Delhi: Why India caps pollution reading at 500 when the air is far more toxic – BBC

Report on Air Quality Index Discrepancies in Northern India and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Public Health Crisis and Data Contradiction

Severe air pollution in Northern India presents a significant public health challenge, directly undermining progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being). During peak pollution periods, residents face conflicting information regarding air quality, creating confusion and hindering effective public health responses. This report analyzes the discrepancy between official Indian Air Quality Index (AQI) data and figures from international monitoring platforms, assessing the implications for achieving key SDGs, including SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

2.0 Analysis of AQI Reporting Discrepancies

A notable contradiction exists between data provided by different air quality monitoring systems. This divergence complicates public understanding and policy-making aimed at creating sustainable urban environments.

• Government-Backed Monitors: Platforms such as SAFAR and SAMEER utilize India’s official National Air Quality Index, which has an upper limit of 500. Any pollution level exceeding this threshold is reported simply as 500.
• Private and International Monitors: Trackers like IQAir and other open-source platforms do not have an upper cap and frequently report AQI values far exceeding 500, sometimes surpassing 1,000.

This artificial ceiling on official data flattens the representation of severe pollution events, masking the true extent of the environmental hazard and its impact on human health, a critical component of SDG 3.

3.0 Methodological and Technological Differences

The discrepancies in reported AQI values stem from fundamental differences in measurement standards and technology, highlighting a need for greater international cooperation as envisioned in SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

1. The AQI Cap: The 500 cap was instituted over a decade ago based on the assumption that health impacts would not worsen beyond this “severe” level. However, current scientific literature indicates that health symptoms continue to worsen as pollution levels increase, making the cap obsolete and detrimental to public health awareness.
2. Pollutant Thresholds: There is a significant difference in how hazardous air is defined.
   • The World Health Organization (WHO) guideline for hazardous PM2.5 levels is above 15 micrograms per cubic metre over 24 hours.
   • India’s national standard sets the threshold at 60 micrograms per cubic metre.

   This variance in standards means that assessments of health risks differ, impacting the ability to meet the targets of SDG 3.

3. Monitoring Instrumentation:
   • Official Indian Systems: Employ Beta Attenuation Monitors (BAMs), which physically measure particle mass and are calibrated to strict metrics.
   • International/Private Systems: Often rely on sensor-based monitors that use laser scattering to estimate particle counts. These are not yet approved by the Indian government and may not be calibrated with the same rigour.

4.0 Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The current state of air quality reporting in India has direct and adverse consequences for the achievement of several SDGs.

• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): By capping the AQI at 500, the system fails to communicate the true severity of air pollution, preventing citizens from taking appropriate protective measures and hindering the development of effective public health policies to combat respiratory and other pollution-related diseases.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): Accurate and transparent environmental data is essential for sustainable urban planning. The underreporting of pollution levels prevents the implementation of targeted and effective measures to make cities safe, resilient, and sustainable.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The lack of harmonisation between national and international monitoring standards and technologies underscores a gap in global collaboration on environmental data. Aligning these systems is crucial for a globally coherent approach to tackling transboundary pollution.

5.0 Recommendations and Conclusion

Environmental scientists and activists advocate for a comprehensive revision of India’s air quality framework, which has not been updated since 2009. Key recommendations to align with SDG targets include:

1. Removing the 500 AQI Cap: To provide an accurate and transparent representation of air quality that reflects the real-time health risks.
2. Recalibrating the National Air Quality Index: The index should be updated based on the latest scientific evidence regarding health impacts and modern monitoring technologies.
3. Integrating Sensor-Based Data: A framework should be developed to approve and incorporate data from newer, sensor-based technologies to improve monitoring coverage.

In conclusion, the current AQI reporting system in India, with its artificial ceiling, obstructs progress towards critical Sustainable Development Goals. Modernizing the framework to provide uncapped, accurate, and transparent data is an essential step for protecting public health (SDG 3) and building sustainable cities (SDG 11).

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article on air quality in northern India connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) due to its focus on public health, urban environmental quality, and the reliability of environmental data.

   • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

     This goal is directly addressed as the article repeatedly links poor air quality to negative health outcomes. It mentions that air with an AQI above 200 causes “clear breathing discomfort,” and levels above 400 “affect healthy people while also seriously impacting those with existing diseases.” The statement that “health symptoms keep on worsening as the pollution levels increase” further solidifies the connection between air pollution and the goal of ensuring healthy lives.

   • SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

     The issue is framed as a problem “for millions across northern India,” a region with many large cities. Air quality is a critical component of urban environmental sustainability. The article’s entire discussion revolves around measuring and reporting the quality of air in these populated areas, which is a core concern of making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

   • SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

     This goal, particularly its focus on data and accountability, is relevant because the article’s central theme is the discrepancy and reliability of air quality data. The conflict between government-backed apps (SAFAR, SAMEER) and international trackers (IQAir), the debate over the 500 AQI cap, and the call to revise the “air quality framework” based on “the latest technology” all point to the need for high-quality, reliable, and transparent data systems for monitoring progress, which is a key aspect of SDG 17.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the issues discussed, specific targets within the identified SDGs can be pinpointed.

   • Target 3.9

     “By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.”
     The article directly relates to this target by discussing the health impacts of hazardous air pollutants such as “PM2.5, PM10, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and ozone.” The description of “severe” air quality affecting healthy people and worsening existing diseases highlights the problem of illnesses caused by air pollution that this target aims to address.

   • Target 11.6

     “By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.”
     The article’s focus is squarely on air quality in a densely populated region. The measurement of the Air Quality Index (AQI) and the pollutants it tracks are direct efforts to monitor the environmental impact of cities. The entire narrative about how to accurately measure and report this impact aligns perfectly with the objective of this target.

   • Target 17.18

     “By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries… to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data…”
     The article’s core conflict is about the quality and reliability of data. The Indian government’s AQI scale stopping at 500 is described as a system that “flattens the data,” masking the true pollution levels. The call by scientists to revise the National Air Quality Index and recalibrate the scale points to a need to enhance the national capacity for producing reliable and uncapped environmental data, which is the essence of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article mentions or implies several indicators used to measure progress towards the identified targets.

   • Indicator 3.9.1

     “Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient air pollution.”
     While the article does not provide mortality statistics, it strongly implies the health risks that lead to mortality and morbidity. By stating that severe pollution “seriously impact[s] those with existing diseases” and that “health symptoms keep on worsening as the pollution levels increase,” it refers to the very health outcomes this indicator is designed to track.

   • Indicator 11.6.2

     “Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (e.g. PM2.5 and PM10) in cities (population weighted).”
     This indicator is explicitly referenced in the article. It names “PM2.5, PM10” as key pollutants measured by the AQI. Furthermore, it discusses the specific concentration thresholds for PM2.5, noting that the WHO guideline is 15 micrograms per cubic metre while India’s threshold is 60 micrograms. This shows that the level of fine particulate matter is the primary metric being discussed for assessing urban air quality.

   • Indicator 17.18.1

     “Statistical capacity indicator for Sustainable Development Goal monitoring.”
     This indicator is implied through the entire discussion about the national monitoring system. The article highlights shortcomings in India’s statistical capacity for air quality monitoring, such as the AQI cap of 500, the non-revision of the framework since 2009, and the non-approval of modern “sensor-based air quality monitoring.” The call from scientists to “recalibrating the scale based on the latest technology” is a direct call to improve the statistical capacity relevant to this indicator.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators
   SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.	Indicator 3.9.1 (Implied): Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient air pollution, as the article discusses severe health impacts from air pollutants.
   SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality…	Indicator 11.6.2 (Mentioned): Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (e.g. PM2.5 and PM10) in cities, as the article explicitly names these pollutants and discusses their measurement.
   SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals	Target 17.18: …increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data…	Indicator 17.18.1 (Implied): Statistical capacity indicator for SDG monitoring, as the article critiques the current data collection framework (e.g., the 500 AQI cap) and calls for its revision.

Source: bbc.com