At least we don't subsidize the car industry but public buses

"At least we don't subsidize the car industry but public buses"

How has India's climate policy developed over recent years, what changes are you seeing and what changes are still missing?

India's climate response has been a fairly old response. The Indian governments played a role in climate negotiations for many years and have basically argued that it is something the industrialised countries have to take measures to cut emissions. It has been the Indian government's green paper that led to the Berlin mandate which led to the Kyoto protocol. Essentially it is saying we need an equitable and just climate regime.

The Indian governments didn't have a national response until about a year ago. Until now its response had been more on the international level and more on the international climate negotiations. About two years ago, the prime minister's climate council was set up. It includes people from government and from outside. I am a member. One of the things we discussed, the core of India's policy still remains that we have to put pressure on the industrialised countries to make very deep cuts. Because today, if you do accept the two degree scenario, then we are talking about an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. You are talking about reinvention, the world discusses economic growth. But we don't see those drastic changes in the West. So that remains the core of the policy.

The second part of the policy is to say that it isn't that we don't want to do something on climate change. We believe it is also good for us to do something, we can leapfrog, we can avoid emissions. But a large part of that strategy for becoming a low carbon economy will cost money, and we need an enabling framework at the international level which will pay for the costs of the transition. There is also a need clearly for money for adaptation to be paid for. So India has been asking also for an adaptation fund.

At the national level a climate action plan was issued in July 2008. It was agreed that there will be eight submissions. They would essentially detail out what India would like to do in terms of climate change. I have been a member of the submissions. It has been a very good process because for the first time climate change has been discussed in the ministries of the Indian government. So whether is the water submission, which is discussing essentially three pronged issues, how to increase water use efficiency, how to augment water resources through community managed systems and how to make sure we can understand the impact of climate change on our water resources. Then there is an urban submission. And in the first meeting of sustainable habitat it was agreed that there are two areas we will focus on: sustainable transport, where we focus on public transport and building codes for efficiency.

The government has also agreed in its first fiscal stimulus, which it had given in January, to fund public transport buses. Instead of funding cars they are funding buses. The most exciting submissions are solar and energy efficiency. There is an internal debate happening about that we want to do a lot of this because it is important for India itself. There is also a question of how you can realize that? And there is the whole issue of how to raise the money for solar. If you want to do the 20.000 MW of solar by 2020, how do you raise that? I personally found the process fairly good because for the first time the word climate change has been discussed in very traditional ministries, which have not discussed issues of climate change yet. One of the things which has been underlying is, okay, we are already doing a lot of things. The debate then comes: What can we emphasize, prioritize? It isn't that we did not have a public transport plan. We just haven't focussed on it. So can you focus on it taking climate as an answer? 

Some say as soon as you raise climate change the Indian government gets very defensive, doesn't want to discuss it and just blames the industrialised countries and says they should do more. But if you talk about energy efficiency or other issues which are just the same, the government would be quite open. Is that also your experience?

Two years ago that would have been very true, but it is evolving, even in India. We did not even use the word climate change in the work we did in CSE because we felt it would actually destroy the work we are doing on air pollution. Because then it would just become why do we want to do something. I very strongly believe that we should blame the industrialised countries. But I think it is evolving, it is a slow process. Over the last six months the missions have been discussed in the different ministries for the first time. In the water submissions for example, where I have been part of, there were scientists and all those who work in irrigation, power management systems. They have been asked: What can India do on climate change and water? The first reaction was to list out all its big irrigation projects and say, this is all we need to do. The mission went like that to the prime minister's office, where we all intervened and said, this is everything we do in our five year plan. But we need to emphasize and prioritize something we are not already doing. India is very sensitive, rightly, to the fact that we need much greater action in the North. 

Where do you see the shortcomings in India's climate policy?

I am not very fond of the emphasis on CDM. CDM was an idea that we all invented in the 90s. It came from the Brazilian paper and made a lot of sense in the 90s when we were talking about how we could avoid emissions in the South by paying for it. However, the design of CDM, as it emerged, is one which is both cheap and convoluted. It has never brought any big ticket technology to our part of the world. It is not making effective changes on climate, which it should have done. The Indian government is interested in CDM because of the industry and this is something I don't agree with. I have been arguing that CDM is now the past. There should be no offsets any more. European policy is that you can do 80 per cent of your reduction by buying credits from India or China or the like. I am saying no more of that. Europe must change its own emissions. No more buying itself out of this shit. What we have to do is to ask for the payment for our mitigation now. And say we would like to avoid emissions, this is what we can do, and you have to pay us to make sure we can avoid the emissions. I would like to see CDM go. But I don't see that happening, as the Indian government is under pressure from a lot of industries, who like CDM a lot.

Who is benefiting on the Indian side? Can you give an example?

Most industries are benefiting. They get CDRs, carbon credits, and they get money. I have nothing against it, but I want to see big changes as a result of it. I would like CDM to have some rules like there will be no CDM for cheap projects. It will only go for the more expensive technology projects. It will go to community projects. But CDM rules are so convoluted, that no community can benefit from CDM. I have a lot of issues with the Indian's government domestic environmental policies, but I don't have this kind of criticism with India’s climate policy. 

What do you think of the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC)? Where do you see its strengths and weaknesses? For example it doesn't give any binding targets...

Which is good.

Why?

Why should India take on binding targets? You have to understand that the conversation the North has been creating is something which countries like India are extremely worried about. If there was a clear agreement to say that India's national targets will remain India's national targets, I'm sure we could all ask for benchmarks and binding targets. But the fact is that we are walking a very slippery path, because if you have seen the latest European Union council paper, it has been disastrous. You are already talking about what countries will have to do in their own interest, then countries will have to say what we will get out of offsets. So the minute India sets any benchmarks, it will become an internationally binding target.

The North is constantly changing the rules of the game, constantly trying to say it is India and China who are the culprits. The North is not accepting the basic principle of the climate negotions that you have to reduce so that we can grow. If that is the basis, then we can definitely have a better discussion and can talk how we can grow and avoid emissions. Then we can leapefrog and don't have to make the same pollution as the rest of the world has first created. The Indian government is working with its back against the wall with countries that are unwilling to make any major changes domestically, putting pressure on countries like India and China to reduce emissions, which is completely unreasonable and unacceptable. There has been a lot of NGO criticism on the non-binding targets, but I have defended that. 

India is very diverse itself, you have poor areas without access to electricity and a strongly consuming middle class.

We have been asking for a per capita entitlement system internationally and have been talking about it nationally. At the prime minister's council I have given a paper saying we need a two-pronged approach, one is at the international level, per-capita entitlements, and the other one is at the national level. Because even in India it is not the rich who are not emitting but it is the poor who are providing us the space. So if there are any entitlements, they should go to the poor. But you need a globally just system to talk about a national just system.

India has a lot of social security systems, which you can criticize we are not doing enough, our delivery systems are poor, but that is a national issue. On an international issue, where the North is talking about a globally just system that you want to preach to us, oh, the Indian middle class pollutes. Compare the German middle class with the Indian middle class. I think the climate debate is a very difficult political debate. The first time the world is saying it has to share growth at the international level and at the national level. The same principle that I say will work at the international level. We will not make the reductions in our emissions unless it is a fair equitable global system. The poor are not making reductions in their systems unless it is fair for them as well. 

India is one of the most effected countries of climate change.

We are victims of climate change. What does that mean? We just did a very nasty interview with a Norwegian minister, the hero of climate, who came to India and said, you are stupid because you are the most effected, you are going to drown and you are not doing something on climate change. We have asked: Okay, we are going to die at two degrees, when will you die? We will get you there. Is that what you want the debate to be? If India is going to be worst effected, what is Norway's responsibility in it? What are you going to do about it? Norway's emissions are going up, Norway wants to meet its Kyoto targets, which are minuscule by buying offsets from us. They want to do nothing nationally. And he has the call to come to India and preach to us how we are bad boys and girls. Is that the nature of the conversation we want to have in climate or is it to say polluters must pay, that there are victims of climate change and that the victims must be compensated?

This is the one issue on which the world refuses to talk about liability. These are very tough issues for the world. We are doing a lot more than any of your countries is doing. We have a public transport plan. You in Germany have given the most stupid financial incentive. You have given the scrappage bonus. Is that green by just saying a green car is more efficient? Every data shows that transport emissions are going up in spite of the fact of efficiency and power industry, because the more efficient the cars are, people drive more and more people buy more. So what Germany should have done was to scrap its car industry, not aid it. We at least had the guts to say that we will not pay for the car industry but pay for buses. It is a small step, but it shows the way we are looking.

China is investing in railways. South Korea's total investment into its green stimulus plan, its public transport is more than all of the US. This is not an issue on which we want to be preached by people who continue to be sinners. There are a lot of things we have to clean up in India, but on climate change we have to be very clear: Firstly, we are on the same boat, and we are going to sink together, if we don't get our act together. At two degrees we will fry but at five degrees everybody will go to hell. That is the true nature of the debate on climate. This is an issue which we have to build a cooperative regime. And cooperation can only be possible when it is fair.

What effect does the current economic downturn have on climate policy in India?

Not really. India will be hit by the financial downturn, but we already had huge investments from the state into the public infrastructure. We also have a massive spending on the rural employment programme (NREG), which is like a huge safety net. The financial downturn is doing two good things to India: One, it will make us rethink our policies, which have been so export-oriented until now. The whole world has told us the only way to move forward is like China, to globalise madly and to ensure that you can export and you can grow. For the first time the Indian government should understand that a very export-oriented country is highly vulnerable to a downturn like this. Which means India must build its domestic markets. To do that, we must ensure that people are not poor.

The second thing that has happened: For the first time we have understood we need to invest in rural economies. The reason why we are not so badly hit by the financial downturn is because we have invested some amount in building rural resilience. In the last years since the food crisis took place, the Indian government gave food farmers a better price for their food. That has been a big change, because until now we have always given farmers very little money, because the Indian government also has to buy a lot of food to give for its public distribution system, PDS. So for the first time we actually ended up in giving farmers at least a decent minimum support price, which has given a large amount of money into the hands of people. And through the NREG, we have increased the bargaining capacity of poor people. There is now more and more information coming out to say that the farmers are finding it difficult to find agricultural labour. The reason is that until now they were not paying the minimum wage. And NREG, because it gives that minimum wage, is forcing farmers to giver labourers much higher amounts to attract them, so the bargaining capacity of the poor is going up as a result of it and you are starting to get some amount of coping capacities build up.

Until now, all our neoliberal planners have said these are mad things to do, there has been so much criticism of NREG. So for the first time those guys are beginning to talk about the fact that we need to build a resilient Indian economy, which is deep, which really has its poor who benefit as well. And we have also been so fascinated by this model of retail sectors, organized sectors and SEZs. I am not sure how long it will last, that is my fear, because it is only when you are down that all these things happen, as these guys have the amazing ability to forget everything. They are bloody arrogant guys, but for the moment the good thing happening is that it is the moms and pops shops which are actually surviving, that it is the formal retail business that is not able to survive. So the resilience in the economy is coming out because of small shops and small farm holders. It is a complete turnaround in policy. Until now we have all been told to believe it is not a good policy to do this, good policy is organized, big, massive, everything has to be big scale, which equals China and the US. That is the good thing.

The third thing, which is happening, is that a lot of what we were preached over the last years is getting turned on its head. We were all told that we need to privatize the banks. Now, for the first time, we are told we were saved, because we have nationalized the banks. We were told that we were having a good saving rate, which is bad for a country. For the first time we are told now we are save because we had a good saving rate.

We were told that consumption is the only way to move ahead. For the first time we are understanding that if you have a high consuming society, that it is a highly subsidized society that leads to a huge amount of financial problems. I am not enjoying the downturn, but if the world, if Indians can understand, we weren't so stupid. That we have invested in people was not so bad. On climate, I think, we will benefit if we can use the financial downturn to build resilience of communities, invest in agriculture, invest in water systems, invest in public transports.  

You mentioned already the national transport plans, are there other programmes in India you would describe as a kind of „green new deal“?

The CFL-issue. We are now reaching 200 million CFL bulbs. This is the leapfrog. I was travelling in rural Bengal and I saw CFL everywhere. I don't see so much in Delhi, how am I seeing it all over there? Then I sent a reporter and we checked. Basically the energy insecure find it better to jump to a more efficient light bulb, because they can then use less battery, it is much more cost-effective for them. So they are making the jump. It is a massive programme. The Himachal government has bought four CFL bulbs for every household. They are changing every bulb in the state, so by doing that they believe they reduce the demand for electricity. They will sell the surplus to Delhi at a higher rate. That makes sense.

We have a huge energy efficiency appliances programme to transform energy. We are just finishing a rating of industry. We are finding the energy efficiency of our cement industry, for instance, is even more efficient than the one in Germany, because energy costs money and companies really put in a lot of efforts to reduce the energy. We almost have 30 per cent use of fly ash right now in our cement production.

Now it is campaign time for the elections. What role do environmental, energy and climate issues play in this campaign?

Climate none, because it is not a local issue right now, it is an international one. But environmental issues a lot, but not as environmental issues, but as local issues. For instance, water is one of the top issues for every candidate. But it is not seen as an environmental issue, but as a clean water issue. The tribal rights bill is also a very big issue in this election. The Indian government came up with this bill last year to repair what they call the historic injustice which has been done to the tribals to give them the right to the land they were using. And that bill, which is about rights to land and to forest access, is a very big issue.

In a number of places the issue of mining, the issue of industrial projects are big issues. I was told Maharashtra, for instance, the Reliance SEZ is a very big issue. In India the environmental issues are not necessarily coined as environmental issues, they are local issues, they are survival issues, they are issues people believe are most important for their day-to-day life. But they are environmental issues, and they will play a role at the elections, but not at the national level. This is at the different levels. For instance, Nandigram is going to play a very big issue, Singur too, but local. Ironically, energy plays a major issue, but it is the need for energy, because large parts of India don't have energy. So many candidates will promise their electorate that they will get them electricity. 

Usually election campaigns are full of promises for free electricity for farmers to run their irrigation pumps...

Farmers are promised free electricity. I keep it is a double-edged sword, yes, they promise free electricity and they often get it, but they don't get the price of the food they should be getting for growing it. They don't get it because Europe refuses to give up its agricultural subsidies. If you stop subsidizing your farmers to such an extent, then maybe the Indian government could pay the farmers of India a better price of food and then the Indian farmers wouldn't ask for free electricity. They would pay for it. So you must see the connections and not think it is a stupid populist policy.

Where do you see differences on environmental, energy and climate issues between the three main political blocks, Congress, BJP and so called Third Front?

I do not see many differences, but the left and the Third Front will definitely have a more progressive view on international politics when it comes to climate issues. I would expect them to be even stronger in their opposition to taking on legally binding commitments and to be stronger to ask the North to take deep cuts. But on the other hand, the Congress also had a strong stance in spite of its friendship with the US. It has been an ironical thing, this government had the big love affair with Bush – „we love Bush“, as our Prime Minister said – in spite that the Indian policy on climate has been very strong and has been clear in saying even to the Americans that we will not take on legally binding emission cuts.

In terms of economic policies there will be some differences. The BJP or the NDA has always been the most right and liberal. Congress has a more anarchic agenda. They have Monteq Singh Aluwalia on the one hand but Manishan Karayar (?) on the other hand. They will have a Prasad on the one hand and a Kamal Nath on the other. The left and the Third Front's policies are going to be very interesting to see as they are not a very cohesive group. On the one hand, you have Chandrababu Naidu, who is the darling of the World Bank, so it is more a marriage of convenience right now and it is going to be interesting to see what they actually do. The left leadership, and Prakash Karat especially, are very strong ideologues. On the other hand, it is the same left leadership which had Singur and Nandigram. And it is very strange because in all other states the left parties have been opposing that kind of land acquisition and in demanding the rights of people. 

So you don't see a big difference in climate, energy and environmental issue?

No. What is our energy policy? It is to make sure we get more energy. However, all government predictions to get more energy are going wrong, because people are opposing big energy projects in India. Eleven hydro projects have been cancelled in the state of Sikkim because of local opposition. A large number of thermal projects has been cancelled in Maharashtra because of people who won't let them come up and say they will pollute their farms. Many are coming up, but many are not coming up. We currently have a 150.000 megawatts installed capacity. There are these estimates that we will take it to 800.000. I think it is completely wild because we are not able to do the kind of mining we think we'll need to do because coal projects are being opposed. We cannot build the infrastructure on the scale we want to do because those projects are being opposed, so the Indian government should learn quick and come up with a more nuanced policy which would leave some big projects but a lot of smaller projects, so that you can actually create a more distributed and smart grid, that you can do this in a way that you can do energy security.

You will need some big projects because in terms of capital efficiency they are better for your large cities, but in terms of the distributed number of people in India you need a combination of policies. So the first part of the Indian government policy is that we need to be able to provide. The second part of the policy is we need to be cost-effective, because if it is not cost-effective, we can't charge our people for the cost of the energy. Right now, most of our energy systems are working at a loss, partly because they are inefficient, but partly because they just cannot get poor people to pay for the energy. So the second part of the policy means cost-effectiveness, which means you build a solar-powered station you have a huge issue of who is going to pay for the cost of that electricity. Even in nuclear I will believe it will be a big issue. At the moment we are sort of gung-ho about nuclear, but let's see how many will come up, because the question is really who is going to pay for the expensive electricity that you produce over there. 

The third part of the policy is to make sure that you can minimize your environmental damage as much as possible even if the government doesn't want to do it, there is huge community pressure to be able to minimize the damage of the energy projects. The fourth part of the policy is to do as much on energy efficiency, because the cost of energy is very high. That is the energy policy of India. Which government will change it in terms of elements? The only thing is the BJP and the left are less appreciative of public discontent. If they say a project has to go through, it has to go through, it’s the Nandigram phenomena. 

They can be put less under pressure by the public?

They don't listen, the Congress or the UPA, because they are so incompetent and such a diverse party you will still have a lot more chances. The traditional ultraright and the ultraleft are much less interested in open discourse. 


Sunita Narain was interviewed by Sven Hansen, who is editor for Asian and Pacific coverage at the German newspaper "taz" since 1997.