• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

K. P. S. Chauhan

THE Government of India recently set up a National Environment Authority (NEA) and six regional authorities which are expected to start functioning within three months. The NEA will have the appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions made by the regional authorities.

Whether this decision stems from a genuine concern for sound environmental governance and overcoming administrative failures is debatable. It has to be seen in the light of the complete bureaucratisation of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in the last two decades.

The MoEF was established as a scientific department in November 1980 following the recommendations of the N. D. Tiwari Committee Report. It was envisaged that the Ministry would formulate policies and laws, while an Environment Protection Authority, independent of the government, would oversee implementation of policies and programmes and enforcement of the laws (on the lines of the powerful EPA in the US).

This did not happen. Instead, over the years, the original mandate of the MoEF was eroded by administrative cynicism and sidelining of scientific expertise available within the government, even as the MoEF has sought to takeover more regulatory functions. Civil society perceives the bureaucracy as disinterested in public welfare and corrupt.

Weak governance, manifesting itself in poor service delivery, excessive regulations, poor enforcement of laws and uncoordinated and wasteful public expenditure, are among the key factors eroding national ecological and environmental security.

This is exemplified by the thousands of crores of rupees spent so far under the Ganga Action Plan and the National Wasteland Development Board without achieving their respective mandates of cleaning the Ganga and developing wasted lands. When the MoEF was established, the existing Department of Forests and Wildlife continued to be under the Ministry of Agriculture.

But the new Department of Environment was directly under the Prime Minister and was envisaged as a focal point for developing future programmes, policies and laws based on scientific and technical analysis to ensure environmentally-sound and sustainable development in all sectors in the country.

With this perspective, the Department was intended to guide and monitor the progress of complex inter-sectoral programme implementation both in the private and public sectors. Three eminent scientists served as Secretaries till May 1985. Thereafter, the Environment and Forests and Wildlife Departments were placed in one Ministry headed by a Secretary from the Indian Administrative Service. In 1987, the Department of Environment, which was recognised as a `scientific' department (such as the Departments of Ocean Development, Biotechnology, Space, Science and Technology, and Non-Conventional Energy), was taken out of the purview of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for speedy recruitment of scientific personnel. After the initial phase of recruitment of scientists, however, no fresh recruitment was made. Gradually, as senior scientists retired, these posts were converted to non-scientific posts and taken over by the IAS and allied services such as Customs, the Railways, Post and Telegraphs, etc.

No attempt was made to create an independent cadre of scientific professionals. The influx of career administrators has contributed to the spread of the bureaucratic babu culture. A sense of urgency to integrate ecological and environmental concerns into the developmental process has completely evaporated, undermining effective coordination with other concerned ministries on inter-sectoral issues. Effective environmental and ecological strategies have not been evolved in major sectors such as industry, transport, agriculture and aquaculture, energy, and forestry. `Environment Impact Assessment', which is a multidisciplinary and multidimensional process, is being undertaken mechanically just to get the environmental clearance under the Environment Protection Act, instead of being an integrated and continuous process from the very start of a project. Conflicts have escalated in sectors such as water, land use, agriculture, animal husbandry, mining and forests, which are of deep concern to the people, and there has been little attempt to decentralise natural resources management through the institutions of self-government under the 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts. Moreover, multiple systems of administration and functioning in an uncoordinated manner, have led to confusion in the implementation of programmes and the enforcement of laws, and also unhealthy rivalry between agencies.

For instance, two agencies concerned with afforestation function independently — the National Afforestation and Eco-development Board under the MoEF, and the National Wastelands Development Board under the Ministry of Rural Areas and Employment. Biodiversity conservation falls within the purview of different departments and ministries. The National Bio-Resource Board was constituted by the Department of Biotechnology and the National Medicinal Plant Board by the Department of Indian Systems of Medicines and Homeopathy (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare). And, under the new Biodiversity (Conservation) Act, the MoEF is to set up a National Biodiversity Board.

The Ministry of Water Resources is the nodal agency for managing the water sector. It discharges its mandate through the Central Water Commission (surface water), Central Ground Water Board (ground water) and the National Water Development Agency (inter-basin transfer of water).

But the MoEF handles water quality and related environmental aspects; the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Development coordinates projects in urban water supply and sanitation; the Ministry of Rural Areas and Employment looks after rural water supply and sanitation under the Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission; and the Ministry of Power and Central Electric Authority handles water issues for power generation.

Similarly, multiple agencies are responsible for the protection of air quality, including the Directorate of Industries, the Department of Transport and Urban Development and the Traffic Police authorities in urban areas. Unlike the independent Environment Protection Authority envisaged by the Tiwari Committee, the National Environment Authority, which has now been setup, seems to be confined to appellate jurisdiction only.

If the NEA is to be truly effective, its mandate has to be extended to include monitoring the policies and programmes developed by the MoEF and the functioning of enforcement agencies at the national- and state-levels. To do this, the NEA needs to be staffed with an independent scientific and technical cadre. Further, the Government would have to make a major departure from the current mode of functioning of nodal ministries responsible for the ecological and environmental sustainability related to various developmental activities.

The regular coordination of all monitoring activities could be done by setting up a National Task Force on Ecology and Environmental Security, answerable to the NEA. The Task Force could be mandated to sort out inter-ministerial and -sectoral differences, fund allocations and programme implementation. Indeed, the entire institutional mechanism needs to be restructured for effective ecological and environmental governance. This would require treating the MoEF on the same lines as the other scientific ministries and departments. The functioning of the MoEF could be streamlined under two separate Departments for Environment, and for Forests and Wildlife. The Department must be headed by an eminent scientist as Secretary, with the support of a scientific and technical cadre and allowing for the lateral entry of experts in different disciplines from the universities, scientific agencies and other professional organisations. The Forest Department should be independently headed by the Director-General who should also serve as its Secretary. The Central Board of Forestry, which has been dormant since 1988, should be revived. Every Ministry concerning natural resource management must have an `Environmental-Ecological Adviser' who relates to the MoEF as the respective finanacial advisers do to the Ministry of Finance. Also,the National River Conservation Authority could be merged with the Depatment of Environment. To strengthen the Central and State Pollution Control Boards, there has to be an in-built mechanism within the MoEF to continuously revise standards for air, water and effluents and review the relevant legislations. The marine environment and coastal areas have long been neglected. A Central Commission needs to be set up to address the entire range of issues relating to marine and coastal areas. So too forest genetic resources and micro-organisms; separate bureaus for `Forest Genetic Resources' and `Micro-organism Genetic Resources' also need to be created for collection, identification and characterisation on the lines of the existing National Bureaus of Plant, Animal and Fish Genetic Resources.

The NEA is only a very small step towards restructuring the institutional mechanism for environmental governance. Much more needs to be done to meet national needs and the commitments made by India in respect of various international conventions and agreements. Unless this is done, such incremental knee-jerk measures only create the illusion that environmental governance is moving forward in the interests of the people when, in fact, nothing much is being accomplished.

(The author, an independent environmental consultant, is senior associate, National Institute of Advance Studies and Honorary Senior Fellow, Ashoka Foundation for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Poor reception

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line