According to a recently released Greenpeace report, 139 Indian cities breached air pollution standards. The report analysed air pollution data of 313 cities and towns for the year 2017.Of these 313 cities, 241 (77%) had PM10 levels beyond the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Lancet report in December 2018 said 1.2 million deaths of Indians in 2017 could be attributed to air pollution.

The high incidences of polluted cities and increasing mortality due to air pollution pushed the Government to come up with National Clean Air Policy.

The details of the policy

• NCAP proposes a framework to achieve a national-level target of 20-30 per cent reduction of PM2.5 and PM10 concentration by between 2017 and 2024.
• Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) will execute this nation-wide programme in consonance with the section 162 (b) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1986.
• The approach for NCAP includes collaborative, multi-scale and cross-sectoral coordination between the relevant central ministries, state governments and local bodies.
• The plan covers 102 non-attainment cities, across 23 states and Union territories, which were identified by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on the basis of their ambient air quality data between 2011 and 2015.
• Non-attainment cities are those which have been consistently showing poorer air quality than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These include Delhi, Varanasi, Bhopal, Kolkata, Noida, Muzaffarpur, and Mumbai.
• The programme has been launched with an initial budget of ?300 crore for the first two years.
• As part of the programme, the Centre also plans to scale up the air quality monitoring network across India. At least 4,000 monitors are needed across the country, instead of the existing 101 real-time air quality (AQ) monitors, according to an analysis.
• The plan proposes a three-tier system, including real-time physical data collection, data archiving, and an action trigger system in all 102 cities, besides extensive plantation plans, research on clean-technologies, landscaping of major arterial roads, and stringent industrial standards.
• It also proposes state-level plans of e-mobility in the two-wheeler sector, rapid augmentation of charging infrastructure, stringent implementation of BS-VI norms, boosting public transportation system, and adoption of third-party audits for polluting industries.
• The national plan has proposed setting up an apex committee under environment minister, a steering committee under-secretary (environment) and a monitoring committee under a joint secretary. There would be project monitoring committees at the state-level with scientists and trained personnel.

Strengths of the policy:

• Integrated Focus: The NCAP attempts to pull all previous air pollution control plans together under a single strategy that focuses on improving the air quality in 102 ‘non-attainment cities’ across the country.
• Cross-cutting policy: The policy was launched by the environment minister, but it is massively cross-cutting, involving the ministries of road transport and highway, petroleum and natural gas, new and renewable energy, heavy industry, housing and urban affairs, agriculture, and health.
• Inclusive: The policy incudes the government think tank NITI Aayog, the central pollution control board, experts from the industry, academia, and civil society as stakeholders.
• Partnership: The programme will partner with multilateral and bilateral international organizations, philanthropic foundations and leading technical institutions.

Other factors which can make a difference to NCAP

• The media: In India, the media can be influential when it comes to public health issues, especially those that affect the middle classes and above, and air quality is an obvious campaign issue. Example: Incidences of episodic air pollution during winters in Delhi-National Capital Region in recent years have attracted significant media attention, thus bringing the entire issue of air pollution under regular public scrutiny.
• Shortcomings of previous actions: Insufficient and higher level of focused time bound initiatives at both city and rural level now appear obligatory to address the issue in comprehensive manner at national level.
• Clear target: It is to bring down particulate matter 10 and 2.5 levels in the 102 non-attainment cities by 30% by 2024.
• NCAP recommends support for studies on health and economic impact of air pollution.

The challenges:

• Teethless: Implementation of NCAP is the biggest challenge as the policy has no teeth, it’s not legally binding. NCAP is a top-down prescriptive approach.
• The MoEFCC has not drawn upon the precedence of the notification of Graded Response Action Plan or the Comprehensive Action Plan under the Environment Protection Act in Delhi and NCR.
• One-size doesn’t fit all: NCAP will also have to be more nuanced and adopt appropriate approaches for small and big cities according to their dominant pollution profile while several strategies may remain uniform.
• It does have a “three-tier mechanism for review of monitoring, assessment and inspection for implementation” under which trained manpower and regular inspection drives will be ensured for “stringent implementation”. But this, disappointingly, is the perhaps the weakest section of this document, too short and vague on specifics.
• NCAP has not provided for innovative financing mechanism at central and state/city level. The funds allotted are meagre which cannot sustain the grand plans.
• The ‘polluter pay’ based taxation mechanism to mobilise resources for dedicated funding of pollution control action is also not considered.

Conclusion:

Air pollution control cannot remain only policy intent. Local and national action requires teeth and grit to make a difference and save lives. Within the federal structure, NCAP, while ensuring compliance, will also have to create enough room for tighter action that can be even stronger. State governments and city authorities should be encouraged and enabled to take those extra steps to meet local targets.