)
Samit Aich, Executive Director of Greenpeace India defends the NGOs track record on coal climate change and other campaigns in an interview with Nitin Sethi. Excerpts from the interview:
To look at what Greenpeace stands for…the large areas of disagreement that Greenpeace has with the Indian government especially on the international issues of climate change…could you elaborate?
Fundamentally, you can go back some years to put it in context and see how things happened in Copenhagen and see. Fundamentally what is happening in the political negotiations….the positions the governments have been taking, especially developing countries like India, has been from the equity perspective.
As an organisation we see it a bit differently...not bit but substantially differently. The fact that climate change is a the biggest crisis staring at the planet and while we can while away time in the political negotiations talking about equity, the fact of the matter is that unless we address this issue in a more holistic manner…we move away from our national positions...because climate change is an international….
The political negotiations are only a manifestation of how national governments think. Our position is very clear that equity cannot be defined from just the political context. The definition of equity also needs to take in to consideration from different aspects. Equity between the rich and poor, for instance, both within the country and internationally. And, inter-generational equity.
We are at that moment in time where what we do today and the actions we take as governments and people today are going to effect the state of planet hundreds years hence and beyond and whilst we might continue to quibble about equity, the fact of the matter is that IPCC – the only body endorsed presenting valid science of climate change very clearly says that we are heading towards irreversible climate change, the Earth is boiling over and we do not have any time but to reach an agreement.
But these talks are between nation states and not between individuals – which is how all countries argue at the UNFCCC and the convention only embeds equity between nation states. The UN does not allow countries to intervene in to sovereign space to look at equity within the countries. Many officials contend that you mix these up.
I think the convention also needs to be...what is the convention for...it is to ensure that we have a deal which is equitable, which is fair and binding...we can get into the nuances of what is a fair and binding deal…
What do you say to the fact that the Convention is between nation states and talks of equity only between nation states?
I would say that all of this needs to be revisited in the context that we are talking about. It is essentially why it’s been stuck so far...this nationalism in its most narrow approach is detrimental to the climate question. What is that we have in the convention…that each country has the responsibility to cut down its emissions and the way Greenpeace works..and this is what we have been saying so many times and it has been misrepresented in the media that…we only work in countries such as India.
Look at our campaigns in the geographies we work in …we work in US, UK or China or India, we have the same stance. As an international global organisation, and we have no qualms accepting the fact that we are a global organisation working on issues that have global significance we need the debate to move beyond this national boundary debate. No doubt that people need to have energy and electricity.
No doubt that the developing parts of the world are not as responsible as others were in the past but that does not take away from the fact that as developing countries we will be responsible for a climate calamity and you cannot use the reference that someone else has done it so we also have the right to do it. Within the context we are taking that is not conducive. We can continue to debate as countries or as blocks but the fact of the matter is that unless we get in to the nuances and accept the fact that this is beyond just national borders we are not going to solve the problem and finally may have an agreement but would have lost the planet.
Do you think this is an unscientific view? If you forget history and historical emissions you ignore that developed countries are supposed to cut their emissions and transfer technology and funds to poor countries?
No, we are saying that also needs to happen. That is exactly what we are pushing for. Funding and technology also need to move. But in global negotiations this is exactly that is happening..one card being played against the other.
But you don’t think that developing countries need to predicate their actions on transfer of these funds and technologies as the UN convention demands?
That is part of the deal. We are talking about it. Everytime we talk of these pillars of negotiations we get stuck because it’s always one against the other. Historical emissions are a fact but future emissions are also a fact and countries like India and China who are on the verge of…China is the largest emitter and India the fourth largest..we are making future investments and strategies. For a moment look at it from the economists point of view and not an ecologists.
Today we are making investments in to the future that are destined to be stranded in the way we are doing energy planning in this country. The coal reserves in this country are not going to last beyond 20 years. People can continue to believe that Greenpeace is unscientific. We use science to deliberate, discuss and campaign. We are seen as a bunch of emotional people but we use science very fundamentally in our campaigns. If we just park that aside, we know that the coal we have will last only a limited period of time. Today the problem is most governments think on a five year schedule which is the tenure they think they can last. Energy investments and infrastructure is far beyond the five year tenures because coal is not going to feed all. You will not even have the water to run these coal projects. So fundamentally we are saying don’t look at it from an ecologists point of view, look at it from an economists point of view. Anyway you look at it, this just doesn’t make sense.
I am inclined to accept that we are absolutely wrong in time but I would like to ask a fundamental question which is how has the current model been successful. Today you have 300 million Indians who have no access to electricity. We have a faulty creaky centralised mechanism which is at work today which is economically and technically unviable. If 300 million Indians do not have electricity 64 years after independence we have to do something very different to give access to electricity and also cut down on carbon. You cannot as a country make investments in future carbon.
A lot of people could agree with you principally but some would contend that if institutions like yours focus more on getting the developed countries to deliver what they did committed to 20 years ago but didn’t do you would find countries like China and India being forced to follow suit. But institutions like yours began focusing more on China and India shifting the focus in public sphere on these two countries.
Most certainly we are focusing on these two countries because this is where the current and future emissions are. As an environmental organisation we would have failed in our mission and the 3 million people who support us if we don’t do what is needed to fix the planet. And this is not an emotional statement. The fact of the matter is that we campaign the same way in the US, or in UK, India and China. Most certainly because of current and future emissions we are focusing on these countries because that is where the problem lies. And I am saying the problem lies everywhere. The centre of gravity of our work is dependent upon where the biggest problems are.
So you think the biggest problems are in India and China and not the US?
Everywhere. Our work on nuclear energy in US is an example. I think it is wrong to assume that we are only focusing on India and China. We continue to work in the US. We are investing a lot of energies in US also. I remember you interviewed Kumi when he came to India after taking over…he was also very candid in it..our focus is on a clutch of countries which can help solve the climate crisis. That includes the US also. You could have a discussion about are we being effective in a particular country or not. That is a good discussion to have.
Are you being effective in the US?
We could be much better.
Is that because you face a strong opposition from the politics there?
I think Greenpeace faces that everywhere and the current situation in India is a perfect example of that. If you are map it over a time line in the US Greenpeace could be a whole lot more effective. We are making some progress in that direction though am not an expert on US situation. In our internal discussions we have said that we need to be as strong in the US as we are in India and in other parts of the world. I think the jury is not out yet.
How often are you able to disagree with Greenpeace International and say to them this or that does not work in India? Could you give me examples?
As a global organisations we have a range of issues we agree or disagree on but we certainly agree on the mission. We are quite strategic in our approach when we make organisational plans for the future.
Do you need an approval from Greenpeace International for the kind of agendas you set here?
We discuss it together and we co-agree. It’s not an approval per se. We have Indian board and staff members. We also understand the context that we operate in. But, if there is an instance where we feel that it is not putting context of what national realities are we step in to say so.
Could you give me an example?
Maybe not on climate change, but on sustainable agriculture. I don’t have the exact details right now but on GM organisms. Let me put this in context, as one of the 42 country offices, despite differences within from time to time on the mission level we are absolutely aligned. And that is fundamental to run a successful organisation. There is no disagreement on our approaches. On say GM organisms...whether we should work on rice or brinjal…they might say it is good to focus on rice but we told them the realities over here are different.
But those are only operational differences. IN terms of principles you don’t seen any disagreements with Greenpeace International?
Not at all because we do not see these approaches from the national point of view.
[Intervention by Samit’s colleague]
Again, going back to sustainable agriculture, the work we are doing on pesticides, globally the organisation is looking at us to understand how we are running this campaign. IT is a misconception to believe that things are thrust down upon us that many media reports carry. Let me repeat, as a global organisation we are committed to a mission and we have the independence to work.
Do you think there is space and need for greater disclosure and transparency in the work of multinational NGOs like yours?
Certainly. Let me take a step back and answer your question. We have a bunch of people who come from different background. Greenpeace India board is a bunch of people who understand the lay of the land very well. And it is wrong to believe that in our board meeting we are all hugging each other and we are all hunky dory. They put in all their perspectives. We have very nice healthy debates…These are people who have, independent of Greenpeace, a very strong personal reputation in the Indian context. You have Ashish Kothari who has worked on issues of tribal and many other things…indigenous tribes and stuff like that who have been there for many years. And these are people who are not going to get swayed just because Greenpeace is saying so. Because if you have to also look at who these people are, these people are there on our board simply because they are also committed to the mission of this organisation in its umbrella approach. And we have our discussions at the right level, strategic level and they know.
I am proud of my board. But to come to your point about transparency, most certainly I think that every sector and definitely the NGO sector also need to be far more transparent. I think the onus of transparency should not come back only to Greenpeace. But I don't want to push it back saying when everybody does I do because we did as an organisation for last three to four years we have been putting our publications on the net including annual reports. For example there is no need to have an annual report for NGOs I am told. I think that's ridiculous. Why not? We also have stakeholders and financial support.
We are surprised that Greenpeace has been picked up as an icon (by the government).
That is credit to you…
You started by saying how am I dealing with this crisis. I am not looking at this as a crisis at all. Of course it’s not the right kind of publicity we would like to have…
Yes, It’s an old saying...all press is good press
Maybe we are disturbing certain relationships that cosy up to each other. But going back to transparency, there is a need to look at how these 32 lakh NGOs mushroomed and you have to separate the wheat from the chaff. One cannot make a broad brushed insinuation without a well-defined charge and if transparency helps so be it. Transparency is not only Greenpeace’s responsibility and we will be happy to support such initiative. I think it raises the debate to the right level. It also helps segregating the good from not so good. Anybody who follows the norms of the country and not breaking the laws should be allowed to have a point of view and the right to dissent from the larger paradigm. My constitution offers me that right. Just because I am a minority does not give any one the power to scuttle my voice. If there is anything wrong done please provide substantial evidence. This shadow boxing and proxy war does not help anyone.
When Greenpeace decided to shift focus to India and China there was also an attempt to indigenise your campaigns. Part of that was to raise local issues rather than raise global concerns. So why you were looking at blocking down new coal power plants to cut emissions from India you argued here forests and rights to block individual projects. Do you not find that duplicitous?
I think we have ecosystem approach to the way we work. I want to take a step back and discuss what Greenpeace believes the planet should be. It is not just about flora and fauna but the people that come with that. Having said that you do have to make adjustments which are important and relevant to the country. Today the map of coal reserves, the map of forests and of indigenous people superimposed fall in the same place.
I am asking strategically as part of your campaigns …your earlier campaigns focused on coal and climate change and they didn’t work that well…then you began using more local issues and working with Indian groups against coal plants.
It could be seen as that. But it’s not necessary that it is the only strategic approach one has. For example, after we came out of Copenhagen we realised that people power is extremely important to turn the climate debate to our favour. As an organisation globally we have said that. And then it came from our board in India – how do we address the rights of the people who are going to be displaced by practices that are not only bad for the environment but also for the ecosystem approach. And these problems are just there…I cannot segregate these. Quite logically these issues are all connected and when we started working on the ground we realised there is a huge resistance there.
For us that example…I am talking of Mahan example of what is wrong and what should not be happening in the first place.
Do you financially support these groups you work with?
We don’t give any financial support. We also campaign on the ground.
Are you saying you share resources and materials but not funds ?
The Mahan Sangharsh Samiti is not been set up by us. Let me turn it around and say that as an organisation we have realised that we cannot be talking about issues we work on unless we go to the ground and work. We have made that attempt in a very significant manner. Today we have a presence over there. And when we go to ground we realise that people also have things to talk to us about and there is an alignment in the way we look at these issues. So its wrong to say that we work this way because it gets us good leverage. For us it’s an ecosystem approach
But this didn’t exist till 2008-09
That’s when we started working on our climate and energy campaign we figured that what is the campaign all about. If I just go and talk about coal reserves repeatedly it does not make any sense. Or to just go and say oh that is an elephant corridor and this is a tiger corridor. People tend to think that environment organisations are just about this but we are talking about a complete ecosystem approach which gives the complete narrative. Mahan campaign for us is about what is wrong at various levels...human rights, coal excavation, people’s displacement, carbon, faulty energy planning, nexus between certain vested corporate interests and governments. And we didn’t rake all this up. It was there.
Why is it okay for Pizza Hut to give Indian flavour their product and it’s such a problem for an organisation like Greenpeace to find the right mix of all the issues that surround carbon and coal. So we are dealing with these issues in all aspects.
On the role of the government and being invited for pre-budget consultations…
We believe that the government is a very important stakeholder. We have our ways and means of working. But, the current government has a super opportunity to redefine what are India’s positions on several global matters, such as climate change or renewable energy. The BJP’s manifesto talks about it. We are saying exactly the same.
With more power comes more responsibility and I would take the opportunity today but I would like to recall that this day in 1976 emergency was imposed and remind that we have the right to dissent in this vibrant and proud democracy. We may have a point of view that is substantially different but that shouldn’t mean we are prevented to speak to the government. We should be seen as larger stakeholders by government too. It is not healthy for the democracy otherwise. The last 8-10 days is a good example of what should not happen.
The government may have its own mantra for development but that should not deny other people the right to have their own definition of what is right and that is a progressive discussion to have. We will certainly engage with the government but lets see where it goes.
Someone who worked earlier with Greenpeace said part of your strategy has been to look at where you could achieve success…strategic iconic coal projects that you could possibly force stop legally and through campaigns and Mahan was one of them. How does this work?
So I cannot speak on who you spoke to and what that person said I cannot right now elaborate very clearly on what our other projects are. I am saying that Mahan, is a perfect example of what is wrong.
Let’s go beyond that. Let’s not repeat ourselves.
If you are asking me what are the other places we plan to go, I don’t know. Maybe we don’t. There are places where other NGOs and groups are also doing a good job
Let me rephrase in the hope of getting a sharper answer. Would you say that it is incorrect what this person told me about your strategy?
I don’t know what it means. It might sound repetitive but let me reiterate that our campaign on coal…
You don’t want greenfield coal projects and part of that is to identify couple of the projects you can show case that these are really horrible, these must be stopped to set examples…
Sure, but Mahan became controversial far before we came in to the picture when Jairam Ramesh raise it himself. When the first concept of no-go forests policy was mooted it originated out of Mahan. It is not as if we got in to it and we initiated it.
It’s like Greenpeace is being used as an icon of what is wrong with the sector. That’s how it works. There is nothing to go around in circles about it. Its common sense. Mahan was an example of all that is wrong. We studied it carefully and raised it and let us see where it goes. We did not go there because it’s easy. We made a campaign out of it. Clearly it is going somewhere. It’s a strategic approach and as an organisation we pride ourselves to be so because our resources are limited and our opponents powerful.
Greenpeace is against the use of nuclear power and GM crops. But on ground you only talk of weakness of regulations to block their use in India. Is there duplicity in your arguments?
Absolutely not.
But you are fundamentally against the use of nuclear power and GM crops?
Absolutely.
But you work with groups that argue about regulatory weaknesses and not the flaws of these technologies
It’s a mean to an end. Because the means are as important as ends to us. Say take the case of the work we did on nuclear liability. The liability regime in the country is what we believe shows what’s wrong in here. Here is a case where companies are selling products that they have not used or have had the experience of being cost ineffective and still being peddled in India.
Our work on nuclear liability shows how nationalist we are. God forbid if we had a nuclear meltdown we have appalling track records. Any technology which is dangerous or cannot be contained has no right to exist. It’s the onus of the person/country/entity producing to prove these are safe. You can say the jury is divided on that. Fine. But if the company believes the technology is so safe why should it worry about liabilities arising out of an accident? In this country even a refrigerator has longer and better guarantees than nuclear power.
[the interview has been slightly edited]
