India yet to integrate environment with development planning: Nitin Desai

TERI's Nitin Desai says environmental concerns have limited influence over development policies, while experts flag climate finance challenges and weakening global cooperation.

Nitin Desai, chairman of the governing council at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and a key contributor to the United Nations’ Brundtland Commission report, said environmental concerns continue to be inadequately integrated into development policymaking, nearly four decades after sustainable development emerged as a global priority.

 

Speaking at the launch of his book ‘The Politics of Sustainable Development’, Desai said environmental ministries had limited influence over development decisions, with renewable energy among the few areas where the two had converged, largely due to falling costs.

 

Renewable energy was among the few areas where integration had advanced, largely because falling costs had made it economically competitive, according to Desai.

 

The former member of the Planning Commission added that environmental concerns were often recognised as important, but had little impact on how development policies were designed and implemented. “And the practical reality also is that in India, possibly other places also, the environment ministry and the environment minister is pretty low-dominant status. And yes, it is seen as something which has to be done, but they do not have a serious influence on the way the development ministries, et cetera, do their work,” Desai said.

 

He argued that environmental degradation, including soil damage, deforestation and water pollution, also undermined development, while weak economic growth made environmental protection harder to sustain.

 

Speaking at the same event, Former Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Deputy Governor Rakesh Mohan highlighted the challenges facing global cooperation on climate change, noting that rising debt in major economies and weakening multilateral institutions could affect international financing for climate mitigation and adaptation.

 

“So, the question is, given the current global situation, the ineffectiveness currently of the United Nations, the destruction of the WTO, withdrawal of the US from a number of multilateral organisations, do you think we can still be optimistic about multilateralism, multilateral organisations, and how they can influence the world for good?” Mohan noted.

 

He also highlighted the scope for India and China to collaborate on research and development (R&D) to reduce emissions from heavy industries, such as steel and cement. Technologies to mitigate emissions from steel and cement remained underdeveloped. China’s investments in research and technology had helped lower the costs of renewable energy, battery storage and electric vehicles, he said.

 

On climate finance, Mohan pointed to rising debt levels in major economies, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Japan, and the lack of clear fiscal plans to bring them down. He said these developments could have implications for global financing for climate mitigation and adaptation, potentially requiring developing countries, such as India, to rely more heavily on domestic resources.

 

Speaking on the same panel, former environment minister Jairam Ramesh said India had been an early mover in environmental policymaking, with laws and institutions established from the 1970s onwards, and argued that the country’s environmental agenda was increasingly being driven by concerns over public health.

 

Ramesh said India had developed a distinct approach to balancing environmental protection with development, given its demographic challenges and developmental priorities. 

 

He also highlighted a shift in the political consensus around environmental action over the past 15-20 years, saying public awareness of the health consequences of climate change and environmental degradation had increased.

 

“We may not have been part of the global problem, but we certainly have to be part of the solution. And I think the key difference, the most important change that has taken place, is that today we are more conscious and more aware of the public health impacts of climate change and environmental degradation. This was not the case 20 years ago,” Ramesh said.

 

The growing recognition of these risks had strengthened the political establishment’s commitment to addressing environmental challenges, irrespective of changes in government, he noted.

 

“Today, we are more concerned about the morbidity and the mortality impacts of air pollution, of water pollution, of chemical contamination, of climate change. And, I think this is what has led the political class, the political establishment. Governments have come, governments have gone, but this consensus has remained that we need to tackle the environmental issue and the climate issue, not because of some international agreements, but because it's in our own interest to do so,” Ramesh added.