Loopholes in the Ganga Action Plan (Part- II)

Political Motivations behind the GAP

In the beginning, this plan was perceived as highly politically motivated because of Hindu sentiments but very soon they realized that it is a futile effort for their political purpose. Therefore they did not take an interest in this project. At the initial stage, Mr Rajeev Gandhi was very much concerned about this plan but later he did not take interest or successive prime ministers took an interest. It is evidenced by the fact that NRCA (National River Conservation Authority) held only two meetings since the GAP was launched in 1985 while the meetings were supposed to be held annually. This is sufficient to prove that there was a lack of political motivation and interest behind this project. Such a tendency created a barrier for the Ganga Action Plan when the project was on the implementing stage.

Over-Designed STPs

In practice, sufficient amount of sewage could never reach to the Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs), due to inadequacy of the sewer networks and the inadequate interception including diversion of sewage flowing through the nalas. A major portion of Sewage Treatment Plants remained ‘under-loaded’, which resulted in dead-investment on the STPs.

Irregular Maintenance

State government agencies which were responsible for the operation and maintenance of Ganga Action Plan assets, never given due importance in their funding for operation and management of GAP (Ganga Action Plan) assets even after courts interventions also.

Neglect of Monitoring of Important Aspects Other Than the River-Quality

The Government did not take any step towards erosion, tree cover etc. which were also important. Reduced tree cover in the Ganga basin and changed land-use pattern led to an increase in soil erosion. These seriously affected flows of the river. Besides these sediment yield and sediment deposition on the river bed etc. affect river flow.

Failure to Utilize Available Monitoring Data

The data collected hitherto was neither put together cohesively nor analyzed independently. Because of this neglect of data-analysis, lessons could not be drawn for further analysis (Operation & Maintenance) as well as for designing a new initiative to reduce pollution. Thus, this neglect led to not utilizing the lessons effectively learned from past experiences and has raised questions on government spending on monitoring programs.

In coordination in a different mechanism

 The multi-tier monitoring system was adopted by the Government of India in which plans were to be monitored at the central and state level but being no coordination the different agencies and the clarity in terms of roles and responsibilities Ganga Action Plan faced failure.

Little consideration of sewage treatment infrastructure

Lack of proper sewage infrastructure system also played a role in the failure of GAP. Most of the cities like Kanpur, Varanasi and Allahabad were negligent regarding the management of sewage and did not care which resulted in flowing sewage of into the river. It was due to the nonexistence of an underground drainage system. The solid waste management system was virtually non-existed so solid waste found its place in the river.

Slow implementation of the project

The pace of implementation of GAP was quite slow since against 65 STP (Sewage Treatment Plant) under the plan, only 44 could be completed by the end of March 2004. Delays were ranging from 14 to 65 months in the completion of STPs. There was considerable a mismatch between interception and diversion devices provided and sewage treatment plants constructed to contain the pollution load of the river Ganga.

While GAP was still in progress, Central Ganga Authority in February 1991 realised that the completed works under GAP Phase-I would not give desired results unless pollution abatement works in remaining towns of Ganga and its important tributaries were also immediately taken up. Central Ganga Authority decided in February 1991 to take up Phase-II of GAP subject to the condition of 50 per cent the cost of the schemes would be borne by the concerned state government. There was considerable delay in completion of schemes due to various local and regional constraints in cost escalation and time overruns. This change in financial planning also created a delay in the implementation of the GAP.

The delays were attributable to problems in land acquisition, court injunctions, increase in the scope of work by the contractors etc. STPs performed below their capacity and thus could not operate at the optimum level of installed capacity; leave alone the achievement of the desired level of norms and standards.

Defective Organizational Set-Up

The organizational set up of NRCA (National River Conservation Authority) was hierarchically comprised of five tiers system. In which the role of state government was limited to the lowest tier addressing the execution and maintenance of schemes. The state government was also a part of hierarchy but the central government was reluctant to share its power, therefore the part played by states was minimal. All aspect of designing and program development was done by the NRCA at the central level, state government were assigned.

The task of setting up sewage treatment plants and targets, identifying polluters, and enforcing sanctions violations. The local government were missing from the organizational structure of the NRCA. There was little accountability among state and local government institutions. For example, the local government were not required to establish a revenue base for operation and maintenance. Although the NRCA monopolized all GAP related decision-making, the agencies deputed for implementing the projects were overwhelmed by the scale and scope of their duties.