coercive unilateral trade measures that are going to affect the very principle that economies of countries are founded on," she remarked. Speaking at the event, Sunita Narain, Director-General, CSE, brought attention to the severity of the climate change, highlighting how India is experiencing an extreme weather event almost every day in some region. “The world should have rejected the $300 billion deal. No deal would have been better than what we have come home with. This is not even peanuts. It has practically consigned 70 per cent of the world to a situation, where they have no option but to do development in ways that add to the emissions in the atmosphere. It has created a disabling framework, rather than an enabling one," she pointed out.

A plastics treaty is urgently needed, but getting it right will take time

More than two years ago, Nature urged the international community to put science front and centre as nations embarked on talks to agree a treaty to end plastics pollution. Such an agreement is needed urgently. Around 400 million tonnes of plastics are produced each year, and this figure is expected to double by 2040. Of all the plastics that have ever been produced, only about 9% have been recycled. If left unchecked, and if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial temperatures, plastics production and disposal are projected to be responsible for 15% of permitted carbon emissions by 2050. But the effort to curb plastics pollution is, at best, a work in progress. The latest round of talks in Busan, South Korea, broke up on 1 December without a treaty being formally agreed. Campaign groups and representatives of many countries — especially island states, which see the effects of plastics pollution every day, as plastics wash up on their coastlines — were visibly angry and frustrated. How to stop plastic pollution: three strategies that actually work The meeting’s outcome was not a surprise. International agreements can take years to finalize. This is particularly true of complex accords that involve the regulation of individual chemicals and chemical products. Talks on the United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention took more than a decade, from start to finish, before the agreement opened for signatures in 1993. The makings of a text for a plastics treaty are now in place and negotiators will reconvene within a year to continue talks. Although delegates’ frustrations are justified, the commitment to continuing the discussions and the ambition of most participating countries to secure a strong agreement are positive, says Samuel Winton, a researcher at the Global Plastics Policy Centre at the University of Portsmouth, UK, who is studying the negotiations as they unfold. There have been five rounds of negotiations since talks on an agreement got the green light at the UN Environment Assembly in March 2022. The proposed agreement will cover polymers and microplastics — particles less than five millimetres long — and products that contain them. UN plastics treaty: don’t let lobbyists drown out researchers It will include a list of named products to be regulated. There will also be provision for chemicals and products to be exempt from the treaty, but the criteria for these are yet to be defined. The treaty will have a “financial mechanism” — that is, some form of funding attached. Who will contribute, what the fund should total and what it is intended to be used for all remain to be agreed. Some of these questions might end up being parked until after the treaty text has been finalized and the first conference of the parties (or COP meeting) is held. We know from COP meetings on other topics that it is extremely difficult for participants to reach an agreement when there are too many issues in contention. One area on which the latest meeting reached, at best, a fragile consensus was the part of the text that says that any eventual agreement must cover the “full life cycle” of plastics. This was in no small part because what is meant by full life cycle still needs to be defined. Most countries interpret it as including both the production and disposal of plastics. However, some 30 countries that extract and sell fossil fuels — including Kuwait, Russia and Saudi Arabia — oppose the idea of setting limits on plastics production and would prefer the treaty to concentrate on regulating waste flows. This is an area in which a role for scientists will be key, both to help define terms according to a consensus of the evidence and to undertake research to bridge any knowledge gaps. Landmark treaty on plastic pollution must put scientific evidence front and centre That said, scientists have found it hard to get access to talks on the treaty. This is partly down to logistics — there are around 2,000 accredited observers allowed to attend the talks, out of a total of 3,300 participants, and meeting rooms cannot accommodate these numbers. Another reason, according to researchers at the Centre for Science and Environment, a think tank in New Delhi, is that some decisions were made in closed groups of countries that did not permit observers to attend. This is not a positive development, because it risks undermining trust in what should be a transparent process. Observers represent industry, non-governmental groups and academic research. So far, each negotiating session has seen more representatives from the fossil-fuel industry than the last, according to the Center for International Environmental Law, a non-governmental organization in Washington DC (see go.nature.com/3zgjzba). These voices cannot be allowed to dominate. The UN Environment Programme, based in Nairobi, is the overall host for the talks, and has still not announced how it will formally incorporate independent scientific advice. It should delay no further in addressing this: a formal role for scientists is essential. Both the treaty’s text, including its definitions, and the post-treaty implementation plans must be based on an accepted consensus of the research evidence. It is clear that the majority of countries do not want a weak treaty and are not going to compromise just to get a text over the line. And although all nations are looking to protect their own interests, no country doubts the need for an agreement to end plastics pollution. The status quo cannot continue — and scientists must guide the way, both during the negotiations and to ensure that the treaty, once finalized, is observed.

Delhi’s pollution crisis: A call for sustainable solutions

As India aspires to emerge as the world’s third-largest economy, it continues to grapple with the challenge of crafting a robust policy framework to combat the persistent environmental crises (read pollution) in its capital city, Delhi. Thankfully, the stubble-burning season officially concluded on November 30, 2024, and it is perceived as the end of the annual apocalypse of Delhi’s air pollution. But, it needs to be seen that although the practice was outlawed in 2015, it continues unabated, contributing to approximately 35 per cent of Delhi’s pollution. However, the core issue extends far beyond stubble burning, encompassing broader atmospheric and industrial factors. Decisive action in addressing these deeper challenges – and not prolonged silence – is the need of the hour. After weeks of smog and burning eyes and a high Air Quality Index (AQI), on December 2, 2024, Delhi’s air quality showed marginal improvement for the second consecutive day, with the AQI that was recorded at 273 in the morning – though still within the ‘poor’ category. According to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), the city’s 24-hour average AQI on December 1 stood at 285, providing a modest reprieve after 32 consecutive days of ‘very poor’ and ‘severe’ air quality (AQI levels exceeding 400). However, despite these minor improvements, the Supreme Court on December 2, 2024, refused to ease emergency restrictions under Stage 4 of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) for air pollution in Delhi. The Court emphasised that any relaxation of measures would depend on a consistent and substantial downward trend in AQI levels. The schools have nevertheless opened giving a fresh breath to the students from the online or hybrid mode. Although experts caution that pollution levels could potentially worsen, the past three days have seen clear skies and sustained, stronger winds from the northwest, which have facilitated the dispersion of pollutants. One of the most contributing factors of pollution, according to the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), is ‘vehicular pollution’ which remains the most significant contributor to Delhi’s air pollution, accounting for 51.1 per cent of emissions from all local sources, despite technical interventions aimed at reducing emissions. CSE’s analysis highlights a persistent ‘mobility crisis’ in the city, characterised by systemic shortcomings in the public transport infrastructure despite years of investment. This crisis has driven a sharp increase in the number of private vehicles, which now play a substantial role in fuelling winter air pollution. Notably, even during periods of reduced stubble burning, Delhi’s air quality frequently remains in the ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ categories. CSE’s report draws attention to several critical issues undermining public transportation, including its lack of reliability. For instance, instances of buses breaking down during transit rose significantly, from 781 in 2018-19 to 1,259 in 2022-23. Furthermore, high waiting times at bus stops reveal a fundamental inefficiency in the system: less than 1 per cent of bus stops offer waiting times of less than 10 minutes, while approximately 50 per cent require passengers to wait over 15 minutes.The state of public transportation in Delhi remains deeply inadequate. According to a report Delhi currently has approximately 45 buses per 100,000 residents, based on data from the 2011 census. This figure is significantly below the benchmark set by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, which recommends a ratio of 60 buses per lakh of the population. In comparison, major global cities such as London, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Seoul exhibit considerably higher ratios, ranging from 69 to 90 buses per 100,000 residents, highlighting a significant disparity in Delhi’s public transportation infrastructure.While the Delhi Metro has been championed as a cornerstone of urban mobility, its impact remains constrained. With an average daily ridership of only 2,700 passengers per train, the Metro’s limited capacity – that poor labourers aren’t able to afford – and reach is evident, failing to address the broader needs of the city’s commuters. According to The Economic Times, an unskilled daily-wage labourer in Delhi spend approximately 8 per cent of their income on travel via non-air-conditioned buses, 14 per cent on air-conditioned buses, and an alarming 22 per cent on the Metro. These figures underscore the economic burden placed on vulnerable sections of the population. The challenge is addressing the issue of ‘affordability’. Data from the ‘Economic Survey of Delhi 2023-24’ further paints a stark picture of the city’s growing vehicle population. Delhi currently has 7.9 million registered vehicles, with an additional 650,000 vehicles added in 2023-24, a figure that surpasses the pre-pandemic (COVID) annual average of 610,000. Moreover, the city experiences a daily influx and outflow of 1.1 million vehicles. The annual growth rate of two-wheelers and cars stands at 15 per cent, contributing significantly to transport-related pollution. Notably, according to the CSE, the transport sector accounts for 81 per cent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in the capital, further worsening its air quality challenges. There is a reports that the number of vehicles in the capital doesn’t correspond to the size of its population, showing how a small proportion of the population has an outsised contribution to the air pollution crisis. According to data obtained in the latest cycle of the National Family Health Survey, only a small proportion of families residing in Delhi own cars – 19 per cent in its rural areas and 28 per cent in its urban centers. Yet, Delhi streets are often congested by this small proportion of car-owners.” However, an equally concerning factor lies in the extensive proliferation of industries across Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR), which persist as major and consistent sources of pollutants. These industrial emissions subject the residents of Delhi to a form of ‘slow violence (read poison)’. Therefore, enhancing public transportation systems is a pivotal strategy for addressing the challenges posed by urban mobility and environmental sustainability in Delhi. Key measures such as improving last-mile connectivity, reducing fares to ensure affordability for a broader demographic, and expanding the public transport fleet to accommodate the city’s growing population are essential for reducing the dependence on private vehicles. By prioritising these initiatives, it is believed that a significant decrease in traffic congestion and vehicular emissions can be achieved, contributing to a cleaner and healthier urban environment. Moreover, such measures would improve the inclusivity and accessibility of the city, enabling individuals without personal vehicles to navigate Delhi more efficiently. In the long term, a robust and affordable public transport network would not only promote environmental sustainability but also enhance the overall quality of life for all residents by fostering greater equity and mobility within the city. (The writer is Programme Executive, Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti; views are personal)

DSS halts updates amid accuracy check

This is not the first setback in Delhi’s efforts to identify pollution sources. HT reported on November 21 that at least three key studies over the past four years were either halted or deemed ineffective. The Decision Support System (DSS) – the sole source apportionment tool currently available to assess or estimate sources of pollution in Delhi – has ceased updates. The reason: its performance is being evaluated by a Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) committee, which has asked the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) — it runs this model – to make “certain changes” to improve accuracy and align the model with updated terms of reference. The last data update on the DSS website spans November 26 to November 29, with no subsequent updates available. A CAQM official, speaking on condition of anonymity, clarified that DSS is still in its development phase and has not been fully commissioned. “An evaluation committee thus reviewed it and assessed that its data and accuracy was not in line with the terms of reference set for the model. It was also seen that some of the data or the emissions inventory being used was fairly old,” said the official, adding that a timeline for resuming updates remains uncertain. The tool is also likely to upgrade its weather forecasting methodologies, the official cited above said, adding that a time frame on the resumption of DSS was difficult to ascertain at this point. An IITM official confirmed the assessment, stating that “an expert committee is currently reviewing the tool”. Experts said that with the last source apportionment tool also not sharing data any longer offers little transparency to the general public in terms of sources impacting Delhi’s air. “By withholding data, DSS risks further eroding the already minimal transparency in identifying pollution sources. This lack of openness undermines accountability and hampers effective action against pollution. Decision-makers must leverage available data and tools like DSS, real-time source apportionment studies, and other systems to address pollution. Failing to do so wastes public resources, scientific efforts, and critical time needed to combat pollution effectively,” said Sunil Dahiya, lead analyst at the think-tank Envirocatalysts. This is not the first setback in Delhi’s efforts to identify pollution sources. HT reported on November 21 that at least three key studies over the past four years were either halted or deemed ineffective. In 2021, a real-time source apportionment study by Washington University, commissioned by the Delhi government, was abandoned due to “unsatisfactory results” before its findings were published. The project was later assigned to IIT Kanpur, but the two-year term ended in November 2022 without renewal. DSS, which was the final source apportionment tool left, was running on an old 2021 emissions inventory. Its website acknowledges the limitation: “The region and source-wise contributions are based on the emissions inventory formulated in 2021. For more accurate estimation of source contributions, updated emission fields are required.” Experts flagged the importance of having advanced scientific systems and the tools to support air quality management in real-time. Without updated data, policymakers and citizens are left in the dark about the shifting dynamics of Delhi’s pollution, even as the national capital grapples with recurring smog episodes and declining air quality. “The DSS system and real-time source apportionment studies prioritised for Delhi are essential for transparent and informed decision-making, particularly during smog episodes,” said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director of research and advocacy at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). The most recent DSS update, from November 26 onwards, indicated that stubble burning contributed 5.84% to Delhi’s PM2.5 levels. From November 27 to 29, the transport sector contributed an estimated 21-24.6% to PM2.5, while cross-boundary pollution sources such as Sonepat and Baghpat accounted for up to 9.96% and 6.51%, respectively.

COP29 seals Article 6 deal for carbon trading, but environmental concerns persist

Countries at COP29, organised in Baku, Azerbaijan, managed to make a breakthrough in finalising rules related to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which addresses carbon trading. However, concerns over transparency and environmental safeguards continue. At COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, over 200 countries formally adopted key rules and guidelines for Article 6 on November 23, extending the negotiations beyond the scheduled dates of November 11–22. Two separate drafts were adopted: one for Article 6.2, addressing bilateral or multilateral carbon trading, and another for Article 6.4, focusing on a centralised carbon trading mechanism. The host country described Article 6 as a game-changing tool that can ensure the flow of $250 billion annually to developing countries to support their climate plans. However, experts warn that the agreed language on Article 6 is so weak that it could lead to increased emissions instead of reductions. For instance, inconsistencies when a country misreports emission reduction have been a major concern. The final draft related to Article 6.2, which deals with bilateral or multilateral carbon trading, sets several rules to correct inconsistencies. As per this draft, countries will have to submit the report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the beginning of the project and annually. However, parties have no deadlines to fix the discrepancies or penalties for not following the carbon credit rules. Few parties wanted a strong consequence, and the draft talks about putting the parties’ names in the public if persistent inconsistency is found, but is it enough? “Several other measures could have been adopted, countries could have been asked to not trade in Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOS), equivalent to a carbon unit, until a resolution is made to this particular kind of inconsistency, says Trishant Dev, a Programme Officer for climate change at Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a Delhi-based think tank. There were other demands like incorporating human rights violations, etc, while setting the rules of future carbon trading, but it didn’t get space in the final draft, he added.

Data on pollution share not updated since Nov 29, air panel says rejig on

New Delhi: The Decision Support System (DSS), which provides data on the sources of local and regional PM2.5 pollutants, hasn't been updated since Nov 29. It is the city's lone source apportionment system and estimates the contribution of varied sources to the capital's air pollution. DSS is being reviewed by an expert committee, revealed sources in the Commission for Air Quality Management, and it is expected to start operating soon after some changes are effected. However, experts said data should be updated for transparency and public awareness. Launched in Oct 2021, and developed by the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, and funded by CAQM, DSS estimates and forecasts the contribution of local sources of pollution and those in 19 NCR districts to Delhi's PM2.5. It also calculates the percentage contribution of stubble burning to the city's air pollution. The system is available only for the winter season (Oct to Feb). The last data available on the DSS website is for Nov 26-29. Last winter, DSS had briefly stopped sharing data on pollution sources in Delhi. Sources in CAQM said DSS was still in the developmental state and hadn't been fully commissioned. "A project evaluation committee is reviewing DSS periodically because its data and accuracy were not in line with the terms of reference decided for the model. Some data used by the system or emission inventory was quite old. DSS has also been asked to update its weather forecasting techniques or methodologies," said a CAQM official. The official added that air pollution sources and emission patterns over the years in the entire NCR, as well as the weather forecasting techniques, needed to be updated in DSS. The system is being evaluated and will be resumed after changes are introduced to improve its accuracy, said the sources. According to DSS's website, the region and source-wise contributions are based on the emissions inventory formulated in 2021. "For a more accurate estimation of source contribution, the latest emission fields are required," says DSS's website. An IITM official confirmed that the system was being reviewed by an expert committee. "DSS was commissioned along with the early warning system in 2018, and it was then capable of calculating the share of biomass burning in Delhi's air quality. However, after CAQM was formed, the commission in 2021 funded the project for calculating other sources impacting Delhi's air quality," said the official, who, however, offered no clarity on when this system will become operational again. Experts emphasised that source apportionment data was needed to prepare strategies and reduce air pollution at the source level. Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, research and advocacy, Centre for Science and Environment, said, "Dynamic forecasting of the relative contribution of pollution sources and real-time assessment of the contribution of pollution sources to the city's air quality are critical for responsive and transparent decision-making, science-based air quality management, and tracking progress. Public investments in these systems need to be upscaled and not become wasteful." Sunil Dahiya, founder and lead analyst, Envirocatalysts, added that by withholding data, DSS risked further erosion of the already minimal transparency in identifying pollution sources. "This lack of openness undermines accountability and hampers effective action against pollution. Decision-makers must leverage available data and tools like DSS, real-time source apportionment studies, and other systems to address pollution. Failing to do so wastes public resources, scientific efforts, and critical time needed to combat pollution effectively," remarked Dahiya.

NESREA releases new environmental audit guidelines

The National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), Nigeria has unveiled new guidelines on environmental audit in Nigeria at a workshop-cum-report release programme today. The one-day workshop organized in partnership with the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a global think tank based in New Delhi, India is attended by over 350 participants comprising NESREA accredited consultants and staff of the Agency. An environmental audit is a series of activities undertaken with respect to the operations of a facility or an organisation to evaluate its environmental performance. It is not a one-time step but an ongoing activity that aims to identify and correct environmental issues that arise during the operation of a project and improve operating and environmental conditions in industries. The review of the guidelines was necessitated by observations that existing audit reports lacked essential technical data, hindering accurate assessments of industrial performance. Officially unveiling the Environmental Audit Guidelines and manual, the Director General of NESREA, Dr. Innocent Barikor said: “The Agency has observed that audit reports received from consultants come in different formats, lack important information, and in some cases they do not reflect the actual status of the process of the operating facility. Also, these reports do not adequately cover the information included in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) developed during the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The new guidelines are intended to streamline the processes associated with undertaking and review of the environmental audits”. Dr Barikor added: “This revised guideline is an outcome of the collaborative efforts between CSE and NESREA. I would like to extend my appreciation to CSE for the support they have provided to NESREA in the development of these guidelines, needed to standardize environmental audit reports in our country. Going forward the Agency will be verifying the parameters in the Audit Report submitted by consultants and will also take a decisive action against any consultant that engages in falsification, fabrication and plagiarism” In preparing the guidelines, officials of NESREA and CSE reviewed the existing audit guidelines and the corresponding environmental audit reports from different sectors and concluded that the existing audit reports lacked technical data and information required for depicting the performance of the industries. Speaking at the event, Ishita Garg of CSE said: “A thoroughly performed environmental audit allows industries to analyse the ambiguities in the implementation of management plans and take corrective measures. It also helps industries improve the process efficiency by optimizing the usage of resources, increasing production and thereby resulting in monetary benefits”. On the regulatory front, “a comprehensive audit report can be helpful as it will assist in assessing the compliance status of the industry and understand its environmental performance. Comparing data of two to three years can ascertain whether the performance of an industry is improving or declining,” she adds. Says Garg: “Most of the audit reports had enough of qualitative information but lacked in basic quantitative data like the production capacity, energy and water consumption, quantity of wastewater and solid waste generated. The reports also have only one-year data which makes it difficult to compare the performance of the industry with the previous years. In the absence of sufficient data, the whole audit process becomes ineffective,” she adds. The Director, Inspection and Enforcement, NESREA, Mr. Isa Abdussalam, said: “The new guidelines are more robust, focusing on quantitative and technical data from the industries along with the information on mitigation measures taken in various sectors over the years. Apart from being of immense use for project proponents and assistance to experts in conducting audits, these guidelines would also be useful for the regulatory bodies to review the submitted audit reports.”

NESREA train staff, accredited consultants on environmental audit reporting

The Director-General, National Environmental Standards and Regulations Environmental Enforcement Agency (NESREA), Dr. Innocent Barikor has charged staff of the Agency and accredited consultants to play a critical role safeguarding Nigeria’s natural resources and public health. He gave the charge on Wednesday at a capacity building workshop for NESREA staff and accredited consultants on Environmental audit reporting. The one-day workshop organized in partnership with the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a global think tank based in New Delhi, India is attended by over 350 participants comprising NESREA accredited consultants and staff of the Agency Dr. Barikor said NESREA staff and consultants are on the Frontline of environmental compliance, hence the training will enhance their capacity to enforce compliance, identify areas for environmental improvement and contribute valuable insights to our ongoing environmental strategy. “Today’s training is organized with a view to strengthening our approach to environmental auditing, align our practices with global standards and sharpen our focus on effective, high-quality audit reporting. It encompasses a comprehensive orientation on the National Environmental Audit Guidelines, recently reviewed by NESREA in collaboration with CSE. These guidelines reflect both international standards and the specific regulatory and environmental contexts of Nigeria. “This workshop focuses on two important aspects of environmental auditing, firstly, International Best Practices and Current Realities in Environmental Auditing and secondly, enhanced Audit Reporting for Regulatory and Strategic Impact. “This training is expected to expose NESREA officers and consultants to recent developments and equip them with global best practices that elevate the accuracy, comprehensiveness and impact of our audits. Our participants will be enlightened on advanced techniques such as risk-based auditing, lifecycle analysis and data-driven environmental assessments, all of which are essential to conducting audits that are not only compliant but also predictive and preventive. “As we are aware, high-quality audit reporting is a foundation to environmental compliance and enforcement. Our reports are key instruments that guide policy, inform industry standards and ultimately shape environmental performance across sectors. “This workshop is sure to emphasize best practices for reporting, including enhanced environmental data interpretation, effective visualization, and clear communication of findings and recommendations. The goal is to produce audit reports that are actionable and technically robust, providing clear guidance for industries and facilities to improve their environmental management practices. Speaking at the event, Ishita Garg of CSE said a thoroughly performed environmental audit allows industries to analyse the ambiguities in the implementation of management plans and take corrective measures. “It also helps industries improve the process efficiency by optimizing the usage of resources, increasing production and thereby resulting in monetary benefits”. She said on the regulatory front, a “comprehensive audit report can be helpful as it will assist in assessing the compliance status of the industry and understand its environmental performance. Comparing data of two to three years can ascertain whether the performance of an industry is improving or declining,” “Most of the audit reports had enough of qualitative information but lacked in basic quantitative data like the production capacity, energy and water consumption, quantity of wastewater and solid waste generated. The reports also have only one-year data which makes it difficult to compare the performance of the industry with the previous years. In the absence of sufficient data, the whole audit process becomes ineffective,” she adds. According to the Director, Inspection and Enforcement, NESREA, Mr. Isa Abdusalam “The new guidelines are more robust, focusing on quantitative and technical data from the industries along with the information on mitigation measures taken in various sectors over the years. Apart from being of immense use for project proponents and assistance to experts in conducting audits, these guidelines would also be useful for the regulatory bodies to review the submitted audit reports.”

NESREA To Take Decisive Action Against Consultants For Report Fabrication-DG

The Director General of NESREA, Dr Innocent Barikor says the Agency is monitoring the activities of state field offices to ensure that staff do not obstruct or interfere with the work of NESREA Accredited Consultants. Dr Barikor disclosed this at a “Capacity Building Workshop for NESREA Accredited Consultants and Staff on Environmental Audit Reporting,” held in Abuja the nation’s capital. He says going forward the Agency will be verifying the parameters in the Audit Report submitted by consultants and will also take a decisive action against any consultant that engages in falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. Dr Barikor also noted that the goal is to produce audit reports that are actionable and technically robust to provide clear guidance for industries and facilities to improve their environmental management practices. The DG also charged staff of the Agency and accredited consultants to play a critical role safeguarding Nigeria’s natural resources and public health. While identifying areas for environmental improvement and contribute valuable insights to NESREA ongoing environmental strategy, Dr Barikor says the training is expected to expose NESREA officers and consultants to recent developments and equip them with global best practices. “This training is expected to expose NESREA officers and consultants to recent developments and equip them with global best practices that elevate the accuracy, comprehensiveness and impact of our audits. Our participants will be enlightened on advanced techniques such as risk-based auditing, lifecycle analysis and data-driven environmental assessments, all of which are essential to conducting audits that are not only compliant but also predictive and preventive. “As we are aware, high-quality audit reporting is a foundation to environmental compliance and enforcement. Our reports are key instruments that guide policy, inform industry standards and ultimately shape environmental performance across sectors “ he stated. Dr. Barikor said NESREA staff and consultants are on the Frontline of environmental compliance, hence the training will enhance their capacity to enforce compliance. “This workshop is sure to emphasize best practices for reporting, including enhanced environmental data interpretation, effective visualization, and clear communication of findings and recommendations,” he added. Speaking at the event, Programme Manager Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), Ishita Garg, said on the regulatory front, a comprehensive audit report can be helpful as it will assist in assessing the compliance status of the industry and understand its environmental performance. “Comparing data of two to three years can ascertain whether the performance of an industry is improving or declining. “Most of the audit reports had enough of qualitative information but lacked in basic quantitative data like the production capacity, energy and water consumption, quantity of wastewater and solid waste generated. ‘The reports also have only one-year data which makes it difficult to compare the performance of the industry with the previous years. In the absence of sufficient data, the whole audit process becomes ineffective,” she stated. She further stressed that a thoroughly performed environmental audit allows industries to analyse the ambiguities in the implementation of management plans and take corrective measures. “It also helps industries improve the process efficiency by optimizing the usage of resources, increasing production and thereby resulting in monetary benefits,” she said. Director, Inspection and Enforcement, NESREA, Mr. Isa Abdusalam, explained that the new guidelines are more robust, focusing on quantitative and technical data from the industries along with the information on mitigation measures taken in various sectors over the years. According to him, “Apart from being of immense use for project proponents and assistance to experts in conducting audits, these guidelines would also be useful for the regulatory bodies to review the submitted audit reports.” The one-day workshop organized in partnership with the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a global think tank based in New Delhi, India was attended by over 350 participants comprising NESREA accredited consultants and staff of the Agency. The training workshop is to strengthen NESREA commitment to environmental sustainability, compliance, and the pursuit of excellence in conducting environmental audits across facilities in Nigeria. An environmental audit is a series of activities undertaken with respect to the operations of a facility or an organisation to evaluate its environmental performance. It is not a one-time step but an ongoing activity that aims to identify and correct environmental issues that arise during the operation of a project and improve operating and environmental conditions in industries.

NESREA Releases New Environmental Audit Guidelines

The National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) has released updated guidelines for environmental audits in Nigeria. The unveiling took place at a workshop held today in collaboration with the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a globally recognised think tank based in New Delhi, India. The event brought together over 350 participants, including NESREA-accredited consultants and agency staff. An environmental audit involves evaluating a facility’s or organisation’s environmental performance through a systematic review of its operations. This process identifies and addresses environmental issues while improving operational efficiency and environmental conditions. Unlike a one-time activity, an environmental audit is an ongoing process essential for sustainable industrial practices. The need to revise the guidelines arose from concerns that existing audit reports lacked critical technical data, undermining their effectiveness in accurately assessing industrial performance. Speaking at the official launch of the revised guidelines, NESREA’s director-general, Dr. Innocent Barikor highlighted these deficiencies. He stated, “Audit reports from consultants often come in inconsistent formats, lack crucial information, and fail to reflect the actual operational status of facilities. Moreover, these reports often do not align with the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) developed during Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). The new guidelines aim to streamline and standardise the environmental audit process.” Barikor credited the successful revision of the guidelines to the collaborative efforts between NESREA and CSE. He expressed gratitude to CSE for its support, noting that the updated guidelines would improve the accuracy and consistency of audit reports in Nigeria. He also emphasized NESREA’s commitment to monitoring the submitted reports closely. “The Agency will verify the parameters in audit reports and take decisive action against any consultant found guilty of falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism,” he warned. The revised guidelines were developed following a detailed review of existing environmental audit reports across various sectors. Officials from NESREA and CSE observed significant gaps in the technical data provided in these reports, which limited their effectiveness. For example, many reports lacked quantitative data on production capacity, energy and water consumption, and the volumes of wastewater and solid waste generated. Additionally, most reports included data for only one year, making it impossible to track trends or improvements over time. Highlighting the importance of robust audits, CSE representative Ishita Garg explained, “A comprehensive environmental audit helps industries identify gaps in their environmental management plans and take corrective action. It also optimises resource use, increases efficiency, and can lead to significant monetary benefits. From a regulatory perspective, a thorough audit enables better assessment of compliance and performance trends over multiple years.” Garg noted that many existing reports contained qualitative insights but fell short in providing critical quantitative data. “The absence of sufficient technical data renders the audit process ineffective. Reports should include at least two to three years of data for meaningful comparisons and insights into industry performance,” she added. NESREA’s director of inspection and enforcement, Mr. Isa Abdussalam underscored the technical improvements in the revised guidelines. “The new guidelines emphasise quantitative and technical data alongside mitigation measures adopted by industries over time. These enhancements make the guidelines valuable not only for project proponents and experts conducting audits but also for regulatory bodies reviewing audit reports,” he explained. The updated guidelines aim to bridge the gaps identified in the earlier framework and foster better compliance with environmental standards. By prioritising data accuracy and consistency, the guidelines promise to enhance industrial accountability and promote sustainable practices in Nigeria. The partnership between NESREA and CSE reflects a shared commitment to environmental protection and regulatory excellence. As industries adopt the revised guidelines, they are expected to improve their environmental performance and align more closely with global best practices.