The need to harmonise national product and design standards in regard to air pollution emissions has been felt, but the establishment of a true international Emission Standard could be too restrictive. In some cases, the enforcement of certain set targets has proved impossible, resulting in extensive non-observance, and a consequent worsening of the situation.
The trend now appears to be towards the setting up of a universal air quality standard which could be related to local conditions (perhaps, based on the “best practicable means”), in order to retain the necessary flexibility, for continued improvement.
In 1972 a WHO Expert Committee on Air Quality Criteria and Guides for Urban Air Pollution reviewed all available information on air quality standards and suggested the following long-term goal.
Image Source : i.ytimg.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The ultimate aim is to achieve zero discharge of pollutants, a target which has been set, where practicable, by the Environmental Protection Agency in the USA.
Control of emission into the atmosphere is all important and not just a luxury to which developing countries cannot aspire. An attitude which considers control a luxury can prove both costly and dangerous when development escalates to the same levels as those prevailing in existing industrial countries.
A major contributory factor to the present calmer and more thoughtful approach toward the problems of the environment has been the creation of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), as well as the involvement of specialised UN agencies and non-governmental organisations such as the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) and its Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE).
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It is now recognised that well-designed, long-term research programmers are required to increase our understanding of environmental processes and the ways these may adversely affect certain activities.
This understanding, by necessity, long in coming, is a prerequisite for effective environmental management. In the meantime, the potentially harmful effects of man’s activities must be closely watched and limited in the most prudent way possible, albeit with incomplete understanding. Thus, the monitoring of the environment has two broad purposes:
To produce data those are useful in advancing the understanding of ecosystems and their dynamics.
To produce sufficient scientific data and information on pressing contemporary problems as are required by policy makers to assess environmental damage and contain it within generally acceptable bounds.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Environmental problems are of different magnitudes and occur on different geographical and time scales. At the global and regional levels, both UNEP and the UN agencies have an active role in monitoring. The work of the agencies is coordinated through UNEP’s Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS) Programme Activity Centre.
The article by Munn and Cain on this issue outlines the objectives and activities of SCOPE and shows its connections with ICSU and the UN family.
One of the major programme areas of SCOPE is environmental monitoring and assessment, and the focal point for this activity is the Monitoring and Assessment Research Centre (MARC) at Chelsea College, London.
MARC is, in fact, a major link between UNEP monitoring activities and SCOPE and, thus, in a wider context, between the global monitoring systems being built upon the work of all the UN agencies, coordinated by UNEP/GEMS, and the relevant scientific work of ICSU unions and committees, coordinated by SCOPE.
The objective of MARC is to consolidate and advance the understanding of environmental processes and, thereby, aid in the design of monitoring systems for environmental management and research. The MARC programme provides scientific support to the foregoing programme of UNEP in general and of Earth watch/GEMS in particular.
The difficulties associated with the development of standards are very well-reflected by the wide variation of the standards, set in different countries. There is significant variation in the standards adopted by different states within the same country.
This is especially true for larger countries, e.g., the United States, India, etc. The Standards accepted by the World Health Organisation are also different from those which are prevalent in developing countries.
While making statutory provisions for each pollutant, it is essential to consider total pollutional load vis-a-vis assimilation capacity of the receiving stream. The pollutional load depends upon the type of industries and the degree of industrialisation.
There is a classification of backward districts where suitable incentives, both financial and administrative, are given to encourage further industrialisation.
The adoption of different standards based on the principle of total pollutional load vis-a-vis-assimilation capacity would suggest higher standards for backward region without affecting the health of the natural stream. This would encourage industrialisation of such areas as per national priority.
The distribution of total pollutional load, by dispersal of industry, in case of further industrialisation, and distribution of load, in case of those industries which are discharging similar effluent, also suggests the necessity for statutory provision for different industrial environment.
The next important point in this regard is the necessity for time-bound implementation of standards for each pollutant.
Pollution abatement, to the extent required as per provision of the Act, may not be immediately possible due to various economical and technical reasons. Even in the case of the Environmental Protection Agency, there is such a provision. It should also be incorporated in the standards adopted in India.