Will the monitors stand up?

Regulatory authorities need to go back to the drawing board

IN ITS haste to score brownie points for launching a new “online monitoring” initiative, the Union government has jeopardised a breakthrough regulatory programme. Ironically, a system that was supposed to digitise pollution monitoring is caught up in a mesh of wires, and has defeated the very purpose of transparency. At the same time, the manual pollution monitoring and compliance, which was earlier in place, has lost all seriousness. It is a travesty that an initiative, which for the first time had the backing all stakeholders—industries, manufacturers, service providers and environmental think-tanks—is failing because of cpcb’s lethargy and inaction. It would have been wise if the government had implemented the programme in a phased manner—starting with the large industries and followed by the smaller ones.

But there is still time for course correction. cpcb must immediately publish the guidelines to implement cems. This will help industries rectify the issues related to equipment, operations, calibration and maintenance. spcbs will then have a rule book to carry out inspection and verification checks for proper implementation.

Additionally, capacity building programmes should be held for industries, manufacturers and regulators to help them learn and understand how the systems work. Once the implementation reaches a satisfactory stage, a protocol for data verification and use can be defined.

Importantly, spcbs must undertake an evaluation of equipments for quality assurance and verification for proper operation and maintenance of cems and ceqms. It is interesting to note that cpcb officials have stated that the monitored data will not be in the public domain. Unless civil society has access to pollution data, there can be little credibility and transparency in the new system.

The government must also initiate a process for the identification and the empanelment of laboratories. These recognised laboratories will not only test the quality of equipments, but also verify installation, operations and maintenance. Setting up such a system may take time as it will involve multiple agencies, development of procedures and protocols and legal amendments. Therefore, these must be planned with a strategic timeline without postponing any further.

The development of an indigenous quality assurance system for cems and ceqms is urgently required. Domestic manufacturers have a large scope to flourish, but their products need to be tested for quality and certified under an indigenous system. Since this is a complex exercise, a time-bound plan needs to be prepared. Importantly, the government must make sure that these systems are legally binding on industries.

Implementation of cems doesn’t mean decimation of spcbs. In fact, we will need competent pollution control boards to successfully implement cems. There is an urgent need to upgrade the capacity of spcbs.

The government must step up its efforts to undo the mistakes of the past so that industrial pollution monitoring and compliance can be strengthened. “cems and ceqms are the routes through which India’s environmental governance can be catapulted from the 20th to the 21st century. We cannot afford to get it wrong,” adds Bhushan.

With inputs from Rahul Kumar Singh