Opinion NCAP 2.0 must focus on industrial reform to ensure cities have clean air

Yet, only 0.6 per cent of the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and Fifteenth Finance Commission funds are allocated to control industrial emissions. Although the issue is widely known, only a few states, such as Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, are actively pursuing airshed-level management.

Barriers and the solutions ahead

Informal industries such as brick kilns, rice mills, stone crushers, and mineral grinding units are significant pollution sources. India hosts over 1,40,000 brick kilns, most of which use outdated technologies and burn coal or agricultural waste inefficiently. This results in high emissions of particulate matter of 2.5 µm in diameter (PM2.5), black carbon, and sulphur dioxide (SO₂). Brick kilns using zigzag technology paired with fabric filters can significantly reduce PM emissions. The government must enforce retrofitting mandates, support capacity building, and provide subsidies for cleaner upgrades.

Similarly, rice mills burn husk and other residues, often in inefficient furnaces with little to no emission control, resulting in PM generation from milling and husk burning. Rice mills should be encouraged to install multi-cyclone separators or wet scrubbers and transition to cleaner fuels, including rice husk gasifiers or biomass pellets.

Fugitive emissions from stone crushers and mineral grinding industries remain a major challenge for NCAP cities. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) issued dust mitigation guidelines (updated July 2023), mandating dust suppression systems like dry mist guns for these industries. However, a 2022 Centre for Science and Environment report noted widespread non-compliance. Enforcing these measures through quarterly audits, worker training, and fines for non-functional systems can effectively curb fugitive emissions.

Large industries such as cement plants, smelters, TPPs, and integrated steel plants are major contributors to emissions. Process optimisation using alternative fuels, electric smelting furnaces, and waste heat recovery can reduce emissions by 30–40 per cent. Air pollution control devices like electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), fabric filters, and wet scrubbers are critical, capturing up to 90 per cent of PM from these sources. TPPs emit PM (fly ash), SO₂, and nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), and their mitigation involves ESPs/bag houses, flue gas desulphurisers, and selective catalytic reduction. Integrating renewable energy, such as solar or wind power, into operations further reduces fossil fuel reliance and emissions.

A notable innovation is the use of community boilers, where multiple units share a high-capacity boiler with modern pollution control systems such as ESPs and bag filters. The CPCB guidelines on common boilers (March 2024) must be made part of state industrial policies and implemented through industrial estate planning.

Micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) rely heavily on polluting fuels like coal and heavy oil, emitting high levels of PM and SO₂. These pollutants harm human health and contribute to urban smog. Transitioning to natural gas, electricity, or solar thermal systems can reduce both PM and SO₂ emissions.

Bridging the reporting gap

A crucial starting point for larger industries is to improve transparency and accountability through comprehensive reporting. Currently, the top 1,000 listed companies in India (based on market value) are required to report their GHG emissions (as per the business responsibility and sustainability reporting format), but there is no regulatory mandate for reporting air pollutant emissions.

It is imperative for these industries to report their annual fuel consumption by type and provide detailed information about the air pollution control devices and processes they have in place. This reporting can be made mandatory for consent-to-operate clearances. Such transparency will not only help monitor emissions but also encourage industries to adopt best practices and newer technologies.

Government stakeholders, including the Industrial Development Boards; the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises; the Ministry of Heavy Industries; and state pollution control boards, must collaborate to facilitate a smooth transition for industries. This may include ensuring clean fuel infrastructure and easier financing for industrial upgrades. Financial incentives, such as tax breaks, grants, or low-interest loans, could play a critical role in encouraging industries to invest in cleaner technologies. These could be incorporated into the financial outlay of NCAP 2.0.

However, the question remains: Who will take the initiative to implement these changes?

The real test

Although it is widely agreed that industries must bear the costs of technological upgrades to reduce emissions, local governments and pollution control boards cannot merely shift the burden to industries without providing support. There needs to be a collaborative approach where cities, industries, and regulatory bodies work together to achieve the common goal of cleaner air.

Cleaner industrial air benefits not only health but also the economy. Reduced hospital visits, improved labour productivity, and job creation in clean technology sectors justify the investment.

With NCAP 2.0 on the horizon, it’s time to move beyond tokenism. Only an integrated, well-funded strategy covering large industries, MSMEs, and informal industries can deliver breathable air to Indian cities.

The writer is a senior associate in the Air Quality Policy and Outreach team at the Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP), a research-based think tank