Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

Most pollution control boards 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 non-transparent: CSE

“Governance and functioning-related data remain paper-bound: Information on functioning, actions were taken by a board against polluting industries, public hearing date on new projects, etc are rarely disclosed or remain difficult to access on the websites,” CSE said in a release here. 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 percent 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 remain paper-bound: Information on functioning, actions were taken by a board against polluting industries, public hearing date 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 the 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 an 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 of 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 environmental 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.”

Maharashtra among 17 pollution control boards scoring 50% + rating for transparency - Read key findings of study here

New Delhi: Most of India's pollution control agencies remain closed entities when it came to sharing information with the public finds a new rating study by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found on Thursday. A mere handful of India's pollution control boards and authorities adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain, 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 Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, J&K, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry and Nagaland in sharing their annual reports. The CSE study also found that 0ut of 35 SPCBs/PCCs, only five have shared soft copies of directions and show cause/closure notices issued on their websites for non-compliance by industries - 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. 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. ALSO READ People residing in highly polluted areas of Maharashtra prone to COVID-19 infection: Study "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, which is mandatory 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. 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.

The Hindu Explains | Landslips in Himachal Pradesh raise concerns if they are part of a larger climate shift

Erosion and geological forces make the region particularly prone to natural disaster Story so far: A bus accident killed at least 10 people following a landslide in Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh (HP) on Wednesday. It was the second landslip this month, raising concerns if they are part of a larger climate shift. How vulnerable is Himachal Pradesh? The mountainous terrain of Himachal Pradesh means that erosion and geological forces will always be at work making the region particularly prone to natural disaster. Between July and the first week of August, the State has experienced four major natural disasters in the last month and over the last three months at least 200 have lost their lives to natural disasters, according to a report by the Centre for Science and Environment. In 2012, the State environment division had prepared a State Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan as part of the National Climate Change Action Plan. “Deforestation, landslips, land degradation, desertification and Glacier Lake Outbursts Floods (GLOF) are some of the common but critical environmental issues in the Himalayan regions. The major challenges currently faced by the Himalayan environment are the escalation of such issues through atmospheric as well as man-made interferences,” the report noted. “Himachal Pradesh, though a small Himalayan State, is nevertheless playing a very crucial role in sustaining the livelihoods of downstream areas. The conservation, sustenance of these ecologically fragile regions is the biggest challenge being faced at the moment which can get further aggravated due to financial constraints and limited resources.” Is climate change to blame for the landslides? Attributing single events to climate change is hard because the latter refers to a broader shift in the average weather over a region. The most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) while pointing out that a global rise of 1.5 C (from pre-Industrial times) was inevitable in the next two decades, it also references studies that show rising temperatures would lead to increased glacier melt as well as snowlines (the portion of mountain tops that are perennially snowy) rising higher. This ties into forecasts of extreme events being on the rise — that is longer, more intense bouts of droughts as well as short, intense spells of rain. This implies that activities such as road-building, heavy-concrete constructions at higher elevation are all at increased risk at being beseiged by natural disasters and will have knock-off effects on people and their habitations. Have impacts of climate change manifested in Himachal Pradesh? The environment report has already noted such effects. The temperature in the NW Himalayan Region has risen by 1.6°C in the last century. The warming rate of Shimla was higher during 1991-2002 as compared to earlier decades. About 17% decrease in rainfall in Shimla was observed from 1996 onwards. The decreasing trend in seasonal snowfall in Shimla has been very conspicuous since 1990 and it was lowest in 2009. Monsoon discharge in Beas River has shown a significant decrease. Winter discharge in River Chenab too has shown a significant increase. Satluj is showing an increasing trend in winter and spring discharge. The quality of apples, a major crop, has been affected and cultivation has shifted upwards. Areas that traditionally grew apples are being diverted to vegetables due to rising temperature. Incidence of pest and disease had also increased.

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.” 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.

कुछ ही राज्य प्रदूषण प्राधिकरण पर्यावरणीय सूचना सार्वजनिक रूप से उपलब्ध करा रहे हैं:सीएसई

सेंटर फॉर साइंस ऐंड इन्वाइरन्मेंट (सीएसई) द्वारा किये गये एक विश्लेषण के मुताबिक सिर्फ कुछ ही राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण प्राधिकरण पर्याप्त रूप में पर्यावरणीय एवं शासन सूचना सार्वजनिक रूप से उपलब्ध करा रहे हैं। ‘पारदर्शिता सूचकांक: सार्वजनिक खुलासे पर प्रदूषण नियंत्रिण बोर्डों की रेटिंग’’शीर्षक वाले अध्ययन में 29 राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों और देश भर की छह प्रदूषण नियंत्रण समितियों द्वारा आंकड़ों के खुलासे के कार्य का आंकलन किया गया है। सीएसई की औद्योगिक प्रदूषण इकाई के कार्यक्रम निदेशक निवित कुमार यादव ने कहा, ‘‘वायु अधिनियम की धारा 17 (सी) और जल अधिनियम के तहत एक प्रावधान वायु एवं जल प्रदूषण के बारे में सूचना एकत्र करना और उनका प्रसार करना तथा इसकी (प्रदूषण की) रोकथाम व नियंत्रण करना है। लेकिन यह कभी-कभार किया जाता है।’’ अध्ययन की लेखिका श्रेया वर्मा के मुताबिक सीएसई ने दो स्रोतों से आंकड़े एकत्र किये---राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों/प्रदूषण नियंत्रण समितियों की वेबसाइटों से तथा उनकी वार्षिक रिपोर्ट से। अध्ययन के तहत पिछले चार-पांच वर्षों (2016-2021) के दौरान इन बोर्डों या समितियों द्वारा साझा की गई सूचना का मूल्यांकन किया गया और 25 संकेतकों का उपयोग किया गया, जो साझा की गई सूचना के प्रकार एवं मात्रा का व्यापक आकलन उपलब्ध कराते हैं। हरित थिंक टैंक ने कहा कि सिर्फ 12 राज्यों ने अपनी वेबसाइटों पर नवीनतम वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा की। गुजरात, मध्य प्रदेश, सिक्किम, त्रिपुरा और पश्चिम बंगाल ने 2019-20 की वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा की है। छत्तीसगढ़, कर्नाटक, महाराष्ट्र, ओडिशा, राजस्थान, उत्तर प्रदेश और तमिलनाडु ने 2018-19 की वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा की है। अध्ययन के मुताबिक सिर्फ पांच बोर्डों--दिल्ली, गोवा, हरियाणा, त्रिपुरा और उत्तराखंड--ने अपनी बोर्ड बैठकों का विवरण वेबसाइटों पर साझा किया है। जबकि राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड की बैठक प्रति तीन महीने में कम से कम एक बार करना अनिवार्य है। सीएसई के विश्लेषण में खुलासा हुआ है कि मौजूदा प्रदूषण स्तर का संकेत देने वाले आंकड़े गायब हैं। अध्ययन में कहा गया है कि ज्यादातर बोर्ड ने अपर्याप्त आंकड़े प्रदर्शित किये हैं।

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।