Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

प्रदूषण डाटा सार्वजनिक करने में दिल्ली फिसड्डी

प्रदूषण डाटा सार्वजनिक करने में दिल्ली फिसड्डी साबित हुई है। विज्ञान एवं पर्यावरण केन्द्र (सीएसई) द्वारा तैयार ट्रांसपेरेंसी इंडेक्स में ‘दिल्ली प्रदूषण नियंत्रण समिति टॉप 10 में जगह नहीं बना सकी है। इस इंडेक्स में पहला स्थान ओडीशा और तेलंगाना राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण समिति को मिला है। लोगों को प्रदूषण के प्रति जागरूक करने और प्रदूषण पर रोकथाम के लिए प्रदूषण डाटा को सार्वजनिक करना अहम माना जाता है। इस संबंध में अलग-अलग निर्देश भी दिए गए हैं। लेकिन, प्रदूषण की स्थिति, अलग-अलग संस्थाओं पर की गई कार्रवाई आदि को लेकर डाटा को सार्वजनिक करने में राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड और प्रदूषण नियंत्रण समितियों में हिचक देखने को मिल रही है। ओडीशा-तेलंगाना को पहला स्थान : सीएसई ने देश भर के 35 राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड और समितियों को 25 अलग-अलग मानकों पर कसा है। इसी के आधार पर बोर्ड और समितियों द्वारा सूचना को सार्वजनिक करने को लेकर ट्रांसपेरेसी इंडेक्स तैयार किया गया है। इस इंडेक्स में 67 फीसदी अंक हासिल करने के साथ ओडीशा और तेलंगाना राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड ने पहला स्थान हासिल किया है। इंडेक्स में सिर्फ 14 बोर्ड या समितियां ऐसी हैं जो 50 फीसदी अंक हासिल करने में सफल रही हैं। इसमें ओडीशा, तेलंगाना, तमिलनाडु, मध्य प्रदेश, पश्चिम बंगाल, गोआ, कर्नाटक, हरियाणा, छत्तीसगढ़, हिमाचल प्रदेश, जम्मू-कश्मीर, महाराष्ट्र, पंजाब, आंध्र प्रदेश व राजस्थान शामिल हैं। नई दिल्ली से और दिल्ली दंगों की आड़ में पड़ोसी ने निभाई गई पुरानी रंजिश, आरोपी एक व्यक्ति को उसके पड़ोसी ने फंसाया : पुलिस दिल्ली दंगों में आरोपी व्यक्ति को फंसाने के लिए पड़ोसी ने चली थी ये चाल बदमाशों ने चार साल के मासूम के सामने रेता मां का गला, दो दिन पहले ड्रग्स तस्कर के खिलाफ दी थी शिकायत दिल्ली: बदमाशों ने चार साल के मासूम के सामने रेता मां का गला दिल्ली: कोविड नियमों की अनदेखी पर कड़ी कार्रवाई, दो दिनों के लिए बंद हुईं सरोजनी नगर मार्केट की 46 दुकानें दिल्ली: दो दिनों के लिए बंद हुईं सरोजनी नगर मार्केट की 46 दुकानें चार साल के बच्चे ने पड़ोसी के घर के बाहर किया पेशाब तो नाबालिग ने ले ली मां की जान घर के बाहर 4 साल के बच्चे ने किया पेशाब, तो पड़ोसी ने ले ली मां की जान 15वें स्थान पर दिल्ली प्रदूषण को लेकर डाटा सार्वजनिक करने में दिल्ली को खराब रैकिंग हासिल हुई है। यह 49.5 अंकों के साथ 15वें स्थान पर है। संस्था ने बोर्ड और समितियों द्वारा जारी वार्षिक रिपोर्ट, मानकों का उल्लंघन करने वाले उद्योगों पर कार्रवाई, बैठकों के मिनट्स सार्वजनिक करने, निरीक्षणों आदि के आधार पर यह इंडेक्स तैयार किया है। पारदर्शिता को बढ़ावा देने की सलाह सीएसई के औद्योगिक प्रदूषण ईकाई के कार्यक्रम निदेशक निवित कुमार यादव ने कहा कि प्रदूषण डाटा को लेकर पारदर्शिता को बढ़ावा दिया जाना चाहिए। प्रदूषण संबंधी सूचनाओं और कार्रवाईयों को सार्वजनिक करने से इस संबंध में नीति निर्धारण में भी आसानी होती है और लोगों के बीच जागरुकता भी बढ़ेगी।

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. 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 Se-> View it--> https://www.newkerala.com/news/2021/114921.htm

Pollution control boards are not transparent: CSE report

BATHINDA: As putting crucial pollution related information in the public domain is critical, which can help policy-makers to take the 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. A new rating study by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found that a mere handful of pollution control boards and authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain. The study ‘Transparency Index: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure’ has assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards (PCBs) and six pollution control committees (PCCs) from across the country. Of these, only 14 boards and committees scored 50 per cent or above. The board of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab from the region are among those scoring over 50 per cent. Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, says "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 explaining the methodology says, "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" 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. 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. Only five boards including Haryana 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 including Himachal Pradesh have shared information on inspection conducted by the boards. Only nine SPCBs/PCCs including Punjab have provided detailed information on public hearings, which includes the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. 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. Only 19 SPCBs/PCCs including three from the region are displaying their Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) data. This, even after a statutory obligation to do it, as per a Supreme Court order and an environment ministry directive. 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.

Most pollution control boards in India are non-transparent: Centre for Science and Environment

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."

Most pollution control boards in India are non-transparent: Centre for Science and Environment

A majority of India`s air pollution management companies stay closed entities when it got here to sharing data with the general public with a mere handful of India`s air pollution management boards and authorities are adequately placing out environmental and governance data into the general public area, a brand new score research by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has discovered on Thursday. For calculating the Transparency Index and score of air pollution management boards on public disclosure – because the research is titled – the CSE assessed the information disclosure efficiency of 29 state air pollution management boards (PCBs) and 6 air pollution management committees from throughout the nation. Of these, solely 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 mentioned in a launch right 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,” mentioned programme director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, Nivit Kumar Yadav. Key findings of the report: Only 12 states have shared their newest annual experiences on their web sites: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal have shared annual experiences of the yr 2019-20; Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared annual experiences of the yr 2018-19 (which might be termed as the most recent contemplating the COVID-19 state of affairs in 2020). No initiative has been taken by 11 SPCBs/PCCs of the next states and Union territories in sharing their annual experiences — Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, J&Okay, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry and Nagaland. The CSE research additionally discovered that the SPCB/PCCs have been protecting of industries on the subject of non-compliance: Out of 35 SPCBs/PCCs, solely 5 have shared tender copies of instructions and present trigger/closure notices issued on their web sites – these are from J&Okay, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttarakhand and West Bengal. Only 5 boards – Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand – have shared minutes of their board conferences on their web sites: It is obligatory for SPCBs to satisfy a minimum of as soon as each three months. Board members in these conferences are supposed to debate points associated to the functioning of the board, motion plans, compliance and monitoring, and devising progressive strategies to enhance enforcement of legal guidelines. Only 5 SPCBs have shared data on inspection carried out by the boards: The PCBs of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have shared this data of their annual experiences. Only 9 SPCBs/PCCs have offered detailed data on public hearings, which embrace the manager abstract, draft EIA report of the mission, and minutes of the assembly. The states represented are Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram, the research mentioned. “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 creator of the research Shreya Verma mentioned. Limited knowledge on present air pollution ranges: Data indicating the present air pollution ranges – air pollution, waste and many others – the fundamental indicators of setting well being, is lacking. Most boards show insufficient knowledge, indicating no developments. More so, even particulars on upcoming initiatives and grievances of most people of the locality are hardly displayed. Only 19 SPCBs/PCCs are displaying their CEMS knowledge: This, even after a statutory obligation to do it, as per a Supreme Court order (February 22, 2017) and an setting ministry directive (GSR 96E January 29, 2018). The states from the place these PCBs/PCCs come are Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&Okay, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Odisha, Puducherry, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Telangana. Of these 19, simply 5 PCBs/PCCs show historic CEMS knowledge. Laxity in sharing data on strong waste: Fourteen SPCBs/PCCs don’t share any data on municipal waste era; 11 on plastic waste era; 10 on hazardous waste; and 9 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 mentioned. 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.”

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.”

Most pollution control boards across India lack transparency, finds study

Pollution control boards of Odisha, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal were found to be the most transparent among 35 such organisations studied. 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 intothe public domain. 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 and six pollution control committees from across the country. 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. Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director (industrial pollution unit) of CSE, sai,: “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.” RELATED STORIES Delhi notifies policy to incentivise medical oxygen production, transportation Delhi notifies policy to incentivise medical oxygen production, transportation Delhi CM Kejriwal inaugurates smog tower at Connaught Place, environmentalists sceptical of its efficacy Delhi CM Kejriwal inaugurates smog tower at Connaught Place, environmentalists sceptical of its efficacy India needs a separate ministry to deal with the climate crisis PREMIUM India needs a separate ministry to deal with the climate crisis Clean drinking water supply in 99% of Haryana’s households: Centre Clean drinking water supply in 99% of Haryana’s households: Centre Shreya Verma, programme officer at 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 tofive 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.” The report highlighted that governance and functioning-related data remains paper-bound. Information on functioning, actions taken by a board against polluting industries, public hearing data on new projectsetcare 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 while 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 and PCCs of the following states and Union territories in sharing their annual reports — Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry and Nagaland. SPCB and PCCs have been protective of industries when it comes to non-compliance, the report found. Out of 35 SPCBs and 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 and 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, wasteetc– 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 obligationto 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: 14 SPCBs and PCCs do not share any information on municipal waste generation; 11 on plastic waste generation; 10 on hazardous waste; and nine on e-waste. “The study has also found a lack of uniformity in displaying data -- for instance, all the SPCBs/PCCssurveyed 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," Verma 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 efficiencyof these boards and committees.State PCBs and SPCCs, therefore, must focus urgently to become more transparent by putting out data and improving the quality of their outreach for public engagement," Nivit added.

Most pollution control boards across India lack transparency, finds study

जब जनता के साथ जानकारी साझा करने की बात आती है तो भारत की अधिकांश प्रदूषण नियंत्रण एजेंसियां ​​बंद हो जाती हैं। सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट (सीएसई) के एक नए रेटिंग अध्ययन में पाया गया है कि भारत के कुछ मुट्ठी भर प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड और प्राधिकरण पर्यावरण और शासन की जानकारी को सार्वजनिक डोमेन में पर्याप्त रूप से डाल रहे हैं। पारदर्शिता सूचकांक: सार्वजनिक प्रकटीकरण पर प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों की रेटिंग शीर्षक वाले अध्ययन ने देश भर से 29 राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों और छह प्रदूषण नियंत्रण समितियों के डेटा प्रकटीकरण प्रदर्शन का आकलन किया है। इनमें से केवल 17 बोर्डों और समितियों ने 50% या उससे अधिक अंक प्राप्त किए। ये 17 ओडिशा, तेलंगाना, तमिलनाडु, मध्य प्रदेश, पश्चिम बंगाल, गोवा, कर्नाटक, हरियाणा, छत्तीसगढ़, हिमाचल प्रदेश, जम्मू-कश्मीर, केरल, महाराष्ट्र, उत्तराखंड, पंजाब, आंध्र प्रदेश और राजस्थान से हैं। सीएसई के कार्यक्रम निदेशक (औद्योगिक प्रदूषण इकाई) निवित कुमार यादव ने कहा, “राज्य पीसीबी को जल अधिनियम, 1974 के प्रावधानों के तहत कई कार्य सौंपे गए हैं; वायु अधिनियम, 1981; जल उपकर अधिनियम, 1977; और पर्यावरण (संरक्षण) अधिनियम, 1986 के तहत जारी विभिन्न नियम और अधिसूचनाएं। वायु और जल अधिनियम की धारा 17 (सी) के तहत इन कार्यों में से एक वायु और जल प्रदूषण से संबंधित जानकारी एकत्र करना और प्रसारित करना और इसकी रोकथाम के बारे में भी है, नियंत्रण या कमी। कानून बोर्डों को सार्वजनिक डोमेन में डेटा साझा करने के लिए कहता है। लेकिन व्यवहार में ऐसा बहुत कम होता है।” सीएसई की कार्यक्रम अधिकारी और अध्ययन की लेखिका श्रेया वर्मा इस पद्धति की व्याख्या करती हैं: “इस अध्ययन के लिए, सीएसई ने दो स्रोतों से डेटा एकत्र किया – एसपीसीबी / पीसीसी की वेबसाइट और उनकी वार्षिक रिपोर्ट। अध्ययन ने पिछले चार से पांच वर्षों (2016-21) के दौरान एसपीसीबी/पीसीसी द्वारा साझा की गई जानकारी का मूल्यांकन किया है और 25 संकेतकों का उपयोग किया है जो साझा की गई जानकारी के प्रकार और मात्रा पर व्यापक मूल्यांकन प्रदान करते हैं। अध्ययन में इस्तेमाल किए गए कुछ प्रमुख संकेतकों में बोर्ड द्वारा जारी दिशा-निर्देश/कारण बताओ/बंद करने के नोटिस, जन सुनवाई और ईआईए रिपोर्ट, गैर-प्राप्ति शहरों और प्रदूषित नदी के हिस्सों आदि पर जानकारी की उपलब्धता शामिल है। रिपोर्ट में इस बात पर प्रकाश डाला गया है कि शासन और कामकाज से संबंधित डेटा कागज़-बाध्य रहता है। कामकाज की जानकारी, प्रदूषणकारी उद्योगों के खिलाफ बोर्ड द्वारा की गई कार्रवाई, नई परियोजनाओं पर जन सुनवाई डेटा शायद ही कभी प्रकट होता है या वेबसाइटों पर पहुंचना मुश्किल होता है। उदाहरण के लिए, केवल 12 राज्यों ने अपनी नवीनतम वार्षिक रिपोर्ट अपनी वेबसाइटों पर साझा की है। गुजरात, मध्य प्रदेश, सिक्किम, त्रिपुरा और पश्चिम बंगाल ने वर्ष 2019-20 की वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा की है, जबकि छत्तीसगढ़, कर्नाटक, महाराष्ट्र, ओडिशा, राजस्थान, उत्तर प्रदेश और तमिलनाडु ने वर्ष 2018-19 की वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा की है। 2020 में कोविड-19 की स्थिति को देखते हुए इसे नवीनतम कहा जा सकता है)। निम्नलिखित राज्यों और केंद्र शासित प्रदेशों के 11 एसपीसीबी और पीसीसी द्वारा अपनी वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा करने में कोई पहल नहीं की गई है – असम, अरुणाचल प्रदेश, बिहार, जम्मू और कश्मीर, झारखंड, मणिपुर, अंडमान और निकोबार, चंडीगढ़, दमन और दीव, दादरा और नगर हवेली, पुडुचेरी और नागालैंड। रिपोर्ट में पाया गया कि गैर-अनुपालन की बात आने पर एसपीसीबी और पीसीसी उद्योगों के लिए सुरक्षात्मक रहे हैं। 35 एसपीसीबी और पीसीसी में से केवल पांच ने निर्देशों की सॉफ्ट कॉपी और अपनी वेबसाइट पर जारी कारण बताओ/बंद करने के नोटिस साझा किए हैं – ये जम्मू-कश्मीर, राजस्थान, तेलंगाना, उत्तराखंड और पश्चिम बंगाल से हैं। केवल पांच बोर्ड – दिल्ली, गोवा, हरियाणा, त्रिपुरा और उत्तराखंड – ने अपनी वेबसाइट पर बोर्ड की बैठकों के कार्यवृत्त साझा किए हैं: एसपीसीबी के लिए हर तीन महीने में कम से कम एक बार मिलना अनिवार्य है। इन बैठकों में बोर्ड के सदस्यों से संबंधित मुद्दों पर चर्चा की जाती है। बोर्ड के कामकाज, कार्य योजनाओं, अनुपालन और निगरानी, ​​और कानूनों के प्रवर्तन में सुधार के लिए नवीन तरीकों को तैयार करने के लिए। केवल पांच एसपीसीबी ने बोर्डों द्वारा किए गए निरीक्षण पर जानकारी साझा की है: हिमाचल प्रदेश, कर्नाटक, ओडिशा, तमिलनाडु और पश्चिम बंगाल के पीसीबी ने अपनी वार्षिक रिपोर्ट में यह जानकारी साझा की है। केवल नौ एसपीसीबी और पीसीसी ने जन सुनवाई पर विस्तृत जानकारी प्रदान की है, जिसमें कार्यकारी सारांश, परियोजना की ईआईए रिपोर्ट का मसौदा और बैठक के कार्यवृत्त शामिल हैं। प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाले राज्य कर्नाटक, तेलंगाना, दिल्ली, गुजरात, केरल, पंजाब, राजस्थान, गोवा और मिजोरम हैं। वर्तमान प्रदूषण स्तरों पर सीमित डेटा: वर्तमान प्रदूषण स्तर – वायु प्रदूषक, अपशिष्ट आदि – पर्यावरण स्वास्थ्य के बुनियादी संकेतकों को दर्शाने वाला डेटा गायब है। अधिकांश बोर्ड अपर्याप्त डेटा प्रदर्शित करते हैं, जो कोई रुझान नहीं दर्शाता है। इसके अलावा, आने वाली परियोजनाओं और इलाके की आम जनता की शिकायतों का विवरण भी शायद ही प्रदर्शित किया जाता है। केवल 19 एसपीसीबी/पीसीसी अपने सीईएमएस डेटा प्रदर्शित कर रहे हैं: यह सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के आदेश (22 फरवरी, 2017) और पर्यावरण मंत्रालय के निर्देश (जीएसआर 96 (ई) 29 जनवरी, 2018) के अनुसार, ऐसा करने के लिए एक वैधानिक दायित्व के बाद भी। जिन राज्यों से ये पीसीबी/पीसीसी आते हैं उनमें आंध्र प्रदेश, असम, बिहार, छत्तीसगढ़, दिल्ली, गोवा, गुजरात, हरियाणा, हिमाचल प्रदेश, जम्मू-कश्मीर, झारखंड, केरल, मध्य प्रदेश, मेघालय, ओडिशा, पुडुचेरी, पंजाब, तमिलनाडु और तेलंगाना। इन 19 में से सिर्फ पांच पीसीबी/पीसीसी ऐतिहासिक सीईएमएस डेटा प्रदर्शित करते हैं। ठोस कचरे पर सूचना साझा करने में ढिलाई: 14 एसपीसीबी और पीसीसी नगरपालिका अपशिष्ट उत्पादन पर कोई जानकारी साझा नहीं करते हैं; 11 प्लास्टिक अपशिष्ट उत्पादन पर; 10 खतरनाक कचरे पर; और नौ ई-कचरे पर। “अध्ययन में डेटा प्रदर्शित करने में एकरूपता की कमी भी पाई गई है – उदाहरण के लिए, सभी एसपीसीबी / पीसीसी के सर्वेक्षण में अलग-अलग वेबसाइट प्रारूप हैं, जिससे जानकारी तक पहुंचना काफी मुश्किल हो जाता है। इसी तरह, वार्षिक रिपोर्ट के लिए कोई प्रारूप नहीं है: इसलिए, उपलब्ध जानकारी बोर्ड से बोर्ड में भिन्न होती है,” वर्मा ने कहा। “जब राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों की बात आती है तो पारदर्शिता में सुधार करना ‘जरूरी’ है। सार्वजनिक डोमेन में महत्वपूर्ण प्रदूषण से संबंधित जानकारी, डेटा और की गई कार्रवाइयों का विवरण महत्वपूर्ण है – यह नीति निर्माताओं को प्रदूषण प्रबंधन के अगले स्तर पर चर्चा करने में मदद कर सकता है, और यह लोगों को इन बोर्डों और समितियों की दक्षता के बारे में आश्वस्त भी कर सकता है। इसलिए, राज्य पीसीबी और एसपीसीसी को डेटा डालने और सार्वजनिक जुड़ाव के लिए अपने आउटरीच की गुणवत्ता में सुधार करके अधिक पारदर्शी बनने के लिए तत्काल ध्यान केंद्रित करना चाहिए,” निवित ने कहा।

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."

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."

Most pollution control boards across India absence transparency, finds research

A greater part of India’s air pollution manage companies remain closed entities when it will come to sharing details with the public. A new score study by Centre for Science and Surroundings (CSE) has found that a mere handful of India’s air pollution manage boards and authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance data intothe public area. The research titled, Transparency Index: Ranking of air pollution handle boards on general public disclosure, has assessed the information disclosure efficiency of 29 condition air pollution control boards and six air pollution command committees from across the region. Of these, only 17 boards and committees scored 50% or previously mentioned. 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. Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director (industrial air pollution device) of CSE, sai,: “State PCBs are entrusted with several functions less than the provisions of the Drinking water Act, 1974 Air Act, 1981 Water Cess Act, 1977 and a variety of regulations and notifications issued below the Natural environment (Security) Act, 1986. 1 of these functions beneath Portion 17(C) of the Air and Drinking water Functions is to accumulate and disseminate facts connected to air and h2o pollution and also about its prevention, regulate or abatement. The regulation asks the boards to share the details in public domain. But this is hardly ever finished in apply.” Shreya Verma, programme officer at CSE, and author of the study clarifies the methodology: “For this research, CSE collected information from two resources — internet websites of SPCBs/PCCs and their yearly studies. The analyze has evaluated the data shared by SPCBs/PCCs through the last four tofive yrs (2016-21) and makes use of 25 indicators that present a broader evaluation on the type and amount of data shared. A handful of important indicators made use of in the analyze incorporate the availability of information and facts on direction/display induce/closure notices issued by boards, information and facts on community hearings and EIA reports, non-attainment towns and polluted river stretches and many others.” The report highlighted that governance and operating-linked facts remains paper-bound. Info on performing, steps taken by a board from polluting industries, public listening to details on new projectsetcare not often disclosed or continue to be tricky to entry on the web sites. For occasion, only 12 states have shared their most up-to-date once-a-year stories on their internet sites. Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal have shared once-a-year reviews of the 12 months 2019-20 although Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared yearly stories of the yr 2018-19 (which could be termed as the most up-to-date considering the Covid-19 predicament in 2020). No initiative has been taken by 11 SPCBs and PCCs of the pursuing states and Union territories in sharing their annual experiences — Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry and Nagaland. SPCB and PCCs have been protecting of industries when it arrives to non-compliance, the report observed. Out of 35 SPCBs and PCCs, only five have shared gentle copies of instructions and exhibit induce/closure notices issued on their web sites – 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 conferences on their internet sites: It is necessary for SPCBs to meet up with at least after each a few months.Board users in these meetings are intended to explore issues connected to the functioning of the board, motion strategies, compliance and monitoring, and devising ground breaking methods to strengthen enforcement of guidelines. Only five SPCBs have shared details on inspection conducted by the boards:The PCBs of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have shared this info in their annual reviews. Only 9 SPCBs and PCCs have provided in depth details on community hearings, which features 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. Constrained information on present-day air pollution levels: Data indicating the recent air pollution levels – air pollutants, wasteetc– the fundamental indicators of setting well being,is lacking. Most boards exhibit inadequate facts, indicating no trends. More so, even information on forthcoming jobs and grievances of the standard community of the locality are hardly shown. Only 19 SPCBs/PCCs are displaying their CEMS info: This, even immediately after a statutory obligationto do it, as per a Supreme Court docket purchase (February 22, 2017) and an ecosystem ministry directive (GSR 96(E) January 29, 2018).The states from the place these PCBs/PCCs appear 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 5 PCBs/PCCs exhibit historic CEMS information. Laxity in sharing information on strong waste: 14 SPCBs and PCCs do not share any information and facts on municipal waste generation 11 on plastic waste technology 10 on hazardous squander and nine on e-waste. “The research has also found a absence of uniformity in exhibiting details — for occasion, all the SPCBs/PCCssurveyed have unique web-site formats, which will make accessing info very tricky. Similarly, there is no structure for annual experiences: therefore,the information available differs from board to board,” Verma mentioned. “Improving transparency is a ‘must’when it comes to state air pollution regulate boards. Putting in the community area essential air pollution-related data, facts and specifics of actions taken is essential – it can assistance policy-makers consider the conversations to the future level of pollution administration, and it can also reassure the persons about efficiencyof these boards and committees.Point out PCBs and SPCCs, hence, will have to focus urgently to become a lot more transparent by placing out data and improving upon the good quality of their outreach for general public engagement,” Nivit additional.

OSPCB Tops Transparency List

hubaneswar: Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) has ranked Number One in Public Disclosure in the Country. With 67 Percent Information and Indicators available of Public Domain pf OSPCB, it stood First in the country. Suresh Chandra Mohapatra, Chief Secretary and Chairman of OSPCB is known for his transparent approach and K Murugesan, Member Secretary Odisha Pollution Control Board is all along has tried to make OSPCB an ‘Open Book’. With both Chairman Mr.Mahapatra and Member Secretary Dr. Murugesan striving hard to provide Information and Indicators on Public Domain, naturally OSPCB has stood lock solid under intense scrutiny of CSE, admits a Senior Scientist on Environment. While Odisha Pollution Board stood First, Telengana State Pollution Control Board also stood on equal footing with 67 Percent tag. Tamilnadu State Pollution Control Board stood Second and Madhya Pradesh State Pollution Control Board stood Third among the 31 SPCB and PCCs. Disclosure of information in the public domain is one of the important functions of State Pollution Control Boards to increase public participation and public awareness. There are statutory obligations also for some indicators like Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) data that has to be available in public domain. However 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. Similarly, there are other indicators also which have public importance and needs to be shared in public domain. To assess the level of transparency maintained by SPCBs, Center For Science and Environment (CSE) has conducted a study, and assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and 6 Pollution Control Committees (PCC) in the Country. This Report critically evaluates the information shared by SPCBs and PCCs during the last four-five years (2016–2021) and uses several indicators that provide a broader indication on the type and amount of information shared. This Report provides the status of the information shared by SPCBs and PCCs on their websites and annual reports. And this study aims to improve transparency in sharing information in public domain by SPCB and PCC.

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.

Pollution control boards are not transparent: CSE report | India News – Times of India

BATHINDA: As putting crucial pollution related information in the public domain is critical, which can help policy-makers to take the 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. A new rating study by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found that a mere handful of pollution control boards and authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain. The study ‘Transparency Index: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure’ has assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards (PCBs) and six pollution control committees (PCCs) from across the country. Of these, only 14 boards and committees scored 50 per cent or above. The board of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab from the region are among those scoring over 50 per cent. Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, says “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 explaining the methodology says, “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” 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. 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. Only five boards including Haryana 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 including Himachal Pradesh have shared information on inspection conducted by the boards. Only nine SPCBs/PCCs including Punjab have provided detailed information on public hearings, which includes the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. 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. Only 19 SPCBs/PCCs including three from the region are displaying their Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) data. This, even after a statutory obligation to do it, as per a Supreme Court order and an environment ministry directive. 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.