‘Environment ministries in most countries are still led by junior politicians’

The concept of sustainable development emerged from the Brundtland Commission (1984-87) to bridge environmental and developmental concerns. Championed by economist Nitin Desai, whose role in climate negotiations during the 1980s and 1990s helped propel its prominence, the notion underscores the imperative of meeting present needs while safeguarding the interests of future generations.

Its resonance has transcended boundaries, appealing to a diverse spectrum of stakeholders. Despite its historical roots, sustainable development continues to evolve in global policy discourse.

Desai, who was the deputy secretary general of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 that provided a road map for international action on environmental and developmental issues in the 21st century, tells Down To Earth about the evolution of climate negotiations over time and the hurdles impeding their progress. Excerpts:

Rajit Sengupta (RS): Was there political consensus on climate change during the Rio Earth Summit in 1992?

Nitin Desai (ND): In 1992, when the climate convention was signed, there were countries like the US that were skeptical about whether there was human-induced climate change. The reason for this skepticism was that the first report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990 did not openly attribute climate change to human actions—a fact that it acknowledged in its third report in 2001. However, times have changed. Today, there is a consensus that climate change is a result of human actions, necessitating changes in how humans interact with nature. Even corporations like Exxon have shifted towards acknowledging and taking action against climate change, indicating a broadening consensus.

RS: Has the global consensus translated into climate action?

ND: While progress has been made, particularly in the expansion of renewable energy, action remains inadequate. The dramatic reduction in solar power costs, largely driven by China’s initiatives, has been a notable advancement. However, efforts in energy efficiency and other areas fall short.

A significant shortfall lies the world’s unwillingness to discuss climate justice. The prevailing notion is that developed countries, having contributed significantly to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, bear the primary responsibility for addressing climate change. Even if we set aside historical emissions and focus on future projections, the outlook remains concerning. Between 2020 and 2050, scientists estimate that governments worldwide can emit around 500 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. When we distribute this emission allowance per capita over the next 30 years, it averages to approximately 1.8 tonnes per person annually. If we compare the projected emissions per capita for China and the US to what they should be, assuming they meet their 2030 targets and reach net-zero emissions, we find a staggering disparity—four times higher than the recommended rate. Conversely, India’s emissions per capita align more closely with the prescribed limit. Europe, while worse off than India, is also close to the target. The crux of the matter lies with the two major emitters. The failure to address this stark contrast in emissions presents a significant shortfall in climate justice. At the global level, cooperation remains elusive. Instead, we rely on individual countries to declare their actions. This fragmented approach is inadequate for addressing the collective challenge of climate change.

RS: Do you believe sustainable development has been sufficiently popularised?

ND: Sustainable development has become a buzzword, but its integration into various sectors, particularly concerning environmental protection and livelihood sustainability, remains incomplete. Development efforts must consider environmental impacts and the well-being of communities dependent on natural resources. Sustainable development should be framed as promoting sustainable livelihoods, connecting present needs with long-term environmental goals. This is important as most impacts of climate change, such as sea-level rise, is long-term and communities will only protect natural resources if it benefits them right now.

RS: Do you think the world needs a new agreement on climate change, similar to the one reached at Rio Summit?

ND: Not immediately. The current political climate lacks the necessary commitment to address environmental challenges comprehensively. While annual climate conferences occur, significant leadership is required to drive meaningful progress. Countries like India and China could potentially take the lead, but broader international cooperation is necessary.

RS: How do you envision future diplomatic efforts regarding environmental issues?

ND: Diplomatic efforts must integrate environmental considerations across all sectors consistently. Currently, there’s a fragmentation between environmental negotiations and other diplomatic endeavours like trade and finance. Prioritising environmental concerns alongside economic and political interests is essential. Another significant challenge lies in the leadership of environmental ministries within most countries. Often, these ministries are led by inexperienced politicians, lacking involvement in decision-making processes. We must strive for a paradigm shift where the insights of environmental ministries are valued on par with other key institutions like central banks. It is essential to foster a culture that acknowledges the role of environmental governance within the broader framework of policymaking. 

This was first published in the 16-31 March, 2024 print edition of Down To Earth

Subscribe to Daily Newsletter :

SUPPORT US

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.