Tag Archives | Ratish Srivastava

Devolution of Power from Centre to State

By Ratish Srivastava (@socilia13)

States in India can play a bigger role in foreign policy formulation with active engagement in pursuing global economic opportunities, resource management, security issues and environmental issues. However, does that mean the centre will lose power to states as they push for greater autonomy?

The devolution of power from the centre to state need not translate to a lesser role for the centre. The centre could use this devolution to their advantage in a number of ways.

The current NDA government created the States Division in 2014 under the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) for efficient management of centre-state relations. However, this division only provides economic freedom to states by allowing them to engage in global economic opportunities.

The structure proposed by NDA only allows for economic development, investment promotion but not aspects of security. The central government needs to realise the role a state can play in security and improving ties with other nation-states. The best example would be India’s relation with Israel.

India has historically supported the Palestinian stance, and any major diplomatic move with Israel could upset India’s energy ties with Iran and the Gulf states. But, a number of chief ministers of states have gone to Israel, mostly for learning new agricultural practices, as agriculture in Israel is a highly developed industry. Visits from the then CM of Rajasthan Ashok Gehlot in 2013 and Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis in 2015 show that states can help improve ties with other nation-states.

These low-key measures, which go under the radar are extremely important for India to build stronger ties with a nation-state as it allows greater manoeuvrability in formulating foreign policy. India, however, needs to tread carefully as a tilt towards Israel could be counter-productive to its move for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. India requires strong support from the Arab states that form a large group in the General Assembly. The Modi government must be careful as it looks to preserve its strategic, economic and energy interests in West Asia.

The centre will also become effective in conducting neighbourhood diplomacy if it can coordinate with peripheral states, which share borders with other countries, for example, India’s relation with Bangladesh. The relation between the two countries was weakened over disputes over the Teesta River. The Manmohan Singh-led government in 2011 failed to reach an agreement with Bangladesh, which allowed an equal share of the river. This failure can be attributed to the CM of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, who pressured the centre to break the agreement.

The reason for the the move’s opposition lies with the fact that the centre did not involve West Bengal, which would be impacted the most by this deal.

On the other hand, India signed the Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) with Bangladesh in 2015. This agreement will rehabilitate people in their respective enclaves in India and Bangladesh. It will improve the domestic situation in both countries but more importantly, this move showed how involving West Bengal helped smoothen the deal.

The central government assured the government of West Bengal that it will be provided with adequate financial support to help rehabilitate people coming from the former Indian enclaves in Bangladesh. The state government has also taken a set of reasonable relief measures through its Cooch Behar district administration with financial assistance from the centre. The centre and the state in this situation worked together, and it resulted in a historic deal being signed between India and Bangladesh, which has been a concern since 1974.

The current central government has suggested the Centre-State Investment Agreement (CSIA), which could potentially help the central government implement a bilateral investment treaty with any foreign country. CSIA creates a platform for states to engage in the management of foreign direct investment flowing into the country.

In addition, with states focusing on improving their economic performance, it allows the centre to focus on other issues like acting in accordance to international law and set environmental goals while the states can help bring globalisation to India through its trade deals and by attracting FDI.

Ratish is a research intern (@socilia13) at Takshashila Institution

Comments { 0 }

The South-South Divergence on Global Environmental Regulations

By Ratish Srivastava (@socilia13)

Historically, developing and emerging economies have participated in international negotiations but with time, the alliance has been strained, particularly between India and China.

What does the developing world want?

The developing world is diverse in terms of development, capacity of domestic government and power at the negotiation table in international conferences. The developing world only accepts these regulations as long as the developed world provides the technology and finance mechanism to make this change easier. They also try to make changes in the deal, which could help them cope up with the effect of regulations, for instance, a deal that requires them to reduce the intensity of emissions rather than absolute reductions.

India’s position – Less ambitious domestic climate policy (compared to China), commitment to reduction in intensity of emissions rather than absolute reduction.

China’s position – Enacted various domestic policies, including an emissions trading system.

Shift from North-South Divergence

The North-South are fluid categories that change between unity and polarity. This divide is used by the developing world as a tool for negotiation. The developed world is already industrialised without any regulations on emissions, and these regulations imposed on the developing world hinders the development process.

The North-South divide fails to understand the heterogeneity in the southern countries. The development status and the demand for resources (coal in this case) creates new groups and a complex blend of current and historic emitters at the negotiation table.

Divergence

How the divergence happened?

In the early 2000’s, a global mercury negotiation was held through the UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) Governing Council and Global Ministerial Environmental Forum. This event created a large Southern coalition (G77 plus China).

However, as negotiators considered a legally binding agreement, countries formed regional groups like GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries and the African Group). The two largest emitters, India and China formed an alliance, where economic development increased emissions. Cooperation from China and India was important to address the problem of mercury emissions. According to them, the task of nation building is difficult to continue with environmental regulations for an important energy resource like coal.

India and China resisted the regulatory action, moving the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) process for almost a decade. The cooperation lasted until the fifth INC, where China changed its stance completely, and were willing to accept a more stringent measure to cut down on emissions. China reached an agreement, and their decision to cooperate allowed them to play a major role in creating the final text for the negotiation. In the Minamata Convention 2013, China signed the treaty, stressing on their domestic policy measures to address mercury pollution. They adopted the same control standards as Germany, which are considerably high. On the other hand, India did not attend the convention and only signed in 2014 after a change in government. India was criticised by NGO’s for its lack of concern to address the issue with mercury emissions.

The growing divergence arises due to developmental constraints, technological capabilities and in this case, it was China’s aim to meet its domestic climate goals. China, at the time of the conference was consuming nearly half of the global coal. However, it reduced its consumption and installed more non-coal sources, which explains the shift in the fifth INC from its original stance, which also directly targets mercury emissions. India continues to invest in coal, as it plans to expand coal consumption by 2022.

The developing countries with different interests are unlikely now to form coalitions as they look to meet their own domestic climate objectives. Coalitions will form depending upon what resource it is, how much of it is used for fuelling development by the country and the domestic climate policies. This will end up creating a complex blend of current and historical emitters.

Ratish is a research intern (@socilia13) at the Takshashila Institution

Comments { 0 }