The story so far: Air pollution in Delhi has been in the ‘severe’ and ‘severe plus’ category for the most part of the last 10 days. This week, the Supreme Court pulled up the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), the government’s monitoring agency, on its inadequate pollution control response.
What is the CAQM?
The CAQM in the National Capital Region (NCR) and adjoining areas came into existence through an ordinance in 2020, which was later replaced by an Act of Parliament in 2021. The CAQM was set up for better coordination, research, identification and resolution of problems surrounding air quality and connected issues. It initially had 15 members, comprising officials, past and present, of the environment ministry and other departments of the Union government, as well as officials of various State governments, and representatives from NGOs and other agencies. The CAQM is now headed by Rajesh Verma and there are 27 members.
Also Read: Is Delhi becoming an uninhabitable city? | Explained
The CAQM replaced the EPCA (Environmental Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority), which was formed in 1998 by the Supreme Court. However, the EPCA was not backed by a statute and experts had raised the issue that it lacked the teeth to act against authorities which did not follow its orders. Despite that drawback, it was under the EPCA that many of the measures being followed by the CAQM started, including the Graded Response Action Plan or GRAP, a list of temporary emergency measures to control air pollution.
What are the powers of CAQM?
Under the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021, the CAQM was given the power to take all measures, issue directions and entertain complaints, as it deems necessary, for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of air in the NCR and adjoining areas. Under Section 14 of the Act, the CAQM can initiate stringent actions against officers for not following its orders.
Why did the SC pull up the CAQM?
Over the years, the Supreme Court which has been hearing an ongoing case on air pollution, has pulled up different governments and agencies for their laxity. On September 27, Justice A.S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih orally observed about CAQM: “Like pollution, your directions are in the air.” The court was referring to various stakeholders not following the CAQM’s orders despite specific provisions under the 2021 Act. “There has been total non-compliance of the Act. Please show us a single direction issued to any stakeholder under the Act... We are of the view that though the Commission has taken steps, it needs to be more active. The Commission must ensure that its efforts and directions issued actually translate into reducing the problem of pollution,” the Bench observed. On November 18, the Supreme Court slammed the CAQM for delayed action while directing stringent curbs under Stage IV of the GRAP and noted that rather than taking pre-emptive action to contain air pollution, it waited in vain for the air to improve. Stage IV is the highest level of restrictions under GRAP, and according to the CAQM’s rules, it is supposed to be implemented when the air quality category is likely to fall to ‘severe plus’, and is likely to remain in that level for three or more days. The court pulled up the CAQM for delaying implementation of curbs though the AQI had slipped to the ‘severe plus’ category.
Is the CAQM to blame for Delhi’s pollution?
Though the CAQM makes plans and coordinates with different agencies, it is the agencies that have to implement them on the ground.
An official of the CAQM said the commission has improved coordination and planning. “For example, though the paddy stubble burning, which is a source of severe pollution, happens in October-November, we start meeting State officials from February and continue talks till the season is over,” the member said. The CAQM had also coordinated with Punjab and Haryana to prepare action plans for controlling stubble burning in 2022 and it is updated every year.
About challenges that the commission faces, the official said, “Over the years, though we were looking at different sources of pollution and trying to control them, our main focus was on controlling stubble burning. But from now onwards, we will try to focus on multiple areas. We will be putting more energy and time on controlling dust and vehicular pollution too.”
Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, Centre for Science and Environment, said that the decision to impose GRAP should be taken proactively by the CAQM. Pollution forecasting methods have to be more accurate, she added.
About CAQM being pulled up by the court for not making sure that the commission’s orders are not followed, she said that before taking action on officers, the CAQM should work with different State governments to work out the specific time bound targets to be achieved in different sectors. “Then identify gaps in actions and ensure proper strategy development, and resource allocation have been done and accordingly track implementation. If the action is still not on track then the action can be taken. But it is more important to focus on enabling action at ground level,” she said.
Published - November 24, 2024 05:20 am IST
