Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

Of 56 cities in North India, Ghaziabad most polluted; Delhi, Noida, Faridabad next

The annual average PM2.5 level in 2021 in Ghaziabad was found to be 116 µg/m3, while it was 109 µg/m3 in Delhi, 106 µg/m3 in Faridabad, and 101 µg/m3 in Noida. Of about 56 cities in North India for which data on PM2.5 levels in 2021 were considered in a study by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), Ghaziabad was found to be the most polluted, followed by Delhi, Faridabad and Noida. The annual average PM2.5 level in 2021 in Ghaziabad was found to be 116 µg/m3, while it was 109 µg/m3 in Delhi, 106 µg/m3 in Faridabad, and 101 µg/m3 in Noida. Delhi, Ghaziabad and Noida are on the list of ‘non-attainment cities’ that receive funding under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP). Only seven cities in the NCR region are covered under two central government programs that provide funds to mitigate air pollution. In addition to Delhi, Ghaziabad and Noida, Khurja and Alwar are also on the list of non-attainment cities, which are required to reduce air pollution by 20% to 30% by 2024 under the NCAP. Faridabad and Meerut receive funds under the 15th Finance Commission. The CSE analysis notes that only these NCR cities are included in the funding schemes “despite the known fact that at least 26 NCR cities/towns are highly polluted given the data available from official real-time monitoring”. Avikal Somvanshi, senior programme manager, Urban Lab, CSE, said, “All cities in the NCR that are monitoring, including Gurgaon, Rohtak, Bulandshahr, are not getting funding under NCAP, and these cities have PM2.5 levels that are high and don’t meet the standards. The problem here is that CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board) has only used PM10 data from manual monitors (to decide inclusion or exclusion in these funding schemes) and these cities don’t have manual monitors, they only have real-time monitors. Also, manual monitoring is very poorly done in India. It’s a bureaucratic fault because these are highly polluted cities.” Somvanshi added, “In general we observed, compared to the rest of the country, NCR cities have shown improvement in the last three years, which is despite most of these cities not getting any funding. There is no difference as such in the outcomes of these cities whether they were funded or not funded, which puts a question mark on whether funding is actually helping.”

UP to sign MoU with CSE to check pollution

The urban development department of the Uttar Pradesh government will sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) to bring down pollution levels. The Delhi-based research organisation will guide the local bodies in the coming months on ways to bring down air and water pollution. According to the government spokesman, local bodies in industrial towns such as Ghaziabad, Agra, Kanpur, Moradabad and Aligarh, among others, will be asked to work closely with the organisation to suggest measures that can be taken up to mitigate effluents and waste water. Among the 734 cities and towns that are governed by the local bodies, only 31 have partial sewerage system coverage that can tackle 40 per cent of the waste among these towns, reveals data maintained by the central pollution control board. A member of the programme support unit of the organisation said that best practices being followed in Odisha will be shared with the government officials. Principal secretary of the department, Amrit Abhijat said, “Since the programme and workshop is extremely important, executive heads of more than 200 local bodies have been asked to remain present while the remaining ones will join the proceedings virtually on Wednesday.” After signing the MoU, the daylong workshop scheduled on Wednesday will focus on improving the urban schemes being provided in the state. Representatives of Deloitte have been called to brief the executive heads on the expectations from the urban development department in achieving the US $1 trillion economy by 2027. The grievances redressal system through Sambhav portal that was launched by Uttar Pradesh minister A.K. Sharma will also be reviewed. Minimising air pollution before the onset of the winter season and Diwali festivities will be another agenda that will be taken up in the workshop. Similarly, the progress being made on the schemes and projects announced by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and urban development minister A.K. Sharma will also be done.

ब्लू स्काई डे पर सीएसई की रिपोर्ट : पीएम 2.5... स्वच्छ कार्यक्रम में शामिल होने के बाद भी प्रदूषण जस का तस

CSE Report : राष्ट्रीय स्वच्छ वायु कार्यक्रम (एनकैप) में शामिल और इससे बाहर रखे शहरों के पीएम 2.5 प्रदूषण स्तर में खास फर्क नहीं है। यह खुलासा ब्लू स्काय डे पर नई रिपोर्ट जारी कर सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट (सीएसई) ने किया है। एनकैप के तहत देश में 2017 के मुकाबले साल 2024 तक पीएम 2.5 का स्तर 20 प्रतिशत और पीएम 10 का स्तर 30 प्रतिशत घटाने का लक्ष्य रखा गया है। पीएम 2.5 ऐसे प्रदूषण तत्व हैं, जो आकार में 2.5 माइक्रोमीटर से छोटे होते हैं। वे सांस के साथ हमारे शरीर में दाखिल होकर गंभीर नुकसान पहुंचाते हैं। एनकैप : 132 शहर, फंड भी मिलता है 2020-21 तक पीएम 10 का प्रदूषण 15% से ज्यादा घटाने व 200 दिन स्वच्छ हवा पर सरकार फंड भी देती है। रिपोर्ट के अनुसार, ऐसे 132 में से 63 शहरों में ही निगरानी हो रही है। सिर्फ 14 शहरों में पीएम 2.5 में 10% कमी दिल्ली व गाजियाबाद में प्रदूषण में 5% से कम गिरावट। खन्ना, जयपुर और उदयपुर में तो 20% तक वृद्धि हुई। पंजाब, राजस्थान और महाराष्ट्र में सबसे ज्यादा प्रदूषण वृद्धि वाले शहर। वाराणसी, चेन्नई में सबसे ज्यादा सुधार। गैर-एनकैप : सिर्फ 10% में निगरानी देश में 4,041 शहर हैं। इनमें से 400 में ही राष्ट्रीय वायु गुणवत्ता निगरानी कार्यक्रम व सतत परिवेशी वायु गुणवत्ता निगरानी स्टेशन के तहत पीएम 10 की निगरानी व्यवस्था है। 15 शहरों में पीएम 2.5 का स्तर तेजी से बढ़ा। गुजरात के अंकलेश्वर में सबसे ज्यादा 34% वृद्धि। सतना, बहादुरगढ़, बठिंडा में 20% से ज्यादा वृद्धि। हरियाणा, एमपी और गुजरात के शहरों में प्रदूषण बढ़ा। हरियाणा के पलवल में सबसे ज्यादा 60% सुधार भी आया। यह है एनकैप व गैर-एनकैप 16 एनकैप शहरों और 15 गैर-एनकैप शहरों में पीएम 2.5 की वृद्धि बहुत तेज रही। लॉकडाउन में 2020 में 12% औसत प्रदूषण घटा। लेकिन 2021 में एनकैप शहरों में 8% तो गैर-एनकैप शहरों में 7% प्रदूषण बढ़ गया। एनकैप व गैर-एनकैप दोनों के 39-39 शहरों में प्रदूषण राष्ट्रीय मानकों से अधिक था। इसी तरह दोनों श्रेणियों में सुधार भी क्रमश : 20 और 21 शहरों में हुआ। दिल्ली में 2020 में प्रदूषण 13% घटा था, 2021 में 13% वापस बढ़ गया। उत्तर भारत के हालात एनकैप शहरों में गाजियाबाद सबसे ज्यादा प्रदूषित मिला इसके बाद दिल्ली थी। 8 एनकैप और 16 गैर-एनकैप शहरों में प्रदूषण क्षेत्रीय औसत से अधिक मिला। अध्ययन : शिशु में बढ़ा मोटापा व मधुमेह का जोखिम एक चिकित्सीय अध्ययन में पता चला है कि जन्म से छह महीने के बीच वायु प्रदूषण के संपर्क में रहने वाले बच्चों में एलर्जी, मोटापा और मधुमेह का खतरा बढ़ सकता है। यहां तक कि इनमें मस्तिष्क विकास पर भी असर पड़ सकता है। मेडिकल जर्नल गट माइक्रोब्स में प्रकाशित इस अध्ययन में कहा है...शिशु के पेट में मौजूद बैक्टीरिया प्रभावित होने के कारण अन्य जोखिम बढ़ जाते हैं। कोलोराडो बोल्डर विवि के सहायक प्रोफेसर तान्या एल्डरेटे ने बताया, बच्चों में वायु प्रदूषण जोखिम, विकास और महत्वपूर्ण प्रभावों के साथ पेट में मौजूद माइक्रोबायम पर गंभीर असर डालता है। अध्ययन में शोधकर्ताओं ने दक्षिणी कैलिफोर्निया में 103 शिशुओं के मल नमूनाें का विश्लेषण किया था जिसमें उन्होंने पीएम 2.5 और पीएम 10 प्रदूषित कण मिले। नाइट्रोजन डाइऑक्साइड जैसे रासायनिक कण भी शामिल थे।

सल्फर डाइऑक्साइड मानदंडों को पूरा करने के लिए ताप विद्युत संयंत्रों को 2 साल का विस्तार

थर्मल पावर प्लांट्स को ग्रीनहाउस गैस, सल्फर डाइऑक्साइड के उत्सर्जन को कम करने के लिए उपकरण स्थापित करने के लिए अतिरिक्त दो साल का समय दिया गया है, क्योंकि वे फिर से अनुपालन करने की समय सीमा को पूरा करने में विफल रहे हैं। सोमवार को जारी एक अधिसूचना में, पर्यावरण मंत्रालय ने SO2 मानदंडों को पूरा करने के लिए समय सीमा 31 दिसंबर, 2027 तक बढ़ा दी, जो कि सेवानिवृत्त होने वाली इकाइयों के लिए, और 31 दिसंबर, 2026 को, उन संयंत्रों के लिए जो उस अवधि के बाद संचालन जारी रखेंगे। मंत्रालय पहले ही SO2 और अन्य प्रदूषण मानदंडों को पूरा करने के लिए कोयले से चलने वाले बिजली संयंत्रों को दो विस्तार दे चुका है। कोयले से चलने वाले बिजली संयंत्रों से पार्टिकुलेट मैटर, SO2, नाइट्रोजन ऑक्साइड और मरकरी के नियंत्रण के लिए उत्सर्जन मानदंड दिसंबर 2015 में अधिसूचित किए गए थे, जिसकी समय सीमा दिसंबर 2017 थी। 2017 में, मंत्रालय ने उत्सर्जन मानकों का पालन करने के लिए संयंत्रों को 2022 तक विस्तार दिया। राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजली संयंत्रों को SO2 मानकों को पूरा करने के लिए 2020 की एक सख्त समय सीमा दी गई थी। अनुपालन पर कोई प्रगति नहीं होने के बाद, मार्च 2021 में समय सीमा फिर से बढ़ा दी गई, जब इसे 2025 तक बढ़ा दिया गया। मंत्रालय ने राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र के 10 किमी के भीतर और 10 लाख से अधिक आबादी वाले शहरों में 2020 के मुकाबले 2022 के अंत तक नए उत्सर्जन मानदंडों का पालन करने के लिए थर्मल पावर प्लांटों को अनुमति देने के नियमों में संशोधन किया, जैसा कि एचटी ने पिछले साल 3 अप्रैल को बताया था। गंभीर रूप से प्रदूषित क्षेत्रों के 10 किमी के दायरे में या 2011 से 2015 तक पार्टिकुलेट मैटर उत्सर्जन के लिए वार्षिक राष्ट्रीय मानक को पूरा नहीं करने वाले शहरों में ताप विद्युत संयंत्रों को 31 दिसंबर, 2023 तक मानकों को पूरा करने की अनुमति दी गई थी, और शेष को 31 दिसंबर तक का समय दिया गया था। , 2024। इस बार, दो साल का विस्तार केवल SO2 के लिए दिया गया है, लेकिन अन्य प्रदूषकों के लिए समय-सीमा पिछले साल मार्च में अधिसूचित की गई है। विशेषज्ञों ने इस कदम की आलोचना की है। “फरवरी 2021 तक, 169.7 GW की कुल स्थापित क्षमता में से केवल 68.7 GW को फ़्लू गैस डिसल्फराइज़ेशन (FGD) स्थापित करने के लिए बोलियां दी गई थीं, जो जीवाश्म-ईंधन वाले बिजली स्टेशनों के निकास उत्सर्जन से सल्फर यौगिकों को हटाने की प्रक्रिया है,” कहा हुआ। सेंटर फॉर रिसर्च ऑन एनर्जी एंड क्लीन एयर, एक थिंक टैंक के विश्लेषक सुनील दहिया। दहिया ने कहा, “2015 में उत्सर्जन मानकों की घोषणा के बाद से केवल 2.2 गीगावॉट क्षमता वाले बिजली संयंत्रों में एफजीडी स्थापित किए गए थे। नवीनतम अधिसूचना के साथ, कार्यान्वयन में और देरी को जुर्माना या शटडाउन के बजाय एक और विस्तार से सम्मानित किया गया है।” “211.6 GW की कुल स्थापित क्षमता में से, 85.7 GW ने बोलियां प्रदान की हैं, और अगस्त 2022 तक केवल 8.3 GW ने FGD स्थापित किया है।” उन्होंने कहा, “जबकि अन्य प्रदूषकों के मानदंड पिछले साल की अधिसूचना के समान हैं, वे या तो 2018 और 2020 में 2015 की सीमा से कम कर दिए गए थे या बहुत कम या कोई संशोधन की आवश्यकता नहीं थी,” उन्होंने कहा। “यह SO2 मानदंड और उनका समय विस्तार है जो चिंता का विषय है क्योंकि सल्फेट गठन के माध्यम से SO2 PM2.5 का एक महत्वपूर्ण हिस्सा बनाता है और इसके परिणामस्वरूप भारी सार्वजनिक स्वास्थ्य और आर्थिक क्षति होती है।” पर्यावरण वकील ऋत्विक दत्ता ने कहा कि तथ्य यह है कि एक और विस्तार दिया गया है कि उत्सर्जन मानदंड कभी लागू नहीं होंगे। “सभी बिजली संयंत्रों को दिसंबर 2017 तक उत्सर्जन मानकों के लक्ष्य को प्राप्त करने की आवश्यकता थी। सभी किसी न किसी बहाने लक्ष्य से चूक गए। अब, इसे और बढ़ा दिया गया है, ”दत्ता ने कहा। “दुर्भाग्य से, पर्यावरण मंत्रालय एक नियामक मंत्रालय के बजाय एक सलाहकार मंत्रालय बन गया है। उल्लंघन करने वालों के खिलाफ दंडात्मक कार्रवाई करने के बजाय, यह जो कुछ भी कर रहा है वह अन्य मंत्रालयों के आदेशों के आगे झुक रहा है।” वकालत करने वाले समूह सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट की कार्यकारी निदेशक अनुमिता रॉयचौधरी ने कहा, “SO2 मानदंडों के कार्यान्वयन में अनिश्चित काल तक देरी करने के बजाय, मंत्रालय को थर्मल पावर प्लांट को समयबद्ध तरीके से मानदंडों को पूरा करने के लिए एक रणनीति विकसित करने पर ध्यान केंद्रित करना चाहिए।” . बिजली मंत्रालय ने पिछले साल पर्यावरण मंत्रालय से संपर्क किया था, जिसमें कोविड -19 व्यवधानों का हवाला देते हुए समय सीमा बढ़ाने की मांग की गई थी। पर्यावरण मंत्रालय के एक अधिकारी ने नाम न छापने की शर्त पर कहा, “हम सटीक कारण नहीं बता सकते हैं, लेकिन उद्योग को प्रदूषण नियंत्रण उपकरण स्थापित करने के लिए समय चाहिए।”

‘Our Kids Should be Free to Breathe’: ‘Warrior Moms’ Lead Delhi Toward Cleaner Air

Empty playgrounds, coughing teenagers, and children locked up in their rooms after school — these are some infamous sights of Delhi’s notorious winters. Studies are increasingly pointing out the damage that the capital’s toxic air is inflicting on the bodies of its children. Worried about their future, a unique citizens action group is now fighting for a healthy environment for their kids. Called Warrior Moms, this collective of thousands of mothers across India is motivated by a single slogan — ‘Clean air for our children’. Started in 2020 by five mothers, the group has blossomed into a collective fighting for their children’s right to breathe clean air by engaging with sectors of urban mobility, waste management, biomass burning, and biodiversity protection. Their mission, they say, is to ensure the implementation of World Health Organization (WHO) air quality standards across India, while empowering mothers in the nation. Delhi-based Bhavreen Kandhari, co-founder of the initiative and a climate activist for 22 years, says that “urgency” motivated them to start the group. “I was tired of sitting around and sending messages about environmental awareness on WhatsApp. Until 2019, most of the groups in Delhi were centred around advocacy, and we wanted to start something that could result in action,” she says. “Meanwhile, COVID-19 gave us the chance to look at a cleaner Delhi, with ample biodiversity and blue skies.” A 2017 study by the Centre for Science and Environment revealed that every third child in Delhi has impaired lungs. “Our children continue to breathe poison every second. We don’t eat rotten food or drink dirty water. How can we brush off polluted air just because it is invisible?” Bhavreen asks.

Thermal power plants get 2-year extension to meet sulphur dioxide norms

Thermal power plants have been given an additional two years to install equipment to minimise the emissions of sulphur dioxide, a greenhouse gas, after they failed to meet the deadline to comply yet again. In a notification issued on Monday, the environment ministry extended the timeline to meet SO2 norms to December 31, 2027, for units which are scheduled to retire, and December 31, 2026, for plants that will continue operations beyond that period. The ministry has already given two extensions to the coal-fired power plants for meeting SO2 and other pollution norms. The emission norms to control of particulate matter, SO2, nitrogen oxides and mercury from coal-fired power plants were notified in December 2015, which had a deadline of December 2017. In 2017, the ministry gave the plants extension until 2022 to comply with the emission standards. Power plants in the national capital region were given a tighter deadline of 2020 to meet the SO2 standards. Following no progress on compliance, the deadline was extended again in March 2021, when it was pushed to 2025. The ministry amended rules allowing thermal power plants within 10km of the national capital region and in cities with more than 1 million population to comply with new emission norms by the end of 2022 as against 2020, HT reported on April 3 last year. Thermal power plants within 10km radius of critically polluted areas or in cities that did not meet the annual national standard for particulate matter emissions from 2011 to 2015 were allowed to meet the standards by December 31, 2023, and the remaining were given time till December 31, 2024. This time, the two-year extension has been given only for SO2, but the timelines for other pollutants remain the same as notified in March last year. The move has been criticised by experts. “As of February 2021, only about 68.7 GW of the total installed capacity of 169.7 GW had been awarded bids for installing flue gas desulphurization (FGD), the process of removing sulphur compounds from the exhaust emissions of fossil-fueled power stations,” said Sunil Dahiya, analyst at Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a think tank. “Only 2.2 GW capacity power plants had by then installed FGDs since the announcement of emission standards in 2015. With the latest notification, a further delay in implementation is awarded with another extension rather than fines or shutdowns,” Dahiya said. “Out of the total installed capacity of 211.6 GW, 85.7 GW have awarded the bids, and only 8.3 GW have installed FGD as of August 2022.” “While the norms for other pollutants remains similar to last year’s notification, they were either diluted in 2018 and 2020 from 2015 limits or required little or no modification,” he added. “It’s SO2 norms and their timeline extension which is a matter of concern as SO2 through sulphate formation makes a significant part of PM2.5 and results into huge public health and economic damage.” The fact that another extension has been given shows that the emission norms will never be implemented, said Ritwick Dutta, environmental lawyer. “All power plants were required to achieve the target for emission standards by December 2017. All missed the target on one pretext or the other. Now, it has been further extended,” Dutta said. “Unfortunately, the environment ministry has become an advisory ministry rather than a regulatory ministry. Rather than taking punitive action against violators, all that it is doing is succumbing to the dictates of other ministries.” “Instead of indefinitely delaying implementation of SO2 norms, the ministry should focus on developing a strategy to ensure thermal power plants meet the norms in a time-bound manner,” said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director at Centre for Science and Environment, an advocacy group. The power ministry had approached the environment ministry last year, seeking an extension of the deadline, citing the Covid-19 disruptions. “We cannot give the exact reasons, but the industry requires time to install the pollution control equipment,” an environment ministry official said on condition of anonymity.

Air Quality Crisis: NCAP and Non-NCAP Cities Showing Similar Trends in PM 2.5 Levels

A comparison between 2019 and 2021 shows that only 14 of the 43 cities have registered an overall 10% or more reduction in their PM 2.5 level in the two years. Patna: Contrary to the government claims of overall improvement in air quality, a large number of cities under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and non-NCAP cities need a substantial reduction in PM 2.5 levels to meet the national ambient air quality standards in all climatic zones, according to the latest countrywide air quality analysis by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a New Delhi-based non-profit organisation. The new air quality analysis, released on the eve of International Blue Sky Day on Tuesday, pointed out that NCAP and non-NCAP cities are showing similar trends in PM 2.5 levels. The analysis stressed the need to adopt regional air quality planning for all cities and regions to improve overall air quality. As per the air quality analysis, the NCAP has set a national level target of a 20-30% reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by 2024 from the 2017 base year. But the latest performance assessment of NCAP cities by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for disbursement of performance-linked funds has considered only PM10 data that is largely coarse dust particles. As the monitoring of PM2.5 -- the tinier particles that are much more harmful -- is limited, a uniform assessment of cities based on PM2.5 reduction has not been considered for performance assessment. The NCAP covers 132 cities -- 82 of these have been funded by the Programme, while 50 cities have received funds from the 15th Finance Commission; Rs 6,425 crore has been released till 2021-22 and Rs 2,299 crore has been earmarked for 2022-23. Cities are required to quantify improvement starting 2020-21 – this requires 15 per cent and more reduction in the annual average PM10 concentration and a concurrent increase in good air days to more than 200. Anything less than that will be considered low and reduce the funding. CSE has carried out a national analysis of PM2.5 levels in cities for which data is available to understand the trend in both NCAP and non-NCAP cities, and the level of reduction needed in both groups of cities to meet the national clean air standards. This has also exposed the status of air quality monitoring in terms of manual and real-time monitoring, the extent of PM 10 and PM 2.5 monitoring in cities, and the challenges of data quality to construct and verify a longer-term air quality trend. “While it is encouraging that funding of clean air action is linked to performance and the cities’ ability to demonstrate improvement in air quality, dependence on only manual monitoring of PM 10 evidently creates a bias in spending as it shifts focus more towards dust control and detracts attention from composite action on industry, vehicles, waste and solid fuel burning,” said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director of research and advocacy at CSE. “The expanding monitoring network of PM2.5 and key gases needs to be leveraged quickly to prioritise multi-pollutant action for more effective reduction of risk across all regions,” she adds. The CSE’s study highlighted that only 43 NCAP cities have adequate PM 2.5 data for the period 2019-2021 – enough to create a reasonable trend for tracking progress. Nearly all cities have recorded a dip in PM 2.5 levels in 2020, followed by a subsequent increase in 2021. Therefore, a comparison between 2019 and 2021 shows that only 14 of the 43 cities have registered an overall 10% or more reduction in their PM 2.5 level in the two years. There is adequate data to construct PM 2.5 trends for 43 NCAP cities and 46 non-NCAP cities for 2019-21. The non-NCAP cities can be treated as a control group to see how the NCAP funding has improved the air quality performance of cities. This is a simplistic non-standardised assessment and should not be treated as a conclusive assessment of NCAP, as air pollution has a regional character and many non-NCAP cities are located within the influence zone of NCAP cities which are generally much bigger with asymmetrical impact on the regional air quality baseline. “As the system is becoming more performance-oriented and real-time air quality monitoring is expanding, it is necessary to develop and define robust protocols and methods for quality control of real-time data. It is crucial to ensure the adoption of standardised methods for data processing, analytics, and address data gaps and data completeness and construct a reliable trend to verify performance and compliance with the national air quality target,” says Avikal Somvanshi, programme manager, Urban Lab, CSE. All six megacities registered a drop in their annual PM 2.5 levels in 2020, but pollution bounced back everywhere except in Chennai. In Delhi, pollution dropped by 13 per cent in 2020, but it rose by 13% in 2021, nullifying all the gains made by the national capital. An equal number (39) of NCAP and non-NCAP cities did not meet the annual PM2.5 standard in 2021. Ghaziabad is the most polluted NCAP city in the north, closely followed by Delhi, while Jodhpur is the most polluted NCAP city in the west, followed by Kota and Jaipur. Among the eastern states, Patna is the most polluted NCAP city, followed by Muzaffarpur and Durgapur. Hajipur and Siliguri are the most polluted non-NCAP cities. This is the only region where no city, NCAP or non-NCAP, meets the annual standard. On average, cities of east India are the most polluted in the country, while cities in the south are the least polluted. Roychowdhury said, “It is clear that the current practice of keeping the focus only on selected cities without considering the larger urban and regional landscape can limit the effectiveness of the NCAP programme and resource investment. The current mandate of developing state action plans has to be refined to ensure the regional approach is initiated for a wider impact.”

Delhi: How national clean air plan has failed to make a dent

NEW DELHI: A new analysis by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) shows that there is barely any difference in overall PM2.5 trends between the group of cities under National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit. NCAP has set a national-level target of 20-30% reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentration by 2024 from the 2017 base year. gfx The analysis, which was released on the eve of United Nations International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies, says a large number of NCAP and non-NCAP cities need substantial reduction in PM2.5 levels to meet the national ambient air quality standards. According to the analysis, seven cities, including Delhi and Ghaziabad, showed negligible change of less than 5% in PM2.5 concentration between 2019 and 2021, while 16 cities registered a significant increase of 5% or more. Khanna, Jaipur and Udaipur have registered the most deterioration, with their 2021 annual value increasing by over 20% compared with the 2019 annual value. Faridabad, with 6% increase, is the only NCR-NCAP city with a significant worsening of air quality. It is also the only city outside the non-attainment list. Delhi: How national clean air plan has failed to make a dent TNN | Sep 7, 2022, 04.36 AM IST Delhi: How national clean air plan has failed to make a dent NEW DELHI: A new analysis by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) shows that there is barely any difference in overall PM2.5 trends between the group of cities under National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit. NCAP has set a national-level target of 20-30% reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentration by 2024 from the 2017 base year. gfx The analysis, which was released on the eve of United Nations International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies, says a large number of NCAP and non-NCAP cities need substantial reduction in PM2.5 levels to meet the national ambient air quality standards. Track the pollution level in your city Congratulations! You have successfully cast your vote According to the analysis, seven cities, including Delhi and Ghaziabad, showed negligible change of less than 5% in PM2.5 concentration between 2019 and 2021, while 16 cities registered a significant increase of 5% or more. Khanna, Jaipur and Udaipur have registered the most deterioration, with their 2021 annual value increasing by over 20% compared with the 2019 annual value. Faridabad, with 6% increase, is the only NCR-NCAP city with a significant worsening of air quality. It is also the only city outside the non-attainment list. Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra cities reported a significant rise in PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021. Chennai, Varanasi and Pune show the most improvement among the NCAP cities. In Delhi, pollution dropped by 13% in 2020, but rose by 13% in 2021, nullifying all the gains. The analysis says both groups of cities reflect similar mixed trends in different climatic zones. Sixteen NCAP and 15 non-NCAP cities registered a significant increase in their annual PM2.5 levels, with near identical numbers. Similarly, 20 NCAP and 21 non-NCAP cities registered a significant improvement in their annual levels. There is an equal number — 39 — of NCAP and non-NCAP cities that did not meet the annual standard in 2021. Central Pollution Control Board classifies cities that have their annual average higher than 1.5 times the annual standard as critically polluted. In 2021, 20 NCAP and 24 non-NCAP cities were critically polluted, said CSE. “It is clear that the current practice of keeping the focus only on selected cities without considering the larger urban and regional landscape can limit the effectiveness of the NCAP programme and resource investment. The current mandate of developing state action plans has to be refined to ensure the regional approach is initiated for a wider impact,” said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director of research and advocacy at CSE. As the current focus of NCAP is to reduce particulate pollution, the immediate strategy needs to consider PM2.5 data for performance assessment of cities, said Avikal Somvanshi, programme manager of CSE’s Urban Lab.

Barely any difference in PM 2.5 trends among cities covered in NCAP and those outside it: Report

There is barely any difference in overall PM2.5 trends between cities covered under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit, according to a new analysis by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). The NCAP is a national-level strategy aimed at a 20 per cent to 30 per cent reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentration by 2024, with 2017 as the base year for comparison. PM2.5 are fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller, and are the greatest risk to health. The programme covers 132 cities that do not meet the prescribed national ambient air quality standards. Under NCAP, city-specific action plans have been prepared which include measures for strengthening the air quality monitoring network, reducing vehicular and industrial emissions, increasing public awareness, etc.

New energy conundrum

Our energy-guzzling world is on the cusp. It could find a way to leverage the current crisis of energy scarcity and rising prices to reinvent the fossil fuel-based system. Or, it could reinvest in the same carbon-intensive energy system as people in the already rich countries get increasingly desperate for reliable and affordable power to light and heat their homes this coming winter season. It is an important moment in time; one which makes the actions to combat climate change even more contested and urgent. Let's be clear that in this moment, the developed countries — I point to them, because these countries have already burnt massive amounts of carbon dioxide for energy to build their economies — are faced with a real energy conundrum. They have already used up their share of carbon space; emissions from the burning of fossil fuels by these countries, first coal and then natural gas and oil, have brought the world to the edge of the precipice. They have said in their many pronouncements that they would move away from fossil fuels to cleaner renewable energy systems, that they would reinvent their energy systems. Read DTE's climate change coverage But the question is will they today, when the rubber has hit the road? It is a double-punch moment as well. On the one hand, these countries — from Europe to the United States — are battered because of a fast-heating planet; temperatures have gone through the roof; droughts and extreme weather events are hitting them as well. They know that climate change is a great equaliser and that as emissions stock up in the atmosphere, temperatures will increase and make for an untenable future. On the other hand, ordinary people across Europe are worried, not just because of climate change but because of the lack of energy to heat their homes this coming winter. In the UK, energy prices have spiralled — some say also because of the lack of regulatory control on the domestic gas production — and it is making for a tense polity. In the US, gas prices went up in summer, so much so that people travelled less and consumption of fuel dropped for one climate-friendly moment. But now that prices are down and it is business as usual, the question is if the Joe Biden administration will be able to meet its ambitious climate change goals for 2030. The fact is that this energy disruption has provided the much-needed vault to the beleaguered fossil fuel industry and has given it a new lease of life. Today, governments have changed their tune; they are asking this industry to dig more; to drill more; to supply more. Europe has baptised natural gas, a fossil fuel less polluting than coal but still a major emitter of carbon dioxide, as "clean". Norway and UK have rebooted their oil and gas drilling; Germany and others in Europe are looking for new suppliers of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from every distant shore and are building infrastructure to pipe and pump it. The US has passed a climate bill (the Inflation Reduction Act), which will invest in renewable energy but conditional to spends on oil and gas in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico and the opening up of millions of hectares of federal land for drilling. It is no doubt that this legislation is a momentous development — one that would have seemed impossible just a few years ago. The US will, through this, do more than ever before to build a manufacturing base for renewable energy, particularly solar, and will incentivise its use and generously pay households to switch to electric vehicles or cleaner and more insulated houses to cut energy bills. Europe, even in this desperate scramble for gas, is working to ramp up its investment in renewable power. This spend on everything from nuclear to solar, wind and biomass power is also about its energy independence, as it cuts the umbilical cord with foreign energy suppliers. So, it is the worst of times. It could be the best of times, but there are some caveats. One, this renewed interest in fossil fuels must remain temporary and transient. Given the nature of economies, once the investment has been made in this new infrastructure for LNG terminals or the supply of fossil fuel has increased from new oil and gas discoveries, it will be difficult to wean off. Two, and this is linked to my first caveat, these countries should not be entitled to more use of fossil fuels in our world of shrunk carbon budgets. They need to reduce emissions drastically and leave whatever little carbon budget space that is remaining to poorer countries to use—this, in real terms, means not using fossil fuels but letting the continent of Africa or countries like India use the available cleaner fossil fuels to drive economies and reduce local air pollution. It is not just a moral imperative, but a pre-requisite to a world which has a chance to keep the spiralling temperatures under check. This is what we need to keep in mind as countries reconcile their energy supply options with climate change. (The author is Director General of CSE and editor of Down To Earth, an environmentalist who pushes for changes in policies, practices and mindsets)

Is India’s National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) working? New CSE analysis says NCAP and non-NCAP cities are showing similar trends in PM2.5 levels

A new analysis by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), released here today on the eve of the UN International Day of Clean Air for Blue Sky, says there is barely any difference in overall PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5) trends between cities under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit. The analysis says that both groups of cities reflect similar mixed trends in air quality in different climatic zones, and this means they require substantial reduction in particulate pollution levels to be able to meet the national ambient air quality standards. The NCAP has set a national level target of 20-30 per cent reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by 2024 from the 2017 base year. But a latest performance assessment of NCAP cities by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for disbursement of performance-linked funds has considered only PM10 data that is largely coarse dust particles. As the monitoring of PM2.5 — the tinier particles that are much more harmful — is limited, a uniform assessment of cities based on PM2.5 reduction has not been considered for performance assessment. CSE has carried out a national analysis of PM2.5 levels in cities for which data is available to understand the trend in both NCAP and non-NCAP cities, and the level of reduction needed in both the groups of cities to meet the national clean air standards. This has also exposed the status of air quality monitoring in terms of manual and real time monitoring, extent of PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring in cities, and challenges of data quality to construct and verify a longer term air quality trend. “While it is encouraging that funding of clean air action is linked to performance and the cities’ ability to demonstrate improvement in air quality, dependence on only manual monitoring of PM10 evidently creates a bias in spending as it shifts focus more towards dust control and detracts attention from composite action on industry, vehicles, waste and solid fuel burning,” says Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, research and advocacy at CSE. “The expanding monitoring network of PM2.5 and key gases needs to be leveraged quickly to prioritise multi-pollutant action for more effective reduction of risk across all regions,” she adds. The NCAP covers 132 cities — 82 of these have been funded by the Programme, while 50 cities have received funds from the 15th Finance Commission; Rs 6,425 crore has been released till 2021-22 and Rs 2,299 crore has been earmarked for 2022-23. Cities are required to quantify improvement starting 2020-21 – this requires 15 per cent and more reduction in the annual average PM10 concentration and a concurrent increase in good air days to more than 200. Anything less than that will be considered low and reduce the funding. “As the system is becoming more performance oriented and real time air quality monitoring is expanding, it is necessary to develop and define robust protocols and methods for quality control of real time data and ensure adoption of standardised methods for data processing, analytics, addressing data gaps and data completeness and to construct a reliable trend to verify performance and compliance with the national air quality target,” says Avikal Somvanshi, programme manager, Urban Lab, CSE.

Barely any difference in PM 2.5 trends among cities covered in NCAP and those outside it: Report

There is barely any difference in overall PM2.5 trends between cities covered under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit, according to a new analysis by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). The NCAP is a national-level strategy aimed at a 20 per cent to 30 per cent reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentration by 2024, with 2017 as the base year for comparison. PM2.5 are fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller, and are the greatest risk to health. The programme covers 132 cities that do not meet the prescribed national ambient air quality standards. Under NCAP, city-specific action plans have been prepared which include measures for strengthening the air quality monitoring network, reducing vehicular and industrial emissions, increasing public awareness, etc. According to available data, National Capital Region (NCR) cities dominate the list of most improved non-NCAP cities. Most change (positive or negative) is noted among north Indian cities. "There is barely any difference in overall PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5) trends between cities under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit. "'Both groups of cities reflect similar mixed trends in air quality in different climatic zones, and this means they require a substantial reduction in particulate pollution levels to be able to meet the national ambient air quality standards," the report read. The CSE carried out the analysis of PM2.5 levels in cities for which data is available to understand the trend in both NCAP and non-NCAP cities. It said only 43 NCAP cities have adequate PM2.5 data for the period 2019-2021 – enough to create a reasonable trend for tracking progress. Due to the lockdown phases, nearly all cities recorded a dip in 2020 followed by a subsequent increase in 2021. A comparison between 2019 and 2021 shows only 14 of the 43 cities have registered a 10 per cent or more reduction in their PM2.5 level, the green think-tank said. Seven cities show negligible (less than 5 per cent) change. These include Delhi and Ghaziabad. Sixteen cities have registered a significant increase (5 per cent or more) in their PM2.5 levels. The 2021 annual value in Khanna, Jaipur, and Udaipur increased by over 20 per cent compared to the 2019 annual value. Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra cities dominate the list of cities that have registered a significant increase in PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021. There are 46 cities not covered under the NCAP but have adequate real-time data for both 2019 and 2021. In this group, 15 cities have registered a significant worsening of annual PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021, the CSE said. Ankleshwar in Gujarat with a 34 per cent increase in annual PM2.5 value is the worst performer in the pool, followed by Satna (Madhya Pradesh), Vatva (Gujarat), Bahadurgarh (Haryana), and Bhatinda (Punjab); all of which have registered an over 20 per cent increase. Ten cities registered negligible change (less than 5 per cent) in their annual values; 21 recorded significant improvement, with a 5 per cent or more decline between 2019 and 2021. Cities in Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat dominate the list of non-NCAP cities that have registered a significant increase in air pollution levels between 2019 and 2020. Palwal in southern Haryana with a 60 per cent improvement in its annual PM2.5 level is the best performer among non-NCAP cities. Cities within NCR show improvement, while cities outside indicate worsening levels. The CSE said there are 16 NCAP cities and 15 non-NCAP cities that registered a significant increase in their annual PM2.5 levels – with nearly identical numbers. The same goes for cities (20 NCAP and 21 non-NCAP) that registered a significant improvement in their annual PM2.5 levels.

Barely Any Difference In PM2.5 Pollution In Cities Under Central Plan: Report

The NCAP is a national-level strategy aimed at a 20 per cent to 30 per cent reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentration by 2024, with 2017 as the base year for comparison. There is barely any difference in overall PM2.5 trends between cities covered under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit, according to a new analysis by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). The NCAP is a national-level strategy aimed at a 20 per cent to 30 per cent reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentration by 2024, with 2017 as the base year for comparison. PM2.5 are fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller, and are the greatest risk to health. The programme covers 132 cities that do not meet the prescribed national ambient air quality standards. Under NCAP, city-specific action plans have been prepared which include measures for strengthening the air quality monitoring network, reducing vehicular and industrial emissions, increasing public awareness, etc. According to available data, National Capital Region (NCR) cities dominate the list of most improved non-NCAP cities. Most change (positive or negative) is noted among north Indian cities. "There is barely any difference in overall PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5) trends between cities under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit. "'Both groups of cities reflect similar mixed trends in air quality in different climatic zones, and this means they require a substantial reduction in particulate pollution levels to be able to meet the national ambient air quality standards," the report read. The CSE carried out the analysis of PM2.5 levels in cities for which data is available to understand the trend in both NCAP and non-NCAP cities. It said only 43 NCAP cities have adequate PM2.5 data for the period 2019-2021 enough to create a reasonable trend for tracking progress. Due to the lockdown phases, nearly all cities recorded a dip in 2020 followed by a subsequent increase in 2021. A comparison between 2019 and 2021 shows only 14 of the 43 cities have registered a 10 per cent or more reduction in their PM2.5 level, the green think-tank said. Seven cities show negligible (less than 5 per cent) change. These include Delhi and Ghaziabad. Sixteen cities have registered a significant increase (5 per cent or more) in their PM2.5 levels. The 2021 annual value in Khanna, Jaipur, and Udaipur increased by over 20 per cent compared to the 2019 annual value. Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra cities dominate the list of cities that have registered a significant increase in PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021. There are 46 cities not covered under the NCAP but have adequate real-time data for both 2019 and 2021. In this group, 15 cities have registered a significant worsening of annual PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021, the CSE said. Ankleshwar in Gujarat with a 34 per cent increase in annual PM2.5 value is the worst performer in the pool, followed by Satna (Madhya Pradesh), Vatva (Gujarat), Bahadurgarh (Haryana), and Bhatinda (Punjab); all of which have registered an over 20 per cent increase. Ten cities registered negligible change (less than 5 per cent) in their annual values; 21 recorded significant improvement, with a 5 per cent or more decline between 2019 and 2021. Cities in Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat dominate the list of non-NCAP cities that have registered a significant increase in air pollution levels between 2019 and 2020. Palwal in southern Haryana with a 60 per cent improvement in its annual PM2.5 level is the best performer among non-NCAP cities. Cities within NCR show improvement, while cities outside indicate worsening levels. The CSE said there are 16 NCAP cities and 15 non-NCAP cities that registered a significant increase in their annual PM2.5 levels- with nearly identical numbers. The same goes for cities (20 NCAP and 21 non-NCAP) that registered a significant improvement in their annual PM2.5 levels.

Cse Report On Blue Sky Day: Pm 2.5 Pollution Remains Same Even After Participating In Clean Program

CSE Report: There is no significant difference in PM 2.5 pollution level of cities included in National Clean Air Program (NCAP) and excluded from it. This has been disclosed by the Center for Science and Environment (CSE) by releasing a new report on Blue Sky Day. Under the NCAP, a target has been set to reduce the level of PM 2.5 by 20 percent and the level of PM 10 by 30 percent in the country by 2024 as compared to 2017. PM 2.5 are pollutants that are smaller than 2.5 micrometers in size. They cause serious harm by entering our body with the breath. Encap : 132 cities, fund is also available By 2020-21, the government also gives funds to reduce the pollution of PM 10 by more than 15% and clean air for 200 days. According to the report, out of 132 such cities, only 63 cities are under surveillance. 10% reduction in PM 2.5 in only 14 cities Less than 5% drop in pollution in Delhi and Ghaziabad. In Khanna, Jaipur and Udaipur there was an increase of up to 20%. Cities with highest pollution growth in Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra. Biggest improvement in Varanasi, Chennai. Non-encap: Monitoring in only 10% There are 4,041 cities in the country. Of these, only 400 have PM10 monitoring systems under the National Air Quality Monitoring Program and Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station. PM 2.5 levels rose sharply in 15 cities. Ankleshwar in Gujarat has the highest growth of 34%. More than 20% growth in Satna, Bahadurgarh, Bathinda. Pollution increased in cities of Haryana, MP and Gujarat. Haryana’s Palwal also showed maximum improvement of 60%.

Is India’s National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) working?

Is India’s National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) working? New CSE analysis says NCAP and non-NCAP cities are showing similar trends in PM2.5 levels A new analysis by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), released here today on the eve of the UN International Day of Clean Air for Blue Sky, says there is barely any difference in overall PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5) trends between cities under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit. The analysis says that both groups of cities reflect similar mixed trends in air quality in different climatic zones, and this means they require substantial reduction in particulate pollution levels to be able to meet the national ambient air quality standards. The NCAP has set a national level target of 20-30 per cent reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by 2024 from the 2017 base year. But a latest performance assessment of NCAP cities by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for disbursement of performance-linked funds has considered only PM10 data that is largely coarse dust particles. As the monitoring of PM2.5 — the tinier particles that are much more harmful — is limited, a uniform assessment of cities based on PM2.5 reduction has not been considered for performance assessment. CSE has carried out a national analysis of PM2.5 levels in cities for which data is available to understand the trend in both NCAP and non-NCAP cities, and the level of reduction needed in both the groups of cities to meet the national clean air standards. This has also exposed the status of air quality monitoring in terms of manual and real time monitoring, extent of PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring in cities, and challenges of data quality to construct and verify a longer term air quality trend. “While it is encouraging that funding of clean air action is linked to performance and the cities’ ability to demonstrate improvement in air quality, dependence on only manual monitoring of PM10 evidently creates a bias in spending as it shifts focus more towards dust control and detracts attention from composite action on industry, vehicles, waste and solid fuel burning,” says Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, research and advocacy at CSE. “The expanding monitoring network of PM2.5 and key gases needs to be leveraged quickly to prioritise multi-pollutant action for more effective reduction of risk across all regions,” she adds. The NCAP covers 132 cities — 82 of these have been funded by the Programme, while 50 cities have received funds from the 15th Finance Commission; Rs 6,425 crore has been released till 2021-22 and Rs 2,299 crore has been earmarked for 2022-23. Cities are required to quantify improvement starting 2020-21 – this requires 15 per cent and more reduction in the annual average PM10 concentration and a concurrent increase in good air days to more than 200. Anything less than that will be considered low and reduce the funding. “As the system is becoming more performance oriented and real time air quality monitoring is expanding, it is necessary to develop and define robust protocols and methods for quality control of real time data and ensure adoption of standardised methods for data processing, analytics, addressing data gaps and data completeness and to construct a reliable trend to verify performance and compliance with the national air quality target,” says Avikal Somvanshi, programme manager, Urban Lab, CSE. Methodology: This analysis has included 332 real time monitoring stations active in 2021 in India, spread across 172 cities in 27 states and Union territories. It has relied on data that is publicly available on the CPCB website. However, the minutes of the 5th meeting of the steering committee of NCAP dated July 29, 2022 have listed more stations. Accordingly, there are currently 882 manual stations in 378 cities and 361 CAAQM (continuous ambient air quality monitoring) stations in 192 cities. This analysis is focused only on PM2.5 data, sourced from the CPCB’s real time data portal in its most granular format; the data has been further cleaned and processed, and 24-hour values calculated for each station based on the USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) methodology. The annual average has been calculated as a mean of quarterly averages as per the USEPA methodology, but given the issues of data quality the requirement of data completeness has been slightly modified to enable inclusion of a large pool of cities. The USEPA, for instance, requires each quarter to have data for a minimum 75 per cent of the monitoring days . Key highlights Only 10 per cent of statutory/census towns have air quality monitoring: According to the 2011 census, India has 4,041 statutory towns and 3,894 census towns. Between the national air quality monitoring programme (NAMP, manual) and the CAAQMS (real time), only 400 cities/towns have PM10 quality monitoring. Out of these, 213 (51 per cent) have only manual monitoring, 90 (21 per cent) have only real time monitoring, and 97 cities/towns (23 per cent) have both. There are 22 cities/towns (5 per cent) that have manual stations but have not reported any data since 2015 and can be considered defunct. These cities together account for 1,176 PM10 monitoring stations (804 manual stations and 372 real time stations). PM2.5 monitoring is limited compared to PM10: Between the NAMP and CAAQMS, only 256 cities/towns are covered by PM2.5 monitoring. Out of these, 74 (29 per cent) have only manual monitoring, 131 (51 per cent) have only real time monitoring, and 51 (20 per cent) have both. These cities together account for 660 PM2.5 monitoring stations (315 manual stations and 345 real time stations). The performance assessment of NCAP cities is done only on the basis of PM10 monitoring is because the network of PM10 monitoring is more extensive than that of PM2.5. PM2.5 monitoring needs to be expanded and considered for performance monitoring for better prioritisation. Only about half of NCAP cities have real time monitoring: In 2019, only 51 out 132 NCAP cities had real time monitoring stations. The number grew to 63 in 2021; six more NCAP cities have installed real time monitors in 2022 so far. Almost a quarter of NCAP cities with real time monitoring do not meet minimum data completeness requirement: In 2021, 15 out of the 63 NCAP cities (24 per cent) did not meet the minimum data completeness requirement (60 days of valid 24-hour values in each quarter of the year). In 2019, the number was lower: only 16 per cent did not meet the requirement. Performance of NCAP cities on PM2.5 levels (2019-21): Only 43 NCAP cities have adequate PM2.5 data for the period 2019-2021 – enough to create a reasonable trend for tracking progress. However, it may be noted that 2020 has been an exceptional year due to the lockdown phases and is an aberration. Nearly all cities have recorded a dip in 2020 followed by a subsequent increase in 2021. Therefore, a comparison between 2019 and 2021 shows that only 14 of the 43 cities have registered a 10 per cent or more reduction in their PM2.5 level between the two years. Seven cities show negligible (less than 5 per cent) change: these include Delhi and Ghaziabad. There are 16 cities that have registered a significant increase (5 per cent or more) in their PM2.5 levels — Khanna, Jaipur, and Udaipur have registered the most deterioration with their 2021 annual value increasing by over 20 per cent compared to the 2019 annual value. Faridabad with 6 per cent increase is only NCR NCAP city in this pool of cities with a significant worsening of air quality. It is also the only city outside the non-attainment list. Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra cities dominate the list of cities which have registered a significant increase in PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021. Chennai, Varanasi and Pune show the most improvement among NCAP cities. But unlike cities with increasing pollution level which have a very clear regional pattern, there is no regional pattern seen among cities reporting significant improvement in their air quality. Performance of non-NCAP cities: There are 46 cities that are not covered under NCAP, but have adequate real time data for both 2019 and 2021. In this group, 15 cities have registered a significant worsening of annual PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021. Ankleshwar in Gujarat with 34 per cent increase in annual PM2.5 value is the worst performer in the pool, followed by Satna (Madhya Pradesh), Vatva (Gujarat), Bahadurgarh (Haryana), and Bhatinda (Punjab); all of which have registered an over 20 per cent increase. Ten cities registered negligible change (less than 5 per cent) in their annual values; 21 recorded significant improvement, with a 5 per cent or more decline between 2019 and 2021. Cities of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat dominate the list of non-NCAP cities that have registered significant increase in air pollution levels between 2019 and 2020. Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh and Siliguri in West Bengal are only cities from other regions in the group. Interestingly, most of these cities are outside the NCR. Palwal in southern Haryana with a 60 per cent improvement in its annual PM2.5 level is the best performer among non-NCAP cities. In fact, NCR cities dominate the list of most improved non-NCAP cities. Most change (positive or negative) is noted among north Indian cities. Cities within NCR show improvement, while cities outside indicate worsening levels. Performance of NCAP vs non-NCAP cities: Data is adequate to construct PM2.5 trends for 43 NCAP cities and 46 non-NCAP cities for 2019-21. The non-NCAP cities can be treated as a control group to see how the NCAP funding has improved air quality performance of cities. This is a simplistic non-standardised assessment and should not be treated as a conclusive assessment of NCAP, as air pollution has a regional character and many non-NCAP cities are located within the influence zone of NCAP cities which are generally much bigger with asymmetrical impact on the regional air quality baseline. Says Somvanshi: “Having said that, there is hardly any difference between the performance of NCAP and non-NCAP cities between 2019 and 2021.” There are 16 NCAP cities and 15 non-NCAP cities that registered a significant increase in their annual PM2.5 levels – with near identical numbers. Same goes for cities (20 NCAP and 21 non-NCAP) that registered a significant improvement in their annual PM2.5 levels. NCAP vs non-NCAP cities and the impact of lockdowns: Hard and extended lockdowns in 2020 due to the ongoing pandemic had significant air quality impacts in all the monitored cities. But there is a negligible difference between the impact on NCAP and non-NCAP cities. Both groups of cities recorded nearly 12 per cent reduction in their aggregate 2020 PM2.5 level compared to the previous year. Pollution bounced back with near similar intensity in both the groups in 2021. NCAP cities registered an aggregate 8 per cent increase in their annual PM2.5 levels in 2021 from the low of 2020. Similarly, non-NCAP cities registered a 7 per cent increase. How have mega cities performed: All six mega cities registered drop in their annual PM2.5 levels in 2020, but pollution bounced back everywhere except in Chennai. In Delhi, pollution dropped by 13 per cent in 2020, but it rose by 13 per cent in 2021 nullifying all the gains made by the national capital. In Kolkata, pollution dropped by 22 per cent in 2020 and rose by 16 per cent in 2021. Mumbai, with a 48 per cent increase in 2021, saw the most negative impact of unlocking of the economy after the lockdowns. Hyderabad had the least variation in its annual levels across the three years. Bengaluru air improved by 21 per cent in 2020 and with just 8 per cent increase in 2021, the southern metropolis has retained most of its gains. Chennai saw a 29 per cent drop in its PM2.5 level in 2020 and it has dropped by another 23 per cent in 2021, making it the least polluted mega city in the country. Status of national air quality: There is an equal number (39) of NCAP and non-NCAP cities that did not meet the annual PM2.5 standard in 2021. The CPCB classifies cities that have their annual average higher than 1.5 times the annual standard as critically polluted. In 2021, 20 NCAP cities and 24 non-NCAP cities qualified as critically polluted – this means there are more critically polluted cities that are not covered by NCAP than there under the programme. Nine NCAP cities met the annual NAAQS in 2021. These are Chennai, Hubballi, Bengaluru, Rajamahendravaran, Mumbai, Sagar, Nashik, Dewas and Chandigarh. Cities with multiple stations like Chennai, Bengaluru, Mumbai and Chandigarh meet the standard based on average value from their trend station/s, but there are stations within the city which reported annual values higher than the standard, implying the pollution is not low throughout these city. Only 16 non-NCAP cities meet the standard — 13 of them are located in south India. Only two cities in the country out of the 103 monitored via the CAAQMS network can be classified as ‘low pollution’ (less than half the annual standard) as per the CPCB matrix. These are Kozhikode in Kerala and Madikeri in Karnataka. Adopt a standardised method for assessing air quality trends for complying with the national ambient air quality standards: India needs to adopt a robust protocol for estimating air quality trends and their compliance with the national ambient air quality standards. It is critical that a city meets the minimum data completeness required to credibly establish its longer term air quality trend vis-à-vis the annual PM2.5 standard. The CPCB currently uses spatial average of all stations in a city to establish its compliance with the standard. But internationally, the practice for establishing compliance with the standard has moved away from spatial averaging. The USEPA requires that all monitoring stations in a city should meet the standard for that city to be deemed compliant with the standard. However, for compliance trend analysis, it uses only a few select stations in the city. Both NCAP and non-NCAP cities need substantial reductions to meet the national ambient air quality standards: It is acknowledged that many cities have added new stations since 2019 and many of these also meet the minimum data completeness requirement — but they have not been included in computation of annual average of the city. Nevertheless, data from these new stations is captured in the maximum and minimum information published in the parenthesis next to the annual level of the city. This is a hybrid approach that uses CPCB´s current practice of spatial averaging for cities with multiple stations, but ensures apple to apple comparison by introducing a trend station concept. It also captures the worst station data in the city allowing comparison vis-à-vis the USEPA methodology. There are 48 NCAP cities and 55 non-NCAP cities that meet the minimum data completeness requirement for computing annual PM2.5 levels for 2021. Only these 103 cities have been analysed by CSE. Northern states: Ghaziabad is the most polluted NCAP city in the north, closely followed by Delhi. There are 16 non-NCAP cities that exceed the regional average compared to eight NCAP cities. There are as many non-NCAP cities as NCAP cities that require over a 50 per cent reduction. Most NCR cities require over 50 per cent reduction from their 2021 PM2.5 level to meet the NAAQS. Western states: Jodhpur is the most polluted NCAP city in the west, followed by Kota and Jaipur. Bhiwadi — though a non-NCAP city — is still the most polluted in the region. Ankleshwar and Vatva in Gujarat are worse than most NCAP cities of the region as well. Six NCAP cities and four non-NCAP cities need reduction of over 25 per cent to meet the annual standard. Eastern states: Patna is the most polluted NCAP city in the east, followed by Muzaffarpur and Durgapur. Hajipur and Siliguri are the most polluted non-NCAP cities. This is the only region where no city, NCAP or non-NCAP, meets the annual standard (see related graph in the detailed analysis). Except Talcher in Odisha and Agartala in Tripura, all cities in the region require over 20 per cent reduction to meet the annual standard. Southern states: Visakhapatnam is the most polluted NCAP city in the south, followed by Hyderabad. All the other cities in the region, NCAP and non-NCAP, meet the annual standard (see related graph in the detailed analysis). Visakhapatnam needs to reduce pollution by 10 per cent and Hyderabad by 3 per cent to meet the standard. NCAP vs non-NCAP cities pollution level: On an average at the national level, there this barely any difference in the pollution levels between NCAP and non-NCAP cities. There is some difference at the regional level, though. In west India, non-NCAP cities on an average are more polluted and these are located inland in the arid and semi-arid sub-region. In the north, non-NCAP cities on an average are marginally more polluted. In the east and south, NCAP cities are on an average significantly more polluted. On an average, cities of east India are the most polluted in the country, while cities in south are the least polluted. The way forward Says Roychowdhury: “It is clear that the current practice of keeping the focus only on selected cities without considering the larger urban and regional landscape can limit the effectiveness of the NCAP programme and resource investment. The current mandate of developing state action plans has to be refined to ensure regional approach is initiated for a wider impact.” “Moreover, the ongoing funding strategy based on performance of cities on air quality improvement requires robust air quality monitoring of all key parameters along with strong data quality control and a standardised protocol for establishing air quality trends, especially for real time data, for reporting compliance with clean air targets,” she adds As the current focus of NCAP is to reduce particulate pollution, immediate strategy is needed to consider PM2.5 data for performance assessment of cities, points out Somvanshi. PM2.5, being smaller, is more harmful as it penetrates deep inside the lungs. The larger share of PM2.5 is emitted by combustion sources including vehicles, industry, power plants, waste and solid fuel burning. Otherwise, the expansion of PM2.5 monitoring as well as real time monitoring will be wasteful if not leveraged for performance assessment. This also needs to be supported by a roadmap to include the gases for targeted mitigation.

CSE analysis finds bias towards dust control due to CPCB assessment for funding

PM 10 levels considered for disbursing funds; Barely any difference in PM 2.5 levels between NCAP and non-NCAP cities The national pollution control board’s assessment technique is flawed as it focuses on only PM 10 levels for disbursing of funds, an analysis has found. There is barely any difference in overall particulate matter (PM) 2.5 trends between under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit, showed non-profit Centre for Science and Environment. Focusing on only PM 10 levels for spending is creating a bias, making dust control the primary focus of clean air action, CSE has found. The analysis was released September 6, the eve of the United Nations International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies. PM2.5 are ultrafine particles suspended in the air that have a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, while PM 10 particles have a diameter of 10 microns or less. The NCAP has set a national target of 20-30 per cent reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by 2024 from the 2017 base year. Both groups of cities, NCAP and non-NCAP, reflect similar mixed trends in air quality in different climatic zones. This means they require a substantial reduction in particulate pollution levels to meet the national ambient air quality standards, said the analysis. Read more: ‘Air pollution cuts India’s average life expectancy by 5 years’ But the latest performance assessment of NCAP cities by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has considered only PM10 data — largely coarse dust particles — for the disbursement of performance-linked funds. CSE looked at data for 43 NCAP cities and 46 non-NCAP cities for 2019-21 to construct PM2.5 trends. Delhi and Ghaziabad were among the seven NCAP cities that showed less than 5 per cent change in PM 2.5 levels. Faridabad is the only NCR city whose PM 2.5 levels went up from 2019 to 2021. Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra cities registered a significant increase in PM2.5 levels, while Chennai, Varanasi and Pune show the most improvement among NCAP cities. A large number of NCAP and non-NCAP cities need a substantial reduction in PM2.5 levels to meet the national ambient air quality standards in all climatic zones, the analysis found. “While it is encouraging that funding of clean air action is linked to performance and the cities’ ability to demonstrate improvement in air quality, dependence on only manual monitoring of PM10 evidently creates a bias in spending,” said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, research and advocacy at CSE. It shifts focus more towards dust control and detracts attention from composite action on industry, vehicles, waste and solid fuel burning, she added. Read more: Bangladesh PM2.5 levels 7 times higher than WHO limit: Study The NCAP covers 132 cities — 82 have been funded by the programme, while 50 cities have received funds from the 15th Finance Commission. Through 2021-22, Rs 6,425 crore was released, while Rs 2,299 crore has been earmarked for 2022-23. Cities are required to quantify improvement starting 2020-21, which requires 15 per cent and more reduction in the annual average PM10 concentration and a concurrent increase in good air days to more than 200. Anything less than that will be considered low and reduce the funding. The CSE analysis has included 332 real time monitoring stations active in 2021 in India, spread across 172 cities in 27 states and Union territories. It has relied on data that is publicly available on the CPCB website. All six megacities registered a drop in their annual PM2.5 levels in 2020, but pollution bounced back everywhere except in Chennai. In Delhi, pollution dropped by 13 per cent in 2020, but it rose by 13 per cent in 2021, nullifying all the gains made by the national capital. Read more: Indian cities among places with highest rise in exposure to extreme heat: Study In Kolkata, pollution dropped by 22 per cent in 2020 and rose by 16 per cent in 2021. Mumbai, with a 48 per cent increase in 2021, saw the most negative impact of unlocking the economy after the lockdowns. Hyderabad had the least variation in its annual levels across the three years. Bengaluru air improved by 21 per cent in 2020 and with just 8 per cent increase in 2021, the southern metropolis has retained most of its gains. Chennai saw a 29 per cent drop in its PM2.5 level in 2020 and it dropped by another 23 per cent in 2021, making it the least polluted mega city in the country. “It is necessary to develop and define robust protocols and methods for quality control of real time data and ensure adoption of standardised methods for data processing,” said Avikal Somvanshi, programme manager, Urban Lab, CSE. We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.