Air pollution policy-making proves to be a complex endeavour, intricately entwined with political will and narratives
Like all environmental challenges, policymaking for air pollution control is also contingent on the political will behind solving it. Transcending political and administrative boundaries, toxic air affects one and all near the emission sources and along the air trajectory. From making its way into the political manifesto before major elections to interstate actions on emission control becoming contentious during acute exposure episodes, political will on air pollution dwindles as opposed to its environmental salience. Facts and figures that should ideally guide a policy process in mitigation of the problem of deteriorating air quality along northern Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP) are often encapsulated within the bigger political narratives. Thus, there is a strong need to understand the political narratives that follow air pollution. Moreover, the recent politicizing of the issue across the NCR with different stakes by regional ruling parties has rekindled the need to have guidance from an apolitical, scientific ombudsman
The recent remarks that toss Haryana against Punjab, solely due to its proximity, are symbolic of how political narratives can supersede the scientific facts and logical understanding of the problem and slow the pace of mitigation. Data clearly indicates that the incidents of stubble burning in Punjab far surpass those in Haryana. For instance, ISRO reported that Punjab had roughly ten times and fourteen times the incidents of stubble burning in Haryana in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Moreover, studies have demonstrated that winds play a crucial role in carrying particles from biomass burning in Punjab to Delhi (and beyond) (Krishna & Beig, 2018; Kanawade et al., 2016). Such misconstruing of facts has often resulted in poorly formed regulations and failure to create robust measures to curtail stubble fires in the state of Punjab. From setting up bio-energy plants that use stubble to the adoption of bio-decomposer technology, no proposed solution has abated the issue. Attention is often diverted from the incapacity or lack of willingness to execute data-backed interventions with adequate implementation support, a recurring trend seen in various administrations that have assumed power in recent years.
Even when contingent pollution issues receive ample attention, external factors can exert influence. This is evident in the political statements made during the time of Diwali, some opposing the taken discourse and a few accepting it as a plausible measure. While there is clear evidence that the bursting of firecrackers contributes to the worsening of air pollution, two distinct camps exist debating the degree of contribution of crackers to air pollution. The motivation for the latter is often rooted in religious beliefs associated with bursting firecrackers, emphasising the need to be mindful of the social and cultural realities influencing societal challenges like air pollution in the IGP.
In all fairness, the air pollution challenge is undeniably complex, causing multiple problems for policy-makers. Firstly, it has evolved from being a purely natural science challenge to a social science challenge, necessitating a deep understanding of the multiple stakeholders involved. Air pollution policy decisions must also account for their impact on different stakeholders while ensuring consensus across groups. For instance, the exemption of women in a scheme like Odd-Even is tricky. Second, determining the appropriate time for action is another key problem, given that several state governments in India face sharp resource constraints.
For instance, Delhi typically issues stringent emergency measures after air quality concentrations become threatening, Thirdly, the selection of measures lies in identifying the optimal point for the state to intervene in the entire process. This critical decision influences the policies pursued and the evidence required to convince decision-makers. Amidst this pandemonium, the role of the Supreme Court as an apolitical and scientific ombudsman becomes relevant. It not only acknowledges a research-backed understanding of air pollution sources but also categorically reprimands state governments for blame games, calls out policy efforts for gimmickry, and issues orders for immediate actions for the greater good. As air pollution strains the delicate balance of India’s federal and electoral democracy, the Supreme Court emerges as a champion safeguarding the rights (or, in this case, the lungs!) of the people. It offers a semblance of objectivity and urgency in addressing this challenge. The presence of narratives surrounding a critical policy challenge is inevitable. After all, admitting fault, fixing accountability and ensuring implementation is not commonplace in political issues. Unfortunately, policymakers often get deeply entangled in these narratives, ignoring the challenge, which is dangerous. The passionate discourse stalls the adoption of corrective measures and diverts public attention from the actual issue. Air pollution's seasonal nature creates conducive conditions for the proliferation of such narratives, as each stakeholder looks for those who can defend their interests in a tangled web of conflicting interests.
(The writer is an air pollution expert at UN ESCAP and visiting faculty at the CPRG. The research inputs are from Arjun Kumar Singh; views are personal)
