Air Emergency: Underperformance of Pollution Control Boards

Context

Reduced to mere advisory bodies, India’s pollution control boards are unable to regulate air quality.

Background

National Capital Region chokes as air quality reaches 'severe' category, AQI crosses 500-mark. Recent study by Delhi-based non-profit Centre for Chronic Disease Control finds gaps in India’s pollution control machinery. Study highlighted that huge shortage of technical experts and other staff has reduced central and state pollution bodies to mere advisory bodies, leaving them unable to enforce air quality standards.

In Detail

The Delhi-based Central Pollution Control Board and a network of 27 State Pollution Control Boards are tasked with regulating pollution across sectors. Ten years after India established new National Ambient Air Quality Standards that the pollution control boards must enforce, it recorded the worst levels of pollution ever, with the largest number of Indian cities making it onto the global list of the world’s 20 most polluted.

About 1.67 million Indians died due to air pollution that year. About 660 million Indians could live longer if India achieved National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

The study found staff shortages, increased workloads, poor understanding of the health impacts of pollution, poor coordination with related agencies and low levels of motivation and accountability among the staff.

Besides raising issues in staffing and funds, the report discusses how pollution control boards reportedly perceive themselves as technical advisors instead of regulatory bodies.

Statutes and Implementation

The Central Government launched a national plan in January 2019 to cut air pollution in the country by 20%-30% by 2024. To deal with the especially high air pollution levels in the National Capital Region of Delhi and surrounding states, the Centre recently passed an ordinance to create an 18-member committee consisting of independent experts, bureaucrats and other representatives from affected states.

Reasons of Underperformance of Pollution Regulators

More Responsibilities with Limited Capacity

Over the last two decades, state pollution control boards have seen an expansion in the scope and scale of their work but not in their budgets and workforce. In its ground survey, it is found that more than 50% of positions vacant in some state pollution control boards.

Since an inspection usually requires travel, it often ends up low on the list of Pollution Control Board priorities. Further, officials at all state pollution control boards said staff shortage was a key reason for delayed inspections.

The Gujarat State Pollution Control Board had inspected all the industries in the “red category” (highest polluting industries) twice every year, but even this was unlikely to be enough to ensure year-round compliance.

Lack of Expertise

Leadership positions in state pollution control boards are usually held by civil servants with no expertise in science or environmental studies which is necessary for comprehending issues relating to pollution and climate change. These positions are seen as administrative and not technical, this indicates the extent to which the importance and scope of pollution control is underestimated.

One reason for this is that no clear qualifications are laid down for the recruitment of various officers to the pollution control boards. Often, officials heading the boards also hold other government portfolios and sometimes these roles are in conflict. Even, the 2008 parliamentary committee report had flagged the concern that under-qualified people could end up in positions of power at pollution control boards.

Lack of Motivation and Accountability

State board officials often have a diminished view of their own role and responsibility and this has shifted their perceived role from that of regulators to mere technical advisors. Many are unaware of the full scope of their responsibilities.

Infect very few officials of the state pollution control boards knew the history of different pollution standards or why these were established at certain levels.

States were not even provided with standard operating procedures to implement standards. All of this has created a feeling of detachment from the cause as well as their responsibility.

The boards do not initiate strict actions against offending industries because they feel that they do not have any real authority, even when the state pollution control boards take legal action against polluters, compliance tends to be significantly delayed because of the costs and time involved in the legal process with civil and criminal courts struggling with a case backlog.

Poor Multi-sectoral Coordination

The lack of convergence and coordination between various state and central departments often means that other departments do not implement State Pollution Control Board directives. Some states see state pollution control boards as a bureaucratic hurdle, not bodies tasked with the vital role of protecting human health and the environment.

The state pollution control boards have to look at water, air, noise pollution as well as biomedical waste management. They directly have no control but can only ask the concerned department or authorities to try and improve upon the mitigation measures.

When state pollution control boards have to consolidate their efforts and coordinate with various departments, including transport, police and urban local bodies, they tend to get lax about the implementation of standards.

Inefficiency in Monitoring

States do deploy their own monitoring networks beyond those established by the Central Pollution Control Board. But with limited technical expertise, the quality and utility of the data generated remains suspect.

For instance, the Central Pollution Control Board is required to visit monitoring stations, review meetings, analyse quality control and conduct training programmes for the purposes of quality assurance and quality control. But few of these tasks are carried out with the same frequency or efficacy at the state level. The calibration of monitoring devices is frequently cited as a challenge.

The limited capacity for real-time monitoring, in the case of air pollution, for example, simultaneously gaps in data collection and erroneous readings due to poor calibration remain.

Poor Understanding

An inadequate understanding of this, as well as misinformation about the sources, distribution and impact of air pollution, prevails in the state pollution control boards. Only few officers of the Board have clear understanding of issues, others did not, even some are misinformed.

Conclusion

While interventions that strengthen the legislative framework, such as the recent ordinance, are welcome, they will be as ineffective like all previous efforts unless the regulatory bodies that enable their implementation are strengthened with the technical and financial resources needed.

Having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters relating to environmental protection should be mandatory. A regulatory framework that encourages the speedy disposal of non-compliance cases is needed to discourage offenders.

It is very important to change the status quo and strengthen the Pollution Control Boards and bring in more transparency in their functioning as a regulator in controlling pollution and emission at source if we have to achieve breathable air and environment around us.

Connecting the Article

Question for Prelims: In relation to the Central Pollution Control Board, consider the following statements:

1. It is a statutory body.
2. It is formed under the Environment Protection Act 1986.

Which of the statements given above is/ are correct?

(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer (a)

Question for Mains: Discuss the causes of severe air pollution in the National Capital Region. Why are pollution regulatory bodies incapable to curb it ? How can the functioning of regulatory bodies be improved ?