Is decentralisation a smoke screen for Centre to dilute green norms?

Newly drafted rules governing wetlands conservation are accentuating widespread concerns that the Centre is retreating from its environmental protection responsibilities under the guise of decentralising powers to States and to local authorities.

Under the new Draft Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2016, which will likely replace the 2010 rules, the onus of wetlands conservation lies with the States and local authorities.

The draft, on which the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change has sought public comments, proposes, among other things, that the Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority be replaced by a State-level authority.

The poor condition of urban wetlands was brought into focus during the floods in Chennai last December, which resulted in loss of lives and infrastructure.

As environmental activists pointed out, that tragedy was entirely man-made: it was the result of construction over, and dumping of waste in, wetlands. Under the new draft rules, the responsibility for the tragedy will vest entirely with local authorities.

This is not the first instance of the Centre amending laws and rules to put the onus of environment protection on local authorities.

It has, for instance, proposed the creation of regional empowered committees to take decisions on forest diversion; it has also devolved powers for clearances for sand mining and minor minerals; and it is looking to delegate powers of approval to municipal bodies for building clearances.

However, while decentralisation of powers across sectors may seem like a progressive measure, other actions by the Centre point to an attempt to whittle down environmental norms under the guise of decentralisation.

For instance, the Green ministry has removed the need for public hearings at the gram sabha level for environmental clearances for a range of projects, including roads. This goes against the very basis of ‘decentralisation’, which is founded on the principle that you must involve local bodies, since it affects them directly, says Ritwick Dutta, a Supreme Court advocate.

Environment falls under the Concurrent List of the Constitution, and the Centre cannot abdicate its responsibility, he stressed.

According to him, about 82 per cent of projects are handled by States. Of the rest, most small projects don’t need approvals. “If you look at any of the (new) rules, the Centre does not want to play any role at all,” he pointed out. Says Chandra Bhushan, Deputy Director-General, Centre for Science and Environment: “The assumption that anything that is centrally controlled is good is flawed. There is no problem in decentralisation if it leads to enforcement of laws.”

Bhushan, however, added that decentralisation is not a one-size-fits-all concept. “Giving municipalities powers relating to building is a good idea because local issues will be addressed. However, in the case of small-scale mining, where powers are with the district-level authority, how effective will it be?”

Local bodies also have varying standards, raising questions over their capability to enforce regulations. Indicatively, at a time when air pollution has taken centre-stage across Indian cities, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board does not even track PM 2.5, one of the key indices of urban pollution.

Kanchi Kohli, legal research director at the Namati Environmental Justice Programme of the Centre for Policy Research, said that while devolution was good, it is not leading to better enforcement.

And a Centre in active retreat will only accentuate matters.