Govt action on environment contradicts stated objective

Government is diluting green regulations, not reforming them

In his speech from the Red Fort on Independence Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said many sensible things about Indian manufacturing. It is certainly true that it must be a focus area for his government. As a proportion of India's gross domestic product (GDP), the share of Indian manufacturing peaked in 1996-97, at the pitifully low percentage of a little over 16 per cent. Since then, it has been hovering at around the same level and was estimated at about 15 per cent in 2013-14, well below the promised target of achieving a 25 per cent share of manufacturing in the country's GDP. For sustainable job creation, and to ensure the existence of a financially secure middle class, export-oriented Indian manufacturing must indeed take off, and Mr Modi's emphasis on this in the speech was laudable. The phrase the prime minister came up with to describe the kind of manufacturing he wants - "zero defect, zero effect" - is both catchy and optimistic; it indicates that India must shed its abysmal reputation for quality control ("zero defect") and prioritise industry that has a low impact on the environment ("zero effect").

It is unfortunate that the actions of Mr Modi's government go in the opposite direction to his claims. Far from pushing "zero effect" manufacturing, the government is diluting environmental protections and rendering toothless the agencies that were supposed to act as watchdogs. Given the number and speed of such actions from a government that is otherwise taking its time over policymaking and paradigm shifts, it is clear that there is considerable political will at work.

In India, environmental regulation has been problematic. Under the United Progressive Alliance, enforcement was selective and politically calculated. Even when the regulator works with the best of will, they are overworked; too many regulations, some contradictory, mean that delays and challenges are commonplace. The answer to this, of course, is a complete legal overhaul. However, this is not what the government has been doing. For example, public hearings where local residents can express dissent over the expansion of coal mines have been done away with. Compulsory afforestation and local consent for prospecting have also been abolished. Critically polluted industrial belts, such as Vapi in Gujarat, have been allowed to set up new industries even though previous promises to improve pollution records have not been kept. The Supreme Court had prevented polluting industries from being within 10 kilometres of India's few wildlife sanctuaries; through juggling the classification of industries, the government has made that five km, in violation of the spirit of the court's judgment. The National Board for Wildlife, which is supposed to approve projects in and around sanctuaries, has been undermined; only two non-government experts have been nominated, although 10 are mandatory. In addition, one of the two experts is a retired forester from Gujarat. Five non-state institutions are supposed to be on the board, a position occupied in the past by WWF India and the Bombay Natural History Society. Instead, an organisation called the Gujarat Ecological Education and Research Foundation will fill this spot; it is headed by Gujarat Chief Minister Anandiben Patel. Even the National Green Tribunal is likely to be similarly treated, to become just an appendage of the environment ministry.

Whatever else this is, this does not show a commitment to "zero effect". Certainly, a revamp of India's green regulations - making them less arbitrary, more efficient and more effective - is overdue. That should be the government's focus, not undermining the institutions that protect India's environment.