Assessment of Air Pollution in Indian Cities

AIR PO CALY

ASSESSMENT OF AIR POLLUTION PSE II IN INDIAN CITIES CONTENT The PM 1. Introduction 4 2. Methodology 6 OR PARTICULATE data for these cities is being made 3. Inference and Analysis 7 MATTER available here upto as late as the year 3.1 Andhra Pradesh 8 2016 and in some cases until 2015. 3.2 Assam 9 3.3 Himachal Pradesh 10 3.4 Goa 11 SUMMARY 3.5 Gujarat 12 The report now in your hands brings together and highlights data vis-à-vis air quality for 3.6 Madhya Pradesh 13 no less than 280 Indian cities spread across the country. Sadly, in many cases this is 3.7 Maharashtra 14 going from bad to worse, and without much sign of a let up in near future unless the Government and people join hands to fight this fast approaching airpocalypse. 3.8 Odisha 15 3.9 Rajasthan 16 The PMɼɻ, or particulate matter, data for these cities is available here up to the year 2016 and in some cases until 2015. The data shows 228 (more than 80% of the 3.10 Uttar Pradesh 17 cities/town where Air Quality Monitoring data was available) cities, have not been 3.11 Uttarakhand 18 complying with the annual permissible concentration of 60µg/m³ which is prescribed by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) under the National Ambient Air Quality 3.12 West Bengal 19 Standards (NAAQS). And none of the cities have been found to adhere to the standard 3.13 Bihar 20 set by the World Health Organization (WHO) at 20 µg/m³. Thus, all these cities without a single exception are going beyond the permissible limit supposed to be followed 3.14 Haryana 21 internationally to stay within the safe limits for the sake of human health as well as the 3.15 Delhi 22 environment. 3.16 Karnataka 23 Even if we assume that the present number of manual air quality monitoring stations 3.17 Telangana 24 represents the air quality for the entire population in the district, the data in the report covered 280 cities with a population of 630 million, or 53% of the total population, 3.18 Tamil Nadu 25 leaving out only 20 districts where air quality was monitored under NAMP, but we could 3.19 Punjab 26 not get access to the data. 3.20 Kerala 27 Out of the 630 million Indians covered by the data, 550 million live in areas exceeding national standard for PMɼɻ, and 180 million live in areas where the air pollution levels 4. Air Pollution Monitoring 29 network and exposure are more than twice the stipulated standards. This includes 47 million children under 5 years of age, living in areas where the standard is exceeded and 17 million in areas 5. Way Forward 31 where the air pollution levels are more than twice the stipulated standards. Apart from this, 580 million Indians live in districts with no air quality data available, including 59 6. Comparison of facts on air pollution 32 million children under 5 years of age. across the world 7. Appendix-I: PMɼɻ Levels across 35 Thick smog and haze have been hovering across northern India indicating that bad air India (Annual Average 2016/2015) is not confined to big cities alone. It's not seasonal, toxic air is engulfing our spaces - urban and rural equally, the urgency on deteriorating air quality cannot be stressed Airpocalypse II: Assessment of enough. Air Pollution in Indian Cities

Written by The report like its previous counterpart - released a year ago - shows once again that Harshit Sharma, Greenpeace deadly air quality due to pollution is not a problem confined to Delhi-NCR (National Lauri Myllyvirta, Greenpeace Capital Region) alone. Other metropolises too are hardly any better off, though this fact Sunil Dahiya, Greenpeace was also highlighted in the last report on air quality. Thus, it would be safe to say that pollution levels remained high in most cities with some fluctuations, increases or Acknowledgements Nandikesh Sivalingam, Abid Shah, Ruhie Kumar decreases, in the case of a few cities when compared from 2015 levels. In the absence of any measurable target-driven approach on the part of state and central government Design agencies, it is difficult to say that the improvement in air quality in a few cities is Penmi Rungsung, Greenpeace actually due to weather or behavioural changes in local sources of pollution, or due to Published by GPET, released in January 2018 action initiated under the clean air policy that the government is supposed to enforce. For more information, contact: [email protected]

Fire rages on in the fields, covering the sky in a thick Printed on 100% recycled paper blanket of smoke, Panipat, Haryana. © Saagnik Paul / Greenpeace

2 CONTENT The PM 1. Introduction 4 2. Methodology 6 OR PARTICULATE data for these cities is being made 3. Inference and Analysis 7 MATTER available here upto as late as the year 3.1 Andhra Pradesh 8 2016 and in some cases until 2015. 3.2 Assam 9 3.3 Himachal Pradesh 10 3.4 Goa 11 SUMMARY 3.5 Gujarat 12 The report now in your hands brings together and highlights data vis-à-vis air quality for 3.6 Madhya Pradesh 13 no less than 280 Indian cities spread across the country. Sadly, in many cases this is 3.7 Maharashtra 14 going from bad to worse, and without much sign of a let up in near future unless the Government and people join hands to fight this fast approaching airpocalypse. 3.8 Odisha 15 3.9 Rajasthan 16 The PMɼɻ, or particulate matter, data for these cities is available here up to the year 2016 and in some cases until 2015. The data shows 228 (more than 80% of the 3.10 Uttar Pradesh 17 cities/town where Air Quality Monitoring data was available) cities, have not been 3.11 Uttarakhand 18 complying with the annual permissible concentration of 60µg/m³ which is prescribed by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) under the National Ambient Air Quality 3.12 West Bengal 19 Standards (NAAQS). And none of the cities have been found to adhere to the standard 3.13 Bihar 20 set by the World Health Organization (WHO) at 20 µg/m³. Thus, all these cities without a single exception are going beyond the permissible limit supposed to be followed 3.14 Haryana 21 internationally to stay within the safe limits for the sake of human health as well as the 3.15 Delhi 22 environment. 3.16 Karnataka 23 Even if we assume that the present number of manual air quality monitoring stations 3.17 Telangana 24 represents the air quality for the entire population in the district, the data in the report covered 280 cities with a population of 630 million, or 53% of the total population, 3.18 Tamil Nadu 25 leaving out only 20 districts where air quality was monitored under NAMP, but we could 3.19 Punjab 26 not get access to the data. 3.20 Kerala 27 Out of the 630 million Indians covered by the data, 550 million live in areas exceeding national standard for PMɼɻ, and 180 million live in areas where the air pollution levels 4. Air Pollution Monitoring 29 network and exposure are more than twice the stipulated standards. This includes 47 million children under 5 years of age, living in areas where the standard is exceeded and 17 million in areas 5. Way Forward 31 where the air pollution levels are more than twice the stipulated standards. Apart from this, 580 million Indians live in districts with no air quality data available, including 59 6. Comparison of facts on air pollution 32 million children under 5 years of age. across the world 7. Appendix-I: PM10 Levels across 35 Thick smog and haze have been hovering across northern India indicating that bad air India (Annual Average 2016/2015) is not confined to big cities alone. It's not seasonal, toxic air is engulfing our spaces - urban and rural equally, the urgency on deteriorating air quality cannot be stressed Airpocalypse II: Assessment of enough. Air Pollution in Indian Cities

Fire rages on in the fields, covering the sky in a thick Printed on 100% recycled paper blanket of smoke, Panipat, Haryana. © Saagnik Paul / Greenpeace

2 INTRODUCTION

Delhi still remains the top-most polluted city followed by many more towns like nearby Faridabad and Bhiwadi and far off Dehradun, Varanasi, and Patna. These towns are A year ago, in January 2017 to be precise, Greenpeace India strewn along the fertile and heavily populated Indo-Gangetic basin. Together these The current edition of released the report Airpocalypse: Assessment of Air Pollution critically polluted cities point to not just the need for long-term action plans but also cry in Indian Cities. The main purpose of this report was to show for a strict emergency response in an immediate, short-term and time-bound manner to the report has annual that air pollution is a growing national problem and it needs bring pollution levels down drastically and ward off an impending health and economic PMɼɻ levels for 280 to be addressed with equal and utmost seriousness at a emergency. Though a graded response action plan (GRAP) for Delhi-NCR region has countrywide level and not only in Delhi or the National been notified, the implementation of it remains disappointingly poor. The long-term cities and towns Capital Region as mostly has so far been the case. The action plan for Delhi-NCR is still being discussed, leaving the rest of the country virtually report also tried to identify major sources of pollution in in the cold. This is despite the fact that the CPCB has sent notices to many states to across the country as different parts of the country based on past research and come up with action plans to bring pollution levels down. As we will see in the following available data. While trying to show a way forward for the pages of this report, most pollution control boards lack the capacity and understanding compared to the 168 nation through applicability of our long-term goals to solve of how to even draft meaningful policies to curb air pollution. cities in the earlier the air pollution crisis at the all-India level, an emphasis on the short-term solutions based on the extent, degree and Unlike in the North many cities in the southern part of the country may not need version. levels of pollution afflicting specific regions in acute form emergency response plans but most of them do need long term action plans to bring were provided in the report. pollution levels down below NAAQS limits and aim to meet WHO standards for air quality. This year the second version of the “Airpocalypse” report has updated data for the year 2016 for approximately 158 What is palpably clear is that none of the cities/states have measurable targets aimed at cities. And wherever data was not available for 2016, older reducing pollution levels. Most actions suggested untill now are just initiatives on paper data from 2015 is used for the purpose of assessing where that have no monitoring mechanism to achieve their estimated benefit through the our cities stand in terms of air quality. implementation of targeted policies. The good news is that the central government has formulated a National Clean Air Programme (NCAP). This is supposed to seek and Severe air pollution has been disrupting everyday life in ensure source-wise solutions in a time-bound manner for the entire country. Though the India. This is more so in big cities during the winter though government has almost doubled the number of real-time monitoring stations spread smaller cities and the villages forming the periphery of many across the country it has a long way to go to ensure clean and safe air to ward off the cities can hardly be said to be any better off. In 2015 air hazards faced by the country and its people. pollution (PM ) levels in India increased so rapidly that they overtook those in China. This was one of the highlights of An action plan should have the following components: our report last year and this continues to be so this year. Pollution levels are increasing across the country and it is 1. Institute robust monitoring of air quality across the country and make the The need is to act more worrying in north India where its impact on health is data publicly available in real time. This should be coupled with a health advisory feared to be rampant. Notwithstanding the alarming air and ‘red alerts’ for bad-air days so that the public is able to take steps to protect as a country and pollution levels across the country the emphasis so far has their health and the environment. Measures like shutting down schools, reduction reach across cities more been on the Delhi-NCR region. This is despite the of traffic, shutting down power plants and industries etc should automatically acceptance of the fact that the major part of Delhi’s pollution come into force as soon as air quality deteriorates beyond a level and takes and regional is coming from outside its borders, meaning neighbouring alarming proportions. states cannot said to be in the safe zone. So much so that FRQðQHVWRFRQWURO pollution levels in other states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West 2. Use the data as a basis tofine-tune pollution reduction strategies that must, Bengal, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra are also inter alia seek to improve public transport and reduce petrol/diesel vehicle use, pollution and its increasing quite a bit. strengthen enforcement to take polluting vehicles off the roads, introduce higher fuel standards (Bharat VI), enforce stricter emission regulations and improved sources. The recent submission by the Honorable Minister for efficiency for thermal power plants and industries, move from diesel generators to Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Dr Harshvardhan, rooftop solar power backup, increase use of clean, renewable energy, offer in the Rajya Sabha that the MOEF&CC has prepared a incentives for electric vehicles, dust removal from roads, regulate construction National Clean Air Programme, strengthens the argument activities and stop burning of biomass and waste. and the fact that air pollution is posing a national health emergency today. However, the country is yet to come to These strategies should be formalised into a time-bound action plan with clearly defined terms with the fact that air pollution is a national problem. targets and penalties to ensure accountability. While some actions might need to be city Our actions outside Delhi-NCR still seem to be to city or region-specific, these are going to be under a broad range of actions that will be boundary specific and missing the regional nature and universally applicable. proportions of pollution. Such a selective approach cannot be effective in tackling the health emergency that rampant air Public participation is critical in reducing air pollution along with centralised actions and pollution has come to pose. We as a country today have to policies rolled out by the Government at national and regional levels. understand air pollution comprehensively and have to win the fight against it.

4 INTRODUCTION

4 METHODOLOGY

The extent of air pollution in India is turning into a public The Central Pollution Control Board has instituted the National Air Quality Monitoring Programme health and economic crisis. There are increasing numbers (NAMP). Under the NAMP, three air pollutants viz., Sulphur Dioxide (SO ), Nitrogen Dioxide (NOɽ) of people who die a premature death every year due to and Particulate Matter size equal to or less than 10 micron (PMɼɻ), have been identified for regular increasing levels of pollution. Deaths due to air pollution are monitoring at all the locations. The NAMP network presently comprises 683 operating monitoring only a fraction less than the number of deaths caused by stations located in 300 cities/towns in 29 states and 6 union territories across the country. tobacco usage. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD), a comprehensive regional and global research programme Greenpeace India tried to collect data on PMɼɻ levels for these NAMP stations spread across the with 500 researchers representing over 300 institutions and country (because the data for PM was limited to very few cities and places which would not have 50 countries, has estimated that 3,283 Indians died every been enough to see the extent of the spread of pollution levels across much of the country) through single day due to outdoor air pollution in India in 2015. This various sources such as Right to Information (RTI) applications filed with the SPCB (State Pollution brings the number of deaths due to air pollution in the Control Boards) to gather data, SPCBs’ websites and annual reports of SPCBs and from ENVIS country in 2015 to 11.98 lakh. On the economic front, loss Centre on Control of Pollution Water, Air and Noise etc. of productivity and the forced closures of schools and industries have already started impacting the economy. The There are lots of challenges with respect to relying on government data on air quality due to various World Bank estimates that India loses around 3% of its factors. The primary one being the majority of the measurements are taken manually making the GDP due to air pollution. This makes air pollution one of the data quality very subjective. The other factors are the location of monitoring stations and data biggest issues to fight if we are to protect peoples’ lives, collection from them in the case of far flung and remote areas. These often become dysfunctional ensure public health and save the economy. for long periods of time making the average values somewhat skewed. Industrial clusters like Korba in Chhattisgah and Cuddalore in Tamil Nadu show PM levels below NAAQS possibly because of Air pollution is a complex issue, requiring an array of such factors. solutions. There are many sources that contribute to pollution across the country. Depending on region and The data is definitely useful to prove that air quality is poor across the country in almost all states climatic conditions, the contribution of different sources of by the government’s own readings and to prove the need to expand real time air quality monitoring pollution add up to the overall scourge of pollution. This to standardise the reading across the country. stretches over vast parts of the country though it is quite clear that irrespective of where you live, burning of fossil fuels (coal and oil) contributes majorly to air pollution levels across regions.

PRESENTLY COMPRISES 683 The NAMP OPERATING MONITORING STATIONS LOCATED IN 300 network CITIES/TOWNS IN 29 STATES AND 6 UNION TERRITORIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

Brick kilns, also a major source of pollution. Western The Rashtrapathi Bhavan behind a blanket of haze Uttar Pradesh. and smog at Rajpath, New Delhi. © Saagnik Paul / Greenpeace © Subrata Biswas/ Greenpeace

6 METHODOLOGY

PRESENTLY COMPRISES 683 The NAMP OPERATING MONITORING STATIONS LOCATED IN 300 network CITIES/TOWNS IN 29 STATES AND 6 UNION TERRITORIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

6 ANDHRA PRADESH TIRUPATI DEC WHO NOV WHO KAKINADA T

VIZIAGANAGARAM O VISAKAPATNAM NAAQS SRIKAKULAM

SEP

NAAQS VIJAYAWADA TIRUPATI KADAPA G U A E

G SRIKAKULAM L U J VERA

A GUNTUR N ONGOLE RAJAHMUNDRY U RAJAHMUNDRY J VIZIAGANAGARAM

2016 NELLORE Y A

MONTH

M KURNOOL ELURU CITIES E G APR

ONGOLE

KAKINADA VERA KADAPA A MAR

CHITOOR GUNTUR B VISAKAPATNAM E 2015

8 ELURU NELLORE M N A A

J CHITTOOR

levels across Andhra Pradesh during 2015 & 2016 levels across Andhra Pradesh during 2015 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 ANANTAPUR 0 0 NANTPUR 0 2 4 8 6 0 0 1 2 4 8 6 120 0 A KURNOOL VIJAYAWADA 1 120 1 M Three cities i.e. Anantapur, Vijaywada and Vizianagram recorded PMɼɻ levels above the daily standard of 100 µg/m for about three months consecutively. Monthly patterns also show variation in months with peak pollution levels in different cities. Vizianagram had peak PMɼɻ levels between July and October, while Anantpur and Vijayawada had peak levels between April and November. Similarly PMɼɻ levels were consistently ranging between 70 µg/m to 90 µg/m throughout the year for Guntur and Visakhapatnam. Vizianagaram recorded the highest PMɼɻ levels for a given month in the state with values breaching the 130 µg/m level in October 2016, while Vijayawada had the highest annual average for PMɼɻ where annual PMɼɻ levels were about 1.7 times the NAAQS prescribed annual standard and 5 times the WHO annual Standard. Annual PMɼɻ average for 2016 for Vijayawada, Guntur, Vizianagaram, Anantapur, and Visakhapatnam were 101, 88, 86, 85 and 77 respectively. data for the year 2016 was obtained from 25 ɼɻ data for the year 2016 Monthly average PM cities and stations installed across 15 ambient air quality-monitoring towns in Andhra Pradesh. of all the 15 cities had higher concentrations The data indicates that ³) PMɼɻ[OHU[OLHUU\HSH]LYHNLSL]LSZWYLZJYPILKI`*7*)ɤNT at least three times more polluted air compared and all of them had seems to standard for PMɼɻ. The pollution level to the WHO annual for 2015 and 2016 with small increases be consistent between for Vizinagaram along with a slight decrease Visakhapatnam and and Eluru but the decrease is Guntur, Kurnool, Vijayawada levels to what is required to bring pollution insignificant compared Indian standards levels, down to breathable air quality as per the leaving aside the WHO standards.

Monthly Average PM levels across Andhra Pradesh during 2016 10 µ 10

M P ) M G/

( ) M P M / MG (

3 3 ƄJP³ ANDHRA PRADESH (ANNUAL NAAQS STANDARD FOR PM) FOR ALMOST EVERY month meaning consistent high levels of air pollution around the year. Except Kurnool and Tirupati (BETWEEN JUNE TO SEPTEMBER) ALL OTHER CITIES RECORDED PM LEVELS ABOVE 60 Out of 280 cities for which the PMɼɻ data was Out of 280 cities for 2016, 228 (> 80 % of the available for 2015 or Air Quality Monitoring data cities/towns where were not complying to the was available) cities 60 µg/m³ as prescribed by NAAQS standard of levels and none of CPCB for annual permissible to the WHO set annual the cities were complying ³. standard of 20 µg/m Action Plan to reduce Air Pollution Levels: between Based on the pollution levels for years Board 2011 and 2015 Central Pollution Control (CPCB) issued direction to states to formulate across action plans to reduce air pollution levels the 94 non-attainment cities spread across during country. These plans were to be made 2016 by the SPCBs/Pollution Control Committees (PCCs). The direction included control; specific actions for Vehicular emission re-suspension of road dust and other fugitive emission control; control of emissions from waste biomass/crop residue/garbage/municipal control burning; control of industrial emissions; of air pollution from construction and demolition pollution. activities and other steps to control air As per the directions the actions were required to be taken within a specific timeline, ranging from action on the directions within a week to six months. As per the update with us most of the pollution control boards forwarded the letter to the relevant departments for further actions. Apart from Delhi-NCR where a Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) has come into force and in Lucknow where the same plan has been copied for Lucknow city (on paper only - its implementation still seems to be a distant dream), no other city seems to be taking any action of any worth against the polluters. During 2017 Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) also ordered preparation of action plans for multiple cities reeling under pollution in the state. These are reported to be currently under preparation. So no real progress could be achieved vis-à-vis reducing the pollution levels in the cities of Maharashtra and the plan formulated thus far does not have a regional and comprehensive nature to control air pollution dogging many cities and regions of the state. None of the plans untill now seem to have time-bound targets or specified a percentage for the reduction in air pollution levels in a scheduled manner, say in two, three, or five years under the watch of a competent authority assigned to be responsible for the onerous task. 7

M ROSS C ND P IES A WHO Guideline NAAQS Guideline 1-1.25 times NAAQS 1.25-2 times NAAQS 2-3 times NAAQS 3-4 times NAAQS > 4 times NAAQS T I C LEVELS A INDIA

INFERENCE AND ANALYSIS INFERENCE Note: Map not to scale to not Map Note: ANDHRA PRADESH TIRUPATI DEC WHO NOV WHO KAKINADA T

VIZIAGANAGARAM O VISAKAPATNAM NAAQS SRIKAKULAM

SEP

NAAQS VIJAYAWADA TIRUPATI KADAPA G U A E

G SRIKAKULAM L U J VERA

A GUNTUR N ONGOLE RAJAHMUNDRY U RAJAHMUNDRY J VIZIAGANAGARAM

2016 NELLORE Y A

MONTH

M KURNOOL ELURU CITIES E G APR

ONGOLE

KAKINADA VERA KADAPA A MAR

CHITOOR GUNTUR B VISAKAPATNAM E 2015

8 ELURU NELLORE M N A A

J CHITTOOR

levels across Andhra Pradesh during 2015 & 2016 levels across Andhra Pradesh during 2015 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 ANANTAPUR 0 0 0 0 NANTPUR 0 2 4 8 6 0 0 1 2 4 8 6 120 0 A KURNOOL VIJAYAWADA 1 120

1 M Three cities i.e. Anantapur, Vijaywada and Vizianagram recorded PMɼɻ levels above the daily standard of 100 µg/m for about three months consecutively. Monthly patterns also show variation in months with peak pollution levels in different cities. Vizianagram had peak PMɼɻ levels between July and October, while Anantpur and Vijayawada had peak levels between April and November. Similarly PMɼɻ levels were consistently ranging between 70 µg/m to 90 µg/m throughout the year for Guntur and Visakhapatnam. Vizianagaram recorded the highest PMɼɻ levels for a given month in the state with values breaching the 130 µg/m level in October 2016, while Vijayawada had the highest annual average for PMɼɻ where annual PMɼɻ levels were about 1.7 times the NAAQS prescribed annual standard and 5 times the WHO annual Standard. Annual PMɼɻ average for 2016 for Vijayawada, Guntur, Vizianagaram, Anantapur, and Visakhapatnam were 101, 88, 86, 85 and 77 respectively. data for the year 2016 was obtained from 25 ɼɻ data for the year 2016 Monthly average PM cities and stations installed across 15 ambient air quality-monitoring towns in Andhra Pradesh. of all the 15 cities had higher concentrations The data indicates that ³) PMɼɻ[OHU[OLHUU\HSH]LYHNLSL]LSZWYLZJYPILKI`*7*)ɤNT at least three times more polluted air compared and all of them had seems to standard for PMɼɻ. The pollution level to the WHO annual for 2015 and 2016 with small increases be consistent between for Vizinagaram along with a slight decrease Visakhapatnam and and Eluru but the decrease is Guntur, Kurnool, Vijayawada levels to what is required to bring pollution insignificant compared Indian standards levels, down to breathable air quality as per the leaving aside the WHO standards.

P 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ Monthly Average PM levels across Andhra Pradesh during 2016

ƄJP³ ANDHRA PRADESH (ANNUAL NAAQS STANDARD FOR PM) FOR ALMOST EVERY month meaning consistent high levels of air pollution around the year. Except Kurnool and Tirupati (BETWEEN JUNE TO SEPTEMBER) ALL OTHER CITIES RECORDED PM LEVELS ABOVE 60 Action Plan to reduce Air Pollution Levels: between Based on the pollution levels for years Board 2011 and 2015 Central Pollution Control (CPCB) issued direction to states to formulate across action plans to reduce air pollution levels the 94 non-attainment cities spread across during country. These plans were to be made 2016 by the SPCBs/Pollution Control Committees (PCCs). The direction included control; specific actions for Vehicular emission re-suspension of road dust and other fugitive emission control; control of emissions from waste biomass/crop residue/garbage/municipal control burning; control of industrial emissions; of air pollution from construction and demolition pollution. activities and other steps to control air As per the directions the actions were required to be taken within a specific timeline, ranging from action on the directions within a week to six months. As per the update with us most of the pollution control boards forwarded the letter to the relevant departments for further actions. Apart from Delhi-NCR where a Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) has come into force and in Lucknow where the same plan has been copied for Lucknow city (on paper only - its implementation still seems to be a distant dream), no other city seems to be taking any action of any worth against the polluters. During 2017 Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) also ordered preparation of action plans for multiple cities reeling under pollution in the state. These are reported to be currently under preparation. So no real progress could be achieved vis-à-vis reducing the pollution levels in the cities of Maharashtra and the plan formulated thus far does not have a regional and comprehensive nature to control air pollution dogging many cities and regions of the state. None of the plans untill now seem to have time-bound targets or specified a percentage for the reduction in air pollution levels in a scheduled manner, say in two, three, or five years under the watch of a competent authority assigned to be responsible for the onerous task. Out of 280 cities for which the PMɼɻ data was Out of 280 cities for 2016, 228 (> 80 % of the available for 2015 or Air Quality Monitoring data cities/towns where were not complying to the was available) cities 60 µg/m³ as prescribed by NAAQS standard of levels and none of CPCB for annual permissible to the WHO set annual the cities were complying ³. standard of 20 µg/m 7

M ROSS C ND P IES A WHO Guideline NAAQS Guideline 1-1.25 times NAAQS 1.25-2 times NAAQS 2-3 times NAAQS 3-4 times NAAQS > 4 times NAAQS T I C LEVELS A INDIA

INFERENCE AND ANALYSIS INFERENCE Note: Map not to scale to not Map Note:

HIMACHAL PRADESH UNA

WHO

SUNDAR NAGAR SUNDAR NAAQS SHIMLA E

G PARWANOO VERA

A PAONTA SAHIB PAONTA

CITIES 2016

NALAGARH MANALI E G

VERA A AMB KALA 2015

DHARAMSHALA

DAMTAL BADDI levels across HIMACHAL Pradesh during 2015 & 2016 levels across HIMACHAL

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 8 6 4 0 120 1 1

M data for the year 2015 was available for 11 ɼɻ data for the year 2015 Monthly average PM that 7 Himachal Pradesh. The data indicates cities and towns of higher concentrations of PMɼɻ than the annual cities out of 11 had ³). H]LYHNLSL]LSZWYLZJYPILKI`*7*)ɤNT

P 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ in ƄJP³ PRADESH HIMACHAL

Kala Amb recorded the highest annual average PM levels in the state with values breaching 118 2015 while Paonta Sahib, Damtal, Baddi and Sunder Nagar followed with PM levels at 116, 104, 88 and 82 respectively.

WHO TINSUKIA TEZPUR

NAAQS SIVASAGAR SILCHER E

G NALBARI VERA

A NAGAON

2016 CITIES MARGHERITA

G LAKHIMPUR VERA GUWAHATI

A GOLAGHAT 2015

DIBRUGARH DARANGA levels across ASSAM during 2015 & 2016

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 4 8 6 0 4 BONGAIGAON 120 160

1 1 M

P 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ data for the year 2016 was obtained from 5 ɼɻ data for the year 2016 Monthly average PM stations installed across Guwahati ambient air quality-monitoring HUKKH[HMVY[V^UZJP[PLZ^HZHSZVH]HPSHISLMVY`LHY across Assam. 12 cities except Bongaigaon had higher The data indicates that levels prescribed ɼɻ than the annual average concentrations of PM at-least three times more ) and all of them had I`*7*)ɤNT³ PMɼɻ. to the WHO annual standard for polluted air as compared 2015 to be on the higher side between The pollution level seems where data for 2015 and 2016 was and 2016 for Guwahati available. in 2015

ASSAM ƄJP³

Nagaon recorded THE highest annual average PM levels in the state with values breaching 142 while Golaghat, Nalbari, Tinsukia, Margherita and Dibrugarh following with annual average PM levels at 124, 121, 119, 114 and 110 respectively. ASSAM

HIMACHAL PRADESH UNA

WHO

SUNDAR NAGAR SUNDAR

NAAQS SHIMLA PARWANOO

VERAGE PAONTA SAHIB PAONTA

CITIES A 2016

NALAGARH MANALI

VERAGE KALA AMB KALA A 2015

DHARAMSHALA

DAMTAL BADDI levels across HIMACHAL Pradesh during 2015 & 2016 levels across HIMACHAL

0 10 20 40 80 60 120 140 100

P 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ in ƄJP³ PRADESH HIMACHAL

TINSUKIA TEZPUR

NAAQS WHO SIVASAGAR

SILCHER NALBARI

VERAGE NAGAON

A 2016 CITIES

MARGHERITA

LAKHIMPUR

VERAGE GUWAHATI GOLAGHAT A 2015

DIBRUGARH DARANGA levels across ASSAM during 2015 & 2016

0 10

20 40 80 60 BONGAIGAON 160 120

140 100 M

P 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ data for the year 2016 was obtained from 5 ɼɻ data for the year 2016 Monthly average PM stations installed across Guwahati ambient air quality-monitoring HUKKH[HMVY[V^UZJP[PLZ^HZHSZVH]HPSHISLMVY`LHY across Assam. 12 cities except Bongaigaon had higher The data indicates that levels prescribed ɼɻ than the annual average concentrations of PM at-least three times more I`*7*)ɤNT³) and all of them had PMɼɻ. to the WHO annual standard for polluted air as compared 2015 to be on the higher side between The pollution level seems where data for 2015 and 2016 was and 2016 for Guwahati available. in 2015

ASSAM ƄJP³

SURAT O BHAVNAGAR BHAVNAGAR

SEP VAPI G NAAQS

U VATVA/AHMEDABAD A SARIGAM

L VADODARA

U SURAT BHARUCH J G N

VERA U SARIGAM J A SANAND

Y SANAND A BARODA 2016 CITIES WHO M

MONTH RAJKOT

APR RAJKOT E MORBI G NAAQS MAR VERA

A JAMNAGAR BHUJ ANKLESHWAR MORBI FEB 2015

VATVA BHARUCH

JAN16 ANKLESHWAR AHMEDABAD VAPI JAMNAGAR DEC15 levels across Gujarat during 2015 & 2016 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 4 8 6 0

0 1 2 AHMEDABAD 4 8 6 140 120 0 1 120 1 M

data for 14 cities and towns in Gujarat, for the period Monthly PMɼɻ data for 14 cities and 61 November 2016, was obtained from of December 2015 to stations run by state pollution control board manual monitoring under various programmes. higher levels from this data indicates Assessment of air pollution under annual standard, prescribed PMɼɻ levels than the 60 µg/m had and towns while nine of these fourteen NAAQS, for all 14 cities daily standard of levels higher than the annual average PMɼɻ prescribed limit particularly between 100µg/m , staying above the and February. the months of August across 61 locations in 14 A general observation of the data spread variation with average cities and towns indicates a lower spatial between 90 µg/m to PMɼɻ values for the 12-month period ranging 110 µg/m . Ahmedabad had the highest PMɼɻ levels, both annual and peak levels, with annual average at 107 µg/m and peak levels reaching 127 µg/m during October 2016. PM10 levels for some major cities such as Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Bharuch, Bhavnagar, Bhuj, Jamnagar, Rajkot, Surat and Vapi are 107, 102, 100, 91, 103, 93, 92, 93 and 102 µg/m respectively.

Monthly Average PM levels across Gujarat for 2016 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ GUJARAT The Pollution level seems to be on an increasing trend between 2015 and 2016 with all cities recording higher pollution levels in 2016 compared to 2015. USGAO APR HONDA MAR FEB SANGUEM JAN E G CURCHOREM DEC VERA A CODLI NOV 2016 QUEPEM-TILAMOL WHO OCT MONTH GOA CITY E G SEP BICHOLIM PONDA VERA NAAQS A AUG 2015 TUEM JUL MARAGAO 11 ASSANORA JUN levels across Goa during 2015 & 2016-17 (May 2016-April 2017) levels across Goa during

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 May16 0 1 AMONA KUNDAIM CUNCOLIM 0 0 1 2 7 6 5 4 3 5

150 100 250 P 200

30̄̃ ƄJPĠ 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ Honda and Usgao with their respective average monthly PMɼɻ Honda and Usgao with their respective 2017 as 205 and 136 levels measured during the month of April during this period. registered the highest amongst other stations The data from 14 manual monitoring stations installed across Goa monitoring stations installed across The data from 14 manual 14 stations were breaching the annual shows that 10 out of The annual ³) prescribed by CPCB. average PMɼɻSL]LSɤNT 2016 to April 2017 was more average PMɼɻ for Goa between May and it annual standard prescribed by the WHO than three times the pollution levels compared to 2015 annual showed increasing average. levels across Goa between May 2016 to April 2017 Monthly Average PM levels across Goa between May 2016 to

for a GOA ƄJP³

Six stations installed at Amona, Bicholin, Codli, Honda, Ponda and Usgao had average PM10 levels above 100 continuous stretch of three to four months in 2016-17. GOA GUJARAT BHUJ NOV WHO

SURAT OCT BHAVNAGAR BHAVNAGAR

SEP VAPI

NAAQS

VATVA/AHMEDABAD AUG

SARIGAM

VADODARA SURAT BHARUCH JUL

VERAGE

SARIGAM JUN

SANAND SANAND A 2016 CITIES WHO MAY

MONTH RAJKOT

APR MORBI NAAQS MAR

VERAGE

JAMNAGAR BHUJ ANKLESHWAR BARODA MORBI RAJKOT FEB A 2015

VATVA BHARUCH

JAN16 ANKLESHWAR AHMEDABAD JAMNAGAR VAPI DEC15 levels across Gujarat during 2015 & 2016

20 40 80 60

0 10 20 AHMEDABAD 40 80 60 120 140 100 120 100 M

A general observation of the data spread across 61 locations in 14 A general observation of the data spread variation with average cities and towns indicates a lower spatial between 90 µg/m to PMɼɻ values for the 12-month period ranging 110 µg/m . Ahmedabad had the highest PMɼɻ levels, both annual and peak levels, with annual average at 107 µg/m and peak levels reaching 127 µg/m during October 2016. PM10 levels for some major cities such as Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Bharuch, Bhavnagar, Bhuj, Jamnagar, Rajkot, Surat and Vapi are 107, 102, 100, 91, 103, 93, 92, 93 and 102 µg/m respectively. data for 14 cities and towns in Gujarat, for the period Monthly PMɼɻ data for 14 cities and 61 November 2016, was obtained from of December 2015 to stations run by state pollution control board manual monitoring under various programmes. higher levels from this data indicates Assessment of air pollution under annual standard, prescribed PMɼɻ levels than the 60 µg/m had and towns while nine of these fourteen NAAQS, for all 14 cities daily standard of levels higher than the annual average PMɼɻ prescribed limit particularly between 100µg/m , staying above the and February. the months of August

Monthly Average PM levels across Gujarat for 2016 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ GUJARAT The Pollution level seems to be on an increasing trend between 2015 and 2016 with all cities recording higher pollution levels in 2016 compared to 2015. VERAGE CODLI CURCHOREM HONDA A 2016 QUEPEM-TILAMOL SANGUEM USGAO MONTH GOA CITY BICHOLIM VERAGE NAAQS WHO A 2015 TUEM MARAGAO PONDA 11 ASSANORA levels across Goa during 2015 & 2016-17 (May 2016-April 2017) levels across Goa during

May16 JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR 0 10 CUNCOLIM AMONA KUNDAIM 0 10 20 70 60 50 40 30 50

150 100 250 P 200

for a GOA ƄJP³

Six stations installed at Amona, Bicholin, Codli, Honda, Ponda and Usgao had average PM10 levels above 100 continuous stretch of three to four months in 2016-17. GOA BHIWANDI

Maharashtra KALYAN

TALOJA

PANVEL DEC

AMBERNATH BHIWANDI ULHASNAGAR KOLHAPUR NOV

WHO THANE T

SOLAPUR O NAVI MUMBAI ULHASNAGAR SANGLI BADLAPUR

KALYAN

SEP

NAAQS PUNE NAVI MUMBAI NAVI G U

A NASHIK THANE NASHIK E

G NANDED JALNA L

J NAGPUR VERA

AURANGABAD A MUMBAI N U

J WHO NANDED TALOJA LOTE MONTH 2016 CITIES

Y LATUR JALGAON A

M KOLHAPUR E

AMRAVATI

G JALNA

NAAQS

NAGPUR SANGLI APR JALGAON VERA

A DOMBIVLI

DOMBIVLI

MAR CHANDRAPUR

2015

B BADLAPUR E

AMBERNATH F MUMBAI PUNE

AURANGABAD AMRAVATI N16

J AKOLA CHANDRAPUR LATUR PANVEL AKOLA 0 0 levels across Maharashtra during 2015 & 2016 levels across Maharashtra during 2015 5

0 150 100 250 200 1

M data for 2016, provided by the state pollution Month-wise PMɼɻ data for 2016, provided taken from 65 manual as well as continuous control board, was covering 24 cities and towns in Maharashtra. monitoring stations recorded PMɼɻ levels above daily limits Most of the cities that May between the months of January and showed higher trends seasonal October to December indicating a and again rising during and in pollution levels during monsoon season variation with a dip many levels during October to December for again reaching peak cities. annual average PMɼɻ levels for the year Nanded had the highest the highest monthly with 151 µg/m while Mumbai recorded average in Maharashtra with PMɼɻ values remaining more than December 2016. three times above the annual limit during Annual PMɼɻ levels for some of the major cities of Maharashtra Nagpur, Navi Mumbai, such as Mumbai, Thane, Pune, Nashik, Panvel are 130, 117, 99, 86, 82, 93, 118 respectively. The Pollution level seems to be consistent between 2015 and 2016 with small increases for Badlapur, Chandrapur, Dombivali, Mumbai and Ullasnagar along with a slight decrease for Akola, Amravati, Nanded and Kolhapur etc. Yet, the decrease is insignificant compared to what is required to bring pollution levels down to breathable air quality according to Indian standards levels, let alone the WHO standards. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ P

2 4 8 6 6 0 Monthly Average PM levels across Maharashtra for 2016

180 120 1 140 1 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ , ƄJP³ . MAHARASHTRA

Assessment of data from these stations shows annual PM10 levels were above the annual average limit of 60 ƄJP³ prescribed under NAAQS, for all the 24 cities while 14 cities had annual average PM10 levels above the daily limit of 100

KATNI

UJJAIN

WHO

SINGRAULI SATNA

NAAQS SAGAR E

PITHAMPUR NAGDA VERA

CITIES

A JABALPUR

2016 INDORE

E GWALIOR G VERA

A CHHINDWARA

13 BHOPAL

2015 DEWAS levels across Madhya Pradesh during 2015 & 2016 levels across Madhya Pradesh during 2015

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 4 M 8 6 6 0

180 120 1 140 1 P

30̄̃ ƄJPĠ AMLAI/SHAHDOL data for 2016/2015 was obtained from 37 manual monitoring was obtained from 37 manual monitoring PMɼɻ data for 2016/2015 and pollution control boards covering 13 cities stations of regional for of which monthly values were available towns of Madhya Pradesh, the rest. average was made available for nine cities and the annual PMɼɻ obtained from these stations shows annual Assessment of data annual average limit of 60 µg/m , prescribed levels to be above the had an the thirteen cities, of which two cities under NAAQS, for all limit of 100µg/m . Bhopal, level above the daily average annual PMɼɻ Pithampur (Dhar District) had PMɼɻ levels above Indore, Gwalior and January under NAAQS, consecutively from the daily limit, prescribed to May during 2016. MADHYA PRADESH

Maharashtra KALYAN

TALOJA

PANVEL DEC

AMBERNATH BHIWANDI ULHASNAGAR KOLHAPUR

NOV

WHO

THANE

SOLAPUR OCT NAVI MUMBAI ULHASNAGAR SANGLI BADLAPUR

KALYAN

SEP

NAAQS PUNE NAVI MUMBAI NAVI

AUG NASHIK THANE NASHIK NANDED JALNA

JUL

VERAGE NAGPUR

AURANGABAD MUMBAI

JUN WHO NANDED TALOJA

LOTE MONTH A 2016 CITIES LATUR

MAY

KOLHAPUR JALNA

NAAQS

NAGPUR SANGLI APR JALGAON

VERAGE DOMBIVLI

DOMBIVLI JALGAON

MAR CHANDRAPUR

A 2015

BADLAPUR 14

AMBERNATH AMRAVATI FEB MUMBAI PUNE

AURANGABAD AMRAVATI

JAN16 AKOLA AKOLA CHANDRAPUR LATUR PANVEL 0 levels across Maharashtra during 2015 & 2016 levels across Maharashtra during 2015 50

150 100 250 200 10

M The Pollution level seems to be consistent between 2015 and 2016 with small increases for Badlapur, Chandrapur, Dombivali, Mumbai and Ullasnagar along with a slight decrease for Akola, Amravati, Nanded and Kolhapur etc. Yet, the decrease is insignificant compared to what is required to bring pollution levels down to breathable air quality according to Indian standards levels, let alone the WHO standards. levels for some of the major cities of Maharashtra Annual PMɼɻ levels for some of the major cities of Maharashtra Nagpur, Navi Mumbai, such as Mumbai, Thane, Pune, Nashik, Panvel are 130, 117, 99, 86, 82, 93, 118 respectively. data for 2016, provided by the state pollution Month-wise PMɼɻ data for 2016, provided taken from 65 manual as well as continuous control board, was covering 24 cities and towns in Maharashtra. monitoring stations recorded PMɼɻ levels above daily limits Most of the cities that May between the months of January and showed higher trends seasonal October to December indicating a and again rising during and in pollution levels during monsoon season variation with a dip many levels during October to December for again reaching peak cities. annual average PMɼɻ levels for the year Nanded had the highest the highest monthly with 151 µg/m while Mumbai recorded average in Maharashtra with PMɼɻ values remaining more than December 2016. three times above the annual limit during 0 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ P

20 40 80 60 Monthly Average PM levels across Maharashtra for 2016

120 180 100 160 140 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ , ƄJP³ . MAHARASHTRA

ƄJP³ Assessment of data from these stations shows annual PM10 levels were above the annual average limit of 60 prescribed under NAAQS, for all the 24 cities while 14 cities had annual average PM10 levels above the daily limit of 100

KATNI

UJJAIN

SINGRAULI SATNA

NAAQS WHO

SAGAR

PITHAMPUR NAGDA

VERAGE

CITIES JABALPUR

A 2016

INDORE GWALIOR

VERAGE CHHINDWARA

13 BHOPAL

A 2015 DEWAS levels across Madhya Pradesh during 2015 & 2016 levels across Madhya Pradesh during 2015

10 0

20 40 M 80 60

180 120 160 140 100 P

The pollution level seems to be consistent between 2015 and 2016 with a slight decrease for Chindwara, Gawalior, Indore, Pithampur, Singrauli etc. but the decrease is insignificant compared to what is required to bring pollution levels down to breathable air quality according to Indian standards levels let alone the WHO standards. Madhya Pradesh Madhya RAJASTHAN BHARATPUR WHO BHIWADI NAAQS E UDAIPUR G VERA A KOTA 2016 CITIES E G JODHPUR VERA A 2015 JAIPUR 16 ALWAR levels across RAJASTHAN during 2015 & 2016 levels across RAJASTHAN during 2015 &

0 1 M Data on monthly air pollution trends regarding PMɼɻ levels during Data on monthly air was obtained from 30 manual monitoring 2016 for Rajasthan that are operated by the state pollution station covering 7 cities National Air Monitoring Programme. control board under the obtained from these stations shows An assessment of data above the annual average annual PMɼɻ levels were not only the daily standard but also remained above standard of 60 µg/m for all of the cities in of 100 µg/m , prescribed under NAAQS, the data was available. These values were Rajasthan for which times above the prescribed annual standard, between two to four city to city. Except for Kota where we numbers varying from observed a dip in PMɼɻ levels below the prescribed annual values remained above the standard during July to September, the of the six cities. Although standard throughout the year for the rest indicates a general dip in observation of the monthly trends also while it PMɼɻ throughout the state during July to September peak levels during the remains high in other seasons reaching season. winter and the months around the cold Bhiwadi recorded the highest PMɼɻ levels both in terms of annual average PMɼɻ value of 249 average and peak value with an annual for the year 2016. µg/m and a peak value recorded at 376 µg/m The Pollution level seems to be consistent between 2015 and 2016 with little variations on upside for Jaipur and Jodhpur along with slight decrease for Alwar, Kota and Udaipur but the decrease being really insignificant to bring pollution levels down to breathable air quality according to Indian standards levels, leave aside the WHO standards. 0 0 0 P

5 0

150 300 1 250 200 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ RAJASTHAN

Annual PM levels for 2016 for Alwar, Bharatpur Bhiwadi, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kota and Udaipur were 144, 126, 262, 218, 169, 106, 142.

JHARSUGUDA

RAJGANGPUR TALCHER

WHO

SAMBALPUR

ROURKELA RAYAGADA

NAAQS PURI

G PARADEEP VERA KONARK

A CITIES KEONJHAR

2016

KALINGA NAGAR KALINGA E CUTTACK

G BHUBANESHWAR VERA A

15 BERHAMPUR

2015

BALASORE levels across Odisha during 2015 & 2016 ANGUL

0 1 M P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 4 8 6 0 6

ɼɻ level in the state where it Rajgangpur had the highest annual PM whereas Konark was more than twice the annual standard, recorded the highest monthly average in Odisha during 2016 with values reaching 191 µg/m which is almost twice the daily standard prescribed in India. Some of the places with the highest annual PMɼɻ levels are Rajgangpur, Kalinga Nagar, Paradeep, Talcher, Bhubaneshwar, Puri with values 133, 113, 109, 105, 101, 94. Ambient air quality data regarding monthly PMɼɻ levels for Odisha Ambient air quality data from 34 manual operating stations during 2016 was obtained under and towns across the state, operating covering sixteen cities obtained board. The assessment of data the state pollution control shows annual PMɼɻ levels were above the from these stations cities had an 60µg/m in 14 cities, while five annual standard of the daily limit of 100 µg/m prescribed under annual average above NAAQS. 2016 to be consistent between 2015 and The pollution level seems and for Bhubaneswar, Kalinga Nagar, Konark with small increases decrease for Angul, Rouekela and Talcher Puri along with a slight to what is required to but the decrease is insignificant compared air quality according to bring pollution levels down to breathable standards. Indian standards levels, let alone the WHO 120 1 1 140 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ ODISHA

A general observation of monthly data indicates higher air pollution trends during first and last quarter of the year across the state with a very significant increase during October to December in many cities such as Bhubaneshwar, Puri, Paradeep, Konark, Kalingnagar and Rajgangpur whereas relatively higher values as compared to others were observed in Angul and Talcher during January to April. ODISHA RAJASTHAN BHARATPUR WHO BHIWADI NAAQS E UDAIPUR G VERA A KOTA 2016 CITIES E G JODHPUR VERA A 2015 JAIPUR 16 ALWAR levels across RAJASTHAN during 2015 & 2016 levels across RAJASTHAN during 2015 &

0 1 M The Pollution level seems to be consistent between 2015 and 2016 with little variations on upside for Jaipur and Jodhpur along with slight decrease for Alwar, Kota and Udaipur but the decrease being really insignificant to bring pollution levels down to breathable air quality according to Indian standards levels, leave aside the WHO standards. Data on monthly air pollution trends regarding PMɼɻ levels during Data on monthly air was obtained from 30 manual monitoring 2016 for Rajasthan that are operated by the state pollution station covering 7 cities National Air Monitoring Programme. control board under the obtained from these stations shows An assessment of data above the annual average annual PMɼɻ levels were not only the daily standard but also remained above standard of 60 µg/m for all of the cities in of 100 µg/m , prescribed under NAAQS, the data was available. These values were Rajasthan for which times above the prescribed annual standard, between two to four city to city. Except for Kota where we numbers varying from observed a dip in PMɼɻ levels below the prescribed annual values remained above the standard during July to September, the of the six cities. Although standard throughout the year for the rest indicates a general dip in observation of the monthly trends also while it PMɼɻ throughout the state during July to September peak levels during the remains high in other seasons reaching season. winter and the months around the cold Bhiwadi recorded the highest PMɼɻ levels both in terms of annual average PMɼɻ value of 249 average and peak value with an annual for the year 2016. µg/m and a peak value recorded at 376 µg/m 0 0 0 P

5 0

150 300 1 250 200 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ RAJASTHAN

Annual PM levels for 2016 for Alwar, Bharatpur Bhiwadi, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kota and Udaipur were 144, 126, 262, 218, 169, 106, 142.

JHARSUGUDA

RAJGANGPUR TALCHER

WHO

SAMBALPUR

ROURKELA RAYAGADA

NAAQS PURI

G PARADEEP VERA KONARK

A CITIES KEONJHAR

2016

KALINGA NAGAR KALINGA E CUTTACK

G BHUBANESHWAR VERA A

15 BERHAMPUR

2015

BALASORE levels across Odisha during 2015 & 2016 ANGUL

0 1 M P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 4 8 6 6 0

A general observation of monthly data indicates higher air pollution trends during first and last quarter of the year across the state with a very significant increase during October to December in many cities such as Bhubaneshwar, Puri, Paradeep, Konark, Kalingnagar and Rajgangpur whereas relatively higher values as compared to others were observed in Angul and Talcher during January to April. ODISHA UTTARAKHAND NAAQS WHO VERAGE A 2016 CITIES VERAGE A 2015 18 DEHRADUN HALDWANI HARIDWAR KASHIPUR RISHIKESH RUDRAPUR levels across Uttarakhand during 2015 & 2016 levels across Uttarakhand during 2015

10 M levels in Uttarakhand during 2016 was ɼɻ levels in Uttarakhand Data on monthly PM pollution control board from eight manual provided by the state the state installed across six cities operated by monitoring stations the National Air Quality Monitoring pollution control under Programme. from these stations shows that the annual Assessment of data cities remained above both the average PMɼɻ levels for all the six of of 60 µg/m and the daily standard prescribed annual standard were between two to four times 100 µg/m as well. These figures general standard varying from city to city. A higher than the annual indicates a slight variation in the monthly observation of the data trends of PMɼɻ levels with a dip in levels around the monsoon less variation is seen in season in some of the cities whereas very others. Dehradun had the highest PMɼɻ levels in the state with annual annual standard and average levels going four times above the daily standard prescribed almost two and a half times above the Standard. Dehradun was under the National Ambient Air Quality also amongst the most polluted cities in the country in terms of PMɼɻ levels. Annual PMɼɻ levels during 2016 in the six cities of Dehradun, Rudrapur, Haldwani, Haridwar, Kashipur, Rishikesh were 238, 142, 130, 128, 121 and 118 µg/m respectively. 0 P

150 300 100 250 200 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ UTTARAKHAND

There is an increasing trend in the pollution level between 2015 and 2016, almost for all the cities/towns where data was recorded across Uttrakhand; with Deharadun leading the rest with highest increase.

MEERUT

SAHARANPUR MATHURA

DEC HAPUR

SAHARANPUR

GHAZIABAD VARANASI

NOV

LUCKNOW UNNAO

WHO

OCT SONBHADRA

RENUSAGAR/ RAI BAREILLY RAI GAJRAULA

SEP

KHURJA NOIDA RAE BAREILLY WHO

NAAQS

MORADABAD

AUG LUCKNOW

JUL NOIDA KANPUR KHURJA NAAQS

FIROZABAD KANPUR VERAGE JUN

MONTH JHANSI CITIES

A 2016 MAY GORAKHPUR

VARANASI MORADABAD GHAZIABAD

APR

GAJRAULA FIROZABAD

MAR HAPUR JHANSI

VERAGE UNNAO BAREILLY 17 MEERUT

FEB SONBHADRA

ALLAHABAD BAREILLY

A 2015 ANPARA/

ALLAHABAD levels across UTTAR PRADESH during 2015 & 2016 AGRA JAN16

10 0 AGRA GORAKHPUR MATHURA SONBHADRA M

300 100 500 400 P 200 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ 0

50 The pollution level seems to be consistent between 2015 and 2016 with little variations on upside for Firozabad, Kanpur, Lucknow, Moradabad, Noida and Varanasi along with slight decrease for Allahabad, Ghaziabad, Jhansi and Rai Bareilly, the decrease being really insignificant to bring pollution levels down to breathable air quality according to Indian standards levels, leave aside the WHO standards. Ghaziabad and Varanasi had the highest annual PMɼɻ level in the Ghaziabad and Varanasi had the highest annual standard, whereas state where it was more than twice the in Uttar Pradesh during Hapur recorded highest monthly average 2016 with values reaching 443 µg/m in November and December standard prescribed in 2016 which is almost 4.5 times the daily annual PMɼɻ levels are India. Some of the places with highest Kanpur and Ghaziabad, Varanasi, Hapur, Bareilly, Firozabad, 223, 217 and 211 Lucknow with values 236, 236, 235, 226, respectively. Ambient air quality data regarding monthly PMɼɻ levels for Uttar Ambient air quality data was obtained from 61 operating stations Pradesh during 2016 towns strewn across the state and operating covering 21 cities and control board. Assessment of data under the state pollution stations shows annual PMɼɻ levels for all the obtained from these above the daily limit of 100 µg/m prescribed cities/towns were far aside the WHO limits. under NAAQS, leave

levels across Uttar Pradesh for 2016 levels across Uttar Monthly Average PM 150 300

100 250 200 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ UTTAR PRADESH

A general observation of monthly data indicates higher air pollution trends during first and last quarter of the year across the state with a very significant increase during October to December in many cities such as Hapur, Noida, Lucknow, Ghaziabad and Varanasi etc. UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR UTTARAKHAND RUDRAPUR WHO RISHIKESH NAAQS E G KASHIPUR VERA A 2016 CITIES HARIDWAR E G VERA A 2015 HALDWANI 18 DEHRADUN levels across Uttarakhand during 2015 & 2016 levels across Uttarakhand during 2015

0 1 M Dehradun had the highest PMɼɻ levels in the state with annual annual standard and average levels going four times above the daily standard prescribed almost two and a half times above the Standard. Dehradun was under the National Ambient Air Quality also amongst the most polluted cities in the country in terms of PMɼɻ levels. Annual PMɼɻ levels during 2016 in the six cities of Dehradun, Rudrapur, Haldwani, Haridwar, Kashipur, Rishikesh were 238, 142, 130, 128, 121 and 118 µg/m respectively. levels in Uttarakhand during 2016 was ɼɻ levels in Uttarakhand Data on monthly PM pollution control board from eight manual provided by the state the state installed across six cities operated by monitoring stations the National Air Quality Monitoring pollution control under Programme. from these stations shows that the annual Assessment of data cities remained above both the average PMɼɻ levels for all the six of of 60 µg/m and the daily standard prescribed annual standard were between two to four times 100 µg/m as well. These figures general standard varying from city to city. A higher than the annual indicates a slight variation in the monthly observation of the data trends of PMɼɻ levels with a dip in levels around the monsoon less variation is seen in season in some of the cities whereas very others. 0 0 0 P

5 0

150 300 1 250 200 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ UTTARAKHAND

MEERUT

SAHARANPUR MATHURA

DEC HAPUR

SAHARANPUR

GHAZIABAD VARANASI

NOV

LUCKNOW UNNAO T

C WHO

O SONBHADRA

RENUSAGAR/ RAE BAREILLY RAE GAJRAULA

SEP

KHURJA NOIDA RAE BAREILLY WHO G

NAAQS U MORADABAD

A L LUCKNOW U E

NOIDA KANPUR G KHURJA NAAQS

FIROZABAD N KANPUR U VERA J

MONTH JHANSI CITIES Y A

2016 M GORAKHPUR JHANSI

VARANASI MORADABAD GHAZIABAD BAREILLY

APR

GAJRAULA

G FIROZABAD MAR HAPUR VERA

UNNAO

A BAREILLY 17 B MEERUT

F SONBHADRA

ALLAHABAD

2015 ANPARA/ ALLAHABAD N16

A levels across UTTAR PRADESH during 2015 & 2016 AGRA J

0 1 0 GORAKHPUR MATHURA SONBHADRA AGRA M 300 100 500 400 P 200

0 0 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ 0

5 The pollution level seems to be consistent between 2015 and 2016 with little variations on upside for Firozabad, Kanpur, Lucknow, Moradabad, Noida and Varanasi along with slight decrease for Allahabad, Ghaziabad, Jhansi and Rai Bareilly, the decrease being really insignificant to bring pollution levels down to breathable air quality according to Indian standards levels, leave aside the WHO standards. Ghaziabad and Varanasi had the highest annual PMɼɻ level in the Ghaziabad and Varanasi had the highest annual standard, whereas state where it was more than twice the in Uttar Pradesh during Hapur recorded highest monthly average 2016 with values reaching 443 µg/m in November and December standard prescribed in 2016 which is almost 4.5 times the daily annual PMɼɻ levels are India. Some of the places with highest Kanpur and Ghaziabad, Varanasi, Hapur, Bareilly, Firozabad, 223, 217 and 211 Lucknow with values 236, 236, 235, 226, respectively. Ambient air quality data regarding monthly PMɼɻ levels for Uttar Ambient air quality data was obtained from 61 operating stations Pradesh during 2016 towns strewn across the state and operating covering 21 cities and control board. Assessment of data under the state pollution stations shows annual PMɼɻ levels for all the obtained from these above the daily limit of 100 µg/m prescribed cities/towns were far aside the WHO limits. under NAAQS, leave 0

levels across Uttar Pradesh for 2016 levels across Uttar Monthly Average PM 300 150

250 200 1 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ UTTAR PRADESH

A general observation of monthly data indicates higher air pollution trends during first and last quarter of the year across the state with a very significant increase during October to December in many cities such as Hapur, Noida, Lucknow, Ghaziabad and Varanasi etc. UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR BIHAR DEC NOV T C O GAYA WHO SEP WHO G U A NAAQS L NAAQS U J E G N U J VERA A GAYA CITIES MONTH Y MUZAFFARPUR A M 2016 APR E G MAR VERA MUZAFFARPUR A B 20 E F 2015 PATNA PATNA N16 A J 0 levels across BIHAR during 2015 & 2016

0 1 300 100 700 600 500 400 200

M data was available from Bihar Pollution Control Month-wise PM data was available country consistency for the data across the Board but to keep the of Total PM to PM using a factor of 47% we have converted compiled table at the end of PMɼɻ being PM ¹and used that in the the report. three air December 2016, was obtained from Data from January to under stations installed in three cities of Bihar pollution monitoring levels board. Assessment of air pollution the state pollution control PM that all the three cities had annual from this data indicates and daily standards prescribed under levels above both annual cities were PM values for all the three NAAQS. The annual between 72 to 123 µg/m, which are between two to four times of 40 µg/m. higher than the prescribed annual standard in case The deviation in PM levels is significantly high, particularly of Patna and Muzaffarpur, as PM levels during peak months the levels during monsoon reach very high levels as compared to reached alarming levels months. In Patna and Muzaffarpur PM five times above the during January 2016 with values remaining daily-prescribed standard. Patna had the highest annual PM level and also the highest peak annual levels for Patna, levels of the three cities during 2016. The 111 and 72 µg/m Muzaffarpur and Gaya in 2016 were 123, respectively. 0

0 0 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ P PM levels across Bihar during 2016

5 0

150 300 1 250 200 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ BIHAR

¹ http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/global-studies-on-indias-air-quality-flawed-cpcb/article17379615.ece The monthly air pollution trends clearly show a seasonal variation in PM levels through the year, which is common in all the three cities with relatively lower levels during summer and monsoon season and higher levels during rest of the year and reaching peak levels during the months of January, November and December.

DARLEEING

COOCHBEHAR

DINAJPUR NORTH DINAJPUR

JALPAIGURI

MADINIPORE EAST MADINIPORE

MADINIPORE WEST MADINIPORE HOOGHLY

WHO 24 PARGANAS 24

BANKURA

24 PARGANAS 24 BIRBHUM

NAAQS

MURSHIDABAD BURDWAN

G ULUBERIA SOUTH SUBURBAN SOUTH

VERA

A SILIGURI RANIGANJ

2016

MALDA

KOLKATA E KALYANI CITIES

HOWRAH VERA HALDIA A

DURGAPUR

2015 DANKUNI

BARACKPORE levels across West Bengal during 2015 & 2016 levels across West Bengal during 2015 ASANSOL

0 1 M P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 4 8 6 0 6 data for the year 2016 for West Bengal was obtained from for West Bengal was obtained from PMɼɻ data for the year 2016 the quality monitoring stations operated by manual ambient air districts board installed across 16 cities and state pollution control of this data indicates that annual of West Bengal. Assessment above the annual average average PMɼɻ levels for 15 cities were while for six cities , prescribed under NAAQS, standard of 60 µg/m values were above the daily prescribed the annual average in data is visible across . A spatial variation standard of 100 µg/m above where annual PMɼɻ values were recorded the state with cities also been found to be around two times the daily standard had the standard, while for the rest of the cities higher than the annual . varied between 60 µg/m to 100 µg/m annual average values shows a similar pattern A general observation of the monthly data as seen in most parts of in seasonal variation in particulate levels the country, with a drop in PMɼɻ values during the monsoon while particularly during winter increased levels during other seasons and the deviation between season. But in many cities of West Bengal more significant. This the lower and the higher values are much ɼɻ particulates recorded could be due to very high presence of PM relatively lower levels of during winter and the months around and because of both PMɼɻ particulates sustained for longer period in this part of the country. advancing and retreating monsoon seen PMɼɻ levels in the state Burdwan had the highest annual average during 2016 at 140 µg/m which is more than twice the annual monthly average in the standard, while Kolkata had the highest the state at 264 µg/m which is more than four times higher than average PMɼɻ levels in prescribed annual standard. The annual in the state such as 2016 for some of the most polluted places 24 Parganas South and Burdwan, Kolkata, Murshidabad, Birbhum, and 106 µg/m respectively. Bankura were 140, 124, 116, 113, 112

120 180 1 1 140 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ WEST BENGAL

The annual average pollution levels for 2015 and 2016 across Kolkata shows an increasing trend for pollution levels, which is worrying and needs to be checked. WEST BENGAL WEST BIHAR DEC NOV T C O GAYA WHO SEP WHO G U A NAAQS L NAAQS U J E G N U J VERA A GAYA CITIES MONTH Y MUZAFFARPUR A M 2016 APR E G MAR VERA MUZAFFARPUR A B 20 E F 2015 PATNA PATNA N16 A J 0 levels across BIHAR during 2015 & 2016

0 1 300 100 700 600 500 400 200

0 0 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ P PM levels across Bihar during 2016

5 0

150 300 1 250 200 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ BIHAR

DARLEEING

COOCHBEHAR

DINAJPUR NORTH DINAJPUR

JALPAIGURI

MADINIPORE EAST MADINIPORE

MADINIPORE WEST MADINIPORE HOOGHLY

WHO 24 PARGANAS 24

BANKURA

24 PARGANAS 24 BIRBHUM

NAAQS

MURSHIDABAD BURDWAN

G ULUBERIA SOUTH SUBURBAN SOUTH

VERA

A SILIGURI RANIGANJ

2016

MALDA

KOLKATA E KALYANI CITIES

HOWRAH VERA HALDIA A

DURGAPUR

2015 DANKUNI

BARACKPORE levels across West Bengal during 2015 & 2016 levels across West Bengal during 2015 ASANSOL

0 1 M P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 4 8 6 6 0 data for the year 2016 for West Bengal was obtained from for West Bengal was obtained from PMɼɻ data for the year 2016 the quality monitoring stations operated by manual ambient air districts board installed across 16 cities and state pollution control of this data indicates that annual of West Bengal. Assessment above the annual average average PMɼɻ levels for 15 cities were while for six cities , prescribed under NAAQS, standard of 60 µg/m values were above the daily prescribed the annual average in data is visible across . A spatial variation standard of 100 µg/m above where annual PMɼɻ values were recorded the state with cities also been found to be around two times the daily standard had the standard, while for the rest of the cities higher than the annual . varied between 60 µg/m to 100 µg/m annual average values shows a similar pattern A general observation of the monthly data as seen in most parts of in seasonal variation in particulate levels the country, with a drop in PMɼɻ values during the monsoon while particularly during winter increased levels during other seasons and the deviation between season. But in many cities of West Bengal more significant. This the lower and the higher values are much ɼɻ particulates recorded could be due to very high presence of PM relatively lower levels of during winter and the months around and because of both PMɼɻ particulates sustained for longer period in this part of the country. advancing and retreating monsoon seen PMɼɻ levels in the state Burdwan had the highest annual average during 2016 at 140 µg/m which is more than twice the annual monthly average in the standard, while Kolkata had the highest the state at 264 µg/m which is more than four times higher than average PMɼɻ levels in prescribed annual standard. The annual in the state such as 2016 for some of the most polluted places 24 Parganas South and Burdwan, Kolkata, Murshidabad, Birbhum, and 106 µg/m respectively. Bankura were 140, 124, 116, 113, 112

180 120 1 140 1 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ WEST BENGAL

The annual average pollution levels for 2015 and 2016 across Kolkata shows an increasing trend for pollution levels, which is worrying and needs to be checked. WEST BENGAL WEST DELHI DEC NOV IGI AIRPORT T C O WHO SEP G U CIVIL LINES NAAQS A L U WHO J E G N U J VERA MONTH A Y A PUNJABI BAGH NAAQS DELHI CITIES M 2016 APR E G MAR VERA A MANDIR MARG B ANAND VIHAR 22 E F 2015 N16 A J 0 levels across DELHI during 2015 & 2016

RK PURAM 0 1 700 600 500 400 300 100 900 800

200

M levels during 2016 in Delhi was obtained ɼɻ levels during 2016 Data on monthly PM air quality monitoring stations installed from 6 manually operated under the Delhi Pollution Control across Delhi, operating that of air quality from this data indicates Committee. Assessment four to seven times higher than annual PMɼɻ levels were between prescribed under NAAQS at all the six the annual standard were the annual values above the annual locations. Not only Except also way above the daily standard. standard, but they were the at two stations we do not see any of for a couple of months of 100 µg/m . below the daily standard months having PMɼɻ trends we clearly see a significant seasonal Observing the monthly across variation in PMɼɻ values. This seasonal pattern is common i.e. a dip in PMɼɻ level most of the other parts of the country, winter and the months during monsoon and higher level during Delhi this variation was around the cold season. But in case of most significant as the overall PMɼɻ levels during November 2016 is deteriorated to 464 µg/m (average of all the six stations), which ɼɻ level during November highest in the country. At Anand Vihar PM and 2016 were 833 µg/m , which is eight times the daily standard station. again highest in the country for a given 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ Anand Vihar had both the highest peak levels and annual levels during 2016 with annual levels remaining four times above daily standard. Annual PMɼɻ levels during 2016 for RK Puram, Mandir Marg, Punjabi Bagh, Civil Lines, IGI Airport and Anand Vihar were 276, 238, 274, 282, 247 and 423 µg/m respectively. Overall annual PMɼɻ level for Delhi during 2016 was at 290 µg/m , thus exposing its over 2 million inhabitants to extreme levels of air pollution. 0 0 0 P 5

Monthly Average PM levels across DELHI for 2016 150 300 1 250 200

30̄̃ ƄJPĠ DELHI The annual average pollution levels for 2015 and 2016 across Delhi shows an increasing trend for pollution levels, displaying alarming levels of pollution and requires a check. DEC NOV T WHO PANCHKULA C O WHO SEP NAAQS G U NAAQS A ROHTAK L U J E G PANCHKULA N U VERA J CITIES A MONTH Y A 2016 M GURGAON GURGAON APR E G VERA MAR A B 21 E FARIDABAD 2015 F FARIDABAD N16 A J levels across HARYANA during 2015 & 2016

0 0 1 0 ROHTAK M 0 0 0 0 0 150 5 300 250 200 100 P

2 4 8 6

120 140

100 ̈ ƄJPĠ . Monthly Average PM levels across Haryana for 2016 30̅ 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ Faridabad had both highest annual levels and highest peak levels for PM during 2016, with annual level at 128 µg/m , while peak levels were critically high during January 2016 at 258 µg/m , which is more than four times the prescribed daily standard. data for 2016 was obtained from air quality Monthly PM data for 2016 was obtained the installed in four cities and operating under monitoring stations for the board, but to keep the consistency state pollution control we have converted PM to PMɼɻ using a data across the country PMɼɻ being PM ²and used that in the factor of 47% of total quality end of the report. Assessment of air compiled table at the cities that annual PM levels for all the four from this data indicates limit of 40 µg/m , prescribed under NAAQS, were above the annual this annual level above the daily prescribed while two cities had cities neighbouring the . Two of these four standard of 60 µg/m Gurgaon and Faridabad, had excessively national capital namely average value were around three high PM levels as the annual times higher than the annual standard. infer that relatively lower Observing the monthly pattern we can higher levels can be levels are observed during monsoon while But in case of seen during winters and the months around. increase in PM levels Gurgaon and Faridabad we see a drastic air quality. during winters, thus extremely deteriorating level ƄJP³ HARYANA

for the other three cities i.e. Gurgaon, Rohtak and Panchkula were 107, 55 and 52 ² http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/global-studies-on-indias-air-quality-flawed-cpcb/article17379615.ece respectively. Annual PM HARYANA DELHI DEC NOV IGI AIRPORT T C O WHO SEP G U CIVIL LINES NAAQS A L U WHO J E G N U J VERA MONTH A Y A PUNJABI BAGH NAAQS DELHI CITIES M 2016 APR E G MAR VERA A MANDIR MARG B ANAND VIHAR 22 E F 2015 N16 A J 0 levels across DELHI during 2015 & 2016

RK PURAM 0 1 400 700 600 500 300 100 900 800

200

M 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ Anand Vihar had both the highest peak levels and annual levels during 2016 with annual levels remaining four times above daily standard. Annual PMɼɻ levels during 2016 for RK Puram, Mandir Marg, Punjabi Bagh, Civil Lines, IGI Airport and Anand Vihar were 276, 238, 274, 282, 247 and 423 µg/m respectively. Overall annual PMɼɻ level for Delhi during 2016 was at 290 µg/m , thus exposing its over 2 million inhabitants to extreme levels of air pollution. levels during 2016 in Delhi was obtained ɼɻ levels during 2016 Data on monthly PM air quality monitoring stations installed from 6 manually operated under the Delhi Pollution Control across Delhi, operating that of air quality from this data indicates Committee. Assessment four to seven times higher than annual PMɼɻ levels were between prescribed under NAAQS at all the six the annual standard were the annual values above the annual locations. Not only Except also way above the daily standard. standard, but they were the at two stations we do not see any of for a couple of months of 100 µg/m . below the daily standard months having PMɼɻ trends we clearly see a significant seasonal Observing the monthly across variation in PMɼɻ values. This seasonal pattern is common i.e. a dip in PMɼɻ level most of the other parts of the country, winter and the months during monsoon and higher level during Delhi this variation was around the cold season. But in case of most significant as the overall PMɼɻ levels during November 2016 is deteriorated to 464 µg/m (average of all the six stations), which ɼɻ level during November highest in the country. At Anand Vihar PM and 2016 were 833 µg/m , which is eight times the daily standard station. again highest in the country for a given 0 0 0 P 5

Monthly Average PM levels across DELHI for 2016 150 300 1 250 200

0 0 1 0 ROHTAK M 0 0 0 0 0 150 5 300 250 200 100 P

2 4 8 6

120 140

OCT KOTHAGUDEM KOTHAGUDEM WHO

SEP

NIZAMABAD ADILABAD AUG NIZAMABAD NAAQS

KHAMMAM

WHO

MEDAK

JUL MAHABOOBNAGAR MONTH E G

JUN WARANGAL NAAQS VERA NALGONDA

A SANGAREDDY MAY CITIES KARIMNAGAR

2016 RAMAGUNDAM APR

MEDAK PATANCHERU E

G WARANGAL

NALGONDA MAR KOTHUR HYDERABAD VERA A

FEB KHAMMAM 2015

JAN16 KARIMNAGAR ADILABAD levels across TELANGANA during 2015 & 2016 levels across TELANGANA during 2015 & RAMAGUNDAM 0 0 0 0 0 MAHABOOBNAGAR

0 2 4 8 6 1

0 0 0 0 0

120 100 0 HYDERABAD

2 4 M 8 6 0 data for 2016 was obtained form 39 air quality Monthly PMɼɻ data for 2016 was obtained under operated by the state pollution control monitoring stations These of the state and central government. various programmes but a of 11 cities and districts of Telangana, stations cover a total in Hyderabad. majority those are installed eleven from this data indicates that of the Assessment of air quality seven had annual PMɼɻ level above the annual cities and districts, While at some prescribed under NAAQS. standard of 60 µg/m at were marginally above the annual standard, places these levels 10 to 50 percent ɼɻ levels were between rest of the places PM above the annual standard. higher air pollution trends Observing the monthly patterns indicates and then between during the months of January to February variation is not the same October to December. But the degree of this variation is significant for the entire place; as for some places At Hyderabad and Medak while at others the variation is very low. spike in PMɼɻ levels in the variation is quiet high as there is clear months. October, which is sustained in the consecutive levels and also recorded Hyderabad had the highest annual PM with PMɼɻ levels highest peak levels during November 2016 recorded at 117 µg/m , which is 17% higher than the daily annual standard. In 2016 standard and almost twice as high as the its PMɼɻ levels were Hyderabad had five months during which µg/m . recorded above the daily standard of 100 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ 120 1 P

Monthly Average PM levels across TELANGANA for 2016 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ

ƄJP³ TELANGANA

Annual PM10 levels for Hyderabad, Medak, Mahboobnagar, Ramagundam and Warangal are 93, 77, 77, 68 and 67 respectively.

HASSAN BHADRAVATI DEC

MANDYA KARWAR

NOV MANDYA CHITRADURG WHO WHO

KOLAR

CHITRADURG OCT MANGALORE SEP BIDAR

HUBLI BELLARY NAAQS NAAQS

AUG BELGAUM E

G GULBARGA JUL HASSAN

TUMKUR

BHADRAVATI MONTH VERA KOLAR A CITIES

JUN DHARWAD

2016 HUBLI MAY GULBARGA BELLARY RAICHUR

E G RAICHUR

APR DAVANGERE VERA A

MAR BIDAR MYSORE BELGAUM DHARWAD 2015

TUMKUR

FEB

MYSORE BANGALORE JAN16 BANGALORE DAVANGERE MANGALORE levels across KARNATAKA during 2015 & 2016 levels across KARNATAKA during 2015 &

0 0 0 1 5

150 100 200

M 0 0 0 0 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ P 5 5 0

The pollution level seems to be consistent between 2015 and 2016 with little variations on upside for Tumkuru, Bidar, Hubli and Dharwad along with slight decrease for Bangalore, Davanagere, Kolar and Gulbarga etc. but the decrease being really insignificant to bring pollution levels down to breathable air quality according to Indian standards levels, leave aside the WHO standards. data for 2016 was obtained from 31 manual as well Monthly PM data for 2016 was obtained air quality monitoring stations installed as continuous ambient and 17 control board covering Bengaluru under the state pollution towns of Karnataka. other major cities and PMɼɻ from this data indicates that annual Assessment of air quality above the annual PMɼɻ standard of 60µg/m levels in ten cities were levels NAAQS, while four cities had annual prescribed under the levels which is 100 µg/m . Annual PMɼɻ above the daily standard, distribution in pollution levels as places also indicate a sporadic the state in no with higher PMɼɻ levels are spread throughout particular pattern. shows that although A general observation of the monthly trends levels with higher PMɼɻ there is a general trend in monthly pollution dip in levels during levels during and around winters and a in PMɼɻ levels is not monsoon, but the degree of seasonal variation the same for all the places. PMɼɻ levels had remained almost two times higher than the daily PMɼɻ standard during peak months in seen. cities where higher seasonal variation is

Monthly Average PM levels across Karnataka for 2016 200 1 1

30̄̃ ƄJPĠ . Tumkur ƄJP³ KARNATAKA

In 2016, Bengaluru had eight months of being above the daily prescribed standard of 100 had the highest annual PM values in 2016 in the state (although the data for Tumkur is for six months only). Annual PM10 levels for Tumkur, Bidar, Bangalore, Davangere, Raichur and Hubli are 144, 113, 106, 84, 88, and 87 respectively. KARNATAKA TELANGANA DEC NOV

OCT KOTHAGUDEM KOTHAGUDEM WHO

SEP

NIZAMABAD ADILABAD AUG NIZAMABAD NAAQS

KHAMMAM

WHO

MEDAK

JUL MAHABOOBNAGAR MONTH E G

JUN WARANGAL NAAQS VERA NALGONDA

A SANGAREDDY MAY CITIES KARIMNAGAR

2016 RAMAGUNDAM APR

MEDAK PATANCHERU E

G WARANGAL

NALGONDA MAR KOTHUR HYDERABAD VERA A

FEB KHAMMAM 2015

JAN16 KARIMNAGAR ADILABAD levels across TELANGANA during 2015 & 2016 levels across TELANGANA during 2015 & RAMAGUNDAM 0 0 0 0 0 MAHABOOBNAGAR

0 2 4 8 6 1

0 0 0 0 0

120 100 0 HYDERABAD

Monthly Average PM levels across TELANGANA for 2016 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ

ƄJP³ TELANGANA

Annual PM10 levels for Hyderabad, Medak, Mahboobnagar, Ramagundam and Warangal are 93, 77, 77, 68 and 67 respectively.

HASSAN BHADRAVATI DEC

MANDYA KARWAR

NOV MANDYA CHITRADURG WHO WHO

KOLAR

CHITRADURG OCT MANGALORE SEP BIDAR

HUBLI BELLARY NAAQS NAAQS

AUG BELGAUM E

G GULBARGA JUL HASSAN

TUMKUR

BHADRAVATI MONTH VERA KOLAR A CITIES

JUN DHARWAD

2016 HUBLI MAY GULBARGA BELLARY RAICHUR

E G RAICHUR

APR DAVANGERE VERA A

MAR BIDAR MYSORE BELGAUM DHARWAD 2015

TUMKUR

FEB

MYSORE BANGALORE JAN16 BANGALORE DAVANGERE MANGALORE levels across KARNATAKA during 2015 & 2016 levels across KARNATAKA during 2015 &

0 0 0 1 5

150 100 200

M 0 0 0 0 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ P 5 5 0

Monthly Average PM levels across Karnataka for 2016 200 1 1

30̄̃ ƄJPĠ . Tumkur ƄJP³ KARNATAKA

WHO RASULPUR

SBS NAGAR SBS SANGRUR

NAAQS PATIALA E

NAYA NANGAL NAYA LUDHIANA VERA

A KHANNA CITIES

2016 JALANDHAR

E HOSHIARPUR G

VERA

A FARIDKOT MANDI GOBINDGARH MANDI

2015 DERA BASSI DERA

BATHINDA

DERA BABA NANAK BABA DERA levels across PUNJAB during 2015 & 2016 AMRITSAR

0 0 0 1 5 150 100 250 200 M

P data for year 2016 was obtained from 26 ɼɻ data for year 2016 Monthly average PM cities stations installed across 14 ambient air quality-monitoring and towns across Punjab. 2016 to be consistent between 2015 and The pollution level seems and on upside for Amritsar, Bhatinda, Faridkot with little variations with slight decrease for Khanna, Dera Baba Nanak along Sangrur but the decrease being really Jalandhar, Patiala and quality pollution levels down to breathable air insignificant to bring standards levels aside the WHO standards. according to Indian 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ PUNJAB ) and all of ƄJP³ The data indicates that all the 14 cities had higher concentrations of PM10 than the annual average levels prescribed by CPCB (60 them had at-least four times more polluted air as compared to WHO annual standard for PM .

DEC TRICHY NOV SALEM OCT WHO

METTUR

THOOTHUKUDI

SEP SALEM NAAQS AUG MADURAI E JUL

G METTUR MONTH VERA JUN A CITIES 2016

WHO MAY

CUDDALORE MADURAI E APR

G CUDDALORE NAAQS VERA MAR A COIMBATORE 25

2015 FEB COIMBATORE JAN16

levels across TAMIL NADU during 2015 & 2016 levels across TAMIL NADU during 2015 &

0 CHENNAI CHENNAI THOOTHUKUDI 1 0 0 5 M 0 0 200 150 0 100 P 250

5 0

150 1 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ 200

data for year 2016 was obtained from 23 ɼɻ data for year 2016 Monthly average PM and stations installed across 7 cities ambient air quality-monitoring towns of Tamil Nadu. three out of seven cities had higher The data indicates that levels prescribed ɼɻ than the annual average concentrations of PM seems to be consistent ). The pollution level I`*7*)ɤNT³ Chennai, with little variations on upside for between 2015 and 2016 Metur and Thoothukudi along with slight Madurai, Coimbatore, and Salem. decrease for Cuddalore 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ Monthly Average PM levels across TAMIL NADU for 2016

level in TAMIL NADU ƄJP³

Thoothukudi recorded highest PM10 levels with values breaching 182 2016 while Madurai and Chennai following with 82 and 71 respectively. TAMIL NADU TAMIL PUNJAB

WHO RASULPUR

SBS NAGAR SBS SANGRUR

NAAQS

PATIALA

NAYA NANGAL NAYA LUDHIANA

VERAGE KHANNA CITIES

A 2016

JALANDHAR HOSHIARPUR

VERAGE

FARIDKOT MANDI GOBINDGARH MANDI

A 2015 DERA BASSI DERA

BATHINDA

DERA BABA NANAK BABA DERA levels across PUNJAB during 2015 & 2016 AMRITSAR

0 10 50 150 100 250 200 M

The data indicates that all the 14 cities had higher concentrations of PM10 than the annual average levels prescribed by CPCB (60 them had at-least four times more polluted air as compared to WHO annual standard for PM .

TRICHY

THOOTHUKUDI SALEM NAAQS WHO

MADURAI METTUR SALEM METTUR MONTH VERAGE CITIES

A 2016

MADURAI CUDDALORE NAAQS WHO VERAGE COIMBATORE CUDDALORE 25

A 2015 COIMBATORE JAN16 FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC levels across TAMIL NADU during 2015 & 2016 levels across TAMIL NADU during 2015 &

CHENNAI CHENNAI THOOTHUKUDI 10 0 50 M 200 150 0 100 P 250

150 200 100 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ

data for year 2016 was obtained from 23 ɼɻ data for year 2016 Monthly average PM and stations installed across 7 cities ambient air quality-monitoring towns of Tamil Nadu. three out of seven cities had higher The data indicates that levels prescribed ɼɻ than the annual average concentrations of PM seems to be consistent I`*7*)ɤNT³). The pollution level Chennai, with little variations on upside for between 2015 and 2016 Metur and Thoothukudi along with slight Madurai, Coimbatore, and Salem. decrease for Cuddalore 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ Monthly Average PM levels across TAMIL NADU for 2016

level in TAMIL NADU ƄJP³

2016 while Madurai and Chennai following with 82 and 71 respectively. Thoothukudi recorded highest PM10 levels with values breaching 182 TAMIL NADU TAMIL KERALA CPCB throughNAAQS. prescribed limitsby within the average values are showingannual is beingmonitored ambient airquality cities/towns where state whereallthe Kerala istheonly KERALA 4HSHWW\YHTHUK7HSHRRHK 2VaOPRVKLHSVUN^P[OZSPNO[KLJYLHZLMVY(SHWW\aOH2V[[H`HT SP[[SL]HYPH[PVUZVU\WZPKLMVY2VJOP;OYPZZ\Y>H`HUHKHUK 7VSS\[PVUSL]LSZLLTZ[VILJVUZPZ[LU[IL[^LLUHUK^P[O HPY^OLUJVTWHYLK^P[O>/6HUU\HSZ[HUKHYKMVY74ɼɻ. The WYLZJYPILKI`*7*)ɤNT³@L[HSSVM[OLTYLWVY[LKWVSS\[LK had lowerconcentrationsofPMɼɻthantheannualaveragelevels and townsacrossKerala.Thedataindicatesthatallthe14cities Monthly averagePMɼɻdataforyear2016wasobtained14cities 30̄̃ ƄJPĠ P 6 4 5 M 3 2 7 ALAPPUZHA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

levels acrossKERALAduring2015&2016

KOCHI 2015

KOLLAM 27

KOTTAYAM A VERA

KOZHIKODE G

MALAPPURAM E

PATHANAMTHITTAPALAKKAD 2016 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM A VERA G E CITIES

THRISSUR

WAYANAD NAAQS

KANNUR

KASARGOD WHO

IDUKKI © SriKolari/Greenpeace village, Korbadistrict, Chhattisgarh,India. @V\UN:[\KLU[^P[OHU5 9LZWPYH[VY7\YLUHROHY KERALA CPCB throughNAAQS. prescribed limitsby within the average values are showingannual is beingmonitored ambient airquality cities/towns where state whereallthe Kerala istheonly KERALA

3 4HSHWW\YHTHUK7HSHRRHK 2VaOPRVKLHSVUN^P[OZSPNO[KLJYLHZLMVY(SHWW\aOH2V[[H`HT SP[[SL]HYPH[PVUZVU\WZPKLMVY2VJOP;OYPZZ\Y>H`HUHKHUK 7VSS\[PVUSL]LSZLLTZ[VILJVUZPZ[LU[IL[^LLUHUK^P[O HPY^OLUJVTWHYLK^P[O>/6HUU\HSZ[HUKHYKMVY74ɼɻ. The WYLZJYPILKI`*7*)ɤNT³@L[HSSVM[OLTYLWVY[LKWVSS\[LK had lowerconcentrationsofPMɼɻthantheannualaveragelevels and townsacrossKerala.Thedataindicatesthatallthe14cities Monthly averagePMɼɻdataforyear2016wasobtained14cities PM10 (MG/M ) P 6 4 5 M 3 2 7 ALAPPUZHA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

levels acrossKERALAduring2015&2016

KOCHI 2015

KOLLAM 27

KOTTAYAM A VERA

KOZHIKODE G

MALAPPURAM E

PATHANAMTHITTAPALAKKAD 2016 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM A VERA G E CITIES

THRISSUR

WAYANAD NAAQS

KANNUR

KASARGOD WHO

IDUKKI © SriKolari/Greenpeace village, Korbadistrict, Chhattisgarh,India. @V\UN:[\KLU[^P[OHU5 9LZWPYH[VY7\YLUHROHY AIR POLLUTION MONITORING NETWORK AND EXPOSURE PM AIR QUALITY BY STATE FOR DISTRICTS WITH DATA

The data compiled in the report is a comprehensive set of data on air quality in India. It covers 280 National total Puducherry cities with a population of 630 million or 53% of the total population (assuming a district with even one Mizoram manual station covers the entire population of the said district): Kerala Meghalaya Himachal Pradesh Odisha 1.Out of the 630 million Indians covered by the data, 550 million live in areas exceeding Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh national standard for PM10, and 180 million live in areas where the air pollution levels are more Gujarat than twice the stipulated standards. This includes 47 million children under 5 years of age, living Goa Daman & Diu in areas where the standard is exceeded and 17 million in areas where the air pollution levels Dadara & Nagar Havelli Chandigarh are more than twice the stipulated standards. Arunachal Pradesh West Bengal Karnataka 2. The largest numbers of people in areas with more than twice the stipulated levels of Tamil Nadu Maharashtra pollution are in Uttar Pradesh (64 million), followed by Rajasthan (20 million), Maharashtra (19 Assam million), Delhi (17 million) and Bihar (15 million). Chhattisgarh Punjab Nagaland Exceeds twice Indian Haryana National Standard 3. The most are children under 5 years of age, living in areas where the standard is exceeded Jharkhand more than twice are also in Uttar Pradesh (6.3 million) and Rajasthan (2.1 million), followed by Rajasthan Exceeds Indian Uttar Pradesh National Standard Bihar (1.7 million), Maharashtra (1.4 million) and Delhi (1.4 million). Uttarakhand NCT of Delhi Exceeds WHO Jammu & Kashmir guideline Bihar 4. 580 million Indians live in districts with no air quality data available, including 59 million 0 20 40 60 80 100 children under 5 years of age.

5. Real time data is available for only 190 million Indians, or 16% of the population. STATUS OF AIR QUALITY 6. After Delhi, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh have the highest coverage of real-time data, BY DISTRICT while 23 states have no real time data available to public.

7. The largest number of people living in areas with no data is Uttar Pradesh (133 million), followed by Bihar (89 million), Madhya Pradesh (48 million) and Rajasthan (45 million).

These estimates are extremely conservative because of the assumption that the present air quality-monitoring network for respective districts covers the entire population of the mentioned districts. Whereas, in reality most of these stations are only centered around few towns, hence the actual number of people with complete absence of air quality data would be much higher.

AIR QUALITY DATA Real-time data COVERAGE BY STATE Manual data

No data National total NCT of Delhi Kerala Dadara & Nagar Havelli Chandigarh Andhra Pradesh West Bengal Puducherry Meghalaya PM AIR QUALITY Daman & Diu Himachal Pradesh BY DISTRICT Punjab Karnataka Maharashtra Mizoram Uttarakhand Gujarat Assam Odisha Chhattisgarh Goa Tamil Nadu Rajasthan Madhya Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Nagaland Jharkhand Haryana No data Bihar Arunachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manual data Tripura Sikkim Manipur Real-time data Lakshadweep Andaman & Nicobar Island No data 0 20 40 60 80 100 Exceeds WHO guideline Exceeds Indian National Standard Exceeds twice Indian National Standard

29 30 AIR POLLUTION MONITORING NETWORK AND EXPOSURE PM AIR QUALITY BY STATE FOR DISTRICTS WITH DATA

7. The largest number of people living in areas with no data is Uttar Pradesh (133 million), followed by Bihar (89 million), Madhya Pradesh (48 million) and Rajasthan (45 million).

AIR QUALITY DATA Real-time data COVERAGE BY STATE Manual data

29 30 WAY FORWARD COMPARISON OF FACTS ON AIR POLLUTION AROUND THE WORLD

CHINA INDIA US EU TAIWAN S KOREA GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE

Change in -17% 13% -15% -20% (from 2005 satellite-based PM to 2013) It requires a system , which approaches, understands and assesses pollution levels regularly while levels from 2010 to initiating action to tackle and control it effectively. The first step in this direction is to have a robust 2015 monitoring of air quality through a mechanism installed across the country. This is necessary to bring information about pollution levels in real time and through use of data resulting into collected strategies PM trend Falling since Increasing Falling since Falling since Falling since Stable since evolved to reduce pollution levels and protect public health. The strategies to reduce pollution should 2011; 2015 was steadily for past measurements measurements measurements measurements synthesize into a concrete action plan, which should be implemented in a time bound manner with the best on 10 years; 2015 started started started started specific targets and penalties. record was the worst year on record

PM in capital city, 81 128 12 18 16.1 and 18.1 26 annual (µg/m³) (depending on ACTION PLAN the location within the capital city)

Government of India should adopt time-bound national and regional action plans, which have clear PM air quality 35 40 15 25 (from 2020, 15 26 targets for regions and penalties in case of non-compliance. This should include providing transparent standard, annual 20) data to the public on air quality, besides short and long term measures to reduce air pollution. (µg/m³)

Deaths per day from 2,700 1,800 250 640 air pollution in 2013

Online PM 1,500 stations in 87 station in 52 770 stations in 1,000 stations in 76 stations 35 stations in 28 TRANSPARENT SHORT TERM LONG TERM monitoring 900 cities & cities 540 cities & 400 cities & cities (2016. 12) DATA MEASURES MEASURES towns towns towns

Share of thermal 95% 10% 60% 75% power plants with Improving NAQI monitoring Issuing red alert and health Improving public transport, limiting basic pollution systems and providing access to advisories during bad air-days, the number of polluting vehicles on controls data to the public on a real time shutting down schools, taking the road, introducing less polluting (desulphurisation, basis for the whole country is polluting vehicles off the roads fuel (Bharat VI), strict emission particle controls) absolutely necessary, given the through odd-even registration regulations and improved efficiency rising levels of air pollution number as also other schemes for thermal power plants and Target for PM or 2030; most key None 2012; violating 25 by 2015, 20 20 by 2016 15 by 18 by 2022 through most parts of the country. and shutting down power plants industries, moving from diesel deadline for meeting cities have an areas are by 2020 2020 This should be coupled with a and industries etc are some of the generators to rooftop solar power national air quality interim target for currently timely health advisory in order to short term steps that the central systems, increased use of clean standards 2017 implementing enable the public to take suitable and state governments can renewable energy, electric vehicles, new plans decisions and steps to protect undertake in case of air pollution removing dust from roads, their health and the environment. levels reaching alarming levels. regulating construction activities, Key policy measures: Strict emission Strict emissions Updated Updated Best Establish targets 22% reduction by stopping biomass burning etc. can power sector norms for norms notified in emission norms Available for electricity 2022. The top of be the long term measures. existing and new 2015 Technology from renewable in the line emission power plants, requirements by national. energy facilities & strict ramped-up 2022 transition (20% standards for 5 enforcement, from RE, 50% units of new coal PEOPLE’s INITIATIVE renewable from gas, and plants. LNG electricity 30% from coal by transition for 4 targets included 2025). Phase out units of new coal Public participation is critical in reducing air pollution. Our choices for electricity and transportation could in national air of old and high plants. Early shut play a major role in managing pollution levels in many parts of the country. Efforts should be made in action plan, pollution power down for 10 units some of the key areas such as: elimination of units. of over 30 years old plants Decrease/adjust old coal plants. 1 2 3 4 power outputs Strict emissions Moving Increased Using energy Waste during air regulations for 39 towards usage of efficient minimisation, pollution units of operating rooftop public appliances segregation and seasons. Update coal plants. Strict solar and transport, and recycling, which other forms cycling and reducing will reduce pollution control management for of walking household burning of waste technology for SRF plant 20% decentralisEd energy in streets as well renewable usage as at the power units. RE by 2030 energy landfills along Establish air solutions with energy pollution rate reductions and saving in based on transporting seasonal huge quantities difference of waste

31 32 WAY FORWARD COMPARISON OF FACTS ON AIR POLLUTION AROUND THE WORLD

CHINA INDIA US EU TAIWAN S KOREA GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE

PM in capital city, 81 128 12 18 16.1 and 18.1 26 annual (µg/m³) (depending on ACTION PLAN the location within the capital city)

Deaths per day from 2,700 1,800 250 640 air pollution in 2013

31 32 CHINA INDIA US EU TAIWAN S KOREA CHINA INDIA US EU TAIWAN S KOREA

Key policy measures: Ramped-up Government is in Emissions Best Available Stricter emission 43% reduction by Coverage of National, Mainly action in National air “Clean Air For “Air Pollution All the industry enforcement of the process of standards for Technology standards for 2022 Emissions government regional and individual cities quality targets; Europe” action Control government industrial setting up 174 major requirements for boilers. Phase charge on NO² measures city-level action with no implementation plan Strategy”, which administration will emission norms standards for 35 source all polluting out of old boilers. Strict VOC plans with measurable plans approved Europe-wide national and city take roles for and monitoring. different polluting categories, industries. Transit of 6,000 management. measurable targets Recently on federal level emission level government PM reduction in Absolute coal industries, representing 90 Emission ceilings boiler that are 5-year targets introduced and executed on standards for agencies should their responsible consumption especially with percent of for air pollutants currently using National India-wide state level power plants, established sector by 2022 cuts and a ban SO² and NOx emissions of 30 for each member oil as fuel to gas. emission emission National industry and cars relevant and government on increasing emissions. priority state that fall standards for standards for emission Most countries regulations and department of the coal-fired boilers pollutants. over time. power plants, thermal power standards for and key cities plans policy in key regions. industrial plants; power plants, have own plans accordingly. coordination will sectors and Introduction of industrial sectors National review, evaluate, Key policy measures: Controlling Bharat VI Emission EURO6 emission Phase out 43% reduction by vehicles Bharat VI vehicle and vehicles emission improve the plan transport number of cars standards will standards standards for 80,000 old diesel 2022 for Vehicles emission norms standards for when the target EURO4/5/6 come into place comparable to cars and trucks; cars by 2019. Low pollution are proposed by power plants and years come. Electric vehicle by 2020. 100% EURO6; mandatory Phase out measures for April 2020. Only industrial mandate. new electric mandatory emission 1,000,000 old diesel vehicle & Delhi NCR region sectors. “Air vehicle policy by emission measurements. scooters by support EV, has an Pollution Control 2030. 100% measurements. CO2 emission 2019. Promote Hydrogen emergency Act”, which is in electrification of standards that filter installation Vehicles. response plan modification railways by 2020. encourage for diesel cars. and the courts process right electrification. Promote use of have asked the now, and the electrical government to main vehicles. notify long term modification action plan for elements are to Key policy measures: Replacing Replacing Emissions from National Strengthen 24% reduction by Delhi NCR establish other sectors household coal biomass based agriculture, emissions standards for air 2022 for off road regulations/guide use with gas cooking stoves waste burning ceilings and pollution control emissions lines for air and electricity. with LPG to etc. are national air equipment at Measures for pollution reduce indoor air regulated on pollution control construction Ships and emission cut, pollution. State and local programmes sites. Establish Construction transportation Working with level; areas that cover regulation on air machinery and authorization farmers to violate air quality agriculture, pollution control city government reduce air standards are domestic heating equipment for to take action pollution due to subject to more and non-road restaurants. according to open crop restrictions mobile local air quality. burning. Banning machinery and garbage burning. solvents etc.

Consequences for Promotion of None but courts States must Cities & No legal action 15% reduction by missing targets province time to time adopt emission countries face for the 2022 for fugitive governors impose penalties reduction legal action for government but dust. Diplomatic depends on for measures into not meeting will surely efforts with other meeting targets non-compliance law that are standards. receive pressure countries for trans demonstrated to and condemn boundary air enable meeting from the society pollution. targets; must (since air account for pollution is one pollution of the most transport into discussed and downwind concerned issue states; periodic in the whole review. society. For that industry which will have to be in compliance with related regulations, there will be fine if they failed to meet the standards

33 34 CHINA INDIA US EU TAIWAN S KOREA CHINA INDIA US EU TAIWAN S KOREA

33 34 APPENDIX-I PM10 Levels across India (Annual Average 2016/2015)

Yearly Average Yearly Average Pollution Levels Pollution Levels 2015 2016 2016 or 2015 2015 2016 2016 or 2015 STATE CITY AVERAGE AVERAGE (Recent) NAAQS WHO STATE CITY AVERAGE AVERAGE (Recent) NAAQS WHO

Delhi Delhi 268 290 290 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Meerut NA 157 157 60 20

Haryana {converted from PM Faridabad 240 272 272 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Gorakhpur 162 154 154 60 20 (47% of PMɼɻ)} Bihar {converted from PM Gaya NA 153 153 60 20 Rajasthan Bhiwadi NA 262 262 60 20 (47% of PMɼɻ)}

Bihar {converted from PM Patna NA 261 261 60 20 Maharashtra Nanded 167 151 151 60 20 (47% of PMɼɻ)} Karnataka Tumkur 118 144 144 60 20 Uttarakhand Dehradun 190 238 238 60 20 Rajasthan Alwar 227 144 144 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Varanasi 145 236 236 60 20 Jharkhand Saraikela Kharsawan 144 NA 144 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Ghaziabad 259 236 236 60 20 Assam Nagaon 142 NA 142 60 20 Bihar {converted from PM Muzaffarpur NA 235 235 60 20 (47% of PMɼɻ)} Uttarakhand Rudrapur 125 142 142 60 20

Uttar Pradesh Hapur NA 235 235 60 20 Rajasthan Udaipur 156 142 142 60 20

Punjab Amritsar 184 232 232 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Rai Bareilly 157 140 140 60 20

Jharkhand Jharia 230 NA 230 60 20 West Bengal Burdwan NA 140 140 60 20

Haryana converted from PM Gurgaon 129 227 227 60 20 Maharashtra Dombivli 103 140 140 60 20 (47% of PMɼɻ)} Punjab Ludhiana 140 139 139 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Bareilly 240 226 226 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Renusagar/Sonbhadra 139 NA 139 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Firozabad 194 223 223 60 20 Jharkhand Jamshedpur 135 NA 135 60 20 Jharkhand Ranchi 220 NA 220 60 20 Odisha Rajgangpur NA 133 133 60 20 Rajasthan Jaipur 170 218 218 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Anpara/ Sonbhadra 133 133 133 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Kanpur 195 217 217 60 20 Maharashtra Mumbai 103 130 130 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Lucknow 169 211 211 60 20 Uttarakhand Haldwani 139 130 130 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Agra 183 197 197 60 20 Uttarakhand Haridwar 123 128 128 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Moradabad 168 195 195 60 20 West Bengal Dankuni 127 NA 127 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Noida 154 195 195 60 20 Punjab Mandi Gobindgarh 130 126 126 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Allahabad 249 192 192 60 20 Nagaland Dimapur 126 NA 126 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Gajraula 176 191 191 60 20 Rajasthan Bharatpur NA 126 126 60 20 Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi/ Tuticorin 91 182 182 60 20 Jammu & Kashmir Jammu 125 NA 125 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Mathura NA 172 172 60 20 West Bengal Uluberia 125 NA 125 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Khurja 167 170 170 60 20 Assam Golaghat 124 NA 124 60 20 Rajasthan Jodhpur 151 169 169 60 20 West Bengal Kolkata 109 124 124 60 20 Jharkhand Dhanbad 168 NA 168 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Unnao 118 124 124 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Saharanpur NA 167 167 60 20 Maharashtra Akola 127 123 123 60 20 Maharashtra Lote 163 NA 163 60 20 Meghalaya Byrnihat 123 NA 123 60 20 Punjab SBS Nagar NA 160 160 60 20 Maharashtra Badlapur 103 122 122 60 20 Punjab Jalandhar 151 159 159 60 20 Uttarakhand Kashipur 108 121 121 60 20

35 36 APPENDIX-I PM10 Levels across India (Annual Average 2016/2015)

Delhi Delhi 268 290 290 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Meerut NA 157 157 60 20

Uttar Pradesh Hapur NA 235 235 60 20 Rajasthan Udaipur 156 142 142 60 20

Punjab Amritsar 184 232 232 60 20 Uttar Pradesh Rai Bareilly 157 140 140 60 20

Jharkhand Jharia 230 NA 230 60 20 West Bengal Burdwan NA 140 140 60 20

35 36 APPENDIX-I PM10 Levels across India (Annual Average 2016/2015)

Maharashtra Ambernath NA 121 121 60 20 Gujarat Ahmedabad 91 107 107 60 20

Assam Nalbari 121 NA 121 60 20 Gujarat Vatva/ Ahemdabad NA 106 106 60 20

Chhattisgarh Raipur 138 121 121 Rajasthan Kota 133 106 106 60 20 60 20 West Bengal Haldia 120 NA 120 West Bengal Bankura NA 106 106 60 20 60 20 Assam Tinsukia 119 NA 119 Karnataka Bangalore 119 106 106 60 20

Maharashtra Panvel NA 118 118 60 20 Punjab Faridkot 90 106 106 60 20

Uttarakhand Rishikesh 119 118 118 60 20 Gujarat Sanand 93 105 105 60 20

Himachal Pradesh Kala Amb 118 NA 118 60 20 Odisha Talcher 136 105 105 60 20

Punjab Bathinda 111 117 117 60 20 Himachal Pradesh Damtal 104 NA 104 60 20

Maharashtra Thane 117 117 117 Maharashtra Amravati 108 104 104 60 20 60 20 Haryana converted from PM Rohtak 92 116 116 Chandigarh Chandigarh 85 104 104 60 20 (47% of PM)} 60 20 Gujarat Sarigam 88 104 104 60 20 West Bengal Murshidabad NA 116 116 60 20 Gujarat Bhuj 86 103 103 60 20 Himachal Pradesh Paonta Sahib 116 NA 116 60 20 Assam Guwahati 98 103 103 60 20 Maharashtra Ulhasnagar 101 116 116 60 20 Odisha Bhubaneswar 85 103 103 60 20 Maharashtra Taloja NA 115 115 60 20 Gujarat Vapi 86 102 102 60 20 Maharashtra Chandrapur 94 115 115 60 20 Gujarat Vadodara 86 102 102 60 20 Assam Margherita 114 NA 114 60 20 Maharashtra Jalgaon 107 102 102 60 20 West Bengal Raniganj 114 NA 114 60 20 Gujarat Ankleshwar 84 102 102 60 20 Punjab Khanna 122 114 114 60 20 Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada 109 101 101 60 20 West Bengal Birbhum NA 113 113 60 20 West Bengal Durgapur 101 NA 101 60 20 Odisha Kalinga Nagar 100 113 113 60 20 Madhya Pradesh Gwalior 125 100 100 60 20 Karnataka Bidar 59 113 113 60 20 Gujarat Bharuch 83 100 100 60 20 West Bengal Barrackpore 113 NA 113 60 20 Maharashtra Pune 77 99 99 60 20 West Bengal 24 Parganas South NA 112 112 60 20 West Bengal 24 Parganas North NA 98 98 60 20 Punjab Rasulpur NA 112 112 60 20 Chhattisgarh Bilaspur 99 98 98 60 20 Jharkhand West Singhbhum 111 NA 111 60 20 Punjab Dera Bassi 96 97 97 60 20 Assam Dibrugarh 110 NA 110 60 20 West Bengal Asansol 97 NA 97 60 20 Haryana converted from PM Panchkula 92 110 110 (47% of PMɼɻ)} 60 20 Odisha Angul 102 97 97 60 20

Odisha Paradeep 110 109 109 60 20 Gujarat Morbi 93 97 97 60 20

Chhattisgarh Raigarh NA 109 109 60 20 Madhya Pradesh Indore 97 96 96 60 20

Uttar Pradesh Jhansi 119 108 108 60 20 Punjab Dera Baba Nanak 79 95 95 60 20

Chhattisgarh Bhilai 107 NA 107 60 20 Madhya Pradesh Ujjain 95 NA 95 60 20

Punjab Patiala 110 107 107 60 20 Nagaland Kohima 95 NA 95 60 20

Telangana Kothur 107 NA 107 60 20 Madhya Pradesh Pithampur 121 95 95 60 20

37 38 APPENDIX-I PM10 Levels across India (Annual Average 2016/2015)