Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

Noida spent only 6% of NCAP funds for air pollution control: Government data

Noida, one of India's most polluted cities, has used only around 6 per cent of the Rs 21.95 crore it received under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) since 2019, according to government data. Data released by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) showed that 19 out of the 131 cities covered under the NCAP have utilised less than 50 per cent of the funds allocated, and four have used below 25 per cent of the funds received as of May 3. Other cities with low fund utilisation include Pune (26.44 per cent), Gulbarga (27.2 per cent), Vasai-Virar (28.01 per cent), Nashik (28.21 per cent), Kolhapur (28.37 per cent), Vijayawada (29.16 per cent), Angul (29.95 per cent), Jamshedpur (35.78 per cent), Delhi (37.33 per cent), Anantapur (38.39 per cent), Faridabad (38.89 per cent), Durg Bhilainagar (42.31 per cent), Varanasi (46.25 per cent), Ranchi (48.73 per cent), and Jalandhar (48.81 per cent). A report released by the independent think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) on Friday said only Rs 6,806 crore (64 per cent) of the total Rs 10,566 crore allocated to the 131 cities since the programme's inception has been utilised as of May 3.

नोएडा ने वायु प्रदूषण नियंत्रण के लिए एनसीएपी निधि का केवल छह प्रतिशत खर्च किया: सरकारी आंकड़े

भारत के सबसे प्रदूषित शहरों में से एक नोएडा ने 2019 से राष्ट्रीय स्वच्छ वायु कार्यक्रम (एनसीएपी) के तहत प्राप्त 21.95 करोड़ रुपये में से केवल छह प्रतिशत का ही उपयोग किया है। पर्यावरण, वन एवं जलवायु परिवर्तन मंत्रालय (एमओईएफसीसी) द्वारा जारी आंकड़ों से पता चला है कि एनसीएपी के अंतर्गत शामिल 131 शहरों में से 19 ने आवंटित धनराशि का 50 प्रतिशत से भी कम इस्तेमाल किया है तथा चार शहरों ने तीन मई तक प्राप्त धनराशि का 25 प्रतिशत से भी कम इस्तेमाल किया है। एनसीएपी 2019 में शुरू किया गया और यह स्वच्छ वायु लक्ष्य निर्धारित करने का भारत का पहला राष्ट्रीय प्रयास है। इसका लक्ष्य 2017 को आधार वर्ष मानकर 2024 तक पीएम10 (हवा में 10 माइक्रोमीटर या उससे कम आकार के कण) प्रदूषण में 20-30 प्रतिशत की कमी लाना है। कुल 46 शहरों और शहरी समूहों ने कार्यक्रम के अंतर्गत प्राप्त धनराशि का 75 प्रतिशत से भी कम खर्च किया, जो या तो उसे सीधे पर्यावरण मंत्रालय से या 15वें वित्त आयोग के माध्यम से प्राप्त हुई। वायु प्रदूषण से निपटने के लिए उत्तर प्रदेश के नोएडा को आवंटित 21.95 करोड़ रुपये में से केवल 1.43 करोड़ रुपये का इस्तेमाल किया है। बेंगलुरु ने 535.1 करोड़ रुपये में से केवल 68.37 करोड़ रुपये खर्च किए, नागपुर ने 132.6 करोड़ रुपये में से 17.71 करोड़ रुपये का उपयोग किया और विशाखापत्तनम ने प्राप्त 129.25 करोड़ रुपये में से 26.17 करोड़ रुपये खर्च किए। निधि का कम उपयोग वाले अन्य शहरों में पुणे (26.44 प्रतिशत), गुलबर्गा (27.2 प्रतिशत), वसई-विरार (28.01 प्रतिशत), नासिक (28.21 प्रतिशत), कोल्हापुर (28.37 प्रतिशत), विजयवाड़ा (29.16 प्रतिशत) , अंगुल (29.95 प्रतिशत), जमशेदपुर (35.78 प्रतिशत), दिल्ली (37.33 प्रतिशत), अनंतपुर (38.39 प्रतिशत), फरीदाबाद (38.89 प्रतिशत), दुर्ग भिलाईनगर (42.31 प्रतिशत), वाराणसी (46.25 प्रतिशत) , रांची (48.73 प्रतिशत), और जालंधर (48.81 प्रतिशत) शामिल हैं। पर्यावरण मुद्दों पर काम करने वाली संस्था ‘सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट’ (सीएसई) ने शुक्रवार को एक रिपोर्ट जारी की। इसके अनुसार, कार्यक्रम की शुरूआत से अब तक 131 शहरों को आवंटित कुल 10,566 करोड़ रुपये में से 3 मई तक केवल 6,806 करोड़ रुपये (64 प्रतिशत) का ही उपयोग किया गया है।

Capital used only 29% of funds to clean air: Study

The assessment, released by CSE, analysed at the performance of states and UTs in terms of implementation of NCAP More than 70% of total funds Delhi received from the Centre as part of the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) remain unutilised, making the national Capital the worst in terms of usage of climate funds among India’s states and Union territories, a new study has found. The assessment, released by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) on Friday, analysed the performance of states and UTs in terms of implementation of NCAP, which was introduced in 2019 and set ambitious targets for regions across India to bring down PM2.5 and PM10 levels by 25-30%. Delhi, according to the report, has so far utilised only ₹12.6 crore out of the ₹42.69 crore it has received from the Centre for NCAP between 2019-20 and 2023-24. This means that with a utilisation rate of 29.5%, Delhi proportionately used the least money among the 23 states and UTs which received funds during this period, the report showed. Other regions that fared poorly in terms of fund utilisation were Punjab (which used only 30.6% of central funds), Karnataka (31.4% of funds utilised), Jammu and Kashmir (34.9%), West Bengal and Assam (both 39.2%), and Meghalaya (39.9%), according to the report. The national average was 51%, it showed. At the other end of the spectrum, Jharkhand and Gujarat meanwhile were able to utilise 100% of the ₹6 crore and ₹12 crore they received to improve air quality there, it said. A total of 131 cities come under NCAP. The findings of the report are a damning reflection of the inaction of authorities in the face of yearly onslaught of pollution, particularly in the national capital. Delhi and its surrounding NCR cities consistently rank among the world’s most polluted cities, with Delhi commonly referred to as the most polluted national capitals. The pollution is exacerbated particularly in the winter months, after the burning of stubble in neighbouring states and bursting of firecrackers during Diwali. Delhi’s PM2.5 and PM10 levels generally shoot up to 10-20 times the national standards of 60 and 100 µg/m3 respectively, owing to meteorological factors such as low wind speed and low temperature. According to the report, Delhi ranked ninth under the recently launched Swacch Vayu Sarvekshana (SVS) rankings – a system which ranks cities based on their air quality and their implementation of activities approved under the city action plan (NCAP). However, based on NCAP’s assessment for cities, it received the lowest grade for failing to improve PM10. “This shows that while Delhi is taking overall action, it is faring poorly in the NCAP performance-linked assessment, which focuses mainly on PM10. This shows dust and high PM 10 is still a problem for Delhi and its surrounding region,” said Anumita Roy Chowdhury, executive director, research and advocacy at CSE. Cities faring well in terms of PM10 reduction are considered for incentive-based grants and a higher funding from the central government.

Delhi Utilised Less Than 30% Of Funds From Clean Air Prog

Delhi has utilised just 29.5% of the funds from National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) between 2019-20 and 2023-24, a latest report by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has revealed. The report has raised concerns with the way NCAP has been run through the five years of its operation. The report titled “National Clean Air Programme: An Agenda for Reform” pointed out that while Delhi was among the worst polluted cities, most of the funding under NCAP has been invested in dust control measures rather than combustion-based PM2.5, which are far more harmful. NCAP was launched on Jan 10, 2019 with the target to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 levels by 40% by 2025-26 in 131 non-attainment cities, including Delhi. According to the report, a total of Rs 10,566 crore was released for the 131 cities, of which 64% was utilised for road dust mitigation, while much less had been allocated towards reducing emissions from combustion. “While NCAP’s objectives and aims have always been commendable, we are finding that attention and investments under it are largely focused on dust control, and not on emission-spewing combustion sources such as industries or vehicles. As much as 64% of the funds utilised under NCAP and the 15th Finance Commission have been spent on road dust mitigation. Much less has gone towards controlling emissions from combustion sources— with industrial pollution getting 0.6%, vehicular pollution 12.6% and biomass burning 14.5%,” said CSE director general Sunita Narain. The report points out that while the cities need to demonstrate improvement in PM10 levels to access the funds under NCAP, under the parallel programme of Swacch Vayu Sarvekshana, these cities are ranked based on policy measures implemented in managing sectors such as biomass, municipal solid waste, road dust, public awareness, besides improvement in PM10 concentrations. According to the report, Delhi ranked ninth under Swacch Vayu Sarvekshana for implementing policy measures but is at the bottom, scoring zero, under NCAP assessment for not improving PM10 levels. For the assessment year 2022-23, 18 best-scoring cities included Srinagar, Gorakhpur, Durgapur, Moradabad, Firozabad and Bareilly. Meanwhile, 53 cities were least performing, including Delhi, Chandigarh, Jhansi, Jammu, Noida and Udaipur. “The new agenda for clearing the air has to gear up for the scale and speed of change for transformative reform. This needs massive energy transition in all sectors, mobility transition to reduce automobile dependence and shift long-range transport from polluting roadways to railways and waterways, and circularity to close the loop around all waste streams. That is possible only if the method of tracking progress and compliance gets stronger,” says Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, CSE.

Is India’s National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) must not get reduced to being just a dust control programme: CSE

Has India’s much vaunted National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) helped our cities meet clean air standards to reduce the public health risk that air pollution poses? A new assessment report by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) says there are serious concerns with the way the Programme has been run through the five years of its operation. The report by CSE – titled National Clean Air Programme: An agenda for reform – was released here today. NCAP was launched by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) in January 2019. This is the first ever national effort to set clean air targets for 131 designated polluted cities, with the aim of reducing particulate pollution by up to 40 per cent by 2025-26 from the base year of 2019-20. This is also the first ever instance in India of performance-linked funding for improving air quality. Speaking on the occasion, CSE director general Sunita Narain said: “While NCAP’s objectives and aims have always been commendable, we are finding that attention and investments under it are largely focused on dust control, and not on emission-spewing combustion sources such as industries or vehicles. As much as 64 per cent of the funds utilised under NCAP and the 15th Finance Commission have been spent on road dust mitigation. Much less has gone towards controlling emissions from combustion sources — with industrial pollution getting 0.61 per cent, vehicular pollution 12.63 per cent, and biomass burning 14.51 per cent. A balanced approach to funding is critical for effective impact.” The money flow A lot of money has flowed in to fund the clean air action plans in Indian cities. Under the overall Programme (NCAP) which covers 131 cities, 49 cities with million-plus populations have received money from the 15th Finance Commission; the remaining 82 cities have been funded directly by NCAP. Funds released to 131 cities: Rs 10,566 crore Amount utilised overall: Rs 6,806.15 crore (64 per cent of the released funds), as of May 3, 2024 64 per cent of the overall utilisation has been in road dust mitigation Funds released for 82 NCAP cities is significantly lower than that given to the 49 15th Finance Commission cities. Utilisation of funds follows the same trend. 82 NCAP cities: Rs 1,616.47 crore released; Rs 831.42 crore (51 per cent) utilised 49 cities under 15th FC grant: Rs 8,951 crore released; Rs 5,974.73 crore (67 per cent) utilised Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, CSE says: “Cities are judged based on different metrics. There are serious questions about these metrics being used to benchmark progress and its implications for real improvement.” The CSE report points out that while under NCAP cities need to demonstrate improvement in PM10 levels to access the funds, under the parallel programme of Swachh Vayu Sarvekshan (SVS) these cities are ranked based on policy measures implemented in managing sectors such as biomass, municipal solid waste, road dust, public awareness, besides improvement in PM10 concentrations. Adds Roychowdhury: “The new agenda for clearing the air has to gear up for scale and speed of change for transformative reform. This needs massive energy transition in all sectors, mobility transition to reduce automobile dependence and shift long range transport from polluting roadways to railways and waterways, and circularity to close the loop around all waste streams. That is possible only if the method of tracking progress and compliance gets stronger.” Key highlights of the CSE report and action to be taken Dust control has become the focus; PM2.5 should be the benchmark Taking PM10 as the basis for assessing air quality improvement has diverted attention and investments towards dust control. Even though NCAP was originally planned to tackle both PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations in non-attainment cities, in practice only PM10 concentration has been considered for performance assessment. PM2.5, the more harmful fraction and emitted largely from combustion sources, has been neglected. Says Roychowdhury: “Annual changes in PM10 levels can be significantly influenced by meteorological factors, dust storms and heatwaves, rather than just policy actions. This may not adequately mirror the impact of action across all key sectors. PM10 monitoring needs to be source specific.” Make PM2.5 improvement the benchmark to drive action. PM2.5 is a more relevant health indicator to assess improvement in air quality. Mismatched aims and objectives; real on-ground action must be incentivised Currently, cities ranked high for improving PM10 levels may not necessarily rank high for taking policy action. Cities that score high for good action under SVS can paradoxically be the worst performing cities for not improving PM10 concentration under NCAP. There is no way to establish the link between action and improvement in PM10 levels. CSE’s assessment shows that in 2022-2023: No clear correlation is apparent between policy implementation and PM10 improvement. Cities like Agra, Delhi, Ghaziabad, Meerut and Jabalpur (>10 lakh population category) performed well under SVS but performed poorly under NCAP for reducing PM10. Delhi ranked 9th under SVS for implementing policy measures but is at the bottom, scoring zero, under NCAP. In the 3-10 lakh population category, Amravati, Guntur and Rajahmundry were the best performers for taking action under SVS but were at the bottom under NCAP. Among cities with population of below 3 lakh, Kala Amb, Angul and Talcher ranked at the top under SVS and at the bottom under NCAP. Several cities performed well under both SVS and NCAP. Indore, Srinagar, Bhopal and Trichy (over 10 lakh population) ranked best under both assessments. Similarly, Moradabad, Firozabad, Ujjain and Bareilly (in the 3-10 lakh population category) and Parwanoo and Rae Bareli (population less than 3 lakh) were at the top under both SVS and NCAP. Key combustion sources neglected; improve the metrics to prioritise sources of toxic emissions – focus on industry, transport, solid fuels With the current focus on dust control, the key combustion sources including transport and industry do not receive priority to build ambitious pathways. Due to city-specific action and a ‘hard line’ drawn around municipal boundaries, most industrial sources and power plants remain outside the orbit of city action plans. The small and medium scale units that exist in the non-conforming areas of cities are often not considered. Industrial pollution control remains business-as-usual. Only if a non-attainment city is an industrial township do some additional steps on industrial pollution control get reported. There is minimal reporting on stack emissions inspection, challans and closure notices or notification of approved fuel list. There is very little information in the city progress reports on upscaled action to accelerate clean fuels and technology transition. Progress reports of cities are also minimal on the indicators developed by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for transport sector interventions requiring improvement in on-road emissions management, old vehicle phase-out, vehicle electrification, public transport improvement, non-motorised transport and parking policy as a demand management measure. These strategies are not well developed quantitatively and qualitatively for implementation, funding and reporting. For on-road emission management, information is largely confined to PUC challans and is limited on old vehicles phase-out; it not been translated into renewal and scrappage policies in line with the scrappage and fleet renewal notifications of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Remote sensing cannot proceed as there are no central rules. Some states are using NCAP funds for expanding charging infrastructure. With respect to public transport, states have not yet adequately adopted state- and city-level guidelines and service-level benchmarks for planning of public transport infrastructure and multi-modal integration to enable modal shift and increase ridership. There is intermittent reporting on small corridors of walking and cycling. CPCB indicators related to parking policy as a demand management measure are not well understood. Cities often take this as a supply side management – read multi-level parking. The CPCB needs to develop adequate guidance and align the transport indicators more explicitly with the relevant Central government policies that have defined the targets, and design principles of these measures. Non-transparent/unavailable data; need transparency in reporting of action in cities to deepen the understanding of solutions implemented in cities. Annual ranking and improvement in air quality is not publicly available city-wise as part of the formal reporting system of NCAP. It is not possible to determine the level, scale and quality of action in each sector or understand how top-performing cities achieved 80-100 per cent of their targets. Evidence of detailed action is sometime available outside the NCAP reporting system. For example, the MoEFCC’s Annual Report of 2023-24 gives details of interventions of the Air Commission in Delhi-NCR. Says Roychowdhury: Delhi-NCR’s multi-sector actions have improved air quality, but pollution remains a significant challenge that NCAP must address. The programme needs to assess the level of action required for different cities and towns, considering their unique challenges and circumstances, to meet clean air benchmarks.” Go beyond cities to take a regional approach The experience so far has shown that cities cannot meet their clean air benchmark alone and need a regional approach to reduce the influence of transboundary pollution. Though the NCAP programme has taken this on board to target the Indo-Gangetic Plains with an airshed approach, inter-state coordination framework is yet to develop. State Action Plans have to be leveraged to minimise the influence of upwind pollution sources on downwind air quality within the state. Regional approach is also an opportunity for addressing pollution in smaller towns, suburban and rural areas as these need a cluster mechanism for solutions and common infrastructure. These towns do not have adequate resources or capacity to implement complex measures and infrastructure. National policies have to enable local action in cities and states Multi-sector clean air action is both federal and national in nature. Several strategies related to industry, power plants, public transport infrastructure, waste management, and clean fuels need Central government support. Take for example, the approved fuel list that all state governments are issuing now – often, they cannot scale up implementation as national policies on pricing and infrastructure for clean fuels are not adequately supportive. Natural gas needs to be under GST to avoid the cascading effect of state taxes. Similarly, cities aiming to improve transit infrastructure or introduce remote sensing measurement need Central government rules and support. NCAP needs long term policy visibility and funding strategy for sustained and scalable action In the next leg of the Programme, sectoral funding strategies need to converge more efficiently to accelerate sector-wise action on clean technologies, fuels, green infrastructure and urban design solutions. Even though national policies have suggested innovative financing strategies for sectoral resource mobilisation, it is not usually practiced. The state governments also need to do budget forecasting for advanced planning, build supportive strategies and repurpose funds according to the clean air indicators to free up resources from ineffective strategies and infrastructure. Polluters-pay principle should be applied to design taxes and cess, and pricing of products initiated for additional revenues to create dedicated funds for targeted action. Delhi, for instance, has imposed an environmental compensation charge on each truck entry daily, on each litre of diesel fuel sold and on the big cars and SUVs. Currently, city governments are underwriting the potential of generating revenues from parking by not enforcing variable parking pricing and eliminating free parking. As municipalities are the primary drivers of action, explore the opportunity of green municipal bonds. Need sectoral targets and mandate NCAP has allowed reporting on the relevant sectoral actions and funding to align with clean air action. This shows that parallel sectoral schemes and programmes with stronger legislative and regulatory framework, mandate and committed funding have a faster pace of progress. For example, performance-linked funding for garbage-free cities by 2025 under Swachh Bharat Mission 2.0 shows more advancement that gets widely reported by cities as action taken to control waste burning. Clean air action has to get deeply sectoral with time-bound targets for development of infrastructure, systems and compliance for scalable impact and prevent deaths and illness. Need protocol for data recording and reporting on indicators ULBs and SPCBs struggle to collect and upload data on the PRANA portal due to lack of understanding on tracking and maintaining datasets, despite having the relevant information. Departments need a protocol for inter-departmental information flow and reporting. They should be supported to develop an automated digital system for e-recording and reporting data in a standardised format, with capacity building and potential surveys or assessments to ensure effective programme implementation. Need stronger institutional mechanism and capacity for planning and implementation in cities Several indicators have asked for strengthening of the capacity of the departments for the purpose of monitoring, tracking and providing laboratory support air quality monitoring and assessment. Most cities have set up high-level task forces under the chief secretary of the state with representation of heads of departments. This system has to work more effectively in planning the scope of multi-sector and multi-departmental action and for efficient fund allocation. Performance-linked assessment needs to capture and promote best practices to build the learning curve for other cities The system of ranking and scoring cities is an opportunity to capture the details of sectoral good practices in different cities. If captured well, this can present a learning curve for others on the quality and scale of action. Need sustainable funding strategy at Central and state levels for sustained and scalable action Current funding system under the 15th FC grant will come to an end in 2025-26. A more structured approach is needed to mobilise and align resources for clean air action until 2030. Sectoral funding strategies need to converge more efficiently to accelerate sector-wise action on clean technologies, fuels, green infrastructure and urban design solutions. There is no state-level strategy to mobilise additional resources through innovative financing. Application of polluters-pay principles is needed for designing taxes, pricing policy and cess for additional revenue to create dedicated funds for targeted action. As the municipalities are the primary drivers of action, the opportunity of green municipal bonds can be explored. Mainstreaming resources and repurposing of funds for clean air action is the imperative. Central schemes must converge and integrate clean air and low carbon objectives with targeted subsidies and market-based mechanisms to promote scaling up of clean technologies and address affordability and equity Next phase of reforms need to prioritise action in key sectors to implement at a scale across the regions The upcoming challenge is the need to shift the focus towards implementation of priority action in key sectors of pollution at a scale and link the performance-linked funding with targeted milestones.

Sizing up EU’s carbon tax on Indian imports

CHENNAI : The European Union disturbed the global level playing field last year by adopting a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), under which carbon-intensive goods such as iron, steel, cement, fertilisers and aluminum that are imported from various countries, including India, will be subject to an additional tax. The policy has since sparked a lot of debate and criticism. The EU, however, says it is designed to ensure a domestic level playing field for local and global manufacturers. But critics see it as a protectionist measure designed to weaken the competitiveness of exports from developing countries. India, for whom the European Union is a key trading partner, has also raised its voice against the policy. Now, a study has found that the proposed mechanism would impose an average tax burden of 25% over and above the value of CBAM-covered goods exported to the EU from India. As per the study by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), titled The Global South’s Response to a Changing Trade Regime in the Era of Climate Change, the losses accrued to India’s exporters would amount to 0.05% of the country’s GDP. EU calls it a ‘fair price’ The European Union calls CBAM a tool to put a fair price on the carbon emitted during the production of goods entering the bloc. Producers within the European Union are subject to the bloc’s strict environmental standards that are designed to meet its climate objectives. This, however, adds to the cost of production. Therefore, the EU argues, when goods made in countries with less stringent standards enter the bloc, they would put domestic producers at a disadvantage. “By confirming that a price has been paid for the embedded carbon emissions generated in the production of certain goods imported into the EU, the CBAM will ensure the carbon price of imports is equivalent to the carbon price of domestic production,” the European Commission said. Another stated aim is to protect the effectiveness of the bloc’s ambitious carbon reduction targets. With the EU imposing strict environment standards, there is always a risk that companies operating in the bloc may shift their production outside, to countries that have more relaxed norms. The EU says this will undermine its climate efforts. The CBAM is designed to make it less appealing for companies whose products are sold in the EU to shift their production out of the bloc’s jurisdiction. Violates trade laws Critics say the CBAM violates the Paris Agreement’s principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities”.

NCAP Not Dust Control Programme, Controlling PM2.5 Emissions Should Be The Focus: CSE

The government’s ambitious National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) must not get reduced to being just a dust-control plan, but focus on controlling more harmful PM2.5 emissions from industries, vehicles as well as biomass burning, New Delhi-based Centre for Science & Environment (CSE) said in a new assessment. According to the experts, over 64 per cent of funds under the NCAP and 15th Finance Commission have just been spent on road dust mitigation. Much less has gone towards controlling emissions from combustion sources — with industrial pollution getting 0.61 per cent, vehicular pollution 12.63 per cent, and biomass burning 14.51 per cent. While NCAP’s objectives and aims have always been commendable, we are finding that attention and investments under it are largely focused on dust control, and not on emission-spewing combustion sources such as industries or vehicles,” remarked CSE Director-General Sunita Narain on Friday. The ambitious programme was launched in January 2019 to improve air quality in 131 polluted cities (non-attainment cities and million plus cities). Nearly Rs 10,566 crore has been released for the 131 cities so far under NCAP, of which Rs 6,806.15 crore (64 per cent) has been utilised till May 3. FOCUS ON DEADLY PM2.5 — TRANSPORT & INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS Under NCAP, the government had set clean air targets for the cities – up to 40% reduction or achievement of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter concentrations by 2025-26 from the base year of 2019-20. However, experts pointed out that taking PM10 as the basis for assessing air quality improvement has diverted attention and investments towards merely dust control, while major toxic sources of pollution were neglected. The CSE has recommended in its report that the NCAP should now shift the benchmark for assessing performance of cities from PM10 to PM2.5, which is way more harmful as it can go deep into the lungs and cause respiratory problems. PM2.5, emitted largely from combustion sources, is also a more relevant health indicator to assess improvement in air quality, while PM10 is highly influenced by meteorological conditions, rather than just policy actions. MISMATCH WITH ACTION ON GROUND, REVISE METRICS The CSE report flagged serious concerns with the way the programme has been run through the five years of its operation. The experts also found no clear correlation between policy implementation and PM10 improvement. For instance, cities like Agra, Delhi, Ghaziabad, Meerut and Jabalpur (>10 lakh population category) performed well under the Swachh Vayu Sarvekshan (SVS), but performed poorly under the NCAP for reducing PM10. National capital Delhi ranked 9th under SVS for implementing policy measures, but is at the bottom, scoring zero, under the NCAP. There is no way to establish the link between action and improvement in PM10 levels, it said in its report. The CSE has also recommended that the method of tracking progress and compliance should be made more transparent, and stronger. Also, while the NCAP cities need to demonstrate improvement in PM10 levels to access the funds, under the parallel programme of SVS, these cities are ranked based on policy measures implemented in managing sectors such as biomass, municipal solid waste, road dust, public awareness, besides improvement in PM10 concentrations. “Cities are judged based on different metrics. There are serious questions about these metrics being used to benchmark progress and its implications for real improvement,” said Anumita Roychowdhury, Executive Director, CSE. “The new agenda for clearing the air has to gear up for scale and speed of change for transformative reform. This needs massive energy transition in all sectors.” KEY POLLUTION SOURCES NEGLECTED, NEED FOR MORE TRANSPARENCY According to the CSE, the NCAP, in its current form, has neglected action against key combustion sources – mainly industry, transport and solid fuels. The metrics need to be revised to bring focus on them. Industrial pollution control remains business-as-usual. “Only if a non-attainment city is an industrial township, do some additional steps on industrial pollution control get reported. There is minimal reporting on stack emissions inspection, challans and closure notices or notification of approved fuel list. There is very little information in the city progress reports on upscaled action to accelerate clean fuels and technology transition,” as per the report. Also, the annual ranking and improvement in air quality is not publicly available city-wise as part of the formal reporting system of NCAP. “It is not possible to determine the level, scale and quality of action in each sector or understand how top-performing cities achieved 80-100 per cent of their targets,” the report noted.

Two-thirds of NCAP funds used for dust management, less than 1% for industrial pollution: Report

Nearly two-thirds of the funds allocated to 131 cities under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) have been used for dust management, while less than one per cent has been utilized to combat air pollution from the industrial sector, a new report revealed on Friday. Launched in 2019, the NCAP is India’s first national effort to set clean air targets, aiming for a 20-30 per cent reduction in PM10 pollution by 2024, with 2017 as the base year. The revised target is a 40 per cent reduction by 2026, using 2019-20 as the base year. The report, titled “National Clean Air Programme: An Agenda for Reform”, by the independent think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), also said that only 64 per cent of the total funds given to the 131 cities have been spent so far. “While NCAP’s objectives and aims have always been commendable, we are finding that attention and investments under it are largely focused on dust control, and not on emission-spewing combustion sources such as industries or vehicles. As much as 64 per cent of the funds utilized under NCAP and the 15th Finance Commission have been spent on road dust mitigation,” said CSE Director General Sunita Narain. According to the report, only 0.61 per cent of the total funds have been used to tackle industrial pollution, 12.63 per cent for vehicular pollution and 14.51 per cent for biomass burning. Among the cities covered under NCAP, 82 receive direct funding from the Union environment ministry, while 42 cities and seven urban agglomerations with populations over a million get funding from the 15th Finance Commission. The report detailed that only Rs 6,806 crore (64 percent) of the total Rs 10,566 crore allocated to the 131 cities since the programme’s inception has been utilized as of May 3. The 82 cities utilized Rs 831.42 crore of the total Rs 1,616.47 crore allocated, while the 49 cities receiving funding under the 15th Finance Commission utilized Rs 5,974.73 crore of the total Rs 8,951 crore allocated. Anumita Roychowdhury, CSE’s executive director, said that while dust control has become the focus of NCAP, PM2.5, a more harmful fraction of particulate pollution largely emitted from combustion sources, has been neglected. Taking PM10 as the basis for assessing air quality improvement has diverted attention and investments toward dust control. Even though NCAP was originally planned to tackle both PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations in non-attainment cities, in practice, only PM10 concentration has been considered for performance assessment, she said.

CABM Impact To Cost India 0.5 Percent Of Its GDP

The European Union's new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), or a 25 percent tax on energy-intensive goods exported to the EU, places a significant cost burden on India and other developing. In terms of real money, the new tax represents 0.05 percent of India's GDP, according to a recent report by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). The CBAM targets energy-intensive products such as iron, steel, cement, fertilisers, and aluminium. These goods, primarily exported by countries like India and China, will now be subject to this new tax based on their carbon emissions during production. The EU argues that CBAM aims to level the playing field for European manufacturers, who are required to meet stricter environmental standards. The goal is to reduce emissions by ensuring that imports align with the EU's climate goals. For developing countries, including India, this mechanism raises significant concerns. Nations worry that the new tax will make it prohibitively expensive to trade with the EU, potentially undermining their economies. The issue has ignited debates at international forums and UN climate conferences, where developing countries argue that such measures might contravene international climate agreements that prevent one country from imposing emission reduction demands on others. Avantika Goswami, who leads CSE's climate change programme, highlighted that in 2022-23, India's exports of goods covered by CBAM accounted for 9.91 percent of all the goods it exports to the EU. She pointed out that 26 percent of India's aluminium and 28 percent of its iron and steel exports were sent to the EU during the same period. These sectors are crucial to India's export economy, making the impact of CBAM particularly significant. In 2022-23, exports of CBAM-covered goods to the EU comprised approximately 25.7 percent of India's total such exports globally. This substantial share underscores the critical role these sectors play in India's economy. At present, India does not export hydrogen or electricity to the EU. Overall, CBAM-covered goods represent around 1.64 percent of India's total global goods exports. As the EU implements this new tax, developing countries like India brace for potential economic strain, emphasising the need for a balanced approach that considers the diverse capabilities and circumstances of different nations in the global trading system.

एनसीएपी कोष का दो-तिहाई हिस्सा धूल प्रबंधन के लिए इस्तेमाल किया गया: रिपोर्ट

राष्ट्रीय स्वच्छ वायु कार्यक्रम (एनसीएपी) के तहत 131 शहरों को आवंटित धनराशि का लगभग दो-तिहाई हिस्सा धूल प्रबंधन के लिए इस्तेमाल किया गया है, जबकि औद्योगिक क्षेत्र से उत्पन्न होने वाले वायु प्रदूषण से निपटने के लिए एक प्रतिशत से भी कम का उपयोग किया गया है। एक नयी रिपोर्ट में शुक्रवार को यह बात कही गई। साल 2019 में शुरू किया गया एनसीएपी स्वच्छ वायु लक्ष्य निर्धारित करने का भारत का पहला राष्ट्रीय प्रयास है। इसका लक्ष्य 2017 को आधार वर्ष मानकर 2024 तक पीएम10 प्रदूषण में 20-30 प्रतिशत की कमी लाना है। संशोधित लक्ष्य 2019-20 को आधार वर्ष के रूप में उपयोग करते हुए 2026 तक इस प्रदूषण में 40 प्रतिशत की कटौती का है। स्वतंत्र विचार मंच ‘सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट’ (सीएसई) की ‘राष्ट्रीय स्वच्छ वायु कार्यक्रम: सुधार के लिए एक एजेंडा’ शीर्षक वाली रिपोर्ट में यह भी कहा गया है कि 131 शहरों को दिए गए कुल कोष का केवल 64 प्रतिशत ही खर्च किया गया है। सीएसई महानिदेशक सुनीता नारायण ने कहा, ‘‘एनसीएपी के उद्देश्य और लक्ष्य हमेशा सराहनीय रहे हैं, हम पा रहे हैं कि इसके तहत ध्यान और निवेश काफी हद तक धूल नियंत्रण पर केंद्रित है, न कि उद्योगों या वाहनों जैसे उत्सर्जन उगलने वाले दहन स्रोतों पर। एनसीएपी और 15वें वित्त आयोग के तहत उपयोग की गई धनराशि का 64 प्रतिशत सड़क धूल शमन पर खर्च किया गया है।’’ रिपोर्ट के अनुसार, कुल धनराशि का केवल 0.61 प्रतिशत औद्योगिक प्रदूषण से निपटने के लिए, 12.63 प्रतिशत वाहन प्रदूषण के लिए और 14.51 प्रतिशत जैव ईंधन जलाने से निपटने के लिए उपयोग किया गया है।

दिल्ली दुनिया का 18वां सबसे प्रदूषित शहर, NCAP के बजट का महज 37% ही हुआ खर्च

NCAP के तहत दिल्ली को 2019-24 के दौरान मिले कुल बजट का महज 37 प्रतिशत ही खर्च हो पाया है। दुनिया के सबसे प्रदूषित शहरों में शामिल दिल्ली का इस मामले में 18वां स्थान रहा है। ऋषिकेश ने सबसे अधिक 73 प्रतिशत और उज्जैन ने 71 प्रतिशत फंड इस दौरान खर्च किया। सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरमेंट (CSE) की रिपोर्ट में यह दावा किया गया है। दिल्ली की प्रदर्शन रहा काफी खराब रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक 2022-23 में NCAP शहरों में दिल्ली का स्कोर 40 से भी कम रहा था। 100 से अधिक स्कोर हासिल करने वाले 18 शहर थे। दिल्ली का प्रदर्शन काफी खराब रहा था। वहीं, 2022 में मिनिस्ट्री ऑफ एनवायरनमेंट, फॉरेस्ट एंड क्लाइमेट चेंज ने स्वच्छ वायु सर्वेक्षण लॉन्च किया। इसमें भी NCAP में शामिल सभी शहरों को उनके एक्शन के हिसाब से रैकिंग दी गई। दिल्ली को स्वच्छ वायु सर्वेक्षण में 9वां स्थान मिला। वहीं, NCAP में दिल्ली का स्कोर जीरो रहा। सीएसई के अनुसार जब दिल्ली एक्शन लेने के मामलें में अच्छी रही, तो वहां NCAP का स्कोर जीरो क्यों रहा? यह अपने आप में गंभीर सवाल है। पीएम 10 पर दिया जा रहा ध्यान सीएसई के अनुसार NCAP में पीएम 10 और पीएम 2.5 दोनों के लक्ष्य तय है। लेकिन इसमें अधिक ध्यान पीएम 10 पर दिया जा रहा है। जबकि स्वास्थ्य पर सबसे अधिक असर धूल नहीं बल्कि इंडस्ट्री, गाड़ियों का प्रदूषण डाल रहा है। NCAP के टार्गेट के अनुसार दिल्ली को 2022-23 में अपने पीएम 2.5 का सालाना स्तर 151 एमजीसीएम पर सीमित करना था। लेकिन यह इससे अधिक 204 एमजीसीएम रहा। पार्किंग पॉलिसी को लेकर स्थिति स्प्ष्ट नहीं सीएसई के अनुसार, एक्शन की बात करें तो अब भी जो जानकारी आती है, वह पीयूसी चालान या पुरानी गाड़ियों को जब्त करने की आती है। जबकि स्क्रैप पॉलिसी आदि की जानकारियां नहीं आतीं। इसके अलावा पब्लिक ट्रांसपोर्ट में भी बसें आ रही हैं, लेकिन उन बसों का इस्तेमाल कितने लोग कर रहे हैं, लास्ट माइल कनेक्टिविटी क्या है, पेडिस्टेरियल है या नहीं, साइकल लेन हैं या नहीं जैसी जानकारियां नहीं मिलतीं। वहीं पार्किंग, मल्टीलेवल पार्किंग बनाने की बात की जाती हैं। बनाई भी जाती हैं, लेकिन पार्किंग पॉलिसी को लेकर स्थिति स्प्ष्ट नहीं है। मल्टी सेक्टर एक्शन की वजह से प्रदूषण की स्थिति हुआ सुधार सीएसई की अनुमिता रायचौधरी ने बताया कि दिल्ली एनसीआर में मल्टी सेक्टर एक्शन की वजह से प्रदूषण की स्थिति में कुछ सुधार हुआ है। लेकिन यह जानना जरूरी है कि यह सुधार किस एक्शन की वजह से आया है। साथ ही दिल्ली-एनसीआर से मिलते जुलते शहरों में उसी तरह के एक्शन लागू करने की जरूरत है। दिल्ली में प्रदूषण कम करने के लिए हम हर ट्रक की एंट्री पर एनवायरनमेंटल कंपनसेशन चार्ज लगा रहे हैं। बड़ी गाड़ियों और एसयूवी के अलावा हर लीटर डीजल की बिक्री पर भी एनवायरनमेंटल कंपनसेशन चार्ज लग रहा है। वहीं, दूसरी तरफ यहां पार्किंग के चार्ज अलग-अलग हैं। पार्किंग से हम उतना रेवेन्यू जनरेट नहीं कर पा रहे हैं, जितना होना चाहिए। हम अभी तक वेरिएबल पार्किंग रेट लागू नहीं कर सके हैं।

अध्ययन: धूल कणों से लड़ रहा एनसीएपी, कुल खर्च का 64 फीसदी फंड सड़कों से धूल हटाने पर; बाकी प्रदूषक नजरअंदाज

राष्ट्रीय स्वच्छ वायु कार्यक्रम (एनसीएपी) के तहत आवंटित फंड का करीब 64 फीसदी सड़कों से उड़ने वाली धूल के निपटान पर जा रहा है। जबकि वाहन और औद्योगिक प्रदूषण पर खर्च सीमित है। इसका खुलासा सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरमेंट (सीएसई) की एक रिपोर्ट में हुआ है। केंद्र सरकार बेशक वायु प्रदूषण को कम करने की दिशा में गंभीर है, लेकिन इसका जोर धूल के कणों से लड़ने पर ज्यादा है। राष्ट्रीय स्वच्छ वायु कार्यक्रम (एनसीएपी) के तहत आवंटित फंड का करीब 64 फीसदी सड़कों से उड़ने वाली धूल के निपटान पर जा रहा है। जबकि वाहन और औद्योगिक प्रदूषण पर खर्च सीमित है। इसका खुलासा सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरमेंट (सीएसई) की एक रिपोर्ट में हुआ है। नेशनल क्लीन एयर प्रोग्राम एन एजेंडा फॉर रिफॉर्म नाम की रिपोर्ट शुक्रवार इंडिया हैबीटेट सेंटर में जारी हुई। रिपोर्ट बताती है कि एनसीएपी के तहत आवंटित धन का करीब 0.61 फीसदी औद्योगिक प्रदूषण, 1.65 फीसदी निर्माण व ध्वस्तीकरण मलबा, 12.63 प्रतिशत वाहन प्रदूषण और 14.52 प्रतिशत बायोमास पर खर्च होता है। रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक, धूल के महीन कणों का आकलन भी एनसीएपी के तहत ठीक नहीं है। अभी सरकार का जोर पीएम10 पर है। जबकि स्वास्थ्य के लिए नुकसानदेह ज्यादा पीएम 2.5 है। रिपोर्ट में सिफारिश की गई है कि एनसीएपी में पीएम 2.5 के साथ दूसरे प्रदूषकों को सीमित करने के लिए विस्तृत कार्ययोजना पर काम करना चाहिए। रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक, स्वच्छ ईंधन, सड़क परिवहन क्षेत्रों, पुराने वाहनों को चरणबद्ध तरीके से हटाना, वाहनों का विद्युतीकरण, सार्वजनिक परिवहन में सुधार, पार्किंग नीति के बारे में कम जानकारी है। ऐसे में उद्योग, परिवहन, ठोस ईंधन पर ध्यान केंद्रित होना जरूरी है। यही नहीं, गैर-पारदर्शी, अनुपलब्ध डेटा कार्यवाही की रिपोर्ट में पारदर्शित की आवश्यकता है, ताकि लागू हुए समाधानों की समझ को गहरा किया जा सके। एनसीएपी के उद्देश्य और लक्ष्य सराहनीय रहे हैं। इसमें खास बात यह है कि उद्योगों या वाहनों से होने वाले उत्सर्जन पर ध्यान न देकर धूल कण को नियंत्रण करने पर जोर दिया जा रहा है। इसके प्रभावी परिणाम के लिए धन का संतुलित उपयोग महत्वपूर्ण है। -सुनीता नारायण, महानिदेशक, सीएसई शहरों का मूल्यांकन विभिन्न मानकों के आधार पर किया जाता है। प्रगति का मापदंड बनाने के लिए इन मानकों के उपयोग के प्रभावों और इनके वास्तविक सुधार पर असर के बारे में गंभीर प्रश्न हैं। -अनुमिता रॉय चौधरी, कार्यकारी निदेशक, सीएसई एनसीएपी बनाम एसवीएस रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक, 10 लाख से अधिक आबादी वाले शहर दिल्ली, गाजियाबाद, मेरठ, आगरा व जबलपुर स्वच्छ वायु सर्वेक्षण (एसवीएस) के तहत अच्छा प्रदर्शन कर रहे थे, लेकिन एनसीएपी के तहत पीएम 10 को कम करने में खराब प्रदर्शन किया है। दिल्ली एसवीएस में नीतिगत उपायों के कार्यान्वयन के लिए 9वें स्थान पर थी, लेकिन एनसीएपी के तहत नीचे थी और शून्य स्कोर प्राप्त किया। स्वच्छ तकनीक पर हो काम 15वें वित्त आयोग के अनुदान के तहत मौजूदा वित्त पोषण प्रणाली 2025-2026 में समाप्त हो जाएगी। स्वच्छ तकनीकियों, ईंधन, हरित बुनियादी ढांचे और शहरी डिजाइन समाधानों पर क्षेत्रवार कार्रवाई में तेजी लाने के लिए क्षेत्रीय वित्त पोषण रणनीतियों को अधिक कुशलता से लागू करने की आवश्यकता है। सीएसई का कहना है कि कचरे से होने वाले उत्सर्जन को कम करने के लिए अर्थव्यवस्था को बढ़ावा देना चाहिए।

Most funding under National Clean Air Programme went into dust management: CSE

New Delhi: Road dust mitigation has been the primary focus of the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP), which was launched in 2019 as the first such effort to set clean air targets for 131 polluted cities and to reduce particulate pollution nationally, with much lower funding for combustion sources that emit pollutants, a Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) assessment released on Friday has found. As much as 64% of the total funds ( ₹10,566 crore) have gone into road paving, widening, pothole repair, water sprinkling, mechanical sweepers, etc. Only 14.51% of funding has been used for controlling biomass burning, 12.63% for vehicular pollution and a mere 0.61% for industrial pollution control. “The primary focus of the funding is thus road dust mitigation,” the assessment said. NCAP which was aimed at reducing particulate pollution by up to 40% by 2025-26 from the base year of 2019-20. It was first ever performance-linked funding programme to improve air quality in India. NCAP was originally planned to tackle both PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations in the 131 non-attainment cities. In practice, only PM10 concentration has been considered for performance assessment. PM2.5, the more harmful fraction and emitted largely from combustion sources, has been neglected, CSE found. As much as ₹19,711 crore has been earmarked for 131 cities for the period of FY 2019–20 to 2025–26, as per the 2023–24 ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEFCC) report. Out of this, about ₹3,172.00 crore has been allocated to 82 cities under the NCAP and about ₹16,539.00 crore to 42 million-plus cities and seven urban agglomerations. Approximately ₹10,566.47 crore was released to the 131 cities between FY 2019–20 and FY 2023–24 (until 03 May 2024) under both NCAP programme and Fifteenth Finance Commission (XV-FC). CSE director general Sunita Narain said NCAP’s objectives and aims have always been commendable, but attention and investments under it are largely focused on dust control, and not on emission-spewing combustion sources such as industries or vehicles. “As much as 64% of the funds utilised under NCAP and the 15th Finance Commission have been spent on road dust mitigation. Much less has gone towards controlling emissions from combustion sources—with industrial pollution getting 0.61%, vehicular pollution 12.63%...” she said.

India’s polluted rivers are becoming a global pollution problem

Municipal solid waste from India is estimated to have contributed 10% of waste leakage to the world’s rivers in 2020, according to a new study. In future scenarios where population growth is high, but urbanisation slow, India and China will face an increase of leakage into rivers due to the growth of rural population living close to water courses in 2025, the study projects. A little over half of India’s 603 rivers were found to be polluted by the Central Pollution Control Board in 2022. Towering landfills are testament to poor waste segregation practices in India that have persisted for decades. But India’s mounting, untreated waste is a problem whose consequences go beyond its borders. A new study estimating waste leakage into aquatic environments finds India is at risk of being one of the top contributors to this global problem, with untreated municipal solid waste to blame. Millions of people depend on India’s vast river systems for their survival. India’s rivers also support 18% of the world’s population of unique aquatic animals and plants, according to the Wildlife Institute of India. But a little over half of India’s 603 rivers were found to be polluted by the Central Pollution Control Board in 2022. This pollution is not only a threat to domestic public health and biodiversity, but is adding to the global burden of waste leakage into water bodies. A new study by researchers from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) estimates that in 2020, municipal solid waste from India contributed to 10% of waste leakage to the world’s rivers, adjusting for policy measures that were in place till 2018. “It isn’t a surprising or unlikely static. There are multiple studies which find that India has high rates of mismanaged waste,” said Shrotik Bose, Research Associate Centre for Science and Environment. The government has spent Rs. 13,000 crore on cleaning the Ganga river alone, but these efforts have largely come to naught. A 2019 assessment by the Quality Council of India found that more than 70% of towns along the Ganga were directly disposing their waste into the river, because they lacked proper municipal waste plants. More than 38,000 million litres of waste water enter Indian rivers due to lack of sewage treatment plants and improper waste disposal mechanisms.

Two-thirds of NCAP funds used for dust management, less than 1 pc for industrial pollution: Report

NEW DELHI: Nearly two-thirds of the funds allocated to 131 cities under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) have been used for dust management, while less than one per cent has been utilized to combat air pollution from the industrial sector, a new report revealed on Friday. Launched in 2019, the NCAP is India's first national effort to set clean air targets, aiming for a 20-30 per cent reduction in PM10 pollution by 2024, with 2017 as the base year. The revised target is a 40 per cent reduction by 2026, using 2019-20 as the base year. The report, titled "National Clean Air Programme: An Agenda for Reform", by the independent think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), also said that only 64 per cent of the total funds given to the 131 cities have been spent so far.

Two-thirds of NCAP funds used for dust management, less than 1 pc for air pollution: Report

Nearly two-thirds of the funds allocated to 131 cities under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) have been used for dust management, while less than one per cent has been utilised to combat air pollution from the industrial sector, a new report revealed on Friday, 19 July. Launched in 2019, the NCAP is India's first national effort to set clean air targets, aiming for a 20-30 per cent reduction in PM10 pollution by 2024, with 2017 as the base year. The revised target is a 40 per cent reduction by 2026, using 2019-20 as the base year. The report, titled "National Clean Air Programme: An Agenda for Reform", by the independent think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), also said that only 64 per cent of the total funds given to the 131 cities have been spent so far. “While NCAP’s objectives and aims have always been commendable, we are finding that attention and investments under it are largely focused on dust control, and not on emission-spewing combustion sources such as industries or vehicles. As much as 64 per cent of the funds utilized under NCAP and the 15th Finance Commission have been spent on road dust mitigation,” said CSE director general Sunita Narain. According to the report, only 0.61 per cent of the total funds have been used to tackle industrial pollution, 12.63 per cent for vehicular pollution and 14.51 per cent for biomass burning. Among the cities covered under NCAP, 82 receive direct funding from the Union environment ministry, while 42 cities and seven urban agglomerations with populations over a million get funding from the 15th finance commission. The report detailed that only Rs 6,806 crore (64 per cent) of the total Rs 10,566 crore allocated to the 131 cities since the programme's inception has been utilised as of 3 May. The 82 cities utilised Rs 831.42 crore of the total Rs 1,616.47 crore allocated, while the 49 cities receiving funding under the 15th finance commission utilised Rs 5,974.73 crore of the total Rs 8,951 crore allocated. Anumita Roychowdhury, CSE's executive director, said that while dust control has become the focus of NCAP, PM2.5, a more harmful fraction of particulate pollution largely emitted from combustion sources, has been neglected. Taking PM10 as the basis for assessing air quality improvement has diverted attention and investments toward dust control. Even though NCAP was originally planned to tackle both PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations in non-attainment cities, in practice, only PM10 concentration has been considered for performance assessment, she said. Roychowdhury said annual changes in PM10 levels can be significantly influenced by meteorological factors, dust storms, and heatwaves, rather than just policy actions. "This may not adequately reflect the impact of measures across all key sectors. PM10 monitoring needs to be source-specific." Making PM2.5 improvement the benchmark to drive action is crucial, as PM2.5 is a more relevant health indicator for assessing air quality improvement, she said.