Control of Water Pollution in India

Capability Traps in Ministry of Environment & Forests

Clean water is a vital necessity

Some facts

• India has 14 major rivers, 55 minor rivers and several hundred small ones.

• The most polluting source for rivers in the country is the city sewage and industrial waste discharge, though industrial and agricultural waste are powerful sources as well.

• Only about 10 per cent of the waste water generated is treated at present; the rest is discharged as it is into the water bodies.

The framework of water pollution control in India

LEG

ISLA

TIO

N Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974Environment ( Protection) Act, 1986International Best Practices

POLI

CY National Water

Policy, 2002National Environment Policy, 2006

PRO

GRA

MM

ES National River Conservation PlanNational Lake Conservation PlanJawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission

Capability traps

Aim to reproduce external solutions which are considered “best practices”

Through pre-determined linear agendas

That inform tight monitoring of inputs and compliance to the plan

Are driven top down – implementation happens largely by edict.

Form over function

• The system is closed/rigid• Novelty not entertained. • Agenda conformity

emphasised.

Ecosystem of the Govt. of India

• Isomorphic mimicry

Ministry of Env'mt & Forests • Leadership strategies

emphasise of perpetuating extant structures/processes

• Front-line workers: routine compliance

Agents

Linear agenda & emphasis on compliance

1. Identification of polluted river stretches by CPCB

2. List of polluted river stretches sent to States

3 (i) States prepare DPRs for which aim to control pollution of river stretches identified as polluted by CPCB and send to NRCD

Alternately: 3(ii) States send DPRs for rivers not in CPCB list but found polluted by the State as per NRCD criteria

4. NRCD approves DPR or sends it back to States for revision

Policy-making

For river/lake pollution: MoEF & Central Pollution

Control Board (CPCB)

For ground water pollution: Ministry of

Envrironment & Forests (MoEF), Ministry of

Water Resources (MoWR)

Central Ground Water Board (CGWB)

Implementation

For river/lake pollution: National

River/Lake Conservation Directorate

For Ground water: MOEF, MoWR

Monitoring

For River/lake pollution: NRCD/CPCB

For ground water pollution: CGWB

Water Quality Assessment Authority

Top-down approach

Global ‘solutions’ are

recommended by international

organizations

The process of getting there is

pre-designed and broken down into

indicators;

Organizations are given incentives to

comply with the indicators, as process

‘goals’

Leaders are given incentives to comply

and organize work agendas to meet the

process ‘goals’.

Front line workers are trained,

incentivized and organized to meet the process goals

Meanwhile, the problem remains unresolved

Indore

Madurai

Farid

abad

Jalan

dharPatn

a

Nashik

Ghaziab

ad

Luckn

ow

Kanpur

Ludhian

a

Ahmedab

ad

Chennai

Hydera

bad

Banga

loreDelh

i0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

140

170

200

235

236

250

290 41

0

426 49

6 650 73

1

950

1200

2906

90 45 104

82 69 135

129 30

0

162

203

650

481

407

120

1816

Quantity of sewage generated in the town (mld)

Quantity of sewage actually treated (mld)

Why is MoEF in a capability trap? It ignores context, doesn’t think hard enough on

content, and engages agents too narrowly, not at all. The hole (the context) is smaller than the MoEF

assumes, and it isn’t doing enough to make it bigger

The peg (the policy content) is too big and poorly shaped, and the MoEF isn’t doing enough to re-shape it or provide its full content.

The craftsmen (and women) are often not sufficiently authorized, skilled or resourced to do the work and we do little to supplement their agency

What could be done

Solutions ‘proved to

be’technically

correct

B. External Best Practice(To be identified and introduced)

D. Potential ‘positive deviance’(local solutions which worked even though they did not “follow the rules”)

C. Potential ‘latent’ practice(To be provoked through Rapid Results)

A. Existing Practice(limited in every way)

Solutions ‘proved’ to work in the context (administratively and politically feasible)

Strategy Goal Underlying assumptions

Mobilize groups Gain support, varied voices Change demands groups that do not exist

Construct problems Draw attention to locally felt problem; focus on ‘problem solved’ as goal

Problems create change space; reveal context

Deconstruct problems Find entry points and create strategy

Contextual change space is probably limited

Mobilize groups again to Identify multiple alternatives to solve stated problems (or key causes)

Gain support, varied voices, functions, Identify alternatives to act upon; to push on context, find and fit solution

We don’t know what content we have; which solutions will work

Iterate with multiple experiments Act on new policy/reform ideas

Limited reform space allows only small steps

Learn experientially Gather, process information; feedback, draw attention to quick wins, lessons, build new support

Need to learn about content, context

Adapt experiments and iterate again

Respond to feedback with better design

We need to learn about context, content

Assess if problem is solved, respond

Intermittent evaluation of ‘goals’

‘Problem solved’ is the goal

Moving from PROBLEMS to SOLUTIONS

The MoEF needs to split the issue of water pollution intoActivities (what we do)Process (how we do it)Evaluation points (how we examine it and when)Ultimate focal point (what we say we are doing)

It needs to re-examine its assumptions about context, content, and agency of water pollution in India: What is the size and the shape of the hole?What is the fit of the peg?What is the nature of the authority and capability of the

agents?

Thank you for your patience!