A Critique of National Action Plan on Climate Change of India

As the negotiations at Copenhagen forcing the countries in to various groupings and regroupings depending up on the interests of that particular countries, the political heat against the stand of government of India is also peaking in Delhi. On the face of it, the government’s negotiation strategy as well as mitigation strategy is lacking a comprehensive direction as well as political consensus with in the country. If any one tracks the government’s stand on climate change as an issue and also climate change negotiations, they can found major shifts in the government’s stand. The mode announcement of National Action Plan on Climate Change lacks transparency.



The original concept of national action plan took shape only after appointing Shyam Saran as Special Envoy of Prime Minister on Climate Change in the middle of 2007, after the former retired as secretary, Ministry of External Affairs. Three years is a long time space available for government to concretize the said action plan. But in these three years, we can’t find a single instance where government brought this issue either to the parliament, or called a CM’s conference, or at least conference of State environment and forest ministers, set a side, calling an all party meeting on this serious issue to elicit their opinions. As per the description available in the action plan itself, the plan was finalized in the middle of 2008. It is not surprising to find that the government can announce the said action plan only after the L’Aquila summit of Major Economies, held in July 2009. Even after its finalization, government failed to place before parliament or for public scrutiny. It was at this summit the G8 + Emerging Major Economies agreed to cap the rise of temperature to 2 C from current levels by 2020. It is interesting to see that the Danish draft that is under circulation at Copenhagen provides supportive arguments in tune with that of L’Aquila declaration, which India is part. After this only the government announced eight national missions in order to operationalise the action plan.



Even before that in 2008 in a summit of G8 leaders held at Hakkadio, Japan, the proposal came up asking the emerging economies such as India, China, Brazil, South Africa to share the burden of climate change. In tune with that of Hakkadio summit proposal, the action plan which was finalized at a closed door meetings of PMO confirms that India’s per capita emissions would not exceed to that of average per capita emissions of OECD countries. As of now, according to the action plan, India’s per capita emissions is mere 1.02 metric tons where as world average stands at 4.25 mt and the figures stands at 20 mt in case of US. According to another study carried out by Greenpeace, NGO working on environment related issues, the US emissions already in the direction to reach 20 % higher from today’s levels by 2012, which government willingly refused to factor in while preparing action plan. Thus, the central government kept the nation in dark about its understanding, strategy, tasks on this issue and unilaterally announced per capita intensity reduction strategy in the first week of December. We shall return to the details of that plan in another article. Now we shall confine to the NAPCC.



The NAPCC invokes Gandhi and recognizes the fact that “ the climate change equitable distribution of Indian natural resources and livelihood opportunities of people.” And also it invokes the phrase, “responsible and enlightened member of international community” which is dearer to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. While taking his decision to proceed with the much controversial Indo- US nuclear deal in his earlier term, PM over turned the sane voices with in the country by saying that the deal is part of enlightened foreign policy of UPA ! In its wisdom of enlightened membership of international community, the actions plan proposes private public partnership to protect the climate change. Not only that. He also proposes, as part of National Water mission, to optimize water use through market regulations, including pricing, “differential entitlement and pricing.” Thus, in the name of fight against the perils of climate change, the government ratified the privatization of water resources and market friendly regulations on use of natural resources. The action plan also calls up on the government to revisit the national water mission in the light of this new plan, which is going to be a dangerous step in privatizing the water resources. The principle of differential entitlement will act against interests of farming community.



The action plan asks government to initiate plan of action on several fronts simultaneously with out having any concrete study or assessment of its implications. In the name of Solar Mission, the government is almost withdrawing itself from generation and provisioning of energy in favor of private players. Though we have already an independent ministry to develop strategies for alternative and renewable energy sources, nothing much has been done in terms of conceiving country specific strategies keeping in mind the availability of indigenous resources. There is no enhancement of funding allocations over the time to research aspects of alternative energy sources. All of sudden, the action plan asks government to review the energy mix from generation point of view to minimize the carbon emissions.



The action plan also suggests changes in funding pattern. The action restrains in asking the government for enhancement of funding. That means, the existing allocations and available funds will be readjusted according to the government priorities. That means, reductions to the traditional allocation patterns and diverting the same funds to the new sectors and schemes. As we know by now, the government is foregoing lakhs of crores of income to private giants. Unless, it expands the resource base, the renewed stress on climate change mitigation efforts forces government either to leave the efforts to discretion of private players or going for external assistance. Both the methods stands failed in experience. In both the circumstances, unless the government facilitate market friendly returns over the investment, they won’t invest in these efforts. At the end of the day, if government fails to think of mobilizing resources which are not burden some to the people, the action plan is not going to be a fruitful effort.