Reorienting Environment Policy in India- T Chatterjee

8/12/2019 Reorienting Environment Policy in India- T Chatterjee

1/16

Te Journal of ransdisciplinary Environmental Studies vol. 8, no. 1, 2009

Te Journal of ransdisciplinary Environmental Studies, ISSN 1602-2297 http://www.journal-tes.dk/

Reorienting Environment Policy in Indiaowards a Local Area-Based Development

and Management Paradigmishyarakshit Chatterjee , Principal Secretary, ransport, Roads and Buildings Department

507, fth oor, J-Block, Secretariat Government of Andhra Pradesh.Hyderabad: 500022 India.

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Tough based on sound scientic principles and globally recognized norms, Indias en-vironmental laws and policy are not effectively implemented. Te visible deterioration of city andreceptor environmental quality is in stark denial of the avowed state policy precepts such as sustain-ability and natural resources conservation. Development project clearance methods, environmentalmanagement and regulatory practice do not converge with the corresponding capacity and structureof environmental regulation, information and markets at the impact levels. Policy directs Develop-ment within environmental carrying capacities, essentially through pollution source-based impactassessments and management procedures. Tis tends to discourage cleaning up already degradedreceptors, shifting polluting development towards cleaner areas. A participative, market oriented,local area-based approach could promote more holistic development extending incentives for pollut-ers and victims alike in cleaning up to ensure incomes from both environmental and conventionaleconomic ows.

Tis paper suggests eco-synergy as a framework concept to guide such a development form. It alsosuggests environmental zoning, local empowerment and management re-structuring as supportivetools to reorient Indian environment policy accordingly.

Keywords: Carrying capacity, receptors, source-based regulation, area-based management, non-pointpollution, eco-synergy.

1. Introduction: an overview of theproblemIndian scriptures, the Indian Constitution, herenvironmental laws and policy all recognize theimportance of impact-level local economies, liveli-hoods, culture, ethics, customs, bio-diversity andtheir inter-relationships in the design of manage-ment standards and procedures (Misra 1997). Butat present this recognition is not reected in the

implementation process. One reason could be that

environmental policy has been less directional andmore a listing of global best-intentions regardless oftheir compatibility with conditions at the impactlevel. Tis is apparent from a general reading of theNational Conservation Strategy and Policy State-ment on Environment and Development and thePolicy Statement on Abatement of Pollution, thetwo early policy documents issued by the Ministryof Environment and Forests, Government of India

in 1992. Environmental fundamentals like sustain-


2/16

2

ishyarakshit Chatterjee : Reorienting Environment Policy in India owards a Local .....

able development, environmental impact assessmentand management planning (EIA-EMP), the polluterpays principle, citizens rights and related themes areenunciated more to prescribe than facilitate environ-mentally inclusive development. Tough improv-ing on the 1992 policy documents, the NationalEnvironmental Policy of the Government of India,2006 (NEP 2006) also lacks a direction in terms ofinstitutionalizing social monitoring, impact-levelinformation gathering, up-dating, storage and useand natural resource-use management aspects atthe receptor levels. Development is perhaps unin-tentionally encouraged in relatively clean areas withsufficient environmental carrying capacity, than with

a legal binding on pollution sources to clean up anddevelop already degraded lands and water bodiesreceiving their pollution.

Te policy shift required is not in intent but in em-phasis. From regulating mainly sources of pollutionto an area-based management paradigm, to makeglobal environmental good-practice understandable,compatible, applicable and acceptable at the localimpact level, where pollution hurts most.

2. Te Legal Frame And Inconsistencies WithinEnvironmental laws and related amendments areprepared by the Ministry of Environment and Forestsin the Government of India in consultation withother relevant ministries at the Centre and in theStates. Te Central Parliament approves the laws andthe implementing structure at the Centre and Statelevels implements. Te generally applicable envi-ronmental regulatory and implementation structurethroughout India is shown at Figure 1. Te Executive

and the Judiciary are shown in two vertical sectionsand three horizontal levels i.e. the Centre, the Stateand the district and below. Te Central Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests in consultation with theMinistries of Urban and Rural Development andRoads and Highways makes policy and plans to beimplemented at the State and lower levels. With thehelp of its technical arm the Central Pollution Con-trol Board this nodal ministry noties standards formainly industry sources of pollution and for ambientreceptors to meet the ends of the laws. At the statelevel a similar structure with the help of the State Pol-lution Control Board, the Municipalities for urbanareas and the Gram Panchayats for the rural areas

and the Road ransport authorities formulates plansand policies to implement the Central laws under allenvironmental parameters, air, water and solid waste.

Te Judiciary at the corresponding three levels com-prises the Supreme Court, the state High Courtsand the judicial magistrates and tribunals at lowerlevels. Te Courts examine complaints led underthe environmental laws either by the regulators atthe magistrate level or by citizens and civil societygroups directly with the higher courts which exerciseoriginal jurisdiction under Public Interest Litigation(PIL). Te higher courts can direct any executiveagency to act in a particular way at any level.

As made clear in the Figure 1, though the planningand policy making process has some level of consul-tation among the Ministries, implementation issegregated essentially as vehicular air pollution, in-dustrial and domestic pollution management. Citi-zen grievances on pollution are also made for iden-tied industrial and commercial point sources,non-point and diffused sources of pollution and forvehicular air pollution separately to the State Pollu-tion Control Boards, the elected municipal or ruralpanchayat authorities and to the Road ransport

Authorities respectively. Te lack of a holistic com-prehension of pollution on an impact-area basis isapparent even in PIL complaints where petitions areseparately posed to the Supreme and High Courts.

o solve a particular area-pollution problem like apolluted lake, soil contamination, air inversion andthe like, where multiple eld agencies are involved,court directions are given to State or Central min-istries who pass these on to the eld agencies for asegregated implementation. Tus if a lake is pol-luted due to both industrial and domestic effluent

as also solid waste, the handling of the complaintcan get confused in the overlapping responsibilitiesof the state pollution control boards and the localauthority. Ministry level legal or policy consultationis not on an area basis but vertically segregated. Teintensity of pollution in areas is not given policyemphasis or a matter of special coordination amongthe different eld implementation agencies. Tuspolicies for total sanitation in a city for example

would not generally take into account the occupa-tional health and safety issues in industrial hazardous

wastes handling in mixed domestic solid waste bymunicipal workers as that comes within the purviewof the State Pollution Control Boards. Industrial


3/16

3

Te Journal of ransdisciplinary Environmental Studies ( ES)

effluent standards are prescribed universally and notaccording to the environmental quality of the recep-tors. For example, a clean lake maintained by themunicipality and used by the public for recreation

when threatened with acidication by industrialpollution becomes a problem for the State PollutionControl Board to solve. Tough under the munici-pal laws, the local authority could directly act againstthe industry sources concerned. Te Criminal Pro-cedure Code is followed in the process of prosecutionunder the Indian Environmental Acts but there have

been very few prosecutions led by the State Boardsand only two convictions in the whole country till20071. Te PILs led directly in courts by a pollu-tion victim or community, have been more effectiveon the impact-area focus (Jariwala 2004). But thesehave been one time directions for clean up or reme-diation without any programmatic follow up.

Four Acts and the EIA notification under theEnvironment Protection Act of 1981 form thebackground for policy. Te Air (Prevention and

Figure 1: Outline of the regulatory structure in India.


4/16

4


Control of Pollution) Act of 1981 is useful toregulate industrial stack emissions by the PollutionControl Boards. Given the preponderance of vehicu-lar emissions in air in developed areas, the MotorVehicles (Amendment) Act, 1988 implemented bythe Ministries of ransport at the Centre and Stateshas incorporated relevant aspects of the Air Act toregulate ambient air quality only to the extent ofvehicular pollution. Te Directive Principles of StatePolicy of the Indian Constitution in Articles 48 Aand 51 A (g) assign a foundational role to the envi-ronment. Both the protection and the improvementof forests, wildlife, lakes and rivers are emphasised

without reference to whether development will be

curtailed by such State action. Maintaining waterquality is critical for India (Sabine et al. 2004, p 5)2. But enforcing this Constitutional directive is ham-strung by a lack of clarity in the line of authority.Te Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Actof 1974 quite comprehensively covers the functionsof maintaining good water quality and places thisresponsibility on the State Pollution Control Boardsand the Central Pollution Control Board. But theConstitutional 73rd and 74th Amendments have man-dated that State Legislatures empower the local self-Government institutions to administer and imple-ment laws concerning management of local resourcesincluding water quality management and sanitation3.

Water quality management at the impact level thusalso comes within the jurisdiction of the electedlocal authorities diluting responsibility. A relatedstatute, the Water (Prevention and Control ofPollution) Cess Act of 1977 introduces chargesfor the consumption and pollution of water byindustries and local authorities. Te rates of chargeare too low if total economic valuation of wateror its opportunity cost in the local context is

considered (Phillips 1998; Sankar 1998, p13)4

. Te Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 (EP Act)is more broad-based. It denes the environment as

Environment includes water, air and land and theinter-relationship which exists among and betweenwater, air and land and human beings, other livingcreatures, plants, micro-organism and property.

It delegates environmental enforcement powers fromthe Centre to the States and the districts, imposingpenalties and strengthening the hands of state anddistrict administration. But the same bureaucracies

responsible for the present state of pollution areexpected to exercise enhanced powers to control it.

Te NEP 2006 suffers from a serious lack of empha-sis on perhaps Indias most important environmentalblight: non-point water pollution (Novotny andChesters 1981; Policy Statement on the Abatementof Pollution 1992; Parikh 2000; CPCB 2001)5. Regularly analysing the water quality in the coun-trys major receptors of non-point water pollutionin major and minor rivers and lakes the CentralPollution Control Board concludes that organic andbacterial contamination through domestic untreateddischarge form the main pollution load. Tough

marginally improved since 1995, in 2007 about 33%of the analysed samples show Bio-chemical OxygenDemand levels of higher than 4 mg/l. Pathogenicpollution in water has otal Coliform count rangingfrom 500-5000 MPN / 100 ml in about 35% of thesamples. Faecal Coliform counts in this range areabout 23% of the samples observed (CPCB 2008)6. Te regulatory structure does not help in compre-hensively attending to this problem with the StatePollution Control Boards addressing only identiedindustrial discharge and the local authorities withoutthe capability or resources to continuously clean upaffected receptors.

Te EP Act and the NEP (2006) encourage theimposing of more stringent local level water and airquality standards for receptors than the universallyapplicable standards xed by the EP Act. But mostState Pollution Control Boards nd it convenientto adopt the EP Act standards at source outlets andreceptors alike. Tis avoids them the trouble of set-ting and then implementing a higher standard withthe risk of losing developmental (mostly polluting)

investments compared to other regions with easierEP Act standards.

2.1 Te National Environment Policy 2006needs a strategic focus Instead of reconciling the issues of regulatory respon-sibility and focus, the local relevance of economicinstruments and standards, the NEP 2006 raisesfurther inconsistencies. While acknowledging thatenvironmental stock resources cannot be subject toconventional economic valuation, the documentinsists on minimizing direct costs to realise such in-comparable value. Intrinsic value which includes theenvironments non-use, existence or bequest values


5/16

5


cannot be compared and cannot be less (and has tobe more including the non-use loss) than the op-portunity cost of losing the commercial gains fromthese preserved assets. Like all natural resources,the valuation of incomparables should be on totaleconomic value considerations including their useplus non-use value.

Similarly, the NEPs recommendations on thePolluter Pays Principle confuses between its man-agement and environmental implications. o beapplied only on regulated polluting sources as alinear measure of damage this instrument missesthe environmental impact of non-linear, non-point

pollution in most cases of water and soil pollutionin India. Accordingly, intrinsic values of receptorsare lost forever with even little addition of pollution(Myers 1988; Kolstad 2000; CPCB 2008). o rec-oncile the difference between measurable nancialvalue and immeasurable intrinsic value the polluterpays principle should again, be considered on totaleconomic valuation principles. Payment to cover anexternality differs from place to place for the samepollutant quality / quantity discharge dependingon the state of the local receptor. Te principlecan be applied on sources as a one-time clean upcharge, a continuing charge or a quantity limit forpolluting a receptor. As a continuing charge it cov-ers the prevention costs of the additional pollutionunits discharged by the polluter over and above thesource-outlet standard. But from a receptor perspec-tive, for each unit of additional pollution chargedor prevented, the expenditure on removing threeunits has to be met i.e. two from the legacy stockof the charged pollutant in the receptor and thethird preventing one present unit from discharge atsource, to make room in the receptor for a permit-

ted unit. As regulated sources in India are expectedto only prevent their own pollution up to the levelof outlet-standards without a continuing pollutionremoval liability, pollution accumulates in recep-tors. Perhaps it is for this reason that in India thepolluter pays principle is applied in judicial pro-nouncements such that a guilty polluter is expectedto remove his / her past pollution along with thepresent discharge for which he / she is prosecuted7.Te problem with implementing this principle hasbeen to nd polluters who would pay to preventtheir own pollution as also clean up their own andothers past pollution from receptors. And the NEP2006 has no ready solution.

Policy-positions on environmental carrying capac-ity seem to encourage a shift of polluting economicactivity from polluted to clean areas. Te 1992policy papers specically promote the expansion ofenvironmental carrying-capacity through technol-ogy inputs and spatial distribution. Te Environ-mental Impact Assessment Notication of 1994issued under the EP Act in the same vein advocatesthat if there is no head-room for polluting an areaafter studying the expected pollution from a futuredevelopment project then it should not be locatedthere and go where there is more carrying capacityto absorb the pollution i.e. to cleaner areas. Te pol-lution control technology-x applied on industries

by the Central and State Pollution Control Boardsis also misdirected as it encourages industry to adopttechnologies that may not be applicable in constantlychanging material input and pollutant output-mixes.

Instead of using extant environmental law totrain and legally empower urban and rural lo-cal authorities in India to manage their localenvironments as they are legally bound, theNEP 2006 expects the concerned State de-partments to enforce decentralised operations8.But this remains a non-starter because State control-led externalised, bureaucratic and departmental reg-ulatory structures have developed their own powerbases and legally valid decentralised operations bylocal authorities have been known to be thwartedthrough centralised scal and administrative controls(Pinto 2000; Gupta 2004; Patnaik 2006).

2.2 Environmental Impact Assessments by, ofand for developers

Along with the local self-government authority,the community and environmental resources like

water, soil and bio-diversity have lost the essentialeconomic and livelihood linkage with development.Since 1994, with the Environmental Impact As-sessment Notication, development projects havebecome projects planned and executed externally,making use of environmental resources of localcommunities, without providing the community anystake in such development. Development based onthe project-clearance legacy continues in the NEP2006, notwithstanding that most polluting industryunits penalized in PILs in courts are projects origi-nally cleared but later not sufficiently monitoredby the environmental regulators at the National andState levels (Santhakumar 2001). Tough the NEP


6/16

6


stresses the need to apply higher doses of localiza-tion and decentralisation, the objective seems moreto hasten clearances of developmental projects andgain local support and less to mainstream human-environment inter-relationships at the impact level,necessary to sustain these development projects9.Te EIA-EMP mechanism is geared mostly towardsnon-local developers nding carrying capacity topollute. Listing technology safeguards and promis-ing management measures in the EnvironmentalManagement Plans attached to the EIA againsta projects propensity to pollute is enough to getclearance both at the State and Central levels. Afteroperations start, there is a general apathy towards

implementation of the EMP promises. Te ambi-ent environment of receptors is normally pollutedenough to disguise any new addition.

In the true letter and spirit of the Public rust Doc-trine promoted by the NEP 2006 there is need toset guidelines for public / State certication of socialand environmental quality baselines to support EIAsand EMPs in the future. Without such facility thedevelopers themselves gather and provide the data.Te State and Central EIA appraisal-project clear-ance authorities depend on the data supplied by thedevelopers. It is therefore in the interest of projectproponents to manipulate site-monitoring data andshow more carrying capacity of the receptors toexploit. Te misleading use of carrying capacity canlead to the cumulative degradation of receptors as noserious carrying capacity measurement is technicallyfeasible in changing environmental conditions. TeEIA exercise also belies the cost-minimisation man-date of the NEP 2006. More than fty-percent of adevelopers expenses on the EIA-EMP exercise areon monitoring for baseline database development.

If more than one industrial or commercial projectcomes up around the same receptor, normally thebaseline data should be shared by them as represent-ing the same bio-geo-physical features as also tosave on costs. But actually each developer spendsseparately for individual EIA reports and monitoringdata, though of the same area. Clearly, one motivecould be to manipulate the ambient pollution statusto suit ones own pollution potential to get easierclearance for the project.

3. Analysing a New Direction forDevelopmentFrom the foregoing critique it becomes clear that

while Indian environmental laws retain the basicfundamentals of environmental protection, in that water quality, air quality, forests and environment asa whole must be retained in or restored to pristineforms, post-1987 environmental policies seem tohave encouraged a subservient position for the envi-ronment and placed it in support of the developmentparadigm such that the pristine forms are no longeravailable or very expensive to regain.

3.1 Te sustainability context

After the seminal Brundtland Commission Reportof 1987, India adopted Sustainable-Developmentas a guiding principle to bring in the internalisationof environmental considerations in developmentaldecision-making. Perhaps this laudable purposestill eludes the country because by its very nature,development is and brings change and cannot besustained in one form. Conversely, the environmentcannot continuously feed changing developmentneeds unless natural support systems are madesustainable. Considered an oxymoron in academiccircles, sustainable development has not been ableto address conservation and sustenance of nature orculture but facilitated accelerated economic growth(Sachs 1994), generally and particularly in India.

Assessing by a well recognized indicator of sustain-ability that is the Human-Development-Index(HDI), India stands far below a few medium /low-income countries whereas one of its mainindicator of growth, Gross Domestic Prod-uct by Purchasing Power Parity (GDP-PPP)places it very high on the development index 10.

Te gap in Indias ranking between the two indicesshows that the rise in purchasing power must be atsome cost reected in a lack of human well-being.Some of this cost is observed to be covered by eco-logical poverty that is ignored in normal economicperformance indicators like Gross National Prod-uct or Gross Domestic Product but which is a realsocio-economic cost borne by about 500 millionpeople in the world, including a large population inIndia that still belong to a biomass based economy(Agarwal 1999).

With trees and grasses replaced by large scale ce-ment and bitumen paving, eroded and chemically


7/16

7


destroyed soil incapable of producing food and adisturbed hydrological cycle, most of Indias poorpeople cannot meet the HDI indices like life ex-pectancy, especially child welfare with bad waterquality alone killing about 1.5 million childrenunder the age of ve every year from water-bornedisease in India.

No doubt Sustainable Development is not all aboutthe environment. But seeing beyond the broad pa-rameters of environmental management at the globaland national levels that it promotes, perhaps theconcept should be broken down to its local impactlevel components and related apples-to-apples with

developmental drivers. Tis one to one relationshipis feasible at the local and impact level as here bothsustainability of environmental resources and growthof economic well being are most visible and easierquantiable among the affected community. Policyshould be encouraging of action to make naturalresources sustainable and development exible asthey are by denition.

3.2 From carrying capacity to the developmentcapacity of the environment Instead of exploiting, development can actuallysustain or even enhance environmental carryingcapacity to support more development of the sameor of a different kind. Development can be plannedto create pollution prevention and removal capacityin addition to economic benet streams around localnatural resource bases. Sustainable-Environment

would be a more relevant concept that denes,limits and legitimises environmental-developmentinterventions through an area-based approach. Tisreview paper promotes the concept of developmentcapacity as not how much pollution the environment

can absorb but how much pollution it can protablyremove and prevent.

Development has to create environmental capital,nding eco (economic and ecological) synergies inprojects, relating them locally to existing environ-mental conditions. Tree types of synergic productscan be promoted:

(1) Direct upgrades in environmental stock likerened aesthetics, clean air, clean water, remediatedsoils for higher productivity or alternate use, clean

work places and homes, landscapes and the like.Tese can reduce community transactional, time

and health costs and add advertisement, real estate,investment potential, recreational and bio-diversityvalue for the community. (2) Composite conventional projects that can bemade to protably remove receptor pollution fasterthan its accretion in the catchment and gain fromthe resultant environmental ows. Chemical (acid)recovery plants, recycling systems, composite trans-portation and irrigation projects are a few examplesin this category.

(3) Market goods and services that can be successful-ly produced only with the support of environmental

ows for example tourism schemes, sports complexesand amusement parks, commercial complexes andtownship development.

Policy support for these three product lines has tobe multi-sectoral. For example, from the productend: how can a road, a building, a commercialcomplex, a hotel, an industry, surface irrigationand other large-scale development produce newenvironmental services? Like using up technicalnutrients which otherwise would be dumped as

waste by these projects and generating new bio-nutrients that would contribute to enhancingnatural environmental cycles, not possible withoutthese developments (McDonough and Braungart 2002)? Input side examples include off right-of-

way ribbon development along roads, cleaning upsolid and liquid waste and transplanting avenuetrees that would otherwise be cut down for road-

widening thus adding real estate value to vast linearpolluted stretches. An airport runway or a highwaycan harvest all the rain and wash water that fall onit and use the treated water for irrigation or washing

purpose saving on buying expensive clean water11

.Eco-synergy projects can be encouraged in growthcorridors of India in ways that will enhance thebenets from local natural resources with new de-velopmental investments specic to the location.

3.3 A rationale for Eco-Synergy Development capacity of the environment also liesin capturing the consumer surplus latent in thereceiving communitys surrendered or compensatedright in accepting development with pollution or

what it perceives to be cleanliness (Chatterjee 2005).Te market has to pick up this surplus through eco-synergy products offering equal or higher benets


8/16

8


and choices unavailable under business-as-usualreceptor conditions. From the receptor-catchmentperspective the polluters and their victims are thesame, all individuals in the same community dis-charging pollution into a common receptor, a lake,the sea or an industrial estate and suffering from it.

As individuals they let out their pollution beyondtheir private boundaries. But as a community theyrespond to the environmental condition of thereceptor in the public domain. In a non-point pol-lution situation where individual responsibility isdifficult to establish, large polluters like industry orcommercial establishments may even join pressuregroups or civil society representatives to contribute

to clean ups of the receptor or pressurize Govern-ment to fund such remediation. Tis could be tocreate carrying capacity in the receptor to absorbfuture pollution or as a social obligation againstodour, colour or other community perceptions ofthe receptors water quality.

Eco-synergy is modeled as an Equivalent Surplus. A community response to the individual privatetrade-offs in environmental welfare and economicbenet as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 represents a typical non-point water pol-lution receptor situation, with individual pollutersand their victims buying inputs or paying compen-sation ( X axis) against loads of a critical pollutant,increasing rightward (Y axis). As the receptor isin the public domain with the ambient pollutantstandard at P s individuals can pollute it freely usingsubstitutional inputs for protection and / or payingand receiving compensation for health costs or dam-age. Tis is represented by the shift in communityutility anywhere between the standards position (U s ,P s ) and the presumed social tolerance or communityperception of pollution position (U p, P p), within thecombined private income limit for inputs (Y=pi pri-

vate inputs ). Tis shifting utility space is a trade-offzone between community desire for clean water inthe receptor and the desire of individuals in the com-munity to preserve their private spaces while gainingeconomically from pollution savings. It includes thecompensated surplus from out of pollution savingsand surrendered rights (CS/ pi ).

Te equivalent surplus area (ES/ pi ) technically liesbeyond the private space of the CS and includes thecosts incurred by individual polluters and victims

Y=pi private inputs

POLLUTANT

TONNES

INPUTS $

Up

Ps Pp

ES

Pi

CS

Pi

Y=pi public inputs

Ada ted rom Kolstad 2000

Us

Figure 2: Diagram showing the modeling of eco-synergy as equivalent surplus.


9/16

9


under baseline conditions. Here, ES has been mod-eled as a community eco-synergy response with thestarting point as the ambient receptor standard forthe measured pollutant. For the receptor catchmentone or more projects has to meet the utility levelsof all individuals in the community as if atU p, P p but without changing the actual utility positionfrom U s , P s .

Te eco-synergy response cannot be a one timesolution or clean up but has to continue providingconventional benets as atU p, P p while cleaning thereceptor upto and even leftward of the standard.

Accordingly, the capital and operational costs of

an eco-synergy product has to take into accountnot only the price of the product but also the in-cremental rate of change in the water quality it hasto achieve over and above the baseline conditions.Using a production function model developed byCourant and Porter (Courant and Porter 1981, p321-329) the community defensive expenditure isadopted as total community expenditure on an eco-synergy project / product for a period, a month, ayear or any convenient monitoring period to recordchanges in the water quality of the receptor causedby the pollutant measured. Te total expenditure is

worked out as the product of the price of the product/ project and the ratio of the incremental unit costsof removing the pollutant from the receptor over andabove the same for the baseline pre-change position

with respect to the incremental quantities of thepollutant to be removed for each adopted period ofmonitoring. For convenience in implementing theseprojects a receptors water quality changes monitoredannually for critical pollutants over a past decade orso will provide a series of change rates, the maximumor the median of which can be adopted to design

the project at commencement. Tereafter, actualmonitoring of changes in the quantity of the pollut-ant in the receptor can form the basis for calculatingincrements or decreases in the total expenditure tobe defrayed as a fee for members who wish to gainfrom the community level eco-synergy product12.Individuals can buy into the project through shares,sweat equity or by paying fees for conventionaleconomic benet while as a part of the receivingcommunity they benet from the environmentalgains made possible by the project.

Tough the Courant and Porter model was originallyused to quantify market driven pollution-substitu-

tion (Dickie and Gerking 1991, p 1-16) the method-ology can be used for eco-synergy products workingopposite to the logic of substitution. While substitu-tion values pollutant units avoided by individuals asbeing equal to the market price of substitutes theyindividually buy, eco-synergy values a market goodas being equal to its price as increased or decreasedby the required rate of change in the stock of pollut-ant units present and expected in the receptor, thuscharacterising the good as an environmental as alsoan economic good. Substitutes buy protection frompollution and may or may not be otherwise useful.But eco-synergy represents a combined effect of allindividual substitutes. By removing pollution from

the receptor continually individuals are protected asfrom substitutes, but the community also gets thebenet of a clean receptor.

o cite a live example of a potential eco-synergyproject that can work in a rural context the case ofcanal-catchment farmers of Krishna, West and EastGodavari districts of Andhra Pradesh in the villagesof Voyyuru, Chagallu and Jegurupadu is examined.Tere is a general preference here for groundwaterirrigation as the irrigation canals are too pollutedby mixed domestic waste water, distillery and pa-per recycling trade effluent. By not contributing tocleaning up and widening the canals the farmersostensibly gain a double-benet: they can continuepolluting the canal along with the industry, as alsoirrigate their elds through tube-wells purchasedfrom compensation paid by industry. But if theeco-synergic alternative of cleaning and improvingthe canal includes a new economic opportunity oftransporting farm produce free or at lower cost thanthe present road transportation, then the farmers willnot invest in groundwater irrigation and would rath-

er pay for cleaning up and the industry can reducetheir compensation payments. Te substitution withground water that allows the pollution of the canalscausing high levels of compensation from industry,health problems of the community and operationalcosts of road transportation and maintenance of tube

wells gets replaced by the multiple benets of a cleancanal, less health problems, canal transportation and irrigation and less or no compensation payments.

he environmental alternative characterises themarket good (service) of canal transportation ina way that it becomes economically viable for thecommunity to invest in.


10/16

10


Eco-synergy projects could invite wide communityparticipation at the receptor level when a social ben-et gained also translates into an individual benet atequal or lesser individual cost. In the case of the canalside farmers, canal clean-up creates a social benet

with irrigation as an individual benet at least equalto the earlier groundwater option and transportationcomes free or at lesser cost to individual farmers thanthe earlier road transportation.

4. Policy Support For Eco-SynergyIn a sense, the environment becomes dependent ondevelopment----especially on technologies like infor-

mation-technology, pollution-removal technology, avariety of private and public participation methods,knowledge creation and exchange, sectoral and de-partmental coordination in planning resource-useand in attracting individual investments for a com-munity and individual gain. Rules and proceduresto legitimise these new local-level inter relationshipsare required to standardise the process. In supportof the eco-synergy initiative future environmentalpolicy has to

1. decentralise the EIA-EMP process2. create environmental zones based on certied

local area databases3. empower local authorities and partnerships.

4.1 Decentralising the EIA-EMP process An important local input in the present EIA-EMPexercise is the public hearing. Development pro-ponents present their EIA and EMP reports to thepublic at the proposed project site with the localauthorities attending. o make this process moremeaningful and transparent to the local residents

it is felt necessary for the State Pollution ControlBoards to rst present and explain the existing envi-ronmental site conditions especially of the concernedreceptor(s). Te development project presented bythe developers would have to then clearly state tothe public how the existing and future environ-mental baseline would improve due to establishingthe project. Te public EIA presentation shouldexplain meaningfully the increments to pollutionat the receptor / pathway in load terms, over xedperiods and not only as absolute values of pollutantconcentrations at the outlet that the developmentproject would likely have. Te EMP should quantifyand source the investment that will assess, strengthen

and develop the local natural resource base, either tosupport one or more economic activities pertainingto the business at hand or to produce new incomestreams for stakeholders or both. Te EIA proc-ess would change in scope from being source andproject-based to becoming receptor and area based.Each EIA of a receptor would relate to all EIAs ofother developmental projects on the same receptor asall the projects would use the same baseline environ-mental quality data obtained from and certied bythe local State Pollution Control Board. In valuingthe impact of existing and expected non-point andpoint-source pollution the new version EIA wouldfollow the costing rationale of eco-synergy to arrive

at the developers own and the community liabilityto be incurred in the future through appropriatecomposite projects. o limit the possibility of manip-ulation and lowering of the required rate of changein pollution quantities in an EIA, locally relevantpollution load removal standards and environmentalzonal regulations have to be in place.

Project clearance will also be area based and the ap-praisal authority will nd the gap in environmentalcosts projected in all EIAs pertaining to one receptorand the income ows projected from eco-synergyactivities of all projects being appraised on the samereceptor. Te objective of clearance would be toclear projects that would achieve the fastest cleanup of a receptor and projects with the highest needto maintain the receptor clean would get priority.Clearance of multiple projects on the same receptor

would involve an area-based trade off between theireconomic compulsions and environmental benetsuch that the latter always maintains an edge.

Te EIA-EMP mechanism and the regulatory regime

would have to adjust to the use of local socio-environ-mental indices where pollution increments to realisticbaseline conditions would account for both individualand community pollution control and reduction. Tefocus of development will in time shift from protec-tion to technologically feasible enhancement of localenvironmental resources and conditions.

4.2 Environmental zones based on certiedlocal area databases In India today there is just no accessible local socio-economic or environmental quality data to basethis localized regulatory framework on. Tere isneed for supportive environmental zoning of the


11/16

11


catchments that cover the main growth corridors ofthe country. Environment policy has to lay downguidelines for creating and regulating these zonesand State Governments have to be urged to use theenvironmental zones as planning tools for all landand natural resource-use development decisions ingrowth corridors.

An experiment in environmental zoning usingdigitized satellite imageries of roadside micro-catchments of 22 districts in Andhra Pradesh wasconducted on a Geographic Information Systemplatform in the years 1999 2001 to assist the StateGovernment to plan future locations of industrial

estates, urban, commercial and environmental in-frastructure and in planning agricultural croppingpattern change besides to regulate water pollution.

his area-based initiative grouped and mappedinter-connected environmental indices like water,soil, city-air and bio-diversity quality along withsocio-economic parameters like population density,income, prevalence of water borne diseases, healthand education facilities, land and habitation zonesby agriculture, industry, commercial classicationsand other major indicators of the local economy.For easy working, the software allowed 168 of theseinter-relating variables to be layered in suitable com-binations to indicate ecology and economy mixedgroups homogenized by the highest co-relation ofvariables to classify high pollution zones, colouredRed like for urban areas, areas of large-scale indus-trial and commercial activity and investment withhigh development potential. Developing zones withlittle industry and urbanization were mapped asBrown zones and biotic-resource bases like reservedforests, rain-fed agriculture, grazing and outlying ar-eas were mapped as Green zones. Specic regulatory

norms were planned for applying separately to Red,Brown and Green zones such that no one zone lostout on investment while improving environmentalconditions from Red to Brown, Brown to Greenand with Green zones preserved to supply bioticstrength to the lower drainage levels (INRIMREPOR 2003) 13.

Eco-synergy projects can be planned in the Red andBrown zones not only to clean receptor pollutionin them but also to generate resources to pay forpreserving clean receptors in Green zones throughinstruments like transferable development rights(Panayotou 1994).

From the present day policy perspective, a Red zone would be taboo for new development as it is presum-ably too polluted with less carrying capacity. But itis urged in this paper that with higher investmentand infrastructure interests in Red zones than inBrown and Green areas, there is local paying capac-ity as also potential to attract external investmentsfor composite eco-synergy projects. Analogously,less polluted zones (Brown and Green) will haveless local development or investment potential and

would require external funding. In Brown zonestownships and horizontal spreads of commercialdevelopment can be encouraged to enhance the op-tion value of natural stock and productivity of ow

resources for the community. With a weak nanciallocal base, non-local investments in non-pollutingand environmentally enhancing investments shouldalso be encouraged here to turn these areas intobiosphere reserves or future natural stock providingthe necessary recharge and nourishment to the Redzones to recuperate. Investors can have ownershipof usufruct rights of ow resources and through thelocal authority can have collateral user-rights overthe stock resources of the area. In Green zones zero-discharge industry, soil and moisture conservationstructures, plantation of endemic medicinal speciesthat have inelastic value-addition markets all overthe world, gene-pool preservation through stockingand regenerating, patenting in the name of the localauthority can be business opportunities. It is alsofeasible that less polluted zones, located adjacent toor within highly polluted Red zones are networkedin the environmental and economic web, such thatmaintenance and enhancement of the green zonebecomes a part of the development project of remov-ing pollution in Red zones.

Environmental zoning, if applied selectivelythroughout the country will lead to natural de-velopment of satellite towns around large citiesinterspersed by green conserved zones, very differ-ent from the centrifugal growth of cities, commerceand industry that present carrying capacity baseddevelopment results in.

In zoned areas the present day universally applicableregulatory standards would need to be modiedinto locally relevant, load-based reduction targets

with staggered time frames for achieving these14.ime-spacing for the three zones to achieve the

same pollutant load reduction would depend on


12/16

12


the intensity of a particular critical pollutant inthe zone. Assuming very high intensity in the Redzone high reduction loads with suitably advancedtechnology and management requirements andlong time targets would be allotted. Te compositeeco-synergy projects cleared for these areas wouldtry and capture as much investment potential aspossible in these already developed zones and thelong time frame will allow easier information ow,more community participation and more individualinvestments towards cleaning up. Lower load targets

with less time would be permitted in the cleanerzones to encourage cleaner development projectsthere. Tese developments would be lower in costs of

technology and management with short or no timetargets for immediate and total implementation oflocalized standards.

Te Environmental zones once identied need to benotied, publicized and certied by the State Pollu-tion Control Boards as the baseline environmentalquality map-database that would be available tothe public electronically, presented at public hear-ings and otherwise to be used as baseline to preparefuture EIA-EMP reports of development projects.Tis will reduce the need for repeated data gatheringby developers seeking clearances and their costs ofpreparing these reports. At the State level the zonalmaps would have to be updated continually depend-ing on the nature and intensity of changes recordedin the water, soil and air quality of major receptorsand cities in the zone. Te Central Government inthe Ministry of Environment and Forests can takethe initiative to start a few pilot projects of zonesand train the corresponding State and District levelteams to carry them through towards implementa-tion of composite eco-synergy projects.

4.3 empowering local authorities and partnerships Localised area based management of environmentalquality as this paper promotes would largely dependon creating incentives for local community cohesionon the present and future values of their environ-mental assets. Pollution receptors like water bodies,

wild-life, wilderness, forests, productive soil, temple-groves and wetlands in India are mostly State ownedand managed. State control has not been effective inpreventing their pollution and deterioration. o theextent it is technologically feasible to restore and en-hance biotic productivity of these natural resources,

legal sanction for local control on their use could bemade more real. From the present free access regimeto graduate to a controlled access regime would re-quire creating community ownership through thelocal authority of the Rights of Use of these resourcesas distinct from full ownership. Tese rights willallow the Authority to prot from the ow benetsof these environmental assets creating an incentivefor the voluntary protection and enhancement ofthe stocks through eco-synergy projects. Any localor external developer intending to use these owslike clean water for example would have to acquirethese rights on royalties or against a stream of eco-nomic benet ows projected over a period from

a eco-synergy development project. o oversee theimplementation of these rights the democraticallyelected local authority has to be empowered, trainedand professionalized to represent the user-publicinterest in any development. o initiate the processof change the following government-departmentalnetworks need a decentralised focus:

All Central and State Government developmentalagencies located within the receptor/s catchment, thathave a bearing on environmental management wouldcome under the control of the elected Local Authority.

All statutory receivables in terms of license and tradefees, revenues and penal charges should be appor-tioned equally between the local body and the StateGovernment to provide some nancial leverage tothe local bodies. Eco-synergy schemes would be likeany other private enterprise for which contracteddues to the local body must be paid against serviceslike executive-assistance in user-charge collections,monitoring environmental performance, assessing,negotiating and up-dating user-charges and for

being responsible to the state and community forimplementing contractual commitments.

Te State Pollution Control Board will monitorthe development and maintenance of the zones andreport to the local and state authorities through itslocal and state offices respectively. It will changeits role from a mere source-regulator to that of anarea regulator and technical arm of the local electedauthorities. Tis will not call for any drastic changein the eld level set up shown at Figure 1.

Te Standing Committees and all other relevantsub-committees of the local authorities must be


13/16

13


strengthened by including educated and professionallocal institutional and women representation so thatdecisions are progressive, gender-sensitive and lesspolitically motivated. Te less would be the discre-tionary margins available for corruption and relateddelays in decision-making (Chatterjee 2002, p 47-78).

Weaving the three themes together are public-private partnerships. Indias experience in thisarea is new and mainly in infrastructure buildingusing various kinds of Government-Private Build-Operate- ransfer contractual arrangements. TePlanning Commission in the Government of Indiahas developed model concession agreements and

guidelines for the Central and State Governmentsto follow allowing for a few locally applicable varia-tions (Planning Commission, Government of India2006). Environmental infrastructure developmentdoes not form part of this framework and can beconsidered to enhance the economic viability ofeco-synergy projects. Projects like roads, railroads,ports, port-hinterlands, industrial-parks, residen-tial and commercial developments can all haveeco-synergy elements woven into the planning andestimation stages so that when expression of interestbids are called the projects would be valued as nearas possible to their total economic value. Instead ofprojecting the revenue streams primarily to toll andfare-box collections which are not enough to meetthe annuity payments for these expensive projects,new eco-synergy revenue streams should be built-in

with an eye on positive cash ows over long periodsof contract. Tus the developers can be leased landand other state or community environmental assets

within the right of way or areas of inuence of theprojects for periods ranging from 30 years and aboveto ensure fair returns on investment. On behalf of

the local authority the concessionaires can sub-leaseand out-source or directly use these assets for devel-oping and operating eco-synergy projects.

Sustainable partnerships would nally depend onpositive cash ows and tangible environmental ben-ets for the resident community, the developer andthe local authority or authorized government agencybidding out a project. Tis three-way arrangementis best possible at the project level where the localcommunity can take part in the project operationsas contract workers, customers, sweat equity holdersand as social monitors to ensure the tripartite com-mitments. Te developers incentive to be environ-

mentally responsible would be the expanded scopeof the project allowing new diversied possibilitiesout of cleaning up leased areas to develop new busi-nesses over and above the core. Te zonal standardsand contract conditions being aligned to the pollu-tion intensity of receptors would also be aligned toexpectations of returns from business.

As evident, eco-synergy contracts would not followa pattern as we go down the scale of operations fromlarge scale roads and rail to the small scale villagetourism, city hotel or lake recreation projects. Tevariety of these projects would generate innovativeinstitutional forms of public-private and private-

private contractual partnerships at the local level.Te private operator can become the central focus with legally enforceable agreements between the Authority on the one hand and user associationson the other. Present day centralised governmentcontrol would not be adequate for these active de-centralized operations.

5. ConclusionTis paper is directed at the grey zone that connectsthe environmental science and economics of policy

with the impact-level experience of reducing pollu-tion through a market process, regulated by electedlocal level management. It suggests a shift from thesource-based, centralised environmental managementof the present to a local area-based approach usingexisting legal and institutional mechanisms. In so do-ing the scourge of non-point water and soil pollutionis directly addressed. Te recommended policy focuson local pollution receptors as being public-equity infuture developmental projects adds value to naturalresources as business assets instead of being free fac-

tors as now. Te local orientation of environmentalimpact assessment and management encourages in-clusive development that cleans up legacy pollution

while preventing future pollution. Te eco-synergyintervention requires some structural support in theform of environmental zones and a higher level ofempowerment of local elected authorities. Te ideais to keep the change manageable within present legaland policy frames by tinkering rather than suggest-ing wholesale reformist legislation. It merely adds alocal basis to apply global norms re-directing ratherthan changing existing policy towards impact levelarrangements that will help in implementation of thesalutary goals of the NEP 2006.


14/16

14


Glossary of terms used

Bio-Chemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) : A meas-ure of organic pollutant load in water. It is the rateof up-take of dissolved oxygen used up by biologicalorganisms in water. Te upper limit for BOD in

water quality is 4 Mg/litre in India

Carrying Capacity : Pollutant absorption limits ofnatural receptors and stock resources

Catchment : Basin limits that drain into a receptorlike lake, river or valley

Centre : the Federal law and policy making levelGram Panchayats : Elected local self-governingauthority for the rural areas

Municipalities : Elected local self-governing author-ity for urban areas

Public Interest Litigation : social action litigation.Direct petitioning for judicial intervention by acitizen for a public injury caused by any breach ofpublic duty. Tis concept of seeking judicial redressdirectly by citizens and civil society was popular-ized by Justices Krishna Iyer and J. Bhagwati of theSupreme Court of India in the Nineteen Eighties.Environmental cases in Public Interest Litigationpeaked in the end Nineties with more than ftypercent of all environmental case-laws in the countrybeing in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.

Right-of-way ribbon development : linear develop-ment immediately alongside a roads notied width

Source-Based Pollution : Identied source-outletsof pollution like industry, sewage drain outlets,smoke-stacks and the like

State: the State law and policy making and imple-mentation level

otal and Faecal Coliform Count : Measures ofdisease causing bacteria in water mixed with humanand animal waste

Notes1 Modi Distilleries vs. the UP PCB in Volume 3 page 684,

in Supreme Court of India (1987) and Nalin Takore vs.State of Gujarat in Volume 12 page 461, Supreme Courtof India cases (2003).

2 Te authors show that in water quality India ranks 120th ina list of 122 countries in the world. An estimated 90% ofthe countrys water resources are polluted affecting about200 million people. About 1.5 million children under theage of ve die every year from water-borne disease.

3 In 1993 the Indian Constitution was amended by the 73rdand 74th amendments to dene democratic decentralisa-tion in terms of administrative and nancial devolution of

powers to enable a localization of governance. Te 73rdamendment addresses the rural areas and the Panchayat Rajsystem and assigns subjects of administrative and nancialresponsibility in its Article 243-G (Schedule XI). Te 74thamendment covers urban areas and the Municipalities forthe same in its Article 243-W (Schedule XII).

4 otal Economic Value ( EV) is a valuation applied usuallyfor environmental assets and protected areas and includestheir use-values and non-use values. Use-values are furtherdifferentiated into direct, indirect and option value andnon-use values are segregated as bequest values and exist-

ence values.5 Novotny and Chesters describe non-point as against point-

source pollution to mean pollution generated by diffusedsources where the sources of pollution and their pathways,transferring discharge or emission to natural receptorscannot be easily identied or held responsible for creatingtheir component pollution in the receptor. As per the PolicyStatement on Abatement of Pollution, in the early 1990sin India, three-fourths by volume of wastewater was frommunicipal sources and for all Class-I cities of the countryless than ve percent of the total wastewater generated

was collected and less than one-fourth of this was treated.Parikh and Parikh and the Central Pollution Control Boardrecord that ninety-percent of water pollution in India inthe 1980s and seventy-ve percent in 2000, has been of adomestic-commercial and non-point character.


15/16

15


6 Te Water Quality Monitoring Programme of the CentralPollution Control Board covers 1245 monitoring stationsthroughout the country assessing 250 rivers, 78 lakes, 6tanks, 26 ponds, 8 creeks, 19 canals, 19 drains and 382

wells. Te stations are located at 695 points on rivers, 86 onlakes, 19 on drains, 19 on canals, 6 on tanks, 12 on creeks,26 on ponds and 382 on groundwater stations. Observa-tion samples are collected on a monthly or quarterly basisin surface waters and biannually in groundwater.

7 Choudhary, Himanshu. A short note on the Polluter PaysPrinciple. Editors Pick. Indlaw.com: the denitive guideto Indian Law. March 4 (2008). Also see Enviro-Legal

Action vs Union of India, Supreme Court of India. J 2196 (1996). Te Court inter alia ruled Once the activitycarried on is hazardousthe person carrying on suchactivity is liable to make good the loss caused to any otherperson by his activity irrespective of the fact whether hetook reasonable care while carrying on his activity.Andin Kamalnaths case. Supreme Court of India. ISCC 388(1997). Te court ruled,

..it is thus settled by this court that one who pollutes theenvironment must pay to reverse the damage caused byhis acts.

8 Te Section 10 of the Indian Water (Prevention and Controlof Pollution) Act 1974 and Section 12 of the Air (Preven-

tion and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, read with thedelegation of environmental responsibilities and duties torural and urban elected local bodies in the 73rd and 74thConstitutional Amendments facilitate delegation of localenvironmental monitoring and management.

9 Te NEP 2006 accepts these recommendations of the Com-mittee on Reforming Investment Approval and Implemen-tation Procedures which identied delays in environmentaland forest clearances as the largest source of delays ingrounding development projects in India.

10 By HDI Indias rank in 2005 was 128 below EquatorialGuinea in a list of 177 countries-----from the HumanDevelopment Report 2007/2008, UNDP (2007). By GrossDomestic Purchasing Power Parity India ranks 4th below

Japan in a list of 193 countries----from Te World Factbook,USCIA. January (2008). World Economic Outlook Data-base. IMF. October (2007).

11 A case in point is the underground water harvestingstructures at the runways of the Hyderabad International

Airport (GHIAL), Shamsabad, India.

12 Tis basic production function exercise is used in case ofa polluted urban lake and detailed in the authors PhDthesis Economic Management of non-point water pollution.Chapters IV and V. Pages 109-173. Hyderabad CentralUniversity. Hyderabad. December (2007).

13 Te Andhra Pradesh zoning study is reported in the En-vironmental Zoning of districts in Andhra Pradesh. Reportsponsored by the AP Pollution Control Board and preparedby the Indian Resources Information and Managementechnologies, Private Limited (INRIM ). APPCB database

and Records. Hyderabad. (2003).

14 Te regulatory standards prescribed in India for waterquality are pollutant concentration based expressed in mil-ligrams of a pollutant in a litre of water. Load based standard

would imply that these pollutant wise concentrations aremultiplied by the volume of ows to give the pollutantquantity in Kilolitres or other weight units. Load standardsare receptor water quality based and more realistic. Teseare also easier to target in terms of reduction over a periodof time whereas concentration limits are useful for outletbased prevention standards.

References Agarwal, Anil (1999):Poor Amartya Sen: economists are blind

to ecological poverty, even sensitive ones.Down to Earth fortnightly . April.

Central Pollution Control Board (2001): Bio-technologies forreatment of Wastes. CPCB ordinary publication. Ministry

of Environment and Forests . New Delhi

Central Pollution Control Board (2008): Status of WaterQuality in India-2007. CPCB. MINARS/29/2008-2009.

July 2008.

Chatterjee, ishya (2002): Analysis of Environment and HealthIssues in the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration. Urban India. XXII: 2. Pages 47-78.

Chatterjee, ishya (2005): Enhancing Community Welfarethrough improved water quality: a case for applying staggered pollution charges in the river Musi sub-basin of AndhraPradesh, India . Water Policy 7: 469-483. IWA publishing.

Courant, P.N and R. Porter (1981): Averting expenditure andthe cost of Pollution. Journal of Environmental Economicsand Management, December. 8(4): Pages 321-29.

Dickie, M and S, Gerking (1991):Willingness to Pay for OzoneControl: Inferences from the Demand for Medical Care .

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.21: Pages 1-16.


16/16

16


Gupta, D.N (2004): Decentralisation: the need for Reforms .Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi: 110059.

Indian Resources Information and Management echnologies,

Private Limited (INRIM ) (2003): Environmental Zoningof districts in Andhra Pradesh. Report sponsored by the APPollution Control Board. APPCB database and Records.Hyderabad.

Jariwala, C.M (2004): Environment and Justice . APH Publish-ing Corporation, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. Pages 21-45.

Kolstad, C.D (2000): Environmental Economics . Oxford Uni-versity Press, New York.

McDonough, W and M. Braungart (2002): Cradle to Cradle.Remaking the way we make things . North Point Press. New

York.Misra, R.P, Te Indian World- view and Environmental Crisis

(1997): in Integration of Endogenous Cultural Dimensioninto Development, Saraswati Baidyanath (ed) (1997),Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. New Delhi.

Myers, N (1988):Natural Resource Systems and human exploita-tion systems: physiobiotic and ecological linkages . WorkingPaper 12. World Bank, Environment department, Wash-ington. D.C.

Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India

(1992): National Conservation Strategy and Policy Statementon Environment and Development . Official publication.

Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India(2006): National Environmental Policy .

Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India(1992): Policy Statement on Abatement of Pollution. Resolu-tion No. H 11013 (2)/90-CPW.

Novotny, V and G. Chesters (1981): Handbook of non-point pollution. Van Norstrand Reinhold Company, New York.

Panayotou, Teodore (1994): Conservation of Bio-Diversity and

Economic Development: Te Concept of ransferable Develop-ment Rights . Environmental and Resource Economics.4:Pages 91-110.

Parikh, K; Parikh, J. (ed.) (2000):Clean Water: EnvironmentalGovernance-1. Indira Gandhi Institute of DevelopmentResearch Capacity-21 project. Mumbai.

Patnaik, Prabhat (2006): Imperialism and Economic Decentrali-sation. Peoples Democracy. Vol. XXX(5). 13-15. January.

Phillips, Adrian (ed.) (1998):Economic Values of Protected Areas: guidelines for Protected Area managers , IUCN.

Pinto, M.R, (2000): Metropolitan City Governance in India .Sage Publications. New Delhi.

Sabine Pabst, Mankame Ashwini, Purohit Preeti (eds.) (2004):Investigating some alleged violations of the ,human rightto Water in India, Report of the International Fact Finding Mission to India, FIAN International , Heidelberg, Page 5. January.

Sachs, W (1994): Tis Race leads to an abyss. Interview with Amit Mitra reported in Down to Earth fortnightly Mar15,1994 and published in Down to Earth (D E) SurvivalPrimer 200 Special Compendium Page 66. Society for En-vironmental Communications . New Delhi (2001) .

Sankar, U (1998): Laws and Institutions relating to Envi-ronmental Protection in India, paper presented at theConference on Te role of Law and Legal Institutions in Asian Economic Development , Erasmus University, Rot-

terdam. Page 13.Santhakumar, V. (2001): Will Public Interest Litigations and

Citizens actions lead to Sustainable Development? : aneconomic analysis with empirical cases from India . Articlebased on the impact of citizens actions for protecting en-vironment in developing countries. Accepted for publicationin the Journal of Environment and Development Economics .www.ccsindia.org/ccsindia/santhakumar.doc

Te Secretariat for the Committee on Infrastructure-Guide-lines (2006):Formulation, Appraisal and Approval of PublicPrivate Partnership Projects . Planning Commission, Govern-ment of India. www.infrastrucrure.gov.in .

Reorienting Environment Policy in India- T Chatterjee

Documents

Transcript of Reorienting Environment Policy in India- T Chatterjee