INDIA’S BATTLE FOR LOW-COST AIR POLLUTION DATA

A quick look at the one battle that could be holding back action for clean air in one of the most polluted countries.

The International Clean Air Day for Blue Skies, on the 7th of September, is a well chosen time of the year because even the notoriously polluted Delhi and north Indian air is relatively clean, the sky is actually blue and not some shade of grey-brown. Thank the monsoon for this. In a few weeks it’ll be gone and pollution levels will sky-rocket as they have for the last so many years. 

Picture courtesy: @akhileshsharma1

It’s not like there’s been no action by officials - there has - but it’s been largely ineffective. A recent report by the Central government’s CAQM (Commission for Air Quality Management) shows how Delhi and its neighbourhood have PM 2.5 pollution levels 20x above safe levels mandated by the WHO.

What does exposure to high levels of air pollution mean for the over 400 million people living across northern India, from the border with Pakistan to the one with Bangladesh? What does this massive health crisis mean for our kids, our elders, ourselves on a daily basis? That asthma attack, chronically diseased lungs, more people getting cancer, and now links with dementia and premature births among a whole list of AQ-linked health risks.

A big gap exists between the excellent science and a vast majority of people who are either unaware or helpless about air pollution. To ask ‘what are we breathing’ should be as frequent a question as ‘what are we eating?’

One thing that can help ordinary folk is data at a localised level, that would help answer what we’re breathing. But there was a sense of gloom over this at a recent air quality conference held in Bengaluru. 

It is largely accepted that more data can only be good for health to figure out where and how to cut air pollution. But there’s a divide between the official, ‘reference-grade’ monitors and the low-cost ones. 

The main issue is over the use of low-cost sensors. These can report air quality in real-time. There are many manufacturers, many made-in-India products. While prices vary, almost all cost less than a tenth of the government’s AQ monitors. These government ones known as CAAQMS (Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitor Station) are priced at around 15 million rupees or Rs 1.5 crore each. The daily AQ index or AQI reported by the government is based on these CAAQMS readings. 

The Bengaluru conference saw a remarkable clash take place over whether low-cost sensors (LCS) should be used or not. It took place in the backdrop of a major setback when the country’s top pollution control agency and regulator, the CPCB made a new rule that LCS data ‘may not be used for public information.’ It has questioned, with some justification, the accuracy and reliability of these machines. But the net effect has been a large-scale clamp down on data, data that could cut public health risks.

Letter from India’s Central Board of Pollution Control against using data from low cost sensors for ‘public information.’

A top environment official from UP at the conference backed this up saying the question before the government is whether this technology is “duly validated by the designated authority.” While he acknowledged such sensors are helpful for hyper-local data for decisions by local administrations, it is “not for the public… we want to control pollution, we don’t want to create havoc.” (Emphasis added.)

Sitting by him was the chief of the pollution control board of Bihar, which borders UP and is part of the highly polluted north India belt. Dr Ghosh agreed that officials should not create panic but went on to fully endorse low cost sensors. “Normal sensors are so costly that we have to eventually go for them. Bihar will become bankrupt if we have to cover the entire state with CAAQMS.” Illustrating the extent of the challenged he revealed how there should actually be at least 20 more ‘non-attainment’ cities in an official list which will make them eligible for funds to improve air quality; non-attainment is the clunky tag given to those cities which have failed to attain safe levels of air pollution in recent years. 

[This comment actually puts a spotlight on a massive vacuum of data that should be available to the public. On the one hand India is seen as the most polluted country in the world; on the other there aren’t enough officially accepted monitors in the country, although these are being rapidly added. So air pollution isn’t even being tracked in most places. It’s a gap that LCSs can easily fill if it wasn’t for the CPCB’s letter.]

Perhaps the biggest endorsement in favour of affordable, non-government LCS came from Indore. An experiment with local communities, local officials as well as technical experts and volunteers has worked out very well, according to a project consultant, Dr Damodar Bachani, who spoke at the conference.  The bedrock of their success were 20 LCS monitors with a buy-in from community volunteers and top municipal officials. Dr Bachani says they went to the municipal chief and officials of the Centre’s Smart Cities programme after the CPCB’s letter bomb. “Letter came from CPCB, on the restrictions. But the officials said no, it’s required for the city. Let’s go ahead. They were very positive in spite of the Central Pollution Control Board saying don’t use it. Our aim was not to do any big research but just identify and address the local sources of pollution. After this there was regulation of construction sites, new parking sites at markets, tandoors banned at three places famous for street food.” 

From the Indore air quality project: What a low cost sensor looks like

The arguments by the CPCB and some other officials against low cost sensors are based on questions over the reliability of the data in comparison to the high-grade, expensive CAAQMS. But several studies including by scientists from IIT, groups like Bengaluru’s CSTEP have experimented and found these to be largely consistent and in tandem with the official monitors; of course, there are caveats depending on the model, the working conditions and standardisation and calibration is much needed. Yet as the CSTEP report points out, given the affordability, portability and ease of installations, LCSs can help give air quality information in areas with no monitoring. The CPCB as the sector’s regulator is powerful so various scientists, experts, manufacturers etc are treading cautiously, trying to work out solutions

The concerns are valid but LCS tech has improved, and there are possibly several hundred already deployed in several parts of the country. But given the CPCB’s March letter, much of this data is not available to the public. That is a shame.