New Delhi is in the news again as respirable particulate(relating to) matter is said to have crossed hazardous limits. On the one hand, this is environmental damage that affects everyone, while on the other, it is damage with multiple determinants — vehicle exhaust, construction dust, Diwali firecrackers, pollution caused by the burning of paddy stumps and agricultural residue, and, of course, apathy. In quantifying environmental damage, there are at least two stumbling(lose one's balance) blocks: identifying when the damage started and what its impact will be; and finding the source and cause of damage.
It is timely then that an attempt is being made in India to quantify and penalize(subject to a penalty or punishment) environmental damage. The Environmental Laws (Amendment) Bill
has been put out for comment. For example, it seeks to define the scope
of damage by gauging(estimate) its distance from a project site, and
circumscribing penalties for damage.While this is an important first attempt, the Bill falls short in
understanding the scope, ramifications(unwelcome consequence of an action or event) and extent of environmental
damage.
Damage beyond pollution
The Bill focuses on environmental damage as pollution. It is only when
we experience pollution that we become alert to environmental problems
or damage. Water pollution makes potable(drinkable) water undrinkable, soil
pollution contaminates ground water or renders soil infertile, while air
pollution exacerbates(make worse) respiratory ailments. While pollution is an
important source of damage, all damage is not just pollution.
While the Bill suggests that there are three kinds of environmental
damage — substantial, non-substantial and minor — it does not elaborate
on what the differentiating factors between these categories are. It
suggests that damage under these three categories is contained within
pollution and hazardous substances. It states that “substantial damage
means damage to the environment whether by release of environmental
pollutant or environmental pollution or handling of hazardous substance
or any other substance or otherwise determined in the manner as may be
prescribed by which the environment is affected or is likely to be
affected.” It adds that violation of “statutory environmental
obligations” would count as environmental damage.
But there are several other types of environmental damage that merit
inclusion in the Bill that change the ecological integrity or character
of an ecosystem. These include dredging(clear the bed of (a harbour, river, or other area of water) by scooping out mud, weeds, and rubbish with a dredge) activities that can fill up an
important wetland or the cutting off of water supply. The extent or
presence of environmental damage can be quantified by measuring a
difference or drop in ecosystem services. For example, land degradation
can affect plant pollination and forests can turn barren, in turn
affecting carbon sequestration and air purification.
Further, the idea of pollution as damage is interlinked with our health.
Legislation in other parts of the world has gone beyond human-centric
definitions. For instance, under British law, environmental damage is
defined as that which causes a significant, harmful effect on the
conservation status of an EU [European Union] protected species or
natural habitat. Even harmful effects on the ecological structure and
function of an area of “special scientific interest” come under the
ambit of damage. This is due to the commitments built into wildlife
protection laws and also the concern about keeping habitats intact for
future generations. Therefore, projects that fragment wild habitats or
irretrievably damage ecosystems can be considered as factors that cause
environmental damage.
Thus, these points merit further debate. In India, would we consider
damage to wild species and wild places as environmental damage? Or would
we confine ourselves to damage that is pollution? These are tough
questions that need to be posed to scientists, ecologists, affected
communities and citizens.
The second major point is the role of distance as a factor in
determining environmental damage, and its use in setting the extent of
penalties. The Bill suggests that the costs of environmental damage, in
the form of hazards and pollution, “may extend to 10 crore rupees”
within a 5 km distance from a project site. For damage within 5 to 10 km
from a site, the sum should be between Rs.10-15 crore and beyond 10
kilometres, Rs.15-20 crore. Continuing environmental damage would
attract a fixed, per day penalty for all three categories. The
underlying assumption seems to be that if there is pollution beyond 5 or
10 km, it must be of a serious nature and should attract heavier
penalties. This may be true in some cases.
In several cases such as radiation or air pollution, proximity to the
site of damage exacerbates damage and suffering. While air pollution
causes grievous harm, the nature of the pollutant is such that it causes
more harm through proximity, and not through distance. This is the
logic that serves many metropolitan cities which ban cars on certain
days in critically polluted areas, and not in other spots. Radiation
leaks, accidents and spills are also likely to impact people, wildlife
and habitat closest to the site.
Finally, thought needs to be given about capping penalties for
environmental damage. Should such penalties have a ceiling? While most
believe that there should be a minimum penalty to be paid for damaging
the environment, it may be counter-intuitive to also prescribe the
maximum amount. As the Bhopal gas tragedy showed us, environmental
damage can last for generations, and it requires long term and sustained
redressal.
Adjudicating authority
Perhaps what is of most interest in the Bill is the proposal to set up a
two-man adjudicating authority to decide on pollution and whether
environmental damage has been caused. Given the poor performance of
pollution control boards, the question on whether environmental damage
should be considered by government officials or independent courts
assumes importance.
In the end, there are questions related to both science and perception.
While science and laboratory tests can determine impact on health, there
must be larger consensus on whether we want to go beyond the perception
of pollution as constituting environmental damage. Protecting the
environment is a Fundamental Duty under the Constitution. How we begin
to perceive the incommensurable(not able to be judged by the same standards) damage caused to Nature and the
environment requires more attention and application.
Data that may be helpful:
Meanings:-
- particulate:-relating to
- stumbling :- lose one's balance
- penalize :- subject to a penalty or punishment
- gauging :- estimate
- ramifications :- unwelcome consequence of an action or event
- potable :- drinkable
- exacerbates :- make worse
- dredging :- clear the bed of (a harbour, river, or other area of water) by scooping out mud, weeds, and rubbish with a dredge
- incommensurable :- not able to be judged by the same standards
Source: The Hindu, 18- Nov- 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment