A ‘developed economy’ must have resilience to climate change

Long-term planning to chalk out glidepaths to becoming a ‘developed country’ by 2047 has started. This should include strengthening our institutional ability to predict/avoid climate adversities. Currently, we respond only post-facto.

Climate variability is increasing. Illustratively, Dubai usually receives an average precipitation of only 80 mm in an entire year, but this week alone, it experienced 254.8 mm rainfall in less than 24 hours -- a historic first!

A single cuckoo call does not necessarily portend summer. Yet, the varieties of climate crises (from forest fires to cloud bursts) seem to be on the rise everywhere. Air travellers now experience far higher turbulence than before, and cyclonic occurrences -- a rare feature earlier -- are now quite common, even in the hitherto calm Arabian Sea!

The causes could be several. It could be on account of human-induced global warming, as climate activists say; or, it could be part of a natural order of things, as climate change sceptics often proclaim. After all, the ice-ages came and went even when human activity was not present. Whatever be the cause, we need to prepare for the occurrence of unsettling contingencies. If rain-deficient areas start getting flooded, the opposite problem of droughts in historically rain-flush areas could arise.

The issue which needs our attention is quite different from green economics, a contentious area even in the European Union, where pushback to additional green legislation is already underway. The pushback started, as most discontent movements usually do, with farmer protests. The sudden withdrawal of a diesel subsidy for farm vehicles was the original provocation. But now, the discontent has apparently gone deeper -- it is about “the metropolitan elites forcing their urban values on rural communities.”

Meanwhile, European corporates, struggling to stand up to Chinese competition even in their traditional leadership sectors, have begun to voice similar discontent. Industry used to be the EU’s biggest supporter. But the new laws, such as the ‘Net Zero’ or the ‘human right’ Acts come with a new bureaucracy. Compliance requires creating dedicated legal teams, a new cost centre. Politicians are learning that there are votes to be had by opposing green policies, globalisation, etc.

Elsewhere, Donald Trump’s economic thoughts had already started influencing US policymaking and may gather additional momentum in future months. Instead, we need to examine our ability to withstand possible climate change. It’s about strengthening our societal resilience to the likelihood of increasingly wayward weather conditions.

India has so far been blessed with bountiful water availability. Our annual precipitation is 1,080 mm. This is much higher than the global average, though admittedly the distribution is not even. The eastern states (as also Bangladesh) get much higher precipitation. In comparison, the US, China and Pakistan lag significantly, with only 715, 645 and 494 mm, respectively. As a result, we are somewhat profligate users of water. Our annual water usage was documented at 761 cubic kilometres (World Bank, 2012). China uses 603 cubic-km, despite having a much larger GDP. The US uses even less at 485 cubic-km.

Despite this apparent adequacy, reports about societal inability to handle variability in water supply are now already rife. Stories about the water scarcity in Bengaluru, the nerve centre of our technology services exports, are well-known. Water-sharing disputes between Karnataka/Tamil Nadu or Punjab/Haryana/Delhi have always been around. However, now, water disputes are getting more localised. A fight over water resulted in the death of a woman recently in Delhi. Other such stories keep cropping up.

It needs mentioning that the US actually reduced its water usage by 0.7% in the past three decades, and China, despite massive industrialisation, contained its growth to 0.9%, but our usage grew faster at about 2.1% (World Bank database). Most of our ‘million- plus’ cities are ‘inland’ not ‘coastal/proximate to coast,’ so supply augmentation via desalination processes, as successfully demonstrated by Chennai, is mostly not possible. Water recycling systems are growing at a relatively sedate pace due to uneven financial and managerial constraints. The powers, autonomy and funding allowed to our municipalities are low compared to those in the US and China. We also have very few municipalities.

The challenge faced by us can be split into two parts. The first is to improve our water use efficiency, primarily in agriculture; and the other is to create mechanisms to handle adverse fluctuations in availability, especially for domestic uses.

Water usage in Indian agriculture is much higher (688 cubic-km vs 388 in China and 175 in the US), primarily because of the greater weight of sugarcane and rice (both are water guzzlers, sugarcane especially) and partly because of lower usage of micro-irrigation systems/protected agriculture practices. These need to be universalised, at least for these two crops, by a suitable combination of fiscal incentives/penalties and increased deployment of extension workers. Regular ‘on-field’ availability of extension services is critical. Perhaps closer monitoring of usage in water stress belts could start first.

Improving efficiencies in supply/usage of water is best done by increasing and strengthening our municipalities with enhanced financial/administrative autonomy, as China has done -- over 50% of its total government expenditure is through local bodies. The US and EU have all along granted cities considerable powers and autonomy. We need to adapt these best practices. Water use planning is best managed locally through effective decentralisation.