India spends 2.6% of GDP adapting to environmental impact

(Theme Address delivered at the Global Summit)
Sunjoy Joshi

24, September 2009
 

When ORF and its partners Rosa conceived of the Conference theme "Sustainable Development & Climate Change? they were not merely picking on the three most clichéd catch phrases on the Conference Circuit today. We were seeking to examine in greater detail the extremely complex interplay of two narratives which are altering and shaping the world we live in on a day to day basis.

The first of these is all too familiar narrative of GDP led development and growth which became and still remains the magic mantra for the post Bretton Woods world. The word today has changed, globalized far beyond the wildest imaginations of the architects of that discourse. But the power of this narrative is still evident in the gyrations and calisthenics of Wall Street and its numerous clones as they track those sacred numbers on a day to day basis with ritual fervour. Even as the whole debate on global warming threatens to reach fever pitch the power this narrative holds over our minds can hardly be denied by any one in this audience.

However, to recall history, it was just about the time when the OECD growth and development story had begun to peak and then plateau a second discourse on sustainability began as a counterpoint. I refer, here to the Brundtland Report of the eighties. This Report outlined what by the nineties then evolved into a full fledged narrative of climate change. As a narrative this was not something founded on totally new knowledge. It rather had its origins in the various counter discourses that time and time again had set to put limits to the unbridled growth story. These invariably had so far been relegated to the lunatic fringes of the complex power hierarchy of knowledge systems

The idea behind this Conference arose from the common desire of ORF and the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation to investigate the growth and progression of the two dominant global discourses that have taken turns to shape the world since the end of the Second World War.

The interplay is complex because the two discourses of development and climate change are not invariably and inalterably in conflict with each other. There are points of intersection, there are points of consonance and there are points of dissonance.

For instance, even as we recognize that the underdeveloped tropical nations are most likely to feel the effects of global warming and will need to bear the maximum burden of adapting to these changes the fact of the matter is that there is no better adaptive response than development itself. The more these countries develop the better equipped they would be to take these changes in their stride.

Similarly, while increasing population growth can at increasing levels of per capita income strain the global commons the only solution to runaway population growth lies in superior reproductive health services which are a consequence of economic growth itself.

Complex as the relationships are between these narratives, the interplay between them becomes even more complicated because in our inter-related world the harmonies as well as the tensions between these discourses lay bare vast opportunities for arbitrage, leverage, trading involving the transfer of resources both tangible and intangible and therefore the transfer of wealth. Tangible resources have been the traditional sticking points since times immemorial. Now intangible resources such as intellectual property and carbon space progressively acquire greater importance and meaning.

Therefore as we travel towards Copenhagen we witness the rather unseemly spectacle of nations trying to paint each other into corners. These efforts to score brownie points over each other arise both from the matrix of fears as well as opportunities that abound on the road ahead.

If the West insists on posing the rapid development of the emerging world as unsustainable and the biggest emerging threat to the environment, the suspicion in the developing world is inevitable that these negotiations are less about climate change and more a means to control the looming global economic and power shift facing the world.

Our first of five sessions thus begins with the basics to understand how and why the climate change discourse has evolved from one focused primarily on civic and social responsibility to one that today encompasses trade, finance, development and perhaps hegemony. We go on to look at the impact of the financial crisis and how the emerging power groupings like the G-20 and MEF interact with the UNFCCC and shape the contours of future discussions.

The scramble for the limited carbon space available is bound to impose its own costs whether direct or indirect on one and all. Whether these costs come in the form of direct taxes or accrue as they have been for the last several years in the form of high energy prices, the developing world is bound to suffer the most as incremental growth comes at a far higher cost. The second session therefore confronts the rubric of issues concerned both with Equity and Development and Equity in Development.

How can global justice be placed at the core of the climate negotiations and how transparent and effective resource transfer can be accomplished so that they accelerate efforts against poverty. Global Climate change responses need to be mainstreamed into pathways having lower emissions and higher mitigative and adaptive capacities.

Finance, technology transfer and the elusive "Carbon Quotient" required for development are at the heart of effective mitigation. This will be our discussion in Session three. We need to script appropriate formulations that allow technology access to all and redistribute the costs of transforming global energy systems, transportation, buildings and industrial processes to those having the means to bear this change. So this session will also seek to discover appropriate burden sharing arrangements as sustainable development would necessarily incorporate the end goal of global economic convergence.

Session four examines the Indian dilemma. 800 million people live below income levels of $2 a day which means lifting over 80% of the population to an acceptable level of development. India may need an additional 3000 billion units of electricity each year by 2032 i.e. over 4 times the current levels. Countries like India even as they voluntarily pursue low carbon pathways, cannot sign away their responsibilities toward 80% of the population until these numbers can be included in the growth story.

Development is the common determinant of mitigative and adaptive capacities. Countries like India spend over 2.6% of their GDP on adapting to environmental impacts. These do not lie in the remote future but hit them every year as droughts, scarcity of drinking water, access to health, forests and sanitation. Session five seeks to reinstate Global responsibilities toward Adaptive Responses at the heart of global action on Climate. If the dominant argument of man having influenced environment by his development excesses is to be accepted, then the cost of adaptation that the global south has to incur: cannot be to its account alone.

With the galaxy of experts, panelists and discussants who have gathered here we hope to have some of the most lively and meaningful discussions on these issues.

To sum up the Conference returns in each session to the complex interplay of the two narratives we hope to debate the dissonances and identify the harmonies that can help us compose a common symphony that accounts for the concerns, expectations and aspirations of all stakeholders as the global community gears up for Copenhagen and beyond.

Sunjoy Joshi is Distinguished Fellow of the Observer Research Foundation

Also See: