Rs. 11,000 crore for National Clean Air Programme: Where were the funds used?

India’s National Clean Air Programme (NCAP), introduced in 2019, aimed to tackle the country’s persistent air pollution problem by improving air quality in 130 cities. With a total budget allocation of ₹11,210.75 crore, the program sought to reduce the levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) by 20-40% by 2025-26. However, despite the significant investment and its ambitious goals, the program has faced numerous challenges, including inefficient utilization of funds, lack of accountability, and misplaced priorities.

Funds Released and Utilized: A Grim Picture

Under the NCAP and the 15th Finance Commission grant, over ₹11,210 crore has been allocated to improve air quality in targeted cities. However, an analysis of NCAP committee meetings revealed that many cities have struggled to use these funds effectively. In at least 68 cities, less than 75% of the allocated budget has been spent, with some cities recording alarmingly low utilization rates.

Examples of underutilization:

• Noida (Uttar Pradesh): Only 11% of its allocated funds have been used.
• Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh): Just 14% of its allocation has been utilized.
• Delhi: Despite its severe air pollution levels, only 31.76% of its funds have been spent, while its Air Quality Index (AQI) recently breached the hazardous mark of 1,500.

Similarly, Faridabad in the Delhi-NCR region has spent only 38.91% of its funding, while Ghaziabad stands as a rare exception, having utilized 97% of its allocation.

What Was the NCAP Designed to Achieve?

The NCAP, launched by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC), focuses on reducing PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations in cities that fail to meet air quality standards. These pollutants, along with nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2), are the primary contributors to poor air quality. The initiative also aimed to:

1. Scale up monitoring and forecasting systems for air quality.
2. Identify and mitigate specific pollution sources through source apportionment studies.
3. Develop city-specific Air Action Plans for targeted solutions.

Funding for the program flows through two primary channels:

1. Allocations by the MoEFCC to 82 cities under the NCAP framework.
2. Direct funding under the 15th Finance Commission’s Million-Plus Cities Challenge Fund, targeting 42 cities and seven urban agglomerations with populations exceeding one million.

NCAP is a performance-linked initiative where cities must demonstrate measurable improvements in air quality to secure funding.

The Report Shows Limited Progress So Far

With less than two years remaining before the program’s deadline, the results have been underwhelming. Out of 131 cities:

• 43 cities have shown less than a 20% reduction in PM10 levels.
• 31 cities have shown no improvement at all.
• 80 cities have yet to complete their source apportionment studies to identify pollution sources, while six cities have failed to submit hotspot action plans.

Moreover, performance assessments under the NCAP currently focus only on PM10 levels, as many cities lack the infrastructure to monitor PM2.5. This is concerning because PM2.5 particles, being smaller, pose a greater health risk by penetrating deeper into the lungs and entering the bloodstream.

Spending Misaligned with Goals

The majority of the funds utilized under the NCAP have been spent on activities that focus on dust management rather than tackling major pollution sources like industrial emissions and vehicle exhaust.

Spending Breakdown:

• 63.68% of the total budget has been spent on road paving, pothole repairs, and deploying water sprinklers and mechanical sweepers.
• 0.61% has gone toward controlling industrial pollution.
• 12.63% has been allocated to addressing vehicular pollution.

In Delhi, for instance, the funds used (31.76% of its allocation) were spent entirely on purchasing 14 mechanical road sweepers, 28 water sprinklers, anti-smog guns, and pothole repair machinery. Despite such efforts, industrial emissions and vehicles remain the primary contributors to pollution in the Delhi-NCR region, as highlighted in city-specific studies.

Alarmingly, some cities diverted NCAP funds to unrelated activities, such as paying electricity bills for construction waste management plants, installing streetlights, purchasing sewage equipment, and setting up CCTV cameras at dumping sites. These expenditures, while valid urban management concerns, have no direct impact on air quality.

The Situation in the Delhi-NCR Region

The pollution crisis in north India, particularly in the Delhi-NCR region, has been dire. Starting mid-November, visibility in cities like Delhi, Gurugram, Ghaziabad, and Noida dropped to as low as 100 meters due to severe smog. Key cities in this region receive NCAP funds, but poor utilization remains a common issue:

• Delhi: Allocated ₹42.69 crore, but only ₹13.56 crore has been used.
• Noida: Spent just 11.14% of its funding.
• Faridabad: Utilized 38.91% of its allocation.
• Ghaziabad: A rare success story, having used 97% of its funding.

What Needs to Change?

1. Focus on Major Pollution Sources: Allocate more funds to tackle industrial emissions and vehicular pollution, which are the primary contributors in most cities.
2. Improve Monitoring Infrastructure: Invest in setting up more PM2.5 monitoring stations to ensure comprehensive assessments and targeted interventions.
3. Prioritize Relevant Projects: Avoid funding irrelevant activities and direct resources to impactful measures such as transitioning to clean fuels, retrofitting industries with emission controls, and improving waste management systems.
4. Strengthen Accountability: Introduce stricter mechanisms to track fund utilization and enforce penalties for mismanagement.
5. Promote Collaboration: Encourage states to work together on transboundary issues, such as stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana, which worsens pollution in Delhi.

While the NCAP has laid a foundation for tackling India’s air pollution crisis, its implementation has been fraught with inefficiencies and misaligned priorities. The success of the program will depend on whether cities can shift from surface-level measures to addressing the core causes of pollution in the time remaining.

‍