“Policy contradictions among various competing sectors and stakeholders have resulted in inadequate 'protection and prevention of degradation' to environment.” Comment with relevant illustrations.

Understanding Policy Contradictions

Policy contradictions occur when policies designed for different sectors or with different objectives clash, leading to unintended negative consequences for the environment. These contradictions often arise from a lack of integrated planning and a siloed approach to governance. They manifest as conflicting mandates, inadequate enforcement, and a failure to internalize environmental costs into economic decision-making.

Illustrations of Policy Contradictions & Environmental Degradation

1. Infrastructure Development vs. Forest Conservation

The push for rapid infrastructure development, particularly road construction and dam building, frequently clashes with forest conservation efforts. For instance, the expansion of national highways often requires felling of trees, impacting biodiversity and increasing carbon emissions. The Ken-Betwa river linking project, despite environmental concerns raised by the NGT, continues to be pursued, potentially disrupting the Panna Tiger Reserve ecosystem. (Knowledge cutoff 2024)

2. Agriculture & Fertilizer Subsidies vs. Water Quality

India’s agricultural policies, including substantial fertilizer subsidies, incentivize overuse of chemical fertilizers. This leads to soil degradation, water pollution (eutrophication), and groundwater depletion. The focus on increasing agricultural output often overshadows the environmental costs associated with intensive farming practices. The promotion of paddy cultivation in water-stressed regions like Punjab further exacerbates the problem.

3. Industrial Growth vs. Pollution Control

The ‘Make in India’ initiative, while aimed at boosting manufacturing, has sometimes led to lax environmental regulations in industrial zones. The concentration of polluting industries in areas like Gujarat and Maharashtra has resulted in severe air and water pollution. Dilution of environmental impact assessment (EIA) norms, as proposed in recent drafts, further weakens pollution control mechanisms. The closure of Sterlite Copper plant in Thoothukudi (2018) exemplifies the conflict between industrial growth and public health/environmental concerns.

4. Coal Mining vs. Air Quality & Biodiversity

India’s reliance on coal for energy security clashes with its commitments to reduce carbon emissions and protect air quality. Expansion of coal mining activities, particularly in ecologically sensitive areas like the Hasdeo Aranya forest in Chhattisgarh, leads to deforestation, habitat loss, and increased air pollution. The prioritization of energy needs often overrides environmental safeguards.

The Role of Stakeholders

Multiple stakeholders contribute to these policy contradictions. Government agencies often prioritize economic growth targets, while environmental regulators lack sufficient authority and resources. Industry lobbies advocate for relaxed regulations, and local communities often bear the brunt of environmental degradation. A lack of effective coordination and consultation among these stakeholders exacerbates the problem.

Addressing the Challenges

• Integrated Planning: Adopt a holistic approach to planning that considers environmental impacts alongside economic objectives.
• Strengthening Environmental Regulations: Enforce existing regulations effectively and avoid diluting environmental safeguards.
• Internalizing Environmental Costs: Incorporate the environmental costs of economic activities into pricing mechanisms (e.g., carbon tax, pollution charges).
• Promoting Sustainable Practices: Incentivize sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, and green technologies.
• Community Participation: Ensure meaningful participation of local communities in environmental decision-making.