ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY IN INDIA

Authors

  • Gyanaranjan Swain Lecturer Department of Political Science Ravenshaw University

Keywords:

Industrialization, conservation strategy, Brundtland Commission

Abstract

Indian scriptures, the Indian Constitution, her environmental laws and policy all recognize the importance of impact-level local economies, livelihoods, culture, ethics, customs, bio-diversity and their inter-relationships in the design of management standards and procedures. But at present this recognition is not reflected in the implementation process. One reason could be that environmental policy has been less directional and more a listing of global best-intentions regardless of their compatibility with conditions at the impact level. This is apparent from a general reading of the National Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement on Environment and Development and the Policy Statement on Abatement of Pollution, the two early policy documents issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India in 1992. Environmental fundamentals like sustain-able development, environmental impact assessment and management planning (EIA-EMP), the polluter pays principle, citizens’ rights and related themes are enunciated more to prescribe than facilitate environmentally inclusive development. Though improving on the 1992 policy documents, the National Environmental Policy of the Government of India, 2006 (NEP 2006) also lacks a direction in terms of institutionalizing social monitoring, impact-level information gathering, up-dating, storage and use and natural resource-use management aspects at the receptor levels. Development is perhaps unintentionally encouraged in relatively clean areas with sufficient environmental carrying capacity, than with a legal binding on pollution sources to clean up and develop already degraded lands and water bodies receiving their pollution. The policy shift required is not in intent but in emphasis. From regulating mainly sources of pollution to an area-based management paradigm, to make global environmental good-practice understandable, compatible, applicable and acceptable at the local impact level, where pollution hurts most.

References

I. Agarwal, Anil (1999): Poor Amartya Sen: economists are blind to ecological poverty, even sensitive ones. Down to Earth fortnightly. April.

II. Central Pollution Control Board (2001): Bio-technologies for Treatment of Wastes. CPCB ordinary publication. Ministry of Environment and Forests. New Delhi

III. Central Pollution Control Board (2008): Status of Water Quality in India-2007.

IV. Chatterjee, Tishya (2002): Analysis of Environment and Health Issues in the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration. Urban India. XXII: 2. Pages 47-78.

V. Chatterjee, Tishya (2005): Enhancing Community Welfare through improved water quality: a case for applying staggered pollution charges in the river Musi sub-basin of Andhra Pradesh, India. Water Policy 7: 469-483. IWA publishing.

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

VII. Dickie, M and S, Gerking (1991): Willingness to Pay for Ozone Control: Inferences from the Demand for Medical Care. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 21: Pages 1-16.

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

.

Downloads

Published

2015-03-31

Issue

Section

Social Science & Humanities