Multiplicity of agencies often results in diffused accountability in environmental governance. Critically analyse.
New · District CollectorCan you hold the district for 72 hours?Floods, a heatwave, an outbreak, a grievance queue. Take the decisions, see the consequences.Play →In this answer
In India, environmental governance is spread across Union ministries, the CPCB, State boards, coastal authorities, planning bodies and the NGT. Ennore residents in Chennai published a report card assessing 24 government bodies, and five scored zero [1]. It shows how this spread can blur who owns a problem. But multiplicity is more a symptom than the root cause.
How multiplicity diffuses accountability
- Fragmented mandates: CMDA (planning), TNSCZMA (coast), PWD (water) and the Energy Department all scored zero [1]. Each regulates one slice of the same creek.
- Weak apex coordination: The Chief Secretary's office, which is meant to coordinate departments, also scored zero [1].
- No owner after incidents: After a 4–6 tonne fish kill in Ennore Creek in August 2026, an RTI reply showed no official report on its cause or on action taken. Fishers lost about three weeks of work [1].
- Broken liability chain: The Fly Ash Utilisation Notification, 2021 provides for environmental compensation on the polluter pays principle [2]. But if no agency investigates the cause, no polluter can be billed.
- Orders without follow-through: Court directions remain unmet, and this is the second year in a row of a poor grade [1].
Why multiplicity is not the sole culprit
- Specialisation is necessary: Coasts, wetlands, emissions and energy need different technical skills. One super-regulator would be overloaded.
- Layers can act as checks: CPCB maintains approved auditors for annual compliance audits of power plants and ash users [3]. The NGT and RTI add outside scrutiny.
- Deeper causes: Self-reported compliance data, understaffed regulators and missing timelines would weaken even a single agency.
- Clear tasks get done: The same report card recorded progress in solid waste management [1].
Way forward
- Lead-agency principle: Name one nodal officer for each eco-sensitive zone to track every direction.
- Time-bound fish-kill protocol: Publish the cause within a fixed time so that compensation can be enforced [2].
- Public compliance audits [3] and institutionalised social audits.
Multiplicity diffuses accountability mainly when mandates overlap without a clear owner, deadlines or public reporting. The answer is not merging agencies. India needs designated lead agencies, open audits and a formal role for citizens. That would give real effect to Article 48A, the Article 21 right to a healthy environment, and SDGs 14 and 16.
Sources
- 1The Hindu, "Ennore residents' report card for govt. flags gaps in wetland restoration, pollution control" (Chennai, 30 Oct 2026)24 bodies assessed, 5 zero scorers (CMDA, TNSCZMA, PWD, Energy Dept., Chief Secretary's office); fish kill of 4–6 tonnes and three weeks of lost fishing; RTI reply showing no cause report; second year of a poor grade; progress in solid waste management
- 2MoEFCC, Fly Ash Utilisation Notification, 2021 (S.O. 5481(E), 31 Dec 2021)environmental compensation on the polluter pays principle
- 3CPCB, Fly Ash Management and UtilizationCPCB-approved auditors for annual compliance audits of power plants and ash users