In short
- Core demand of question: Evaluate the effectiveness of the airshed management approach in resolving the stubble burning crisis through cooperative federalism.
- Key directive decoded: Critically examine requires analysing the strategy’s structural gaps, implementation deficits, and federal friction points alongside its merits.
- Primary GS syllabus link: GS2 (Governance, Federalism) & GS3 (Environment, Agriculture)
Mains Practice Question (15 Marks / 250 Words)
The ‘airshed approach’ shifts air quality management from political boundaries to meteorological zones. Critically examine its potential to resolve the recurrent stubble burning crisis in the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Highlight the governance and federalism challenges in operationalising this framework.
GS2 · Governance · Federalism | GS3 · Environment · Agriculture
Directive Word Decoded
Critically examine demands a balanced forensic analysis. First, deconstruct the airshed concept: scientific rationale, policy evolution (NCAP to Airshed), and theoretical advantages over city-centric plans. Second, identify structural impediments: absence of a legal mandate for airshed authorities, fiscal dependency of states on Centre, and trust deficit in data sharing. Third, assess the specific stubble burning context: economic distress of farmers, timing mismatch with Rabi sowing, and the ‘polluter pays’ vs ‘incentivise’ dilemma. Conclude with a verdict on whether the framework addresses root causes or merely reframes jurisdiction.
Model Answer Blueprint
Introduction: Define airshed management as a meteorologically defined governance unit. Cite the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) 2021 Act as the nascent institutional avatar. State thesis: scientifically sound but federally fragile without legislative teeth and fiscal federalism reform.
Body Dimensions: Scientific merit: Pollution travels 200-300km; city plans fail against regional transport. IGP shares one airshed; requires Punjab-Haryana-UP-Delhi coordination. Governance gaps: CAQM lacks state representation parity; directions perceived as central overreach (Article 256 friction). Implementation deficits: Ex-situ management machines underutilised (CAG 2023); PUSA decomposer adoption low due to trust deficit. Fiscal constraint: States demand 100% central funding for crop residue; Centre insists on state share. Behavioural economics: MSP procurement skews paddy cultivation; short window forces burning.
Way forward & Conclusion
Enact Airshed Management Act with statutory regional bodies (Art 263). Shift from input subsidy to outcome-based payment for ecosystem services. Align cropping pattern with agro-climatic zones via MSP diversification. Federal success requires shared sovereignty, not central command.
Primary Sources & Official Institutional References
This analysis strictly synthesizes verified information from national broadsheets and gazetted government releases: