No abstract

At the international level, India is emerging as a key actor in climate negotiations, while at the national and sub-national levels, the climate policy landscape is becoming more active and more ambitious. It is essential to unravel this complex landscape if we are to understand why policy looks the way it does, and the extent to which India might contribute to a future international framework for tackling climate change as well as how international parties might cooperate with and support India's domestic efforts. Drawing on both primary and secondary data, this paper analyzes the material and ideational drivers that are most strongly influencing policy choices at different levels, from international negotiations down to individual states. We argue that at each level of decision making in India, climate policy is embedded in wider policy concerns. In the international realm, it is being woven into broader foreign policy strategy, while domestically, it is being shaped to serve national and sub-national development interests. While our analysis highlights some common drivers at all levels, it also finds that their influences over policy are not uniform across the different arenas, and in some cases, they work in different ways at different levels of policy. We also indicate what this may mean for the likely acceptability within India of various climate policies being pushed at the international level.

This article examines key issues in operationalizing a registry of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) undertaken by developing countries party to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. It analyzes goals, outcomes, and institutional prerequisites underlying various proposals to determine how a NAMA mechanism could work in international climate cooperation. The different proposals for how NAMA shall be designed relate to three basic effort-sharing arrangements in a future climate regime: binding commitments for all Parties, purely voluntary commitments for all, and legally binding commitments for Annex I countries but voluntary ones for others. We conclude that a NAMA registry could be designed so as initially to suit all three types of effort-sharing regimes. The article identifies three areas of potential common ground in a registry irrespective of effort-sharing type: the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, the sustainable development objectives of the Convention, and the need for a systemic transition toward low-carbon energy technologies.