General Eisenhower’s Matrix

Dwight D. Eisenhower was the 34th President of the United States from 1953 until 1961. Before becoming President, he served as a General in the United States Army and as the Allied Forces Supreme Commander during World War II.

Eisenhower had to make tough decisions continuously about which of the many tasks he should focus on each day. This finally led him to invent the world-famous Eisenhower Matrix.

The Eisenhower Matrix, also referred to as Urgent-Important Matrix, helps you decide on and prioritize tasks by urgency and importance, sorting out less urgent and important tasks which you should either delegate or not do at all.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was born on October 14, 1890. To commemorate his contribution, the world community of think tanks decided to promote as well as revisit the Matrix. My Professor friend, who heads TTI (Think Tank India) thought of using a stakeholder approach and consult politicians, select leaders of business houses, academicians  and environmental NGOs to share their own Eisenhower Matrix. Once done and collated, he thought of briefing the outcome to the PM to understand the present situation, priorities and preferences of the “stakeholders” and then plan the strategy for the forthcoming election.  I thought that was very clever of the Professor.

Professor wanted to focus Eisenhower Matrix (EM) on the term sustainability. Sustainability means different to different people – for a politician its political sustainability; for a businessman its financial sustainability and for passionate environmentalist it means environmental sustainability or the sustainability of this planet. I liked the idea. Professor asked me to accompany him as usual whenever EM related meetings were to be held with the stakeholders.

Oh, but let me explain to you more on the Eisenhower Matrix.

The Eisenhower Matrix essentially helps to prioritize the tasks by urgency and importance resulting in four quadrants with different work strategies:

  • Urgent and Important (Quadrant 1)
  • Not Urgent but Important (Quadrant 2)
  • Urgent but Less Important (Quadrant 3)
  • Not Urgent and Less Important (Quadrant 4)

Quadrant 1 is often the “Stressed” quadrant. Here we work on looming deadlines, proposals which need to go out, projects that must be completed etc. This is the fire-fighting and crisis control quadrant where most people spend most of their time. We call the first quadrant as Do first.

Quadrant 2 is the “Strategic” quadrant. Its tasks are important but less urgent. This quadrant includes tasks with a future deadline, long term projects, planning, reviews that need to be done, marketing and client retention related activities. Sadly, little time in spent in this quadrant. Many people have tasks in this quadrant, but do not action them until they become so urgent that they need to be shifted to Quadrant 1 – or to the “Stressed” zone.

Quadrant 3 is the “Delegation” quadrant. Tasks which can be outsourced to someone else, fits into this area. These tasks are urgent, but it’s not important that YOU action it. Admin and filing of paperwork can be done by a Personal Secretary (PS), social media management can be delegated to an expert company etc.

Quadrant 4 is the “Distraction” quadrant. These activities should be avoided at all costs. It is not urgent and certainly not important – so why do it at all? This includes aimless web surfing, meetings without goals etc. The fourth and last quadrant is very important and is also called Don’t Do.

We began our EM capturing exercise. To start with we went to see one of the most powerful politicians of the ruling party. After a half hour conversation, his Eisenhower Matrix looked something like below

Urgent and Important (Do First) Not Urgent but Important (Be Strategic)
Find irregularities in opposition, expose the findings in the media and file legal cases

Create confusion and difference in the proposed Mahagathbandhan (conglomeration of the opposition parties). Use saam, dam, dand, Bhed  and  following Chanakya


Build a performance score card for the party by hiring experts who can show the achievements using appropriate statistics without actual achievements

Influence voters using social media, Apply Big Data Analytics for election strategy



Urgent and Less Important (Delegate) Not Urgent and Less Important (Don’t Do)
strikes, riots, scams, media article for diversion from real developmental issues that were promised Improving equity, reducing poverty and protecting the environment. All these objectives can be addressed after winning the election

I thought this Eisenhower Matrix was very clear and relevant given the coming up mess of the forthcoming elections. Indeed, this political honcho was focusing on the political sustainability by ensuring continuity. I was sure that a similar EM would have emerged if we had interviewed an Opposition party leader. Politicians at the core are no different. Isnt’ it?

Unfortunately, the politician’s Private Secretary (PS) called us immediately saying that the EM we had developed was completely incorrect and should not be used. We had simply misunderstood what he wanted to say. Going a step further, the PS even denied that we ever met with him and had a conversation! And this denial was put immediately on record. What a pity I said to myself. There is simply no freedom of speech even to India’s senior politicians!

The next step was to meet a leader of Indian business. I proposed luminaries like Mr. Ratan Tata, Anand Mahindra and Adi Godrej; but Professor suggested that we rather hold a meeting of 30 top businessmen and use the software mentimeter.  Some of you may already know that this software on some customization can be used to get a collective opinions. Professor tweaked this mentimeter platform to develop an overall Eisenhower Matrix of Indian businessmen focusing on sustainability. We met in one of the rooms of the Taj on the Mansingh road. We projected the matrix on mentimeter driven screen with 30 industry tycoons using the app from their smart phones. Here was the result

Urgent and Important (Do First) Not Urgent but Important (Be Strategic)
Make profits in any way possible but always say people, planet and then profits


Publish Sustainability/Integrated reports regularly and in attractive designs no matter what the content can be


Bag awards on doing something obvious but; make a big story

Influence politicians to pass bills favorable to the business and in return favor them too


Offer lucrative positions to those retired or willing to seek earlier retirement from Indian Administrative Services to help grow business with the Government


Finance research and surveys to support products and services that you offer – publish only favorable results.

Urgent and Less Important (Delegate) Not Urgent and Less Important (Don’t Do)
Instigate public interest litigation on competitors using environmental NGOs

Keep off the hazardous, not environmentally acceptable and unethical practices outside the factory in the informal supply chains, You stay clean.


Going beyond compliance

I disagreed with the above Eisenhower Matrix rather vehemently. I was confident that this was not the way Indian industry felt  about sustainability. I knew of so many genuine business leaders who followed sustainability in the letter (and the spirit). So, I strongly protested. I suspected that some crafty and nasty minds sitting in the audience led to such a distorted and untrue impression.  But the Professor was quiet and didn’t react to my angry outbursts.

I know when Professor keeps quiet, he means that there is no point further discussing! So I also kept shut.

We ended our last meeting with some of the well-known environmental NGOs, Think tanks and academicians. We used mentimeter again for a collective creation of the Eisenhower Matrix. We met in one of the rooms in the Habitat Center in New Delhi.

This audience was a bit different and critical as they spent quite some time discussing the logic of the Eisenhower Matrix itself  and the relevance of the mentimeter. The discussion led to heated arguments and a serious difference of opinions. Despite moderation by Professor, no agreement could be reached in finalizing the Matrix. The businessmen were perhaps more united and practical.

Finally, the discussion ended by saying we need to research more and meet once gain after some homework was done. Clearly for this audience, there was no clarity or agreement on what is very urgent or important. Professor told me this is so typical of academicians and the activists.

I thought the Professor was right. I spent nearly 17 years teaching at IIT Bombay (in two cycles) and I am sure we had professors who taught the Eisenhower Matrix and its variants like by late Stephen Covey called “time-management matrix” and the modern term the “priority matrix”.

I don’t think however we ever developed a collective Eisenhower matrix for our own departments in planning teaching, conducting research and exploring extensions. We functioned at will, more like a free radical with no thoughts or efforts towards prioritization to benefit everybody – including students.

I thought of sending a large frame of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s picture to my department as an inspiration or a reminder.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Professor heard me alright.

But like before he chose to remain quiet.

And I thought that I understood the reason behind his silence.

Did you too?

If you like this post then Follow me or circulate across your colleagues.

I would like to thank Paritosh Tyagiji for drawing my attention to the Eisenhower Matrix.


The Story of LOOP, BRANCH and SEWER


In 1980, I wrote a letter to Prof Daniel Okun at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill expressing some of my research ideas on design of water distribution networks. Professor Okun offered me admission to the PhD program. He suggested that I work with Prof Donald Lauria.

Prof Lauria was working as a Consultant to the World Bank to develop software for looped and branched water distribution systems and sewer networks. He and his Ph D student Paul Hebert prepared codes called LOOP, BRANCH and SEWER. These computer programs were written in IBM BASIC and had to be run from a BASIC interpreter. LOOP used Hardy Cross method for “balancing” the flows and BRANCH used basic Simplex algorithm to optimize the costs of gravity fed branched networks.

Prof Donald Lauria (extreme right)

For reasons of my father’s ill health, I did not join Ph D Program at UNC at Chapel Hill. Instead, I took admission for Doctor of Engg at the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) in Bangkok. I wanted to be closer. (This didnt help anyway. I lost my father due to a massive heart attack while I was studying. I learnt  about his passing two days later as there was a storm in the Bay of Bengal. The storm disrupted the international telephone lines for 48 hours!)

My interest on LOOP, BRANCH and SEWER however continued.  I worked with Prof H M Orth at AIT on these programs and did a publication in American Society of Civil Engineers with my colleague Wasim Rabbani on branched network optimization.

I returned to India in 1984 and started teaching at the Centre for Environmental Science and Engg at IIT Bombay. In 1986, I was invited to Bangkok by the Water and Sanitation Project (WSP) of the World Bank/UNDP, courtesy Shyamal Sarkar. Shyamal had joined the WSP on lien from the Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization (CPHEEO) of the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD). Terry Hall was the Task Manager at WSP.

Terry Hall wanted to improve LOOP, BRANCH and SEWER. He called for a workshop in Bangkok to discuss with potential developers. I met Dr Paul Hebert at the workshop. I also met Daniel del Puerto of the LUWA in the Philippines. Paul and Dan had come up by then a version of LOOP based on Turbo Pascal 5.0. The code still used Hardy Cross and had no feature of optimization.

I made propositions on how these codes could be redeveloped citing various areas of possible technical improvements. Terry liked my propositions. He asked if I could take this as a project and I was delighted to accept.  I took a 8 months break from IIT Bombay.

The World Bank offered USD 10,000 if my name was to appear on the title screens. An option was also given of USD 20,000 where the name would not be acknowledged. I chose the former option.

The project was essentially a rewrite of the old IBM BASIC codes. I chose Microsoft QuickBasic 4.5 (QB). QB had advantages of structured programming like C/Pascal, a compiler feature for speed and security and an ability to do good graphics and easy “painting” of data entry screens.

In LOOP, I decided to move to Newton-Raphson solver and add a feature of cost optimization. Original LOOP could not handle multiple reservoirs, pumps and valves and so I decided to include these important features in the new code.

At that time, the World Bank had negotiated with Prof A G Fowler of Univ of British Columbia to include his famous FORTRAN code “FLOW” in the package of tools along with LOOP, BRANCH and SEWER. I decided to embed Prof Fowler’s logic of FLOW in the new version of LOOP. It required understanding of the code in its logical sequence and not simply attempt a “translation” of the FORTRAN code into QuickBasic! This was not easy.

In 1970, Prof Fowler had published a paper called  “Efficient Code for Steady-State Flows in Networks” in the Journal of Sanitary Engg Division in the American Society of Civil Engineers.  This paper was coauthored with Robert Epp, an Undergrad. Summer Student at the  Computing Centre. The paper presented logic of FLOW. This paper is perhaps one of the best in the literature on analyses of looped water distribution networks. Its presentation is  complex to understand but most creative in terms of the logic of finding “natural set of loops” and ordering them to construct a positive and banded  Jacobian matrix as required in Newton Raphson method.

Prof A G Fowler

Mirroring FLOW in the new LOOP helped me to address the interest of handling large networks as well while guaranteeing rapid convergence in balancing. The code included multiple reservoirs, pumps and valves following procedure suggested by Jepson in 1976. I could handle networks of 1000 pipes as against 250 pipes in the old version  The next challenge was to include cost optimization.

At that time, there was a considerable research published on optimization of water distribution networks notably by Pitchai, Khanna, Swamee, Uri Shamir, Walski, Bhave and others. Amongst all these researchers, work by Professor P R Bhave of VRCE, Nagpur stood out.

I however realized that the problem of optimization of looped water distribution network was NP-Hard and perhaps a solution using heuristic could be more appropriate rather than using a classical optimization technique.

At that time, Medha Dixit (three years senior to me in my IIT undergraduate days) was researching with Prof B V Rao of Civil Engg Department at IIT Bombay. Her research used “a close form solution” for optimum pipe diameter using Non-Linear Programming. She had got pretty good results and the optimums found were close to solutions from classical optimization techniques and in some cases did even better!  I crafted Medha’s algorithm in my new LOOP with further improvements.

For BRANCH, I could make the data structure used in the Simplex better to allow handling of 125 pipes as against 50 in the old version. This required efficient handling of the arrays. SEWER was entirely re-written following heuristic optimization that I had developed with my master’s student S Venkateswarulu or Venkat. Venkat, post his Masters with me got admission at UNC at Chapel Hill and worked with Prof Don Lauria and Dale Whittington.

I needed a ardent and skilled civil engineer and a programmer par excellence to work with me for the new avatara of LOOP, BRANCH and SEWER. This was Juzer Dhondia, my Masters student from IIT. Juzer worked with me over the 8 months period, coding the programs meticulously, discovering QB’s features and embedding assembler routines that we procured from MicroHelp Inc. These assembler routines performed several “low level functions” e.g. detecting “error” if the floppy drive was open etc.

Juzer Dhondia

All the three programs once developed were thoroughly tested on networks in Pakistan (Quetta was one of the complex systems where we tested LOOP), Nepal (especially to check role of Pressure Reducing Valves in the hilly terrain) and of course in the Philippines where Del Puerto took the lead. User manuals were then written and training was conducted at several institutions in India and South Asia.

I remember Shyamal asked me why did I put Juzer Dhondia’s name on the title screen when the contract was only on my name. “You can always acknowledge him in the manual” he said. But I insisted that his name be placed prominently right next to me. And I am so glad that I did it. I was also grateful that the World Bank agreed to my request and did not bring in the bureaucracy.

The three programs were released in December 1991. It then became a hit! It was cited as one of the most used computer programs for water supply and sewerage across the World – courtesy the World Bank. By 2000, it was estimated that there were more than 5000 users across the world of these three programs.

LOOP, BRANCH and SEWER were programs that ran on the Disk Operating System (DOS). When MS Windows took over, the programs had to be run through a “DOS Shell”. That was not effective. Users wanted the Windows versions.

I did several attempts to revisit the codes and re-write them in Visual BASIC and Visual C. Two Masters students of mine at IIT Bombay (Arun Sharma and Sanjay Lathkar) did conversion to Visual C++ of LOOP and SEWER. I spent quite some money by contracting a software development company that continued building the codes with VC++. Unfortunately, these conversions could not result into a product that could be distributed. The work lacked a rigorous testing. More recently, BRANCH was rewritten in VB with several new features by programmers at AIT. Juzer also assisted. Once again, this effort too did not fructify.

Today, Dr Paul Hebert is a Visiting Professor, Centre for Leadership and Ethics in Virginia and has nothing to do with water distribution networks. Daniel Del Puerto is still with LUWA in the Philippines. Shyamal Sarkar left CPHEEO and joined the World Bank and after more than 25 years of work in the water and sanitation sector, retired. Juzer Dhoondia spent several years in the Netherlands before moving to Alabama in the United States. He now works on water quality modelling.

Dr Paul Hebert

Few months back I was in Bangkok with the Metro Waterworks Authority. During the lunch break, one of the senior water engineers walked up to me and asked, “By any chance are you the same Prasad Modak, who wrote LOOP 4.0 for the World Bank?” When I said Yes, he spoke to his team in Thai with animated gestures. I saw that all were looking at me with some admiration.

I decided not to request for a translation! You feel nice when you are remembered for something good you did in the past – and with a passion and conviction. The only sad part is that till date I could not produce MS Windows versions of the three programs.

Simply a pity – isn’t it!

If you like this post then follow me or circulate to your colleagues

Reconnecting with CPCB


My first visit to office of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in India was in 1980, nearly 40 years ago. The office was on the Shahjahan Road in a kind of barrack. I was then a student doing master’s at the Indian Institute of Technology in Bombay. I went to see Chairman Dr Niloy Chaudhuri. Dr Chaudhuri was earlier a Professor of Civil Engineering at Jadavpur University in Kolkata. I wondered how he gave me an appointment to meet. Perhaps because I was a student of Professor Purushottam Khanna.

I spoke to Dr Choudhury about need for setting “probabilistic effluent standards” in India. I had read a very thought provoking article by Paul Mac Berthouex  titled “Some Historical Statistics Related to Future Standards” that was published in the American Society of Civil Engineers in 1974 .

I built on the basis my argument stating that compliance to effluent standards cannot be on 24×7 basis and the CPCB should be more pragmatic and practical while developing the “future standards”. I argued that a probabilistic standard will demand more collection of data and in the formative years of legislation and enforcement, building such data will matter.

We spent two hours on this subject and Dr Choudhury didn’t refute what I was saying. He listened to me very patiently as he usually did. As he got up to leave office wearing his coat, he said “Mr. Modak, your ideas are good but a bit too early. You have to give me some more time to think”.

In 1983, we met at Asian Institute of Technology in Bangkok. Dr Chaudhuri was there for a meeting organized by the World Health Organization. He was accompanied by several senior officials from the Government, e.g. Dr Dilip Biswas (who later became Chairman of CPCB), Dr K R Ranganathan (who was later appointed as the Member Secretary of CPCB), Dr Subramaniam (who became Advisor at the MoEFCC).

“Mr. Modak, Good to see you again. I know you always want to say something different and exciting. Can you give a talk to all of us after the dinner? Find a nice room where we all can fit in” Dr Choudhury said this in a warm tone and with a smile.

I was 27-year-old kid then and so was extremely happy to get this audience. I spoke on the subject of river water quality management. At that time, Ganga Action Plan was under discussion at the CPCB and so my “discourse” on this subject to this august body generated a lot of discussion. To my every theoretical or analytical bit, Dr Chaudhuri volleyed questions, few questions raising practicalities and few related to the “science” itself and some related to policies. I remember we started discussions at 8 pm and spent 2 hours  – mindful that we must close by 10 to ensure that we get the last round of coffee at the restaurant at the AIT Center.

Within a month, I received a letter from Dr Niloy Chaudhuri. The letter was typed on a butter paper using an electric typewriter (which I later Iearnt was only available for the Chairman). Amongst many nice things (like thanking me for the “discourse”) the letter said “Mr. Modak, on your return to India you are at liberty to associate in any manner you wish as appropriate with the Central Pollution Control Board of India”.  I have still preserved this letter from Dr Chaudhuri.

In May 1984, CPCB appointed me as a Retainer Consultant. I was to spend 4 days every month over 4 years. There were no Terms of Reference. Dr Chaudhari and Dr G D Agarwal, Member Secretary (a legend in the field of Environmental Pollution Control in India) told me that CPCB will decide what to do with me as I land New Delhi. A fund of 1 lakh was transferred in advance to Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay to meet costs of my air travel. Dr Chaudhari said that he did not want me to waste time in filling the forms claiming the expenditures. “Please visit all the offices of CPCB except the office of accounts” he said smilingly.  He was such a gallant personality.

With this arrangement, I worked on practically all the functions of the CPCB. I was a part of the team that was appointed by MoEF on the Ganga Action Plan that was steered by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. Mr. T N Seshan was the Secretary. MoEF and K C Sivaramakrishnan was the Project Director of the Ganga Project Directorate (GPD). My retainership was expanded by these two stalwarts to GPD as well, on a special project of Water Quality Modelling.

At CPCB, I started working on establishing a Management Information System (MIS) for the data and created systems for storing, retrieving and analyzing water, air and industrial pollution data. I remember I was present at the Nehru Place office of CPCB when the first computer (It was an IBM PC/AT) was installed. This PC/AT was “inaugurated” by P R Gharekhan, then Member Secretary. For the MIS I worked with Usha Ghosh and Mita Bhattacharya extensively over 3 years and by 1990 we could establish MIS at several State Pollution Control Boards and impart training.

During my travel to Delhi, I used to stay at the Guest House of CPCB at Alaknanda Apartments near Chittaranjan Park. Staying at the Guest house was a great fun as I used to meet several senior staff of CPCB and SPCBs, experts visiting CPCB for meetings etc. This helped me to make new friends, build a huge network and understand the work going on in environmental management across India. Most of the staff of CPCB used to stay at the Alaknanda and hence there used to be dinner invitations and “gupshups” with the families. These dinners will never be forgotten; especially with Ghosh, Chakraborty and Baruah families.

In the early 2000, CPCB shifted to East Arjun Nagar that was quite distant from the city. My retainership moved to the World Bank as Short-Term Consultant. I started visiting CPCB more as a Consultant to the World Bank and worked on several major projects. These included Industrial Pollution Control, Industrial Pollution Prevention, Environmental Management Capacity Building, Capacity Building in Industrial Pollution Management, National Hydrology Project and Water Quality Monitoring. Apart from CPCB, I had to visit several SPCBs, formulate projects with them, guide as well as do an oversight on behalf of the World Bank. My visits to CPCB office thus reduced. I guess the only person I remained in touch, and feel greatly honored to have worked with, is Mr. Paritosh Tyagi, Ex Chairman of CPCB. I just saw him two weeks ago at his residence.

Last month, Dr Prashant Gargava took over as the Member Secretary of CPCB and I paid a visit to CPCB to congratulate him. I took his appointment. The security guard asked me to go to the reception. The lady at the reception asked for my details for preparing a gate pass. “Do you have appointment with MS?” she asked. When I nodded, she said “He is generally very busy and many times he has to be at the Court all of a sudden. So, let me check if he will still be free to see you”. I thought she was kind and considerate, especially to a stranger like me.

When I was with Dr Gargava I realized that I hardly knew anyone at the CPCB. The world seemed so different. Chairman CPCB was busy with other pressing matters and rightly so as I was there just to have a cup of tea for old times sake. I did not have any “business” to look for.

I left CPCB as if I had been to an Income Tax office.

Dr Ajit Vidyarthi of CPCB called me last week and asked if I could become a Retainer Consultant to CPCB. I knew Ajit in my past interactions with CPCB. We met at the Claridges hotel and Ajit told me that CPCB would like to take my advice on water quality data, water quality modelling and pollution management for Ganga.

Ajit’s request and subsequent conversations took me back in time some forty years.

I recalled my sessions with giants like Dr Niloy Chaudhari and Dr G D Agarwal, as a young kid and for a while my eyes were moist with memories.

Indeed, those were the magical days with CPCB  in its golden era –

Moments you just cannot ever forget!


If you like this Post then Follow me or circulate across your colleagues



Islands in the Sky

My Friend recently built a new tower on Malabar Hill in Mumbai. As usual, he occupied 104th floor and in addition kept floors  101, 102 and 103 with him just in case. He being a close friend to Donald Trump, he named the Tower as Trump Tower.  I thought that his gesture was very generous. Me and Professor decided to meet him and see his new house on the 104th floor. He invited us for a breakfast.

When we entered the lobby, there were long queues outside each of the 12 high speed elevators. We stood in one of the relatively shorter queues. I saw Niranjan Hiranandani, Vikas Oberoi and Adi Godrej in the same queue but little ahead of us.

“Dr Modak and Professor, how come you are here?” Nirajan beamed. When I explained that we were there to meet our Friend on the 104th floor and have breakfast; all three of them moved close to us leaving their position that was ahead of us in the  queue. We got into a conversation.

We learnt from them the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) had recently proposed relaxation of the Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions for reality industry in the “national interest”. This relaxation was a matter of great rejoice to all the builders and developers. Now no separate EC was required for building plans with a total Built-Up area up to 50,000 sqm for individual buildings. The permissions would be governed by “environmental conditions” like use of water efficient appliances, rainwater harvesting system, proper waste management system, use of energy efficient system, use of renewable power, measures to tackle pollution, green cover etc. MoEFCC made an argument that such a relaxation was necessary to achieve housing for all by 2022 with the objective of making available affordable housing to weaker section in urban areas. I thought they should have added that the idea of relaxation was also to mainstream green in  buildings as a default. They simply missed the point! (May be the Ministry thought that all the green ideas may just remain on paper and not get implemented).

Mr. Godrej handed over to me a brochure that contained a “green builders code” prepared by a consortium of large builders. The brochure provided details on how environmental conditions will be mainstreamed or embedded following schema such as TERI GRIHA, LEED, EDGE etc. Mr. Vikas Oberoi said that builders will do even more than what is expected by the Government and local authorities and do beyond than what is expected in the schema. For example, all the buildings they do, will be meeting the indoor quality standard of Finland – one of the most strict indoor air quality standards in the world. (Why Finland? Well India does not have indoor air quality standard as of today – they said. They were absolutely right). I was really overwhelmed to see their commitment to “green”.

The builders were to meet my Friend on the 104th floor and request him to finance their mega projects.

“I am sure my Friend will help you” I said. “He really has a problem on how to spend his moneys”. All three were happy to know this problem.

When we reached 104th floor, we were ushered in and the three builders were asked to wait in a plush lounge.  They were served with a Columbian coffee in solid silver cups.

My friend invited us  to the dining table for breakfast. He told us that given the relaxation given by the MoEFCC, he was planning to invest around 100 billion Rs in the reality sector and in particular in high-rise buildings. High-rise living offers so many benefits, he said – such as an amazing views, efficient amenities, reserved parking, on-site staff and management that can take care of your needs.

While I supported his idea, Professor had another point of view.

He picked up a few Arabian dates from the bowl, and cited a study published in early 2016 in the Journal of  Canadian Medical Association. The study that involved 7,842 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest,  reported that living in a high-rise building radically decreases one’s chances of surviving. The  survival from cardiac arrests was greater on lower floors than higher floors. It was found that first responders were often stuck on the ground floor waiting for an elevator and could not reach the patient in time.

My friend listened to Professor carefully. He said that he will solve this problem by setting up an Intensive Cardiac Unit (ICU) on the first floor and engage some of the top cardiologists from Hinduja, Leelavati and Bombay hospital. Each flat will be provided with an emergency “chute” (like done for vacuum based solid waste collection)  that will move the patients straight to the receiving bay of the ICU. Of course this will be optional – my Friend wanted to be fair. He added that all these cardiologists will get a flat in the building at only 50% of the cost. So they will be resident.

I thought this was a clever solution. Mumbai Corporation should now insist on an ICU for granting Occupation Certificate (OC) for all the new high-rise buildings.

Professor did not give up. He said that there is now evidence that during the breakout of a highly infectious disease, such as SARS, high-rise dwellers on all floors are at higher risk than people living in single or detached homes. The sheer number of people sharing a single building can also increase the threat from communicable diseases such as influenza, which spread easily when hundreds of people share a building’s hallways, door handles and lift buttons.

My friend said that he will consult doctors from KEM hospital specializing in communicable diseases and set up an isolation bay for infected patients on the 13th floor. These patients will be well looked after by providing them with comfortable beds (on the model of first class seats of Lufthansa), a smart 5th generation TV and they will be serviced by attractive nurses like air hostesses so that the patients will stay longer in the isolation bay.

I thought this was another great innovation to tackle the problem.

Professor lit is cigar and paused. Perhaps, he wanted to make a major observation.

He said that according to studies carried out in Australia, more people living in high-rise buildings means more people living in social and economic silos where the chance encounters of street life are severely compromised. Many feel an absence of “community”, despite living alongside tens or hundreds of other people. Living in high-buildings therefore leads to depression and other mental health problems.

Further, high-rise living evokes unsettling fears – residents could be trapped in a fire, or fall or jump from the tower. (The former being most relevant in Mumbai given the frequent  incidents of fire in the high-rise buildings).  And in earthquake-prone countries, residents of high-rise towers face the possibility that their entire building could collapse. Living with fear every day means that residents of high-rise housing are vulnerable to mental health issues.

In Singapore, between 1960 and 1976, the percentage of people living in high-rise buildings climbed from 9% to 51%. During the same period, the per capita rate of suicides by leaping from tall buildings  increased fourfold, while suicide by other means declined. The overall suicide rate in Singapore increased by 30% over the aforementioned period but the rate by leaping increased many times faster, which suggested that having more tall buildings leads to more suicides. Although suicide rates in Singapore have been stable now for the last five decades but jumping from buildings remains a common method for suicide.

I thought of butting in. I mentioned that perhaps one of the major issues of causing stress is the waiting time for getting in the elevator. If this happens every day, then people will go crazy.

“Oh, here we already have a solution on this “waiting” problem” said my Friend. “We have developed a mobile app for the residents where they will log in the time they would like to leave for the office. This will have to be done before say 12 pm at night. The algorithm on the app will optimize all the requests and match with the availability of elevators; to come with a recommendation which elevator will be available in +/- 2 minutes deviation from the indicated time. (Incidently, this was a result of research carried out by three  PhDs at IIT Bombay). So, there will not be any stress on waiting”

That’s very clever of you I said. I knew that my Friend was really technology savvy.

My Friend continued

“And on the issue of feeling isolated, I plan to recruit liftmen/women who would converse with the occupants in the elevator; wish them; ask them about their health and inquire how the day was and check whether they need any help. The staff doing cleaning and housekeeping work will also be trained by some of the top communicators like S A Anand who would engage in interesting conversations with the occupants. The security guards will also do their bit too by smiling while frisking people and not behave like dumb robots. In addition, the manager of the building will celebrate birthdays of every occupants who is above 60 years.  The celebrations will happen on the 17th floor and the cakes will be supplied by Ovenfresh with low sugar and no eggs. No one will feel left out or isolated.

Professor seemed satisfied. He extinguished his cigar. He advised my Friend that all these ideas should be framed as loan covenant by his Lawyer to builders like Godrej, Hiranandani and Oberoi and the like.

My friend agreed. “But I will personally finance these initiatives if costs are high. A few millions here and there don’t matter to me” He said. He was kind and generous as he has always been.

I told my Friend that he must also mingle with the occupants especially when he takes the elevators or walks in the lobby. This will make a big difference.

“Dr Modak, this is the problem”. My friend confessed. “I get into my house by directly landing on the helipad. I don’t get into the lobby or use elevators to reach 104th floor. Its so unfortunate. I don’t have any contact with my occupants. Many times, I really feel isolated”

I took a close look at my Friend’s face. I noticed a quiver in his voice.

I was worried as he certainly looked depressed. He seemed  in some kind of a mental stress.

I thought for a while. Was it really worth then to live in an island up in the sky?


Cover image sourced from

If you like this Post then Follow me or circulate across your colleagues


The Lonavala Experiment

One day while teaching at the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay; I received a call from Manjula Rao of the British Council Division. She said “Dr Modak, I have some budget to spare for conducting training on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Would you be interested? We will be able to support travel and stay of two British Professors. And you can design the course the way you deem fit. We won’t micro-manage”

As usual, I was itching to do something different and I thought I must make use of this generous offer from Manjula.

I spoke to my good friend M G Rao (who today is unfortunately no more). MG (as how we used to call him)  was working with Rashtirya Chemicals & Fertilizers in Mumbai managing company’s environmental affairs. MG was a seasoned environmental professional, a passionate personality, a perfectionist and had a great insight to the EIA process. He always looked at EIA beyond mere compliance and more of an opportunity to value-add and de-risking.

MG, me and Manjula sat together in the Nariman Point office of the British Council and discussed to identify targets to train and prepared an outline of the program.

I proposed a case study-based approach to “teach”. At that time, EIA of Mumbai-Pune expressway was in the news. Report prepared by Associated Industrial Consultants (AIC) was under scanner. Erich Bharucha, Professor at Pune had raised concerns about the impact of cutting trees on the flying squirrels that harbored in the forests on the Ghats (hills). Alternate alignment of the expressway was therefore demanded. The State Government had another viewpoint and wasn’t sensitive to the concerns raised by Professor Bharucha.

The Giant Flying Squirrel

In the EIA report, the Consultant AIC did a comparison between the “project” and “no project option” and this comparison showed that over long run, the expressway would certainly be an environmentally sound option to connect Mumbai with Pune. “Business as usual” was no good! The benefits of saving fuel (and so the emissions) and time and reduction of risks during travel were simply enormous given the projected volume of traffic between the two cities.

I thought this case study could be used in the training program. I met Mr. B V Rotkar at the office of AIC who was heading the EIA Team. Mr. Rotkar, a veteran in the subject of Environmental Governance, was earlier Member Secretary of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).  Mr. Rotkar was a Guru and an inspiring personality to many of us.

Rotkar listened to me. He liked my idea of using EIA of Mumbai-Pune as a learning case study. “Well Dr Modak, Go ahead but you would need to “doctor” the details and not lift the sections of our EIA report on as is basis. Make a “new story”, He smiled while handing over the EIA report to me. It was so generous of him.

Manjula asked me about the Venue. And I proposed Lonavala, a little holiday town perched on the hills and lying mid-way between Mumbai and Pune.  We were planning the program in the month of October and that was perhaps the best period to be in Lonavala. I selected Fariyas Resort.

Fariyas Resort is a 5-star hotel located picturesquely at Frichley Hills.  It enjoys proximity to the express highway, main market and several tourist attractions, including Pawna Lake, Lohagad Fort and Karla and Bhaja Caves. It is one of the best resorts in Lonavala.

I did a reiki by visiting Fariyas, inspected the training rooms, met the F&B Manager and saw the facilities as the program was going to be a residential one. We decided to accommodate 40 participants. A two days program on this basis fitted well in Manjula’s budget.

The next task was to identify the British Professors and check their availability. Two names occurred to me – one was Christopher Wood from Manchester University and second was Peter Wathern. Chris taught in University’s EIA Centre and had just published a book titled “Environmental Impact Assessment – A Comparative Review”. Peter taught at Aberystwyth University and had edited an amazing book “Environmental Impact Assessment – Theory and Practice”. I loved both these books and was keen to “teach” along with these two Professors.

(I would highly recommend you to read these two books – its been a while that the books have been written but do good old things ever get outdated? These books are even relevant today.)

When we contacted the Professors, both of them agreed to come and join in my “Lonavala Experiment”.

So, what was the experiment about?

This idea was to introduce a new way of teaching the subject of EIA and do capacity building of training institutions.

The “learning path” was first designed following the “process” of EIA. That led to the program design. For instance, the opening session was on Screening and the last session was Environmental Monitoring for Compliance and for Adapting the Environmental Management Plan. Mumbai-Pune expressway case study was “woven” across all the sessions.

The participants were split into 4 groups. For each work session, the group composition was changed so at the end of 2 days, almost all participants got “connected” to each other.

The method of teaching was not prescriptive. For example, each Group was given one-page brief with another page showing the project location. There were four such “sample” projects. To start with, each participant was asked to apply screening in his/her way and come with a conclusion on – whether an EIA is required? And if Yes then at what level (e.g. Initial Environmental Examination was adequate, or a detailed or comprehensive EIA should be done? And why?).

When groups were formed, a Group opinion was to be presented and this required that each member of the Group had to communicate his/her rationale, defend or critique and learn how to arrive at consensus. Oh, this was the toughest part! When each Group leader presented the Group view on project screening, a discussion followed that was even more enriching.

The session ended with a short discourse on the Screening Criteria followed in India and in other countries. Participants were then encouraged to comment (e.g. on criteria of project type, size/investment and location) and in specific the case of Mumbai-Pune expressway. Each session was thus exciting – both to the participants and the faculty.

Location of Fariyas Resort at the mid-way of the Expressway made a difference. We visited the site of Flying Squirrels to understand the sensitivity better! Session on alternatives was therefore full of ideas and energy and debates! At the end of the course, all participants learnt the practice of EIA, and as MG used to repeated say “its power as a value – add”

But I think the best part of the “Lonavala experiment” was integrating the training program with potential institutions and faculty who could replicate. I invited faculty from 8 renowned institutions in India who taught EIA in their curriculum. We called these faculty members as Observers and they served as Facilitators or Resource Persons during the period of training.

I requested these faculty to stay for one more day after the 2 days course and discuss the course content and pedagogy. The 40 participants had left by then.

The third day was very productive as these 8 faculty members made observations to further improve the training program. We made plans on how could we continue this model of training at their respective universities and what help would they need from us and from the British Council. There was so much positive energy when we closed the session on the third day.

Peter and Chis were amazing. I learnt a lot from these two stalwarts. We did a Training Manual after incorporating suggestions from the 8 “peers”. Peter took the responsibility to edit and finalize. Manjula found money to print the Training Manual.

MG and I spent good time in selecting the 40 participants. We chose participants from different disciplines and practice experience that ranged infrastructure developers, regulators, financiers, academicians, environmental NGOs, media personnel  and of course the EIA consultants. Many of these participants of the Lonavala experiment are still in touch with me today. Its sad that Peter Wathern is no more. He died in 2015. I don’t see any recent “google footprint” of Chris Wood. Last I saw him was at the IAIA Conference in Hongkong.

I would very be interested to repeat my “Lonavala experiment”. It was EIA the last time and this time, the topics could be different – may be Circular Economy? Do write to me if you have any suggestions or need any help.

If you like this Post then Follow me or share this Post with your colleagues.









You, Me and Mr. Phileas Fogg

During my school days, when I read the book by the French writer Jules Verne “Eighty Days Around the World”, I was most impressed by the character Phileas Fogg. Phileas Fogg was a rich British gentleman living in London and in solitude. Despite his wealth, Fogg lived a modest life with habits carried out with mathematical precision. For instance, Fogg dismissed his former valet, James Forster, for bringing him shaving water at 84 °F (29 °C) instead of 86 °F (30 °C). He hired Frenchman Jean Passepartout as a replacement.

I was fascinated by Fogg’s “perfect” and “precise” life. His adventure of going around the world in 80 days was another inspiration. I started to behave like Phileas Fogg and carried a thermometer when I went to the bathroom and check the temperature of the hot water in the bucket while mixing hot and cold water. I ensured that I bathed with water of 31 0C temperature. I started counting the number of steps I would take to reach my school and remained close to the average number of 887 steps. I wouldn’t cross the road and say hello to friends as this would mean a deviation to what was supposed to be. When in college, I ate food that had a fixed composition of raw and cooked portions, 70:30, to be precise and I ensured that total calorie intake was 1600 on weekdays and 1800 on weekends. My mother and house cook had a tough time due to my insistence on the precise way of eating.

As I grew older I realized that living a precision life like Phileas Fogg was impossible. The real world threw so many challenges and this led to detours and deviations. My life became patchy somewhat with no clear and steady goals and targets set for accomplishment. Life simply rolled on like a wind wheel.

I studied environmental science and engineering (because I was deeply  interested in the subject and had no career rationale), started my career in marketing pollution control equipment (left as I got a bit nauseated) and then moved to engineering consulting that I liked. I decided to take a break for doctoral research however as I discovered some research problems and needed a “pause”. The next step was to join a position for teaching, research and consulting at an academic institution that I did. In few years however, I realized that I wanted to move faster and closer to the real world and the institute I was working had a lot of inertia and a pride in isolating from reality.

I enjoyed international work as I loved to travel. Becoming an entrepreneur was always my dream and so I started my own business while working with the world of Corporates and financing institutions. I did not prepare a business plan for my company.  I set up a not-profit organization focusing on awareness, training and eco-entrepreneurship that had less clarity on the objectives. Nothing was planned like how Phileas Fogg did when he prepared his itinerary to travel across the world.

(My wife says that if I had the clarity and doggedness in planning my life, then I could have become a Vice President of Asian Development Bank enjoying the power, money and retirement benefits! Alas – I missed the boat!)

Few years ago, I met with a smart Sri Lankan bureaucrat in Tokyo who worked for Asian Productivity Organization. She shared with me her plan of life that had clear definition of goals, objectives and targets prepared starting from her graduation till date. “Dr Modak, I planned my life ahead of time” she said while sharing with me a well-articulated document. I saw that this lady had a perfect plan in place to guide and track her life and assess accomplishments. “And where do you stand Ms. today?” I asked. She told me that she was doing extremely well and was two years ahead of her targets.

“ But the plan cannot be static Dr Modak” She explained. “Plans must be dynamic, and you need to check whether goals and objectives are still relevant and whether targets set were realistic. So, I keep adapting my plan every two years based on the new situations”. I thought this made a perfect sense.

I realized that this is exactly happened to Phileas Fogg when he undertook his journey around the earth in 80 days. Initially, he had made a meticulous plan of travel that included destinations, stopovers and modes of travel but then he had to deviate and innovate when he met with several surprises on his way. For instance, he encountered characters like Detective Fix, a young Indian woman Aouda and an Elephant in India who were not part of his original plan.

Mr Fogg’s Route across the World

I was unhappy however that I did not follow the precision and perfection of Philias Fogg nor the adaptive targets approach of the Sri Lankan lady.  I talked about my frustration to my Professor friend.

Professor had another view. He said that planning is certainly needed but the extent to which you stress about the targets must be controlled – else there could be frustration.

(I remembered that while the SriLankan lady looked happy about her accomplishments, she was stressed due to “continuous self-assessment” against the targets she had set.)

Professor elaborated and following “bullet points” emerged from his discourse

  • Make a plan but its ok to deviate from your plans from time to time
  • Change the targets if they are no longer serving you
  • It’s not so much about planning every detail of your life but learning to enjoy the process
  • Each new experience (whether it was part of the plan or not) helps you grow as a person and teach you what it is that you want out of life

“So, Dr Modak, there is absolutely nothing wrong with planning your life! What can go wrong is your strong attachment to a plan” Professor lit his cigar and continued to explain citing his example.

“I am kind of addicted to plan my day before I start my work. I do this in the form of a checklist of “to do things” with a colleague and plan what is to be done in the right sequence or priority on that day. Many actions need to be delegated and that needs to be done upfront with some guidance given to the colleagues. Then at the end of the day, I sit with my colleague once again to take a stock and understand the status of “to do’s; find reasons why? especially for important things if they could not be done. A strategy to remedy the situation is then prepared and all this rolls into the next day’s checklist of “to do”.”

“So its “micro-planning” that I would recommend you to follow. Certainly, you need to prepare a broad long term plan – but let it not intimidate you or suppress the opportunities of oddities”.

I liked the idea.

Professor extinguished his cigar and said

“A person who plans meticulously does not deviate. But this person will never be creative”

He left the room with these deep words.

You all may know that due to all the mess and surprises, Fogg finally reaches one day late to London. The following day Fogg apologizes to Aouda for bringing her with him, since he now has to live in poverty and cannot support her. Aouda confesses that she loves him and asks him to marry her.

As Passepartout notifies a minister, he learns that he is mistaken in the date – it is not 22 December, but instead 21 December. Because the party had travelled eastward, they had gained one day upon crossing the International Date Line. Passepartout informs Fogg of his mistake, and Fogg hurries to the Reform Club just in time to meet his deadline and win the wager of £20,000.

I realized that Mr. Perfect Phileas Fogg couldn’t execute his meticulous plan to the perfection he would have loved to; but his handling of the situations “creatively” led to winning the wager and even better a deal as he got Ms. Aouda as partner to his life.

Remember what Author Michael Gellert said: “Striving for perfection is often confused with the quest for fulfillment: we think that if we can become perfect or create perfect things or situations, we will be happy.”

So happiness need not be linked to perfection.

Mr.  Phileas Fogg was a man of precision and perfection but finally the imperfections in the journey around the world made him a happy and a successful man.

I thought of letting my wife know.


If you like this post then Follow me or circulate this post across your colleagues

Parivartan through Parivesh (A New Transformation in India’s Environmental Clearance System)

India’s PM launched PARIVESH (Pro-Active and Responsive facilitation by Interactive, Virtuous and Environmental Single-window Hub) on the occasion of World Biofuel Day. PARIVESH is a Single-Window Integrated Environmental Management System, developed in pursuance of the spirit of ‘Digital India’ initiated by the Prime Minister and capturing the essence of Minimum Government and Maximum Governance and Ease of Doing Responsible Business.

With PARIVESH, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has become more of a facilitator than a regulator.  “PARIVESH” is a workflow-based application and has been rolled out for online submission, monitoring and management of proposals submitted by Project Proponents. It will help to seek various types of clearances (e.g. Environment, Forest, Wildlife and Coastal Regulation Zone Clearances) from Central, State and district-level authorities.  It has been designed, developed and hosted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, with technical support from National Informatics Centre, (NIC), New Delhi.

Highlighting that PARIVESH offers a framework to generate economic growth and strengthens Sustainable Development through E Governance, Union Environment Minister stated that with automatic highlighting of non-compliance by the system, PARIVESH will help in improving the overall performance and efficiency of the whole appraisal process.

PARIVESH accepts online submission and monitoring of compliance reports including geo-tagged images of the site by regulatory body / inspecting officers through website as well as  Mobile App for enhanced compliance monitoring.  Further a Geographic Information System (GIS) interface is available for the Appraisal Committee to help them in analyzing the proposal efficiently, automatic alerts (via SMS and emails) at important stages to the concerned officers, committee members and higher authorities to check the delays, if any.  “PARIVESH” enables project proponents, citizens to view, track and interact with scrutiny officers, generates online clearance letters, online mailers and alerts to state functionaries in case of delays beyond stipulated time for processing of applications.

Immediately after the release of the PARIVESH website, an emergency meeting was held in Diwane I Khas of Taj Mahal at Mansingh Road in Delhi. Several “stakeholders” were present at this secret get-together. Even Times Now and Republic TV channels did not know that such a meeting was being held. Rumor was that team NDTV was however present there disguised as the waiters.


Diwane I Khas at Taj Mahal Hotel

The stakeholders included consultants offering services of Environmental Clearance (EC) and those involved in accelerating the work flow of EC by greasing the officials. The former looked like foxes and the latter looked like hyenas.  Then there were Ex-EC committee members and the Ex-chairmen of the EC committees who do the business of giving “strategic advice” to the project proponents. They occupied separate roundtables to show their different stature and position.  And there were many representatives of environmental monitoring agencies who “generate” the base line data (mostly unreal) but for helping a speedy EC. They looked more like a herd of sheep.

My Professor friend found about this “secret” meeting and asked me to accompany.

“How will we introduce ourselves Professor” I asked this question.

“Oh, don’t worry Dr Modak”, Professor said while lighting his cigar “We will say that we are from the headquarters of International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA). We will need to dress up a bit, wear a suit and a tie and sport a lapel of IAIA. I am a Member but have a spare one that I will give to you”

Very clever I thought. I knew that IAIA has no India chapter and hardly anything is known about their work. Some had told me that  the only thing known is that IAIA holds annual conferences in exotic places across the world striving to make money. This may not be true of course.

When we entered the room, we saw that one roundtable was occupied by representative of the World Bank Group and the Asian Development Bank. These representatives were the “safeguard” people and had constipated faces as they were doing nothing except keep finding faults in the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) documents submitted by the clients (actually by consultants). They used Microsoft Word only in track change mode. On the same table, I saw some familiar faces from the BIG 4. These folks were sitting like proud cocks and hens, distinguishing from the “normal” ESIA consultants, sporting a “buddha” face that indicated “we know the truth”.

The last to enter the room were a few corporate honchos. They had ensured that media was not present and that there presence wont get “recorded”. I heard them whispering that this level of transparency in EC was a bit too much! Now we will not have any “play” to influence and tweak the workflow any more – especially  when most needed. They said.

One Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) said that “well today the e-governance is set for EC, but I wont be surprised if this gets extended to the Business Responsibility Reporting (BRR) and CSR Reporting. This will make rather difficult to bluff – that we usually do – while making tall claims about the social development and environmental improvements that we are supposed to do. I could understand their fear and discomfort.

Finally, we saw a table of “corporate” environmental NGOs. They looked a bit skeptical about PARIVESH as the present system allowed them to make allegations and write stories.  But they looked a bit supportive to the idea of PARIVESH  – as they were interested to find out how to “exploit” the new system to their advantage. That’s most of the NGOs of this kind do. Don’t they?

The main point of discussion was to assess the impact of PARIVESH on the “ecosystem” of stakeholders to EC. Everybody wanted a solution and a counter-strategy. After some initial chaos, several observations and suggestions were made.

The consultants engaged in the EC facilitation felt that PARIVESH will lead to a big loss to their income. The strategic advisers said that they would soon lose their clout and may become redundant. As PARIVESH will pool national environmental data across 135+ “layers” on a GIS platform, the business of generating (fake) baseline data will suffer. The environmental NGOs felt that now that citizens will get information on the entire work-flow of the EC online, their function of “representing the people” and “feeding breaking news”  may get a bit compromised.

When one of the Corporate NGOs saw lapel of IAIA on Professors coat asked why can’t IAIA undertake a study on the Impact Assessment of PARIVESH. Professor behaved as if he was hard of hearing, but I thought it was a great idea.

As expected, the meeting ended with no clear direction on the next steps. Perhaps, the fact that PARIVESH became actually operational was a shock to many. Not many knew  that this “typhoon” was coming. PARIVESH looked like a secret operation carried out as in  nuclear blast at Pokharan!

While exiting Diwane I Khas, I overheard the conversation at the table of the World Bank et al and the BIG 4.

One of the BIG 4 was asking the World Bank safeguards specialist “Will PARIVESH make your work in the World Bank redundant? Given the “equivalence” between your safeguard system and India’s EC procedure, you may not now need to conduct ESIA in your style and do all the supervision”

The man from the World Bank answered “In a way, you are right. But after listening to the discussions of today, we are thinking of supporting a program on Rehabilitation of PARIVESH affected stakeholders (PAPs in Bank parlance) and come up with an alternate Income Generation Scheme (IGS)”

“Oh, very clever!” l I said to myself

I then realized how smart the World Bank is.

If you like this post then Follow me or circulate across your network

You may like to read some of my related posts

How to get Speedy Environmental Clearance?

Indian Weddings now require Environmental Clearance

Impact Assessment of Environmental Impact Assessment