The existence of the “polluter pays” principle (PPP) in Bangladesh, at least on paper, dates back to 1992, ever since the country endorsed the Rio Declaration.
However, Bangladesh has made little progress in implementing the principle so far. A statement by the incumbent minister for environment, forest and climate change, Abdul Awal Mintoo, saying that regulatory authorities recovered less than half of the total compensation imposed on polluters over the past 16 years, exposed the structural loopholes in environmental governance behind failures in implementing the principle.
The minister pointed out that polluters can delay the compensation recovery by applying their right to appeal against the regulatory authorities’ orders.
that Mongabay spoke to said that loopholes in the judicial system, weak evidence and economic analysis on pollution, and polluters’ influence must be addressed if the country really wants to implement the PPP.
Environmentalist and Dhaka University’s zoology professor Mohammad Firoj Jaman told Mongabay, “Delays in implementation of laws against polluters aggravate environmental pollution, and the hope of reaping the benefits of environmental justice falls flat.”
“
Bangladesh’s regulatory authorities often impose compensation based on ‘eyeball assessment,’ which means a layman’s calculation of pollution levels.
S M Munjurul Hannan Khan, executive director, Nature Conservation Management
Compensation recovery undermines the PPP
The PPP binds polluters to bear the costs of managing and remedying the harm they have done to the environment.
The concept of PPP was first mentioned in the recommendations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Conference in 1972 and reaffirmed in 1974.
In 1992, the PPP was laid down as Principle 16 of the UN Declaration on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, to which Bangladesh is a signatory.
Bangladesh incorporated the principle into the Environment Conservation Act 1995 through Section 7, which empowers the director general of the Department of Environment (DoE) to order penalties in the form of compensation if any person or industry causes direct or indirect damage to the natural environment.
It also authorises the DoE to provide instructions for corrective measures with the polluters, and if the polluters fail to comply with the instructions, file civil or criminal cases against them. The DoE assesses environmental damage and imposes compensation under the Environment Conservation Act, 1995 (amended in 2010).
Mintoo’s statement in the Bangladesh Parliament on April 29 exposed how the regulatory body fails to implement the PPP.
According to his statement, the DoE had imposed 6.228 billion takas [US$50.76 million] in compensation on 18,617 polluting establishments across the country between July 13, 2010, and March 31, 2026.
However, only 47.52 per cent of the total compensation imposed was realised in 16 years.
Regarding the low rate of realisation, Mintoo said that polluters, mostly industrialists, have the right to appeal against compensation orders issued by the department under Section 14 of the Environment Conservation Act.
The minister also said that many industrial enterprises had filed appeals against such compensation orders, which were still pending before the Appellate Authority, and until these appeals are resolved, the imposed compensation would remain unpaid.
Under the rules, appeals against DoE-imposed compensation are heard by an Appellate Authority chaired by the secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
A senior official at the Environmental Pollution Control and Law Wing of the ministry told Mongabay in mid-May that before the current government took charge in February 2026, 577 appeals to the Appellate Authority were pending.
Following the minister’s instruction to accelerate resolving the appeals, the backlog was reduced to less than 450 by May.
Legal loopholes enable impunity
Under the rules, the party aggrieved by the DoE-imposed compensation can file an appeal application within 30 days of the compensation order. The applicant, however, needs to pay 25 per cent of the compensation in advance to the treasury.
DoE officials said that the accused polluters, instead of filing appeals with the Appellate Authority, directly file writ petitions with the High Court challenging the compensation orders.
Consequently, until the High Court disposes of the writ petitions, the imposed compensation remains unpaid, they said.
Bangladesh Constitution’s Article 102 allows any citizen to file a writ petition with the High Court if the petitioner is aggrieved by a government order, such as compensation for environmental pollution.
Under Environment Conservation Act of 1995, the DoE director general can file civil or criminal cases against polluters if they fail to comply with the department’s order or corrective instructions.
However, he could not say exactly how many writ petitions and the DoE-filed cases were pending right .
“Our responsibility is only to submit the charge sheet. After that, there is no ‘one-stop desk’ to inform you how many of the cases remain pending,” Ali said.
The Environment Conservation Act, amended in 2010, allows the government to establish a Special Magistrate’s Court to deal with environmental affairs and an Environment Court in each district.
In 2002, two Environment Courts were established in Dhaka and Chattogram cities, and later they were reconstituted under the 2010 law. No new court has been established since the enactment of the 2010 law.
Officials at the DoE, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Mongabay that influential polluters directly approach the High Court, secure stay orders on the DoE’s decision and delay compensation recovery for an indefinite period.
Weak legal staffing, pollution assessment
Former and current DoE officials allege that weak legal representation from the government side frequently allows the accused polluters to obtain such stays.
In 2022, corruption watchdog Transparency International Bangladesh reported that there is a shortage of timely submission of charge sheets and presentation of witnesses by the DoE in the Environment Court.
“Moreover, there are allegations that, to keep the opportunity for earning more for certain lawyers, the required number of lawyers are not hired to handle the cases,” the TIB report says.
S. M. Munjurul Hannan Khan, founder and executive director of the Dhaka-based NGO Nature Conservation Management, is a former additional secretary of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
Khan said that environmental regulatory authorities in developed countries determine compensation on the basis of scientific and economic analysis so that the process makes it difficult for actual polluters to evade legal accountability.
“By contrast, Bangladesh’s regulatory authorities often impose compensation based on ‘eyeball assessment,’ which means a layman’s calculation of pollution levels,” he said.
According to Khan, such assessments often fail to satisfy judicial scrutiny and allow accused polluters to obtain stay orders against penalties.
Calling the large industrial polluters politically and financially influential, Khan said that such “power” enables them to manipulate the judicial process.
He recommended that the government revise the environmental laws for strict implementation of the PPP.
“At the same time, the government should reward the compliant industries to encourage them for environmental conservation,” Khan said.
This story was published with permission from Mongabay.com.
