The document discusses water pollution in India and challenges facing the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in addressing this issue. Key points: - Most of India's rivers and water bodies are polluted by sewage and industrial waste, with only 10% of waste water treated. - The MoEF aims to control water pollution through various acts and policies, but faces "capability traps" in relying on linear, top-down approaches and prioritizing compliance over solving the problem. - Experts argue the MoEF needs to re-examine its assumptions about the context of water pollution in India and empower local agents to develop innovative, tailored solutions through experimentation and feedback.

1. Control of Water Pollution in
India
Capability Traps in Ministry of
Environment & Forests

2. Clean water is a vital necessity

3. Some facts
• India has 14 major rivers, 55 minor rivers and
several hundred small ones.
• The most polluting source for rivers in the
country is the city sewage and industrial waste
discharge, though industrial and agricultural
waste are powerful sources as well.
• Only about 10 per cent of the waste water
generated is treated at present; the rest is
discharged as it is into the water bodies.

4. The framework of water pollution
control in IndiaLEGISLATION
Water (Prevention
& Control of
Pollution)
Act, 1974
Environment (
Protection)
Act, 1986
International Best
Practices
POLICY
National Water
Policy, 2002
National
Environment
Policy, 2006
PROGRAMMES
National River
Conservation Plan
National Lake
Conservation Plan
Jawaharlal Nehru
National Urban
Renewal Mission

5. Capability traps
Aim to reproduce external solutions which are considered
“best practices”
Through pre-determined linear agendas
That inform tight monitoring of inputs and compliance to the
plan
Are driven top down – implementation happens largely by
edict.

6. Form over function
•The system is closed/rigid
•Novelty not entertained.
•Agenda conformity
emphasised.
Ecosystem of the Govt.
of India
•Isomorphic mimicry
Ministry of Env'mt &
Forests •Leadership strategies
emphasise of
perpetuating extant
structures/processes
•Front-line workers:
routine compliance
Agents

7. Linear agenda & emphasis on
compliance
1. Identification of polluted river stretches by
CPCB
2. List of polluted river stretches sent to States
3 (i) States prepare DPRs for which aim to control
pollution of river stretches identified as polluted by
CPCB and send to NRCD
Alternately: 3(ii) States send DPRs for rivers not in
CPCB list but found polluted by the State as per
NRCD criteria
4. NRCD approves DPR or sends it back to States
for revision

8. Policy-making
For river/lake
pollution: MoEF &
Central Pollution
Control Board (CPCB)
For ground water
pollution: Ministry of
Envrironment & Forests
(MoEF), Ministry of
Water Resources
(MoWR)
Central Ground Water
Board (CGWB)
Implementation
For river/lake
pollution: National
River/Lake
Conservation
Directorate
For Ground water:
MOEF,
MoWR
Monitoring
For River/lake
pollution: NRCD/CPCB
For ground water
pollution: CGWB
Water Quality
Assessment Authority
Top-down approach

9. Global ‘solutions’
are
recommended by
international
organizations
The process of
getting there is
pre-designed and
broken down into
indicators;
Organizations are
given incentives to
comply with the
indicators, as process
‘goals’
Leaders are given
incentives to comply
and organize work
agendas to meet the
process ‘goals’.
Front line workers
are
trained, incentivized
and organized to
meet the process
goals

10. Meanwhile, the problem remains
unresolved140
170
200
235
236
250
290
410
426
496
650
731
950
1200
2906
90
45
104
82
69
135
129
300
162
203
650
481
407
120
1816
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Quantity
of sewage
generated
in the
town
(mld)
Quantity
of sewage
actually
treated
(mld)

11. Why is MoEF in a capability trap?
 It ignores context, doesn’t think hard enough on
content, and engages agents too narrowly, not at all.
 The hole (the context) is smaller than the MoEF
assumes, and it isn’t doing enough to make it
bigger
 The peg (the policy content) is too big and poorly
shaped, and the MoEF isn’t doing enough to re-
shape it or provide its full content.
 The craftsmen (and women) are often not
sufficiently authorized, skilled or resourced to do
the work and we do little to supplement their
agency

12. What could be done
Solutions
‘proved to
be’
technically
correct
B. External Best
Practice
(To be identified and
introduced)
D. Potential ‘positive deviance’
(local solutions which worked even
though they did not “follow the rules”)
C. Potential ‘latent’ practice
(To be provoked through Rapid Results)
A. Existing Practice
(limited in every way)
Solutions ‘proved’ to work in the context
(administratively and politically feasible)

13. Strategy Goal Underlying assumptions
Mobilize groups Gain support, varied voices Change demands groups that do not
exist
Construct problems Draw attention to locally felt
problem; focus on ‘problem
solved’ as goal
Problems create change space; reveal
context
Deconstruct problems Find entry points and create
strategy
Contextual change space is probably
limited
Mobilize groups again to Identify
multiple alternatives to solve
stated problems (or key causes)
Gain support, varied voices,
functions, Identify alternatives
to act upon; to push on
context, find and fit solution
We don’t know what content we
have; which solutions will work
Iterate with multiple experiments Act on new policy/reform
ideas
Limited reform space allows only
small steps
Learn experientially Gather, process information;
feedback, draw attention to
quick wins, lessons, build new
support
Need to learn about content, context
Adapt experiments and iterate
again
Respond to feedback with
better design
We need to learn about context,
content
Assess if problem is solved,
respond
Intermittent evaluation of
‘goals’
‘Problem solved’ is the goal

14. Moving from PROBLEMS to SOLUTIONS
 The MoEF needs to split the issue of water pollution into
 Activities (what we do)
 Process (how we do it)
 Evaluation points (how we examine it and when)
 Ultimate focal point (what we say we are doing)
 It needs to re-examine its assumptions about
context, content, and agency of water pollution in India:
 What is the size and the shape of the hole?
 What is the fit of the peg?
 What is the nature of the authority and capability of the
agents?

15. Thank you for your patience!