Launched in 2019, the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) aims to reduce the concentration of atmospheric Particulate Matter (PM) by 40% by 2026, from 2017 levels. Cities have prepared Clean Air Action Plans (CAAPs), but implementation has been inconsistent. On average, only 60% of the allocated funds have been used thus far, with 27% of cities spending less than 30% of their designated budgets. Visakhapatnam and Bengaluru have spent 0% and 1% of their NCAP funds, respectively.
Implementation delays hinder NCAP’s success, primarily due to delays in approvals from competent authorities and the absence of standard operating procedures. Time-consuming tasks required to implement control measures and the absence of well-defined timelines further exacerbate delays. Bureaucratic red-tape and lingering doubts regarding the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures also contribute to the slow progress.
Scientific tools such as Emissions Inventory (EI), Air Quality (AQ) modeling, and Source Apportionment (SA) can be instrumental in identifying pollution sources and shaping targeted mitigation measures. Emissions Inventory (EI) studies provide insights into local pollution sources and their contributions, allowing experts to forecast future emissions based on various factors. Air Quality (AQ) modeling informs our understanding of pollution dispersion, including from distant sources. Source Apportionment (SA) studies offer a detailed analysis of contributions from various pollution sources, including those located afar.
However, only 37% of cities have completed EI and SA studies, meaning the remaining 63% don’t have a clear understanding of the sources of their air pollution. The effectiveness of CAAPs is thus questioned if the cities don’t know the individual emissions reduction potentials of their proposed mitigation measures.
Moreover, the NCAP’s reliance on concentration data — a measure of population exposure to harmful pollution — further complicates the situation. Pollution from high-emitting industries and other sources outside city limits, carried into urban areas by winds, can complicate urban air-quality management. Many existing control measures focus only on primary PM emissions, neglecting secondary precursors. A shift towards comprehensive strategies addressing both primary and secondary pollutants is thus important.
Swift implementation on the ground is essential for NCAP’s success. Implementation agencies should seek to reduce bureaucratic red tape by utilizing shared, standardized technical evaluations. As NCAP funding is linked with the performance of cities (based on the annual average PM concentration reduction), strategic budgeting and time management play crucial roles. Technical feasibility, budgeting, and time estimates need to be part of the initial plans.
In conclusion, the journey towards cleaner air in India, as charted by NCAP, will be challenging but is necessary. NCAP’s success hinges on a multifaceted approach that combines rigorous scientific studies, strategic funds, and swift and effective implementation of mitigation measures.
