Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

Experts sound note of caution as FDA finds 52 of 86 honey samples adulterated

Nagpur: How safe is the honey you are consuming? The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) on Monday tested 86 leading brands, found 52 samples to be adulterated, and seized more than 3,480kg of honey stock worth over Rs36 lakh from a manufacturer in Mumbai. “The brands couldn’t pass the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) test, which revealed artificial sugar syrups mannose, maltose, and maltotriose. The possibility of adverse effects on health by consuming this type of honey cannot be ruled out,” the FDA officials said in a release. During Covid times, there has been a huge demand for honey by consumers to boost immunity. “As demand for honey is increasing, adulteration has also increased. Honey is the third most adulterated food product after milk and ghee,” says Pranav Nimbalkar, a well-known beekeeper from the city. In December last, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) claimed that 77% of samples from 13 top honey brands in the country were found to have been adulterated. “The raid in Mumbai is just the tip of the iceberg. As adulteration methods became more sophisticated, detection has become more difficult. Yet only laboratory tests can truly determine whether honey is authentic,” says Nimbalkar. Honey adulteration business is evolving and adultrators are misusing advanced lab set ups to come with new syrups that can bypass existing regulation tests. A section of experts agree that honey adulteration is done by using synthetic sugar syrups, and sugar and liquid jaggery (kakvi) is quite outdated these days as it can be easily detected. “These sugar syrups like high fructose corn syrup and rice syrup have high fructose content, which can harm the body. At least jaggery mixed honey was natural, but honey having fructose content increases the sugar level in the body though honey is being consumed to control sugar,” said Nimbalkar. Consumers may think forest honey might be the best but harvesting honey from natural hives takes place under difficult circumstances. It is quite impossible to check if the entire hive contains ripened honey. The product from honey hunting is usually a mixture that contains high water content honey. “It is processed and heated for moisture reduction, which destroys essential enzymes, antioxidants, and vitamins. That’s why most of the forest honey available in the market is not raw. Anyone mentioning raw honey should be asked to show on what basis the claim has been made,” Nimbalkar said. Factors like widespread usage of pesticides and decreasing tree habitat are impacting honeybee populations. Demand for more forest honey can only make this situation worse. Nimbalkar suggests consumers should only buy raw honey (unheated and unfiltered), which mentions source of nectar (flowers from which bees collect it). Ironically, no company makes a mention about it. “The honey available in the market is Rs400-500 per kg but the one which we produce is Rs1,300 per kg. This is the main reason why people end up buying sub-standard honey,” he says. How honey is adulterated Indirect adulteration * Bees are overfed with sugar syrups to increase honey yield in hives * Honey produced is just another sugar with hardly any medicinal values * Overuse of veterinary drugs * Besides disease control, antibiotics used as growth promoter too * Consumption of such antibiotic-laced honey may contribute to evolution of drug-resistant superbugs in human beings Direct Adulteration * Adulterated with C4 sugar-like corn and sugarcane syrups * Adulterated with C3 sugar syrups like rice and beetroot syrup to bypass laboratory tests that can detect C4 sugars * Advanced syrups that beat C3 and C4 tests * Honey adulterated up to 50% can bypass all tests including C3 and C4 tests, claim Chinese companies selling such syrups False Claims * Honey samples of many companies advertising their product as ‘NMR tested’ failed NMR tests conducted by Maharashtra FDA * Honey samples of brands that earlier passed NMR tests now failed in NMR tests conducted by Maharashtra FDA

KSPCB hailed for giving info on regulated entities

HUBBALLI: The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) has emerged as the only board to have provided detailed information on regulated entities, in the nation. Despite having a staff crunch of over 50%, it has stood 6th by making 60% of disclosure, for all the indicators and information furnished by SPCBs and pollution control committees (PCCs), of the nation, with the public, in Kannada and English. A study, ‘Transparency Index: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure,’ conducted by Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), and released on August 11, has observed that KSPCB is the only pollution control board to provide detailed information on regulated entities in the state. KSPCB has provided information on a number of red, orange, green and white category industries, separately under industry, stone crushers, townships and residential areas, infrastructure projects, hospitality sector, mines, coffee estates, and numbers of telephone towers and offices having DG sets.

Eliminating single-use plastics? Easier said than done, say experts

Lack of will to comply and challenges in enforcing the rules and regulations have been an issue The Plastic Waste Management Act, 2016, was passed by the Parliament in order to curb plastic waste generation in the country and eliminating single-use plastics from the next year. The environment ministry on Thursday notified the ban on the use of single-use plastic items from July 1, 2022. With less than a year left for achieving the target, the country needs a robust strategy to achieve this unrealistic feat being laid out in Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules, 2021. However, if environmentalists are to be believed, the target seems Sisyphean. Rahul Choudhary, lawyer, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, said the task was difficult, given the government’s reluctance to adhere to deadlines. “We have seen that the governments extend deadlines or do not bother about them. Given no proper implementation plan, it doesn't seem that the government would achieve this within the given timeframe.” Atin Biswas, programme director for solid waste management unit at the Centre for Science and Environment, while welcoming the Centre’s move of increasing thickness of polythene bags from 50 microns to 120 microns by December 31 next year, said, “It is not the first time the government has come out with such a deadline. It’s the implementation that has been an issue.” Lack of will to comply and challenges in enforcing the rules and regulations have been an issue. “First, the government needs to have an audit on why it has not been able to achieve the target yet,” said Kanchi Kohli, senior researcher at Delhi-based think-tank, Centre for Policy Research (CPR). According to the United Nations Environment Programme, “Single-use plastics, often also referred to as disposable plastics, are commonly used for plastic packaging, and include items intended to be used only once before they are thrown away or recycled. These include, among other items, grocery bags, food packaging, bottles, straws, containers, cups, and cutlery.” By a simple qualitative definition, any plastic item designed to be used once and then immediately discarded is single-use plastic. However, without detailed technical classification, it will be difficult to achieve the larger goal of curbing plastic pollution, Choudhary said. India generates approximately 9.46 million tonnes (MT) of plastic waste per year. This figure is based on the Central Pollution Control Board’s projection that an estimated 25,940 tonnes per day of plastic waste generated in the country. Of this, 15,384 tonnes of plastic waste, or nearly 60 per cent, is collected and recycled while the remaining 10,556 tonnes of the plastic waste remains uncollected and littered in the environment, Javadekar told the Lok Sabha in November 2019. According to a report by the Australia-based Minderoo Foundation published in 2021, China is the largest producer of single-use plastic, followed by the US and India. However, while India generates 5.58 MT of single-use plastic annually, China produces six times more, at 25.36 MT, and the US 17.19 MT. It said of the 6.3 billion tonnes of plastic produced since its invention in the 1930s, only nine per cent has been recycled. However, single-use plastic has made a big comeback in the country with Covid-19. The prolonged lockdown has had a good effect on the environment in general by bringing down pollution levels but the increased use of masks, gloves, face shields, PPE kits, sanitiser bottles, etc to fight the pandemic has given rise to new concerns. According to a World Economic Forum report in China, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment estimates that hospitals in Wuhan produced more than 240 tons of waste daily at the height of the outbreak, compared with 40 tons during normal times. Based on these data, consulting firm Frost & Sullivan predicts that the US could generate an entire year’s worth of medical waste in just two months because of Covid-19. India generated 56,898 tonnes of Covid-19 bio-medical waste between June 2020 and June 2021, data from the Union ministry of environment, forest and climate change shows. In his address to the nation from the Red Fort on Independence Day in 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had vowed to take Indians along in a nationwide commitment to end the use of single-use plastic. In October 2019 at the Sabarmati riverfront in Ahmedabad, he said there would be no ban on single-use plastic, just a gradual phase-out of its use by 2022. The Sikkim government passed the country’s first plastic-bag ban in 1998. Eighteen states have imposed a complete ban on plastic carry-bags, while five other states have imposed partial prohibition at religious and historical places, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) told the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2019. The Centre had asked for single-use plastic items to be eliminated from across the country in three phases. In Phase-II starting from January 1, 2022, the sale and manufacture of earbuds, plastic sticks, balloons, plastic flags, candy sticks and polystyrene (thermocol) would be stopped. From July 1, 2022, 13 items, including plastic plates, cups, glasses, and other cutlery, would be phased out. Possible solution Choudhary believes that a blanket ban will not stop manufacturers from producing single-use plastic products. “There is a complete ban on plastic bag manufacturing of plastic bags in Uttarakhand. There is also a provision of a fine up to ~5 lakh in the state but plastic can be easily seen on the banks of the Ganges," he said. Finding substitutes for use-and-throw plastic and ensuring alternative livelihoods for producers, waste pickers and other groups involved in the business will go a long way in solving the problem. The government should not only place fines for not adhering to the guidelines but incentivise producers to switch to more sustainable products. Along with proper monitoring, promoting responsible consumerism is very important, said experts. Vinod Sharma, who owns a plastic-bag manufacturing unit in Delhi is worried about the future as the government issues new guidelines. “We have been in this business for the past 20 years. The new guidelines will only increase the bribe rates of the authorities. The government should help the industry in switching to alternative products by incentives and subsidies,” he says. Ramphal, a shopkeeper, who sells single-use plastic bags in Pataudi said the move was an attack on the middle class. “Any alternative to plastic bags costs twice as much to customers. Plastic bags cost Rs 150 per kg, whereas fabric bags cost Rs 230 per kg. Paper bags cost Rs 5-10 per piece.” Ramphal urged the government to make the alternative products tax-free in case of a blanket ban on plastics.

Delhi lags in data sharing on pollution, finds study

1NEW DELHI: An analysis carried out by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) for 29 state pollution control boards (SPCBs) and six pollution control committees (PCCs) ranks Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) 15th across the country in terms of transparency in regards to environment and pollution-related data. Track the pollution level in your city The capital, according to the analysis, received a score of only 49.5%, faring poorly on sharing annual data on its website, for not having any data on electronic-waste (e-waste) and lack of data on plastic waste, which is mandatory as per the plastic waste management rules 2018. The report also looked at the role of annual reports in sharing information in the public domain. CSE analysed data shared by SPCBs and PCCs during 2016-21 and used several indicators to provide a broader indication on the type and amount of information shared. DPCC’s website was also found to not have any information on a public information officer for RTI purposes, while it has not uploaded an annual report giving a full account of its activities since 2010 despite it being mandatory under Section 39 of Water Act. The committee, however, fared well on giving detailed information on public hearings, sharing EIA reports and executive summaries, and minutes of meetings, and for having the Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) data on its website. DPCC also has the complete data on biomedical waste being generated in Delhi, how much is being treated and the waste treatment facilities. In terms of having information on laboratories and their accreditation, DPPC had information on their numbers and what parameters could be analysed in the labs, along with contact details. However, it did not have information on accreditation, the report said. Odisha and Telangana state pollution control boards jointly received the highest score of 67%, followed by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board at 65.5%. Delhi’s overall score of 49.5% placed it behind Rajasthan Pollution Control Board’s 50%. Lakshadweep Pollution Control Committee scored the lowest for not sharing any information. A Delhi government official said the DPCC website was regularly being updated, with public notices and new updates being posted on the home page itself. “More data will be added,” the official added.

KSPCB scores 50+ pc in transparency index

The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) report released on Thursday listed Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) in its transparency list of 14 states. BENGALURU: The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) report released on Thursday listed Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) in its transparency list of 14 states. The report ‘Transparency Index -- Rating of Pollution Control Boards on Public Disclosure’, assessed the data disclosed in public domain by Pollution Control Boards (PCB) of 29 states and six Pollution Control Committees (PCC). Based on the report, 14 boards scored above 50 per They are Odisha, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Goa, Karnataka, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. The analysis cited that most agencies are not transparent enough with information in the public domain. Information on functioning, actions taken by boards against polluting industries, public hearing data on new projects etc are rarely disclosed, or are not even available on public websites. For instance, only nine SPCBs or PCCs have provided detailed information on public hearings, which includes the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. The states are Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram. Karnataka was on the list of five Boards sharing inspection information, along with Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. The report also pointed out that only 19 states displayed the continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) data, and Karnataka was not in this list. Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, said, “State PCBs are entrusted with several functions. One of these is to collect and disseminate information related to air and water pollution and also its prevention, control or abatement. The law asks the Boards to share data in public domain. But this is rarely done.”

प्रदूषण पर नियंत्रण करने वालों की पारदर्शिता भी हो रही प्रदूषित

इसे विडंबना कहें या कुछ और, लेकिन आबोहवा को साफ रखने का जिम्मा संभालने वाले प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों और समितियों की पारदर्शिता भी प्रदूषित होती नजर आ रही है। आलम यह है कि इनकी ओर से आंकड़े और सूचनाएं साझा करने से खासा परहेज किया जाता है। सेंटर फार साइंस एंड एन्वायरमेंट (सीएसई) की नई रिपोर्ट 'रेटिंग आफ पाल्यूशन कंट्रोल बो‌र्ड्स आन पब्लिक डिस्कलोजर' में इस मामले में चौंकाने वाले तथ्य सामने आए हैं। 2016 से 2021 तक पांच सालों को आधार बनाकर सीएसई ने देशभर से 29 राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों (एसपीसीबी) और छह प्रदूषण नियंत्रण समितियों (पीसीसी) की स्थिति का आकलन किया है। केवल 17 बोर्डों और समितियों ने ही 50 फीसद या उससे अधिक अंक प्राप्त किए हैं। ये सभी ओडिशा, तेलंगाना, तमिलनाडु, मध्य प्रदेश, बंगाल, गोवा, कर्नाटक, हरियाणा, छत्तीसगढ़, हिमाचल प्रदेश, जम्मू-कश्मीर, केरल, महाराष्ट्र, उत्तराखंड, पंजाब, आंध्र प्रदेश और राजस्थान से हैं। उत्तर प्रदेश, बिहार, झारखंड व चंडीगढ़ सीएसई की रैंकिंग में टाप 20 में भी नहीं हैं। वहीं, दिल्ली 15वें नंबर पर है। केवल 12 राज्यों ने अपनी नवीनतम वार्षिक रिपोर्ट वेबसाइट पर साझा की है। गुजरात, मध्य प्रदेश, सिक्किम, त्रिपुरा और बंगाल ने वर्ष 2019-20 की वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा की है। छत्तीसगढ़, कर्नाटक, महाराष्ट्र, ओडिशा, राजस्थान, उत्तर प्रदेश और तमिलनाडु राज्यों ने वर्ष 2018-19 की वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा की है (जिसे 2020 में कोविड-19 स्थिति को देखते हुए नवीनतम कहा जा सकता है)। असम, अरुणाचल प्रदेश, बिहार, जम्मू-कश्मीर, झारखंड, मणिपुर, अंडमान और निकोबार, चंडीगढ़, दमन और दीव, दादरा और नगर हवेली, पुडुचेरी और नगालैंड ने एसपीसीबी / पीसीसी द्वारा अपनी वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा करने में कोई पहल नहीं की गई। सीएसई की रिपोर्ट के अनुसार, केवल पांच बोर्ड / समितियों -दिल्ली, गोवा, हरियाणा, त्रिपुरा और उत्तराखंड ने अपनी वेबसाइट पर बोर्ड की बैठकों के मिनट्स साझा किए हैं। सिर्फ पांच एसपीसीबी- हिमाचल प्रदेश, कर्नाटक, ओडिशा, तमिलनाडु और पश्चिम बंगाल के पीसीबी ने वार्षिक रिपोर्ट में बोर्डों द्वारा किए गए निरीक्षण की जानकारी साझा की है। केवल नौ एसपीसीबी/पीसीसी ने जनसुनवाई पर विस्तृत जानकारी प्रदान की है, 14 ने कोई जानकारी नहीं दी। टाप-10 प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड / समितियां और उनके अंकबोर्ड या समितियां प्राप्तांक ओडिशा एसपीसीबी 67.01. तेलंगाना एसपीसीबी 67.02. तमिलनाडु पीसीबी 65.53. मध्य प्रदेश पीसीबी 64.04. बंगाल पीसीबी 62.05. गोवा एसपीसीबी 60.66. कर्नाटक एसपीसीबी 60.07. हरियाणा एसपीसीबी 59.98. छत्तीसगढ़ एन्वायरमेंट कंजर्वेशन बोर्ड 59.58. हिमाचल प्रदेश एसपीसीबी 59.59.

Odisha & Telangana pollution control boards ranked best in transparency index: Study

A new CSE study finds that only a handful of pollution control boards in India are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain even though the disclosure of information is considered one of the important functions to increase public participation and public awareness. Details here. Odisha, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal pollution control boards have been rated the most transparent in disclosing key environment and governance-related information in the public domain. In sharp contrast, the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Pollution Control Committee has been ranked the worst in sharing information. Some other poor performers include pollution control boards of the northeastern states Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh. These are some key findings of a unique study, titled ‘TRANSPARENCY INDEX: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure’, conducted by by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a New Delhi-based research and advocacy organisation, which has assessed and ranked the level of transparency in sharing information maintained by 29 state pollution control boards and six pollution control committees in the country. Also Read: The National Clean Air Programme may fail to clean up the toxic air The study has found that only a handful of India’s pollution control boards are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain. Its detailed report, released on August 11, critically evaluates the information shared by pollution control boards and committees in the past five years between 2016 and 2021. The study found that the data indicating the current pollution levels such as air pollutants and waste – the basic indicators of environmental health — was missing. Ranking of pollution control boards As per the CSE’s transparency ranking of the pollution control board, Odisha and Telangana have been rated the best performing state pollution control boards with a score of 67 per cent. It is followed by Tamil Nadu (65.5 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (64 per cent), and West Bengal (62 per cent). With 5.5 per cent, Andaman & Nicobar Islands Pollution Control Committee has fared the worst. It is preceded by Manipur (12.6 per cent) and Arunachal Pradesh (13 per cent). Of the total 35 pollution control boards/committees ranked, only 17 managed to score 50 per cent or above Not sharing information on pollution levels Under various rules and notifications issued by the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, state pollution control boards and committees are entrusted with several functions under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977. Also Read: Union Budget 2021: Funds to tackle air pollution slashed by half. About 1.69 million people annually die in India due to air pollution “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,” Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE was quoted as saying in the report. “The law asks the boards to share the data in the public domain. But this is rarely done in practice,” Yadav said. Also Read: Struggle to breathe: Air quality in Mumbai is deteriorating. Coal use in Mumbai Metropolitan Region to be blamed: CSE Lack of uniformity in annual reports The ranking report also highlights a lack of uniformity in the display of the available information on the websites and annual reports of the various pollution control boards and committees. Only 12 states have shared their latest annual reports on their websites. These include Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal who have shared annual reports of the year 2019-20. The states of Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared annual reports of the year 2018-19 (which could be termed as the latest considering the COVID19 situation in 2020). Also Read: The Pandemic and Pollution: Handling the packaging waste of increased online shopping The study found that the data indicating the current pollution levels such as air pollutants and waste was missing. Photo: Adam Cohn/flickr ‘No initiative’ has been taken by 11 state pollution control boards and committees of the following states and Union territories in sharing their annual reports, informs the CSE report. These include Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, J&K, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry, and Nagaland. The CSE study shows that only five boards — Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand — have shared minutes of their board meetings on their websites. It is mandatory for state pollution control boards to meet at least once every three months, pointed out the non-profit. Board members in these meetings are supposed to discuss issues related to the functioning of the board, action plans, compliance and monitoring, and devising innovative methods to improve enforcement of laws. Meanwhile, only five state pollution control boards — Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal — have shared information on inspection conducted by the boards in their annual reports. Also Read: Can the Centre’s new ordinance on air pollution clean up NCR-Delhi’s air? Experts’ opinion divided. Importance of sharing information in public domain “Disclosure of information in the public domain is one of the important functions of state pollution control boards/committee’s to increase public participation and public awareness,” reads the report. “There are statutory obligations also for some indicators like CEMS [continuous emission monitoring system] data that has to be available in public domain, but even after the Supreme Court order 2017 for making CEMS data public, the status of CEMS information in public domain is dismal in most of the states,” pointed out the report. The CSE study aims to improve transparency in sharing information in the public domain by the state pollution control boards and committees.

Few state pollution control authorities putting out environmental info in public domain: CSE

Only a few state pollution control authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain, according to an analysis conducted by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). The study titled “Transparency Index: Rating of Pollution Control Boards on Public Disclosure” has assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards (SPCBs) and six pollution control committees (PCC) from across the country. Nivit Kumar Yadav, Programme Director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, said: “One of the functions under Section 17(C) of the Air Act and the Water Act 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.” According to Shreya Verma, the author of the study, 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 the last four to five years (2016-21) and uses 25 indicators that provide a broader assessment on the type and amount of information 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,” the green think tank said. Information on functioning, actions taken by a board against polluting industries, and public hearing data on new projects are rarely disclosed or remain difficult to access on the websites, the CSE said. Only 12 states have shared their latest annual reports on their websites: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal have shared annual reports of the year 2019-20; the states of Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared annual reports of the year 2018-19 (which could be termed as latest considering the COVID-19 situation in 2020), the CSE said. SPCB/PCCs have been protective of industries when it comes to non-compliance: Out of 35 SPCBs/PCCs, only five have shared soft copies of directions and show cause/closure notices issued on their websites – these are from Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttarakhand and West Bengal, the CSE said. Only five boards - Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand - have shared minutes of their board meetings on their websites: It is mandatory for SPCBs to meet at least once every three months. Board members in these meetings are supposed to discuss issues related to the functioning of the board, action plans, compliance and monitoring, and devising innovative methods to improve enforcement of laws. Only five SPCBs have shared information on inspection conducted by the boards: The PCBs of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have shared this information in their annual reports. Only nine SPCBs/PCCs have provided detailed information on public hearings, which includes the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. The states represented are Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram. Data indicating the current pollution levels – air pollutants, waste – the basic indicators of environment health, is missing, the CSE analysis revealed. Most boards display inadequate data, indicating no trends. More so, even details on upcoming projects and grievances of the general public of the locality are hardly displayed. Fourteen SPCBs/PCCs did not share any information on municipal waste generation; 11 on plastic waste generation; 10 on hazardous waste; and nine on e-waste, the CSE said. “Improving transparency is a ''must'' when it comes to state pollution control boards. 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, and it can also reassure the people about efficiency of these boards and committees,” Nivit said. With a cumulative score of 67, both Odisha and Telangana were ranked first in the transparency index, followed by Tamil Nadu at the second spot which had a cumulative score of 65.5, Madhya Pradesh (64) and West Bengal (62). Delhi was ranked 15th with a cumulative score of 49.5. PTI GVS RHL

Most pollution control boards non-transparent, says CSE study

A majority of India’s pollution control agencies remain closed entities when it came to sharing information with the public with a mere handful of India’s pollution control boards and authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain, a new rating study by the Centre for Science and Environment has found on Thursday. For calculating the Transparency Index and rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure – as the study is titled – the CSE 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 per cent or above. These are from Odisha, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Goa, Karnataka, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. “Governance and functioning-related data remains paper-bound: Information on functioning, actions taken by a board against polluting industries, public hearing data on new projects etc are rarely disclosed or remain difficult to access on the websites,” the CSE said in a release here. “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 public domain. But this is rarely done in practice,” said programme director, industrial pollution unit, CSE, Nivit Kumar Yadav. Only 12 states have shared their latest annual reports on their websites: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal have shared annual reports of the year 2019-20; Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared annual reports of the year 2018-19 (which could be termed as the latest considering the COVID-19 situation in 2020). No initiative has been taken by 11 SPCBs/PCCs of the following states and Union territories in sharing their annual reports — Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, J&K, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry and Nagaland. The CSE study also found that the SPCB/PCCs have been protective of industries when it comes to non-compliance: out of 35 SPCBs/PCCs, only five have shared soft copies of directions and show cause/closure notices issued on their websites. These are from J&K, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttarakhand and West Bengal. Only five boards – Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand – have shared minutes of their board meetings on their websites: It is mandatory for SPCBs to meet at least once every three months. Board members in these meetings are supposed to discuss issues related to the functioning of the board, action plans, compliance and monitoring, and devising innovative methods to improve enforcement of laws. Only five SPCBs have shared information on inspection conducted by the boards: The PCBs of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have shared this information in their annual reports. Only nine SPCBs/PCCs have provided detailed information on public hearings, which include the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. The states represented are Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram, the study said. “For this study, 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 the last four to five years (2016-21) and uses 25 indicators that provide a broader assessment on the type and amount of information 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 etc,” programme officer, industrial pollution unit, CSE, and author of the study Shreya Verma said. Data indicating the current pollution levels – air pollutants, waste etc – the basic indicators of environment health, is missing. Most boards display inadequate data, indicating no trends. More so, even details on upcoming projects and grievances of the general public of the locality are hardly displayed. Only 19 SPCBs/PCCs are displaying their CEMS data; this, even after a statutory obligation to do it, as per a Supreme Court order and an environment ministry directive. The states from where these PCBs/PCCs come are Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Odisha, Puducherry, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Telangana. Of these 19, just five PCBs/PCCs display historical CEMS data. Fourteen SPCBs/PCCs do not share any information on municipal waste generation; 11 on plastic waste generation; 10 on hazardous waste; and nine on e-waste. “We also found a lack of uniformity in displaying data. For instance, all the SPCBs/PCCs surveyed have different formats for their websites, which makes accessing information quite difficult. Similarly, there is no format for annual reports, hence, the information available varies from board to board,” Verma said. Asserting that “improving transparency is a ‘must’ when it comes to state pollution control boards,” Nivit added, “Putting in the public domain the crucial pollution-related information, data and details of actions taken is critical – it can help policymakers take the discussions to the next level of pollution management, and it can also reassure the people about efficiency of these boards and committees. SPCBs and SPCCs, therefore, must focus urgently to become more transparent by putting out data and improving the quality of their outreach for public engagement.

Most pollution control boards non-transparent: CSE

A majority of India's pollution control agencies remain closed entities when it came to sharing information with the public with a mere handful of India's pollution control boards and authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain, a new rating study by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found on Thursday. For calculating the Transparency Index and rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure - as the study is titled - the CSE assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards (PCBs) and six pollution control committees from across the country. Of these, only 17 boards and committees scored 50 per cent or above. These 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. "Governance and functioning-related data remains paper-bound: Information on functioning, actions taken by a board against polluting industries, public hearing data on new projects etc are rarely disclosed or remain difficult to access on the websites," CSE said in a release here. "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 public domain. But this is rarely done in practice," said programme director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, Nivit Kumar Yadav. Key findings of the report: Only 12 states have shared their latest annual reports on their websites: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal have shared annual reports of the year 2019-20; Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared annual reports of the year 2018-19 (which could be termed as the latest considering the COVID-19 situation in 2020). No initiative has been taken by 11 SPCBs/PCCs of the following states and Union territories in sharing their annual reports -- Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, J&K, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry and Nagaland. The CSE study also found that the SPCB/PCCs have been protective of industries when it comes to non-compliance: Out of 35 SPCBs/PCCs, only five have shared soft copies of directions and show cause/closure notices issued on their websites - these are from J&K, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttarakhand and West Bengal. Only five boards - Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand - have shared minutes of their board meetings on their websites: It is mandatory for SPCBs to meet at least once every three months. Board members in these meetings are supposed to discuss issues related to the functioning of the board, action plans, compliance and monitoring, and devising innovative methods to improve enforcement of laws. Only five SPCBs have shared information on inspection conducted by the boards: The PCBs of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have shared this information in their annual reports. Only nine SPCBs/PCCs have provided detailed information on public hearings, which include the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. The states represented are Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram, the study said. "For this study, 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 the last four to five years (2016-21) and uses 25 indicators that provide a broader assessment on the type and amount of information 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 etc," programme officer, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, and author of the study Shreya Verma said. Limited data on current pollution levels: Data indicating the current pollution levels - air pollutants, waste etc - the basic indicators of environment health, is missing. Most boards display inadequate data, indicating no trends. More so, even details on upcoming projects and grievances of the general public of the locality are hardly displayed. Only 19 SPCBs/PCCs are displaying their CEMS data: This, even after a statutory obligation to do it, as per a Supreme Court order (February 22, 2017) and an environment ministry directive (GSR 96E January 29, 2018). The states from where these PCBs/PCCs come are Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Odisha, Puducherry, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Telangana. Of these 19, just five PCBs/PCCs display historical CEMS data. Laxity in sharing information on solid waste: Fourteen SPCBs/PCCs do not share any information on municipal waste generation; 11 on plastic waste generation; 10 on hazardous waste; and nine on e-waste. "We also found a lack of uniformity in displaying data. For instance, all the SPCBs/PCCs surveyed have different formats for their websites, which makes accessing information quite difficult. Similarly, there is no format for annual reports, hence, the information available varies from board to board," Verma said. Asserting that "improving transparency is a 'must' when it comes to state pollution control boards," Nivit added, "Putting in the public domain the 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, and it can also reassure the people about efficiency of these boards and committees. SPCBs and SPCCs, therefore, must focus urgently to become more transparent by putting out data and improving the quality of their outreach for public engagement."

CSE study finds Indian pollution boards not very transparent with data, 67% is top score

CSE study says pollution boards in A&N Islands and Manipur are among the worst performers on transparency, while Telangana & Odisha have registered better performance. New Delhi: Most state pollution boards have taken “minimal initiative” to be transparent with information they collect about environmental pollution and emission data, a study released by the Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found. The study, released Thursday, sought to assess how transparent State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and Pollution Control Committees (PCCs) are with disclosing the information they collect under the Water Act, Air Act, and Environment (Protection) Act. SPCBs and PCCs are the agencies in states and Union Territories that have been entrusted with the prevention and control of pollution. “Barring a few boards which have taken steps to use their website and annual report for information sharing, majority of SPCBS/PCCs have made little effort to build a relationship with all stakeholders by sharing information,” says the study. The study has an index, with states rated on the availability of information on their websites and annual reports. The most transparent State Pollution Board are Odisha and Telangana — with a transparency of 67 per cent. The top performers are Tamil Nadu (65.5 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (64 per cent), West Bengal (62 per cent), Goa (60.6 per cent), Karnataka (60.0 per cent), Haryana (59.9 per cent), Chhattisgarh (59.5 per cent) and Himachal Pradesh (59.5 per cent). The worst performing states and Union territories were Nagaland (19.2 per cent), Chandigarh (15.8 per cent), Arunachal Pradesh (13 per cent) Manipur (12.6 per cent) and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (5.5 per cent). Performance parameters Tasked with monitoring pollution levels, the SPCBs and PCCs serve as repositories of information that, the CSE says, should ideally be available to the public. “The rationale of this report is to encourage public disclosure of information and to improve the quality of information shared by SPCBs/PCCs. In order to ensure more transparency in the working of a board, information disclosure has to be improved,” said the report. The report assessed transparency by looking at two parameters from 2016 to 2021 — the availability and assessment of information on the SPCB/PCCs’ websites and annual reports. Annual reports are statutory documents released in the public domain every year, detailing the SPCB/PCCs’ activities. Some of the information the websites are supposed to feature is related to board members, public hearings, laboratories, waste management, action plans for polluted rivers, and the availability of a Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS), among others. While 34 out of 35 SPCB/PCCs have a website, only Telangana, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Odisha and Kerala provide “significant amounts of information on their websites”, the study noted. Despite a 2017 Supreme Court order requiring SPCB/PCCs to release real-time emission data, the study found that only “19 SPCBs/PCCs are displaying their CEMS data in the public domain — Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Odisha, Puducherry, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Telangana.” On a positive note, nearly all SPCB/PCCs had an action plan for polluted rivers. The annual reports of SPCBs/PCCs were sourced from their websites. According to the study, out of 34 SPCBs/PCCs that have websites, 11 had not uploaded their annual reports, while 23 had. “However, it was interesting to find that six of them have uploaded annual reports that are 4-10 years old,” the study observed. Only two states — Haryana and Karnataka — provided information on the compliance status of industries. “One of the reasons for the lack of information could be that there is no definition of compliance,” the report said. Significance and recommendations The report concluded by calling upon SPCBs/PCCs to prepare themselves “for 21st century environmental governance” by working with all “stakeholders.” The CSE report also urged the Central Pollution Control Board to fix a timeline by which all SPCBs and PCCs should upload their latest annual report “without delay”, and keep them on the website for at least 5 years. It further recommended that the data should be “accessible to everyone”, and that all websites should have a uniform design so that navigation is easy and hassle-free with all the necessary information in their designated sections.

How transparent are our pollution control boards?

A majority of India’s pollution control agencies remain closed entities when it comes to sharing information with the public. A new rating study by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found that a mere handful of India’s pollution control boards and authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain. TRANSPARENCY INDEX: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure – as the study is titled – has assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards (PCBs) and six pollution control committees from across the country. Of these, only 14 boards and committees scored 50 per cent or above. These 14 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. Says Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE: “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 public domain. But this is rarely done in practice.” Shreya Verma, programme officer, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, and author of the study explains the methodology: “For this study, 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 the last four to five years (2016-21) and uses 25 indicators that provide a broader assessment on the type and amount of information 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 etc.” Key findings of the report Governance and functioning-related data remains paper-bound: Information on functioning, actions taken by a board against polluting industries, public hearing data on new projects etc 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: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal have shared annual reports of the year 2019-20; the states of Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared annual reports of the year 2018-19 (which could be termed as the latest considering the COVID-19 situation in 2020). No initiative has been taken by 11 SPCBs/PCCs of the following states and Union territories in sharing their annual reports — Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, J&K, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry and Nagaland. SPCB/PCCs have been protective of industries when it comes to non-compliance: Out of 35 SPCBs/PCCs, only five have shared soft copies of directions and show cause/closure notices issued on their websites – these are from J&K, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttarakhand and West Bengal. Only five boards –Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand– have shared minutes of their board meetings on their websites: It is mandatory for SPCBs to meet at least once every three months. Board members in these meetings are supposed to discuss issues related to the functioning of the board, action plans, compliance and monitoring, and devising innovative methods to improve enforcement of laws. Only five SPCBs have shared information on inspection conducted by the boards: The PCBs of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have shared this information in their annual reports. Only nine SPCBs/PCCs have provided detailed information on public hearings, which includes the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. The states represented are Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram. Limited data on current pollution levels: Data indicating the current pollution levels – air pollutants, waste etc – the basic indicators of environment health, is missing. Most boards display inadequate data, indicating no trends. More so, even details on upcoming projects and grievances of the general public of the locality are hardly displayed. Only 19 SPCBs/PCCs are displaying their CEMS data: This, even after a statutory obligation to do it, as per a Supreme Court order (February 22, 2017) and an environment ministry directive (GSR 96(E) January 29, 2018). The states from where these PCBs/PCCs come are Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Odisha, Puducherry, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Telangana. Of these 19, just five PCBs/PCCs display historical CEMS data. Laxity in sharing information on solid waste: Fourteen SPCBs/PCCs do not share any information on municipal waste generation; 11 on plastic waste generation; 10 on hazardous waste; and nine on e-waste. Says Verma: “The study has also found a lack of uniformity in displaying data — for instance, all the SPCBs/PCCs surveyed have different website formats, which makes accessing information quite difficult. Similarly, there is no format for annual reports: hence, the information available varies from board to board.” Nivit adds: “Improving transparency is a ‘must’ when it comes to state pollution control boards. 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, and it can also reassure the people about efficiency of these boards and committees. SPCBs and SPCCs, therefore, must focus urgently to become more transparent by putting out data and improving the quality of their outreach for public engagement.”

Odisha State Pollution Control Board Ranked Number One in CSE India’s Transparency Index Report

Bhubaneswar: The Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) has occupied the top most position in the Transparency Index Report released by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). The OSPCB has been adjudged number one in Public Disclosure in the country. The report evaluated information shared by 29 state PCBs and 6 pollution control committees to public in the last five years. With 67 per cent information and indicators available in the OSPCB’s public domain, it has has been the number one. Disclosure of information in the public domain is one of the important functions of the State Pollution Control Boards to increase public participation and public awareness. Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik has congratulated the OSPCB for the feat.

OSPCB tops transparency list

The Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) has ranked number one in Public Disclosure in the country.With 67 per cent information and indicators available in the OSPCB’s public domain, it has stood first. The Telangana State Pollution Control Board has also stood on equal footing with a 67-per cent tag. The Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board has stood second and the Madhya Pradesh State Pollution Control Board third among the 31 SPCBs. Disclosure of information in the public domain is one of the important functions of the State Pollution Control Boards to increase public participation and public awareness.

Few state pollution authorities making environmental information publicly available: CSE

New Delhi. According to an analysis by the Center for Science and Environment (CSE), only a few state pollution control authorities are making sufficient environmental and governance information publicly available. The study, titled ‘Transparency Index: Rating of Pollution Control Boards on Public Disclosures’, assessed data disclosure performance by 29 state pollution control boards and six pollution control committees across the country. Nivit Kumar Yadav, Program Director, Industrial Pollution Unit of CSE said, “A provision under Section 17(c) of the Air Act and the Water Act to collect and disseminate information about air and water pollution and its ) prevention and control. But it is done occasionally. According to study author Shreya Verma, CSE collected data from two sources-websites of state pollution control boards/pollution control committees and their annual reports. The study assessed the information shared by these boards or committees over the past four-five years (2016-2021) and used 25 indicators, which provide a comprehensive assessment of the type and amount of information shared. Huh. The green think tank said that only 12 states shared the latest annual reports on their websites. Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal have shared their annual reports for 2019-20. Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared their annual reports for 2018-19. According to the study, only five boards—Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand—have shared the details of their board meetings on their websites. Whereas it is mandatory to have a meeting of the State Pollution Control Board at least once every three months. The CSE analysis has revealed that the data indicating the current pollution level is missing. The study said that most of the boards have displayed insufficient figures.

సీఎస్‌ఈ పారదర్శక సూచీలో తెలంగాణకు మొదటి ర్యాంకు

న్యూఢిల్లీ, ఆగస్టు 12: కాలుష్య నియంత్రణకు ఏయే చర్యలు చేపడుతున్నారో ఎప్పటికప్పుడు ప్రజలు వెల్లడించే విషయంలో తెలంగాణ కాలుష్య నియంత్రణ బోర్డు దేశంలోనే మొదటి స్థానంలో నిలిచింది. సెంటర్‌ ఫర్‌ సైన్స్‌ అండ్‌ ఇన్విరాన్‌మెంట్‌(సీఎస్‌ఈ) విడుదల చేసిన పారదర్శక సూచీ(ట్రాన్స్‌పరెన్సీ ఇండెక్స్‌)లో 67 స్కోరుతో మొదటి ర్యాంకు సాధించింది. దేశంలో 29 రాష్ర్టాల కాలుష్య నియంత్రణ బోర్డులు, ఆరు కాలుష్య నియంత్రణ కమిటీలు ఉన్నాయి. కాలుష్య నియంత్రణకు ఇవి చేపట్టే కార్యక్రమాలను, నిర్ణయాలను తమ వెబ్‌సైట్లు, ప్రకటనలు, వార్షిక నివేదికల ద్వారా ఎప్పటికప్పుడు ప్రజలకు తెలియజేయాలి. అయితే చాలా రాష్ర్టాలు దీన్ని పాటించడం లేదని సీఎస్‌ఈ పేర్కొన్నది. సమాచార వెల్లడిలో గడిచిన ఐదేండ్లలో వివిధ బోర్డుల పనితీరుపై 25 అంశాల ఆధారంగా అధ్యయనం చేసి ర్యాంకులను కేటాయించింది. తెలంగాణతో పాటు ఒడిశా కూడా 67 స్కోరుతో సంయుక్తంగా మొదటిస్థానంలో ఉండగా, 65.5 స్కోరుతో తమిళనాడు రెండో స్థానంలో ఉంది.