Content uploaded by Anu Jogesh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anu Jogesh on Feb 18, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH REPORT
Navroz K. Dubash and Anu Jogesh
FROM
TO
MARGINS
MAINSTREAM?
STATE CLIMATE
CHANGE PLANNING
IN INDIA AS A
DOOR OPENER’ TO
A SUSTAINABLE
FUTURE
CLIMATE INITIATIVE
‘
Acknowledgements:
The authors thank officials of the various state governments as well as other stakeholders
who were generous with their time and valuable insights during state visits and during a
project workshop held in April 2013. We are also grateful to Srinivas Krishnaswamy for
providing a detailed review, and to Ben Mendelkern, Anandita Bishnoi, Shibani Ghosh,
Vyoma Jha, and Neha Joseph for assistance with various aspects of this publication.
The Oak Foundation and The International Development Research Centre provided
generous financial support, without which this project would not have been possible.
All responsibility for the content and interpretation in this report rests with the authors.
Febr uar y 2014
Suggested Citation: Navroz K. Dubash and Anu Jogesh, “From Margins to Mainstream?
Climate Change Planning in India as a 'Door Opener' to a Sustainable future,” Centre for
Policy Research (CPR), Climate Initiative, Research Report (New Delhi: CPR, February 2014).
Corresponding author: anu.jogesh@gmail.com
About the Centre for Policy Research
CPR is an independent and non-partisan research institute and think tank. Its main
objectives are to provide thought leadership and creative solutions to address pressing
intellectual and policy issues. It is one of the 27 national social science research institutes
recognized by the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), Government of India.
It is set apart by its multi-disciplinary approach and unique blend of scholarship and
practical expertise. CPR’s faculty has considerable impact on policy and public debates.
See www.cprindia.org
About the Climate Initiative
The Climate Initiative seeks to generate research and analysis on the global climate
negotiations, and on the links between the global climate regime and domestic laws,
policies and institutions in India. It also seeks to create a platform from which scholars
and activists can engage in policy and academic debate on climate change. For more
information on the Climate Initiative's project on State Action Plans on Climate Change,
please go to http://state-climate-plans.cprindia.org/.
ExECUTIvE SUMMARy
State Action Plans on Climate Change hold
potential as an important intervention in
the development process. They provide
an institutional platform to mainstream
concerns of environmental sustainability
into development planning and, if done
properly, to update ideas of sustainability
to include climate resilience. This platform
provides a potential opening to enterprising
and committed bureaucrats, but is also
an opening with which development
practitioners, academics, business, and civil
society at large could productively engage.
At the moment, this promise is not being
adequately realised. As discussed in this
study, there are shortcomings in approach,
process, formulation of outcomes, and
implementation efforts. These shortcomings
are united by a common thread – a tendency
to prematurely view state climate plans as
vehicles for generating implementable
actions rather than an opportunity to re-
direct development toward environmental
sustainability and climate resilience. Thin
conceptual frameworks, processes that
provide no space for generating a vision of
change, limited state capacity, and truncated
time frames all reinforce this outcome. While
concrete actions are indeed important, these
may be of limited value unless informed by
a broader vision of future directions in key
climate-related sectors such as agriculture,
water, and energy.
State plans are viewed as the beginning of
a complex process rather than as an end
in themselves, they provide a foundation
upon which to build. The recommendations
contained in this report suggest specific
measures that the central government,
state governments and donor agencies
could adopt. In addition, if climate plans
are indeed used as an opportunity to re-
direct development, then they require a
much more robust process of engaging
civil society and business stakeholders in
envisioning alternative futures on a sector-
by-sector basis and corresponding interest
and engagement from these stakeholders.
The path forward requires iterating climate
plans with an eye to a more robust framing,
a process that enables broader dialogue
within and outside government, structured
outcomes at different levels of specificity,
and staged implementation that prioritizes
internalization of sustainability and climate
resilience into sectoral departments.
FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS
Approach
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYiii
1. State climate change action plans are treated
synonymously with sustainable development
planning. This approach usefully injects
environmental issues into development planning,
but represents a lost opportunity to internalize
climate resilience.
2. Climate plans are inadequately rooted in
relevant scientific knowledge on climate change,
with negative implications for their salience
and usefulness.
3. Plans appropriately balance national direction and
local concerns, but state issues may be more
salient in the long run.
4. Plans focus more on adaptation than on mitigation;
states perceive mixed signals about the
appropriate role for mitigation.
1. Inform the plan process with a conceptual
framework elaborating the links between
climate resilience (adaptation and mitigation),
and sustainable development in order to avoid a
business as usual approach. (Centre, States, Donors)
2. Science-based and downscaled predictions of
state-specific climate impacts need to be readily
available to states, which the centre can play an
important role in providing. (Centre)
3. Include mitigation in the framework for state
plans, as the links between sustainability,
adaptation and mitigation are strong and
pervasive, and because states have interests in
energy-related actions. (Centre, States)
FROM MARGINS TO MAINSTR EAM?
1. Climate change plans have occasionally received
high-level political support in an effort by states to
project a green image, which has translated to
bureaucratic attention.
2. The process of developing plans shapes whether they
follow existing departmental action or result in
creative integration, and also affects the degree of
departmental ‘ownership’ of plan outcomes.
3. Several states sought external inputs, but the
consultation process was insufficiently robust to
materially shape plans.
4. Capacity constraints limited states’ ability to develop
plans in-house. The assistance of donors and use of
consultants largely failed to adequately enhance
states’ long-term capacity or enable integration of
climate expertise and local context.
1. Recommendations are not based on a systematic
framework for formulation or prioritisation but are a mix
of broad statements of objective and specific actions–
the result is neither a clear vision nor a clear plan.
2. Recommendations are incremental rather than
transformational because of the process chosen
for plan formulation, although there are pockets of
innovation driven by individual initiative.
1. The existing capacity of dedicated state climate
change units is insufficient for stimulating and
monitoring implementation.
2. Successful implementation requires mainstreaming
of recommendations into the functioning of line
departments; there is little clarity on how to
accomplish this mainstreaming.
3. Budget estimates in plans vary widely. They do not
adopt a consistent methodology across states, and
should be considered indicative at best.
1. Design internal processes to prioritise creativity
and new understandings over short term action
items; cross-departmental dialogue is a useful
approach. (States)
2. Structure well-designed processes of ex ante and
ex post consultation with stakeholders to generate
new ideas, appropriately sequenced with plan
formulation. (States)
3. Donor intervention should facilitate informed
and integrative interaction across departments and
stakeholders; initiation workshops and studies
should avoid precluding creative framings and new
issues. (Donors, States)
4. Allow adequate time for climate planning; truncated
time frames work against creativity and reinforce a
return to existing trajectories. (States)
1. Sequence plans around a vision, major objectives,
and specific actions, understanding that progress
may be uneven along this sequence for different
sectors. (States)
2. Develop an explicit basis for prioritizing objectives
and actions to help make better use of scarce
capacity and finance, and enable implementation.
(Centre, States, Donors)
3. Plans should be used as an opportunity to engage
transformational questions, organized around large
integrative themes that cut across sectors; initial
plan iterations should focus on ideas for a
‘directional shift’ in development trajectories with
specific actions to follow. (States)
1. Improve the capacity of nodal agencies to serve as
conduits for climate science, facilitate linkages
across departments, and enable deliberation on
sustainable development in the context of climate
change. Playing these roles requires multiple skills
and staff continuity over time. (States, Donors)
2. Experiment with creative implementation
mechanisms, including the use of analysis and
information based instruments to ‘nudge’ action, and
coordination with state planning agencies. (States)
3. Developing credible estimates of additional financial
costs may be premature. Costing should be limited to
areas where plans are well fleshed out and based on a
consistent methodology across states. (States, Centre)
FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS
Process
Outcomes
Implementation
iv
MOTIvATION
For much of the last two decades, climate change has largely been considered an esoteric
issue in India, to be discussed in international negotiations, but not one of much salience
to domestic development imperatives. This has always been a flawed understanding,
because climate change impacts can make the task of developing in a sustainable manner
much harder (See Box: Climate Change and Sustainable Development). More recently,
however, there has been growing awareness of the relevance of climate change for
India, both within government, and within other sectors of society, such as civil society,
business and media.1
Notably, in August 2009, the Prime Minister asked all states to develop State Action
Plans on Climate Change (SAPCCs), as an extension of the National Action Plan on
Climate Change NAPCC process.2 The rationale was to decentralise action beyond the
eight missions of the NAPCC, particularly given that many subjects covered – especially
those like water and agriculture – are actually state subjects. The Centre developed a
“Common Framework Document,” with the assistance of some donor agencies, to guide
this process, stressing that it be participatory, build capacity, develop a vulnerability
assessment, and draw on experts and donors for guidance and support.3 A number of
states embarked on ambitious plan formulation processes. As of December 2013, over
22 states and Union Territories had completed drafts of their plans, and 9 had been
‘endorsed’ by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF).4
To what extent do these newly forged state climate plans and the underlying process
of their creation shift climate change from the margins to the mainstream of India’s
development debate? This is an important question to ask for several reasons. First,
in the light of challenges posed by climate change, a business-as-usual approach to
1MOT IVATI ON
BOX: CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change provides several findings relevant to climate change
and sustainable development linkages:
Climate change is projected to impinge on the sustainable development
of most developing countries of Asia, as it compounds the pressures on
natural resources and the environment associated with rapid urbanisation,
industrialisation, and economic development. SPM WGII, p. 13
Climate change can slow the pace of progress towards sustainable
development, either directly through increased exposure to adverse impact or
indirectly through erosion of the capacity to adapt. SPM WGII, p. 20
‘Making development more sustainable can enhance both mitigative and
adaptive capacity, and reduce emissions and vulnerability to climate change.
Synergies between mitigation and adaptation can exist, for example
properly designed biomass production, formation of protected areas, land
management, energy use in buildings and forestry. In other situations,
there may be trade-offs, such as increased GHG emissions due to increased
consumption of energy related to adaptive responses’ SPM WGIII, p. 22
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007: Summary for Policymakers,
Working Groups II and III. (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_
data_reports.shtml#1).
FROM MARGINS TO MAINSTR EAM?
APPROACH AND METHODS
The study draws on an analysis of
state climate plans6 in five states:
Karnataka,7 Himachal Pradesh (HP),8
Madhya Pradesh (MP),9 Odisha,10 and
Sikkim.11 The states were primarily
chosen to represent geographic and
agro climatic spread, and variability
in donor organisations involved,
with additional attention to agro-
climate variability, size and, economic
prosperity. Further, only states that
had completed a draft report were
considered. As of January 2014, the
climate plans of MP and Sikkim had
been endorsed, whereas HP, Karnataka
and Odisha were awaiting approval.
The report is based on interviews with
officials from nodal and department
ministries in each state, civil society
actors, consultants and donors. The
interviews are complemented by close
analysis of state plans and supporting
documents. The approach is primarily
qualitative and interpretive. Preliminary
findings were presented and discussed
with state representatives at a feedback
workshop in 2013, and comments were
solicited from each state, although the
authors bear entire responsibility for
the content and interpretations.12
Detailed findings are reported in state
chapters, which are available at:
http://state-climate-plans.cprindia.org/
2
sustainable development is likely to be increasingly ineffective. Second, state planning
for climate change affords an intriguing opportunity to revisit existing development
planning in ways that prompt more explicit attention to environmental sustainability.
Third, and most pragmatically, SAPCCs are unlikely to be a one-off exercise; the current
round of plans will have to be reviewed, updated, and improved upon in an iterative
process. Given this, it is important to document the lessons of experience.
A summary response to the overarching question above is that state climate plans have
been a ‘door opener,’ as one official put it, to a more in-depth engagement with the
concepts and implementation challenges of sustainable development. But they have not,
as yet, provided an opening for transformative change – the ‘directional shift’ called for
in the NAPCC.5 To elaborate on this answer and suggest practical ways forward, this
report further explores:
I. What approach have states taken to state plans and how are plans understood by
the people who lead them as well as those who engage with the process?
II. What is the process through which they are put together and how does this
process affect the outcomes?
III. What sorts of outcomes result and will these recommendations add up to a
re-envisioning of sustainable development?
IV. And what, ultimately, are the prospects for implementation of ideas arising from
state plans?
After briefly outlining the research approach and methods, the remainder of this
report spells out the principal findings and recommendations of the study, with the
intent of contributing to ongoing policy debates and processes on climate change
and development.
3THE APPROACH
future rainfall trends have impacts for the
trajectory of hydropower development,
and sea-level rise carries implications
for infrastructure development along the
coast. Even efforts at climate mitigation
may have implications for sustainable
development, such as the implications of
biomass-based energy on land-use.
The incomplete framing of sustainable
development in the context of climate
change is partly due to limitations at the
initiation stage of plans. As an official
from MP put it, “SAPCCs [are] not climate
change plans but good development plans.
States were thrown into the process without
capacities to understand the process or the
product.”14 Most states held inception
workshops, but these were focused
around technical presentations on climate
change from experts rather than internal
deliberations that allowed state officials
and experts to draw links between local
understandings of sustainability and the
challenges posed by climate change. Even
in Sikkim, where bureaucrats in charge
had previously made efforts to understand
the implications of climate change, and
independently produced a volume on the
subject, the workshop was limited to
technical presentations from experts to
other working group officials.15
THE APPROACH
State climate change action plans are treated synonymously with
sustainable development planning. This approach usefully injects
environmental issues into development planning, but represents
a lost opportunity to internalize climate resilience.
Climate change planning in India – as
elsewhere – has been unexplored
terrain. Accordingly, the initial under-
standing of the aims and objectives
can determine what follows. What was
this initial understanding and how was
it shaped?
In many states, climate change action
plans were approached as sustainable
development action plans. A low level of
initial knowledge about climate change
in some states, a lack of a conceptual
framework with which to link sustainability
and climate change, limited access to
appropriate state-level climate science
projections, and, in some cases, pressures
on time, all led to a default approach of
broad sustainability planning. In the words
of a consultant who worked on several plans
including Sikkim, “…in most cases there is a
very thin line between a climate action plan
and a business-as-usual development plan.
There is a line, but a very thin line.”13
Interviews with state officials suggest
that while climate change is often a little
understood abstraction, there is greater
motivation to address concrete local issues of
sustainable development, which is also likely
to bring greater political support for action
(See Dialogue Box 1). Viewed thus, state
climate change plans may be understood, as
one state official put it, as a useful ‘door-
opener’ to consideration of long standing
sustainable development concerns, since
there is a considerable overlap between
sustainability and climate resilience.
On the other hand, understandings of
sustainable development are incomplete
without taking account of future climate
change impacts. For example, changes in
Politicians and people cannot understand what will happen
after 30 years. Environmental issues are already taken up with
lots of difficulty... We should take up practical things… because
of intensive agriculture the Arkavathi River [in Bangalore] is
almost dry. There is severe ground water depletion … so many
dying industries throw their sewerage there.”
- Official, Government of Karnataka
We started the SAPCC on a scientific note but got no buy-in
from the departments, especially when we told them that the
climate was going to change that way in the next 20 years. We
talked to farmers, women groups, unemployed youth, then
the SAPCC came to life. People started to say women will not
have access to water, the springs will dry up, Rabi crop suffer.
People started realising there are some real life problems that
we need to solve.”
- Official, Government of Sikkim
Is there a conceptual understanding [of an SAPCC]? I don’t
think so; there is no common approach despite having a
common framework.”
- Consultant, Odisha Climate Change Action Plan
“
“
“
DIALOGUE BOX 1
FROM MARGINS TO MAINSTR EAM?4
Climate plans are inadequately rooted in relevant scientific
knowledge on climate change, with negative implications for
their salience and usefulness.
State plans make limited use of relevant
scientific knowledge on climate change, in
large part because of difficulties accessing
such knowledge, which is an important
reason why they fail to upgrade sustainable
development to include climate resilience
(See Dialogue Box 2).16 While many plans
carry a sec tion on climate trends and forecasts
based on available regional studies, this
information was often drawn from a
report by the Indian Network of Climate
Change Assessment (INCCA) in 2010 that
provided trends for four climate sensitive
regions and sectors in India.17 This is an
inadequate scale for state planning. The
problem of inadequate information and
was exacerbated by time pressure. Officials
in HP and Odisha for example, felt that any
initial investment in climate science such
as commissioning model-based climate
forecasts specific to the state would delay
the SAPCC process.18
All states conducted a vulnerability
assessment (VA), but the effectiveness
of these was limited by lack of adequate
regional level climate predictions and
adequate scientific capability. The Odisha
and Sikkim state plans for instance, derive
sectoral and region-wise climate sensitivity
from current climate trends rather than
future projections.19 In some cases, such
as in MP and Karnataka, the vulnerability
assessment was conducted as a separate
project, rather than as an integral part of
the climate plan.20
Consequently, even where such information
is available, there is little evidence that final
plan recommendations reflect priority areas
based on science. For example, in MP, which
was not featured in the MoEF based INCCA
study, climate specific information was added
later after the first iteration of the report was
rea dy.21 Odisha, which prepared a draft in just
three months, did not include any climate
forecasts. Karnataka represents a partial
exception, as the state was able to draw on
climate research from a non-governmental
research consortium (See Case Study 1). Thus,
Karnataka’s recommendations for agriculture
for instance, include specific district-wise
crop changes based on forecasts of future
temperature and precipitation projections.22
As Table 1 suggests, a linkage between
climate science and recommendations is
the exception rather than the rule, with
Karnataka being the only exception.
“
“
We are a small state.
A 50x50 vulnerability
assessment at the district
level is of no use to us with
just four districts. It’s like
you outsource a study to
find out the biggest room in
your own house.”
- Official, Government of Sikkim
To get 30-year data for
temperature and rainfall for
50 districts, we ran between
several regional IMD [India
Meteorological Department]
offices; Bhopal, Pune,
Delhi… It would have been
better for MoEF to ask IITM
[Indian Institute of Tropical
Meteorology] to prepare
information brochures or
leaflets and provide it to all
states stating this is what
your state will look like 30
years hence.”
- Official, Government of MP
DIALOGUE BOX 2
CASE STUDY 1: USE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE IN KARNATAKA
Intervention
A consortium of research and scientific organisations prepared a scientific
assessment of the implications of climate change for Karnataka, which was used as
a basis for analysis and recommendations by the nodal agency.
Outcome
The Karnataka climate plan is arguably the only plan examined that has been able
to draw on science and research outcomes specific to the state.
Details
Reputed research institutes – Indian Institute of Science, Centre for Study of
Science, Technology and Policy, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, and
Institute for Social and Economic Change – came together under the Bangalore
Climate Change Initiative – Karnataka (BCCI-K). Their report is predominantly
science-focused, and includes state specific climate projections, vulnerability
assessment, GHG inventory, and chapters on forests, water, agriculture, and
adaptive capacity, and mitigation options.
Limitations
Although the study provided a level of scientific detail that is relatively rare in
the SAPCC process, priority actions were driven more by the state’s immediate
development and environment concerns.
Source: Karnataka climate plan by EMPRI and Climate action plan by BCCI-K
5
Source: HP climate plan, p. 65; Karnataka climate plan, pp. 16 and 25; MP climate plan, pp. 24, 99, and 104; Orissa Climate Plan, pp. 11-18; Sikkim
climate plan, p. 30.
Table 1: Links between climate science and final recommendations
State
HP
Karnataka
MP
Odisha
Sikkim
The vulnerability assessment provides a
district-wise vulnerability profile of the
state based on current trends and future
climate projections.
Plan states that, “projected increase in
rainfall and temperature is expected to
cause changes in the cropping pattern
and production… of the state.”
Climate forecasts chapter predicts a 1.25
fold increase in monsoon rainfall in all
but four districts in 2021 and 2050.
The plan carries no model based regional
projections. The vulnerability assessment is
not scientifically analysed, nor does it offer
any spatial or temporal vulnerability trends.
The VA chapter suggests “village
specific adaptation packages” because
of the high degree of climatic variability
within districts.
Recommendations do not specifically
target any of the vulnerable districts.
Recommendations include a state
level policy body for the “region wise
redistribution of existing subsidies to
promote cropping patterns” based on
future climate projections.
Recommendations for agriculture focus
on a water-stressed scenario, suggesting
dry land farming, drip irrigation, dry
flooding, and adoption of drought-
resistant crops.
Recommendations are not linked to any
climate specific research.
Recommendations do not address any
specific district, region, or village cluster.
Science and Research Findings
in Climate Plans
Linkages with Final
Recommendations
Plans appropriately balance national direction and local concerns,
but state issues may be more salient in the long run.
Box 3). For example, the Odisha climate
plan was seen as a way to bring much
needed funds to reduce transmission and
distribution losses in the state’s privatised
electricity sector even though this is not
a major theme in the NAPCC.25 Indeed
a third of the plan budget is set-aside for
this purpose.26 In Sikkim, water issues
dominate state concerns around glacial
retreat, given the dependence of the state
on mountain springs for water supply.27
Consequently, this sector represents the
best-developed portion of the Sikkim
plan.28 The HP climate plan was drafted
around the time the then Chief Minister
announced a carbon neutrality target for
the state.29 And even though the plan does
not directly commit to that goal, a third of
the actions in the plan focus on mitigation.30
The climate plan process has, therefore,
found a balance between laying out a broad
framework and leaving space for state
direction. In the future, it may be advisable
to tilt the balance in favour of state
initiative for at least three reasons: many
climate relevant issues are state subjects;
implementation chances are heightened if
states can focus on issues that are politically
salient locally; and experimentation at the
state level is more likely to lead to creative
new ideas than a fixed central diktat.
In India’s federal system, there is an
inevitable tension bet ween the consistency
obtained by a centrally directed approach
and the gains of tailoring policy to the
local context when states take the lead.
Following the guidance from the MoEF,
states largely followed the template of the
eight missions laid out under the NAPCC.23
Indeed, even the recommendations sections
of some plans followed the sub-categories
listed under the missions.24
At the same time, local concerns did play
a role in shaping both the content of
the plans and some additional emphasis
on certain sectoral areas (See Dialogue
THE APPROACH
FROM MARGINS TO MAINSTR EAM?
Among some state officials, there was a
clear sentiment that it was appropriate for
state plans to focus on adaptation issues,
one backed by the MoEF (See Dialogue
Box 4). Adaptation, it was felt, was clearly
tied to development concerns, and given
India’s stage of development and relatively
limited contribution to historical emissions,
mitigation should take a back seat.
However, there were some confounding
factors that led to mixed signals on the
relative balance of plans on adaptation
and mitigation. First, the NAPCC, which
served as the guiding document for state
plans, includes several missions focused
on mitigation.31 Second, the Common
Framework Document issued by the MoEF
explicitly states that each plan should
include a Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHG),
which by its nature is mitigation focused.32
Finally, some states had an interest in
pursuing energy related issues in their plans.
In such states where local importance was
given to mitigation issues, mitigation related
actions formed a substantial component of
final SAPCC recommendations. Examples
include Odisha’s focus on reducing losses
in the electricity system, Karnataka’s efforts
to restructure agricultural power tariffs and
HP’s exploration of payment for ecosystem
services as well as acquiring more carbon
credits through the CDM process.33
6
Plans focus more on adaptation than on mitigation; states
perceive mixed signals about the appropriate role for mitigation.
Nothing was moving in the [energy] sector. This was an opportunity for us to impress on private
sector, regulator and government…In the name of climate change, highlight that the sector needs
support…we would not have got support without the climate document.”
- Official, Government of Odisha
Water is scarce in the Himalayas, last few years winter rains reduced, springs dried up...adaptation
is a major concern for the state.”
- Official, Government of Sikkim
In Himachal, climate change started with CDM [Clean Development mechanism], to get credits for
hydropower.”
- Official, Government of HP
DIALOGUE BOX 3
When we started, there was a clear directive from state
government, Steering Committee, and Chief Secretary, to focus
on vulnerability and adaptation,”
- Official, Government of MP
We would only engage in mitigation activities if it offered a
win-win situation for the state’s development agenda.“
- Retired Official, Government of MP
India’s climate change policy is already mitigation heavy. We
need to build resilience as a first priority based on people’s
economic needs (in HP).”
- Official, Government of HP.
On the SAPCC, the template was clear. States can make it as
comprehensive as possible but mitigation activities can only be
mentioned in line with policies at the national level. They can
take up renewable energy, transport initiatives, but can’t take
on a trajectory of their own.”
- Official, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.
“
“
“
“
DIALOGUE BOX 4
However, as Table 2 shows, while some
states conducted a GHG inventory not
all chose to include these in the final
plan. Interviews in four states suggested
that feedback from the MoEF (contrary
to the guidance initially presented in the
Common Framework Document) advised
against inclusion of these inventories on
the grounds that it might unnecessarily
expose India to international pressure. As
a consultant to Sikkim and MP put it, “The
MoEF is not encouraging it [inclusion of
GHG inventories] at this point even though
it’s in the framework since bi-laterals and
multilaterals can pick up state numbers and
informally push their cause [for India taking
on emission cuts].”34
“
“
“
7
In the future it would be better to avoid mixed
signals about the desirability and need for
including mitigation-related issues as part
of state planning processes. While concerns
about opening the door to international
obligations may be understandable, these
concerns are alleviated by the NAPCC focus
on a co-benefits framework for Indian action,
which places an emphasis on development
first, and the fact that that many states
appear to have their own interests in
pursuing energy related actions in a co-
benefits context.35 Moreover, a failure to
integrate mitigation comes at a cost,
because energy supply and demand is a
key aspect of sustainable development
and because there are linkages between
adaptation and mitigation that need to be
part of the framework for climate plans.
SAPCC
HP ‘Indicative
Action Plan
2012-2017’
Karnataka
‘Priority
actions and
entry points’
MP ‘Strategies
and Budget’
Odisha ‘Key
Priorities’
Sikkim ‘Actions’
list in sector
chapters
Yes
Yes
Yes, but not
included in the
plan
Yes
No
148
100
337
142
224
85 (57%)
66 (66%)
207 (62%)
72 (47%)
159 (71%)
46 (31%)
27 (27%)
109 (32%)
65 (43%)
43 (19%)
17 (12%)
7 (7%)
21 (6%)
5 (10%)
22 (10%)
GHG
Inventory
Prioritised
actions Adaptation Mitigation Other
RECOMMENDATIONS ON FRAMING STATE PLANS
1. Inform the plan process with a conceptual framework elaborating the links between climate
resilience (adaptation and mitigation), and sustainable development in order to avoid a
business-as-usual approach.
2. Science-based and downscaled predictions of state-specific climate impacts need to be
readily available to states, which; the centre can play an important role in providing.
3. Include mitigation in the framework for state plans, as the links between sustainability,
adaptation and mitigation are strong and pervasive, and because states have interests in
energy-related actions.
THE APPROACH
Table 2: Relative Focus on Adaptation and Mitigation in Prioritised Recommendations of State Plans
NOTE: All proposed activities (including research and capacity building outcomes) have been categorised under mitigation or adaptation action. ‘Other’
includes actions that could not be categorised exclusively under one or other categor y, often pertaining to broad sustainable development activities.
The Sikkim plan lists time bound targets. Actions under the five-year target are taken as the priority list for this analysis.
Source: HP climate plan, p. 224; Karnataka climate plan, p. 25 and 165; MP climate plan, p. 97; Orissa climate plan, p. 118; Sikkim climate plan, pp. 43-163.
FROM MARGINS TO MAINSTR EAM?
THE PROCESS
Climate change plans have occasionally received high-level
political support in an effort by states to project a green image,
which has translated to bureaucratic attention.
Climate Change’, well before the SAPPC
process, and also established a ‘Glacier
and Climate Change Commission’.37 HP
hosted a Climate Change Conclave and
announced a climate neutral target for
the state to be addressed with assistance
from the World Bank.38
High levels of political attention have
translated to bureaucratic energy
and have proved helpful in mobilising
bureaucrats from other departments (See
Dialogue Box 5). In the case of Sikkim and
Odisha it has also led to some focus on
implementation. The Odisha government
has reportedly decided to implement the
climate plan without waiting for central
funding, perhaps in reaction to super
cyclone Phailin.39 Although in-principle
support from the top is certainly necessar y,
it is not sufficient for an effective plan.
The process through which a state
develops its climate plan can either
open doors to creative ideas or close
off opportunities, empower voices
outside the mainstream or silence them.
Accordingly, exploring the process
followed by states is an essential
precursor to looking at their outcomes.
The Chief Ministers of several states,
notably Sikkim, HP and Odisha, have
been reported as being keen to project
their state as environmentally forward-
thinking. While in Sikkim the plan
was directly tied to climate concerns
because of the state’s dependence on
glacial springs, in HP and Odisha the
motivation was to build on the state’s
green credentials and receive additional
finance. The Sikkim Chief Minister for
instance, constituted a ‘State Council on
We wanted to make sure though these [climate initiatives] that
HP had a good track record of proactiveness with respect to
environment matters.”
- Senior official, Government of HP
This [Sikkim climate plan] fits the CM’s larger green
Sikkim image.”36
- NGO representative, Sikkim Action plan on Climate Change
The involvement of all the secretaries [in the climate plan
process] was important. The CM [Chief Minister] and CS [Chief
Secretary] took a couple of meetings, so the entire system was
energised.”
- Senior official, Orissa Climate Change Action Plan
“
“
“
DIALOGUE BOX 5
8
THE PROCESS
Table 3: Summary of the State Planning Process
State
HP
Karnataka
MP
Odisha
Sikkim
Plan drafted entirely by
Department of Environment
Science and Technology.
Some inputs gathered from
line departmental officials.
Plan drafted by the
Environmental Management
& Policy Research Institute
based on interviews with
officials in line departments
using a structured
questionnaire.
Plan drafted by the
Climate Change Cell at the
Environmental Planning &
Coordination Organisation
based on inputs from
sectoral workshops.
Plan drafted by Department
of Forest and Environment.
Sectoral working groups
with cross-departmental
composition responsible for
initial sectoral chapters.
Each working group
coordinated by a
representative of the
Department of Forest and
Environment.
Plan drafted by Department
of Environment Science and
Technology.
Sectoral working groups led
by departments responsible
for initial sectoral chapters.
Peer review group of senior
academics vetted research
and draft plan outcomes.
No formal external
consultation process but
considerable information
available from a report
prepared by a consortium
of Bengaluru-based
research organisations.
10 sectoral workshops with
participation from line
departments, academics,
and retired line department
officers.
11 regional workshops
including farmers, local
government officials, and
academics in different agro-
climatic zones.
Five regional and sectoral
workshops.
Extensive review and
consultation of the draft
report with the civil society,
followed by a revision.
Participatory rural
appraisals in six villages to
gauge local perceptions of
vulnerability.
Non-governmental
organisation (NGO)
representation in some
working groups.
No formal donor
engagement in the plan.
Consultation and feedback
from a donor agency in the
context of a concurrent
Development Policy Loan.
No formal donor
engagement.
Research organisation hired
as a technical partner in
the later stages to assist in
drafting.
Minimal involvement
of donor agency in the
process.
Some background papers
prepared by consultants.
Regional workshops
organised by local NGO.
Independent consultant
later drafted the climate
trends and projections
chapter, and reworked the
final draft.
Donor agencies brought
in consultants, as well as
national and international
experts to brief working
groups.
Consultants actively
involved in working groups
and synthesising the plan.
Donor involved as part of
a larger “Climate Change
Adaptation in Rural Areas”
project; provided initial
framework and guidelines
for the plan.
Sectoral consultants acted
as experts: provided inputs
to working groups.
Internal Process Donor and
Consultant role
External Participation
and Consultation
Source: Interviews and document scrutiny of HP, Karnataka, MP, Odisha and Sikkim climate plans.
9
FROM MARGINS TO MAINSTR EAM?
The process of developing plans shapes whether they follow existing
departmental action or result in creative integration, and also affects
the degree of departmental ‘ownership’ of plan outcomes.
Several states sought external inputs, but the consultation
process was insufficiently robust to materially shape plans.
The process of formulating state plans
followed one of two broad models. In
Karnataka, HP, and MP, the plan was drafted
by the nodal department, after obtaining
inputs from relevant departments. In
Odisha and Sikkim, the plan was drafted
by sectoral working groups, formed by the
nodal agency.
The nodal group-led model provided
almost no scope for cross-departmental
input or new ideas from within the process.
In all three states though, state plans
were able to draw on external ideas; the
expert-led the ‘Bangalore Climate Change
Initiative – Karnataka’ process in Karnataka;
the peer-review group consisting of
academics and chancellors from several
universities in HP; and sectoral workshops
in MP involving line-departments and
retired government officials.40
Done well, the working group focused
model can provide the basis for new
ideas and breaking of silos. For example,
a stakeholder commenting on the Odisha
plan remarked, “…it is not often that you
find forest officers sitting face to face with
mining officials to discuss environmental
sustainability.”41 But as a senior official also
explained, representatives of the nodal
agency were strategically placed in each
group to ensure progress: “As convenor
of all the 11 teams I put officers who
are directly responsible [for coordinating
meetings and taking notes]… so I’m his
boss, he’s answerable to me, he has
to show the result and put it in place
qu i c kly.”42
These experiences suggest that a plan
process must be carefully designed to both
foster interaction (and avoid silos) but also
build ownership. This is a challenge, since
there is a possible trade-off across these
objectives. Ensuring interaction through
cross-departmental discussion, using a
nodal agency to stimulate discussion rather
than own the process, and allowing time
for new understandings to emerge are all
important ingredients of a good process.
In addition to cross-departmental deliberations,
external input commissioned from academics or
consultants, or consultation with stakeholders
from business and civil society can provide
sources of creative input. For example HP set
up a peer review group comprising Vice
Chancellors of universities as well as eminent
scientists to vet the draft plan (See Case
Study 2). Their most significant intervention
was guiding the nodal department in
preparing a new district level vulnerability
assessment study using climate-based
variables to replace an existing environmental
vulnerability assessment study.43
In several states, the formal process was
supplemented with either ex ante or ex
post consultation, but these were highly
variable in quality and effort, and there
is only limited evidence that consultation
had a tangible effect on outcome. The most
ambitious example of ex ante consultations
is in Madhya Pradesh (See Case Study
3), resulting in a synthesis of sector-wise
concern areas and recommendations for
each agro climatic zone.44 However, since
the main report writing proceeded in
CASE STUDY 2: PEER-REVIEWING THE HP CLIMATE PLAN PROCESS
Intervention
The Department of Environment Science and Technology (DEST) established a
peer-review group of experts.
Outcome
By providing external inputs the group added climate-relevant capacity to the process.
Details
The peer review group comprised Vice Chancellors of universities and
eminent scientists from regional organizations such as the Forest Research
Institute, Himachal Pradesh Agriculture University, and the Himalayan Forest
Research Institute. The group asked the DEST to prepare a vulnerability
assessment based on exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity of various
districts in HP, because they felt that the existing Tehsil level vulnerability
assessment produced for the Environmental Master plan was inadequate from
a climate lens.
Limitations
The peer review group added expert input, but the process failed to provide
space to civil society voices.
Source: HP climate Plan; Interview with a senior official, Government of HP.
10
Capacity constraints limited states’ ability to develop plans
in-house. The assistance of donors and use of consultants
largely failed to adequately enhance states’ long-term capacity
or enable integration of climate expertise and local context.
parallel there is no indication of the impact
of these consultations on the final plan. In
Sikkim, state officials credit participatory
rural appraisals in six villages with raising
their awareness of how climate variability
was affecting local communities and
helping to ground truth the vulnerability
assessment. Officials also included some
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
members in their working groups.45 Odisha
followed an ambitious year-long process of
ex post review and consultation with civil
society organisations, which led to some
key changes in the report. The Odisha plan
also contains an annexure based on this
consultation, with external comments, and
the state’s reaction to these comments.46
Commissioned work or other forms of
outside input can also be a source of new
ideas. The work by a coalition of academic
institutes and think tanks in Karnataka
provided a solid base of information for the
Karnataka plan.47 MP also made a concerted
effort to commission local academic
research, but this work did not ultimately
play a big role in the final report.48
There is an important time planning dimension
to the state planning process. In Odisha, the
first draft of the plan was prepared in just three
months, facilitated by tight time management,
providing little scope for external input.49
In MP, the ambitious consultation process
was inadequately sequenced with the main
report process to ensure cross-fertilization.50
However, doing so would have extended the
plan process considerably. To be effective,
external input needs adequate time,
appropriate sequencing with plan preparation
processes, and the inclusion of both ex ante
and ex post elements.
CASE STUDY 3: AGRO CLIMATIC ZONE WORKSHOPS IN MP
INTERVENTION
The Climate Cell organised regional workshops in 11 agro-climatic zones.
Outcome
Public participation and communication on climate change at the regional level
was enhanced.
Details
The consultation was managed by the Centre for Environment Education.
Input material included Hindi booklet providing sector-wise information on
climatic impacts in MP and listing priorities for each sector. A range of
40 to 110 participants turned out for the workshops, with overall
representation as follows:
Limitations
Consultation outputs were not considered by working groups, and did not
appear to inform sectoral recommendations in the SAPCC draft.
Source: MP climate plan; Proceedings: Agro-climatic Zone Stakeholder Consultation by
Government of MP and UNDP.
48% Government
21% Academic
16% NGOs
9% Others
7% Farmers
5% Industry
5% Media
State climate planning processes are
typically housed in environment and forests
or science and technology departments
with limited capacity to conceptualise and
develop climate plans.51 In all the states
studied, there was considerable concern
11
that the state plan be locally driven; in
practice, states drew on external technical
ability in a variety of ways (See Table 3). In
some cases, donor agencies were explicitly
involved in the process, as in Odisha, while
in other cases, donors were engaged
indirectly, through support for larger, related
programmes, as in Sikkim, HP and MP.
Donors can usefully bridg e capacity shortfalls
by providing technical expertise, and
facilitating a conversation on climate change
THE PROCESS
FROM MARGINS TO MAINSTR EAM?
Departments needed to give us what they had done so far
and the road ahead, but we had to also incorporate external
consultants. Departments had no clue what had to be done,
we had to give them some background.”
- Senior retired official, Government of Karnataka
There was a sense among officials that consultants should drive
this… [They said] we would give the ideas and they should
write it... I don’t have the authority to go to other officers and
collect data.”
- NGO representative, Sikkim Action Plan on Climate Change
In consultation with MoEF we have developed a framework
for SAPCC which can serve as a guidance and orientation…
The framework recommends to first set up a governance or
steering structure… In a second step the framework suggests
to identify relevant sectors which are affected by climate change.”
- Donor agency representative, Sikkim Action Plan on Climate Change
“
“
“
DIALOGUE BOX 6
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROvED PROCESS
1. Design internal processes to prioritise creativity and new understandings over short term
action items; cross-departmental dialogue is a useful approach.
2. Structure well-designed processes of ex ante and ex post consultation with stakeholders to
generate new ideas, appropriately sequenced with plan formulation.
3. Donor intervention should facilitate informed and integrative interaction across departments
and stakeholders; initiation workshops and studies should avoid precluding creative framings
and new issues.
4. Allow adequate time for climate planning; truncated time frames work against creativity and
reinforce a return to existing trajectories.
with knowledgeable local bureaucrats,
academics and NGOs. For example, most
states conducted an inception workshop
and/or prepared an initial scoping document
with donor assistance. However, the
impact of these efforts varied. In Odisha,
for example, the scoping report drafted by
a UK-based academic consultant provided
a list of recommended sectoral actions.
This was ultimately used by working groups
as a ‘first-cut’ toward drafting the plan,
arguably short-circuiting local discussion
of priorities.52 In Sikkim, state officials
suggested that an initial scoping workshop
conducted by senior academics and other
experts from around India was of relatively
limited use, as it was framed around broad
climate change issues, without an explicit
effort to build a conceptual bridge from local
realities to climate threats.53 Ultimately, the
inception workshops and other consultations
supported by donors showed little signs of
usefully facilitating a conversation about
climate change in a manner that allowed for
engagement with local concerns.
A second role that external actors can
usefully play is building capacity. In
many states, Indian consultants often
took on a substantial role in plugging
knowledge gaps and providing assistance
in coordinating and drafting the plans
(See Dialogue Box 6). For example, local
sectoral consultants assisted working
groups in Sikkim, played a coordinating
role in Odisha, and assisted in drafting
the final reports in MP and Karnataka.
Unusually, in the HP climate plan, no
external consultants were employed
(though they were involved in other
environment and climate projects in the
state such as the vulnerability assessment
for the Environment Master plan and the
Community Led Assessment, Awareness,
Advocacy and Action Programme for
Environment Protection and Carbon
Neutrality).54 However, there is little
evidence that the net effect of the process
was a sustainable long-term enhancement
in the capacity of state government
agencies. In all the states studied, capacity
for ongoing work on climate change was
limited to a very small group of people.
The challenge for effective state climate
planning processes is to mesh external
specialised knowledge of climate change
with detailed local knowledge in ways
that can mainstream climate change. To
do so requires building local capacity over
time, both within the government and in
networks of local academic and civil society
institutions. In most states, the process was
geared substantially more to production
of a report, than to long-term building of
capacity to work on integrating climate
change into development practice in a
sustained way.
12
OUTCOMES
Recommendations are not based on a systematic framework
for formulation or prioritisation but are a mix of broad statements
of objective and specific actions – the result is neither a clear
vision nor a clear plan.
Recommend ations for sectoral ac tions are at the heart of w hat the state climate plan s
finally communicate. A systematic understanding of these recommendations and
their import are stymied by the numbers and diversity of approaches to generating
recommendations (Table 4). However, a comparison of recommendations suggests
at least three broad themes, discussed below.
States diverge in the extent to which they offer broad objectives or specific actions, but
no state offers a clear, consistent and well argued set of recommendations that amount
to either a vision or an action plan (see Table 4). One reason for this variation is lack of
up front agreement and clarity on exactly what the plans were meant to deliver. As one
consultant involved in multiple states noted: “Earlier officials said that SAPCCs need
to include specific actions, now they want to it to be more of a knowledge document:
Let it evolve, not all of it needs to be immediately actionable.”55 A clear signal from
the leadership can also determine how specific the recommendations are. In Odisha,
the Secretary in charge sought clear, actionable recommendations around which to
generate new programmes: “If you look at the climate plan, it has thrown up some
300 to 400 different programs. For the government as a whole, it gives a spark to new
activities. It helps climate, it helps other sectors also.”56
Another factor is the relatively thin information base on which recommendations rest;
specific action items need detailed information. Notably, recommendations include many
ideas for future research, several of which are actually prerequisites to constructing an
informed climate plan (See Table 4). Climate plans, therefore, are more appropriately
viewed as the first step in an iterative process, rather than the launch pad for
implementing policies.
“
“
The articulation of priorities has been simplified, but in fact it’s
not so simple. Prioritisation can be constraint based, time-frame
based, or growth based.”
- Consultant, Odisha Climate Change Action Plan
The SAPCC is too generic compared to work being done in the
forestry department. Interventions include just two paragraphs
on developing a forestry action plan under the National
Mission… Any nodal agency cannot bring all the wisdom
together only to highlight broad problems.”
- Official, Government of HP
DIALOGUE BOX 7
OUTCOMES13
FROM MARGINS TO MAINSTR EAM?
Table 4: Overview of plan recommendations
State and
Relevant
Section
No. of
Proposals
Example
of Broad
Recommenda-
tions
Example
of Specific
Recommenda-
tions
Comments
No. of Proposals
for Future
Research
(% Of Total)
HP ‘Indicative
Action Plan
2012-2017’
Karnataka
‘Priority actions
and entry
points’
MP ‘Strategies
and Budget’
Odisha ‘Sector
wise Table of
Key Priorities’
Sikkim ‘Actions’
list in sector
chapters
287
100
337
148
224
Promote
native forest
management
and recovery.
Formulate a plan
to execute large-
scale vaccination
of livestock.
Promote
integrated
farming
practices.
Fire management
program.
Plans for river
bank protection.
Bio energy –
waste to energy
– pilot modelled
projects.
Department
of Urban
Development
to make reuse
of treated
wastewater
mandatory in
public buildings.
Mandatory water
use audit for
industries and
allied sectors.
Dredging and
widening of
river mouths to
facilitate speedy
discharge of
flood water
which otherwise
aggravate the
flood situation.
Relocating the
bus terminal
from SNT and
the private bus
stop to the
lower reaches
of Gangtok, in
Sokaythang.
As many as
six strategy
and action lists
present. No
stated basis for
prioritisation of
the indicative
action plan.
31 priority
actions
(containing 100
implementation
arrangements) –
no stated basis
for prioritisation
Strategies
provided in each
sectoral chapter.
No stated basis
for prioritisation
of the final
“strategies and
budget” list.
A six-point
template
created for
selection and
prioritisation.
Sectoral actions
tagged to 5,
10 and 15-year
time-lines. No
stated basis
for selection of
actions.
35 (12%)
21 (21%)
30 (9%)
38 (26%)
50 (22%)
Source: HP climate plan, pp. 228-229; Karnataka climate plan, pp. 117 and 171; MP climate plan, pp. 101-102; Orissa climate plan, pp. 80,103, and
118; Sikkim climate plan, pp. 43-163.
14
The relative mix of general objectives and
specific actions is also, in part, shaped by the
process through which recommendations
are developed – either led by nodal
agencies or through sectoral working
groups. Typically, states that develop
recommendations through sectoral working
groups have a mix of general and specific
recommendations, depending on sector
dynamics in a given state. For example,
in Sikkim, water and urban planning
have detailed specific recommendations
but for different reasons – the water
sector because of its central significance
to Sikkim’s climate concerns, and the
urban planning sector because existing
detailed planning recommendations were
reproduced – while other sectors have
more general recommendations.
Where a nodal agency coordinated
report writing, such as in HP and MP,
recommendations tend to be general,
perhaps because the authors have limited
detailed sectoral knowledge (See Dialogue
Box 7). Karnataka is somewhat of an
exception due to detailed inputs provided
by the ‘Bangalore Climate Change Initiative
– Karnataka’. However, in some cases even
general statements do not rise to the level
of broad vision statements, but can be as
vague as a call to “promote integrated
farming practices” (Table 4).
With both approaches – nodal agency led
or working group led – recommendations
were derived through a bottom-up
process. While this approach has the
potential benefit of allowing for creativity
and experimentation, it also resulted in a
diversity of recommendations at different
scale and degrees of specificity. Only in
Odisha was any sort of framework for
preparing recommendations adopted (See
Case Study 4), but even in this case it is
unclear if the framework was employed
by working groups. Most states further
tried to categorise their recommendations
(See Table 5). In each case, however, there
was no basis provided or discussed for
prioritisation. The approach is, perhaps,
best summed up by the candid statement
by an official in Karnataka that actions and
their priorities were “ocularly” decided.”57
An appropriate framework to guide
recommendations would help ameliorate
several of the weaknesses of the current
approach. A framework would limit the
problem of multiple scales and objectives
versus action items and the linkage
between the two. It could set the basis
for prioritisation across objectives and
action items – perhaps using the NAPCC
emphasis on a co-benefits approach
– thereby making large numbers of
recommendations more manageable, and
facilitating more effective implementation.
CASE STUDY 4: FRAMEWORK FOR PRIORITISING CLIMATE
ACTION IN ODISHA
Intervention
Nodal department officials and consultants developed a template to help
working groups prioritise sectoral actions.
Outcome
Odisha is the only state examined that uses a framework for selecting and
prioritising recommendations.
Details
Each working group was required to categorise activities along seven parameters:
• Objectiveoftheactivity
• Typeofactivity(mitigationoradaptation);
• Scale(state-wide,district-wideorparticulararea);
• Natureofactivity(researchstudy,policyaction,pre-investmentstudy,etc.);
• Importanceofactivity(high,medium,low);
• Constraints(technology,operation,financial);
• Overallprioritylevel(high,medium,low).
Limitations
The framework is taxonomic, but fails to provide an analytical framework for
prioritization. Moreover, it is unclear if working groups used the template
as the basis for selecting actions or if the information was added after
recommendations were finalised.
Source: Odisha climate plan, p. 92.
Academic literature notes the important
role of federal units as ‘laboratories of
innovation.’ 58 Understood thus, state plans
could contribute significantly to realising the
NAPCC’s call for a “directional shift in the
development pathway” of India in response
to climate change. To what extent do they
do so and what determines the ability of
plans to be transformative?
Recommendations are incremental rather than transformational
because of the process chosen for plan formulation, though there
are pockets of innovation driven by individual initiative.
15
The process in most s tates – organised around
sectoral working groups and chapters – was
not conducive to re-thinking development
pathways, since it tended to reinforce
existing approaches by departments (See
Dialogue Box 8). This approach may have
been indirectly promoted by the Centre’s
Common Framework Document, which
called for state plan recommendations to
align with the NAPCC’s various missions.59
Thus, a study of the water sector, for
example, revealed that in the states studied,
the recommendations closely follow the
objectives of the National Water Mission,
leaving relatively little scope for creative re-
framing of the water-climate linkage.60 On
the other hand, the Common Framework
Document also allowed states to define
OUTCOMES
FROM MARGINS TO MAINSTR EAM?
Poverty is a big issue, urbanisation, migration: NAPCCs don’t
capture all developmental issues. The alignment is happening
only for budgetary reasons.”
- Donor agency representative, Odisha Climate Change Action Plan
It’s the level of capacity that exists within the states. In some of
the states, people may be working on areas relevant to climate
change, but they don’t understand how it all links up.”
- Donor agency representative, MP State Action plan on Climate Change.
It’s alright if states borrow [text] from each other in their
respective plans. The idea is to get the process going.”
- Official, Government of India.
The question is: are SAPCCs addressing climate change through
transformational stuff?”
- Consultant, Odisha Climate Change Action Plan
“
“
“
DIALOGUE BOX 8
“
locally specific issues, and some states indeed
did so – Karnataka included a working group
on coastal issues, Odisha one on mining, and
MP has a chapter on health.61
On both NAPCC issues and state concerns,
a process that aimed at identifying and
thinking through major climate-related
issues for a state would, perhaps, have
been more suited to identifying pathways
to transformation than one focused
on sectors. In some cases, politically
sensitive but potentially transformative
issues salient to climate change have
simply been side-stepped. The Sikkim
plan takes cognizance of the impact of
climate change on hydro power, but does
not offer any substantive reflections on
re-thinking this critically important sector
for the state.62 Similarly, MP simply recites
the long-standing aim of constructing
large numbers of dams on the Narmada
River, without actively exploring water-
energy, water-urbanisation or water-
agriculture linkages, all of which are
salient to this proposal.63
Where potentially transformational issues
do emerge, they are inadequately explored
in the formal process. For example, a
controversial and debated statement
introduced by the official in charge of the
Odisha plan in its second phase calls for
a cap on thermal power projects: “In the
power sector I asked what is the carrying
capacity of Odisha in power; the outer
limit of coal-based power? I brought
some scepticism into the development
trajectory of the power sector.” However,
this statement did not come out of
deliberation, nor was it engaged with
in the plan process, but, as the quote
suggests, was promoted by one individual.
In the case of Himachal Pradesh, the
former Chief Minister announced a rather
ambitious carbon neutrality target for the
state by 2020, but the plan itself does not
seriously engage with this commitment.
While the state plans may not have
systematically explored directional shifts,
they did provide an institutional vehicle for
pursuit of some innovative ideas. In many
cases, these ideas could be traced back to
enterprising individual bureaucrats, who
saw state climate plans as an opportunity
to make creative linkages. For example,
Sikkim has used funds from the MGNREGA
to implement hill-top water harvesting.6 4
Odisha used the opportunity of the
climate plan to seek financing for efficiency
improvements in its privatised electricity
sector, for which central government
funds are not forthcoming.65 In the current
round of plans, innovation, creativity and
the potential for transformation are driven
by individual initiative. In the future, the
challenge will be to structure the process to
systematically explore transformative change.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROvED OUTCOMES
1. Sequence plans around a vision, major objectives, and specific actions,
understanding that progress may be uneven along this sequence for different sectors.
2. Develop an explicit basis for prioritizing objectives and actions to help make better use
of scarce capacity and finance, and enable implementation.
3. Plans should be used as an opportunity to engage transformational questions, organized
around large integrative themes that cut across sectors; initial plan iterations should focus
on ideas for a ‘directional shift’ in development trajectories with specific actions to follow.
16
IMPLEMENTATION
The existing capacity of dedicated state climate change units is
insufficient for stimulating and monitoring implementation.
In most states, the focus thus far
has been on preparation of plans;
discussion of implementation is
largely preliminary. However, it is
possible to examine the extent of
preparedness for implementation, in
particular, the institutional capacity
for implementation, implementation
mechanisms being established, and
issues of finance.
The process of preparing state plans
has contributed to the creation and
entrenching of dedicated climate change
institutions in all states except Karnataka
(Table 5). Sikkim and MP had climate
change institutions in place before they
undertook their plans; HP and Odisha
proposed creating such institutions in the
course of developing their plans.66
In all cases, the institutional capacity
within these agencies remains limited (See
Dialogue Box 9). While exact information
on staffing and experience is unavailable,
interviews suggest both number of staff
and the experience and qualifications of
staff were a concern.67 Even while in most
states implementation is likely to happen
through line departments rather than
directly by climate change units, Table
5 suggests that dedicated climate units
will play an important monitoring and
evaluation role. This will require greater
institutional capacity than currently exists.
In addition, given the reality that climate
plans are better thought of as an iterative
process than a one-time exercise, the
coordinating and steering role of these
units for future refinements of climate
plans will only increase over time, further
calling for capacity enhancement.
“
“
“
Since climate change is a new
field we don’t have as much
experience on the ground
implementing programs on
climate change.”
- Senior Official, Government
of Sikkim
We are a weak institutional
sector, whether environment
or climate change. Our
strengths don’t lie in
institutional capacities.
- Consultant, Odisha Climate
Change Action Plan
The SAPCC is a statement of
intent. It will be implemented
at a different pace by
different forces; some actions
may be funded afresh.”
- Official, Government of HP.
DIALOGUE BOX 9
Successful implementation requires mainstreaming of
recommendations into the functioning of line departments;
there is little clarity on how to accomplish this mainstreaming.
There is broad convergence across state
plans that implementation will have to
happen through line departments (See
Dialogue Box 10). Indeed most plans
in their sectoral lists, mention specific
departments and agencies responsible for
that area of work.68
However, there is no agreement on
the mechanisms through which this
implementation can be achieved. In
Odisha, the process of working groups
was explicitly aimed at creating ownership
IMPLEMENTATION17
among line departments, in the anticipation
that they would take up aspects of the
plan. To some extent this has already
occurred in Sikkim’s Rural Management
and Development Department, but this
progress has been facilitated because
the individual coordinating the plan is
based in that department. Perhaps the
most intriguing idea arises from MP,
where the approach suggested is one
of providing departments services such
as advisories of progress toward goals
and checklists, as a way of inducing or
‘nudging’ states toward action. As a
senior MP official describes the approach
“… we hope to make a checklist and send
it to various departments for them to see
how projects can be made more climate
friendly and compatible. This would be a
voluntary initiative. We would ask for their
policy assessment reports but we won’t
comment on it.”69
These various indirect efforts to stimulate
action arise from an acceptance that
nodal agencies (typically environment
FROM MARGINS TO MAINSTR EAM?
“
“
A state climate action plan needs to have the buy-in of
all the departments who contribute to the plan and have
the final sign of the Principal Secretaries of each of these
departments.”
- Consultant, Sikkim Action Plan on Climate Change
Considering the apprehensions and general restraint of
departments towards monitoring and evaluation, the
approach [nodal departments] intend to take has to be very
subtle and polite.”
- Official, Government of MP
DIALOGUE BOX 10
Source: HP climate plan, pp. 234 and 252; MP climate plan, p. 122; Orissa climate plan, pp. xvii and 80.
Table 5: Dedicated climate institutions in states and mechanisms to monitor state climate plans
State
HP
Karnataka
MP
Odisha
Sikkim
State Centre on Climate Change (2010)
Environmental Management & Policy
Research Institute (2002) looks at
all environment and climate based
initiatives in the state.
Climate Change Cell, The Environmental
Planning & Coordination Organisation
(2009)
Climate Change Action Plan Cell (2011)
Department of Science and Technology
renamed Department of Science and
Technology and Climate Change in 2009.
A “reporting template” to monitor
implementation of the plan, which
will form the basis of an annual
“Implementation Status Report,” to
be prepared by the nodal agency and
approved by the Legislative Assembly.
State Level Governing Council on Climate
Change led by the CM to “monitor the
targets, objectives and achievements of
the Eight National Missions.”
No
Cell will facilitate voluntary reporting
of actions by line-departments
based on an agreed set of “criteria
and indicators.” It will monitor and
evaluate the “progress of achievement
of integration of climate concerns in
various developmental policies”
Table of specific climate impacts and
action-led targets to monitor and related
programs to evaluate in each sector.
No
Existence of Dedicated Climate
Change Institutions
Monitoring and Evaluation
Mechanisms
18
departments or science and technology
departments) do not have the heft to insist
on action. And that sufficient financing
is unlikely to be available to serve as an
inducement to other line-departments.
Hence, building ownership over the
relevance of the climate agenda to the
work of the department is likely the only
viable long-term solution, albeit one that
is challenging to achieve in the face of
competing demands and limited capacity.
However, several officials involved with
the state plans also noted the possible
benefits of closer synergy with the state
development planning process. For true
mainstreaming of climate change, it is
*Budget figures are not available from Karnataka at the time of writing.
Source: HP climate plan, p. xvii ; Karnataka climate plan; MP climate plan, p. 122; Odisha climate
plan, p. 232; and Sikkim climate plan; Planning Commission, State Wise/Sector Wise Approved
Outlays, Revised Outlays and Actual Expenditure (2011-2012).
arguably counter-productive to have a
development planning process and
a parallel climate planning process
that typically includes a wide range of
departments, but rather to find ways to
integrate these. As a consultant working
in Odisha noted “we need to develop
a SAPCC which is not an independent
entity but linked to the state planning
doc u m e nt.”70 This integration could
potentially happen at two levels. One
ex ante option is for state planning
departments rather than environment
departments to house climate plans.
However, it is likely that planning
departments would face even greater
capacity shortfalls in climate change
knowledge than environment or science
and technology departments. The second,
ex post option is for a process through
which state planning departments
consider and integrate the outcomes
of climate plans into the development
planning exercise. The latter might be a
more feasible form of integration, but, as
yet, has not been attempted in any state.
The MoEF’s Common Framework Document
requires that state plans estimate,
“additional resource requirements” and
explore, “existing and new and additional
carbon finance potential.”71 However,
officials across states conveyed their
reluctance to include budgets for sectoral
actions adding that stated numbers were
estimates at best and had no technical
basis (see Dialogue Box 11). Unsurprisingly,
there is a great degree of variability in cost
estimates put forth by different states (see
Table 6) This spread in final numbers, along
with the hesitation expressed by state
officials, suggests that further thinking
on approaches to costing actions, and
refinement of methodology is required to
come up with credible cost estimates.
Notably, the context for arriving at
these numbers has changed over the
course of plan development. At the time
the centre requested states to develop
plans, the context was the promise of
substantial funds under the 12th Five
Year Plan. Capturing this understanding,
a consultant working in three states
stated: “Initially states felt there would
be special allocations and there will be
some outlay in the 12th Five Year Plan.”72
Over time, it became clear that far more
modest amounts would be available for
states, and that this money would be tied
to adaptation alone.73 As a senior MoEF
official put it: “Many states feel that there
will be a separate window for funding
SAPCCs but we’re saying draw up your
requirements sectorally and project it as
part of the state plan outlay. There will be
a separate window for additional funding,
Budget estimates in plans vary widely. They do not adopt a
consistent methodology across states, and should be considered
indicative at best.
Table 6: Total budgetary allocations in SAPCCs compared to annual
state budget estimates.
State Budget
(in Rs Crore)
State Plan Budgets
2011-2012 (in Rs
Crore)
HP
Karnataka
MP
Odisha
Sikkim
1,560 (time period
unclear)
No cumulative budget
4,653 (five years)
17,000 (five years)
No cumulative budget
3,300
38,070
23,000
15,200
1,400
19 IMPLEMENTATION
FROM MARGINS TO MAINSTR EAM?
but not very large, based on an incentive-
based criteria.”74 Consequently, more
recently greater emphasis has been placed
on attracting donor funds to support
implementation of state plans.
Finally, some states have initiated actions
without seeking additional funds,
suggesting a promising indication of
ownership of results and recommendat ions.
Sikkim, for example, has deployed
MGNREGA funds to implement actions
in the water sector (See Case Study 5).
Indeed, in interviews, some government
officials indicated that finances were not
the key constraint, but rather clarity on
what to do and the capacity to implement
actions was the problem. As one senior
official noted, “[the stated budget]is not
a big amount. The issue is how and where
to spend it…The state’s plan budget [in
2011-2012] was 15,000 crore Rupees, off
that the state could not spend 2500 crore
Rupees and it was surrendered at the end
of the year. This was supposed to have
been spent on energy, water, fisheries,
rural development.”75
While financing for state plans is
undoubtedly important, greater emphasis
on the basis for computing financing
needs, and the interaction with currently
planned expenditure would enhance the
value of the exercise.
“
“
“
If you look at the budgets in most states, it says ‘we need 10
crores, 50 crores, 100 crores,’ the crore has no meaning.”
- Consultant, Action Plan on Climate Change Sikkim
We were asked to indicate some budgets, but it was without
any basis. All of us were hopelessly finding out the means for
the budget.”
- Official, Government of Odisha
It [finance] is a weak link for all states. If we had left it
[budgetary allocations] blank, it would have given the document
more academic credibility... the costs are currently indicative.”
- Official, Government of MP
DIALOGUE BOX 11
CASE STUDY 5: CLIMATE PLAN AS A PLACEHOLDER FOR ACTION
IN SIKKIM’S WATER SECTOR
Intervention
Sikkim has implemented water sector recommendations using funds from an
existing central scheme.
Outcome
The plan has mainstreamed climate concerns in a priority sector.
Details
Water availability is stated as a key concern in the Sikkim plan; 80% of rural
Sikkim is dependent on Himalayan mountain springs for their water supply.
The RMDD initiated work on recharging lakes and streams as well as reviving
dried-up lakes on hilltops using funds from the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).
Limitations
Other sectoral recommendations in the plan are not equally fleshed out or
implemented. Since Sikkim had already produced a report on “Developing
strategies for enhancing rural water security” in 2010, it is unclear how much
additional impetus the climate plan added to implementation.
Source: Sikkim climate plan
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROvED IMPLEMENTATION
1. Improve the capacity of nodal agencies to serve as conduits for climate science, facilitate
linkages across departments, and enable deliberation on sustainable development in the
context of climate change. Playing these roles requires multiple skills and staff continuity
over time.
2. Experiment with creative implementation mechanisms, including the use of analysis and
information based instruments to ‘nudge’ action, and coordination with state planning agencies.
3. Developing credible estimates of additional financial costs may be premature. Costing should
be limited to areas where plans are well fleshed out and based on a consistent methodology
across states.
20
NOTES
public-information/Orissa-SAPCC.pdf).
11 Government of Sikkim, “Sikkim Action Plan on Climate Change
(2012-2030),” (Gangtok: Government of Sikkim, March 2011).
(http://envfor.nic.in/downloads/public-information/Sikkim-SAPCC.
pdf).
12 Centre for Policy Research (CPR), “State Action Plans on Climate
Change in India Framing, processes, and drivers,” A report on
the round table dialogue (New Delhi: CPR, April 27, 2013) (http://
cdkn.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SAPCC-Workshop-Report_
CPR_27-April-2013_update.pd)
13 Interview with Srinivas Krishnaswamy, CEO, Vasudha Foundation,
May 18, 2012, New Delhi.
14 Not for attribution interview with a state official, Government of
Madhya Pradesh (MP), August 29, 2012, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
15 Sandeep Tambe and M. L. Arrawatia, Climate Change in Sikkim:
Patterns, Impacts and Initiatives. (Gangtok: Government of Sikkim,
2012).
16 Interview with Lokendra Thakkar, Coordinator, Climate Change
Cell, Environmental Planning and Coordination Organization
(EPCO), Government of MP, August 29, 2012, Bhopal, MP.
17 The Indian Network of Climate Change Assessment (INCCA) in
its second report uses the PRECIS model and A1B scenario to project
temperature and precipitation trends in the 2030s for four climate
sensitive regions and sectors in India; MoEF, GoI, “Climate Change
and India: A 4X4 Assessment: A Sectoral and Regional Analysis for
2030s” (New Delhi: GoI, November, 2010). (http://gbpihed.gov.in/
CLIMATE%20CHANGE%20AND%20INDIA%20A%204X4%20
ASSESSMENT.pdf).
18 Interview with Dr. S.S. Negi, Director, Department of Environment
Science Technology, Government of Himachal Pradesh, February 7,
2013, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (HP); Not for attribution interview
with a Donor agency representative, 22 May, 2012, Bhubaneswar,
Odisha.
19 Sikkim Action Plan, p. 3; Orissa Climate Change Action Plan, p. 12.
20 In Karnataka, the vulnerability assessment was carried out by the
Institute for Social and Economic Change in the BCCI-K report and in
MP, the Vulnerability assessment was commissioned to an external
consultant as part of the ‘MoEF-GIZ Project on Climate Change
Adaptation in Rural Areas of India’; Institute for Social and Economic
Change (ISEC), “Socio-economic Vulnerability and Adaptive
Capacity Assessment,” in Karnataka Climate Change Action Plan,
Bangalore Climate Change Initiative-Karnataka (BCCI-K), May
2011, Ch 6, p. 18. (http://www.lse.ac.uk/asiaResearchCentre/_files/
1 Navroz K. Dubash, Handbook of Climate Change and India:
Development, Politics and Governance (New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2011).
2 Prime Minister’s (PM) Council on Climate Change, Government of
India (GoI), “National Action Plan on Climate Change” (New Delhi:
GoI, 2008). (http://pmindia.nic.in/climate_change_english.pdf).
3 Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), GoI, “Summary of
Discussion National Consultation Workshop on Preparation of State
Level Strategy and Action Plan on Climate Change” (New Delhi:
GoI, August 2010). (http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/others/
SAPCC-workshop-summary-2010.pdf).
4 Talk by R. R. Rashmi, Former Joint Secretary, MoEF, GoI, “United
Nations Development Program (UNDP) India- National Institute
of Administrative Research (NIAR), Lal Bahadur Shastri National
Academy of Administration (LBSNA A) Peer Learning Workshop on
Mainstreaming Climate Change in Key Sectors,” March 18, 2013,
New Delhi; Ministry of Environment and Forests, GoI, “Submitted
Reports State Action Plan on Climate Change: Endorsed by National
Steering Committee on Climate Change.” (http://envfor.nic.in/ccd-
sapcc).
5 Interview with Felix Nitz, Technical Advisor, Environmental
Management and Policy Research Institute (EMPRI), Government of
Karnataka, September 28, 2012, Bengaluru, Karnataka.
6 In some cases, there are multiple versions of climate plans in the
public domain; this study uses the most recent version, as specified
in the notes to this report. The plans, in general, are referred to as
State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCC).
7 Department of Environment Science and Technology, Government
of Himachal Pradesh (HP), “State Strategy & Action Plan in Climate
Change: Himachal Pradesh,” (Shimla: Government of HP, 2012).
(http://re.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/HPSCCAP.pdf).
8 Environmental Management and Policy Research Institute
(EMPRI), Government of Karnataka and The Energy Resources
Institute (TERI), “Karnataka State Action Plan on Climate Change:
1st Assessment,” (Bengaluru: Government of Karnataka, March
22, 2012). (http://parisaramahiti.kar.nic.in/pubs/Karnataka-SAPCC-
EMPRI -TERI-2012-03-22.pdf).
9 Housing and Environment Department, Government of MP,
“Madhya Pradesh State Action Plan on Climate Change,” (Bhopal:
Government of MP, April 2012). (http://www.epco.in/pdf/Draft_
MP_SAPCC.pdf).
10 Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Odisha,
“Orissa Climate Change Action Plan 2010-2015,” (Bhubaneshwar:
Government of Odisha, 2010). (http://envfor.nic.in/downloads/
NOTES21
FROM MARGINS TO MAINSTR EAM?
Climate Change and Livelihoods” (Shimla: Lead India, October
29-30, 2009). (http://leadindia.org/beta/gallery/Himalayan-
Chief-Ministers-Conclave-proceedings.pdf); Daily News and
Analysis, “World Bank to help Himachal become carbon-neutral
state,” November 14, 2009. (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/
report-world-bank-to-help-himachal-become-carbon-neutral-
state-1311648); The Hindu, “Himachal inks pact with World Bank to
secure carbon credits,” May 23, 2011. (http://www.thehindu.com/
todays-paper/tp-national/himachal-inks-pact-with-world-bank-to-
secure-carbon-credits/article2041233.ece)
39 The Economic Times, “Odisha set to implement Climate Change
Action Plan,” December 12, 2013.
(http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-12/
news/45123289_1_energy-secretary-climate-change-action-plan-
energy-department).
40 Interview with Felix Nitz, September 28, 2012, Bengaluru;
Interview with Nagin Nanda, Additional Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests, Himachal Pradesh Forest Department, Former Director-
Cum-Secretary (Environment), Department of Environment Science
and Technology, Government of HP, February 7, 2013, Shimla, HP;
Interview with Lokendra Thakkar, August 29, 2012, Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh.
41 Muthukumar Mani, “The Little State That Could,” blogs.
worldbank.org, June 15, 2010. (http://blogs.worldbank.org/
endpovertyinsouthasia/little-state-could)
42 Interview with Upendra N. Behera, Former Principal Secretary,
Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Odisha,
May 22, 2012, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha.
43 Interview with Nagin Nanda, February 7, 2013, Shimla, HP.
44 MP State Action Plan, p. 19.
45 Interview with Sandep Tambe, Special Secretary, Rural
Management and Development Department, Government of
Sikkim, July 24, 2012, Gangtok, Sikkim.
46 Interview with Aurobindo Behera, Retired, Former Principal
Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of
Odisha, May 23, 2012, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha.
47 BCCI-K, Karnataka Climate Plan.
48 Interview with Lokendra Thakkar, August 29, 2012, Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh.
49 Odisha Climate Change Action Plan, p. 4.
50 MP State Action Plan, p. 125-126.
51 Interview with Anshu Bharadwaj, September 28, 2012, Bengaluru,
Karnataka.
52 Odisha Climate Change Action Plan, p. 3.
53 Interview with Sandep Tambe, July 24, 2012, Gangtok, Sikkim.
KarnatakaCCactionPlanFinal.pdf); GIZ and Ministry of Environment
and Forests, GoI, “MoEF-GIZ Project on Climate Change Adaptation
in Rural Areas of India” (New Delhi: GIZ, 2012). (http://www.epco.
in/pdf/GIZ%20Brochure.pdf).
21 Interview with Lokendra Thakkar, August 29, 2012, Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh.
22 Karnataka State Action Plan on Climate Change, p. 43, table 18.
23 MOEF, National Consultation Workshop.
24 Anshu Orga, “A Study of Climate Policy Integration in the State
Action Plans on Climate Change,” Background paper produced for
Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, 2013.
25 Pradeep Jena, Pradeep Jena, Principal Secretary, Department
of Energy, Government of Odisha, May 22, 2012, Bhubaneshwar,
Odisha.
26 Orissa Climate Change Action Plan, pp. 107-108.
27 Sikkim Action Plan, 2011, p. 9.
28 Interview with Sandep Tambe, Special Secretary, Rural
Management and Development Department, Government of
Sikkim, July 24, 2012, Gangtok, Sikkim.
29 Deccan Herald, “HP to become first carbon-neutral state,”
February 2, 2012. (http://www.deccanherald.com/content /224205/
hp-become-first-carbon-neutral.html)
30 HP Strategy and Action Plan, p. 217; HP Strategy and Action Plan,
pp. 228-230.
31 PM’s Council on Climate Change, “National Action Plan on
Climate Change.”
32 MOEF, National Consultation Workshop.
33 Karnataka State Action Plan, p. 165; Orissa Climate Change
Action Plan, p. 43; HP Strategy and Action Plan, p. 215.
34 Interview with Sumana Bhattacharya, Head – Climate Change
and Sustainability, Intercooperation, India, August 6, 2012, New
Delhi.
35 PM’s Council on Climate Change, “National Action Plan on
Climate Change,” p 28.
36 Interview with R. P. Gurung, Ecotourism & Conservation Society
of Sikkim, July 24, 2012, Gangtok, Sikkim.
37 Sandeep Tambe and M. L. Arrawatia, Climate Change in Sikkim:
Patterns, Impacts and Initiatives, edited by M. L. Arrawatia and
Sandeep Tambe (Gangtok: Government of Sikkim, 2012), p. 378.
38 Department of Environment Science and Technology, Government
of HP and Leadership for Environment & Development (LEAD)-India,
“Himalayan Chief Ministers’ Conclave Indian Himalayas: Glaciers,
22
(New Delhi: CPR, April 27, 2013) (http://cdkn.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013/05/SAPCC-Workshop-Report_CPR_27-April-2013_
update.pd)
71 MoEF, GoI, “A Framework for preparation of the State Level
Action Plans on Climate Change,” (New Delhi: GoI, 2010).
72 Interview with Ritu Bharadwaj, India Program Manager, Institute
of Industrial Productivity, former Advisor, Climate and Environment,
Department of International Development (DFID), April, 20, 2012,
New Delhi.
73 Presentation by S. Sathapathy, Director, MoEF, GOI, “India
Climate Policy and Business Enclave, 2013: Curtain Raiser on States
and Climate Change,” September 17, 2013. New Delhi.
74 Interview with R. R. Rashmi, Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur, former Joint Secretary, MoEF, GoI, April
26, 2012, New Delhi.
75 Not for attribution interview with retired senior official,
Government of Odisha, May 23, 2012, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha.
54 Interview with Nagin Nanda, February 7, 2013, Shimla, HP.
55 Interview with Arabinda Mishra, Director, Earth Sciences and
Climate Change Division, TERI, April 27, 2012, New Delhi.
56 Interview with Upendra N. Behera, May 22, 2012, Bhubaneshwar,
Odisha.
57 Not for Attribution interview with a senior official, Government
of Karnataka (Environment and Ecology), September 28, 2012,
Bengaluru, Karnataka.
58 Miranda Schreurs, “Local and Subnational Climate Change
Politics”, Journal of Environment and Development, vol. 17
(December, 2008), p. 343-355; PM’s Council, National Action Plan
on Climate Change, p 7.
59 MiEF, National Consultation Workshop.
60 Anshu Orga, “Climate Policy Integration,” Background Paper,
2013 .
61 Karnataka Action Plan. p. 89; MP State Action Plan, p. 109; Odisha
Climate Change Action Plan, p. 114.
62 Sikkim Action Plan, p. 11; Sikkim Action Plan, p. 17.
63 MP State Action Plan, p. 42.
64 Interview with Sandep Tambe, July 24, 2012, Gangtok, Sikkim.
65 Interview with Aurobindo Behera, May 23, 2012, Bhubaneshwar,
Odisha.
66 Government of Sikkim, 2009. “Notification,” to rename
the Department of Science and Technology (Gangtok: Sikkim
Government Gazette, October 26, 2009); Forest and Environment
Department, “Notification,” to constitute a Climate Change Action
Plan Cell and a Monitoring and Advisory Committee (Cuttak: The
Odisha Gazette, December 16, 2011).
(http://orissa.gov.in/govtpress/pdf/2011/2699.pdf); HP Strategy and
Action Plan, p. 234; State Centre on Climate Change, Government
of HP, “Shimla Declaration,” October 30, 2009. (http://hpccc.gov.in/
shimlaDeclaration.aspx);
67 Not for attribution interview with a consultant on many SAPCCs,
May 18, 2012, New Delhi; Not for attribution interview with official,
Government of MP, August 29, 2012, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
68 Karnataka Action Plan, p. 165; MP State Action Plan, p. 97; Odisha
Climate Change Action Plan, p. 100; Sikkim Action Plan, p. 43.
69 Interview with Lokendra Thakkar, August 29, 2012, Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh.
70 Not for attribution discussion in, “State Action Plans on Climate
Change in India
Framing, processes, and drivers,” A report on the round table
dialogue organized by the Centre for Policy Research (CPR)
NOTES23
Centre for Policy Research
Dharam Marg, Chanakyapuri
New Delhi – 110021
http://www.cprindia.org /
