CSE assessment of transparency of Indian pollution control boards see the details at https://civils.pteducation.com/2021/08/CSE-assessment-of-transparency-of-Indian-pollution-control-boards-Prelims-UPSCMainsGSIII-Essaypaper-EnvironmentandEcology-Globalwarming-Pollution-Governmentschemes-IndicesandStatistics-Infrastructure-Reports-August2021.html
ATHINDA: 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 non-transparent: says CSE study
The move, however, doesn't bring an immediate cheer to the pandemic-bruised auto industry Vinay Umarji & Shally Seth Mohile | Ahmedabad/Mumbai August 13, 2021 Last Updated at 20:42 IST Scrappage policy help in removing unfit vehicles from roads: PM Modi The auto and metal industry is set to get a big boost with the policy, which would make scrap steel available locally, said Modi Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday formally launched the National Automobile Scrappage Policy, which he said would attract investments of about Rs 10,000 crore. The policy would also help in getting rid of unfit and polluting vehicles in a scientific manner, he said. “The policy is an important link to achieve the circular economy of waste to wealth. It will also energise India’s auto sector and metal sector under the principles of reuse, recycle, and recover,” Modi said at a virtual investors’ summit held in Gandhinagar. The policy is an important step forward for the environment because it would not only help reduce air pollution caused by old vehicles, but will also check the enormous damage clunkers can cause, said environmentalists. “Retiring old, jaded vehicles is extremely essential, and this was a much-needed step,” said Sumit Sharma, director (earth science and climate change division) at The Energy Research Institute. The share of vehicular pollution in Delhi is 23 per cent, and fleet modernisation can reduce this to 16 per cent, he said. Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director at Centre for Science and Environment, concurs. “An old BS I truck emits 36 times higher particulates compared to a BS VI truck. It is also necessary to link the replacement of personal vehicles with electric vehicles to help move towards a zero-emissions goal,” she said. The move, however, doesn’t bring an immediate cheer to the pandemic-bruised auto industry. The scrappage policy will take effect in a phased manner and is unlikely to propel the overall sales of cars or commercial vehicles anytime soon. Among other things, it will have to trickle down to states, which, in turn, have to implement it after ensuring availability of requisite infrastructure, said auto industry executives and analysts. R C Bharagava, chairman at Maruti Suzuki India, lauded the move, but added its impact would not be seen in the near term. “It is impossible to assess the impact of the policy on car sales as it’s still far away. The good thing is, we now have a scrappage policy to start with,” he said. ALSO READ: New vehicle scrappage policy to attract investments worth Rs 10,000 crore The whole exercise of scrapping old vehicles will begin from October 1, 2021 after the rules for fitness scrapping centres are released. It will be followed by starting fitness testing for government and public sector undertaking (PSU) vehicles on April 1, 2022. The fitness testing for heavy commercial vehicles will commence on April 1, 2023. For the rest of the segments, it will begin from June 1, 2024. Taking 1990 as the base year, at present around 3.7 million commercial vehicles and 5.2 million passenger vehicles are eligible for voluntary scrapping, said Harshwardhan Sharma, head (auto retail practice) at Nomura. chart Ashish Suman, partner, J Sagar Associates, said, “The success of the policy will hinge on the state governments’ support, creation and availability of scrapyard infrastructure, collaboration between the government and corporates in developing the infrastructure, and most importantly a policy for waste management to avoid environment concerns, which was the centre theme for introducing the policy.” As part of the policy, the government was also looking to provide some concessions on road tax. "The families would also be able to save on costs of maintenance, repair of the vehicle with better fuel efficiency. This policy would benefit the common man in every way," Modi said in his address. On scrap import, the PM said India imported scrap steel worth Rs 23,000 crore last year since scrapping in the country is not as productive and carries zero energy recovery. Also, the new scrappage policy recognises the workers at scrapping facilities and small businessmen, who can become agents for authorised scrapping centres. According to Roychowdhury, the environmental damage from clunkers can be enormous. Unscientific disposal can lead to huge wastage of material that can otherwise be brought back as a resource. If dismantled properly, it is possible to recover low-cost material for the automotive, steel, and electronics industry, among others. “Strategic replacement of very old trucks and buses can reduce emissions significantly,” she said. The auto and metal industry is set to get a big boost with the policy, which would make scrap steel available locally, said Modi. "Gujarat has witnessed the benefits of ship recycling, while it can also become a big hub of auto scrapping," he added. India currently has 10 million cars without valid fitness parameters, thereby adding to pollution and fuel costs, said Union Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari. “Therefore, we thought of bringing a scrappage policy. Replacing old vehicles with new ones will benefit the environment by 10-12 per cent. The new scrappage policy will generate direct and indirect employment for about 50,000 people," said Gadkari.
Scope of the Report of On-board Charger An on-board charger is used to recharge the battery in vehicles either at home or at charging stations. It converts the AC input from the grid to a DC input which charges the battery. Rising fuel prices have led to a rapid expansion of electric mobility. According to a report by India Environment Portal, in 2018, the global electric car fleet exceeded 5.1 million. China remains the world’s largest electric market followed by Europe and the United States. Norway was the global leader in terms of electric car market share (46%). Policy support plays a key role in the development of the electric vehicles market. Some of the key players profiled in the study are: Infineon Technologies (Germany),LG Electronics (South Korea),AVID Technology Limited (United Kingdom),REFU Elektronik GmbH (Germany),Analog Devices (United States),STMicroelectronics (Switzerland),Ficosa Internacional (Spain), NOCO Company (United States),Global Power Electronics (United States),Mitsubishi Electric (Japan) The titled segments and sub-section of the market are illuminated below: Type (Unidirectional, Bidirectional), Charger Level (Level 1 & Level 2 (AC), Level 3 & Above (DC)), Vehicle Type (BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle), PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle)), Connector Type (AC {Mennekes, Le-Grand, Others}, DC {CHAdeMO, GB/T, Tesla, Others}) The On-board Charger Market report provides a basic overview of the industry including its definition, geography segment, end use/application segment and competitor segment and manufacturing technology. Then, the report explores the international major industry players in detail.
Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Andaman & Nicobar, Puducherry, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu and Uttar Pradesh share no detail of public hearings Pollution control bodies of most Indian states shared no or partial information on public hearings of development projects online, a new study found. There are 34 state pollution control boards (SPCB) and pollution control committees (PCC) in the country that make pollution information public on websites. Of them, those in Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Andaman & Nicobar, Puducherry, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu and Uttar Pradesh did not share any detail of public hearings, according to the report. The study was conducted the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a Delhi-based non-profit that ranked all the state pollution control panels based on transparency in several parameters. Websites of sixteen SPCBs and PCCs provided incomplete information. Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand provided executive summaries and minutes of meetings, but not the draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports, the paper mentioned. Meghalaya, Andhra Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Sikkim shared executive summaries and draft EIA reports, but not minutes of public hearings, according to the report. Himachal Pradesh shared minutes of meeting and draft EIA report but didn’t specify the date of the next public hearing. Haryana, Jharkhand and Tripura shared meeting minutes only of projects for which public hearings are over. Assam pollution control board has shared just the list of public hearings conducted and no other detail on their website, the researchers wrote in the report. Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli have a common pollution control body and the one in Lakshadweep does not have a website. Only Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram have put out all the necessary information on public hearings on their websites.
HUBBALLI: The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) has emerged as the only board to have provided detailed information on regulated entities, in the nation. Despite having a staff crunch of over 50%, it has stood 6th by making 60% of disclosure, for all the indicators and information furnished by SPCBs and pollution control committees (PCCs), of the nation, with the public, in Kannada and English. A study, ‘Transparency Index: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure,’ conducted by Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), and released on August 11, has observed that KSPCB is the only pollution control board to provide detailed information on regulated entities in the state. KSPCB has provided information on a number of red, orange, green and white category industries, separately under industry, stone crushers, townships and residential areas, infrastructure projects, hospitality sector, mines, coffee estates, and numbers of telephone towers and offices having DG sets. The 60-page report, a copy is available with STOI, has said the 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 in this realm. It critically evaluates the information shared by SPCBs and PCCs from 2016-21, and uses several indicators that provide a broader indication on the type and amount of information shared. It also aims to improve transparency in sharing information in the public domain by SPCBs and PCCs. However it has also noted that KSPCB and the West Bengal PCB have not made continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) data accessible to the public, but that it’s password protected. “Along with Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the KSPCB has adopted Xtended Green Node (XGN) software for sharing consent information. KSPCB has shared all information like industry name with the name of regional office under which it exists, category of industry, type of consent like fresh,renewal and expansion, the status of consent, inspection ID and CTO or CTE certificate,” the report stated. When it comes to information on compliance, only Karnataka has shared detailed information on the compliance status of water and air polluting industries, zone-wise, the report stated. The report has also noted that KSPCB has 334 working staff, and 52% vacant posts, against its total sanctioned strength of 709. Karnataka has stood one among 10 good performers in the state, in the transparency index.
The Union environment ministry notified the Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules (2021) that prohibits the manufacture, import, stocking, distribution, sale and use of identified single-use plastic items. The Union environment ministry notified the Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules (2021) that prohibits the manufacture, import, stocking, distribution, sale and use of identified single-use plastic items. Atin Biswas, programme director (municipal solid waste), Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), said the list of 19-20 plastic items that will be banned by the government from July 1 next year, is dominated by articles that are manufactured and sold by small or medium-scale manufacturers and traders. The notification will not significantly affect large companies that are responsible for nearly 45-50% of plastic waste generation in the country, he said. “For instance, if we talk about earbuds that have been listed among the items to be banned by next year, I can only recall one or two big companies that manufacture these. Otherwise, you will see vendors in trains or bus selling earbuds. Through this notification, these are the people—mostly informal sector for whom it is a matter of survival—that will be impacted,” Biswas said. MORE FROM THIS SECTION Gold, Silver and other precious metal prices in India on Monday, Aug 16, 2021 Indian spot gold rate and silver price on Monday, Aug 16, 2021 PowerGrid was the top loser in the Sensex pack, shedding over 1 per cent, followed by Bajaj Auto, Maruti, Dr Reddys, Asian Paints and Titan. Sensex, Nifty start on choppy note on profit booking, weak global cues Crude’s drop has been reflected in the market’s deteriorating pricing patterns. Brent’s time spread was 38 cents a barrel in backwardation on Monday. Oil pens the week with decline on sustained Delta concerns TV Narendran, chief executive and managing director, Tata Steel, said the current cycle in the steel segment has not only accelerated its efforts to deleverage, but also ensure its European operations are not a drain on the company. ‘European biz is no longer a cash drain’: TV Narendran According to the notification the permitted thickness of plastic bags, currently 50 microns, will be increased to 75 microns from September 30 this year, and to 120 microns from December 31, 2022. The products that have been banned include earbuds with plastic sticks, plastic sticks for balloons, plastic flags, candy sticks, ice-cream sticks, polystyrene (thermocol) for decoration, plates, cups, glasses, cutlery such as forks, spoons, knives, straw, trays, wrapping or packing films around sweet boxes, invitation cards, and cigarette packets, plastic or PVC banners of less than 100-micron thickness. HT on Saturday spoke to several small-scale manufacturers, traders of the items that will be phased out by next year. Most of them said that the amendment was “biased” towards the big companies and will lead to the closure of their units. Rajesh Mittal of the plastic manufacturers and traders association in Delhi said the ministry has defined single-use plastic as “a plastic item intended to be used once for the same purpose before being disposed off or recycled”. He said when the government has clearly defined what comprises single-use plastic, then why items such as milk packets, shampoo sachets, small pet bottles have been exempted from the ban. “This is a biased law that is meant to benefit the big companies while pushing the small units to closure. The worst impacted would be small industries manufacturing plastic bags, straws and cutlery, which do not have the required technology to abide by the new directions. If you want to impose a ban then do so for all single-use plastic items, but you have not touched the big players,” Mittal said.
Nagpur: How safe is the honey you are consuming? The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) on Monday tested 86 leading brands, found 52 samples to be adulterated, and seized more than 3,480kg of honey stock worth over Rs36 lakh from a manufacturer in Mumbai. “The brands couldn’t pass the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) test, which revealed artificial sugar syrups mannose, maltose, and maltotriose. The possibility of adverse effects on health by consuming this type of honey cannot be ruled out,” the FDA officials said in a release. During Covid times, there has been a huge demand for honey by consumers to boost immunity. “As demand for honey is increasing, adulteration has also increased. Honey is the third most adulterated food product after milk and ghee,” says Pranav Nimbalkar, a well-known beekeeper from the city. In December last, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) claimed that 77% of samples from 13 top honey brands in the country were found to have been adulterated. “The raid in Mumbai is just the tip of the iceberg. As adulteration methods became more sophisticated, detection has become more difficult. Yet only laboratory tests can truly determine whether honey is authentic,” says Nimbalkar. Honey adulteration business is evolving and adultrators are misusing advanced lab set ups to come with new syrups that can bypass existing regulation tests. A section of experts agree that honey adulteration is done by using synthetic sugar syrups, and sugar and liquid jaggery (kakvi) is quite outdated these days as it can be easily detected. “These sugar syrups like high fructose corn syrup and rice syrup have high fructose content, which can harm the body. At least jaggery mixed honey was natural, but honey having fructose content increases the sugar level in the body though honey is being consumed to control sugar,” said Nimbalkar. Consumers may think forest honey might be the best but harvesting honey from natural hives takes place under difficult circumstances. It is quite impossible to check if the entire hive contains ripened honey. The product from honey hunting is usually a mixture that contains high water content honey. “It is processed and heated for moisture reduction, which destroys essential enzymes, antioxidants, and vitamins. That’s why most of the forest honey available in the market is not raw. Anyone mentioning raw honey should be asked to show on what basis the claim has been made,” Nimbalkar said. Factors like widespread usage of pesticides and decreasing tree habitat are impacting honeybee populations. Demand for more forest honey can only make this situation worse. Nimbalkar suggests consumers should only buy raw honey (unheated and unfiltered), which mentions source of nectar (flowers from which bees collect it). Ironically, no company makes a mention about it. “The honey available in the market is Rs400-500 per kg but the one which we produce is Rs1,300 per kg. This is the main reason why people end up buying sub-standard honey,” he says. How honey is adulterated Indirect adulteration * Bees are overfed with sugar syrups to increase honey yield in hives * Honey produced is just another sugar with hardly any medicinal values * Overuse of veterinary drugs * Besides disease control, antibiotics used as growth promoter too * Consumption of such antibiotic-laced honey may contribute to evolution of drug-resistant superbugs in human beings Direct Adulteration * Adulterated with C4 sugar-like corn and sugarcane syrups * Adulterated with C3 sugar syrups like rice and beetroot syrup to bypass laboratory tests that can detect C4 sugars * Advanced syrups that beat C3 and C4 tests * Honey adulterated up to 50% can bypass all tests including C3 and C4 tests, claim Chinese companies selling such syrups False Claims * Honey samples of many companies advertising their product as ‘NMR tested’ failed NMR tests conducted by Maharashtra FDA * Honey samples of brands that earlier passed NMR tests now failed in NMR tests conducted by Maharashtra FDA
HUBBALLI: The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) has emerged as the only board to have provided detailed information on regulated entities, in the nation. Despite having a staff crunch of over 50%, it has stood 6th by making 60% of disclosure, for all the indicators and information furnished by SPCBs and pollution control committees (PCCs), of the nation, with the public, in Kannada and English. A study, ‘Transparency Index: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure,’ conducted by Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), and released on August 11, has observed that KSPCB is the only pollution control board to provide detailed information on regulated entities in the state. KSPCB has provided information on a number of red, orange, green and white category industries, separately under industry, stone crushers, townships and residential areas, infrastructure projects, hospitality sector, mines, coffee estates, and numbers of telephone towers and offices having DG sets.
Lack of will to comply and challenges in enforcing the rules and regulations have been an issue The Plastic Waste Management Act, 2016, was passed by the Parliament in order to curb plastic waste generation in the country and eliminating single-use plastics from the next year. The environment ministry on Thursday notified the ban on the use of single-use plastic items from July 1, 2022. With less than a year left for achieving the target, the country needs a robust strategy to achieve this unrealistic feat being laid out in Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules, 2021. However, if environmentalists are to be believed, the target seems Sisyphean. Rahul Choudhary, lawyer, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, said the task was difficult, given the government’s reluctance to adhere to deadlines. “We have seen that the governments extend deadlines or do not bother about them. Given no proper implementation plan, it doesn't seem that the government would achieve this within the given timeframe.” Atin Biswas, programme director for solid waste management unit at the Centre for Science and Environment, while welcoming the Centre’s move of increasing thickness of polythene bags from 50 microns to 120 microns by December 31 next year, said, “It is not the first time the government has come out with such a deadline. It’s the implementation that has been an issue.” Lack of will to comply and challenges in enforcing the rules and regulations have been an issue. “First, the government needs to have an audit on why it has not been able to achieve the target yet,” said Kanchi Kohli, senior researcher at Delhi-based think-tank, Centre for Policy Research (CPR). According to the United Nations Environment Programme, “Single-use plastics, often also referred to as disposable plastics, are commonly used for plastic packaging, and include items intended to be used only once before they are thrown away or recycled. These include, among other items, grocery bags, food packaging, bottles, straws, containers, cups, and cutlery.” By a simple qualitative definition, any plastic item designed to be used once and then immediately discarded is single-use plastic. However, without detailed technical classification, it will be difficult to achieve the larger goal of curbing plastic pollution, Choudhary said. India generates approximately 9.46 million tonnes (MT) of plastic waste per year. This figure is based on the Central Pollution Control Board’s projection that an estimated 25,940 tonnes per day of plastic waste generated in the country. Of this, 15,384 tonnes of plastic waste, or nearly 60 per cent, is collected and recycled while the remaining 10,556 tonnes of the plastic waste remains uncollected and littered in the environment, Javadekar told the Lok Sabha in November 2019. According to a report by the Australia-based Minderoo Foundation published in 2021, China is the largest producer of single-use plastic, followed by the US and India. However, while India generates 5.58 MT of single-use plastic annually, China produces six times more, at 25.36 MT, and the US 17.19 MT. It said of the 6.3 billion tonnes of plastic produced since its invention in the 1930s, only nine per cent has been recycled. However, single-use plastic has made a big comeback in the country with Covid-19. The prolonged lockdown has had a good effect on the environment in general by bringing down pollution levels but the increased use of masks, gloves, face shields, PPE kits, sanitiser bottles, etc to fight the pandemic has given rise to new concerns. According to a World Economic Forum report in China, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment estimates that hospitals in Wuhan produced more than 240 tons of waste daily at the height of the outbreak, compared with 40 tons during normal times. Based on these data, consulting firm Frost & Sullivan predicts that the US could generate an entire year’s worth of medical waste in just two months because of Covid-19. India generated 56,898 tonnes of Covid-19 bio-medical waste between June 2020 and June 2021, data from the Union ministry of environment, forest and climate change shows. In his address to the nation from the Red Fort on Independence Day in 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had vowed to take Indians along in a nationwide commitment to end the use of single-use plastic. In October 2019 at the Sabarmati riverfront in Ahmedabad, he said there would be no ban on single-use plastic, just a gradual phase-out of its use by 2022. The Sikkim government passed the country’s first plastic-bag ban in 1998. Eighteen states have imposed a complete ban on plastic carry-bags, while five other states have imposed partial prohibition at religious and historical places, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) told the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2019. The Centre had asked for single-use plastic items to be eliminated from across the country in three phases. In Phase-II starting from January 1, 2022, the sale and manufacture of earbuds, plastic sticks, balloons, plastic flags, candy sticks and polystyrene (thermocol) would be stopped. From July 1, 2022, 13 items, including plastic plates, cups, glasses, and other cutlery, would be phased out. Possible solution Choudhary believes that a blanket ban will not stop manufacturers from producing single-use plastic products. “There is a complete ban on plastic bag manufacturing of plastic bags in Uttarakhand. There is also a provision of a fine up to ~5 lakh in the state but plastic can be easily seen on the banks of the Ganges," he said. Finding substitutes for use-and-throw plastic and ensuring alternative livelihoods for producers, waste pickers and other groups involved in the business will go a long way in solving the problem. The government should not only place fines for not adhering to the guidelines but incentivise producers to switch to more sustainable products. Along with proper monitoring, promoting responsible consumerism is very important, said experts. Vinod Sharma, who owns a plastic-bag manufacturing unit in Delhi is worried about the future as the government issues new guidelines. “We have been in this business for the past 20 years. The new guidelines will only increase the bribe rates of the authorities. The government should help the industry in switching to alternative products by incentives and subsidies,” he says. Ramphal, a shopkeeper, who sells single-use plastic bags in Pataudi said the move was an attack on the middle class. “Any alternative to plastic bags costs twice as much to customers. Plastic bags cost Rs 150 per kg, whereas fabric bags cost Rs 230 per kg. Paper bags cost Rs 5-10 per piece.” Ramphal urged the government to make the alternative products tax-free in case of a blanket ban on plastics.
1NEW DELHI: An analysis carried out by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) for 29 state pollution control boards (SPCBs) and six pollution control committees (PCCs) ranks Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) 15th across the country in terms of transparency in regards to environment and pollution-related data. Track the pollution level in your city The capital, according to the analysis, received a score of only 49.5%, faring poorly on sharing annual data on its website, for not having any data on electronic-waste (e-waste) and lack of data on plastic waste, which is mandatory as per the plastic waste management rules 2018. The report also looked at the role of annual reports in sharing information in the public domain. CSE analysed data shared by SPCBs and PCCs during 2016-21 and used several indicators to provide a broader indication on the type and amount of information shared. DPCC’s website was also found to not have any information on a public information officer for RTI purposes, while it has not uploaded an annual report giving a full account of its activities since 2010 despite it being mandatory under Section 39 of Water Act. The committee, however, fared well on giving detailed information on public hearings, sharing EIA reports and executive summaries, and minutes of meetings, and for having the Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) data on its website. DPCC also has the complete data on biomedical waste being generated in Delhi, how much is being treated and the waste treatment facilities. In terms of having information on laboratories and their accreditation, DPPC had information on their numbers and what parameters could be analysed in the labs, along with contact details. However, it did not have information on accreditation, the report said. Odisha and Telangana state pollution control boards jointly received the highest score of 67%, followed by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board at 65.5%. Delhi’s overall score of 49.5% placed it behind Rajasthan Pollution Control Board’s 50%. Lakshadweep Pollution Control Committee scored the lowest for not sharing any information. A Delhi government official said the DPCC website was regularly being updated, with public notices and new updates being posted on the home page itself. “More data will be added,” the official added.
The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) report released on Thursday listed Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) in its transparency list of 14 states. BENGALURU: The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) report released on Thursday listed Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) in its transparency list of 14 states. The report ‘Transparency Index -- Rating of Pollution Control Boards on Public Disclosure’, assessed the data disclosed in public domain by Pollution Control Boards (PCB) of 29 states and six Pollution Control Committees (PCC). Based on the report, 14 boards scored above 50 per They are Odisha, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Goa, Karnataka, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. The analysis cited that most agencies are not transparent enough with information in the public domain. Information on functioning, actions taken by boards against polluting industries, public hearing data on new projects etc are rarely disclosed, or are not even available on public websites. For instance, only nine SPCBs or PCCs have provided detailed information on public hearings, which includes the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. The states are Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram. Karnataka was on the list of five Boards sharing inspection information, along with Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. The report also pointed out that only 19 states displayed the continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) data, and Karnataka was not in this list. Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, said, “State PCBs are entrusted with several functions. One of these is to collect and disseminate information related to air and water pollution and also its prevention, control or abatement. The law asks the Boards to share data in public domain. But this is rarely done.”
इसे विडंबना कहें या कुछ और, लेकिन आबोहवा को साफ रखने का जिम्मा संभालने वाले प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों और समितियों की पारदर्शिता भी प्रदूषित होती नजर आ रही है। आलम यह है कि इनकी ओर से आंकड़े और सूचनाएं साझा करने से खासा परहेज किया जाता है। सेंटर फार साइंस एंड एन्वायरमेंट (सीएसई) की नई रिपोर्ट 'रेटिंग आफ पाल्यूशन कंट्रोल बोर्ड्स आन पब्लिक डिस्कलोजर' में इस मामले में चौंकाने वाले तथ्य सामने आए हैं। 2016 से 2021 तक पांच सालों को आधार बनाकर सीएसई ने देशभर से 29 राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों (एसपीसीबी) और छह प्रदूषण नियंत्रण समितियों (पीसीसी) की स्थिति का आकलन किया है। केवल 17 बोर्डों और समितियों ने ही 50 फीसद या उससे अधिक अंक प्राप्त किए हैं। ये सभी ओडिशा, तेलंगाना, तमिलनाडु, मध्य प्रदेश, बंगाल, गोवा, कर्नाटक, हरियाणा, छत्तीसगढ़, हिमाचल प्रदेश, जम्मू-कश्मीर, केरल, महाराष्ट्र, उत्तराखंड, पंजाब, आंध्र प्रदेश और राजस्थान से हैं। उत्तर प्रदेश, बिहार, झारखंड व चंडीगढ़ सीएसई की रैंकिंग में टाप 20 में भी नहीं हैं। वहीं, दिल्ली 15वें नंबर पर है। केवल 12 राज्यों ने अपनी नवीनतम वार्षिक रिपोर्ट वेबसाइट पर साझा की है। गुजरात, मध्य प्रदेश, सिक्किम, त्रिपुरा और बंगाल ने वर्ष 2019-20 की वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा की है। छत्तीसगढ़, कर्नाटक, महाराष्ट्र, ओडिशा, राजस्थान, उत्तर प्रदेश और तमिलनाडु राज्यों ने वर्ष 2018-19 की वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा की है (जिसे 2020 में कोविड-19 स्थिति को देखते हुए नवीनतम कहा जा सकता है)। असम, अरुणाचल प्रदेश, बिहार, जम्मू-कश्मीर, झारखंड, मणिपुर, अंडमान और निकोबार, चंडीगढ़, दमन और दीव, दादरा और नगर हवेली, पुडुचेरी और नगालैंड ने एसपीसीबी / पीसीसी द्वारा अपनी वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा करने में कोई पहल नहीं की गई। सीएसई की रिपोर्ट के अनुसार, केवल पांच बोर्ड / समितियों -दिल्ली, गोवा, हरियाणा, त्रिपुरा और उत्तराखंड ने अपनी वेबसाइट पर बोर्ड की बैठकों के मिनट्स साझा किए हैं। सिर्फ पांच एसपीसीबी- हिमाचल प्रदेश, कर्नाटक, ओडिशा, तमिलनाडु और पश्चिम बंगाल के पीसीबी ने वार्षिक रिपोर्ट में बोर्डों द्वारा किए गए निरीक्षण की जानकारी साझा की है। केवल नौ एसपीसीबी/पीसीसी ने जनसुनवाई पर विस्तृत जानकारी प्रदान की है, 14 ने कोई जानकारी नहीं दी। टाप-10 प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड / समितियां और उनके अंकबोर्ड या समितियां प्राप्तांक ओडिशा एसपीसीबी 67.01. तेलंगाना एसपीसीबी 67.02. तमिलनाडु पीसीबी 65.53. मध्य प्रदेश पीसीबी 64.04. बंगाल पीसीबी 62.05. गोवा एसपीसीबी 60.66. कर्नाटक एसपीसीबी 60.07. हरियाणा एसपीसीबी 59.98. छत्तीसगढ़ एन्वायरमेंट कंजर्वेशन बोर्ड 59.58. हिमाचल प्रदेश एसपीसीबी 59.59.
A new CSE study finds that only a handful of pollution control boards in India are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain even though the disclosure of information is considered one of the important functions to increase public participation and public awareness. Details here. Odisha, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal pollution control boards have been rated the most transparent in disclosing key environment and governance-related information in the public domain. In sharp contrast, the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Pollution Control Committee has been ranked the worst in sharing information. Some other poor performers include pollution control boards of the northeastern states Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh. These are some key findings of a unique study, titled ‘TRANSPARENCY INDEX: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure’, conducted by by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a New Delhi-based research and advocacy organisation, which has assessed and ranked the level of transparency in sharing information maintained by 29 state pollution control boards and six pollution control committees in the country. Also Read: The National Clean Air Programme may fail to clean up the toxic air The study has found that only a handful of India’s pollution control boards are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain. Its detailed report, released on August 11, critically evaluates the information shared by pollution control boards and committees in the past five years between 2016 and 2021. The study found that the data indicating the current pollution levels such as air pollutants and waste – the basic indicators of environmental health — was missing. Ranking of pollution control boards As per the CSE’s transparency ranking of the pollution control board, Odisha and Telangana have been rated the best performing state pollution control boards with a score of 67 per cent. It is followed by Tamil Nadu (65.5 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (64 per cent), and West Bengal (62 per cent). With 5.5 per cent, Andaman & Nicobar Islands Pollution Control Committee has fared the worst. It is preceded by Manipur (12.6 per cent) and Arunachal Pradesh (13 per cent). Of the total 35 pollution control boards/committees ranked, only 17 managed to score 50 per cent or above Not sharing information on pollution levels Under various rules and notifications issued by the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, state pollution control boards and committees are entrusted with several functions under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977. Also Read: Union Budget 2021: Funds to tackle air pollution slashed by half. About 1.69 million people annually die in India due to air pollution “One of these functions under Section 17 (C) of the air and water acts is to collect and disseminate information related to air and water pollution and also about its prevention, control or abatement,” Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE was quoted as saying in the report. “The law asks the boards to share the data in the public domain. But this is rarely done in practice,” Yadav said. Also Read: Struggle to breathe: Air quality in Mumbai is deteriorating. Coal use in Mumbai Metropolitan Region to be blamed: CSE Lack of uniformity in annual reports The ranking report also highlights a lack of uniformity in the display of the available information on the websites and annual reports of the various pollution control boards and committees. Only 12 states have shared their latest annual reports on their websites. These include Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal who have shared annual reports of the year 2019-20. The states of Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared annual reports of the year 2018-19 (which could be termed as the latest considering the COVID19 situation in 2020). Also Read: The Pandemic and Pollution: Handling the packaging waste of increased online shopping The study found that the data indicating the current pollution levels such as air pollutants and waste was missing. Photo: Adam Cohn/flickr ‘No initiative’ has been taken by 11 state pollution control boards and committees of the following states and Union territories in sharing their annual reports, informs the CSE report. These include Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, J&K, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry, and Nagaland. The CSE study shows that only five boards — Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand — have shared minutes of their board meetings on their websites. It is mandatory for state pollution control boards to meet at least once every three months, pointed out the non-profit. Board members in these meetings are supposed to discuss issues related to the functioning of the board, action plans, compliance and monitoring, and devising innovative methods to improve enforcement of laws. Meanwhile, only five state pollution control boards — Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal — have shared information on inspection conducted by the boards in their annual reports. Also Read: Can the Centre’s new ordinance on air pollution clean up NCR-Delhi’s air? Experts’ opinion divided. Importance of sharing information in public domain “Disclosure of information in the public domain is one of the important functions of state pollution control boards/committee’s to increase public participation and public awareness,” reads the report. “There are statutory obligations also for some indicators like CEMS [continuous emission monitoring system] data that has to be available in public domain, but even after the Supreme Court order 2017 for making CEMS data public, the status of CEMS information in public domain is dismal in most of the states,” pointed out the report. The CSE study aims to improve transparency in sharing information in the public domain by the state pollution control boards and committees.
Only a few state pollution control authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain, according to an analysis conducted by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). The study titled “Transparency Index: Rating of Pollution Control Boards on Public Disclosure” has assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards (SPCBs) and six pollution control committees (PCC) from across the country. Nivit Kumar Yadav, Programme Director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, said: “One of the functions under Section 17(C) of the Air Act and the Water Act is to collect and disseminate information related to air and water pollution and also about its prevention, control or abatement. The law asks the boards to share the data in the public domain. But this is rarely done in practice.” According to Shreya Verma, the author of the study, CSE collected data from two sources -- websites of SPCBs/PCCs and their annual reports. The study has evaluated the information shared by SPCBs/PCCs during the last four to five years (2016-21) and uses 25 indicators that provide a broader assessment on the type and amount of information shared. “A few key indicators used in the study include the availability of information on direction/show cause/closure notices issued by boards, information on public hearings and EIA reports, non-attainment cities and polluted river stretches,” the green think tank said. Information on functioning, actions taken by a board against polluting industries, and public hearing data on new projects are rarely disclosed or remain difficult to access on the websites, the CSE said. Only 12 states have shared their latest annual reports on their websites: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal have shared annual reports of the year 2019-20; the states of Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared annual reports of the year 2018-19 (which could be termed as latest considering the COVID-19 situation in 2020), the CSE said. SPCB/PCCs have been protective of industries when it comes to non-compliance: Out of 35 SPCBs/PCCs, only five have shared soft copies of directions and show cause/closure notices issued on their websites – these are from Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttarakhand and West Bengal, the CSE said. Only five boards - Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand - have shared minutes of their board meetings on their websites: It is mandatory for SPCBs to meet at least once every three months. Board members in these meetings are supposed to discuss issues related to the functioning of the board, action plans, compliance and monitoring, and devising innovative methods to improve enforcement of laws. Only five SPCBs have shared information on inspection conducted by the boards: The PCBs of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have shared this information in their annual reports. Only nine SPCBs/PCCs have provided detailed information on public hearings, which includes the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. The states represented are Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram. Data indicating the current pollution levels – air pollutants, waste – the basic indicators of environment health, is missing, the CSE analysis revealed. Most boards display inadequate data, indicating no trends. More so, even details on upcoming projects and grievances of the general public of the locality are hardly displayed. Fourteen SPCBs/PCCs did not share any information on municipal waste generation; 11 on plastic waste generation; 10 on hazardous waste; and nine on e-waste, the CSE said. “Improving transparency is a ''must'' when it comes to state pollution control boards. Putting in the public domain crucial pollution-related information, data and details of actions taken is critical – it can help policy-makers take the discussions to the next level of pollution management, and it can also reassure the people about efficiency of these boards and committees,” Nivit said. With a cumulative score of 67, both Odisha and Telangana were ranked first in the transparency index, followed by Tamil Nadu at the second spot which had a cumulative score of 65.5, Madhya Pradesh (64) and West Bengal (62). Delhi was ranked 15th with a cumulative score of 49.5. PTI GVS RHL