You are appointed as an officer heading the section in Environment Pollution Control Board to ensure compliance and its follow-up. In that region, there were large number of small and medium industries which had been granted clearance. You learnt that these industries provide employment to many migrant workers. Most of the industrial units have got environmental clearance certificate in their possession. The environmental clearance seeks to curb industries and projects that supposedly hamper environment and living species in the region. But in practice, most of these units remain to be polluting units in several ways like air, water and soil pollution. As such, local people encountered persistent health problems. It was confirmed that majority of the industries were violating environmental compliance. You issued notice to all the industrial units to apply for fresh environmental clearance certificate from the competent authority. However, your action met with hostile response from a section of the industrial units, other vested interest persons and a section of the local politicians. The workers also became very hostile to you as they felt that your action would lead to the closure of these industrial units, and the resultant unemployment will lead to insecurity and uncertainty in their livelihood. Many owners of the industries approached you with the plea that you should not initiate harsh action as it would compel them to close their units, and cause huge financial loss, shortage of their products in the market. These would obviously add to the sufferings of the labourers and the consumers alike. The labour union also sent you representation requesting against the closure of the units. You simultaneously started receiving threats from unknown corners. You however received supports from some of your colleagues, who advised you to act freely to ensure environmental compliance. Local NGOs also came to your support and they demanded the closure of the polluting units immediately.

a. What are the options available to you under the given situation?

b. Critically examine the options listed by you.

c. What type of mechanism would you suggest to ensure environmental compliance?

d. What are the ethical dilemmas you faced in exercising your option? (250 words) [UPSC 2022]

Roadmap for Answer Writing

1. Introduction (30-40 words):

• Begin by setting the context of the situation: An officer of the Environment Pollution Control Board (EPCB) is tasked with ensuring compliance in an area with industries contributing to air, water, and soil pollution, despite having environmental clearance certificates. This has led to health concerns among the local population, and the officer faces resistance from stakeholders.

Source of facts:

• Environment Protection Act (1986): Environmental clearances are required to ensure that industries do not harm the environment.

2. Stakeholders (20-30 words):

• Identify all relevant stakeholders involved in the case:
  • Industries: Small and medium industries violating environmental norms.
  • Migrant Workers: Fear of unemployment.
  • Local Politicians and Vested Interests: Opposing strict enforcement.
  • EPCB and NGOs: Advocating for compliance and environmental protection.

3. (a) Options Available (70-80 words):

• Option 1: Strictly enforce penalties against non-compliant units.
• Option 2: Engage in dialogue with industrial units to encourage eco-friendly practices.
• Option 3: Seek higher authority support for enforcement.
• Option 4: Collaborate with local NGOs and communities to raise awareness.
• Option 5: Implement a phased approach to allow gradual compliance.

Source of facts:

• Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (1981) and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (1974) allow for penalties and enforcement for polluting industries.

4. (b) Critical Examination of the Options (80-100 words):

• Option 1 (Strict penalties):
  • Pros: Deters violations, protects public health.
  • Cons: Could lead to industrial closures, job losses, hostility.
• Option 2 (Dialogue):
  • Pros: Cooperation, long-term change, trust-building.
  • Cons: Slow process, possible resistance.
• Option 3 (Higher authority support):
  • Pros: Leverages resources, stronger enforcement.
  • Cons: Delays, reduced decision-making autonomy.
• Option 4 (NGO collaboration):
  • Pros: Community engagement, collective action.
  • Cons: Time-intensive, dependency on external stakeholders.
• Option 5 (Phased approach):
  • Pros: Gradual transition, fewer economic shocks.
  • Cons: Slow progress, immediate environmental issues remain.

5. (c) Mechanism to Ensure Compliance (50-60 words):

• Regular monitoring and inspections of industrial units to ensure compliance.
• Training programs for industries and workers on environmental standards.
• Phased enforcement: Give industries time to comply but impose strict penalties for continued violations.
• Incentives for eco-friendly technologies to encourage adoption of cleaner practices.

Source of facts:

• National Green Tribunal (NGT): Effective monitoring and penalization for environmental violations in industries.

6. (d) Ethical Dilemmas (60-80 words):

• Balancing environmental protection vs. economic livelihood: Enforcing environmental standards could lead to job losses, particularly for migrant workers.
• Fairness and equity: Ensuring all industries are treated equally in compliance.
• Pressure from vested interests and threats: Navigating political and personal pressures while maintaining integrity.
• Long-term environmental sustainability vs. immediate disruptions: Weighing the needs of long-term environmental health against short-term economic impacts.

7. Conclusion (20-30 words):

• The officer must strike a balance between environmental sustainability and economic stability. A phased approach with strict monitoring, supported by collaborative efforts from all stakeholders, is key to sustainable development.

Source of facts:

• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Key Facts and Data for Inclusion:

• Air pollution deaths: According to WHO, 7 million people die annually from air pollution-related causes.
• Pollution in India: The Center for Science and Environment (CSE) highlights that industries contribute over 30% of India’s pollution.
• Migrant workers: As per the Economic Survey (2020-21), migrant workers make up 37% of the workforce in India, emphasizing the social impact of closures.

By following this roadmap, the answer will be well-structured, ensuring coverage of all aspects of the question while maintaining clarity, coherence, and relevance to the ethical and environmental issues at hand.