The air pollution crisis in the national capital, unsurprisingly, extends to the Commission for Air Quality Management, the all-powerful body set up to mitigate the issue.
Since October last year, the Supreme Court has pulled up the CAQM over a series of shortcomings: lack of committee meetings, absenteeism, wait and watch approach, and the purported lack of intent in prosecuting errant officials. In fact, since its formation in 2020, the CAQM’s efforts have failed to impress the Supreme Court, amid hearings over a stack of petitions on air pollution. Experts have also slammed the centre’s body for not proactively imposing the emergency restrictions in the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP).
Unlike its two-decade-old predecessor, the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority, or EPCA, the CAQM Act has penal provisions that give it authority to initiate prosecution for flouting its directive. It is ostensibly the most powerful anti-pollution body in the country, and its word prevails over the governments and the state apparatus of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan, and even statutory bodies on air pollution matters.
But to what extent has it been able to control the air pollution crisis in the Delhi-NCR? Over a month since air pollution began hitting alarming levels in early October, data suggests that little has changed.
Unlike its two-decade-old predecessor, the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority, or EPCA, the CAQM Act has penal provisions that give it authority to initiate prosecution for flouting its directive. It is ostensibly the most powerful anti-pollution body in the country, and its word prevails over the governments and the state apparatus of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan, and even statutory bodies on air pollution matters. But to what extent has it been able to control the air pollution crisis in the Delhi-NCR?
Stubble burning data shows a decline, but with a caveat
The commission is purportedly aware of its faulty data on farm fires.
Roads, vehicles, industries, and waste burning are the main sources of Delhi’s toxic air. However, in winters, paddy residue burning solely grabs the headlines as it becomes one of the most prominent sources of pollution during this period due to climatic and other factors. So what are CAQM’s efforts toward reducing stubble burning?
CAQM has reported a significant drop in stubble burning incidents — 85 percent drop in Punjab and 67 percent decline in Haryana between September 15 and November 30 last year as compared to the same period in 2021. Delhi chief minister Atishi Singh was ready with the same data to claim how AAP-governed Punjab has emerged as the shining light amid smoky skies.
But a source in the government told Newslaundry that the CAQM has always known that the data about the drop in stubble burning incidents does not represent the true picture. “In 2021, while the fire incidents decreased compared to the previous year, the burnt acreage has actually increased,” claimed the source, adding that CAQM has never released the figures on the burnt area.
In the Supreme Court, amicus curiae Aparajita Singh had earlier said that ISRO gets data on farm fires through two NASA satellites that pass over the Indian subcontinent at 10.30 am and 1.30 pm and flagged that geo-stationary satellite had captured farm fires after 4.30 pm.
In fact, The Hindu had reported that in a sub-committee formed by CAQM to develop a standard protocol for estimating burnt area acreage, a scientist pointed out that farmers were setting paddy residue to fire after the passage of the NASA satellites to avoid detection. CAQM has never shared minutes of these committee meetings in the Supreme Court and relied only on fire count.
Absenteeism, fewer meetings, inaction against non-compliance
In 2021, union Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav argued that CAQM was the “most important step” of the central government against air pollution in the Delhi NCR.
The commission, with 12 permanent members, headed by former bureaucrat Rajesh Verma, has from time to time issued directions and advisories to state governments and their departments for mitigation measures against air pollution. It also directs the Delhi-NCR governments to implement graded restrictions, or GRAP, when the air quality becomes more polluted.
The higher the pollution, the stricter the restrictions, which include banning construction, restricted entry of trucks in Delhi, and plying of more polluting vehicles, among others. But for enforcement of its directions, it mostly relies on the state machinery.
On October 13 last year, the Supreme Court, hearing the MC Mehta case, came down heavily on the commission: “The commission itself, prima facie, does not seem to be making any efforts to follow up on implementation of its own directions. Obviously, no steps are being taken by the commission to monitor implementation of its own orders.”
In the same hearing, the court hit out at the commission after noting that only five of 11 members of a subcommittee on safeguarding and enforcement attended the meeting on August 29 this year. The subcommittee did not even discuss its key 2021 direction on stubble burning.
The CAQM has three sub-committees on safeguarding and enforcement, research and development, and monitoring and identification.
The Supreme Court also questioned a low number of meetings by the three subcommittees. “This is how the subcommittees are functioning. The three subcommittees have held a total of 11 meetings in nine months.”
An air pollution expert who did not wish to be named said that CAQM needed to focus on air pollution throughout the year. “There is little to gain if you wake up only when pollution is high. It has to be a year-long intervention.”
In another hearing on October 23, the apex court questioned the commission on its failure to invoke Section 14 (1) of the CAQM Act, 2021, against officials who did not enforce its directives. The section provides for jail term for a person, including an official, who flouts the commission’s directives. The body had seldom exercised this power until recently.
The court order read: “Instead of setting criminal law in motion, all that the Commission has done is to issue show cause notices.”
In an affidavit a month later, the commission revealed that complaints for prosecution under Section 14 had been filed against 111 officials of Punjab and Haryana for non-compliance of its directives.
The Supreme Court also highlighted its wait and watch approach to imposing restrictions. The CAQM imposes pollution control measures depending on the air quality index.
GRAP restrictions too little too late?
Earlier, GRAP-4 was imposed when the AQI breached the 450 mark and GRAP-3 for AQI of 400-450. But since the Supreme Court’s directions in December last year, the commission has imposed GRAP-4 restrictions even when the AQI has been above 400.
Under a revised framework, GRAP-3 and GRAP-4 are imposed when AQI is above 350 and 400, respectively. On January 15, the commission, complying with the SC order, imposed GRAP-4 when the AQI breached the 400 mark.
On November 17, the AQI level was in the severe+ category, or above 450, requiring the imposition of the fourth stage of GRAP – a ban on construction, demolition, and the entry of trucks and light commercial vehicles in Delhi. But CAQM only enforced GRAP-4 a day later.
“The approach adopted by the commission seems to be that it waited for improvement of the AQI and, therefore, the implementation of stages III and IV of the GRAP was delayed. This is an entirely wrong approach,” read another Supreme Court order on November 18. The SC lifted the GRAP-4 restrictions only after the AQI reached the ‘moderate’ level (100-200).
Lawyer Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing a party in the case, told Newslaundry: “The biggest flaw with the commission is that its actions are not preventive.”
Though it has flying squads, composed of officials from the Central Pollution Control Board, the commission relies on other regulatory authorities such as civic bodies and pollution control boards for implementation of its directions.
“We deployed 40 officials from flying squads in Punjab during stubble burning. They were there for ‘dip check’ but can’t substitute for enforcement,” said another CAQM official.
First steps and challenges
In December 2020, when CAQM issued its first advisories, asking central and state pollution control boards to reduce dust pollution, it was followed by a directive to states to curb stubble burning.
Since then, data shows that the pollution control body has made substantial efforts in this direction – power plants have been mandated to co-fire 5–10 percent of biofuel, ethanol plants are being set up in the NCR, and almost all industrial clusters have been encouraged to switch from coal to gas.
A researcher from a Delhi-based think tank lauded CAQM for its measures against diesel generators and proactive steps against dust control. “The integration of an early warning system and decision support system (DSS) to proactively invoke GRAP measures is a positive step. However, it has not necessarily worked out all that well, given the challenges of effective forecasting of the system,” he said. Forecasting by DSS has been far from less accurate. The reason is that 50 percent of pollution sources have not been identified.
An official from CAQM criticised DSS, saying that its pollution inventory is old and should be updated. CAQM, which funds DSS, was also not impressed that the system is based on a mathematical model.
In the second week of November, the CAQM chairperson had met chief secretaries of UP, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Punjab over the air crisis. The enforcement of its advisories and directions is a key challenge for CAQM, said one of its officials.
For instance, the government official explained that on November 11, CAQM issued an advisory to the state governments to liquidate the NCR’s over 60 lakh end-of-life or EoL vehicles – the vehicles that are no longer validly registered or have been declared unfit. Of these, only 24,707 vehicles were seized between January 2023 and September last year.
“We have asked the transport department to identify such vehicles and seize them so that pollution load from them could be kept off the road. CAQM can only identify the key actionable areas, taking action is in the hands of government bodies,” said a CAQM official.
Recently, the Delhi government in consultation with the commission has begun installing numberplate readers at petrol pump to catch EOL vehicles and those without a valid pollution certificate.
Another CAQM official said prosecuting erring officials was not the answer to make them accountable. “It’s easy for outsiders to say that officials should be prosecuted. The system is dysfunctional and it will become more dysfunctional if officials who are meant to implement commission’s guidelines are being prosecuted,” they said, batting for more powers for the commission to issue notices or impose penalties on errant officials. “Prosecution would take years and years before the case is settled,” they said.
The feeling among CAQM is that bringing down pollution levels to “good” or “satisfactory” categories may not happen. “The base pollution load is so high that we may never be able to breathe clean air. We have to be realistic with our expectations. During the lockdown period, pollution did not come down significantly when all commercial activities came to a halt,” said another official from CAQM.
The truth is in between. According to a study by The Energy and Research Institute, PM2.5 levels came down by 43 percent during lockdowns. However, PM2.5 levels violated the daily standard 31-60 percent of the days monitored during the period. (PM2.5 reading of <50 ugm3 is considered good.)
Chandra Bhushan, CEO-founder of International Forum for Environment, Sustainability and Technology (iFOREST), explained that a regulatory body has two key tasks: controlling and enabling. Controlling power means issuing directions on do’s and don’ts while enabling is related to problem resolution, he said.
“CAQM has not been an enabling agency. Its entire job revolves around GRAP. Its action plan is to stop activities rather than finding answers to the problem. CAQM has not found answers to even one challenge,” said Bhushan.
An analyst at a Delhi-based think tank told Newslaundry, “The problem is we are not able to attribute which measure has worked and which has not. So we assume that nothing has worked. Another big factor is meteorology. If it is bad, even two measures that were working for you would be of no use, or vice versa.”
Newslaundry reached out to CAQM and two NGO members of the body – TERI director general Vibha Dhawan and the Council on Energy, Environment and Water founder CEO Arunabha Ghosh – for a comment. They were yet to respond at the time of publishing the report.
This piece is part of a collaborative campaign to tackle air pollution. Here’s how you can join the Fight To Breathe. Click here to power this campaign.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
