The document discusses the lessons learned from the Local Area Environment Committees (LAEC) model in India, highlighting the need for public participation in environmental governance. It emphasizes the benefits of community involvement in hazardous waste management and the challenges in achieving genuine representation and sustainability within the framework. The LAEC model has shown positive outcomes but raises questions about its replicability and lasting impact on governance processes.

1. Lessons from a model of public
participation in environmental
enforcement in India
LOCAL AREA ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEES
RAJESH RANGARAJAN
Senior Researcher
Centre for Development Finance, IFMR
PAC Colloquim on Citizens’ Voices in
Environmental Governance
Bangalore International Centre
24-08-2012

2. Environmental Governance & Enforcement
• The Supreme Court of India while delivering a judgement pertaining to the
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification 1991 in the case Indian Council of
Enviro-Legal action vs. Union of India 1996, observed that “if the mere
enactment of laws can ensure a clean environment, perhaps India would be
pollution-free.”
– Shyam Divan & Armin Rosencranz; Environmental law and policy in India; 2nd edition; OUP;
2002; pp82-83
• “The committee feels that our experiment with the existing
framework/model i.e. simultaneous existence of two parallel Boards one
at the Central and the other at the State levels each one working as
independent and autonomous entity in its own capacity with no central
authority to command and control, has led us to nowhere over the last
33 years”
– 192nd report of The Parliamentary Committee on Science & Technology and Environment and
Forests on „Functioning of the Central Pollution Control Board‟ 2009

3. Gaps in Environmental Governance
• Access to information & transparency
• Accountability
• Public participation
– Flawed assumption that citizenry has little interest in policy
matters
– Lack of a strong coordinated voice in forging participatory
processes (unlike fisheries groups during the CRZ re-engineering)
– A lack of understanding on who “stakeholders” really are
– Perhaps no precedent on a truly participatory process in
environmental issues

4. Case Study: SC, HazWaste, LAEC
SC order of 14 October 2003 – Creation of SCMC and LAEC
Section 55: “The Report has emphasized that the
members of alert and informed community who are
fully aware of the nature of hazards and its impact on
their health can help in protecting and saving the
natural resources….
……Selected local residents should be appointed as
wardens for environmental surveillance, particularly
to take note of illegal dumping of hazardous wastes.
…..(v) Third-party audit of hazardous wastes, where
the audit team includes members of the community,
should be made a routine practice.”

5. Case Study: SC, HazWaste, LAEC
• Local Area Environment Committee:
Operationalised the recognition of the need and
importance of the direct involvement of communities
and citizens in environmental protection and regulation.
• Acted as the „Eyes and Ears‟ of the SC in implementing
hazardous waste regulations
• Committee members varied but broadly comprised of
lawyers, NGOs, community members, scientific experts
and regulators
• Inspection, scientific study, environmental monitoring,
addressing specific/micro level problems directly with
the concerned industry, developing CBMs between
industry and community and making recommendations to
the SC

6. The LAEC model
•Power to carry out SC orders •Power to order and
•Power to recommend action reform HWM practices
to SC and implementation
•Power to issue notices to challenges
regulator or polluting
industries
•Power to convene LAECs
Supreme Court
Supreme
Monitoring
Committee (SCMC) Court
Local Area Industries/Industrial
Environment Associations/Hazwas
Committee te generators
(LAEC) /Hazwaste TSDF
operator
• Subordinate entity to SCMC which
includes the regulator •Responsibioity to comply
•Power to inspect industrial with SC and SCMC orders
establishments
•Engage with industry and local •Better response to SPCB on
community to understand problems hazwaste matters
•Convene meetings with industry •Carrying out
and cmmunity to address issues
recommendations of
•Make recommendations to SPCB
and SCMC

7. Trends in Public Participation in Environment
• 90‟s – Golden era of PILs
• 2000 – 2010: growing demand for public
participation in policy formulation and
decision making
• Cases/trends:
– Urban/city master planning (Bangalore & Chennai)
– EIA & public hearing
– Consultations/consultative mechanisms (NBSAP, CRZ
2011)
• LAEC – A unique and fairly participatory
model in environmental matters

8. Lessons/Outcomes of the LAEC model
• Levels of participation – Generally acknowledged
as positive. But defining who should be included
in the LAEC, was it truly democratic and
representative?
• Improve implementation/governance – Provided
temporary solace, resulted in some good
outcomes (AQ monitoring station, provision of fresh water, in
some cases even closure of industries). Did it really make
significant and lasting changes in the way the
issue was governed (Eg: improvements in the way
SPCB functioned?

9. Lessons/outcomes of LAEC contd...
• Improving resolution of information –
created a significant body of literature and
addressed the generally prevailing
asymmetry in information in court cases.
• All-round capacity building:
– Community could understand science
– Regulators could deal with problems in a more
targeted way
– Industries were educated more on the range
and diversity of environmental problems and
community needs/demands

10. Challenges in integrating citizen voices
• The LAEC model may not be the panacea,
however exploring the elements of this
model from the lens of :
– Replicability?
– Sustainability?
– Institutionalisation?
• Can the colloquim address this?

11. Thank you
A1, 10th Floor | IIT Madras Research Park | Kanagam Road | Taramani | Chennai - 600113
www.ifmr-cdf.in