A discussion paper was released by the MOEF recently. The government plans to create a new agency: National Environmental Protection Authority (NEPA).
In the coming winter session, the government plans to introduce a Bill or amendment to the Environment Protection Act (1986). To that end, it has invited comments.
The paper succinctly outlines the case for a new agency and recognizes that there may be “institutional fatigue” as the government pushes the bill. The most cogent argument for NEPA is that India’s enviornmental laws, while being progressive, are not being implemented effectively.
To be responsive to the complex challenge of environmental management in the country, it is being proposed that the environmental governance structure be comprised around the following dimensions:
1. Legislation and policy-making: to be the responsibility of the MoEF.
2. Regulation, monitoring and enforcement: to be the responsibility of a new National Environment Protection Authority (NEPA).
3. Adjudication: to be the responsibility of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), a Bill for which has recently been introduced in Parliament. This will support the constitutional jurisdiction of the higher courts.
The principles laid out for the new agency are:
1. It should be a statutory body.
2. It will be autonomous of the MoEF, equipped with substantial budget, and with powers to make its own procedures.
3. It should be professionally managed, drawing upon all relevant professional fields including applied sciences, economics, law, etc. Its Board Members and CEO should be appointed for a fixed tenure.
4. It should have original powers conferred upon it under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
5. Its working will subscribe to the “polluter-pays principle” and the “precautionary principle”.
Of the 4 options presented for the agency’s structure, it appears that the one that is likely to have the most impact is where the organization’s sole focus is to be compliance and enforcement. This is captured in Option 1 which aims to create a National Environment Monitoring Authority (NEMA). NEMA would take over the responsibilities for monitoring compliance and effecting enforcement of environmental clearances granted by the MoEF. NEMA would also take over the role of monitoring compliance with pollution standards, currently done by the CPCB. The key drawback of this option is that it may not give NEMA enough standing to operate under the “precautionary principle”, unless there is close cooperation with the R&D activities of CPCB.
In all other options, the role of the NEPA/ NEMA goes beyond compliance and enforcement; and hence these other options could distract from the need for a separate agency. Also the other options imply a level of scale-back of MOEF activities and a perception of its weakening. They are likely to run into operational and political challenges.
The trade-offs appear in favor of Option 1. Whatever the course of the debate in the coming weeks, the need for an apex environmental watch-dog at the national level exists.
For more details: MOEF Discussion Paper: Towards Effective Environmental Governance: Proposal for a National Environment Protection Authority.
Post new comment