D-Sector for Development Community

   Monday, May 20, 2013
Agriculture - Duties and Rights - Education - Environment - Food - Global - Governance - Health - Indian Economy - Indian Society - Physical Development - Social Welfare - Water and Sanitation
Print | Back
Ganga cleanup: Some unanswered questions
By Sudhirendar Sharma



The euphoria and cynicism generated by the World Bank's $1 billion loan is similar to the enthusiasm Rajiv Gandhi's Ganga Action Plan had generated in 1984. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Parliament had found in 2004 that Rs 960 crore spent on the project (till then) only ended-up increasing the level of pollution in the river.

This article was first published in March 1985 issue of Manthan (“But can the Ganga be purified? Ten pertinent questions to the Government of India”), a quarterly published by the Deendayal Research Institute). It had raised some questions on the Ganga Action Plan, which are as relevant today as these were then.

1. Can Rs 250 crore project cleanse the Ganga, when the State Pollution Control Boards and the Central Board for Pollution Control could not do so with the help of a legal weapon called the Water Pollution Control Act, 1974?

2. If the existence of Pollution Boards and the Act during the past decade is a testimony to an increase in the levels of pollution, isn't there something wrong with the functioning of the Boards and the implementation of the Act?

3. While providing sewerage treatment facilities to 29 Class 1 cities along the Ganga may not reduce pollution to even 50 per cent, how is the complete check on waste disposal to be achieved?

4. It is believed that 25 per cent of the pollution in the Ganga is caused by 132 major industries along its 2,000 km route from Haridwar to Howrah. Out of these units, 66 are on the banks of the river at Kanpur alone. Whereas providing sewerage and sewage treatment facilities is a government responsibility, industrial units are supposed to have their own treatment facilities for the wastes they generate. But none of the industries have a fool-proof waste treatment facility, though under Sections 25, 26 of the Water Pollution Control Act, the industries cannot dispose their untreated effluents into the natural water courses.

5. On the other hand, Section 33 of the Act has provided the Boards with legal powers of punishment and imprisonment to erring authorities. Also, under certain conditions the Boards can purify the effluents for the industry and recover the expenditure incurred. What then prevented these Boards from implementing the provision?

6. Political interference, business lobbies and lack of technical manpower curtailed the functioning of most of the State Pollution Boards, but it has not indicated any measures to strengthen their functioning. If, along with these Boards and the Act, a separate Ganga Authority is required to clean the river, then what will be the future role and status of these Boards?

7. The project on paper seems alright and there is every possibility of treating sewage and sullage, provided funds are available. Can all the population (informal settlements) living along the Ganga be covered under the sewerage schemes of municipalities?

8. The Ganga plan indicates a net profit of Rs 14 per person by way of gas/manure on an investment of Rs 23 per capita per year towards expenditure on pumping and treatment of waste. Had this idea been sold to the State Pollution Boards, they would have earned a significant profit to the States?

9. It is said, ‘The poor simply defecate into the river, the rich dispose their wastes and religious throw their dead into it.’ Sewage is the major culprit, for which a massive awareness drive needs to be launched and, shockingly, this doesn't form part of the Ganga Plan. Why?

10. When Ganga is mother to millions of Indians, let this Ganga Plan be a peoples’ plan. Let's inculcate into millions of Indians the spirit of saving the mother, by awareness and education. Why Not?

 
Disclaimer:
The views expressed above are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of d-sector editorial team.
 

Sudhirendar Sharma  |  sudhirendarsharma@gmail.com

Dr Sudhirendar Sharma is an environmentalist and development analyst based in New Delhi. Formerly with the World Bank, Dr Sharma is an expert on water, a keen observer on climate change dynamics, and a critic of the contemporary development processes.

Write to the Author  |  Write to d-sector  |  Editor's Note
 


 
 Other Articles in Environment Development
 
 
Coke Nation

The news that Indians consume far less aerated beverages each year than their neighbours in Pakistan and China could be interpreted differently. In comparison to per capita annual consumption of 39 and 21 bottles of aerated drinks in China and Pakistan respectively, average Indian drinks just about 14 bottles in a year. For Coca-Cola this means a serious job at hand for which the company has announced an advertisement budget of $5 billion. For the company, economic growth of a country and its peoples' thirst for aerated beverages is directly coorelated. 

Coca-Cola doesn't consider 'negative' publicity for cola behind poor consumption of the aerated beverage in India. As per its books, brand Coca-Cola has registered consecutive growth for past 27 quarters and has been a leader with a brand volume of 30 per cent. For Coca-Cola the target is to turn it into a 'Coke Nation', on the lines of Mexico where per capita annual consumption is 745 bottles..Whether Indian consumer exercises restraint in gulping the drink whose health consequences are all but known, the flipside to the story is that  the state governments are falling prey to Coca-Cola's investment plans?

Waste Appetite

The clock has turned full circle! After dumping industrial and toxic trash in the developing world all these years, Europe is now shopping for garbage to keep its cities, schools and homes heated. What better place than the developing world to shop for garbage! Reports indicate that northern Europe needs more than 700 million tons of trash to keep its waste-to-energy plants running. Most of its current demand is either domestically met or from garbage shipped from southern Europe.Yet, the demand is far more than what neighboring countries can spare after meeting their domestic needs. 

As more waste incinerators are being built in Sweden, Norway, Austria and Germany to meet the growing demand for heating public places, these countries are left with two options - either encourage households to produce more trash or else import garbage from across the world. For sure, it is easy to import than to produce! A company in England is already shipping some 1,000 tons of garbage to keep its systems running. Since incinerators have cornered environmental controversy in India and for rightful reasons, there exists an opportunity to explore feasibility of exporting as much as 109,589 tonnes of garbage that piles our streets on a daily basis. 

Lead View
To pee or not to pee
By Sudhirendar Sharma
21 Apr 2013

Sustained pollution of major rivers; continuous decline in groundwater reserves; priority allocation to non-consumptive sectors; and, growing disparity in water distribution only indicates that the worst is still to come!..
Book Shelf

Water Drops

Provocations for Development

River Dog

Psychology in the Bathroom
Commentators
Devinder Sharma
Carmen Miranda
Pandurang Hegde
Sudhirendar Sharma
Member Login
- New Member
- Forgot Password

Business Plan,Business Ideas,Advanced Energy,High Technology,Healthy Diets,Healthy Foods,Games Guides,Games Cheats,Export Business,US exports,Study Skills,Study Tips,Health Tips,Health Guides,Jewelry Stores,Jewellery UK Online