Answer

Introduction

Recent claims of a 90% reduction in stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana are being questioned by satellite evidence showing much smaller declines in the actual area burned. The mismatch between fire-count data and burnt-area estimates exposes flaws in current monitoring methods. This has raised doubts about the credibility of stubble-burning assessments in India.

Body

Limitations of current data and monitoring approaches

• Over-reliance on fire-count proxies: Fire incidents detected by satellites are used as a substitute for actual pollution impact, which does not capture the scale or intensity of burning.
  Eg: Despite a reported 90% fall in fire counts, burnt-area data shows only a ~30% reduction between 2022 and 2025.
• Inadequate measurement of burnt area: Burnt-area estimation, which reflects the actual land affected, is not systematically prioritised or publicly disclosed year-wise.
  Eg: Independent estimates show burnt area declined from ~31,500 sq km (2022) to ~19,700 sq km (2025), contradicting official claims.
• Temporal blind spots in satellite monitoring: Polar-orbiting satellites observe India only during limited daytime windows, missing fires set at other times.
  Eg: Polar satellites pass between 10 a.m. and 1.30 p.m., while farmers reportedly shifted burning to evenings.
• Evasion behaviour by farmers: Monitoring systems unintentionally incentivise farmers to adapt practices to avoid detection rather than eliminate burning.
• Lack of source-apportionment evidence: Absence of chemical fingerprinting prevents clear attribution of Delhi’s post-monsoon pollution to stubble burning.
  Eg: Mass-spectrographic analysis needed to trace pollutant composition has not been undertaken.

Measures to improve data and monitoring approaches

• Adopt burnt-area as a core indicator: Shift focus from fire counts to comprehensive burnt-area assessment to reflect real ground impact.
  Eg: Supreme Court (2024) explicitly directed authorities to use burnt-area estimates.
• Integrate multi-satellite data: Combine polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites to ensure round-the-clock detection and reduce temporal bias.
  Eg: Meteosat’s continuous observation revealed patterns missed by polar satellites.
• Ensure transparency and public disclosure: Publish year-wise burnt-area and methodology data to enable independent scrutiny and build trust.
• Use pollution source-apportionment tools: Employ chemical analysis of particulate matter to directly assess stubble-burning contribution to air pollution.
• Align incentives with verifiable outcomes: Link subsidies and incentives to independently verified reductions in burnt area and pollution impact, not just fire counts.

Conclusion

Accurate assessment of stubble burning requires shifting from headline fire counts to scientifically robust and transparent metrics. Integrating burnt-area analysis, multi-satellite monitoring and pollution source attribution can correct current distortions. Credible data is vital for effective policy and public trust in air pollution governance.

DOWNLOAD PDF