Making air less toxic: Why has Delhi failed and Beijing succeeded?

More than a decade ago, in a familiar flow of events in Beijing, rapid industrialisation, urbanisation and motorisation, along with meteorological conditions caused severe air pollution. The famed “blue skies of Beijing” became a rare sight.The AQI in Beijing is now is around 25, a far cry from the 500+ figure in November 2009. Strategies to curb pollution in Beijing included prohibition on construction on new coal fired plants in target areas, transition to renewable energy, provision of greenways for pedestrians and cyclists, traffic control measures and improved transparency in air quality data reporting, among others.

To tackle the issue, the Delhi government has also put in place similar measures including the Graded Action Response Plan. However, as seen year on year, these steps have proved insufficient. This requires understanding why Delhi has failed when Beijing successfully curbed air pollution.

In popular imagination, the turnabout in China was possible only because of the authoritarian form of government which allowed for quick and centralised policies to address environmental issues. On the contrary, after decades of weak environmental governance, catalysts were needed for a change in the Chinese government’s approach. Three stand out particularly: Concerns about international reputation, citizen activism and political will. During and after China hosted the 2008 Olympics, there was widespread international attention on Beijing’s poor air quality. Once the US Embassy in Beijing started tweeting live AQI, it generated a huge public discussion on social media platforms like Weibo, to the extent of threatening the ruling party’s legitimacy.

This catapulted a shift from a decentralised, ad-hoc approach to centralised mechanisms under the new leadership. The State Council’s 2013 Air Pollution Prevention Action Plan provided a list of air pollution control measures and targets which were backed by direct expenditures by the Centre as well as dedicated transfers to the local government. Further, to ensure implementation of the targets, a major innovation of the Chinese efforts was the “Target Responsibility System”, where the promotion of the local officials and enterprise managers was tied to achievement of pollution control and energy saving targets. Thus, even while the central government was the coordinating authority, under this system, local territorial authorities became accountable for their jurisdictions.

While learning from Beijing’s experience, Delhi needs a combination of short and long-term measures that leverage India’s democratic governance model. First, coordination between the central and state governments has been lacking with more emphasis on shifting the blame for the current crisis. Given the multifaceted nature of the problem, an independent nodal agency with state and city level branches that can coordinate between different ministries might alleviate the alignment challenge. Further, merely imposing bans and ad-hoc restrictions will not lead to public gains, there is a need for stricter enforcement of regulations. Earlier this year, the Centre established a new coordination committee across eight states and union territories in the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Little is known about the efforts and outcomes of this committee. Currently, there is lack of clarity over which agency is responsible for these measures. Measurable targets and diligent enforcement by a set authority is the need of the hour.

Second, India’s decentralised mode of governance offers the benefit of consultations and citizen engagement to understand and balance local needs. Alongside centralised coordination, urban local bodies need to be empowered with more decision-making power, funding and incentives. The expertise and ground level experience of the robust network of environmental NGOs and research institutes can be utilised by urban bodies to formulate specific plans of action. Further, in urban planning, public officials need to adopt a more comprehensive approach that puts environmental concerns like pollution at par with issues of housing, clean water, infrastructure development, etc.

Until now, the campaign for clean air has been directed by civil society groups and by public litigation in the Supreme Court. Targeted funding for pollution control plans is essential, but citizen participation can go a long way in ensuring the right utilisation. Beijing’s example shows how the reach of social media can be harnessed to achieve policy change. Enforcement and clear division of power have to be bolstered by efforts to build up citizen accountability from the elected representatives as well as administrative officials. Civilian activism can be further aimed at spreading public awareness about pollution and its ill effects on health beyond the upper middle classes, making it electorally relevant. Creating new public awareness campaigns or including air pollution under the LiFE programme and Swachh Bharat Mission can facilitate these efforts.

It is also important to note that while displaying initial success, the “one knife cuts all approach” of the Chinese government has raised questions of social justice, fairness, citizens’ privacy rights, etc. This aggressive campaign mode planning and implementation was effective in the short term and Beijing city’s PM 2.5 level dropped by 35.6 percent between 2013 and 2018. In the long term, this approach is unsustainable and has led to widened disparities between Beijing and other regions. Reducing air pollution in Beijing has come at social and human costs from surrounding areas like Hebei, which suffered from a winter heating crisis due to aggressive pursuit of energy transition away from coal. Further, rural areas in China which are severely polluted lack both information about air quality as well as financial resources to tackle the problem. Challenges like these highlight the deficiencies in what sociologist Xuefei Ren calls the “territorial approach” to solve problems that transcend administrative boundaries.

Today’s India is different from 10 years ago, providing an opportunity to put in place catalysts that will make policymakers act. As India attempts to emerge as a global leader, attract foreign investment and talent and build up its international reputation, it will have to create liveable cities. Being a democratic nation doesn’t necessarily imply that India cannot effectively tackle its air pollution woes. However, mere policy making does not guarantee effectiveness if there is an implementation gap and participation deficit. The Beijing experience provides us with lessons of what works and what doesn’t.

Jargad is a Research Analyst and Ramamurthi is an Associate Fellow at Centre for Social and Economic Progress. Views are personal