Editorial of the Day (22nd Aug): Need for an Environmental Regulator

Context: The Supreme Court decided to examine the need for a ‘permanent environmental regulator’ similar to those found in the telecom and electricity sectors.

Arguments in Favour of Establishing a Permanent Environmental Regulator

• Unified Oversight and Coordination: A permanent environmental regulator could bring together the various fragmented regulatory bodies currently operating in silos.
  • This would ensure a more cohesive and coordinated approach to environmental and climate regulation, reducing overlaps and inconsistencies.
• Enhanced Accountability and Enforcement: A single regulatory authority would have the mandate to enforce environmental laws uniformly across the country.
  • This could lead to stronger compliance and more effective deterrence against violations, as there would be clear accountability.
• Specialized Focus on Environmental Issues: Just as the telecom and electricity sectors have specialised regulators, the environment, being a critical area, warrants its own dedicated regulator.
  • This would ensure that environmental concerns receive the focused attention and expertise they require.
• Proactive Environmental Protection: A permanent regulator could adopt a proactive stance, implementing preventive measures and long-term strategies for environmental protection, rather than merely reacting to violations or disasters.
• Streamlined Decision-Making: With a single authority overseeing environmental regulations, decision-making could be streamlined, leading to faster responses and reduced bureaucratic delays in addressing environmental issues.
• Better Integration of Climate Change Policies: The regulator could integrate climate change policies with environmental regulations, ensuring a comprehensive approach to both mitigation and adaptation strategies in the face of global climate challenges.

Arguments Against Establishing a Permanent Environmental Regulator

• Duplication of Existing Frameworks: Critics argue that establishing another regulatory body could lead to unnecessary duplication of efforts.
  • The current system already has specific regulators and institutions like the National Green Tribunal and the Central Empowered Committee that handle environmental issues.
• Increased Bureaucratic Complexity: Adding another layer of regulation could complicate the existing regulatory framework, making it more cumbersome and less efficient.
  • This could lead to delays in decision-making and implementation.
• Risk of Overcentralization: A single, centralised regulator might lack the nuanced understanding required to address the diverse environmental challenges across different regions of India.
  • Local and sector-specific regulators might be better equipped to handle specific issues.
• Potential for Reduced Expertise: Existing regulators are staffed with experts in their respective fields, such as wildlife conservation or pollution control.
  • A single regulator might dilute this specialised expertise, leading to less effective regulation.
• Financial and Administrative Burden: Establishing and maintaining a new regulatory body would require significant financial and administrative resources, which could be better utilised by strengthening and improving the efficiency of existing regulators.
• Possible Resistance from States: Environmental issues often have regional and local dimensions.
  • A central regulator might face resistance from state governments, who may view it as an encroachment on their jurisdiction and authority over local environmental matters.

Sharing is caring!