Despite NCAP, most Indian cities continue to exceed national ambient air quality standards. Identify the institutional and fiscal bottlenecks, and suggest co-benefit-based interventions.

Launched in 2019, the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) aims to cut PM10 by up to 40% by 2025–26 across 130 cities. Yet in FY 2025–26 only 26 cities met that target and just 14 met the PM10 NAAQS [1]. The shortfall comes less from intent than from weak institutions and misdirected money.

Institutional bottlenecks

• Wrong metric: PM10 targets reward cheap road sweeping, while health-critical PM2.5 from combustion stays largely untouched.
• Weak urban local bodies: cities lack the engineers and planners to turn grants into projects; Delhi used only about 29.5% of its NCAP funds [2].
• Sectoral lag: in 2024, 139 thermal power units were still at the FGD tendering stage for SO₂ control [3].
• City-bound planning: smoke crosses city and state lines (e.g., stubble burning in NCR), but action plans stop at municipal limits.

Fiscal bottlenecks

• Skewed spending: about 64% of funds went to road-dust control, and little to industry or vehicles [2].
• Under-utilisation: only about 70.5% of the performance-linked grants released had been used [1].
• Unsettled cost-sharing: scrubber costs feed into power tariffs, so plants and states keep seeking delays.

Co-benefit-based interventions

PM2.5 already costs the world about 6.1% of GDP [5], so cutting it pays back:

• Clean cooking: judge Ujjwala by refills, not connections. Average use rose only from 3.01 to 3.71 cylinders a year (FY20–FY23) [4]. Targeted refill support would cut household smoke and ease women's health burden.
• Waste management: segregation and composting under SBM-Urban end open burning and improve urban services.
• Cleaner industry: fuel switching and efficiency upgrades in MSME clusters cut both emissions and energy bills.
• Grant redesign: score cities on PM2.5 and earmark part of each grant for technical staff.

NCAP falls short because of a PM10-centred metric, thin municipal capacity and skewed spending. Grants tied to PM2.5 outcomes, airshed-level coordination and co-benefit levers would make clean air a driver of growth rather than a brake on it. This would also advance the Article 21 right to a healthy environment and SDGs 3.9 and 11.6.