UPSC Editorial Analysis: Stubble Burning, Air Pollution, and the Supreme Court’s Suggestion

General Studies-3; Topic: Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment.

Introduction

• The Supreme Court recently suggested that farmers indulging in stubble burning could face prosecution, even imprisonment, to deter the practice.
• This remark comes amid worsening winter pollution in North India, especially Delhi-NCR, Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh.
• While the intent is to curb pollution, prosecuting farmers may be seen as unrealistic and insensitive, given the socio-economic realities.
• Stubble burning is a complex, layered issue involving agriculture, technology, environment, law, economics, and social justice.

Understanding Stubble Burning

• Definition: Stubble burning refers to the intentional setting fire to crop residue (mainly paddy) after harvest, to quickly clear fields for the next sowing season (mainly wheat).
• Regions affected: Primarily Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh.
• Seasonality: Peak incidence occurs in October–November after paddy harvest.
• Why farmers resort to it:
  • Short window (15–20 days) between kharif harvest and rabi sowing.
  • High labour cost and unavailability of alternative residue disposal methods.
  • Machines like Happy Seeder are costly and consume more diesel.
  • Crop diversification away from paddy remains limited due to water policies and MSP assurance.

Judicial Standpoint

• The Court observed that repeated directions and existing measures have failed.
• Suggestion: Strict prosecution and imprisonment of offenders to “send the right message.”
• Past experience: Fines and arrests alienated farmers and bred resentment.
• Risk: May set a precedent of criminalising livelihood practices born out of structural constraints.

Existing Legal and Institutional Framework

• Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM): Formed in 2020, empowered to issue directions for air pollution control. It has exempted farmers from criminal prosecution.
• Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: Provides for penalties against polluting activities.
• National Green Tribunal (NGT): Has imposed fines on stubble burning incidents in the past.
• State Laws: Punjab and Haryana have enacted restrictions, but enforcement is weak due to scale and socio-political sensitivities.

Environmental Dimensions

• Contribution to pollution:
  • Estimates vary, but stubble burning contributes 15–20% of PM2.5 levels in Delhi during peak winter (SAFAR, MoEFCC).
  • Seasonal spikes worsen an already fragile urban air quality.
• Other pollution sources:
  • Vehicular emissions (~40%), industry, construction dust, and waste burning are more persistent sources.
  • Farmers argue that urban sources are ignored, reflecting an “urban bias.”

Technological Alternatives

• Happy Seeder / Super Seeder: Sows wheat directly into standing stubble but costly and energy intensive.
• Pusa Bio-Decomposer (developed by IARI): A microbial solution that decomposes stubble into manure within 15–20 days; adoption limited due to logistics.
• Ex-situ use:
  1. Biomass power plants, bio-CNG, paper/pulp, packing material, etc.
  2. Progress slow due to lack of large-scale infrastructure and market linkage.
• In-situ management: Retaining stubble to enrich soil; requires better dissemination and subsidies.

Administrative and Policy Challenges

• Subsidy leakage: Machines distributed under subsidy often lie unused or concentrated in large landholdings.
• Coordination gap: Centre, states, and local administration differ on enforcement and financial responsibility.
• Lack of crop diversification: Despite repeated advice, paddy continues to dominate due to MSP and assured procurement.

Political and Governance Dimensions

• Farmers’ protests and agitations in recent years show the political sensitivity of agricultural policies.
• Criminalising stubble burning risks worsening trust deficit between state institutions and farmers.
• Policy of confrontation (fines, arrests) may undermine cooperative federalism, as agriculture is a state subject but pollution a national concern.

Comparative International Experience

• China: Promotes use of crop residue in biomass power and biogas plants. Strong state support ensures large-scale collection.
• European Union: Encourages crop residue ploughing back into the soil and provides subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy.
• Lessons for India: Without affordable technology, financial incentives, and market linkages, punitive measures alone cannot succeed.

Way Forward

• Avoid criminalisation: Recognise farmers as victims of structural conditions, not culprits.
• Technological scaling: Wider adoption of decomposers, mechanisation through FPOs/cooperatives, and investment in bio-energy.
• Economic support: Direct cash incentives to farmers for residue management; expand schemes like the Crop Residue Management Fund.
• Crop diversification: Shift from water-intensive paddy to maize, pulses, or millets through MSP assurance and procurement support.
• Urban accountability: Equal focus on curbing year-round urban pollution sources.
• Community involvement: Panchayats, FPOs, and NGOs must be integrated into awareness and implementation.
• Long-term vision: Integrating stubble management into India’s net-zero 2070 strategy and circular economy framework.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s suggestion to prosecute farmers may appear as a quick fix but risks alienating a critical stakeholder group.
• Stubble burning is not merely a law-and-order issue but a complex socio-environmental problem requiring multi-pronged, cooperative, and farmer-centric solutions.