Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

IBLA 2024: Meet The Winners Of India Business Leaders Awards, Check Full List

IBLA 2024: The winners of the India Business Leader Awards were announced on Saturday, celebrating visionary leaders who drive innovation, growth and transformation across industries with bold actions and unwavering commitment. Now in its 20th edition, CNBC-TV18 India Business Leader Awards have become a hallmark of excellence, honoring trailblazers whose courage, vision, and impact are redefining success. CATEGORY WINNER 1 Brand Campaign Of The Year Ariel 2 Young Turk Of The Year Noise 3 Young Turk Startup Of The Year The Sleep Company 4 Breakout Brand Of The Year Blissclub 5 Outstanding Contribution To Climate Consciousness Batx Energies 6 Disruptor Of The Year Blinkit 7 Most Promising Company Of The Year PI Industries 8 Outstanding Business Leader Of The Year Vellayan Subbiah 9 Outstanding Company Of The Year Bajaj Auto 10 In Memoriam Narayan Vaghul, Vineet Nayyar, Ranjit Shahani, Fali Nariman 11 Outstanding Contribution To Public Service Sunita Narain 12 Outstanding Contribution To Indian Economy IIT Madras (Special Recognition) 13 Entertainment Leader Of The Year Rajkummar Rao 14 Sports Leader Of The Year- Indian Chess Team Tania Sachdev 15 Lifetime Achievement Award Dr Cyrus Poonawalla 16 Outstanding Contribution To Brand India Nita Ambani 17 Hall Of Fame KP Singh

Plastic pollution negotiations at the crossroads in Busan

NEW DELHI: At the midweek of the global plastics stocktake, the fifth and final session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) in South Korea’s Busan is yet to decide what all should be included in the mandate—from a cut in production to regulating toxic chemicals used in making polymers. The final text of the agreement is due on December 1. However, environmental experts are dismayed at the way the negotiations have been progressing. For, the oversized presence of fossil fuel lobbyists threatens to turn the critical environmental agreement into a charade, undermining serious efforts to curb plastic production and pollution. They worry the final text may not craft a strong way forward to make the planet plastic-free. Financial mechanism India proposed a dedicated multilateral fund to compensate developing countries for their transition towards plastic-free living. The fund would help developing nations meet the additional costs of transition and invest in alternative sustainable materials, India argued. Around 100 other countries, including the African and Latin and Caribbean Group, made similar proposals like establishing a new, independent, adequate, and accessible financial mechanism to support developing countries meet their obligations under the proposed treaty. Workable consensus and equity-based model The developed countries group, which has 37 members, too, proposed a financial mechanism with a rider. It said no separate fund would be set up, but finance can be availed from existing multilateral mechanisms. However, India, like other developing countries, proposed a new treaty with fresh funds and no overlap with the mandates of other multilateral agreements. In this regard, it issued a statement on the fourth day of negotiations, stating that the mandates of other multilateral environmental agreements, such as the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions and international bodies like the World Trade Organization, are different from those of the treaty. These previous conventions are still debatable, and many countries still need to adopt them, India pointed out. India also sought the transfer of clean technology to developing countries to enable compliance with control measures agreed in the instrument. India has long opposed any legally binding international treaty on plastic pollution, preferring a voluntary and consensus-based approach to combating the menace. On Day 1 of the negotiations, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and Uganda called for consensus as a decision-making process for the treaty. Consensus gives individual countries the power to veto select treaty measures. However, a civil society group, Break Free From Plastic, criticised India’s position and dubbed it a ‘spoiler’. Reduce production Kenya proposed the phasing out of dangerous chemicals used in polymers and other problematic products and demanded transparency in the plastics manufacturing phase out with a clear deadline. Island nations proposed a 40% reduction of production levels by 2040 based on 2025 levels. India has always been against capping the manufacture of polymers—raw materials for the production of plastics by the petrochemical industry. The country has one of the world’s largest petrochemical industries. “As discussions are underway, India may dilute its stand on polymer supply and agree to cut production,” says Siddharth Ghanshyam Singh of the Centre for Science and Environment, who is at Busan. India generated around 3.5 million tonnes (MT) of plastic waste in 2020-21, but it can recycle less than half of it. However, the per capita consumption of plastic in India is just 15 kg as compared to the United States’ 139 kg and China’s 46 kg. Despite lower per capita consumption, India banned single use plastic from July 1, 2022. Global South colonised by plastic waste The negotiations focus on the Global South, where more than two-thirds of the annual 57 million tons of plastic pollution comes from. India, Nigeria, Indonesia and Sub-Saharan Africa are emerging as the largest sources of pollution. However, most Global South countries import raw materials like polymers from the Global North, which is synonymous with high-income nations. Experts term the practice of exporting waste from high-income countries to lower-income nations as waste colonialism. “If the Global North is serious about ending plastic pollution, they must stop the millions of tons of plastic waste export to the Global South,” says Pui Yi Wong with the Basel Action Network (Malaysia). “This must include plastic scraps, ‘hidden’ plastic waste in electronics, synthetic textiles, waste fuels, and other products, as well as illegally trafficked plastic waste. This injustice of waste colonialism must end.” Here is where industry lobbyists get into play. They infiltrate the negotiations and keep derailing the efforts to eliminate plastics.

FG Unveils New Environmental Audit Guidelines for Industries

The Federal Government of Nigeria has unveiled new environmental audit guidelines aimed at regulating the operations of facilities across the country. The announcement was made by Dr. Innocent Barikor, Director-General of the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), at a workshop in Abuja on Wednesday. The workshop, organized in collaboration with the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a global organization based in New Delhi, India, highlighted the guidelines’ purpose of enhancing environmental sustainability, compliance, and excellence in conducting audits across facilities in Nigeria. Dr. Barikor explained that the guidelines aim to identify and address environmental challenges arising during project operations, improve industrial practices, and minimize environmental impacts. He noted that audit reports from consultants have often been inconsistent, lacking crucial information, and sometimes failing to reflect the actual status of the operating facilities. “These reports do not adequately cover the details included in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) developed during the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA),” he said, adding that the new guidelines would streamline the environmental audit process. Emphasizing the importance of high-quality audit reporting, Dr. Barikor stressed that such reports serve as foundational tools for environmental compliance and enforcement. “Our reports guide policy, inform industry standards, and ultimately shape environmental performance across sectors. Aligning our guidelines with global best practices will ensure that Nigeria’s environmental audits are credible, transparent, and impactful on a global scale,” he said. Dr. Barikor further announced that NESREA would begin verifying the parameters in audit reports submitted by consultants and take decisive actions against any consultant involved in falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism. Ms. Ishita Garg from CSE also highlighted the value of a thorough environmental audit, noting that it allows industries to identify gaps in implementing management plans and take corrective actions.

Pathways for Indian Carbon Market

As India prepares to roll out its own national compliance-based carbon market, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has prepared a clear roadmap to help it along. India’s finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman had announced in the Budget of 2024-25 that a plan and appropriate regulations will be put in place for the transition of hard-to-abate sectors from a Perform, Achieve and Trade (PAT) mode to an Indian Carbon Market (ICM) mode. India has pledged to meet its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) targets by 2030, and aims for net-zero emissions by 2070, in line with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) guidelines. To meet these ambitious goals, the country has set out on a pathway to develop and launch its own national compliance-based carbon market. Carbon trading, also known as carbon emissions trading, is the use of a marketplace to buy and sell credits that allow companies or other parties to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide. 2 The trade has led to using carbon accounting to measure the impact made by companies, individuals, and governments. Formation of the Indian Carbon Market (ICM) had been announced under the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Act of 2022. More recently, The Carbon Credit and Trading Scheme (CCTS) was notified in July 2023, with an aim to reduce GHG emissions. CSE director general Sunita Narain says: “The upcoming Indian Carbon Market scheme should kick start with a large coverage of the country’s emissions. A single nation-wide carbon market scheme for carbon-intensive sectors should be brought in to ensure effective implementation and avoid any complexity. For this scheme to be effective, it also needs to ensure a high carbon price, data integrity and transparency.” https://www.thehansindia.com/hans/opinion/news-analysis/pathways-for-indian-carbon-market-927449

From Reviving Mega Projects To Handling Financial And Water Crisis: Tough Decisions Ahead For Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis

According to the Centre for Science and Environment, Delhi, the programme has created 24,000 cubic metres of water storage with an irrigation potential of 3.4 million hectares. Maharashtra's 21st chief minister Devendra Fadnavis (54) is facing several challenges which will put pressure on his administrative skills in the extreme. For starters he will have to revive two big ticket projects which were booted out by the erstwhile Uddhav Thackeray government. One is the Rs 3 lakh crore oil refinery and petrochemical project which was first to come up with investment from the Saudi oil major ARAMCO at Nanar and later shifted to Barsu in the Konkan belt. This mega project would have given a major boost to the state's economy. But the MVA government led by Uddhav Thackeray vetoed it on environmental grounds. The other project is the Jaitapur atomic power project which the French behemoth Areva was keen on implementing at a cost of Rs 1.12 trillion. With a capacity of 9,900 MW it was to be the biggest nuclear power plant in the world. The MVA said "nakko" (No) to this venture too despite the enormous benefits that would have accrued from it. On the one hand the MVA was complaining about large projects going to Gujarat whereas it was putting the brakes on mega projects in Maharashtra itself. Fadnavis' task would be to revive both these projects. The opposition is certain to prod the local villagers into agitation. Here the new CM's skills at negotiation will have to be used to take the locals on board. The state is facing a maha public debt of Rs 7.82 lakh crores of which the state has to repay Rs 2.75 lakh crores in the coming seven years. While the state ranks first in terms of foreign direct investment (FDI) in terms of public debt is second only to Tamil Nadu. Populist schemes like Ladki Bahin, on which there is an outlay of over Rs 40,000 crores, have majorly added to the financial burden of the state. It has a bloated and inefficient bureaucracy whose salary bill will shoot up to Rs 1.59 lakh crore in the next three months. The pension burden will be Rs 74,011 crores and interest payment is expected to rise to Rs 56,727 cr. Fadnavis will be required to take tough decisions to bring financial discipline. Though Maharashtra is perceived as a developed state the fact is that only seven of its 36 districts contribute significantly to its GDP. The World Bank, which sanctioned a $ 188.28 million loan to the state early this week, noted that these seven districts contribute to over half the $ 500 billion state's GDP. The other challenge will be to meet the acute water shortage in most parts of the state. Fadnavis had started implementing the revolutionary Jalyukt Shivar Yojana, but it was scrapped by the MVA government. The scheme aimed to provide for rainwater harvesting which was expected to rid 5,000 villages of water scarcity each year. Several questions have been raised regarding the success of this ambitious programme which was expected to drought proof Maharashtra. According to the Centre for Science and Environment, Delhi, the programme has created 24,000 cubic metres of water storage with an irrigation potential of 3.4 million hectares. ``That is just enough to provide 487 people with water for an entire year calculated as per the 135 per capita per day norm...." the Centre stated in a report. Fadnavis needs to prioritise the completion of the Gosikhurd irrigation project in Vidarbha which has an annual irrigation potential of 2,50,800 hectares. It has been a work in progress for the past 40 years and its deadline was extended for the sixth time. It is now expected to be completed in June, 2026. This project can boost farm income substantially for millions of farmers and also put an end to the spate of farm suicides. Over 14,000 farmers have ended their lives and this constitutes 37.6 percent of farmer suicides in the country. The CM is from Vidarbha and hence he has an extra responsibility to ensure the speedy completion of the project. Over 11,000 state government employees have got their jobs on the basis of fake scheduled tribe certificates. Despite a Supreme Court order the government has not taken criminal action against these employees who have deprived genuine ST candidates of jobs in the government. In fact the government has been treating these criminal employees with kid gloves. If Fadnavis is to provide a clean administration then it should file criminal cases for forgery against all these persons. In Mumbai, an activist Kalmalakar Shenoy unearthed a Rs 40,000 Cr scam involving several builders and officials of MHADA. Under rule 33 (7) of the Development Control the state government had given additional incentives to builders to redevelop dilapidated buildings in Mumbai. They were to surrender a portion of the flats in the reconstructed buildings to MHADA. But hardly any of them did that and MHADA did precious little to recover the flats from them. Shenoy moved the Bombay high court which ruled in his favour. Shockingly the state government has gone in appeal against this judgement of the Bombay high court even though it is in favour of MHADA. Fadnavis should immediately withdraw the appeal, initiate criminal proceedings against the builders and MHADA officials concerned and recover the Rs 40,000 crores pocketed by them. This is the least he can do to restore public confidence in the government.

Why the first-ever global treaty on plastic pollution has missed 2024 target

The world’s first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution, which was supposed to be finalised by the end of 2024, has been postponed to next year, primarily because negotiators from 175 countries failed to reach a consensus. The key objective of the resolution is to build a treaty to combat plastic pollution, including in the oceans, by incorporating both binding and voluntary approaches that aim to address the full lifecycle of plastic, from production and design to disposal. The fifth and final session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) took place from November 25 to December 1 in Busan, Republic of Korea. “It is clear there is persisting divergence in critical areas, and more time is needed for these issues to be addressed,” said Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Siddharth Ghanshyam Singh, deputy programme manager for municipal solid waste at the Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, spoke to INDIA TODAY about the major disagreements between countries that led to the impasse. Here are the key issues of disagreement: Committee decision-making: There is no consensus on whether every nation must agree to all provisions to finalise the treaty or if decisions should be made based on a two-thirds majority (120 countries) or a three-fourths majority (150 countries).

Africa: 'Continuously Opposed' - Global South Vexed At What Went Unsaid At COP29

In Baku, developed countries managed to prevent comprehensive discussions of unilateral trade measures. They can only delay for so long. 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. "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. Many developing countries have high unemployment rates and are worried about ripple effects on their industry from measures like carbon border taxes. Regulations like CBAM were imposed without consultation with 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." 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.

Why the first-ever global treaty on plastic pollution has missed 2024 target

The world's first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution, which was supposed to be finalised by the end of 2024, has been postponed to next year, primarily because negotiators from 175 countries failed to reach a consensus. The key objective of the resolution is to build a treaty to combat plastic pollution, including in the oceans, by incorporating both binding and voluntary approaches that aim to address the full lifecycle of plastic, from production and design to disposal. The fifth and final session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) took place from November 25 to December 1 in Busan, Republic of Korea. "It is clear there is persisting divergence in critical areas, and more time is needed for these issues to be addressed," said Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Siddharth Ghanshyam Singh, deputy programme manager for municipal solid waste at the Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, spoke to INDIA TODAY about the major disagreements between countries that led to the impasse. Here are the key issues of disagreement: Committee decision-making: There is no consensus on whether every nation must agree to all provisions to finalise the treaty or if decisions should be made based on a two-thirds majority (120 countries) or a three-fourths majority (150 countries). Capping plastic production: Regulating the production of virgin plastic remains a major point of contention. Along with curbing production, the treaty includes provisions for states to report plastic production, consumption, trade data and the amount of plastic waste generated.

Govts use climate change as excuse to dodge responsibility: Activist Eklavya Prasad

Activist and photographer Eklavya Prasad has a sharp take on climate change -- it has become the perfect excuse for politicians and bureaucrats to dodge responsibility. Prasad's latest photo exhibition, inaugurated here on Thursday, captures the reality of floods in north Bihar -- stories of survival, despair, and resilience. Leading the Megh Pyne Abhiyan (Cloud Water Campaign) since 2005, he has been working to provide safe drinking water to flood-affected communities. But he is unimpressed with the government's quick-fix approach. ''All they do is build embankments. One washes away, and they build another. What's the point? Why not invest in flood-resilient habitats instead of patchwork solutions?'' he posed. Asked if climate-impacted communities are being ignored, Prasad was blunt in his reply. ''Governments use climate change as an excuse. Sure, climate change plays a role, but it is not the whole story. There are deeper systemic issues at play.'' Prasad believes that cookie-cutter solutions do not work. ''Each community faces unique challenges. We need tailored solutions, not a one-size-fits-all approach,'' he said. His exhibition paints a vivid picture of the floods' many faces -- from slowly rising waters that seep into daily life to sudden calamities that wipe out homes and livelihoods. The photographs document not just destruction but also the remarkable resilience of those affected -- people rebuilding, adapting, and innovating in the face of nature's fury. Inaugurating the event, environmentalist Sunita Narain said the exhibition underscores that floods are not just a three-month ordeal during monsoons. It shows the year-round struggles of these communities, she said, calling for sustainable, focused interventions to address these challenges.

बिहार के बाढ़ प्रभावित इलाकों का दर्द बयां करती है ये प्रदर्शनी, दिल्ली में लगी है ये खास आर्ट एग्जीबिशन

सामाजिक विकास कार्यकर्ता और मशहूर फोटोग्राफर एकलव्य प्रसाद की प्रदर्शनी 'उत्तर बिहार के धैर्यवान समुदाय' का उद्घाटन किया गया। इस प्रदर्शनी का उद्घाटन सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट की महानिदेशक सुनीता नारायण ने किया। इस खास मौके पर कला प्रेमियों, सामाजिक विकास पेशेवरों, पर्यावरण के प्रति संवेदनशील लोगों और मीडिया से जुड़े कई बड़े चेहरे शामिल हुए। विजुअल कथा श्रृंखला 6 दिसंबर से 12 दिसंबर 2024 तक, हर रोज सुबह 11 बजे से शाम 7 बजे तक, इंडिया इंटरनेशनल सेंटर एनेक्स, नई दिल्ली में जनता के लिए खुली रहेगी। इस प्रदर्शनी में आप बाढ़ प्रभावित समुदायों के धैर्य, अनुकूलन और चल रही चुनौतियों को देख और महसूस कर सकते हैं।

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.