Critics of punjab envirnmental protection act 1997

347 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
347
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Critics of punjab envirnmental protection act 1997

  1. 1. ASSIGNMENT CRITICS OF PUNJAB ENVIRNMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1997 By: Muhammad Qasim & Aroj Bashir Department of Environmental Sciences Department of geo Sciences & Geography
  2. 2. Hafiz Hayat Campus University of Gujrat CRITICS OF PUNJAB ENVIRNMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1997 Punjab Environmental protection act, 1997 is the XXXIV of 1997 amendment. In listed some critics are given. The constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act 2010 gives provincial government exclusive powers to legislate on the subject of “Environmental pollution and ecology”. The implication of this shift is analyzed the study as compression. • Definitions Certain key terms has been expunging marine pollution and biological waste. An important definition not mention in section 2 that are pesticides. (Section 2) • Lack of clarity in certain provisions • In section 2, clause xxxvii use local council or local authority but not define the hierarchy of local council or local authority. ( Section 2) • In section 6 sub section 1 clause k and subsection 2 clause e use the sentence approved laboratories for conducting tests but not environmental laboratories. ( Section 6 subsection 1 Clause k and subsection 2 clause e )
  3. 3. • In section 6 clause e use word revise [Punjab] environmental quality standard but not clear the revising time. (Section 6 subsection 1, clause e) • Pollution charges word use in section 11 thereof subsection 2 and 3. But not clear pollution charges. (Section 11 and subsection 2,3) • Functioning and jurisdiction of environmental tribunals and environmental magistrate is also not base on clarity. ( Section 21,24) • Procedure need to be simplified , clarified and refined • Procedure related to Establishment of the [Provincial] environmental protection agency. (section 5 and sub section 6) • Procedure related to environmental impact assessment. (section 12) • Procedure related to environmental protection order. (section 16) Because, in some cases procedures have not yet been defined like clean up requirements, follow up procedures and consultations. • Define the, appeals and role of high court and suomoto powers In the environmental tribunal and environmental magistrates (powers, Jurisdiction, procedure for hearing for complain) define. (Section 20, 21, 23, 24) • Administrative penalties needs to be clarified Penalties need to be assess again and revised based on the environmental impact of offences rather than the type of the offence. The purpose Administrative penalties needs to be clarified. (Section 17) • Funding for mechanisms created under PEPA 1997 is not guaranteed
  4. 4. • For example sustainable development funds (Section 9). • Funds recovered under PEPA 1997 are not channeled back in to environmental work. • New source of revenue should be introduced. Example, Solid waste products, environmental taxes. • Environmental quality and emission standards Environmental quality standards and emission must be uniform and no variations should be permitted in terms of geographical areas unless it is so strengthen of the standards. • Role of the police and enforcement responsibility of EPA officers It’s not defined in PEPA 1997. • Environmental audit should be required In section 6 clause I talk about the inspection and audit and section 10 subsection 3 also talk about the audit of sustainable development fund. But it’s also necessary to covering all type of industrial and commercial operations with potential impact on the environment regardless with scale or of when they began operations. So need of environmental audit.

×