Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

Assam pollution board ‘lacks’ transparency

GUWAHATI: The Assam Pollution Control Board has fared poorly in terms of transparency while sharing key environment and pollution governance-related information with the public. It is ranked 19th after the study, “Transparency Index: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure” by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards and six pollution control committees from across the country. Of these, only 14 boards and committees scored 50 per cent or above and Assam has scored 44per cent, which shows lack of transparency. Putting crucial pollution-related information in the public domain is critical, which can help policymakers take pollution-management discussions to the next levels. But when it comes to sharing such information with the public, the majority of country’s pollution control agencies remain closed entities.\ Assam pollution board ‘lacks’ transparency TNN | Aug 19, 2021, 09.54 AM IST Assam pollution board ‘lacks’ transparency GUWAHATI: The Assam Pollution Control Board has fared poorly in terms of transparency while sharing key environment and pollution governance-related information with the public. It is ranked 19th after the study, “Transparency Index: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure” by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards and six pollution control committees from across the country. Of these, only 14 boards and committees scored 50 per cent or above and Assam has scored 44per cent, which shows lack of transparency. Putting crucial pollution-related information in the public domain is critical, which can help policymakers take pollution-management discussions to the next levels. But when it comes to sharing such information with the public, the majority of country’s pollution control agencies remain closed entities. Congratulations! You have successfully cast your vote It was found that information on functioning, actions taken by a board against polluting industries, public hearing data on new projects are rarely disclosed or remain difficult to access on the websites. For instance, only 12 states have shared their latest annual reports on their websites. Assam is not one of them. Assam has not provided detailed information on public hearings, which includes the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. No initiative has been taken by the Assam Pollution Control Board in sharing its annual reports, informed the CSE report. Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director (industrial pollution unit) of CSE, said, “State PCBs are entrusted with several functions under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974; Air Act, 1981; Water Cess Act, 1977; and various rules and notifications issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. One of these functions under Section 17(C) of the Air and Water Acts is to collect and disseminate information related to air and water pollution and also about its prevention, control or abatement.”

Transparency of Pollution Control Boards

A new report by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has revealed that most of the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and Pollution Control Committees (PCCs) in India remain non-transparent entities when it comes to sharing information with the public. CSE is a public interest research and advocacy NGO based in New Delhi. The report is titled, Transparency Index: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure. It has assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 State Pollution Control Boards And Six Pollution Control Committees from across the country. Of these, only 17 boards and committees scored 50% or above. Pollution control agencies under Air Act 1981 and Water Act 1974 is to collect and disseminate information related to air and water pollution and also about its prevention, control or abatement. The law also asks the boards to share the data in the public domain. However, this is rarely done in practice. The pollution control boards of Odisha and Telangana were the top performers and had scored 67% in transparency. Putting in the public domain crucial pollution-related information, data and details of actions taken is critical. It can help policy-makers take the discussions to the next level of pollution management. It can also reassure the people about the efficiency of these boards and committees.

Non-Transparent Pollution Control Boards

Why in News Recently, a new report by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has revealed that most of the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and Pollution Control Committees (PCCs) in India remain non-transparent entities when it comes to sharing information with the public. CSE is a public interest research and advocacy NGO based in New Delhi. Key Points About the Report: The report is titled, Transparency Index: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure. It has assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 State Pollution Control Boards And Six Pollution Control Committees from across the country. Of these, only 17 boards and committees scored 50% or above. Pollution control agencies under Air Act 1981 and Water Act 1974 is to collect and disseminate information related to air and water pollution and also about its prevention, control or abatement. The law also asks the boards to share the data in the public domain. However, this is rarely done in practice. The pollution control boards of Odisha and Telangana were the top performers and had scored 67% in transparency. Putting in the public domain crucial pollution-related information, data and details of actions taken is critical. It can help policy-makers take the discussions to the next level of pollution management. It can also reassure the people about the efficiency of these boards and committees. Other Issues Pertaining to SPCBs: More Responsibilities, Limited Institutional Capacity: Over the last two decades, SPCBs have seen an expansion in the scope and scale of their work but not in their budgets and workforce. Remuneration is meagre, making it hard for the board to retain talent. Shortage of Technical Experts: Further, an acute shortage of technical experts and other staff has reduced central and state pollution regulators to mere advisory bodies, leaving them unable to enforce air quality standards. Top Administrators Have No Domain Expertise: Leadership positions in SPCBs are usually held by civil servants with no expertise in science or environmental studies--necessary for comprehending issues relating to pollution and climate change. For example, the CPCB is dominated by government representatives and is constituted by the central government “which conflicts with the expectation of it acting as a watchdog”. Low Motivation and Accountability: State board officials often have a diminished view of their own role and responsibility. Also, the process of framing standards was not inclusionary and state officials were simply asked to implement these. Poor Multi-Sectoral Coordination: The lack of convergence and coordination between various state and central departments often means that other departments do not implement SPCB directives. Little Expertise in Monitoring: While the capacity for real-time monitoring increases every year, gaps in data collection and erroneous readings due to poor calibration remain. Pollution Control Boards in India Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB): CPCB is a statutory organisation which was constituted in September, 1974 under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It was also entrusted with the powers and functions under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It serves as a field formation and also provides technical services to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Principal Functions of the CPCB: To promote cleanliness of streams and wells in different areas of the States by prevention, control and abatement of water pollution. To improve the quality of air and to prevent, control or abate air pollution in the country. State Pollution Control Board (SPCB): They supplement the CPCB as they are a statutory organization entrusted to implement Environmental Laws and rules within the jurisdiction of a state. Pollution control committees (PCC): They perform similar functions to SPCB. The difference between the two is that PCC belongs to Union territories. Way Forward Uniform Standards: There should be a uniform format for presenting annual reports and sharing information on websites. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) should come up with a website format for the SPCBs/PCCs and guidelines for framing annual reports. Specialised Recruitment: There is a need for clear qualifications to be laid down for the recruitment of various members to the pollution control boards. Having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters relating to environmental protection can be one of the criteria. Strengthening Institutional capacity: Regulatory bodies that enable their implementation are strengthened with the technical and financial resources needed. Source: DTE

Lack of transparency’ in Assam Pollution Board. Guwahati News – Times of India

Guwahati: Assam Pollution Control Board Has performed poorly in terms of transparency while sharing key environmental and pollution governance related information with the public. It is ranked 19th after the study, “Transparency Index: Rating of Pollution Control Boards on Public Disclosures”. Science and Environment Center (CSE) 29. Assessed the data disclosure performance of State Pollution control boards and six pollution control committees from across the country. Of these, only 14 boards and committees have scored 50 per cent or more and Assam has scored 44 per cent, indicating a lack of transparency. It’s important to make important pollution-related information public, which can help policymakers take the pollution-management discussion to the next level. But when it comes to sharing such information with the public, most of the pollution control agencies in the country are shut down. It was found that information on operations, action taken by the Board against polluting industries, public hearing data on new projects are rarely disclosed or difficult to access on websites. For example, only 12 states have shared their latest annual reports on their websites. Assam is not one of them. Assam did not provide detailed information on the public hearing, including executive summary, draft EIA report of the project and minutes of the meeting. no initiative has been taken by Assam Pollution The Board of Control informed the CSE report by sharing its annual report. Nivit Kumar Yadav, Program Director (Industrial Pollution Unit), CSE said, “The State PCB has been entrusted with several functions under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974; the Air Act, 1981; the Water Cess Act, 1977; and the Environment (Protection) Act. , various rules and notifications issued under the Act, 1986. One of these functions under section 17(c) of the Air and Water Act is to collect and disseminate information relating to air and water pollution and also regarding its prevention, control or Shortage.”

CSE transparency index: M’laya pollution control board ranks 18th

Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board (MSPCB) has been ranked 18th in the transparency index rating report released by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) recently. The Board scored 44.4 percentage points according to the rating study report by CSE, a Delhi-based not-for-profit public interest research and advocacy organisation. Among the other Northeastern states, Tripura State Pollution Control Board was ranked 17th with 45.3 percentage points, Assam Pollution Control Board 19th (44 percentage points) while Sikkim State Pollution Control Board with 42.1 percentage points and Mizoram Pollution Control Board with 40.7 percentage points were ranked 20th and 21st respectively. On the other hand, Nagaland Pollution Control Board (19.2 percentage points), Arunachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (13 percentage points) and Manipur Pollution Control Board (12.6 percentage points) were ranked 26th, 28th and 29th respectively. The performance of 31 pollution control boards and pollution control committees (PCCs) operating in the country from 2016-2021 were involved in the assessment. The rating was done on the basis of 18 parameters and the assessment focused on continuous emission monitoring, consent to establish and operate, public hearings for environmental clearance, show cause notices, directions and closure notices on public domain about 17 categories of industries. Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) topped the rating list with 67 percentage points. The CSE study observed that PCCs and boards from states in the North East have shared limited information on their websites. “There are some indicators in annual reports on which very few states have given information like compliance status of industries (only Karnataka and Haryana have shared information); number of inspections; number of directions, show cause and closure notices issued; and information on regulated entities in the state,” the study observed. “Only few boards have shared minutes of board meetings on their websites. Some SPCBs/PCCs are sharing their biomedical waste annual report, municipal solid waste annual report, hazardous waste annual report, action plan for polluted river stretches and action plan for non-attainment cities with CPCB but not sharing the same on their website,” it found.

Odisha pollution control board tops CSE transparency index

The Odisha State Pollution Control Board has ranked number 1 in the transparency index of the Centre for Science and Environment CSE, an official release said on Tuesday.The performance of all 31 state pollution control boards and pollution control committees operating in the country from 2016-2021 was taken into the assessment process, the release stated.The outcome of the assessment placed Odisha SPCB at the top with 67 percentage points. The Odisha State Pollution Control Board has ranked number 1 in the transparency index of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), an official release said on Tuesday. The performance of all 31 state pollution control boards and pollution control committees operating in the country from 2016-2021 was taken into the assessment process, the release stated. The outcome of the assessment placed Odisha SPCB at the top with 67 percentage points. The Telangana board scored at par with Odisha, followed by Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal, it said. State Pollution Control Board member secretary K Murugesan said that the CSE, a not-for-profit public interest research and advocacy organisation, did the assessment on the basis of 18 parameters relating to focus areas. The assessment focused on data regarding continuous emission monitoring, consent to establish and operate, public hearings for environmental clearance, showcause notices, directions and closure notices on public domain about 17 categories of industries. Chief Secretary Suresh Mohapatra complimented the board for the achievement, advising it to involve different stakeholders in environmental management, according to the statement. The involvement of the stakeholders will be helpful for the board in the enforcement of regulatory compliances for environmental governance, it said. The procedural re-engineering and administrative reform in the Odisha SPCB started in 2015 under the leadership of Mohapatra during his tenure as the principal secretary and subsequently additional chief secretary of the Forest and Environment Department, according to the release. As of now, the board has put online 11 major services, including consent to establish, consent to operate, permissions regarding bio-medical, hazardous waste and solid waste management, real-time data from analysers and quality monitoring cameras. The Board has also rolled out a mobile application for redressal of public complaints in non-attainment cities, it added.

Indian report notes gaps in guidance on antibiotic use in food animals

A new report by an Indian public interest research and advocacy organization highlights gaps in global recommendations on antibiotic use in food-producing animals and calls for more uniform guidance from the Tripartite United Nations (UN) organizations. The report from the Centre for Science and Environment notes that while the WHO, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) all have their own guidance on the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals, there is significant overlap in the antibiotics considered critical for human medicine and veterinary medicine. For example, 47 of the antimicrobials listed by the OIE as being important for veterinary medicine are also on the WHO's list of critically important antibiotics for human medicine. The report also points out a lack of coherence among the organizations on how antibiotics should be used in food-producing animals. Although there is uniform agreement that critically important antibiotics for human medicine should not be used for growth promotion in livestock, there is less agreement on whether they should be used for disease prevention and control in herds and flocks, or whether critically important antibiotics should be used to treat sick animals. "Clearly, there is need for more clarity, coherence and, most importantly, a uniform message from the Tripartite organizations," the authors write. "In the absence of this, chances of consensus among national-level animal- and human-health stakeholders are low and the possibility for misinterpretation remains high. This can result in limited action, leading to misuse and overuse of critically important antimicrobials in the food-producing animal sector." The authors say the organizations should develop uniform guidance that contains a clear message about which critically important antibiotics can be used across the food-animal sector, how they should be used, and which should be prohibited immediately or phased out. They also call for the Tripartite organizations to develop a better understanding of how countries are using critically important antibiotics in food-producing animals, and the levels of resistance to those antibiotics. The report also contains recommendations for the Indian government to develop a roadmap and policy framework for conserving the use of these antibiotics in the food-animal sector. Aug 16 Centre for Science and Environment report

Transparency Index rating: Odisha State Pollution Control Board tops list

The Board has also rolled out a mobile application for redressal of public complaint in non-attainment cities. BHUBANESWAR: The Odisha State Pollution Control Board of Odisha (OSPCB) has topped the list in the Transparency Index rating report released by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi. The rating was done on the basis of 18 parameters and the assessment focused on continuous emission monitoring, consent to establish and operate, public hearings for environmental clearance, show cause notices, directions and closure notices on public domain about 17 categories of industries. The performance of all 31 State Pollution Control Boards and Pollution Control Committees operating in the country from 2016-2021 were involved in the assessment. The outcome of the assessment placed Odisha at the top with 67 percentage points. Telangana Board scored on par with Odisha followed by Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. As of now the Board has put 11 major services online including consent to establish, consent to operate, permissions regarding bio-medical waste management, hazardous waste management, solid waste management, online payment gateway, auto renewal, authorization under e-waste management, registration under plastic waste management, real time data from analysers, and quality monitoring cameras. The Board has also rolled out a mobile application for redressal of public complaint in non-attainment cities. The procedural re-engineering and administrative reform in OSPCB was started from 2015 under the leadership of incumbent Chief Secretary Suresh Kumar Mahapatra during his tenure as Principal Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary of Forest and Environment department. Member Secretary of OSPCB K Murugesan said the CSE made the assessment as per different provisions of Water Act, Environment Protection Action Act and Waste Management Rules. Complimenting the Board for the achievement, the Chief Secretary advised the Member Secretary to involve different stakeholders in environmental management as this will be helpful for the Board in enforcement of regulatory compliances for environmental governance.

Tackling Air Pollution at the Sub-National Level: The Case of Rajasthan

Air pollution in India has deteriorated significantly over the past two decades and today, it is the second largest risk factor contributing to the country’s disease burden. It is a matter of urgent concern, as ambient air pollution poses grave, multifaceted risks to India’s prospects for achieving its development goals.[1] It leads to a rapid increase in public health expenditure, diminished labour productivity, and reduced agricultural yield.[2] Estimates peg the economic cost of air pollution to the Indian economy at more than US$ 150 billion a year.[3] According to IQAS 2019 World Air Quality Report, India is home to 21 of the 30 most polluted cities in the world.[4] The Lancet Planetary Health report[5] has found that over 50 percent of deaths attributed to air pollution in India occur in just five Indian States.[6] This suggests that customised, sub-national strategies are equally important as national-level policies. This report uses the case of Rajasthan to illustrate. According to the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, Rajasthan is amongst the six Indian states having the highest per capita economic loss due to air pollution.[7] In the last two years, the state recorded the highest death rate per 100,000 population due to air pollution. The deteriorating air quality in the state is not only putting tremendous pressure on its fragile healthcare system but also impairs the productivity of the population. In this context, the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), in collaboration with INDICC Associates organised a digital high-level state roundtable, ‘Securing Right to Breathe: Battle for Clean Air’ on 19 February 2021. The roundtable brought together policymakers, industry experts, and academicians to identify sub-national strategies and develop a roadmap for implementing policy interventions, financial incentives, and technology solutions for combating air pollution in Rajasthan. Macroeconomic and Health Impacts of Air Pollution in Rajasthan[8] • Air pollution is the second-largest risk factor for premature deaths in Rajasthan (2016, state-level disease burden estimates by IHME, ICMR and PHFI).[9] • Per-capita economic loss due to air pollution in Rajasthan is at $28.5; in Delhi, where per-capita economic loss is highest, it is $62. • Economic loss attributable to air pollution as a percentage of state GDP is 1.70 percent. • Economic loss due to lost output from premature deaths and morbidity attributable to household air pollution as a percentage of state GDP in Rajasthan is 0.79 percent. • Economic loss due to premature deaths and morbidity as a percentage of state GDP in 2019 for Rajasthan was highest for ambient particulate pollution, followed by household air pollution, and ambient ozone pollution. • Ischemic heart disease and lower respiratory infections are the leading causes of loss in productive life years in Rajasthan. • The disease burden due to air pollution amongst children is highest in the state. Rajasthan records the highest number of deaths caused by Lower Respiratory Infection (LRI) in children. In 2017, the death rate due to LRI in the 0–5-year age group was 126.04 per 100,000 population. Opportunities for Rajasthan Rajasthan is amongst India’s states that have taken steps to carry out a structured diagnosis of the problem of air pollution. It is in a position to build on the existing momentum, provided it is able to mobilise required resources. The following paragraphs provide a snapshot of current interventions. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has identified 124 cities as “non-attainment cities”—i.e., they have failed to meet the prescribed standards on air pollution. Five of these 122 cities are in Rajasthan: Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kota, Alwar, and Udaipur.[10] Their levels of PM10 and PM2.5 are higher than prescribed limits even though they meet SO₂ and NOₓ standards. Bhiwadi, a city in Alwar district, has also been identified as a hotspot primarily because of its being a hub for many polluting industries.[11] Other hotspots are likely to be identified in the state if monitoring facilities were improved. In 2016, the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) began a detailed study in some of these cities through an engagement with the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kanpur.[12] The study aimed to prepare a complete emission inventory highlighting the sources and magnitude of air pollution. The studies found that road dust significantly contributed to air pollution in the state—a fact that often evades policy attention. On Jaipur Road, for example, dust contributes to 46 percent of PM2.5 emissions; and in Bhiwadi, it accounts for 48 percent.[13] Similar studies have been commissioned for other Rajasthan cities in collaboration with IIT Delhi and IIT Kanpur, and these studies have helped the state formulate science-informed action plans. As the results of new studies are awaited, action plans for other non-attainment cities have been prepared based on the experiences of Jaipur and Bhiwadi.[14] At the same time, municipal waste treatment is also being given focus, as there is evidence that large-scale burning of municipal waste and horticulture waste contributes significantly to PM2.5 and PM10 emissions.[15] More than 65 municipalities have already installed facilities to recycle municipal waste. Towards this endeavour, financial assistance is being provided by the Central Government under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) (INR 100 million for Jaipur, Jodhpur and Kota).[16] Further, as per the 15th Finance Commission recommendations, INR 1.40 billion is also earmarked for these three cities. Based on a January 2020 study by IIT Kanpur, 10 hotspots in Jaipur have been identified where dust emissions are significant. Micro-level action plans are being created with the non-government Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).[17] A similar exercise is being planned for Jodhpur, Kota Alwar, and Udaipur, also with the help of CSE.[18] Central to these plans is the progressively improving monitoring capacity. At present, there are 39 manual monitoring stations across the State, as well as 10 continuous air quality monitoring stations that provide real-time information. There is a plan to install 35 additional continuous air quality monitoring stations by the end of 2021.[19] Ramping up monitoring capacity will enable air quality information in at least all district headquarters. Mobile vans are also being procured for short-term air quality measurement in any hotspot. Already, there has been a steady decline in the level of PM10 and PM2.5 in the annual average figures since 2017. For instance, in Alwar, there was a decline of 57 percent in for PM10 and 45 percent in PM2.5 in the years following 2017. [20] All the cities have also witnessed a decline in ambient air pollution. Key Challenges The complexities of Rajasthan’s air pollution problem need to be considered in designing a coherent and convergent strategy. Economic Geography The economic geography of Rajasthan is skewed (see Figure 1). Over 70 percent of Rajasthan’s industrial output comes from just four regions dominated by small-scale industries—Jaipur, Bhilwara, Udaipur, and Ganganagar account for, respectively, 39 percent, 18 percent, 9 percent, and 4 percent of the State’s industrial output. Within these regions, the key districts driving industrial growth are Ajmer, Alwar, Barmer, Bharatpur, Bhilwara, Bikaner, Bundi, Chittorgarh, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kota, and Udaipur.[21]

Restocking degraded Tinte Bepo Forest reserve

There is a concerted effort to restore Tinte Bepo Forest Reserve at Mankranso in the Ashanti region. Commercial Plantation Development under the model called ‘Youth in Plantation as Occupation Programme’ funded by the Forest Plantation Development Fund Management Board yields positive results. In 2019, a total of 54 hectares of the area was planted with various tree species such as Ofram, Mahogany and Cedrela, while preparation is underway to plant the remaining hectares. The planting of the trees has become necessary as temperatures and extreme heat keep rising. The initiative would not only provide vegetation to the environment but create an economic empowerment program for women. The programme will restore the forest and increase food production through the adoption of agroforestry systems. Farmers are allowed to inter-crop foodstuffs with the trees, and over two hundred hectares of the degraded Tinte Bepo Forest Reserve in the Mankranso forest district would be restored. Deputy Minister of Lands and Natural Resources, Benito Owusu-Bio, says the species planted include teak, Wawa, Mahogany, Cedrela, Ofram, and cassia. Tinte Bepo was once a beautiful rainforest dominated by economic trees like Odum, Mahogany, Mansomia, Emire, and Danta. Rainforests provide humans with more than just trees. Lack of vegetation could result in rapidly increasing climate change. The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has projected an increase in average temperatures and heat extremes on the African continent. According to the report, the continent is likely to experience drier conditions, except for the Sahara and Eastern Africa. The Director-General of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), Sunita Narain, says there is no time to lose on the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. The Director-General of the Indian-based centre says countries will have to work even harder to plant more trees to sequester carbon dioxide. The report on climate change is the first part of its sixth assessment report that sounds like a dire warning.

M’laya pollution control board ranked 18th in CSE transparency index

GUWAHATI, August 18: Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board (MSPCB) has been ranked 18th in the transparency index rating report released by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) recently. The board scored 44.4 percentage points according to the rating study report by CSE, a Delhi-based not-for-profit public interest research and advocacy organisation. Among the other Northeast states, Tripura State Pollution Control Board was ranked 17th with 45.3 percentage points, Assam Pollution Control Board 19th (44 percentage points) while Sikkim State Pollution Control Board with 42.1 percentage points and Mizoram Pollution Control Board with 40.7 percentage points were ranked 20th and 21st respectively. On the other hand, Nagaland Pollution Control Board (19.2 percentage points), Arunachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (13 percentage points) and Manipur Pollution Control Board (12.6 percentage points) were ranked 26th, 28th and 29th respectively. The performance of 31 State Pollution Control Boards and Pollution Control Committees (PCCs) operating in the country from 2016-2021 were involved in the assessment. The rating was done on the basis of 18 parameters and the assessment focused on continuous emission monitoring, consent to establish and operate, public hearings for environmental clearance, showcause notices, directions and closure notices on public domain about 17 categories of industries. Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) topped the rating list with 67 percentage points. The CSE study observed that PCCs and boards from states in the Northeast have shared limited information on their websites. “There are some indicators in annual reports on which very few states have given information like compliance status of industries (only Karnataka and Haryana have shared information); number of inspections; number of directions, show cause and closure notices issued; and information on regulated entities in the state,” the study observed. “Only few boards have shared minutes of board meetings on their websites. Some SPCBs/PCCs are sharing their biomedical waste annual report, municipal solid waste annual report, hazardous waste annual report, action plan for polluted river stretches and action plan for non-attainment cities with CPCB but not sharing the same on their website,” it found.

In The Fight Against Air Pollution, Delhi Government Installs A Smog Tower At Connaught Place

The latest smog tower installed in Delhi is based on American technology and has the capacity to purify 1,000 cubic metres of air per second within a radius of around 1 km New Delhi: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal inaugurated a 24.2 meter tall smog tower in the national capital on Monday (August 23). Smog towers are structures designed as large-scale air purifiers to reduce air pollution. The smog tower installed in Delhi is based on American technology and has the capacity to purify 1,000 cubic metres of air per second within a radius of around 1 km, informed CM during the launch event. The smog tower has been installed at a cost of R s. 20 crores, on a pilot basis following the Supreme Court’s order to do so to combat air pollution. People from IIT Delhi and IIT Bombay will analyse the data and tell US how effective this smog tower is in cleaning the polluted air. It is expected that it will be assessed for two years but the initial trends will be available after a month. If this experiment turns out to be very effective, then many more such smog towers can be installed all over Delhi. It is built by Tata Projects, consultancy provided by NBCC and made under the supervision of IIT Delhi and IIT Bombay, said CM Kejriwal. CM Kejriwal explained the working of the smog tower while addressing the media and said, “The top of the smog tower will suck in the air from the surrounding one kilometer radius, filter it and then release the purified air through the fans installed at the bottom.” As per the official release, the tower is made of RCC and steel structure. It consists of 40 fans and has the airflow rate of 25 cubic meters per second. Can Smog Towers Help Combat Air Pollution? In Delhi, as per the System of Air Quality and Weather Forecasting And Research (SAFAR), 2018 under the Ministry of Earth Science, vehicles contribute to about 41 per cent of PM 2.5 emissions followed by industries that cause around 19 per cent of PM 2.5 emissions, further followed by power generation, residents and winds which contribute to 5 per cent, 3 per cent and 21 per cent respectively of the overall PM 2.5 emissions. According to Delhi CM, air pollution in the national capital has declined in the past seven years. Talking about the same, CM Kejriwal said, The level of particulate matter (PM) 10 (particles that are less than 10 microns in diameter) and PM 2.5 (particles that are less than 2.5 microns in diameter) have come down significantly since 2014. For instance, in 2014, PM 2.5 was close to 150 whereas now it has come down to near 100. Similarly, PM 10 was close to 300 and now it has come down to around 150. The people of Delhi have taken many steps together. To tackle air pollution, in January last year, the Supreme Court had directed the Centre and Delhi government for the pilot project of setting up a smog tower at Anand Vihar and Connaught Place in three months. As per the plan, another 25-metre-tall smog tower, built by the central government at Anand Vihar, is expected to become operational by August 31, reported news agency PTI. The Delhi Pollution Control Committee is the nodal agency for the smog tower at Connaught Place, while the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is the nodal agency for the one at Anand Vihar. However, this is not the first time a smog tower has been installed in Delhi. On January 3, 2020, Traders’ Association Lajpat Nagar (TALN) and Gautam Gambhir Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by Member of Parliament (MP) Gautam Gambhir had set up a 20-feet-tall smog tower in Lajpat Nagar Central market. But it stopped operating in between due to delayed installation of electricity meter owing to the COVID-19 induced lockdown. We had installed a smog tower at Lajpat Nagar with the purpose of minimising odour and air pollution. As per our assessment, 66 lakh cubic meters of air has been processed at the rate of 25,000 cubic meters per hour. Particles as minuscule as 0.1 microns can be filtered in the vicinity of around 70-100 meters of radius from the point of installed tower, said an official from Gautam Gambhir Foundation. Later, the NGO installed two more smog towers, one each at Anand Vihar and Gandhi Nagar. But are smog towers really effective in reducing air pollution? Answering the same, Suresh Kotla, Director of Energy and Environment at Institute for Sustainable Communities, said, There is enough evidence from China and other countries where smog towers have remained as one-time experiments raising serious doubts about the efficacy and practicality of smog towers. Air pollution is a dynamic problem with no boundaries, the assumption that such huge volumes of polluted air coming from different sources and geographies can be trapped and cleaned and will be effective enough, is clearly unscientific. Echoing the same, Polash Mukerjee, Lead for Air Quality, Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) India Programme, called smog towers ‘extremely ineffective’. Talking about the impact of smog towers, Mr Mukerjee said, They are not a solution at all. It’s like putting AC outdoors to solve global warming. Unless the source of the emission is targeted, any after-treatment is likely to have a very limited impact if at all. Their impact is extremely short-lived and local. Depending on the size of the fan and capacity, the impact could last for a few minutes or maybe hours. When Gautam Gambhir Foundation installed a smog tower, a study was conducted, and it was said that 40,000 such towers will be required to cover the entire Delhi. Mr Mukerjee suggests understanding the sources of air pollution in Delhi and working on them instead of focusing on covering up the damage done. He said, Remember, pollution in Delhi is not from the capital alone. Delhi is less than 3 per cent of the NCR area. As far as the Delhi government’s own policies are concerned, if these were replicated at the NCR level, it would have made a good impact. For example, in the 90s, industries in Delhi were categorised on the basis of pollution into white, green, orange and red. Industries falling in orange and red categories cannot operate within Delhi. These industries simply shifted few kilometers away from Delhi that is in Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Bhiwadi and other nearby areas. So, the impact wasn’t much but if these policies were to be implemented at the NCR level, it would have made a big impact. But this calls for political cooperation at a regional level. Suresh R, Fellow and Area Convenor (Centre for Environment Studies), TERI resonated with Mr Mukerjee and stressed on controlling air pollution of total air shed. Mr Suresh also believes that the huge amount of money being invested in the installation of smog towers should be diverted towards other solutions like mechanical sweeping of road dust. He said, We had done a source apportionment study and found that 50-60 per cent of pollution comes from outside Delhi. So, until and unless you control air pollution of total air shed, it won’t help. Also, India is lacking follow up of everything it is doing. You need to have good maintenance practice, and huge manpower and money for regular follow up. Also, solutions need to be implemented at nearby areas also. Like, mechanical sweeping in Delhi alone won’t help. In Delhi, vehicular pollution, road dust, and traffic congestion contribute to the pollution majorly. To tackle this, you have to have air shed approach. Anumita Roychowdhury, Executive Director, Research and Advocacy at Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) concurred and emphasised on the lack of available data and evidence on the efficacy of smog towers in cleaning up ambient air quality and sustaining gains. She said, Outdoor air is hugely dynamic and its purification is not practical. There is also a huge energy penalty involved in running these towers. These towers can detract attention and divert valuable resources from the real solutions. Use the same resource to cut down direct emissions from the pollution sources for larger air quality and public health benefits.

Odisha pollution control board tops transparency index list

Odisha pollution control board tops transparency index list according to CSE, New Delhi, in a rating done on the basis of 18 parameters. The performance of all 31 State Pollution Control Boards and Pollution Control Committees operating in the country from 2016-2021 were involved in the assessment. Odisha pollution control board tops transparency index of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), an official release said on Tuesday. The performance of all 31 state pollution control boards and pollution control committees operating in the country from 2016-2021 was taken into the assessment process, the release stated. Odisha pollution control board tops transparency index list by CSE The rating by CSE was done on the basis of 18 parameters and the assessment focused on continuous emission monitoring, consent to establish and operate, public hearings for environmental clearance, show cause notices, directions and closure notices on public domain about 17 categories of industries. Member Secretary of OSPCB K Murugesan said the CSE made the assessment as per the provisions in Sec-17 (C) and Sec 35 (2) of Air Act, Section 17 (C) and Sec-39 (2) of Water Act, Environment Protection Action Act and various Waste Management Rules.

Odisha pollution control panel tops transparency index rating

The State’s apex pollution control panel is shouldering the responsibility of enforcing the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 in its attempt to improve the quality of air, promote cleanliness of water bodies and to prevent pollution. Odisha’s State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) has topped in the Transparency Index rating list conducted by Center for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi. The State’s apex pollution control panel is shouldering the responsibility of enforcing the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 in its attempt to improve the quality of air, promote cleanliness of water bodies and to prevent pollution. Chief Secretary Suresh Chandra Mahaptra complemented the Member Secretary, SPCB K. Murugesan for achieving the top rank in transparency index.

WBPCB scores high in CSE transparency study

Kolkata: The West Bengal Pollution Control Board (WBPCB) has ranked fourth among 29 state pollution watchdogs, which were primarily assessed on the basis of their transparency by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). The CSE report says the majority of India’s pollution control agencies remain reticent when it comes to sharing information with the public. The study found that only a handful of these authorities were adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain. Making crucial data and details of action taken public is critical because it can help policy-makers take the discussions to the next level of pollution management. It can also reassure the people about efficiency of these boards and committees. Hence, they must focus urgently on becoming more transparent and improving the quality of their outreach for public engagement, said CSE experts. We need to upgrade further and be more committed to protect our environment and people as well,” said WBPCB chairman Kalyan Rudra. The study assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards (SPCBs) and six pollution control committees (PCCs). Of these, only 17 boards and committees scored 50% or above. These 17 are from Odisha, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Goa, Karnataka, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. “State PCBs are entrusted with several functions under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974; Air Act, 1981; Water Cess Act, 1977; and various rules and notifications issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. One of these functions under Section 17(C) of the Air and Water Acts is to collect and disseminate information related to air and water pollution, and also about its prevention, control or abatement. The law asks the boards to share the data in the public domain. But, this is rarely done in practice,” said Nivit Kumar Yadav, the programme director of CSE’s industrial pollution unit. Shreya Verma, programme officer of the same unit and the author of the study, said the CSE collected data from two sources — websites of SPCBs/PCCs and their annual reports. “The study has evaluated the information shared by SPCBs/PCCs during 2016-21 and uses 25 indicators that provide a broader assessment on the type and amount of data shared. A few key indicators used in the study include the availability of information on direction/show-cause/closure notices issued by boards, information on public hearings and EIA reports, non-attainment cities and polluted river stretches,” he added.