Publisher: Times of India

On its 46th foundation day, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) released two reports that should force us to re-examine our approach towards controlling air pollution.

The first report is the ‘National Ambient Air Quality Status & Trends 2019’, which contains air quality data for 344 cities/ towns from 28 states and 6 UTs. This is the only report that gives a snapshot of the status of air pollution in the country.

The second is a report on the ‘Impact of the Lockdown on Ambient Air Quality’. This report compares data for 12 cities from different parts of the country, including Delhi and NCR towns, during the lockdown phases with the corresponding periods in 2019. The report also estimates the various sources on air pollution in Delhi by chemically analysing PM2.5 (particles less than 2.5 microns in size or fine particles) in different phases of lockdown. Furthermore, it measured PM2.5 concentrations using satellite to estimate the air quality improvement over the entire country.

Read in isolation, these two reports do not give us much new information than which is known or expected. For instance, it is known that air quality is a pan-India problem. Similarly, we all experienced cleaner air during lockdowns, and therefore, a dip in the ambient air quality levels was expected. But once we put these two reports together, a completely new picture emerges that puts a question mark on our approach so far in controlling air pollution and the way National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) is being implemented. Here are the major findings of these two reports:

India has predominantly a PM10 problem: Most cities are exceeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM10 (particles less than 10 microns in size or coarse particles). About 78% of the cities exceeded PM10 standards compared to 36% for PM2.5, 9% for NO2 and none for SO2.

We are not winning the air pollution battle: The data for the last few years show that while the SO2 concentration has decreased and NO2 concentration has remained stable, the PM2.5 levels have increased and PM10 levels have remained very high and are fluctuating. So, the two problem parameters – PM2.5 and PM10 – are not showing any sign of abating. In fact, PM2.5 levels have increased significantly in the last three years.

The CPCB report also lays to rest the controversy about air quality improvements in Delhi. PM2.5 levels in Delhi have consistently increased in the last 3 years and were 144 micrograms per cubic meters (μg/m3) in 2019 – more than three times the standard.

The baseline pollution level in India is high: During the peak lockdown (March 25-April 19), ground based monitoring stations in 12 cities recorded average PM2.5 levels of 25-50 μg/m3 and PM10 levels of 50-110 μg/m3. The satellite recorded PM2.5 levels in different parts of the country as 29-76 μg/m3, with an all-India average of 59 μg/m3. These levels are double the WHO standards and almost the same as NAAQS.

So, when transportation and industries were down by 80%, coal power plants were operating at 40% capacity, and people were largely indoors, even in relatively less polluting months of March-April, the country was barely meeting NAAQS. This indicates that pollution from cooking fuel, agriculture and natural sources are sufficient to breach air quality norms in large parts of the country.

An interesting fact the report captures is that during the lockdown in Delhi, the ratio of PM2.5 to PM10 was higher than in 2019. This is contrary to the general understanding; one would have expected lower ratio during the lockdown because factories and vehicles were not operating. The only plausible reason seems to be that we have been underestimating the contribution of PM2.5 from cooking fuel and natural sources.

If we join the dots, what emerges is that controlling PM10 emissions is key to solving the air pollution crisis. This would mean reducing the burning of solid fuels like biomass and coal and controlling emissions from land and agriculture. But by mainly focussing on cities and vehicles, we have lost the plot on air pollution. I will discuss this in detail in my next column.

The Draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification 2020 has become a hot potato for the ministry of environment, forest & climate change (MoEF&CC). First, the Delhi high court overruled the ministry’s decision on the time limit for public comments and increased it till August 11. Then, in response to a formal complaint of the environment minister for spamming his email account, the cybercrime unit of the Delhi police invoked a terrorism-related law to shut down the website of young environmental campaigners, who were running an online campaign against the draft notification.

Though the police have now withdrawn the notice, the public uproar against the draft notification continues. Reportedly, lakhs of people have written to MoEF&CC to scrap the draft. So why is there such a hullabaloo around this subordinate legislation?

The draft EIA notification 2020 seeks to replace the existing law – the EIA notification 2006 – which grants Environment Clearance (EC) to projects. The major criticisms against the new draft are that it dilutes scope of public participation, legalises post-facto EC, removes the requirements of EIA study for several categories of projects, and weakens the provisions of reporting by companies. To understand the significance of these changes, let’s look at the 2006 law.

The EIA notification 2006 is possibly the most amended piece of environmental law. It has been amended 43 times, and at least 50 office memorandums (worth 350 pages) have been issued to tweak this law. Many of these changes have diluted the original version for some or other industry. The 2020 draft, in large part, brings together several of these revisions.

Therefore, effectively the 2020 version is a little worse than the existing one. So, while I appreciate the criticism of the proposed draft, keeping the 2006 version or even improving it is not going to solve the environmental problems in the country either. Let me explain why.

First, the approach of conducting EIA of individual projects is bad science. The environment is affected by the cumulative impacts of all activities, which project-specific EIAs fail to capture. Even if individual projects meet all benchmarks, their cumulative effects may still destroy the environment. This is evident in most mining and industrial areas of the country – from Singrauli to Korba and from Vapi to Patancheru.

Second, the EIA report, which forms the basis for EC decisions, is prepared by a consultant paid by the project proponent. This creates an apparent conflict of interest, and therefore most EIA reports are not worth the paper they are written on. I am yet to come across an EIA report that says that a project is likely to have significant ecological impacts.

Third, the process of the public hearing, which is mandated to take into account the concerns of the project-affected people, is a sham. Public hearing as practised in India is neither an informed consultation nor an informed consent. Most times, it is organised in the presence of police force, and physical violence is not uncommon.

Worse still, concerns of the community are most often dealt with in a cursory way by the expert appraisal committees (EACs). EACs typically ask companies to make some investments like building schools or providing drinking water to appease the community. MoEF&CC has even formalised this by calling these expenditures as ‘corporate environment responsibility’ (CER) and directing companies to earmark 0.125-2% of the capital investment on CER.

Finally, the environmental conditions imposed on the companies are rarely monitored by authorities. Monitoring is based on self-certified half-yearly reports submitted by companies; this has been reduced to yearly report in the 2020 draft.

The fact is that the current EIA and EC process in India is defunct. While it involves a lot of paperwork, there is little improvement on the ground. 99.9% of the projects are cleared, and non-compliance of the safeguards is rampant. The paperwork and transaction costs, on the other hand, gives legitimacy to industries to argue for watering down the process further.

It is, therefore, time that we demand a new EIA law based on sound science, and robust and transparent decision making processes to safeguard environment and community rights as well as to reduce investment risks of industries. This can be achieved by integrating three environmental concepts.

The first is the strategic environmental assessment (SEA). SEA will help to evaluate the ecological ramification of policies and plans and address concerns at the earliest stage of the decision making process. Many countries have adopted SEA to integrate environmental concerns in policy making.

The second is the regional planning approach. This involves conducting carrying capacity studies and developing regional plans based on them. This will allow us to take into account cumulative impacts and also provide information to project proponents to decide the location of the projects beforehand.

The third is project specific EIAs. In this, EIAs should be done for major projects and not for all. The focus here should be to improve environmental management plans and post-clearance monitoring. To ensure quality EIA reports, an environment information centre should be established to provide independent data to consultants and the EACs. In all the three processes, public participation should be ensured to improve assessment and scrutiny.

The EIA process is the most important piece of environmental law as it has the scope to decide the development trajectory of the country. But this powerful piece of legislation has never been discussed or legislated by the Parliament. Time to take the EIA discourse to the Parliament floor and develop a new law suitable for the 21st century.