Citizen Participation In Environmental Enforcement in India

-looking beyond the RTI Act

Monish Gulati

Introduction

Patancheru in Andhra Pradesh hosts about 90 odd Indian pharmaceutical manufacturing units.
In January 2009, researchers from University of Gothenburg, Sweden while analysing samples
of treated waste water taken from a plant in Patancheru found a ‘soup’ of 21 different active
pharmaceutical ingredients, used in generics for treatment of hypertension, heart disease,
chronic liver ailments ect. Some of these drugs were measured at levels, which were the
highest for pharmaceuticals ever found in the environment.1 The chairman and managing
director of a medium-sized pharmaceutical company in Patancheru, which had been shut down
on the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, responded to the release of
untreated effluents into the nearby water stream from his facility by saying “There is some
seepage from our plant but it is there from other units in the area as well” 2. Patancheru
incidentally has an area monitoring committee appointed by the Supreme Court to monitor
implementation of its directives regarding litigation initiated by several Hyderabad-based NGOs
against polluting industries in early 2000.The incident serves to highlight the fact that
environment compliance monitoring in India is not only inadequate but is also grossly
ineffective.

Amongst the slew of corrective measures initiated by the central government post the Satyam
fiasco was the proposal to empower ordinary shareholders of the eight lakh domestic
companies in the country by calling upon them to carefully examine the decisions of their
companies, and bring to the notice of Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) anything they may
find amiss.3The MCA on the merits of the observations raised would then take action to
safeguard investor interests. This move of the government in a highly regulated and definitely
most watched field only serves to underline the potential a citizen holds for scrutinising
regulatory compliance.

The third and the most important component of this ‘monitoring by citizens of environmental
regulatory compliance’ paradigm is information; made available to the citizens in a
comprehensive and easy to assimilate form. Associated with access to information is the
question mark, usually placed by detractors of this suggestion, on the ability of the citizens to
put the available information to positive and constructive use. Recently the Central
Government/Directorate General of Civil Aviation decided to place in the public domain its data
on on-time performance (OTP) of airlines. The aim was to let the airline passengers make an
informed choice and at the same time put pressure on the airlines with regards to their
1
Margie Mason, ‘Study finds world’s highest drug levels in stream near Hyderabad’. Mint, January 27, 2009
http://www.livemint.com/2009/01/26235016/study-finds-world8217s-high.html
2
Lison Joseph, ‘Drug pollution: Andhra under pressure to act’. Mint, February 3, 2009.
http://www.livemint.com/2009/02/03225128/Drug-pollution-Andhra-under-p.html
3
Souvik Sanyal & Gireesh C Prasad, ‘Small investor turns whistleblower’. The Economic Times, 12 Feb 2009.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Markets/Stocks/Market_News/Small_investor_turns_whistleblower/articlesho
w/4115072.cms
performance and reputation. The citizen, to an extent, as a consumer has the power and the
potential to influence corporate decision making and it is to this end that it is important to
provide citizens access to requisite information.

Reputation Capital

Contrary to what many may believe Indian companies get top billing in terms of their
reputation. A recent study by US-based brand and reputation management consulting firm,
Reputation Institute, has ranked Tatas as being more reputed than the likes of Google,
Microsoft, Coca-Cola, GE and Walt Disney4. The study has named five Indian firms among the
top-50 in its annual list of the world’s most reputed companies. The Tata group has been
ranked 11th, followed by SBI (29), Infosys (39), Larsen & Toubro (47) and Maruti Suzuki (49th).
There are 22 other Indian companies on the list of 600 largest companies, ranked in terms of
their reputation. The world looks to Indian companies to uphold ethical practices and
demonstrate concern for the environment. Indian companies on the other hand value their
reputation and always look to enhance it in many ways, which may not always be
demonstrated through their concern for the environment.

At the operational level too enterprise reputation is getting the attention it deserves.
Companies due to enhanced consumer awareness and regulatory pressure in India are finding
it increasingly difficult to ignore consumer issues especially those raised in public and
cyberspace.5 In a recent case consumer grievance regarding use of spurious parts worth Rs 4
lakh by an authorised dealer of Skoda India was taken up in the cyberspace (Indian auto
discussion forum, Team-BHP www.team-bhp.com forum). The issue till then had dragged on
unaddressed for a year. The post received more than 500 replies and over 60,000 views in
less than a month and prodded the enterprise into action. The remark of the Skoda India
spokesperson appropriately puts the incident in perspective, he said: “We understand the
importance of social media and view it as a very important medium for gaining valuable
feedback about our brand. We track a whole host of blogs, online news portals and other social
media sites to see what is being said about us, so we can address customer queries and
concerns effectively… We have a robust customer care service that replies to threads on
forums and blogs where customers have a specific query. By doing that, we are showing the
customer that we want to engage and appreciate their feedback.” In the case of Patancheru
the effect was also felt at the stock exchange on the shares of the companies involved6.
Tacit pressure on enterprise reputation has also been used to seek compliance on
environmental issues. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Greenpeace
used ‘YouTube’, to gather mass support against Tatas’ construction of Dhamra port in Orissa
located in close proximity to the Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary7. Both the organisations cited
irreversible effects on the ecology of the area and especially the Olive Ridley turtles that
nested at the nearby beaches. Blogs and online petitions were used to garner support from
people across the globe.
4
Financial Express, ‘Tatas reputed than Google, MS: survey’. May 11, 2009.
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/tatas-reputed-than-google-ms-survey/457115/
5
Seema Sindhu. ‘Make or mar brands in cyberia’. Business Standard, May 11, 2009. http://www.business-
standard.com/india/tech
6
Ser 2.
7
Turtles nest; port threat persists: Environmentalists (March 26, 2009) http://greenpeace.in/turtle/ Accessed on
April 02, 2009.
Aim

This paper seeks to develop a case for citizen involvement in environmental enforcement to
improve its effectiveness by leveraging the influence citizens exert on enterprise reputation.
The aim is to utilise the interplay between environment-consciousness discerning citizens and
the importance that business concerns accord to their reputation capital (and the subsequent
the impact, erosion of reputation on account of poor environmental performance, would have
on the manner of their doing business) as an informal and non-court option to achieve
improved environmental regulatory compliance. The measure is primed by providing citizens
greater access to environmental performance data of the industries and is set into motion
through tweaking of the RTI Act (RTIA) to have more information on the environmental
performance of the industrial facilities proactively available in a user friendly manner. Greater
clarity on the manner of functioning of the regulatory bodies at the end of the recommended
process would be an added bonus.

Preview

This paper reviews how a citizen is well placed to contribute and supplement environmental
enforcement efforts and the means and methods to encourage citizen participation. A measure
of the compliance and monitoring deficit in environmental enforcement in India is presented as
the background and as justification to seek citizen participation. Paper briefly outlines the main
elements which can secure citizens participation, such as legal rights and remedies, clear
environmental standards, and then dwells on the key enabler ie access to information. The
paper then introduces common strategies for public participation in enforcement which are
being initiated in other countries at the national level, such as citizen monitoring and
inspection, public complaint mechanisms, and citizen enforcement suits8 and then builds on
how citizen monitoring and inspection can be leveraged in the Indian context to derive
enhanced environmental compliance. The paper has been divided into three sections; Section-
I covers monitoring, Section-II deals with citizen participation& RTIA and the last section has
the recommendations.

Environmental Governance: Monitoring

Over 100 chemical storage tanks each of average capacity of 200,000 kilolitres were built at
the Pirpav jetty near Chembur, Mumbai. Companies owning these tanks have been storing and
discharging hazardous chemicals in dense residential areas on Mumbai Port Trust land without
approvals from the MoEF for over 18 years9. The MoEF when asked said it had never given
any approval to these companies, which is mandatory for construction and operation of these
storage tanks. This incident just about sums up the lax state of environmental enforcement in
the country. Monitoring simply put is a means of ensuring compliance to legislations and rules.
It is important for implementing bodies at all levels to ensure through effective monitoring that
regulated bodies are diligently following the prescribed rules. Therefore for the purpose of this

8
Casey-Lefkowitz, Susan, Futrell, J. William, Austin, Jay, and Bass, Susan, ‘The Evolving Role Of Citizens In
Environmental Enforcement’. Environmental Law Institute (ELI), 1616 P St. N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C.
20036,USA. http://www.inece.org/4thvol1/futrell.pdf
9
Palak Shah, ‘Big companies run chemical tanks without green nod for 18 years’. Business Standard, September
03, 2008. www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=333333
paper, environmental enforcement includes monitoring and inspections by enforcement
authorities as well as sanctions, remedial actions, and other methods to achieve compliance. It
does not include the role of liability laws (torts, nuisance actions, etc.) in compelling polluters to
reduce emissions and non-governmental actions such as citizen suits. It is important at the
outset to gain a brief assessment of the state of environmental enforcement in India.

An OECD report of 2006 titled ’Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in India: Rapid
Assessment’ provides a clear insight into the state of environmental monitoring by the State
Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and the challenges presented to them in India 10. With
respect to Institutional Arrangements and Capacity Building the OECD report lists out
‘insufficient coordination between the CPCB and SPCBs including lack of comprehensive
standard compliance and enforcement policies and procedures, significant human and
technical capacity constraints, funding limitations’ as major hurdles facing all environmental
institutions. The key challenges regarding compliance monitoring were stated to be the ”lack of
nationwide implementing guidance on permitting and compliance monitoring from the CPCB on
issues such as definition of compliance, consent conditions, reporting format, sampling
requirements, as well as interpretation of different regulations significantly impairs the quality of
SPCB implementing programs.” The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and
Technology, Environment and Forests in its report raised concerns that hazardous pollutants
like volatile organic compounds, ozone and aromatic hydrocarbons were not being monitored.
Of the 332 monitoring stations in the country, several are not working and the data is not
updated regularly.11

The performance audit report of the CAG on ‘Management of Waste in India’ in its analysis of
compliance to bio-medical waste rules reveals that hospitals/ private operators are running
waste disposal facilities without authorisation and segregation of biomedical waste is not being
done12. Compliance to plastic waste rules too showed ineffective enforcement by District
Commissioners/District Magistrates and PCBs in the states. Lax and ineffective monitoring has
further compounded the issue of non-compliance; and in the absence of effective monitoring,
violation of these rules has escaped detection13. The CAG was equally critical of the legislative
framework and remarked ‘despite being empowered by the Environmental (Protection) Act,
1986, instances of the polluter being held responsible for unsafe disposal of waste were very
few, and thus, there was no effective deterrence for non-compliance, even with the framed
rules’. The working of the PCBs has been constrained further due to overlapping jurisdictions
and lack of trained manpower.

10
OECD 2006. Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in India: Rapid Assessment. Jointly produced by
OECD and the Secretariat of the Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network (AECEN) under the
OECD Programme of Environmental Co-operation with Asia. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/39/27/37838061.pdf .
Accessed on January 03, 2009.
11
Ravleen Kaur , ‘Pollution not under control’. Down To Earth. November 30, 2008.
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20081130&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=30. Accessed on
January 10, 2009.
12
Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), Performance Audit report on ‘Management Of Waste In India’,
Report No. PA 14 of 2008, Executive Summary.
http://www.cag.gov.in/html/reports/civil/2008_PA14_SD_civil/Exec-Sum.pdf. Accessed on April 15 2009.
13
Ibid
Data

The CAG performance audit also revealed that MoEF/CPCB/SPCBs do not have complete and
comprehensive data about various kinds of waste being generated in India. Further, the rules
framed for safe disposal of waste did not cover many kinds of waste like construction &
demolition waste, electronic waste, agricultural waste etc14. The Parliamentary Standing
Committee’s recommendation on data collection was clear and precise. It wants the CPCB to
coordinate data collection from various State PCBs and maintain a data bank for ready
reference by the experts and public at large. The CPCB was also required to develop uniform
system for collection enforcement data at national and state level; define national minimum
data requirements, the nature of information required, time frame for submitting the information
and standardizing the formats. The information collected by CPCB should be made public and
the operations of the board completely transparent. Along with the scientific data, legal data
regarding laws suits, cases of non-compliance should also be made available in public domain
to provide a comprehensive picture of the environmental issues in the country. 15

The recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee also provided some well-considered

pointers towards what needs to be done to improve the situation. Interestingly it proposed the
concept of ‘citizens’ warden’ for environmental surveillance on air and noise pollution in
particular. Prominent persons, retired army officials, retired govt. servants in cities and towns
should be nominated to keep a watch on burning of leaves, plastic and other materials in the
open air and at public places, violation of NO Horn Zone, playing loudspeakers, running noise
and pollution making generator sets, etc. They should be empowered to report the offence to
the local police for necessary penal action.

Citizen Participation

The International Conferences on Environmental Enforcement in Budapest, Hungary (1992)

and in Oaxaca, Mexico (1994) established the principle of citizen participation in environmental
governance. The 1992 Budapest Conference, focused on importance of citizen involvement
and on the methodologies developed in the US and Western Europe to facilitate this
involvement. It has been acknowledged in international fora, such as the 1995 Conference of
European Environment Ministers in Sofia, Bulgaria, that citizens are more intimately tuned into
the country’s land and natural attributes than a government ever will; importantly their number
makes them more pervasive than the largest government agency. Further having citizens as
part of the enforcement effort keeps an agency in touch with the ‘ground situation’ and builds
broad-based consensus on what can be controversial and politically sensitive enforcement
actions. Public participation strengthens ‘governmental authority; improves environmental
decision-making; encourages sound business practices for sustainable development; and
strengthens civil society. Citizens are one of a nation's greatest resources for enforcing
environmental laws and regulations16’.

Citizen participation in environmental enforcement taps the direct and immediate connection
between individuals and their environment. The day-to-day observations of the citizens gives

14
Ser 7.
15
Ser 11. (Para 11.4).
16
Roberts E and Dobbins J. ‘The Role of the Citizen in Environmental Enforcement.’ Environmental Law Institute.
http://www.inece.org/2ndvol1/roberts.htm. Accessed on January 15 2009.
them access to information about local environmental conditions and problems that the
government would find difficult to perceive. An aggrieved citizen is a potent combination of
ground level knowledge and tenacity that is required to address such issues. For example
faced with the growing congestion in the city, a doctor in Mumbai filed a petition in the High
Court (HC) against mobile hoarding vans parked along the roads that were eating into the
space available along the roadside. The court upheld the petition and barred the vans citing
reasons of congestion and public safety. The HC also cracked a whip on the Municipal
Corporation of greater Mumbai, which had failed to check the growth of hoardings. It is a
different matter that the Supreme Court later overturned the ruling of the HC17.

The public has played an increasingly important role in the U.S in forcing industry and
government to comply with environmental statutes since the beginning of the modern
environmental movement in the late 1960s. One of the best examples of citizen action in
environmental enforcement has been the U.S. experience with the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).18 Although initially US states, federal agencies, and
industry all resisted implementation of SMCRA, citizens were able to prevail and make the Act
a useful and effective tool for environmental protection. When SMCRA's regulatory agency
rewrote and weakened the statute's implementing regulations in the early 1980s, citizens
challenged the agency's actions in court. The resulting victories included limiting the number
and scope of exceptions to the Act's standards and strengthening regulations governing mining
in national forests. In the US, citizen participation is not only recognised by law but is also
seen as an essential tool for making sure that the government enforces the law. Environmental
organizations and governments in many countries, therefore, have been experimenting with
innovative methods for increasing citizen involvement in monitoring and inspection, as well as
the use of citizen complaint to get those additional ‘eyes and ears’ to counter environmental
violations. Some of the already existing measures besides citizen monitoring, are consultations
on regulations and permits, lawsuits pressuring agencies to regulate and others to comply with
laws, regulations, judicial standards ect.

Prerequisites for Effective Public Participation

Effective citizen participation requires more than a willing and determined volunteer. There are
several fundamental regulatory and institutional elements that facilitate effective citizen
participation. These are legal rights and remedies, access to information, and clear and easy to
interpret environmental standards. Wherever even one of these elements is missing, citizens
are likely find it very difficult to participate in the environmental enforcement process. Citizen
participation requires support from other institutions within the environmental protection system
too. Besides the legal frame work there is a requirement of establishing unambiguous
standards which provide a citizen with specific emission levels, deadlines for compliance and
other definite information sets so as not only identify but also prove the infringements. Finally,
industry cooperation with citizen monitoring efforts is also an important requirement and needs
to be specifically encouraged.

17
Down To Earth (2008), Twin trouble, October 16-31.
18
McElfish, SMCRA and Environmental Groups, in MOVING THE EARTH (U. Desai ed., 1992).
Citizen and Information

Almost all of the citizen involvement in environmental enforcement discussed above would be
impossible if citizens did not have ready access to credible information about potential and
actual violations. Access to information is the cornerstone of effective public participation at all
levels of decision making. One invaluable source for such information is data on pollution
levels supplied by polluters themselves, as part of a regulatory self-monitoring and reporting
regime. 19. For example in the US several means of citizen access to government-held data are
provided and some of these environmental statutes that impose self-monitoring and reporting
requirements also require the data reported to be made publicly available. This is in addition, to
the generalized information access law, under which the public can ask to review or copy of
certain information in the possession of government agencies20.

The Importance of the Right to Information

Access to environmental information enables the public to hold the government and industry
accountable for their performance and decisions. Other than the information dissemination
mechanisms of the regulating authorities, the Right To Information Act (RTIA; 2005) stands out
as the single major means of environmental information to the citizens in India. The RTIA is the
outcome of a long campaign by civil society organizations which dates back to 1984 Bhopal
Gas tragedy21. The significance of this oft-called ‘sunshine’ legislation cannot be over
emphasized. The Act widened the definition of ‘information’ to include more than just ‘records
or documents’ but also information relating to a private body that can be accessed by a public
authority under any law. Ideally, the public access to environmental information besides being
relevant should be pegged at the same awareness level as the decision maker. The World
Bank (2006) report lists out four major types of environmental information for public access.
These are:
(a) Information about day-to-day environmental quality.
(b) Information about long-term environmental trends.
(c) Information about emergency situations, risks and corresponding on and off-site
plans to deal with these risks.
(d) Finally Information about pollution and violations from industrial facilities, which
empowers NGOs, communities, investors, and consumers.

Legal Aspects

Information disclosure comes with its associated legal ramifications (including those of
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)) for the hosting entity and the user. In the case of Skoda

19
Preston, B., "Public enforcement of environmental laws in Australia", Journal of Environmental Law and
Litigation, vol. 6,1991, pp. 61-65;
20
Roberts, loc sit.
21
While the Indian Constitution does not explicitly provide for right to information, the Supreme Court, through its
various judgments, has interpreted this right to be originating from Article 19(1)(a) which states, “All citizens shall
have the right to freedom of speech and expression”. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 was published in
the gazette of India on 21 June 05.It was passed by the Lok Sabha (11May 05) and the Rajya Sabha (12 May05)
with 146 amendments.
India episode described earlier there was a warning by Skoda that “hosting or publishing of
such information (which does not represent all the facts) would implicate both Team-BHP as
well as its various users in the ongoing court case”. Team-BHP posted the company’s reaction
and started another discussion on the issue. There are also legal limitations on the use of self-
monitoring data as evidence in court and other proceedings and is a disincentive for industry to
conduct accurate self-monitoring and reporting.

Making Citizen Participation Work in India

In the Indian context besides creating pressure on the enterprise reputation involving citizens
in environmental compliance and enforcement is one of the possible options of overcoming the
resource constraints of the SPCB particularly in States with limited resources. It could also
remedy the major shortcoming felt with respect to public participation that is of extending the
public participation beyond the planning stage of a development project22. However the
reliance on RTIA alone in its present form to provide the required access to information as the
major draw back of the RTIA is that it does not encourage proactive reporting or disclosure of
information. Hence the problem of restricted and time constrained access to information
remains. It appears that the act sought to create information access mechanisms where none
existed and assumed that those that existed were adequate. For Citizen monitoring to be truly
effective, an enforcing mechanism either from a voluntary agreement between the regulatory,
industry and citizens or with legal grounding is necessary to ensure compliance. For example,
Local Area Environment Groups that are used by the SPCBs for monitoring purposes were
created by the initiative of the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes
hence had the requisite legal basis for its functioning.

Recommendations

Having established the suitability and willingness of citizens to participate in environmental

monitoring and the pre-requisites to facilitate the same, the paper recommends a mechanism
for aggregation of suitable information, its dissemination and appropriate use by affected
citizens. The recommended mechanism incorporating citizen monitoring for improving
environmental compliance basically devolves around the issues of making information
available to the citizens and putting in place arrangements that facilitate this use of the
information. The issue of ensuring integrity of the information and assistance to the citizens
while planning its use has also been considered while formulating the recommendations. The
final aim of the exercise to put reputation of errant enterprises under pressure, first by the
proactive disclosure of their environmental performance data and second by its further
examination by the citizens.

22
The World Bank (2006): India: Strengthening Institutions for Sustainable Growth, Country Environmental
Analysis, September 2006, pg 27. Accessed February 10, 2009.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INDIAEXTN/Resources/events/359987-
1162549840551/Final_India_Envt_Report_06.pdf
Aggregation and Dissemination of Information

The proposed mechanism looks to the RTIA and the web-based government supervised
databases to ensure information availability. To this end we shall see how the RTIA can be
‘tweaked’ to improve information availability and further it shall be seen how the Pollutant
Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) framework and format can be adopted to improve
information delivery.

RTIA

RTIA provides public access to information in a time bound manner; it stipulates procedures
and requires that responding authorities be designated and intimated to the public for the
purpose. The Act created means of access where means did not exist and streamlined those,
which were already in existence. The Act facilitates access to the extent that Sec 6 (3) of the
RTI states that ‘where application made to a public authority requesting for information which is
held by another public authority or connected with the function of another public authority’, the
application seeking the particular information is transferred to that public authority under
information to the applicant. The qualitative nature of the information provided by the public
authority depends firstly, on the manner in which the request for information is framed by the
information seeker and secondly on the nature of the working rules of the public authority with
respect to collection of information. In case of environmental performance data this basically
means that though access to information becomes easier there is no qualitative improvement
in the information being held/ aggregating by the SPCBs/CPCB as this information pertaining
to industry’s compliance with environment, safety norms or taking of samples of pollutants ect
still continues to be governed by the existing tedious laws and procedures on submission and
collection of information.

The first issue concerning framing of information requests can be addressed through proactive
availability of information with public authority. Sec 4 (2) of RTIA states ‘It shall be a constant
endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of
clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo moto to the public at regular
intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have
minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information 23. To this end more elements of
environment performance data has to be place under Sec 4(2) of the RTIA. Regulatory
agencies should ensure that there is access to EIA documents, documentation of
consultations, environment monitoring data, status reports on pending actions and consent
management details and of course public comments. On the second aspect, a de novo look is
required to be taken on promoting mandatory and voluntary disclosure of information by
industries/private bodies. This will ease the burden of procuring information on the government
bodies.

Once all the required elements of information are available proactively we can deliberate on its
form and the platforms of delivery to the citizen. We look at PRTR as a suitable information
delivery model for the citizens.

23
Section 4 (2) Chapter II of The RTIA, 2005. http://rti.gov.in/rtiact.htm. Accessed on 04 April 2009.
Pollutant Release and Transfer Register

The importance of monitoring of pollutants for various stakeholders especially members of the
public has led to the creation of the PRTR; which is a national or regional environmental
database/ inventory of potentially hazardous chemical substances and/or pollutants released to
air, water and soil and transferred off-site for treatment or disposal. E-PRTR or the European-
PRTR has its legislative basis in the EU Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 24promulgated with the
objective of operationalising the obligations of the UN-ECE PRTR (also called Kiev) Protocol.
The first reporting year under the E-PRTR was the year 2007 and the regulation currently
specifies 91 pollutants. PRTR regulation places the responsibility for data collection on the
industrial facility operator and the industrial facilities are required to quantify and report the
amounts of substances released to each environmental medium (air, water, and soil) or
transferred off-site for waste management or wastewater treatment. Some PRTRs also include
estimates of releases from diffuse sources, such as agriculture and transport and from the end
use of products.

Environmental authorities normally compile the PRTR data but the facility operator has a legal
responsibility to monitor substances that are released during the operation of an installation
and provide the same to the regulator annually. For monitoring, emissions and discharges
methods have been specified in the PRTR guidance. In addition a number of quality checks
are built into the data collection and reporting processes. These include cross-referencing
information contained in permits with operator-reported PRTR data, incorporating inspection
and monitoring station data and scrutinising operator supplied data for errors/omissions and
completeness.

The 2003 Kiev Protocol on PRTRs25 created a legally binding international obligation in making
information on environment matters publicly accessible. The UK PRTR website fulfils this need
in a commendable manner and is worthy of being replicated.26 It provides a ‘Facility Search’,
which allows the user to find facilities and displays the search results sorted by the different
release to media or waste types. The ‘Industrial Activity’ tab allows you to search for facilities
based on industrial activity. The search results can also be seen as a map-view, which allows
you to visualise the facilities returned in the results across the UK. Finally the ‘Pollutant Search’
tab allows you to search directly for a particular pollutant and see all the facilities involved in
the release to media or waste of that pollutant. . Probably the most user friendly feature is the
Map Search visual tool that can be used to search for facilities and their locations. Amongst the
Indian SPCBs the Maharashtra PCB website could possibly rated as one of the best in this
regard but it is still a far cry from the information dissemination tools discussed above27. To
adapt the PRTR model in its entirety will require to key actions first is to provide it a legal basis

24
Regulation (Ec) No 166/2006 Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Of The European Union of 18
January 2006 concerning the establishment of a European PRTR.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_033/l_03320060204en00010017.pdf
25
Kiev Protocol on PRTRs was adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention on
21 May 2003 at Kiev. Thirty-six member States and the European Community signed the Protocol. It is the first
legally binding international instrument on pollutant release and transfer registers with the objective of enhancing
“public access to information through the establishment of coherent, nationwide PRTRs."
http://www.unece.org/env/pp/prtr.htm
26
UK PRTR Homepage. http://prtr.defra.gov.uk/index.php. Accessed on May 15 2009.
27
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board website. Accessed on May 25 2009.
http://mpcb.gov.in/hazardous/hazardousmgt.php
and second it to put the onus of submission and correctness of the information on the industrial
facilities.

Putting Information to Use

Once citizens have accessed environmental data relevant to them, they may put their
information to a number of uses. The citizens could choose to alert the government as to their
findings. In the US, most state and federal agencies are organised to receive information
reported through both formal and informal citizen monitoring. Alternatively they could put the
violations under spotlight through the media in the press or could create pressure on industrial
polluters to comply through community meetings.

Nodal NGOs

There will be a requirement to nominate at least one NGO active on environmental issues in
each state as the ‘nodal NGO’. This NGO will act as the interface between the regulating
agencies and the industries on one hand and the citizen on the other. The nodal NGO provides
the desired balance to the process. It shields the citizen from the various hurdles they are likely
to face in the conduct of their monitoring including those of resources and possibly intimidation.
They also play the key pole of ensuring the mechanism is not used to raise personal issues
and the citizen monitoring action does not stray from the purpose for which it has been
conceived. The nodal NGO must also be provided sufficient resources to maintain a database
of citizen queries/observation/complaints and the replies received in response from the
industries and the regulating agencies. However the main activity of the Nodal NGO would be
in the conduct of ‘challenge tests’ of the environmental performance data declared by the
industries.

Integrity of Information

In addition to the measures mentioned during the description of the PRTR, the information put
out in the public domain could be subject to ‘challenge’ to ensure its correctness. The Bureau
of Energy Efficiency’s (BEE), Ministry of Power has developed a scheme for energy efficiency
labelling of equipment, under clause (d) of section 14 of the Energy Conservation Act, 2001 by
the Central Government28. On verification testing of samples, the test result forms the basis for
award of the BEE label. The scheme is characterised by what is termed as Challenge Testing.
The label contents are open to challenge by any person. The challenge must be submitted to
the Bureau in writing. The Bureau will examine the challenge within a month of the date of
receipt in writing. The Standards and Labelling Implementation Committee will recommend
whether to conduct a challenge test or not, keeping in view the basis of the complaint and

28
The Standards and labelling programme is a thrust area of the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE). The Central
government, under the Energy Conservation Act, 2001, has the powers to direct display of labels on specified
appliances or equipment (14.d) and enforce minimum efficiency standards by prohibiting manufacture, sale and
import of products that do not meet the minimum standards (14.c).
examination of past records. It is proposed to use this method in the recommended
mechanism. The comprehensive environmental information hosted on the regulators website
would be open to challenge verification by a citizen duly assisted by the Nodal NGO. The
response of both the regulator/SPCBs and the concerned industry/manufacturing unit would be
obtained by the nodal NGO including obtaining samples when required and getting them tested
by an independent third party accredited laboratory. The outcome of the challenge test would
then be hosted on the Nodal NGOs website exposing unethical practices if any.

Citizen –Government Interaction

Most legislation have blind spots and ‘grey areas’ which when not addressed in the operational
directives or rules lead to implementation glitches. The infusion of varied, non-institutional
perspectives and information sources into the lawmaking and subsequently the enforcement
process may improve the quality of legislation, which may further increase compliance, deter
violations, and finally result in a more realistic and responsive environmental enforcement
strategy. For example the ‘single ATM’ concept in India where you can use the ATM of any
bank free of charge has come about as a result of the citizen feedback/interactions with the
Reserve Bank of India. Hence the recommended citizen participation mechanism must
provide these functional level inputs for existing legislations to the MoEF/CPCB and for future
legislations and legal research to the law Commission. The procedure for providing such
inputs/pointers has to be simple. In still other countries, such as Mexico, the constitution
guarantees a right to petition, which constitutes a vehicle for the public to direct inquiries to the
government to which the government must respond in some manner.

Conclusion

Citizen involvement is crucial to the establishment and implementation of a fair and

effective environmental protection regime. Citizens can both supplement government
enforcement efforts and encourage the government to maintain and sharpen its focus on
environmental protection. Public participation may be the vital ingredient necessary to make
environmental protection statutes and regulations more ‘implementable’. Policymakers setting
up and implementing environmental controls can draw upon the resources of citizens to further
the common goal of environmental protection by making monitoring more effective. The
government could attempt to meet citizens halfway by not only responding to citizen requests,
but also by proactively disseminating environmental data collected in the course of its
regulatory duties. In conclusion, successful public participation must be carefully planned and
executed as part of a long-term environmental management program. Monitoring and citizen
participation becomes more relevant as government is considering placing more environmental
regulations and their compliance within the ambit of self-certification and declaration.