Weak enforcement

Table of Contents:

The Water Act has a number of provisions to deal with non-compliance and the GPCB has been issuing closure orders to individual industries for non-compliance under the Water Act. However, none of the CETPs have been penalised in terms of a closure order or presented with a legal case by the regulator. The reasons for poor enforcement highlighted during the discussions with the key personnel are:

(1) The closure of the CETP would mean closure of all member units as none of the member units has an on-site holding capacity of more than two days⁸.
(2) There is political pressure⁹ on the regulator to not take strict action against the non-complying CETPs, as the state government has industrial development as its main focus and the closure of the CETP, and, in turn, the closing of the member units, will be counter-productive to industrial development.
(3) The CETP managers represent the industry and have political connections¹".

Fearing the detection of non-compliance and the severity of the resulting punishment can act as major deterrents and improve compliance. However, in this case, as the regulator has not taken any stringent action against any of the CETPs— the enforcement has remained weak. It is also clear that when the courts have been monitoring the performance of the CETP—as in the case of CETP SIEL

(Sachin Infra Environment Ltd.)—the performance suddenly improved, even for those which have been violating the norms for years. Strict monitoring and enforcement should thus be mandatory to ensure compliance and improve the performance of the CETPs in treating the pollution.

Notes

1 This is as per a discussion with a representative of the GPCB on 14 December 2016.
2 This is as per a discussion with the operator of CETP Vatva on 4 October 2016, CETP Naroda on 8 October 2016, CETP Pandesara on 21 December 2016 and CETP PEPL (Palsana Enviro Protection Ltd.) on 21 December 2016.
3 This has been mentioned during the discussion with a representative of CETP Naroda on 8 October 2016.
4 ‘The lack of seriousness in the past’ has been mentioned as a reason for the CETP not meeting the norms, during a discussion with the representative of CETP Vatva on 4 October 2016.
5 A retired senior official of the GPCB, during a discussion on 14 December 2016, mentioned that the CETPs have been a convenient solution to comply with the High Court order and legal requirements.
6 This was mentioned by the head of the Gujarat Environment Management Institute (GEMI) during a discussion on 14 December 2016 and by a retired senior official of the GPCB during a discussion on 14 December 2016.
7 This has been mentioned during a discussion with the operator of CETP Vatva on 4 October 2016.
8 This has been mentioned by a retired senior official of the GPCB during a discussion on 14 December 2016.
9 This was mentioned during a discussion on 14 December 2016 with the following: a retired senior official of the GPCB; an official of the GEMI; the head of an NGO; and, during a discussion on 19 December 2016, with the CEO of Pharmez SEZ, where the CETP is run by an independent operator.
10 This was mentioned, during a discussion on 19 December 2016, by the CEO of Pharmez SEZ, where the CETP is run by an independent operator.

References

Kathuria, V (2001). Pollution: Prevention vs. control: Is EOP treatment the solution? Economic & Political Weekly, 36(29), 2745—2748.

Labunska, L, A. Stephenson, K. Brigden, D. Santillo, R. Stringer, P.A. Johnston, &J.M. Ashton. (1999). Toxic Hotspots: A Greenpeace Investigation of Gujarat Industrial Estates. Exeter, UK: Greenpeace Research Laboratories.

Sankar, U. (2000). Common effluent treatment plants: An institutional arrangement for pollution control in small scale tanneries in India. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ulaganathan_Sankar/publication/252196879_COMMON_ EFFLUENT_TREATMENT_PLANTS_AN_INSTITUTIONAL_ARRANGE MENT_FOR_POLLUTION_CONTROL_IN_SMALL_SCALE_TANNERIES _IN_INDIA/links/00b7d52al64b782fa9000000.pdf [Accessed on 14 July 2019].

Tietenberg, T. (2004). Environmental and Natural Resource Economics (p. 443). Singapore: Pearson Education.