Inclusion of Environmental Performance as a Criteria in

the Allocation of Central Assistance to State Plans

Planning CommissionGOI

Functions of the Planning Commission Make an assessment of the material, capital

and human resources of the country, including technical personnel, and augment such resources which are found to be deficient;

Formulate a Plan for the most effective & balanced utilisation of country's resources;

On a determination of priorities, define the stages in which the Plan should be carried out and propose the allocation of resources for the due completion of each stage;

Allocate resources to States and Ministries of the Central Government

The emphasis of the Commission is on maximising the output by using our limited resources optimally and to increases the efficiency of utilisation of the allocations made.

Criteria and weightage under Gadgil – Mukeerjee formula, 1991 for Non-Category

States.Criteria Weight (%)1 Population (1971) 602 Per Capita Income 25

(a) ‘Deviation’ method-covering States with per capita SDP below the national average

(b) Distance method-covering all States

205

3 Performance 7.5(a) Tax effort;(b) Fiscal Management; and(c) Progress in respect of national

objectives

2.52.03.0

4 Special problems 7.5

Weightage assigned to items in 3(c)- Progress in respect of National Objectives - Suggestion

Items Weight (%)

3c. Performance-National Objective 3.05.0

i) Population controlii) Elimination of illiteracyiii) On-time completion of externally

aided projectsiv) Land reforms v) Environment Performance

1.01.00.50.5

2.0

Need for inclusion of Environmental Criteria It is well documented that if the victims of

depletion and degradation of natural environment are not identified and compensated by the state the vulnerable section face additional economic hardships.

The approach, should, be to continue to

focuses on pollution abatement, promotion of adherence to environmental standards, natural resource conservation and 3R’s /4Rs.

Need for inclusion of Environmental Criteria

Considering the influence of natural resources depletion and unabated pollution on many sectors of the economy, it is considered necessary to recognize environmental performance by states as a criteria for allocation of resources/in the Gadgil formula 3c-Performance and modify the same.

Objective Recognise Environmental Management

efforts viz; Pollution Abatement, Natural Resource Conservation and Reduction of GHG’s, made by States

Rank the States based on Environmental Performance and encourage their efforts.

Ensure that safe & healthy environment is evident in the National Objective- 3C of the Gadgil formula.

Process

A proposal was presented in the IPC meeting held on 15th Jan, 2010 .

Proposal

Construct Environment Performance Index.{PC-EPI} and Rank States & UTs .

Devolve funds , to incentivise Environmental Performance , based on EPI ranking of the States/ UTs.

Environmental Indicators Determining the appropriate methodology

for arriving at a universally acceptable Environmental Indices is a subject of much debate and research.

Many consider that environmental degradation due to pollution can be measured by actual emission data of hazardous substances alone but others feel that it should include factors which influence its spread and intensity.

Studies A number of studies have been

undertaken on the relationship between economic growth, Per Capita Net Domestic Product (PCNDP) and Environmental Performance.

The efficiency of the environmental

governance and pollution abatement in the country is also an area which has received some attention.

PC-EPICriteria Indicators

No. AIRPOL NOx, SOx, SPM/RSPM 3WATER -

quality% Sewage Treatment and River

water quality (DO & TFCC) . 3

FOREST TFC as % of state GA & contribution to National average, increase in forest cover, area under Protected Area Network (PA) and Afforestation efforts

4

WASTE % MSW, Bio-med., and Industrial Haz. Waste collected and disposed.

3

Climate chang

e

Existence of SDMAs, % of Renewable Energy including Hydel Prod. in Total Energy Consumption, and GHG emissions- (CH4) entric.

3

TOTAL 16

Air Quality

Ambient Air Quality indicators considered for measuring the performance are sulphur dioxide (SOx), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and Respirable Suspended particulate Matter (RSPM) for which standards have been notified. States meeting the Standards were assigned a score of 1.0.

Pondicherry, Goa, Kerala, and Mizoram, with scores of 1.0 are ranked as States with better air quality

AAQS PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR STATES--- (µg/cum)

Sl No State/UT

SOX NOX RSPM

Avg Score RkRep NAAQS Scr

Rep NAAQS Scr

Ann. Avg NAAQS Scr

1Aru. Pradesh NA 20 0 NA 30 0 NA 60 0 0.0 0

2 Goa 2 20 1 14 30 1 54 60 1 1.0 1

3 Kerala 7 20 1 28 30 1 46 60 1 1.0 1

19 Mizoram 2 20 1 15 30 1 37 60 1 1.0 1

24 Sikkim NA 20 0 NA 30 0 NA 60 0 0.0 026 Tripura NA 20 0 NA 30 0 NA 60 0 0.0 030 A & N NA 20 0 NA 30 0 NA 60 0 0.0 0

34Lakshadweep NA 20 0 NA 30 0 NA 60 0 0.0 0

35 Puduchry 4 20 1 10 30 1 50 60 1 1.0 1

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000sc

ores

Fig-4- AAQ Scores and Ranking

Water Quality

Percent Sewage disposal and water quality of rivers viz; Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Total Feacal Coliform Count (TFC) have been considered under water quality.

Except for Himachal Pradesh, and Goa, no States show any semblance of adherence to river water quality prescribed.

Score for Water quality

Sl No

State/UT

Sewge Gen.

(MLD)

% Treatment Cap.

Scr

Rivers

Mon.

DOTotal

Coliform

Score

Final

Avg. Scor

e Rk

Vio

(%) Score

Vio. (%)

C,nt

1 A. P 1636 42.430.424 16

12.3 0.877 4.16

288

0.9584

0.753 5

2

Aru. Pradesh NA 0 0 NA NA 0.000 NA NA 0

0.000 - 

7 Goa 21.5 84.510.845 13 3.7 0.963 3.7 27 0.963

0.924 2

10 H. P 29 100 1 112.2

6 0.977 7.14126

0.9286

0.969 1

16 Mah. 5883 72.890.729 30

9.04 0.910 0

567 1

0.880 3

35 Pondi 6630.00

. 0.3 4 0 1.000 0 0 10.76

7 4

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000sc

ores

Fig-5 Water quality scores and Ranking

Forestry- Indicators

percent Total Forest Cover (TFC) of state GA and contribution to national forest cover

change in forest cover during 2003 to 2009, Protected Area (PA) network of the state GA &

contribution to national average, and yearly average afforestation effort during 2006 to

2009.

Uttarakhand, Chandigarh, Mizoram, Sikkim and Manipur are ranked 1 2, 3 4 and 5 respectively

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1Sc

ores

Fig-6 Score and Ranking of forests

Waste Management- indicators 1. Municipal Solid Waste Collection

efficiency, 2. Treatment and disposal capacity for

hazardous wastes , and 3. Biomedical waste capacity set up for

treatment

Chandigarh , Sikkim , Haryana, AP and Mizoram are ranked 1-5 with respect to solid waste management.

State/UTMSW Gen. TPD

MSW

ColTPD

Col Eff. (%)

Scr

Haz. Wast

e Gen. (MTA

)

landfillable

Capacity of

TSDF (MTA

)

Treatment Efficiency (%)

Score

BMW

Gen. (kg/day)

BMW Tred

(kg/day)

% BMW

Treated

Scr AvgScr

RK

Chdigrh 380* 370* 97.3 0.97 9736* 3938* 3938** 100 1.0 1029

* 1025* 100 1.0 0.990 1

Sikkim 26   70.0 0.70 NA 0 0 NA 1.0 1057 1057 100 1.0 0.900 2

Haryana 537*   62.0 0.62 8170*   8170* 100 1.0 6245* 6041 96.

70.9

7 0.863 3

A. p1186

1   65.0 0.65 556319

211442

350000 165 1.0 1300

0 12100 93.0 0.9 0.860 4

A & Nr 35   58.0 0.58 NA 0 0 NA 1.0 964 964 100 1.0 0.860 4

0.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.8000

0.9000

1.0000Sc

ores

Fig-7 Scores and ranking -Wastes management

Climate Change-Indicators

1. Existence of a separate State Disaster Management Authority (SDMAs),

2. Percentage of Non-conventional Energy including Hydro in Total Energy Consumption , and

3. State's GHG emissions i.e CH4 (Methane) from entric sources.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9Sc

ores

Fig-8 Scores and Ranking for Climate change

S.NO.

STATE / UTs

AIRPOL   WATER  

FORESTS   WASTES   CC   FINAL EPI

    Scores Rk Scores Rk Scores Rk Scores Rk ScoresRank Scores

Rank

1 A. Pradesh 0.897 10 0.753 5 0.553 6 0.860 4 0.431 210.698

8 4

2 Aru. Presh 0.000 0 0.000   0.543 7 0.500 22 0.618 110.332

3 34

3 Assam 0.891 12 0.641 18 0.276 27 0.269 33 0.440 190.503

4 22

4 Bihar 0.433 28 0.512 26 0.230 30 0.404 27 0.339 300.383

7 30

5 Chhatisgh 0.714 23 0.729 7 0.500 14 0.500 22 0.385 250.565

4 17

6 Delhi 0.627 25 0.310 30 0.143 34 0.550 20 0.496 130.425

1 28

7 Goa 1.000 1 0.924 2 0.508 11 0.550 20 0.333 310.663

0 7

8 Gujarat 0.894 11 0.617 22 0.472 16 0.585 18 0.360 260.585

5 16

9 Haryana 0.778 19 0.506 27 0.213 31 0.863 3 0.433 200.558

6 18

10 H. Pradesh 0.869 14 0.969 1 0.477 15 0.673 11 0.667 100.730

8 2

11 J&K 0.278 29 0.659 16 0.347 23 0.297 32 0.157 350.347

6 33

12 Jharkhand 0.755 21 0.667 10 0.411 19 0.357 28 0.353 270.508

4 21

13 Karnataka 0.844 16 0.657 17 0.352 22 0.673 11 0.543 120.613

9 15

14 Kerala 1.000 1 0.620 21 0.377 21 0.610 17 0.701 30.661

6 9

15 M. Pradesh 0.829 17 0.693 8 0.517 10 0.633 14 0.447 180.623

8 12

16Maharashtra 0.769 20 0.880 3 0.440 18 0.627 15 0.387 24

0.6203 14

17 Manipur 0.905 8 0.667 10 0.555 5 0.500 22 0.482 150.621

6 13

18 Meghalaya 0.907 7 0.632 19 0.382 20 0.617 16 0.773 20.662

1 8

19 Mizoram 1.000 1 0.667 10 0.757 3 0.357 28 0.667 50.689

4 5

20 Nagaland 0.944 6 0.625 20 0.282 26 0.183 35 0.470 170.501

1 23

21 Orissa 0.902 9 0.605 23 0.530 8 0.418 26 0.683 40.627

8 11

22 Punjab 0.096 30 0.577 24 0.141 35 0.849 7 0.492 140.430

9 27

S.NO. STATE / UTs

AIRPOL  

WATER  

FORESTS  

WASTES   CC   FINAL EPI

    Scores Rank Scores Rank Scores Rank Scores Rank Scores Rank Scores Rank

23 Rajasthan 0.787 18 0.672 9 0.284 25 0.438 25 0.412 22 0.5186 19

24 Sikkim 0.000 0 0.667 10 0.685 4 0.900 2 0.311 34 0.5125 20

25 Tamil Nadu 0.961 5 0.737 6 0.458 17 0.744 10 0.397 23 0.6595 10

26 Tripura 0.000 0 0.667 10 0.504 13 0.247 34 0.482 15 0.3800 30

27 UP 0.744 22 0.514 25 0.250 29 0.560 19 0.347 29 0.4832 24

28 Uttarakand 0.848 15 0.478 28 1.000 1 0.823 9 0.894 1 0.8086 1

29 West Bengal 0.690 24 0.413 29 0.258 28 0.662 13 0.352 28 0.4750 26

30 A & Nicobar 0.000 0 0.000   0.508 12 0.860 4 0.667 5 0.4069 29

31 Chandigarh 0.877 13 0.137 31 0.922 2 0.990 1 0.667 5 0.7185 3

32 D & NH 0.546 26 0.667 10 0.525 9 0.330 30 0.333 31 0.4802 25

33 D& Diu 0.542 27 0.000   0.180 32 0.310 31 0.333 31 0.2730 35

34 Lak'dwp 0.000 0 0.000   0.329 24 0.850 6 0.667 5 0.3691 32

35 Pondi 1.000 1 0.767 4 0.169 33 0.840 8 0.667 5 0.6884 6

Final ranking

0.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.8000

0.9000

1.0000

Sl No State/UT EPI Rank EPI ScoreAllocation (Rs in Cr.)

Allocation of 2% GBS for 2010-11

in Cr

1 A. Pradesh 5 0.6995 3.453 63.879

2 Aru. Pradesh 24 0.5323 2.628 48.610

3 Assam 27 0.5051 2.494 46.126

4 Bihar 33 0.3837 1.894 35.040

5 Chhattisgarh 20 0.5626 2.777 51.377

6 Delhi 32 0.4264 2.105 38.939

7 Goa 8 0.663 3.273 60.546

8 Gujarat 18 0.5867 2.896 53.578

9 Haryana 22 0.5564 2.747 50.811

10 H. Pradesh 2 0.7304 3.606 66.701

11 J&K 34 0.3454 1.705 31.542

12 Jharkhand 26 0.5106 2.521 46.629

13 Karnataka 16 0.6118 3.020 55.870

14 Kerala 9 0.6616 3.266 60.418

15 M. Pradesh 13 0.6246 3.083 57.039

16 Maharashtra 15 0.6199 3.060 56.610

17 Manipur 14 0.6207 3.064 56.683

18 Meghalaya 11 0.6606 3.261 60.327

19 Mizoram 6 0.6894 3.403 62.957

20 Nagaland 28 0.4989 2.463 45.560

21 Orissa 12 0.6274 3.097 57.295

22 Punjab 31 0.4316 2.131 39.414

Sl No State/UT EPI Rank EPI ScoreAllocation (Rs in Cr.)

Allocation of 2% GBS for 2010-11

in Cr

23 Rajasthan 25 0.5212 2.573 47.597

24 Sikkim 4 0.7125 3.517 65.066

25 Tamil Nadu 10 0.6607 3.262 60.336

26 Tripura (H) 19 0.58 2.863 52.966

27 UP 29 0.4811 2.375 43.935

28 Uttarakand 1 0.8123 4.010 74.180

29 West Bengal 30 0.4769 2.354 43.551

30 A & Nicobar 17 0.6069 2.996 55.423

31 Chandigarh 3 0.7164 3.537 65.423

32 D&NH 23 0.5443 2.687 49.706

33 Daman & Diu 35 0.338 1.669 30.867

34 Lakshadweep 20 0.5691 2.809 51.971

35 Pondicherry 7 0.6884 3.398 62.866

Total   20.2564 100 1849.84