How transparent are India’s pollution control boards? Here is CSE’s ranking

The state pollution control boards (SPCB) and pollution control committees (PCC) in India generate large quantities of data every day, online or manually. Most of them, however, take minimal initiative to disclose the information in public domain, observed the authors of a new report by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a Delhi-based non-profit.

Around 60 per cent of the bodies scored less than 50 per cent on the information disclosure parameters studied.

CSE rated 35 SPCBs / PCCs based on the information furnished by them on their websites and annual reports over the last five years. The results were published in Rating of pollution control board on public disclosure August 11, 2021.

The pollution control boards of Odisha and Telangana were the top performers and had scored 67 per cent in transparency. Tamil Nadu ranked a close second with 65.5 per cent transparency, Madhya Pradesh ranked third (64 per cent), West Bengal ranked fourth (62 per cent) and Goa ranked fifth (60.6 per cent).

The rest, primarily boards of the northeastern states, pollution control committees of Union territories, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand boards have performed poorly in sharing information in public domain and scored less than 50 per cent.

How the states fared

Source: Centre for Science and Environment

The authors wrote in the report:

The study uses a number of indicators that provide a broader assessment on the type and amount of information shared. The indicators were selected based on the statutory requirement and importance.

The assessment is an effort to encourage SPCBs / PCCs to place their information in the public domain.

Major takeaways:

• Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems data not made public in 13 states / UTs: Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Maharashtra, Manipur, Rajasthan, Nagaland, Sikkim, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Tripura have no provision for making continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) data available in the public domain. This is despite the Supreme Court order (February, 22 2017) and a notification fromUnion Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 mandating the same. Among the 35 SPCBs / PCCs studied, 19 were displayed their CEMS data publicly. Lakshadweep, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram do not have any industries which require installation of CEMS. CEMS data of Karnataka and West Bengal is password protected on the official websites.

• Details from public hearings provided only by nine SPCBs/PCCs: Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram are the only places with complete public hearing sections on their pollution body websites. The section should include the executive summary, draft Environment Impact Assessment report of projects and minutes of meetings of public hearings on the project. No initiative has been taken in this direction in Arunachal Pradesh, Andaman & Nicobar, Assam, Puducherry, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Manipur, Nagaland, Lakshadweep and Uttar Pradesh.

• Only five states have shared soft copies of notices online: J&K, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttarakhand and West Bengal have shared have shared soft copies of directions, show cause and closure notices issued by the pollution bodies on their websites. Uttar Paresh was found to have shared limited information. The rest of the places studied have not shared any of the above details online.

• Only five boards has shared minutes of board meetings: It is mandatory for SPCBs to meet at least once every three months to discuss action plans, compliance and monitoring, functioning of the board and stronger enforcement of laws. Only the pollution control bodies of Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand have shared the minutes of these meetings on their websites, the analysis found.

• The format in which data is presented on the websites and annual reports of the SPCBs / PCCs was not uniform. The information was also difficult to find on the portals of certain boards because of poor navigation support.

• Only 12 states have shared their latest annual report on their websites: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal places to have shared annual reports for 2019–20. Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared annual reports of the year 2018–19, which is their latest.

• Inspection & compliance reports: In the annual reports, only Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have shared information on the inspection conducted by the pollution control boards. Haryana and Karnataka are the only places to have shared information on compliance status of industries in their reports.

• Information on waste: As many as 11 SPCB / PCCs have not shared information on plastic waste information, 14 have not shared data on municipal solid waste, 10 have not displayed information on hazardous waste information and nine have not disclosed e-waste details on their websites.

The way ahead

Based on the above findings, CSE recommends the following:

• There should be a uniform format for presenting annual reports and sharing information on websites. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) should come up with a website format for the SPCBs / PCCs and guidelines for framing annual reports
• CPCB should come up with a website format all SPCBs / PCCs for uploading information about compliance history of industries, at least for the grossly polluting. Each industry section should have soft copies of notices issued
• All SPCBs / PCCs must make CEMS data public
• Public hearing information must be shared by all SPCBs / PCCs online
• Information related to waste management should be made available on the websites of the pollution control bodies.