As key environmental indicators continue to deteriorate across India, it is clear that state pollution control boards and pollution control committees are failing to fulfill their statutory mandates.
As key environmental indicators continue to deteriorate across India, it is clear that state pollution control boards and pollution control committees are failing to fulfill their statutory mandates.
In the fight against air pollution in the Indo-Gangetic plain, there are several important heroes, none other than India’s border environment regulators, State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and Pollution Control Committees (PCCs) in Union Territories. Their primary role is to regulate emissions from point sources such as industries and power plants that contribute significantly to ambient air pollution in urban and rural areas. More recently, he has also been tasked with guiding cities to meet targets under the National Clean Air Program and spend Finance Commission grants for air quality improvement. In short, there is no future for clean air in which SPCBs do not perform at the highest level possible.
an enhanced mandate
The SPCBs were initially constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the SPCB’s order was expanded to include air quality management. Subsequently, several new environmental regulations added to their roles and functions. Unfortunately, this increased mandate has not been matched with increased capacity and capability across the boards. As environmental indicators such as air quality and water quality continue to deteriorate in many parts of the country, the boards are clearly failing to effectively discharge their statutory mandate.
Over the years, several reports published, including those of the Parliamentary Standing Committee and Government Committees, have identified the reasons for the poor performance of the SPCB. In a series of papers recently published by the Center for Policy Research, we find that many of these factors plague the SPCB. This article highlights the three major institutional constraints under which SPCBs operate in the Indo-Gangetic Plain, and discusses their impact on air quality governance in India.
Composition of the Board as to Conflict of Interest
Firstly, the composition of the SPCBs is a matter of grave concern as key stakeholders and significant expertise are missing in most of the states. Boards are multi-member bodies headed by a chairman and a member-secretary. Their decisions and policies guide the day-to-day functioning of the organisation. In the 10 SPCBs and PCCs studied, more than 50% of the board members represent potential polluters: local authorities, industry and public sector corporations. They are subject to the regulatory measures of the SPCB, and their overwhelming presence raises fundamental questions about conflicts of interest.
At the same time, scientists, medical practitioners and academics make up only 7% of the board members. Even more worrying, most boards do not meet the statutory requirement of at least two board members who have knowledge and experience in air quality management. Given the scale and causes of air pollution in India, there is a need for multidisciplinary expertise to tackle it; Health should also be given a clear focus while formulating an air pollution policy. Lack of expertise and skewed representation of stakeholders across boards can only be a deterrent in effective policy making.
Second, the SPCB leadership – the chairman and member secretary – do not enjoy long, stable and full-time tenures. In many states, individuals in these two positions hold additional charge in other government departments. The data also shows that many chairmen and member secretaries have held their positions for less than a year. For example, the shortest term for a Speaker has been 18 days (Chhattisgarh) and 15 days for a Member Secretary (Haryana and Uttar Pradesh). With the SPCB’s leadership’s focus being thin in multiple roles and their tenure being short, they often do not even have time to fully understand their mandate before exiting. In such a scenario, long-term policy planning, strategic interventions and effective execution aimed at reducing air pollution to a great extent are extremely difficult.
vacant staff
Third, the SPCBs are severely underemployed. At least 40% of all sanctioned posts in nine SPCBs/PCCs are vacant for which data is available. The level of vacancies in technical posts is 84% in Jharkhand and more than 75% in Bihar and Haryana. Inadequate workforce forces the boards to reschedule their priorities among their various functions. This has a significant impact on pollution regulation as critical functions such as monitoring industrial compliance, initiating enforcement actions in case of violations and setting standards are often not prioritized. Low workforce also means weak regulatory scrutiny and poor impact assessment. For example, given their workload, engineers in Bihar, Jharkhand, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh have less than a day to inspect, evaluate and decide on each consent application. Board staff running on empty is clearly a volatile situation.
The institutional picture we paint is bleak. Unfortunately, it gets worse when one considers the boards’ heavy mandate on environmental issues beyond air quality. Without the requisite capacity, capability, expertise and foresight in our frontline regulators, sustained and substantial gains in air quality are nearly impossible.
Shibani Ghosh is Fellow, Center for Policy Research, New Delhi. Bhargava Krishna is Fellow, Center for Policy Research, New Delhi