The National Clean Air Programme has made significant financial outlays but struggles with effective fund utilisation at the sub-national level. Analyse the structural reasons for this gap and suggest reforms.

Q. The National Clean Air Programme has made significant financial outlays but struggles with effective fund utilisation at the sub-national level. Analyse the structural reasons for this gap and suggest reforms. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Launched in January 2019 by the MoEFCC, the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) now covers 131 non-attainment cities [2][3] and targets a 40% reduction in PM2.5/PM10 by 2026 over a 2017 baseline [4]. Yet of roughly ₹13,415 crore released, only about ₹10,003 crore has been spent [6] — the deficit lies in delivery, not allocation.

Evidence of the absorption gap - The MoEFCC utilised only 67% of its budget in 2024-25, with the Control of Pollution scheme spending barely 2% of its allocation [5]. - Bengaluru had used just 13% of ₹541.1 crore by October 2024, rising to 76% only after the NGT's scrutiny [1].

Structural reasons - Third-tier capacity deficit: Urban Local Bodies execute clean-air works but lack dedicated technical staff, air-quality expertise and project pipelines. - Fragmented accountability: the Centre releases, State PCBs plan, and ULBs implement — diffusing responsibility across three tiers [1]. - Visible-spend bias: over 86% of Karnataka's utilised funds went to road dust control, against 6.6% on vehicular emissions and 4.1% on biomass burning [1] — easily tendered works crowd out harder structural fixes. - Weak evidentiary base: State Action Plans framed without robust source-apportionment studies produce projects that cannot absorb funds meaningfully. - Reactive oversight: compliance followed judicial direction, the NGT Southern Zone Bench having to direct five southern States and Puducherry [1].

Reforms - Mandate source-apportionment studies as a precondition for SAP approval, with sectoral spending floors for transport and biomass. - Create dedicated city clean-air cells with technical staffing and untied operational funds. - Shift to airshed-level planning, since pollution ignores municipal boundaries. - Publish real-time utilisation and outcome data on public dashboards to enable citizen audit.

Clean air financing has crossed the allocation threshold; the binding constraint is now institutional absorptive capacity. Strengthening the municipal tier, anchoring spending in science, and making outcomes publicly visible would convert outlays into breathable air — advancing both Article 21 and SDG 11.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. NGT directs southern States to use clean air funds — The Hindu, May 3, 2026 — NGT Southern Zone Bench directions; Karnataka/Bengaluru utilisation and spending mix 2. Government launches National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) — PIB — January 2019 launch under MoEFCC 3. Allocation of funds to 131 cities under NCAP — PIB — coverage of 131 non-attainment cities 4. Goals set under NCAP — PIB — 40% PM reduction target by 2026, base year 2017 5. Demand for Grants 2026-27 Analysis: Environment, Forests and Climate Change — PRS Legislative Research — ministry budget utilisation and Control of Pollution scheme spending 6. Parliament Question: National Clean Air Programme — PIB — national funds released and utilised under NCAP