Expanding the Ganga Action Plan: Phase II and Beyond

When the Ganga Action Plan (GAP) was first launched in 1985, it focused on cleaning the main stem of the Ganga across three states. But the pollution problem was far bigger than one river. Untreated sewage and industrial waste from major tributaries like the Yamuna, Gomti, and Damodar were flowing directly into the Ganga, undoing much of the progress made under Phase I. That reality led to a significant expansion – the Ganga Action Plan Phase II (GAP-II), launched in 1993, which broadened the scope of India’s river cleanup mission in ways that would shape national environmental policy for decades.

Why Phase I wasn’t enough 🔗

GAP Phase I was India’s first government-led river cleanup mission. It targeted 25 Class I towns across Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal, where roughly 75 per cent of the Ganga’s pollution load originated. By the time it was declared closed on 31 March 2000, a total of 259 out of 261 sanctioned projects had been completed at a cost of approximately ₹452 crore. The programme created around 865 million litres per day (MLD) of sewage treatment capacity.

However, the plan could only address about 65 per cent of the sewage generated from those towns. More critically, it did not account for the massive pollution entering the Ganga through its tributaries. Rivers like the Yamuna, Gomti, and Damodar were channelling enormous volumes of untreated domestic and industrial waste into the main river, effectively negating the gains made along the Ganga itself. A broader, more integrated approach was clearly needed.

Expansion into tributaries 🔗

GAP-II was launched in 1993 with staggered approvals, and it marked a fundamental shift in strategy. Instead of looking at the Ganga in isolation, the programme recognised that tributaries such as the Yamuna, Gomti, Damodar, and Mahananda were major contributors to the river’s declining water quality. Cleaning the Ganga without addressing these feeder rivers was, in effect, treating the symptom rather than the cause.

Geographic and administrative expansion 🔗

While Phase I covered only three states, GAP-II expanded to seven states: Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Delhi, and Haryana. This wider geographic scope meant dealing with far more complex administrative coordination – multiple state governments, different urban local bodies, and varying levels of infrastructure readiness.

The Yamuna Action Plan became one of the most significant components of GAP-II, given that the Yamuna – particularly through the Delhi stretch – was among the most polluted rivers in the country. Separate action plans were also created for the Gomti (flowing through Lucknow) and the Damodar (passing through the industrial belt of Jharkhand and West Bengal).

Funding structure changes 🔗

Another important shift under GAP-II was the change in funding from 100 per cent central financing to a 70:30 cost-sharing ratio between the central and state governments. This was designed to increase state ownership and accountability. However, it also meant that states with limited financial resources sometimes struggled to meet their share, which contributed to delays in project execution.

Cost-effective technologies for water treatment 🔗

One of the notable contributions of the Ganga Action Plan – across both phases – was the introduction and testing of innovative, affordable wastewater treatment technologies suited to Indian conditions. Among these, the Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactor stood out as a key technology.

How UASB technology works 🔗

The UASB reactor is a type of anaerobic digester used for wastewater treatment. In simple terms, wastewater enters from the bottom of the reactor and flows upward through a dense bed of microbial granules. These microorganisms break down organic matter in the absence of oxygen, producing biogas (primarily methane and carbon dioxide) as a byproduct. A three-phase separator at the top of the reactor separates the treated water, biogas, and sludge.

The technology was attractive for India because it requires no mechanical aeration, consumes significantly less energy than conventional aerobic systems, and the biogas produced can potentially be used for energy generation. UASB reactors also have a relatively compact footprint compared to conventional treatment systems, making them suitable for space-constrained urban settings.

UASB in action under GAP 🔗

UASB technology was first introduced in India under GAP Phase I in the late 1980s, with a pilot plant of 5 MLD capacity. Based on the initial results, multiple UASB-based sewage treatment plants were commissioned, particularly in cities like Kanpur. Three UASB plants were set up in Kanpur alone to handle both domestic sewage and tannery wastewater.

However, the technology also faced real-world challenges. Plants often operated well below their designed efficiency due to power outages, inconsistent maintenance, and the inability to handle certain pollutants – particularly heavy metals like chromium from tannery waste. The effluent quality, while improved, frequently did not meet the targeted bathing water standards.

Low-cost sanitation solutions 🔗

Beyond sewage treatment plants, GAP-II also promoted low-cost sanitation programmes, particularly in smaller towns and rural stretches along the river. These included the construction of community toilets and individual household latrines to reduce open defecation on riverbanks – a significant non-point source of pollution. Electric and improved-wood crematoria were also built at major ghats to reduce the practice of disposing partially cremated remains into the river. While these were smaller interventions compared to large STPs, they addressed critical behavioural and cultural factors contributing to river pollution.

Other innovative approaches 🔗

The programme also explored sewage treatment through afforestation – using plantation areas to absorb and filter wastewater naturally. Resource recovery options were tested too, including methane generation from sewage sludge for energy and the use of treated wastewater for aquaculture. Additionally, a soft-shelled turtle rehabilitation programme was implemented as an ecological approach to pollution abatement, since these turtles naturally consume decomposing organic matter in the river.

Monitoring and community involvement 🔗

One of the lessons from Phase I was that building infrastructure alone was not enough – it needed to be monitored, maintained, and supported by the communities it served.

Multi-level monitoring mechanisms 🔗

Under GAP-II, monitoring of water quality was carried out by independent agencies including the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kanpur, the Indian Toxicological Research Centre (ITRC) Lucknow, and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL). These bodies tracked parameters like Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), and coliform levels at stations along the river.

A cost-benefit analysis conducted by the Harvard Institute of International Development in collaboration with Indian institutes during 1995-97 found that despite its shortcomings, GAP Phase I had delivered significant benefits. Without the plan, the stretch of river with BOD levels above permissible limits would have been roughly 740 km – compared to 437 km with the plan in place.

Role of local stakeholders 🔗

GAP-II attempted to involve local communities, non-governmental organisations, and voluntary agencies in the river conservation effort. Public awareness campaigns were run to educate residents about the effects of dumping waste into the river. Riverfront development works – including improvement of bathing ghats – were undertaken not just as infrastructure projects but also as ways to engage local populations with the health of their waterways.

That said, community participation remained a weakness of the programme overall. Many projects were designed and implemented in a top-down manner, with limited local input on planning or maintenance. This contributed to poor upkeep of sewage treatment facilities after construction, as there was often no clear local ownership or sustained commitment to keeping systems operational.

Integration with the National River Conservation Plan 🔗

Perhaps the most significant structural outcome of GAP-II was its merger with the National River Conservation Plan (NRCP), which fundamentally changed how India approached river pollution at a national scale.

From the Ganga to all major rivers 🔗

The NRCP was launched in July 1995 as an expansion of the GAP model to other polluted rivers across the country. With its launch, the Central Ganga Authority was redesignated as the National River Conservation Directorate (NRCD) to coordinate implementation more broadly. In December 1996, GAP Phase II was formally merged with the NRCP, bringing all river cleanup projects under a single umbrella scheme.

This merger meant that the lessons, technologies, and institutional frameworks developed under the Ganga programme could be applied to rivers like the Godavari, Krishna, Cauvery, Mahanadi, and Sutlej, among others. The NRCP eventually covered pollution abatement works in 160 towns along 34 rivers across 20 states.

What the integration aimed to achieve 🔗

The integration had several goals. First, it created a unified policy framework for river conservation rather than having separate, disconnected action plans for individual rivers. Second, it standardised the types of pollution abatement works – interception and diversion of sewage, construction of STPs, low-cost sanitation, crematoria development, and riverfront improvements. Third, it established a consistent cost-sharing mechanism between central and state governments to ensure that states had both the incentive and responsibility to participate actively.

Challenges of scaling up 🔗

However, scaling a programme designed for one river system to cover the entire country brought its own problems. Coordination between multiple state governments and central agencies proved difficult. Many states lacked the technical capacity or political will to implement projects effectively. Operation and maintenance of completed infrastructure remained a persistent issue – STPs were built but often ran below capacity due to power shortages, poor maintenance, or inadequate sewer networks feeding into them.

Out of 764 total projects sanctioned under GAP-II, 652 were successfully completed by 2014. While this is a substantial number, the remaining uncompleted projects and the operational challenges of completed ones meant that the programme fell short of its full potential.

Legacy and the road ahead 🔗

GAP-II and its integration with the NRCP were eventually succeeded by more ambitious programmes. In 2014, the Government of India launched the Namami Gange Programme under the Ministry of Jal Shakti, with a budget allocation of over ₹20,000 crore. This programme adopted an integrated river-basin approach with multi-tier governance through national, state, and district-level committees, stricter industrial regulation, real-time water quality monitoring, and greater community engagement.

The Ganga Action Plan – across both phases – was far from perfect. But it established critical precedents: it demonstrated that river conservation required a basin-wide approach rather than a focus on individual stretches, that technology and infrastructure had to be matched with maintenance and monitoring capacity, and that community participation was essential rather than optional. These lessons directly informed every subsequent river conservation programme in India.

What do you think? Given that GAP-II struggled with maintenance of infrastructure and community engagement, what changes in governance or local involvement could make river cleanup programmes more sustainable in the long term? And should the focus be more on preventing pollution at the source, or on treating it after it enters the water?

References

1. https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/erelcontent.aspx?relid=18777
2. https://www.gktoday.in/ganga-action-plan/
3. https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/ganga-action-plan
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upflow_anaerobic_sludge_blanket_digestion
5. https://sswm.info/factsheet/uasb-reactor
6. https://gangaaction.org/book-review/wouldnt-you-like-a-nice-anaerobic-sludge-blanket/
7. https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Ganga_Action_Plan
8. https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/national-river-conservation-plan
9. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1739096
10. https://journalsofindia.com/national-river-conservation-program/
11. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/ganga-action-plan/