Following alarming levels of air pollution in Delhi, comparisons to Chinese cities have become a winter ritual, with fleeting attention from the media, the public and the state. But once the AQI settled at around 200, still considered an “unhealthy” or “very poor” level by global standards, the Supreme Court eased restrictions, and life returned to normal. That is, until the next serious pollution strikes.
More than a decade ago, in a familiar flow of events in Beijing, rapid industrialization, urbanization and motorization, accompanied by severe air pollution, accompanied climatic conditions. The famous “blue sky of Beijing” became a rare sight. The AQI in Beijing is now around 25, much higher than the 500+ number in November 2009. Beijing’s pollution control strategies include banning the construction of new coal-fired plants. Among the targeted areas, the transition to renewable energy, provision of greenways for pedestrians and cyclists, improved transparency in traffic control measures and air quality data reporting, among others.
To address this issue, the Delhi government has also put in place similar measures, including a Graded Action Response Plan. However, over the years, these steps have proved insufficient. Beijing needs to understand why Delhi has failed to control air pollution successfully.
In the popular imagination, the turnabout in China was only possible because of an authoritarian form of government that allowed for rapid and centralized policies to address environmental problems. In contrast, after decades of weak environmental governance, the Chinese government needed catalysts for change in its approach. Three in particular: concerns about international reputation, civic activism and political will. During and after China hosted the 2008 Olympics, Beijing’s poor air quality received widespread international attention. Once the US Embassy in Beijing began live-tweeting AQI, it generated a great deal of public discussion on social media platforms such as Weibo, to the extent that it threatened the legitimacy of the ruling party.
This led to a shift from a decentralized, ad hoc approach to centralized mechanisms under new leadership. The State Council’s 2013 Air Pollution Prevention Action Plan provided a list of air pollution control measures and targets that were supported by central direct expenditure and dedicated transfers to local governments. Furthermore, to ensure the implementation of the targets, a major innovation of Chinese efforts was the “target responsibility system”, where the promotion of local officials and enterprise managers was linked to the achievement of pollution control and energy saving targets. Thus, under this system, local provincial authorities became accountable to their jurisdictions, even though the central government was the coordinating body.
Learning from Beijing’s experience, Delhi needs a combination of short- and long-term measures that leverage India’s democratic governance model. First, the lack of coordination between the central and state governments has further emphasized shifting the blame for the current crisis. Given the multi-faceted nature of the problem, an independent nodal agency with state and city-level branches that can coordinate among various ministries can mitigate the alignment challenge. Moreover, imposing bans and ad hoc restrictions alone does not lead to public benefit, there is a need for strict enforcement of regulations. Earlier this year, the Center set up a new coordination committee in eight states and union territories in the Indo-Gangetic plain. Little is known about the efforts and results of this committee. Currently, there is a lack of clarity as to which agency is responsible for these measures. Measurable targets and diligent implementation by designated authority is the need of the hour.
Second, India’s decentralized governance system offers the benefit of consultation and citizen engagement to understand and balance local needs. Along with centralized coordination, urban local bodies need to be empowered with more decision-making power, funding and incentives. The expertise and ground-level experience of a strong network of environmental NGOs and research institutes can be used by urban bodies to formulate specific action plans. Furthermore, in urban planning, public authorities should adopt a more comprehensive approach that equates environmental concerns such as pollution with issues of housing, clean water, infrastructure development, etc.
So far, clean air campaigns have been guided by civil society groups and public litigation in the Supreme Court. Targeted funding is essential for pollution control schemes, but citizen participation can go a long way to ensure proper utilization. The example of Beijing shows how the reach of social media can be used to achieve policy change. Clear implementation and separation of powers should be strengthened through efforts to build citizen accountability from elected representatives and administrative officials. By making citizen activism electorally relevant, it aims to spread public awareness about pollution and its ill effects on health beyond the upper middle class. Creating new public awareness campaigns or including air pollution under the LiFE program and Swachh Bharat Mission can facilitate these efforts.
It is also important to note that while showing initial success, the Chinese government’s “one knife cuts all perspectives” has raised questions of social justice, fairness, citizens’ privacy rights, etc. This aggressive campaign mode was planned and executed effectively. In the short term, PM 2.5 levels in the city of Beijing decreased by 35.6 percent between 2013 and 2018. In the long run, this approach is unsustainable and the disparity between Beijing and other regions widens. The social and human costs of reducing air pollution in Beijing have come from surrounding regions such as Hebei, which has suffered from a winter heating crisis due to its aggressive pursuit of an energy transition away from coal. Furthermore, rural areas in China that are severely polluted lack both information about air quality and financial resources to address the problem. Such challenges highlight weaknesses in what sociologist Xuefei Ren calls a “regional approach” to solving problems that cross administrative boundaries.
India today is different from what it was 10 years ago, which offers policymakers an opportunity to put catalysts into action. As India strives to emerge as a global leader, attract foreign investment and talent, and build its international reputation, it will have to create livable cities. Being a democratic nation does not mean that India cannot effectively address the problem of air pollution. However, policy-making alone does not guarantee effectiveness if there are implementation gaps and lack of participation. The Beijing experience gives us lessons on what works and what doesn’t.
Jargad is a research analyst and Associate Fellow at the Ramamurthy Center for Social and Economic Progress. Views are personal
Why should you buy our membership?
You want to be the smartest in the room.
You want access to our award-winning journalism.
You don’t want to be confused and misinformed.
Choose your subscription package