• Solid Waste Management and Circular Economy

देश पर भारी पड़ रहा प्लास्टिक कचरा: रोजाना निकलता है 19 हजार टन प्लास्टिक, नगर निगमों पर बढ़ रहा आर्थिक बोझ

दूध का पैकेट, चिप्स का रैपर या ऑनलाइन डिलीवरी का बॉक्स- इस्तेमाल के तुरंत बाद कचरे में बदल जाने वाली इस प्लास्टिक पैकेजिंग का असल आर्थिक बोझ देश की नगरपालिकाएं, करदाता और अनौपचारिक क्षेत्र के सफाई कर्मचारी उठा रहे हैं। पर्यावरण शोध संस्था ''सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट'' (सीएसई) की नई रिपोर्ट 'पॉलिसी, प्रैक्टिस, एंड प्लास्टिक : कॉस्ट ऑफ मैनेजिंग प्लास्टिक वेस्ट इन इंडियन सिटीज' में चौंकाने वाले तथ्य सामने आए हैं। इसके मुताबिक भारतीय शहरों को प्लास्टिक कचरा साफ करने में बहुत ज्यादा पैसा खर्च करना पड़ता है, जबकि प्लास्टिक बनाने वाली कंपनियां इसका बहुत छोटा सा हिस्सा ही चुकाती हैं।

• Director General Office

The fraught politics and ethics of climate rankings

Such a divergence in approaches is not new. In 1990, the Washington-based World Resources Institute published a report concluding that developing countries, India and China prominent among them, bore nearly half the responsibility for global warming. The following year, Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain of the Centre for Science and Environment in Delhi answered with a rebuttal titled Global Warming in an Unequal World. The 2022 version of the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), one of the world’s best-known environmental indices, produced biennially by Yale and Columbia Universities, sparked an acerbic debate in India when it assessed the country as one of the worst performers among 180 countries. Environment and policy experts Navroz K. Dubash and Sharachchandra Lele, in an opinion piece called the EPI’s methodology “indefensible and tone-deaf” on ethics. Others argued that the index pushes a worldview that suits the “developed world,” and proposed that India build its own benchmarking system. The Indian Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) went so far as to issue a stringent public rebuttal, which, unusually, elicited a robust counter-rebuttal by the EPI developers. A few months later in 2022, another well-known index called the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), by Germanwatch, the NewClimate Institute, and Climate Action Network (CAN) International, released its rankings, which differed sharply from the EPI by ranking India among the world’s best climate performers. In response, the Ministry issued a press release welcoming the CCPI. Why do credible, science-based indices arrive at conflicting assessments for the same country? What, then, do we make of any country’s “true” climate performance? These questions have yet again been thrown into sharp relief with the 2026 edition of the EPI released on July 9. European countries have again been ranked the world’s best performers and India among the worst. It would be easy to read these results as merely the latest chapter of an old debate, but a closer look at the results in relation to other indices reveals the need for deeper scrutiny. The case of Morocco and the U.S.A. is illustrative. The latest EPI’s climate change component scores Morocco among the bottom third of all countries. In contrast, Morocco is ranked among the world’s few best climate performers under the CCPI’s latest (2026) rankings. The U.S.A. presents a mirror image, sitting comfortably in the upper quarter of the world on the EPI’s climate scores, while the CCPI ranks it among the world’s worst performers. In a paper we published in 2024 in the journal Climate Policy, we trace much of this divergence to the scientific and ethical principles that an index espouses. The fairness question Each index rests on different, yet largely unstated, premises about what climate performance means. The EPI’s climate-change module, built almost entirely around absolute and projected GHG emissions, is grounded in the scientific fact that the atmosphere responds only to the total stock of greenhouse gas emissions, not the socio-economic purpose the emissions served. This approach is in line with a restricted interpretation of the well-known ‘polluter pays’ principle, which penalises industrialising countries for their increasing emissions regardless of the developmental context in which they occur. On the other hand, the CCPI, which only considers emissions per person, leans towards a more fairness-based approach that is (partially) in the spirit of the ethical principle that each person has an equal claim to the atmosphere as a shared, finite resource. This logic penalises affluent countries for their large per-capita emissions, in contrast to the EPI. The choice of ethical principles embedded in an index can considerably shape its outcomes. Our published paper demonstrates this by building a modified version of the EPI’s climate-change module, replacing just its two most heavily weighted indicators with fairness-based equivalents while leaving the rest of the index’s architecture untouched. The effect is striking: under this fairness adjustment, South Asia and the wider Global South rise sharply in the rankings, while most affluent countries scoring well on the standard EPI drop to the bottom of our modified index. These findings corroborate the criticism that was levelled at the EPI for being antithetical to equity and fairness. Yet, it would be a leap in logic to conflate the absence of fairness with a lack of legitimacy. Instead, we contend that the EPI is valuable in its own right. The reason that EPI and CCPI yield divergent results is that they ask fundamentally different questions. The EPI’s climate module asks, “Is a country’s marginal contribution to global warming rising or falling?” while the CCPI asks, “Is this country appropriating more than its fair share of the atmospheric commons?” Clearly, both questions are legitimate and do not stand in contradiction. India, for instance, is contributing substantially to global warming in absolute terms with CO2 emissions exceeding 3 billion tonnes annually (and rising), yet having consumed far less than its “fair share” of the carbon budget. This explains why India scores poorly on the EPI but well on the CCPI. Such a divergence in approaches is not new. In 1990, the Washington-based World Resources Institute published a report concluding that developing countries, India and China prominent among them, bore nearly half the responsibility for global warming. The following year, Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain of the Centre for Science and Environment in Delhi answered with a rebuttal titled Global Warming in an Unequal World. They argued that the WRI’s method allocated the atmosphere’s finite absorptive capacity in proportion to how much each country already emitted, handing the largest historical polluters the biggest share of a resource that belonged to all humanity. Agarwal and Narain argued that it should instead be divided equally. Their essay helped shape the developing world’s case for equity in the run-up to the Rio Earth Summit of 1992. The WRI-versus-Agarwal-and-Narain exchange foreshadowed the divide embedded in today’s climate indices, between the absolute-emissions premise of EPI-like approaches and the emissions-per-person premise of CCPI-like ones. The key point is that both approaches are grounded in well-established scientific and ethical principles, and neither can be dismissed as objectively fallacious. They represent different facets of the complex social-environmental question of climate performance, for which multiple perspectives, seemingly irreconcilable, can co-exist. The real fallacy, then, would be to treat indices as neutral scientific verdicts. The reality is that the choice of which index to create, or to trust, is itself a subtly political act. Engagement over rejection Thailand offers a useful, if imperfect, example of a more constructive response to an unfavourable ranking than summary dismissal. In 2022, even as India and EPI developers were locked in dispute, Thailand’s National Environment Board set up a dedicated subcommittee to study the EPI’s methodology, tasked government agencies with reporting data against its indicators every year, and folded the framework into national and provincial planning. Thailand’s EPI climate ranking has since risen over 50 places from 106th in EPI-2022 to 53rd in the latest EPI. This is not proof that engagement alone produced the improvement, nor should Thailand’s approach be treated as the only sound response to a discomfiting index. The more pertinent lesson lies in Thailand’s coherent institutional response towards improving its environmental performance. Caution is, however, warranted. When any single indicator becomes the target of policy rather than a proxy for a more complex reality, it risks shedding the very meaning it was built to capture, an idea known as Goodhart’s law. Colonial Hanoi’s bounty on rats provides a classic illustration. In 1902, French administrators bent on ridding the plague-threatened city of its rats paid a reward for every rat tail turned in, but soon found tailless rats scurrying through the streets, released to breed by residents who found a live rat worth more than a dead one. None of this means defending the EPI as it stands. It remains genuinely one-sided and inadequate as its critics contend. But the answer isn’t to dismiss the EPI as illegitimate, or worse yet, as an inconvenience. India faces undeniable environmental challenges, including soaring air pollution, water pollution, biodiversity degradation, and poor waste management, that require urgent policy attention. An attempt to dismiss these realities simply because of an uncomfortable international ranking is a dangerous compromise on our collective health. Neither is the answer merely to create another index designed to ascribe India a higher rank. Every index that we conceive of will represent certain perspectives to the exclusion of others. Ultimately, the debate on climate performance would be better served if index developers examined the ramifications of their design choices, and stated them transparently. Likewise, governance institutions, policymakers, and the media should ground their interpretations in a holistic set of ethical principles, avoiding the trap of viewing any single index as a definitive verdict. Uncomfortable results are not grounds for reflexive rejection. A constructive outcome would be to read multiple indices simultaneously and develop a consistent, principled stand. For instance, India could concede that it must bend the curve on its greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of its poor performance on indices emphasising absolute emissions. At the same time, India could assert its entitlement to climate finance based on its better performance on fairness-based indices. Such a stance — backed up by action — would lend India diplomatic weight as a well-meaning, authentic climate leader in the Global South.

• Solid Waste Management and Circular Economy

Municipalities Funding Corporate Plastic Waste

India’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) policy is forcing urban local bodies and municipal taxpayers to foot the bill for corporate plastic packaging waste while producers, importers, and brand owners (PIBOs) discharge their obligations at rock-bottom prices. It is failing its central premise. According to a new study by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) titled Policy, Practice and Plastic: Cost of Managing Plastic Waste in Indian Cities, there is a mismatch between the actual cost of collecting, transporting, and processing plastic waste and the financial support recovered through market-linked EPR credits. The report reveals that while Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) rules permit EPR certificates to trade between 30 and 100 percent of applicable environmental compensation, market dynamics have collapsed toward the lowest price floor. Case studies: The financial disconnect is severe in difficult terrains and remote geographies. In Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, managing Category III multi-layered plastic (MLP) packaging costs up to ₹9.15 per kg due to high logistical constraints. However, prevailing market-linked EPR credit rates sit at ₹1.00 to ₹1.25 per kg—yielding a cost recovery rate of just 13 to 14 percent. In Sri Vijaya Puram (Port Blair), managing Category III plastics demands between ₹9.87 and ₹11.83 per kg, exceeding the floor prices paid by PIBOs. Even in infrastructure-ready cities like Indore, handling Category III plastics requires ₹2.35 to ₹3.67 per kg. Recent regulatory actions underscore these structural flaws. CPCB recently sunset its standalone plastic waste platform and migrated all stakeholders to the unified Common EPR (CEPR) Portal. The shift mandates single sign-on verification across plastic, e-waste, and batteries to eliminate data mismatches, double-counting, and phantom recycling credits. CPCB has also initiated data verification windows to audit registered PIBOs and plastic waste processors (PWPs), while issuing multi-crore environmental compensation notices to defaulting brand owners. Official perspectives: Atin Biswas, Director, Municipal Solid Waste and Circular Economy, CSE, said, “The study finds that inadequate cost recovery can leave municipalities to shoulder a financial burden that EPR was intended to place on producers, importers and brand owners (PIBO) under the polluter-pays principle. There exists a central contradiction in the current EPR system: the financial responsibility for plastic waste is intended to rest with the producer under the polluter-pays principle, but the actual cost of managing the waste can continue to fall on municipalities. This is what we need to correct.” Siddharth G Singh, Program Manager, Municipal Solid Waste and Circular Economy, CSE, said, “The current EPR framework in India disproportionately directs financial value towards plastic waste processors and end-of-life facilities, while the collection and segregation systems that make plastic waste management possible receive almost nothing. Furthermore, the market has tended to gravitate towards the lower end of the trading price range, creating a persistent gap between certificate prices and the actual cost of managing plastic waste.” Dr. Tribhuwan Singh Bisht, Deputy Program Manager, CSE (Lead Researcher), said, “The actual cost of managing plastic waste varies significantly across cities and plastic categories. This variation reflects differences in geography, infrastructure, logistics and local waste management systems. Even in cities with more developed waste management systems, current market rates do not necessarily cover the full cost of managing flexible and multi-layered plastics.” Sunita Narain, Director General, CSE, said, “India’s plastic waste management system relies heavily on the labour of poor and informal workers who collect, segregate and aggregate valuable recyclable materials. Unless these workers are incorporated into the EPR framework and receive financial support from it, the system will continue to leave a critical part of the value chain outside the financing architecture.” The path forward: To resolve this hidden municipal subsidy, CSE advocates for cost-based benchmarking and a weighted adjustment factor (WAF). This mechanism would mandate higher EPR credit prices in high-cost, remote, and ecologically fragile regions. CSE also recommends establishing localized EPR purchase obligations, requiring brand owners to purchase a defined share of certificates directly from the specific regions where their plastic products are sold and consumed.

• Water Programme

गैस पीड़ितों के इलाके में दूषित पानी की सप्लाई, 68% सैंपल में मिला मल का बैक्टीरिया

2009 में सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरमेंट के अध्ययन में सामने आया था कि यूनियन कार्बाइड फैक्ट्री से डंप किए गए जहरीले कचरे के कारण आसपास का भूजल भारी मात्रा में दूषित हो चुका है। बाद में इंडियन इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ टॉक्सिकोलॉजी रिसर्च (IITR) की रिपोर्टों में भी लेड, नाइट्रेट और निकल जैसे भारी धातुओं की मात्रा तय मानकों से कहीं ज्यादा पाई गई।

• Down To Earth

Why India Ranked Low in Environmental Performance Index, While High in Others

India ranked 176th out of 177 nations in the 2026 Environment Performance Index (EPI), just ahead of Laos. In the same ranking, India was ranked 130th in climate change mitigation. On the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), India ranked 23rd out of 63 countries and the European Union, as a “medium performer” from “high performer” status in 2025. The Centre for Science and Environment’s own State of India’s Environment 2026 report found India had crossed seven of the nine planetary boundaries, a framework scientists use to mark the safe limits for keeping Earth’s systems stable, including climate change, biosphere integrity and freshwater depletion. Two different climate indices assess India’s performance very differently—one ranks India relatively well, while the other ranks it near the bottom. Why is there such a big difference?

• Solid Waste Management and Circular Economy

CSE Study Finds mismatch between cost of managing plastic waste and financial support

India produces about 158,619 tonne of municipal solid waste every day, of which an estimated 10-12 per cent is plastic waste — nearly 19,000 tonne per day. A significant share of this is plastic packaging, which has a short shelf life and which rapidly enters the waste stream, placing huge pressure on municipal collection, segregation, processing and recycling systems. A new study by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) says there is a clear mismatch between the actual cost of managing plastic waste and the financial support available through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for plastic packaging. Officially released yesterday, “the study finds that inadequate cost recovery can leave municipalities to shoulder a financial burden that EPR was intended to place on producers, importers and brand owners (PIBO) under the polluter-pays principle,” says Atin Biswas, director, municipal solid waste and circular economy programme, CSE. CSE researchers say there exists a gap between India’s recycling targets and the available capacity to manage difficult-to-recycle plastic packaging. Under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, PIBOs are required to meet 50-70 per cent recycling targets by 2026-27. However, the country continues to face significant capacity constraints, particularly for flexible and multi-layered plastic packaging — nearly 66 per cent of registered plastic packaging is flexible plastic, a category that is particularly difficult to collect, segregate and recycle. According to Siddharth G Singh, programme manager, municipal solid waste and circular economy programme, CSE, “the current EPR framework in India disproportionately directs financial value towards plastic waste processors and end-of-life facilities, while the collection and segregation systems that make plastic recovery possible remain inadequately financed. Waste collectors, informal waste workers, urban local bodies and material recovery facilities continue to perform critical functions without adequate access to EPR financing.” The CSE study points out that the methodology adopted by the Central Pollution Control Board provides a price range for EPR certificates linked to environmental compensation: certificates can be traded between 30 and 100 per cent of the applicable environmental compensation. However, says Singh, “the market has tended to gravitate towards the lower end of this range, creating a persistent gap between certificate prices and the actual cost of managing plastic waste”. CSE’s analysis shows that this gap is particularly pronounced in cities facing higher logistical and infrastructure costs. The study notes that a uniform EPR rate across geographies does not adequately account for variations in terrain, infrastructure, waste generation and transportation requirements. Dr Tribhuwan Singh Bisht, deputy programme manager, municipal solid waste and circular economy, CSE and one of the researchers behind the CSE study, says: “The actual cost of managing plastic waste varies significantly across cities and plastic categories.” For example, the cost of managing Category III plastics (multi-layered plastic packaging) ranges from Rs 2.35-3.67 per kg in Indore (Madhya Pradesh), to Rs 9.87-11.83 per kg in Sri Vijaya Puram (formerly known as Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands). The mismatch with EPR credit rates becomes particularly stark for difficult-to-recycle plastics. The CSE study estimates that in Dharamshala (Himachal Pradesh), the cost of managing Category III plastics range up to Rs 9.15 per kg, while the prevailing market-linked EPR credit rates are only around Rs 1-1.25 per kg, resulting in cost recovery of just 13-14 per cent. Dr Bisht says: “This variation reflects differences in geography, infrastructure, logistics and local waste management systems. Even in cities with more developed waste management systems, current market rates do not necessarily cover the full cost of managing flexible and multi-layered plastics.” Says Biswas: “There exists a central contradiction in the current EPR system: the financial responsibility for plastic waste is intended to rest with the producer under the polluter-pays principle, but the actual cost of managing the waste can continue to fall on municipalities. This is what we need to correct.” CSE suggests Weighted Adjustment Factor (WAF) to adjust base EPR credit rates In its study, CSE has proposed a Weighted Adjustment Factor (WAF) to adjust base EPR credit rates according to geographic and operational conditions. Under this proposed approach, cities or regions with higher costs due to factors such as terrain, infrastructure deficits and logistics would receive appropriately adjusted EPR rates. The study also proposes a localised EPR obligation, under which PIBOs would be required to purchase a defined share of EPR certificates from the regions where their products are consumed. Such a mechanism would help direct EPR resources towards regions where plastic waste is actually generated and where the cost of managing it may be significantly higher. There is a need for EPR to create stronger incentives for better packaging design in the case of difficult-to-recycle plastic. If the cost of managing hard-to-recycle materials is not adequately reflected in EPR fees, there is little economic incentive for producers to shift towards recyclable or more sustainable alternatives. Delivering her valedictory address at the release of the study, CSE director general Sunita Narain pointed out that “India’s plastic waste management system relies heavily on the labour of poor and informal workers who collect, segregate and aggregate valuable recyclable materials. Unless these workers are incorporated into the EPR framework and receive financial support from it, the system will continue to leave a critical part of the value chain outside the financing architecture”. The deliberations at the release event concluded with the statement that EPR cannot be considered successful merely because PIBOs have purchased certificates or fulfilled a numerical compliance target. Its effectiveness must ultimately be measured by whether plastic waste is collected, segregated, processed and recycled; whether the people performing this work are fairly compensated; and whether the financial responsibility for managing plastic remains with those who place it on the market.

• Solid Waste Management and Circular Economy

Tiny plastic pan masala sachets may soon be history

The tiny plastic sachet that has become synonymous with pan masala may finally be on its way out. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has notified plastic-free packaging norms for the product, a move experts say could further enforcement of an existing ban by allowing the food regulator to act directly against violators. The amended Food Safety and Standards (Packaging) Regulations, 2026, require pan masala to be packed only in paper, paperboard, cellulose or other naturally derived materials free from plastic, or in tin or glass containers. The notification prohibits use of materials containing polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, PVC, synthetic polymers, laminates, aluminium foil and metallised layers, and also makes the packaging subject to Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016. A senior FSSAI official told TOI that pan masala has been specifically included under Schedule IV of packaging regulations to provide Food Business Operators with clear guidance on suitable packaging materials, given the widespread use of small single-use packs and the environmental concerns arising from their disposal. However, environmental experts said the notification primarily furthers enforcement rather than imposing fresh prohibition. “The Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, had already placed an explicit legal ban on plastic sachets for gutka, tobacco and pan masala. The FSSAI notification reinforces that mandate through food safety regulations,” said Siddharth G. Singh, programme manager, solid waste management and circular economy, Centre for Science and Environment. He said enforcement of Plastic Waste Management Rules has remained patchy because it largely depends on state pollution control boards and local bodies. Bringing the requirement under the ambit of food safety regulations will allow FSSAI to act directly against Food Business Operators, plugging an enforcement gap that environmental laws alone struggled to address, he said.

• Down To Earth

Disrupted monsoons force India to face climate threat

The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) found that extreme weather affected India on 331 of 334 monitored days in 2025, or 99% of the period assessed. More than 4,000 people died, about 3,000 during the monsoon, while at least 30 states and union territories experienced extreme weather simultaneously for eight consecutive months. Sunita Narain, director general of the CSE, argues that adaptation therefore needs to become part of the country’s development strategy. “Climate change is no longer a future threat. It is already here in the form of extreme heat, extreme rainfall and increasingly destructive weather events,” Narain told DW.

• Down To Earth

India Faces Intensifying Climate Threat as Monsoon Patterns Shift

The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) found extreme weather affected India on 99% of monitored days in 2025, resulting in over 4,000 deaths. Kathmandu— India's traditional southwest monsoon, a vital source of annual rainfall typically arriving in June and receding by September, is becoming increasingly unpredictable. While the overall amount of rain hasn’t drastically changed, its distribution has shifted to longer dry spells punctuated by short bursts of intense precipitation, overwhelming infrastructure and causing widespread disruption since late July with over 100 deaths reported nationwide. States like Assam, Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar, and Jharkhand have been particularly affected, prompting scientists to examine whether the monsoon is entering a new era of instability driven by climate change. Changing Rainfall Patterns The core issue isn’t necessarily a decrease or increase in total rainfall, but rather how it arrives. Scientists are observing longer periods without rain followed by intense downpours that exceed the capacity of rivers, drainage systems, and hillsides to cope. El Niño is contributing to this year's variability, however experts believe long-term changes are driven by a changing climate. Shifting Monsoon Characteristics While average seasonal rainfall remains relatively stable, the timing, intensity, and distribution of monsoon rains are demonstrably different. Madhavan Nair Rajeevan, a climate scientist and former secretary in the Ministry of Earth Sciences, believes these changes represent “a structural shift” in the monsoon system, characterized by increased short-duration extreme rainfall events and prolonged dry spells. Akshay Deoras, a senior research scientist, cautions against labeling it a fundamentally different regime but acknowledges that the intensity of both active and break periods is increasing due to a warmer atmosphere’s ability to hold more moisture. Infrastructure Ill-Prepared for Extremes India's existing infrastructure is struggling to adapt to these new patterns. Drainage systems and flood management strategies are often based on historical rainfall averages, failing to account for the short, high-impact events that now cause the most damage. Deoras emphasizes that improved forecasting is only effective if authorities translate warnings into “timely, impact-based decisions,” such as adjusting school schedules or restricting travel in vulnerable areas. Rapid urbanization and construction further exacerbate the problem by reducing land available for water absorption. Systemic Failures in Climate Proofing Experts point to a broader failure to integrate climate change considerations into India’s planning processes. Ritwick Dutta, an environmental lawyer, notes that the country's environmental clearance system doesn’t systematically factor in climate risks, leading to projects proceeding without adequate safeguards. He cites Pune as an example, where projected rainfall increases haven’t been adequately incorporated into city planning and riverfront development. The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) found extreme weather affected India on 99% of monitored days in 2025, resulting in over 4,000 deaths. Need for Adaptation and Future Planning Sunita Narain, director general of the CSE, argues that adaptation must become central to India’s development strategy. “Climate change is no longer a future threat,” she said. “The challenge is no longer proving the science, but redesigning our economy and infrastructure to survive it.” Rajeevan emphasizes the need for sector-specific adaptation strategies, including improved flood management in cities, changes in agricultural practices, stronger water storage systems, and infrastructure designed for extreme rainfall events. India faces a critical juncture where proactive planning and investment in climate-resilient infrastructure are essential to mitigate the growing risks posed by increasingly erratic monsoon patterns. The country must move beyond reactive disaster response towards a long-term strategy that anticipates and prepares for a future of more intense and unpredictable weather.

• Clean Air & Sustainable Mobility

400+ Indian cities have zero urban transport buses, says new CSE-CITIES Forum study

India faces a massive gap in its urban bus transport systems. The urban population is projected to surge from 490 million in FY2026 to 763 million by FY2047, adding 270 million city dwellers. Compared to this, the current bus availability falls dangerously shortaqe: there is a 70 per cent deficit in urban transit, says a new study conducted jointly by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) and CITIES Forum, a global technical firm. Over 400 Indian cities do not have any urban transport buses. To eliminate bus service backlogs, the country’s bus fleet must expand 10-fold from the current 65,000 to 6.71 lakh buses by 2047; it must also replace high-polluting diesel fleets and achieve zero-emission targets. This, along with depot, grid and charging infrastructure, demands a cumulative investment of Rs 14.20 lakh crore (~US $165 billion) over two decades, says the study. The new study — The Economics of Bus Transformations: A Roadmap for Viksit Bharat 2047 — examines sector deficits and lays out the strategic expansion required to serve a growing urban population, fulfil Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs’ (MoHUA) service-level benchmarks, and build physical and electrical infrastructure. “Transforming bus transit is a critical imperative for clean air, energy security and climate action under Viksit Bharat 2047,” says Anumita Roychowdhury, Executive Director of Research and Advocacy at CSE. “Buses are the prime movers of this transition, capable of taking 40 to 50 private cars off the roads per bus to secure a 70-75 per cent public transport share”, she said. “This study seeks launching of a Bus Mission and offers a comprehensive roadmap to deploy fiscal instruments and shift toward results-based financing that guarantees verifiable, high-quality service and full fleet electrification for every city with over 500,000 residents,” she added. To quantify investment requirements, the study used a quantitative demand model covering all 35 states and Union territories of India. Drawing on Vahan registrations, CIRT STU statistics and UN projections and MoHUA benchmarks. Key findings Severe shortfalls, aging fleets and economic distress: Out of 14.5 lakh registered buses nation-wide and 2.9 lakh State Transport Undertaking (STU) stage-carriage buses, only about 65,000 operate as organised urban city buses. This provides just 13.3 to 13.8 buses per lakh urban population — a 70 per cent shortfall against the government benchmark of 44 per lakh. Consequently, over 400 cities with populations between 100,000 and 1,000,000 completely lack an organised bus transit system. Severe geographical disparities exist, as five states — Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka — concentrate 55 per cent of the active national fleet. Compounding the shortage, 40,000 urban buses in service are overaged (past their 15-year statutory life), burning 20-30 per cent more fuel and incurring maintenance costs of Rs 15 to Rs 20 per kilometer. Nationwide, an unprecedented 5.8 lakh buses across all categories will reach end-of-life between FY2026 and FY2030. Deep financial distress persists within STUs, where accumulated losses frequently surpass annual operating revenues due to inefficient cost-recovery structures. Upscale bus procurement: To meet the Viksit Bharat scenario, India must scale its average urban bus procurement rate 17-fold, rising sharply from ~2,500 buses annually to an average of 41,500 per year across three strategic waves including the Catch-Up phase (FY2027-31) requiring 44,000 to 50,000 buses annually to clear backlogs; the Stabilisation phase (FY2032-41) stabilising at 9,000 to 36,000 buses annually to absorb population growth; and the Replacement phase (FY2042-46) peaking at 71,000 to 78,000 buses annually as the initial catch-up fleet hits its 15-year statutory retirement limit. Expanding capacity: Meeting peak demand (~78,000 buses/year) requires expanding India’s bus manufacturing ecosystem which is an opportunity to build the bus industry. Although the top five OEMs nominally possess an annual electric bus capacity of ~40,500 units, current EV manufacturing operates at under 10 per cent utilisation. Scaling up necessitates capital investments in body-building, supply chain localisation and quality assurance. Upscaled electrification: Reaching a 100 per cent EV share in new procurements by FY2039-40 culminates in 6.04 lakh electric urban buses in service by 2047. Powering this zero-emission fleet requires 121 GWh of active battery capacity and an annual electricity demand of ~37,000 MU — a fully manageable 1.8 per cent of India’s total 2024 power generation. What will it cost? The cost of transition is projected for three growth scenarios. The conservative scenario reaches 44 buses per lakh population by 2047, maintaining a 3.36-lakh bus fleet via 4.2 lakh procurements at a CapEx of Rs 6.55 lakh crore. The accelerated scenario meets MoHUA benchmarks by 2030 and lifts provision to 60 buses per lakh by 2040, operating 4.58 lakh buses via 6.8 lakh procurements at Rs 10.55 lakh crore. The recommended target scenario matches global standards of 88 buses per lakh by 2047, expanding the operational fleet to 6.71 lakh buses (90 per cent electric), and 9.1 lakh procurements, requiring a total CapEx of Rs 14.20 lakh crore. Financial requirements and architecture: Meeting the Rs 14.20 lakh crore requirement exceeds the capacity of piecemeal schemes like FAME or PM e-Bus Sewa. With expected central funding covering ~30 per cent of capital costs, a 70 per cent funding gap (~Rs 9.9 lakh crore) must be mobilised from state budgets, private equity under Gross Cost Contracts (GCC), commercial banks, green bonds and multilateral banks. The study advocates launching a National Urban Bus Mission (NUBM) anchored by a National Urban Bus Electrification Fund (NUBEF), a committed corpus jointly funded by the Centre, states and multilateral institutions. NUBEF will provide first-loss guarantees, concessional debt at 4-5 per cent, and credit enhancement. This will be reinforced by Green Bus Bonds, targeted Viability Gap Funding (VGF), and Results-Based Financing linked to verified outcomes. Reforms to transform: Finance must follow reforms to transform loss-making entities into investment-grade operations. Achieving bankability requires establishing independent fare authorities with automatic fare-revision mechanisms indexed to inflation and fuel/power costs while keeping the fares affordable; standardising GCC for deployments exceeding 100 buses to transfer demand risk to public authorities while holding operators to service-level performance; executing financial restructuring for stressed STUs to achieve investment-grade ratings by FY2030; and strengthening governance through Unified Metropolitan Transport Authorities (UMTAs) and statutory City Mobility Plans. This will also require private bus sector integration. The next five years will decide the next 15, as running the upcoming fleet retirement wave in mission mode represents the fastest route to a world-class, zero-emission urban bus system for Viksit Bharat 2047.

• Director General Office

Opinion | Fix The Problem, Not The Blame: Hospitality Industry's Message To Regulatory Raiders

Agarwal said he has always had great faith in the industry's capacity for self-policing. During his tenure as CEO, a similar controversy had been stoked by the noted green activist and Executive Director of the Centre for Science and Environment, Sunita Narain, about the presence of potassium bromate, which was then banned in many countries, in the bread we eat. Instead of raiding bread makers, Agarwal held talks with them, declared his intention to get the relevant rules amended, and gave them time to figure out how to produce bread without the harmful chemical. The slew of regulatory raids on the kitchens and back areas of legacy hotels and restaurants in Mumbai and Bengaluru has set off parallel waves of disappointment, uncertainty and introspection in the hospitality industry across the country. The mixed sentiment was conveyed to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) CEO, Rajit Punhani, in New Delhi on Monday by a cross-industry delegation led by the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI). The same mixed bag of emotions was shared by industry leaders in conversations with NDTV.com. The common refrain was that the raids were a wake-up call for the industry. Industry leaders, however, questioned the selective targeting of legacy brands and the Maharashtra FDA's decision to peremptorily shut down businesses instead of serving them with improvement notices (an action subsequently struck down by local courts). Responding to the headline-grabbing wave of actions, former FSSAI CEO Pawan Agarwal said that regulators need to strike a balance between deterrence, which creates fear in the short term, and capacity building, which prepares hotels and restaurants to get their back of the house in order. Agarwal said he has always had great faith in the industry's capacity for self-policing. During his tenure as CEO, a similar controversy had been stoked by the noted green activist and Executive Director of the Centre for Science and Environment, Sunita Narain, about the presence of potassium bromate, which was then banned in many countries, in the bread we eat. Instead of raiding bread makers, Agarwal held talks with them, declared his intention to get the relevant rules amended, and gave them time to figure out how to produce bread without the harmful chemical. The industry listened, the rules were changed, and no penal action was taken against anyone. Gauri Devidayal, founder and co-owner of The Table, Mumbai, which was named India's Best European Restaurant at NDTV Food Awards 2026, amplified Agarwal's point by noting that regulatory authorities must conduct annual health and sanitary checks at the time of the annual licence renewals. She was also in favour of the system of annual ratings of restaurants and hotels by regulatory authorities, which is in place in many countries. These steps, according to Devidayal, create a durable culture of voluntary compliance, instead of short-term fear resulting from sensational actions. Or, as Agarwal put it, "Punitive actions only lead to fear and raids only make headlines." NRAI Trustee Anurag Katriar's advice to regulatory agencies is to "fix the problem rather than the blame". He pointed out that no restaurant or hotel would ever want to harm its clientele in any way. "We have a greater stake than any regulatory agency in the well-being of our customers," Katriar emphasised.

• Solid Waste Management and Circular Economy

FSSAI bans plastic packaging for pan masala. Paper, cardboard, tin containers allowed

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India on 7 August issued a notification with norms for plastic-free packaging for pan masala sachets. The notification said that paper, cardboard, or cellulose packaging for pan masala must be free of any kind of plastic or aluminium. The notification means that no kind of plastic, including polyethene, polyester, PVC, or even plastic lamination, can be used for packaging pan masala, which is a mixture of areca nut and other spices used for recreational consumption. According to a 2025 market report by IMARC Group, the pan masala industry has a market share of Rs 48,000 crore. The FSSAI has amended the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging) Regulations, 2018, and laid out a list of allowed packaging materials for pan masala. It includes paper, cardboard, cellulose, or other naturally derived materials, as well as tin or glass containers. Addressing plastic waste at the source The new guidelines align with the existing Plastic Waste Management Rules of 2016, which imposed a ban on plastic packaging for selling or storing gutkha, pan masala, and tobacco. The FSSAI also said in its notification that the relevant provisions from the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, will be applicable. A new study released by the Centre for Science and Environment said that India produces 1,58,619 tonnes of solid waste every day, of which 10-12 per cent is plastic waste. It has a short shelf life but remains longer in the environment as well as the waste stream. “The actual cost of managing plastic waste varies significantly across cities and plastic categories,” said Tribhuvan Singh Bisht, deputy programme manager, municipal solid waste, CSE, in a press release. The ban strengthens plastic waste management by addressing the source at the packaging level. Moreover, by explicitly prohibiting plastic layers or lamination, the FSSAI has recognised that many pan masala packets and sachets utilise plastic in different forms and percentages, calling for complete plastic-free packaging.

• Solid Waste Management and Circular Economy

Plastic Waste EPR Rules Face Funding Gap: Why FMCG Stocks May Feel Impact

A new Centre for Science and Environment study reveals that the current Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system for plastic waste fails to cover actual municipal costs. This funding shortfall may force regulators to tighten rules, potentially increasing operational expenses for FMCG and plastic packaging companies that rely on these certificates for compliance. A recent study by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), released on August 11, 2026, has highlighted a critical gap in India’s plastic waste management framework. The report indicates that the current Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system—which requires Producers, Importers, and Brand Owners (PIBOs) to fund the recycling of their packaging waste—is failing to cover the actual costs incurred by local municipalities. This finding is significant for the Indian equity market, as it suggests a looming risk of regulatory tightening that could affect the margins of major FMCG and packaging companies. The Funding Mismatch The EPR framework operates on the 'polluter-pays' principle, designed to ensure that companies manufacturing or selling packaged goods pay for the collection and processing of plastic waste. However, the CSE study found that the market-linked price of EPR certificates—which companies buy to prove their compliance—is consistently lower than the actual cost of managing and recycling plastic waste. In many cases, the current EPR credit rates cover as little as 13% to 14% of the operational expenses required for waste collection and segregation in specific municipalities. Because these credits are cheap, companies are meeting their regulatory obligations at a fraction of the real cost, leaving municipal bodies to bear the rest of the financial burden. Impact on Industry Margins For investors, this study serves as a warning of potential future cost inflation for companies with significant plastic packaging footprints, such as major FMCG firms, beverage manufacturers, and plastic packaging producers. If the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and other regulatory bodies respond to these findings by fixing the price floors for EPR certificates or mandating geographically adjusted rates, companies may see an increase in compliance-related spending. Currently, the market for EPR certificates prioritizes the lowest possible cost, which has incentivized a system that does not reflect the logistical and infrastructural challenges of waste management across different Indian cities. The CSE report has proposed a Weighted Adjustment Factor (WAF), which would force companies to pay rates that better reflect the true local cost of managing waste. Regulatory and Operational Risks Beyond the potential for higher costs, the study highlights the risk of regulatory intervention. The government has set ambitious targets for plastic packaging recycling, and if the current funding gap leads to a failure in meeting these targets, regulators may implement stricter penalties or more rigid compliance structures. Investors may monitor the CPCB's response to these findings. Any shift toward localized EPR obligations—where companies must purchase certificates specifically for the regions where they sell products—would eliminate the ability to use low-cost certificates from other parts of the country. This would likely lead to a rise in the cost of compliance for firms that rely on the current, cheaper certificate trading mechanism. The next key update to watch will be whether the government adopts the proposed adjustments in the EPR certificate pricing formula, which would directly influence the operational expenditure for listed FMCG and plastic packaging companies.

• Down To Earth

Disrupted monsoons force India to face climate threat

The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) found that extreme weather affected India on 331 of 334 monitored days in 2025, or 99% of the period assessed. More than 4,000 people died, about 3,000 during the monsoon, while at least 30 states and union territories experienced extreme weather simultaneously for eight consecutive months. Sunita Narain, director general of the CSE, argues that adaptation therefore needs to become part of the country’s development strategy. “Climate change is no longer a future threat. It is already here in the form of extreme heat, extreme rainfall and increasingly destructive weather events,” Narain told DW. “The challenge is no longer proving the science, but redesigning our economy and infrastructure to survive it,” she added. “Cities, roads, drainage systems and water infrastructure can no longer be designed for yesterday’s climate.”

• Down To Earth

मानसून का बदलता पैटर्न बढ़ा रहा भारत का जलवायु संकट

सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट की एक रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक, 2025 में जिन 334 दिनों पर नजर रखी गई, उनमें से 331 दिन यानी करीब 99 फीसदी दिनों में भारत के किसी ना किसी हिस्से में चरम मौसम की घटनाएं देखने को मिलीं. इसमें 4,000 से भी ज्यादा लोगों की जान गई, जिसमें करीब 3,000 मौतें मानसून के दौरान हुईं. लगभग 30 राज्यों और केंद्र शासित प्रदेशों में लगातार आठ महीनों तक चरम मौसमी घटनाएं दर्ज की गई. इस संस्था की डायरेक्टर जनरल सुनीता नारायण का कहना है कि अब जलवायु परिवर्तन को देश की विकास रणनीति का अहम हिस्सा बनाना होगा. उन्होंने डीडब्ल्यू से कहा, "जलवायु परिवर्तन अब भविष्य की बात नहीं है. भीषण गर्मी, तेज बारिश और विनाशकारी मौसमी घटनाओं के रूप में यह अब हमारे सामने खड़ा है.” उन्होंने आगे कहा, "अब चुनौती जलवायु परिवर्तन को साबित करना नहीं है, बल्कि असली चुनौती अपनी अर्थव्यवस्था और बुनियादी ढांचे को इस तरह बदलना है कि हम इसके असर का सामना कर सकें.”

• Clean Air & Sustainable Mobility

देश में सार्वजनिक बस सेवा में 70% की कमी, 400 से ज्यादा शहरों में सुविधा ही नहीं

देश का शहरी बस क्षेत्र गंभीर संकट के दौर से गुजर रहा है। पूरे देश के स्तर पर शहरी आबादी की जरूरतों की तुलना में सार्वजनिक बस सेवाओं में 70% भारी कमी है। सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरमेंट और सीआईटीआईईएस फोरम की ताजा रिपोर्ट में खुलासा हुआ है। रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक, 400+ शहरों में संगठित सरकारी बस सेवा उपलब्ध नहीं है। 13.3 बसे हीं प्रति लाख आबादी उपलब्ध हैं, जबकि केंद्रीय मंत्रालय का तय मानक 44 से 66 बसों का है। एक लाख आबादी वाले क्षेत्रों के लोग अनौपचारिक साधनों पर निर्भर 55% सक्रिय शहरी बसें केवल आबादी वाले पांच राज्यों, जिनमें मध्य प्रदेश, क्षेत्रों के लोग पूरी पश्चिम बंगाल, उत्तर प्रदेश तरह अनौपचारिक महाराष्ट्र और कर्नाटक तक सीमित हैं। वहीं एक लाख आबादी वाले क्षेत्रों के लोग पूरी तरह अनौपचारिक साधनों पर निर्भर हैं। प्रदूषण भी बढ़ा रहीं पुरानी बसें 40 हजार बसें 15 साल की सीमा पार कर चुकी हैं, जो प्रदूषण फैला रही हैं और रखरखाव में महंगी साबित हो रही हैं। 5.8 लाख बसे 2026 से 2030 के बीच में सेवा अवधि पूरी कर रिटायर होंगी, जिससे नए बस बेड़े की जरूरत बढ़ेगी। क्या होगी चुनौती? 18-36 महीने: ई-बसों के ग्रिड कनेक्शन में देरी, डिपो प्रभावित । 65% लागत वसूलीः परिवहन उपक्रम वित्तीय संकट में। 6.8 कर्मचारी / बसः कुशल मानक 4.5 से ज्यादा, लागत बढ़ा रहा है।