The Peninsula Foundation

Tag: EPI

  • Reality of India’s Performance as put Forth by the Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

    Reality of India’s Performance as put Forth by the Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

    India ranked 117 out of 180 countries as per the latest “The State of India’s Environment Report 2021” released by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in June 2021, while it ranked 87th out of 115 countries in the Energy Transition Index (ETI) released by the World Economic Forum in 2021

    Taking adequate measures to combat climate change and global warming has become a key priority of nation-states today. With a global understanding that reducing greenhouse gas emissions, achieving carbon neutrality, and switching to renewable sources of energy are the ways forward for sustainable development, countries around the world, including India, have made various pledges and commitments to achieve defined targets in respect of climate change and environmental protection. While developing countries have called for the adoption of the principle of ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities’ (CBDR–RC), India, as the third largest carbon emitter in the world, has considerable responsibility in enacting the much-needed changes. In the budget presented for 2022-23, the Indian government has pledged to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2070, and achieve a non-fossil fuel energy capacity of 500 GW by 2030. It further seeks to meet 50% of the energy requirements from renewable sources, while also reducing the total projected carbon emissions by 1 billion tonnes and reducing the carbon intensity of the economy to less than 45%. These are stiff targets to achieve, maybe even impractical in the view of some analysts.

    While the Indian government has celebrated the inauguration of various policies and schemes which would contribute to these lofty goals, India’s performance according to global indices reveal an immediate need for a change of tactics.  India ranked 117 out of 180 countries as per the latest “The State of India’s Environment Report 2021” released by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in June 2021, while it ranked 87th out of 115 countries in the Energy Transition Index (ETI) released by the World Economic Forum in 2021. Similar positions have been held by the country in other notable indices like the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) where India was ranked 10th out of 60 countries and the European Union released by German Watch. Thus, India’s rank of 180 out of 180 countries in the Environment Performance Index came as a surprise to many. 

    The Environment Performance Index presents a data-driven summary of the state of sustainability around the world using 40 performance indicators based on climate change performance, environmental health, and ecosystem vitality. It is released biennially by the Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy and the Columbia University Centre for International Earth Science Information Network in partnership with the World Economic Forum. India’s position in the latest 2022 report is a step down from EPI-2020 where it ranked 168th with a score of 27.6. 

    India’s aggregate score according to EPI -2022 is 18.9 with the report stating that “India slips to the bottom of the rankings for the first time, with increasingly hazardous air quality and quickly rising greenhouse gas emissions.” Further, according to EPI, India also ranks poorly in terms of rule of law, corruption control, and government performance. On its release, the results have been contested by the Indian government which claimed that many of the indicators used are based on “unfounded assumptions” and that these were based on “surmises and unscientific methods”. 

    According to the concerns raised by the Indian government, Projected GHG Emissions Levels in 2050 which is the new indicator in the Climate Policy Objective,  is calculated in the Environment Performance Index using the average rate of change in emissions over the previous ten years rather than modelling that takes into account a longer time period and which considers other factors like the level of renewable energy capacity and usage, extra carbon sinks, energy efficiency and the like in the individual nations. While the principle of ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibility and Respective Capabilities’ (CBDR–RC) has been enshrined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledges the different capabilities and differing responsibilities of individual countries in addressing climate change, the EPI report’s emphasis on data and statistics have led to the overlooking of this principle in the course of its analysis. The time period used by the EPI of 10 years with regards to projected Greenhouse Gas emissions is unlike other indices like the CCPI (Climate Change Performance Index) which uses a timeframe of 5 years for its calculations (to take into consideration the new and renewed commitments made by countries at the 2015 Paris conference). The CCPI in comparison also uses a past trends indicator under the category of GHG emissions (with a 40 % weightage) where historical GHG emissions (Co2, Methane, Fluorinated gases, Nitrous Oxide) are considered with reference to the base year of 1990 as put forth by the Kyoto Protocol. The absence of acknowledgement of India’s historical emissions which have been minimal i.e.:  from 1870 to 2019, its emissions have added up to a minuscule 4 percent of the global total is also noticeable in the EPI findings. 

    The exclusion of the Indian Forest cover, which is far greater than many countries, as a vital carbon sink is a significant downfall of the EPI analysis

    Forests and wetlands have been globally acknowledged as vital carbon sinks with great effectiveness in controlling carbon levels. The world’s forests absorb a total of 15.6 gigatons of CO2 per year although these figures are threatened by threats like deforestation, natural disasters, and forest fires. According to the latest Forest Survey of India report, the total forest cover in India (2022) is 7,13,789 square kilometres which are 21.71% of the total geographical area. In comparison, Denmark, which topped the EPI rankings 2022, officially possesses  608,078 ha or 6080.78 square kilometres of forest corresponding to 14.1% of the land area. The exclusion of the Indian Forest cover, which is far greater than many countries, as a vital carbon sink is a significant downfall of the EPI analysis. 

    Wetland ecosystems have been scientifically proven as one of the most biologically productive areas on the planet. They provide a wide range of important services, such as food, water, groundwater recharge, water purification, flood moderation, erosion control, microclimate regulation and landscape aesthetics outside of being viable carbon sinks. According to the National Wetland Inventory and Assessment compiled by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), wetlands are spread over 1,52,600 square kilometres (sq. km) in India which is 4.63 percent of the total geographical area of the country. The difference in topography of the high-ranking countries in the index with India can mean that the effect of wetlands and forests can have a significant impact on India’s rankings as opposed to countries like Denmark where wetlands make up only 0.6 % of the land area where the impact is comparatively much lower. 

    The government further argues that the equity principle is given relatively little weightage in the form of statistics such as GHG emission per capita and GHG emission intensity trend which can be found to be grounded in the EPI’s disregard of the CBDR principle. The EPI rankings with regards to GHG emissions are also in contrast to other indices like the CCPI where seven G20 countries received a very low rating for their performance, including Russia (with 165 ranking with respect to GHG emissions and an overall ranking of 112), Australia (with 171 ranking with respect to GHG per capita and an overall rank of 17), the United States (with 167 ranking with respect to GHG per capita and overall rating of 43), and Canada (with 169 ranking with respect to GHG emissions and overall rating of 49). 

    While the EPI utilises indicators like Pesticides and N mgmt index under the category of agriculture and solid waste, recycling and ocean plastics under the category of waste management, other indicators such as agricultural biodiversity, soil health, food loss and waste are also not included in the report despite the fact that these are critical for developing nations with significant agrarian populations. Furthermore, the index computes the geographical distribution of various ecosystems but makes no mention of their efficiency and functioning with regard to climate change which can have a significant impact when gauging factors like biodiversity, waste management, air quality and fisheries. 

    India installed 15.4 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy projects in 2021 alone but operations of these projects remain a fraction of these capacities

    Thus, it can be found that certain critiques of the Environment Performance Index are well founded and must be acknowledged, and respective changes must be introduced to improve the reach, relevance, and functionality of the index. However, even with the addition of these factors, the fact remains that India’s performance on climate action is still underwhelming with significant gaps between capabilities and action in reality. India installed 15.4 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy projects in 2021 alone but operations of these projects remain a fraction of these capacities. Therefore, the government must concentrate on redoubling its efforts to meet its 2030 targets and use the reports of various indices including the Environment Performance Index as a gauge of the country’s closeness to achieving its promised goals. 

    Feature Image Credits: The New York Times

  • India’s Duality on Growth and EIA Regulations

    India’s Duality on Growth and EIA Regulations

    Amidst the first nationwide Covid-19 emergency lockdown, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change [MoEF&CC] published the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification 2020 to replace the earlier 2006 notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. EIA is a process to estimate the overall environmental impacts of projects by taking into consideration the views of the people to decide whether the proposed project is approved for operation. Implementation of EIA is a form of control over the exploitative malpractices of private players while at the same time, it could also form a prerequisite for grants and loans by various international financing institutions.

    The major flaw with the previous EIA which even the current draft failed to fix was its low integration with other frameworks of ecological governance and public policy.

    Commonly the EIA has an entire process of reporting depending on the country and the industry. India follows four major steps in this process: scoping (issuing terms of reference), preparation of the report, public consultation, final expert appraisal. The major flaw with the previous EIA which even the current draft failed to fix was its low integration with other frameworks of ecological governance and public policy. The argument of rent-seeking, red-tape bureaucracy, delay in clearance were legitimate criticism by the current government and developers when we look into the number of scattered amendments made to EIA 2006.

    However, the aim of making the new draft more transparent and pragmatic was proposed through the removal of several activities from consultation and granting post-facto approval. It dismantles the notion of prior clearance from expert committees based on the categorization (A, B1 and B2), construction project size (built-up area up to 150,000 sq. m), reduction in monitoring period (from every 6 months to once a year), exemptions to ‘strategic’ programs and ‘border regions’ all of which were set arbitrarily (Gupta 2020). Reducing the notice period for a public hearing from 30 days to 20 days further dilutes the effectiveness.

    While massive online protests, public feedbacks and petitions ensued, there were cases of websites blocked by filing Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) to few environmental groups such as ‘Fridays For Future’ and others

    Additionally, the possibility of granting resumption through remediation of ecological damage based on assessment goes against the precautionary principle of avoiding environmental harm. The notification also excludes reporting public violations, instead only reports by government and regulatory authority, appraisal community and violator-promoter are reckoned. According to many activists, the reluctance of the MoEF&CC in translating the draft document in vernacular languages for people without any literacy in Hindi and English further favour the majority. While massive online protests, public feedbacks and petitions ensued, there were cases of websites blocked by filing Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) to few environmental groups such as ‘Fridays For Future’ and others (Kunal 2020).

    Nonetheless, the Ministry has appointed the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to compile the comments received from the public. Post which the final draft will be scrutinised by the committee headed under SR Wate, former director of NEERI who was already given the mandate to re-engineering EIA 2006 and had chaired panels such as appraisal on post-factor clearance (Jackson and Gunasekar 2020). This poses a predicament, as the appointment of the above-mentioned individual might already have a biased viewpoint over the draft.

    The global economy, particularly the developed countries are working towards building an entire ecosystem of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing. They were developed while keeping societal impact and the conservation and preservation of nature in mind. Various civil groups and governments are becoming more and more acceptable in forfeiting their wealth which increases their domestic input costs in an order to choose merchandise producing lower greenhouse gas emissions. Many mutual funds and portfolios are available for ESG investing though there has not been a uniform standard set to determine these stocks make the cut (Borate 2020).

    The adverse effect of polluting industries can be noted from the Environment Performance Index (EPI) 2020 by researchers in Yale and Columbia University which ranked India at 168th position out of 180 countries (“India EPI – Country Scorecard.” 2020).

    EIA draft presents a contradiction on the government’s aim of emphasising ESG metric (Figure Below). We notice a diversion in the policymaking when the recent National Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct (NGRBC) was laid down by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) in 2019. Based on which the subsequent consultation paper of the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR) from the top 100 to top 1000 listed market companies were released by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) (Consultation paper 2020).

     

    EIA based on its principle was supposed to be a tool for the protection of natural resources and marginalised community who receive negative externalities from the polluting industries. The adverse effect of which can be noted from the Environment Performance Index (EPI) 2020 by researchers in Yale and Columbia University which ranked India at 168th position out of 180 countries (“India EPI – Country Scorecard.” 2020).

    The author’s opinion over the larger framework is that environmental costs are being balanced with post-facto redressal. The emphasis put upon the private sector for green investing and other mandatory disclosures cannot be followed by diminishing the baseline surveys and the benchmark of EIA regulations. This can lead to more frequent outcomes of incidents such as Assam’s Baghjan oil spill and fire and the Vizag gas leak incident. Instead, the government should develop policies that restrain further ecological damages in the first place.

     

    References:

    Borate, Neil. “ESG Investments Are Fast Gaining Traction in India.” Mint, 11 Nov. 2020, www.livemint.com/money/personal-finance/esg-investments-are-fast-gaining-traction-in-india-11605111323843.html.

    Consultation Paper on the Format for Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting. SEBI, 2020, www.sebi.gov.in/reports-and-statistics/reports/aug-2020/consultation-paper-on-the-format-for-business-responsibility-and-sustainability-reporting_47345.html.

    Gupta, Debayan, et al. The Draft EIA Notification, 2020: Reduced Regulations and Increased Exemptions Part I & II, 31 July 2020, www.cprindia.org/research/reports/draft-eia-notification-2020-reduced-regulations-and-increased-exemptions-part-i-ii.

    “India EPI – Country Scorecard.” Environment Performance Index (EPI), 2020, epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2020/country/ind.

    Jackson, Jacqueline, and Karthik Gunasekar. “Decoding the Current Status of Draft EIA 2020.” The News Minute, 23 Sept. 2020, www.thenewsminute.com/article/decoding-current-status-draft-eia-2020-133728.

    Kunal, Kumar. UAPA Charge in Notice to Environmental Group Fridays for Future Due to ‘Clerical Error’: Delhi Police. India Today, 23 July 2020, www.indiatoday.in/india/story/uapa-charge-in-notice-to-environmental-group-fridays-for-future-due-to-clerical-error-delhi-police-1703716-2020-07-23.

    Vencatesan, Anjana. “[Commentary] The Two Faces of Environmental Regulation.” Mongabay, 21 Dec. 2020, india.mongabay.com/2020/12/commentary-the-two-faces-of-environmental-regulation/.