By Shreya Agarwal
Abstract
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, places a huge responsibility on governments to invest in the country’s resources to accelerate the pace of sustainable development. The article would assess whether it is even feasible to implement the Sustainable Development Goals in the manner in which they were envisaged to be followed. By studying one example of a big sustainable developmental project in India, the article would demonstrate that such projects, marred by politics and greed, end up completely neglecting the interests of the local communities affected by these projects, thus, are not completely ‘sustainable’.
Introduction
The end of the Second World War was a crucial point in modern history when most of the major countries around the globe began their quest for an ever-accelerating economic growth. However, as time proceeded, the implications of such fast-paced ruthless growth soon cropped up in the form of rising income inequality, pollution, and other similar attributes. This led to the origins of the discourse surrounding ‘sustainable development’ wherein governments were confronted with the challenge of mitigating the negative effects of economic development on the environment. Currently in India too, the government is spearheading many such green developmental projects. However, whether such green projects are sustainable in a holistic sense or could even be called a prudent investment by the government is something that needs to be deliberated.
Conflicts within the Sustainable Development Goals
The United Nations adopted the 17 Sustainable Goals in 2015 based on the blueprint of balancing the three core fundamental principles- economic, social and environmental stability. However, while these may look very succinct in theory, major issues have been raised by countries in their quest to implement the same in their policies. For example, one major source of contradiction has arisen between the SDGs based on their overarching goals. Goals 12 and 13 which deal with responsible consumption and climate action, come in conflict with goal 8, which has set a target of at least 7% GDP growth in the least developed countries. Various empirical studies, including one conducted by anthropologist Jason Hickel has shown that it is impossible to achieve such a growth target, keeping goal 13 in mind, which has set a carbon budget of 2°C, as per the Paris Agreement of 2015. Thus, while the SDGs provide a broad framework for countries to work with, they suffer from the drawback of being too ambitious in their approach, proving how sustainability is not just a simple concept divided into three fundamental principles but a multi-dimensional one, involving trade-offs with these three core principles.
The Financial Conundrum
This trade off, as stated above, is felt more by developing countries where the governments are faced with the responsibility to provide basic education and healthcare to a lot of people still living in poverty while also addressing the industrial and other developmental needs of the country at the same time. For instance, India is the fifth largest economy in the world ( as of 2023). However, its per capita income at 2.6 thousand USD is nowhere close to the other countries with similar GDP. For instance, the United Kingdom, the sixth largest GDP in the world, ( right after India) has a per capita income of 46.8 thousand USD. India’s growth in GDP has also not resulted in a proportionate increase in its Human Development Index. For a country that is reaching new heights of growth each day, it sadly ranked 132 out of 191 countries in the 2021-22 assessment, even behind Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Thus, for these two countries, the governments’ priorities can never be the same.
It is not to say that green growth is not possible at all for such countries like India- but to question the mere fact that can we even afford to spend that much on “green development” considering how we are faring at other parameters like poverty alleviation and level of education. The Niti Aayog’s National Multidimensional Poverty Index estimates that a quarter of the Indian population (322.5 million of the projected population in 2016) was “multidimensionally” poor-after considering income, education and health. Thus, the pressure on governments is intense to judiciously mark the priority sectors that need funding.
As you may be wondering, yes, it is true that some policies do provide solutions to both of these problems. For example, sustainable agriculture, while cutting emissions, provides climate proof food supply. However, such an alignment is rare and more often than not, spending to cut emissions will require a trade off with other objectives of the government.
The Adani Solar Park Project
This example describes the conflict which arose when a project by the Adani group, in collaboration with the state government to develop a solar power plant in Rajasthan ended up completely disregarding the livelihood needs of the local community. The projects ( signed in 2015) would be developed by Adani Renewable Energy Park Rajasthan Ltd (AREPRL), a joint venture (50:50) between Adani Green Energy and Rajasthan’s Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd (RRECL).
The project has an ambitious plan of developing up to 10 GW of solar power plants in 10 years to exploit Rajasthan’s solar irradiation resource. Thus, it promotes goal 13 of climate action and moving towards renewable sources of energy. However, the way in which the project is being implemented comes in direct contradiction with SDG goal 3 and 11, which encourages well-being of all citizens and promotes inclusivity and safety of all stakeholders involved.
The contestation over the ‘common’ land
The Solar Park constructed by AREPRLwhich is located near Nedan village has sparked a land conflict with the local population. Nedan inhabitants consider the contested land where the park has been built as ‘Khatedari’ land, which is legally owned by the government of Rajasthan but grants farmers certain rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Rights Act of 1955. The local inhabitants have traditionally used this land for activities such as agriculture and cattle grazing. The government, in contrast, to avoid liability of compensation to these land users, deemed the land as a “ wasteland”, to attract private investors for developmental projects.
This case cannot be completely understood without also deliberating upon the influence of these big private corporations over the occupation and utilization of such resources. Such contentious land spaces, situated within the ambit of ‘green energy politics’, are being coercively occupied by big conglomerates like the Adani group who then, slowly, begin the clearing of these land spaces for their projects.
Loss of livelihood and biodiversity
Evidence proves that for a vast majority of the indigenous and tribal peoples displaced by big projects, the experience has been extremely negative in cultural, economic, and health terms. The outcomes have included assetlessness, unemployment, debt bondage, hunger, and cultural disintegration.
Moreover, during the construction activities of such projects, local habitats of animals and birds are also threatened. In regards to the Adani Solar Project, the Supreme Court asked for transmission lines evacuating solar energy in Rajasthan to be laid underground to reduce the threat to the already threatened bird species, the Great Indian Bustard.
Laws, policies and politics in relation to such projects
At present, solar and wind power projects do not require environmental clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, unlike other developmental projects like the construction of roads or highways. Moreover, The landmark Bill on the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement 2013 which was enacted to bring transparency into the acquisition of such common land spaces also proved to be incapable of bringing a positive change.
When Mr Modi took office in 2014, he flew from Gujarat to the capital New Delhi in Mr Adani’s private jet — an open display of friendship that symbolizes their concurrent rise to power. Thus, this is another challenge which India is currently facing, that is, the government’s liaisons with such big corporations and the mutual return of favors at the cost of the lives of the local people.
Conclusion
In the quest for sustainable development, it is an important question to ask what good can renewable resources like solar power do if they come at such a huge cost to the communities affected? Ultimately, this is not to advocate against such development projects but to highlight the trade-offs involved in the process. There is a need for a dire change in the ideology of those at the helm of affairs. What we define today as modernity and progress will ultimately shape our developmental decisions for the future. Thus, a reinterpretation of the term ‘progress’ is needed in the context of India, one which also involves the stakes of those affected by such projects. Because, true sustainable development is not only about the end result but also about the processes involved in reaching the end goal.
About the Author-
Shreya Agarwal is a first-year undergraduate student at Ashoka University pursuing a major in Economics. Her interests lie in economics, finance and public policy- and the intersection among these domains.
NICKELED AND DIMED 