Media workshop on 'Understanding Air Quality Data'

The workshop began with the President of Pune Union of Working Journalists (PUWJ), Brijmohan Patil welcoming the speakers and the audience. He noted that the first workshop with the journalists on air quality had happened in the year 2022, and such workshops helped to strengthen the understanding of the reporters on technical issues like air quality. A context setting was done by Ranjit Gadgil who highlighted the importance of conducting this media workshop, noting that well-informed reporting helps connect technical data to citizens’ everyday experiences, ultimately improving public accountability.

Dr. Ritu Parchure, Fellow, Prayas Health Group, spoke about the health impacts of air pollution. She reiterated that it is a critical matter requiring urgent attention as it affects almost everyone in varying degrees. She discussed how the pollutants enter the bloodstream through the lungs and cause a host of disorders like heart disease, kidney failure, stroke, affects the reproductive and neurological system, and even affects the fetus and newborn babies, apart from respiratory issues like COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), asthma, etc. She explained how the Air Quality Index (AQI) is generated and emphasized that health risks start even when the Air Quality Index (AQI) moves from “Good” to “Satisfactory”.

Sunil Dahiya, Founder and Lead Analyst, Envirocatalysts, provided a national data perspective, urging for emission reduction strategies and clearer accountability among different levels of government. He spoke about the genesis of the NCAP (National Clean Air Program), and its strategies to meet its 2026 goals, which were originally set for 2024. He explained how air quality is actually measured in cities through the monitoring program under the CPCB, the allocation of funds, and the reporting mechanism. He displayed a few data trends monitored for the city of Pune from 2015. He covered the gaps in the program and touched upon real and perceived solutions.

Shweta Vernekar, Senior Program Associate, Parisar took the audience through some of the thematic areas for which there was a fund allocation and the city had committed to implement certain actions through those. She updated on the current status for each of those areas, and also highlighted the challenges in procuring information related to them. She described the Swachh Vayu Sarvekshan program and critiqued it for focusing mainly on ranking cities rather than assessing whether their actions are resulting in actual emission reductions. She pointed out that while the program encourages competition, it falls short of measuring the real on-ground impact of air quality improvement efforts.

She then introduced the dashboard to the participants, which is an interactive online platform that consolidates data updated on a monthly basis from monitors operated by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and IITM, offering a single-window view of Pune’s air quality. The dashboard captures monthly data on Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)—the most harmful air pollutants. She explained that the users could view data from individual monitors or across multiple stations to identify trends and patterns.The dashboard also provides quick analytical insights, such as seasonal comparisons and multi-year trends, aiding researchers, journalists, and citizens.
The dashboard is available at: https://parisar.adwaithtech.net/

The participants were given an online resource kit which had the presentations of the speakers, the dashboard access, and the minutes of meetings held by the city level committee from 2022 till date.

The session ended with an open discussion facilitated by Suhas Joshi, Asar Impact Advisors, and questions from the participants.

Q & As

Q1. Any evaluation process taking place based on the baseline data? For instance, if transport contributed a certain percentage to emissions five years ago, or whenever the baseline information was collected, how much has it reduced now in comparison with that base? Has such an evaluation been done?
A1. The response was that dynamic updating of data is not happening yet. The suggested solution is that cities should build their own emission inventories. There should be dedicated manpower for updating these inventories from time to time and for comparing them with the base year to understand how much pollution has reduced or what the current pollution status is.

Q2. Why is there no litigation against the CPCB if the data is manipulated?
A2. Even before the manipulation happens, we should understand that the indicators themselves are problematic. Rather than having just one or two indicators, there should be a more composite matrix. For example, additional related criteria can be added—such as data on diesel or petrol consumption—and more pollutants should be included to make the matrix more comprehensive for arriving at “good” or “bad” indicators.
Talking of manipulation, there have been instances where fog cannons were operated very close to monitors to artificially bring down pollution levels. Such things do happen, and there are groups that have gone to court. So, litigations are ongoing.

Q3. What are the precautions and solutions that we can take related to health?
A3. The response was that, at an individual level, one can wear an N95 mask, which filters out PM 2.5. Whenever you go out, you can wear these masks. However, these measures have limited effectiveness. Using air purifiers indoors can also help, but they are expensive and not accessible to everyone.
At a collective level, as journalists, one can think of actions that encourage community participation. Reporting more on the science behind air quality can help inform and mobilize citizens. As journalists and citizens, we can together take collective actions. There is no ready solution that guarantees immediate results, but collectively, one needs to brainstorm and look at possible actions that can be taken.

Q4. How is accountability factored into the NCAP?
A4. Under this plan, there are various tasks or responsibilities assigned to states and cities, segregated according to who is responsible for what. However, under the NCAP, there is no legal binding; the program itself is not legally enforceable. Hence, accountability needs to increase, but that is not currently built into the strategy.

Q5. There are also many new C&D (construction and demolition) works happening on the outskirts of the city as well as within it. Many RMC (ready-mix concrete) plants operate, and when complaints are filed, MPCB vans arrive, but by then, these plants are often closed—making it difficult to assess the real level of pollution.As lay citizens, how can one monitor this?
A5. The response was that while low-cost monitors can be organized by citizen groups to collect readings and submit them to authorities, there is little chance that such readings will be officially accepted. However, this data can at least be used to push authorities to install regulatory-grade monitors or send their vans to check pollution levels in the area. Having LCM readings helps initiate the process, showing that pollution levels are being observed.
Through low-cost monitors, citizens can also track trends—for example, when machines are operating, pollution levels will show higher readings compared to times when they are idle. These are useful tools for citizens to start engaging with authorities on the issue.

Q6. Related to the Swachh Vayu Survekshan, Pune has ranked 10th, but in terms of actual pollution reduction, where does it stand?
A6. The response was that we really need to understand the criteria and parameters under which the Swachh Vayu Survekshan has been conducted. Experts working in this field feel that these criteria are not good indicators of actual pollution reduction.
For example, even if you look at a single parameter such as the reduction of PM10, it still shows a negative trend overall. Yet, based on other parameters, the city has received a good rank—which doesn’t necessarily reflect real improvement in air quality.
Therefore, one should not take the ranking as an indicator of cleaner air. The focus should be on actual reduction in various pollutants and the absolute emission load. That is what truly determines whether the air is improving or not.