Archives: Publication

Capturing regional disparities is crucial.

In COP29, the focus was on finance since countries require significant funding for energy transition. According to International Energy Agency, clean energy investment needs to reach $4.5 trillion a year by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5°C. The share of renewables in gross electricity generation at the global level must reach 91 per cent by2050 from 28 per cent in 2020.

This calls for significant mobilisation of resources. The requirement of funds is estimated based on various kinds of models. But a major fallacy of the Indian models is that almost all of them are national models, and do not capture regional disparities in energy demand, resources, and policies. In India, with huge disparity in geography, topology, culture, socio-economic condition, and demography across regions, it is quite difficult to capture all the aspects in one macro-economic or energy system model for the nation.

For example, some States are endowed with various fossil fuel resources and that provides jobs to a significant number of workers, some with longer hours of sunshine suitable for development for solar energy, and some have long coastal areas suitable for development of wind or ocean energy. State-level modelling and planning are necessary to understand the challenges and assess the investment requirement. 

Regional modelling

Many countries are using multi-regional models for understanding the optimum way to arrive at green energy transition to meet emission targets. For example, even though the EU is a community, each nation in the bloc has devised its own energy transition plan based on strength/weakness of resource endowment and in sync with the overall EU’s target. Large countries like the US, China and Brazil have invested into building multi-sector (100-500 sectors), multi regional models (all major regions as separate entities) for effective policy analysis including that of energy transition.

Resource diversity in the EU or other countries are probably less than that of India. Yet, our pathway is based on a national plan without taking into account the regional diversity. Ideally, a bottom-up approach should have been the right one in our case and national plan should have been derived by aggregating the regional ones and examining whether these are in sync with the national one. Though data availability is an issue in India, it is necessary to capture the regional diversity.

NITI Aayog, in collaboration with the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, launched the ASSET (Accelerating Sustainable Solutions for Energy.

Transition) platform to assist in formulating State energy transition blueprints and implementation, identifying bankable projects, best practices, innovations in critical sectors like BESSs (battery energy storage systems), green hydrogen, energy efficiency, e-mobility, offshore wind, etc., in line with Viksit Bharat 2047.

An NCAER study, featuring State-level Integrated Assessment Model (IAM) based on soft-linking of macroeconomic CGE model and MESSAGEix model, finds that, for Kerala, $230.75 billion is required cumulatively between 2025 and 2050 to finance low carbon transition for mitigation without hampering economic growth, with an assumption of 2.5 per cent improvement in energy efficiency and 1 per cent productivity growth per annum. For Odisha, the requirement of investment is $395.33 billion cumulatively between 2025 and 2050.

These estimates do not include the loss-and-damage cost, and the finances required for adaptation. To support low-carbon, climate-resilient solutions in energy, transport and agriculture, there is a significant need to invest in the renewable energy sector, and that needs to be captured by the ‘bottom-up’ State-level models and planning. To address this issue, NCAER is developing multi-sector (147 sector) multi-regional model (30+regions) covering all the States.

Chetana is Fellow, and Sanjib is Professor, NCAER. Views are personal.

Thozhi Hostels deliver high-quality housing solutions for working women, overcoming migration challenges in urban areas.

In recent years, India has seen a remarkable increase in female labour force participation, from 25 per cent in 2017-18 to 40 per cent in 2022-23, according to the Periodic Labour Force Survey. This surge reflects growing economic aspirations among women, bolstered by improved education levels and a gradual improvement in the work conditions favourable for women’s employment.

However, despite this increase, gender parity in the workforce is yet to be achieved. The overall proportion of women in the workforce is still significantly lower than the global average. This disparity is due to predominant socio-cultural norms that overburden women with unpaid care and domestic work, restricting their mobility and independence and thereby limiting their ability to join the workforce. Additionally, in the absence of quality jobs, many willing to work are left without opportunities.

The recent increase in the female labour force participation rate has been driven mainly by the rural sector, with female LFPR in the age group 15-59 years jumping from 24.6 per cent in 2018-19 to more than 41 per cent in 2022-23.

Women are increasingly entering the workforce out of economic necessity and evolving social norms. Agriculture and allied activities and informal and self-employment opportunities have absorbed a significant portion of female workers in rural areas. The urban centres, on the other hand, have yet to show a remarkable pump, showing less than a 5-percentage point improvement over the previous five-year period. Tamil Nadu, however, has outperformed the national average with higher female LFPR in the urban manufacturing sector and the rural economy. It accounts for 42 per cent of all women workers in India’s manufacturing sector.

The success story behind the favourable overall work environment for women in Tamil Nadu has been spearheaded by the launch of Thozhi hostels by the Tamil Nadu government, developed under a public-private partnership (PPP) model, supported by the World Bank. This initiative combines public infrastructure with private expertise to deliver high-quality housing solutions for working women, overcoming migration challenges in urban areas.

As women increasingly pursue opportunities in cities like Chennai, providing safe, affordable, and well-managed accommodations has become crucial to encouraging their participation in the workforce. Safety concerns, poor living conditions, and inadequate services often made it difficult for women to transition smoothly into urban life. These challenges have historically discouraged many women from fully engaging in the workforce.

The Thozhi hostel model requires the government to provide the land and partial construction grants, while the Tamil Nadu Shelter Fund co-finances and oversees the project with real estate market insights. The locations are carefully chosen close to the industrial belts in the state to obtain desired outcomes. Professional private operators, selected through open bidding, manage the day-to-day operations and services, ensuring sustainability without additional government subsidies. Along with safety standards through camera surveillance and other state-of-the-art facilities, affordability constraints are handled through diverse options such as economy and air-conditioned rooms, single or shared accommodations, and flexible stay durations. With high occupancy rates (more than 2,000 women across 10 such hostels in Tamil Nadu), the economics law of competition has set a benchmark for private hostels to enhance their services, ultimately raising the quality of accommodation options for women statewide, considering the affordability constraints for the women.

The success of Thozhi hostels highlights the potential of leveraging public-private partnerships to address systemic challenges. The project’s efficient operations and sustainability have prompted plans to scale it across the state.

As India aims to achieve greater gender parity in the workforce, the Thozhi model offers a replicable framework for other states, emphasising the critical link between infrastructure and empowerment. This also holds significance with most other poor states needing help to design policies to overcome the demand-supply barriers to women’s labour force participation.

By creating safe and supportive spaces, states can enable women to take on urban employment confidently and independently, exemplifying how innovative solutions can transform challenges into opportunities. Providing safe lodging options to women is just the first among many interventions needed to bell the cat. It should be complemented by appropriate legislation on mobility, WASH facilities, legislative ease on workplace flexibility, and reduced burden of the care economy falling disproportionately on women.

The writer is an Associate Fellow, the National Council of Applied Economic Research. Views are personal.

As COP29 concludes in Baku, the world stands at a critical juncture in addressing the escalating climate crisis. Activist Greta Thunberg’s sharp critique-branding the summit’s draft text as “a complete disaster”-highlights the frustration over unmet promises and insufficient ambition. The Global South’s urgent demand for $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 has been countered by a mere $250 billion proposal, exposing a glaring gap between rhetoric and action. With climate-related disasters in 2024 alone causing over $520 billion in damages and displacing 40 million people, the stakes are higher than ever. The question remains: can global leadership rise to meet this challenge?

The recently concluded G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro was expected to galvanize global leaders into action on climate finance. Instead, it delivered vague commitments and a rehashed promise to finalize the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) by 2025. The NCQG, meant to replace the outdated $100 billion annual target, has yet to bridge the growing gap between rhetoric and reality. For instance, while developed nations agreed to provide $250 billion by 2035, this figure barely scratches the surface of the $6.8 trillion required annually to meet global climate goals.

India, a key player in the G20, requires $250 billion annually until 2047 to achieve its net-zero targets. However, mechanisms for mobilizing such funding remain conspicuously absent. The G20’s failure to provide actionable solutions leaves countries like India vulnerable to the compounding effects of climate disasters, which caused economic losses exceeding ?1.5 lakh crore in 2024.

Developing countries have long argued for equitable climate finance to combat the disproportionate impacts they face. Bangladesh, for instance, loses nearly 1% of its GDP annually to climate-induced disasters. Despite these vulnerabilities, the OECD reported that only $150 billion in climate finance was mobilized in 2022-less than 2.5% of what is required annually by 2030. The $250 billion annual commitment proposed at COP29 is a far cry from addressing the systemic inequalities embedded in climate finance negotiations.

The draft text’s suggestion that countries like China and Saudi Arabia contribute additional funds adds another layer of complexity. As “developing nations” under UN climate conventions, they have resisted obligations to finance adaptation efforts in other countries. This contentious issue, coupled with the ambiguous definitions of what constitutes “climate finance” (grants, loans, or private investments), risks undermining the very solidarity required to combat climate change effectively.

Compounding the uncertainties of COP29 is the spectre of Donald Trump’s re-election as U.S. President. His previous administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and prioritization of fossil fuel extraction set a dangerous precedent. Should Trump resume office, global climate diplomacy could suffer irreparable setbacks, jeopardizing years of progress. As the U.S. accounts for over 20% of historical emissions, its leadership-or lack thereof-will significantly influence climate finance negotiations.

The potential rollback of U.S. commitments threatens to derail the fragile consensus reached at COP29. Already, the U.S.’s current contributions to climate finance are insufficient to meet global demands, and Trump’s policies could further erode trust among nations. In this context, mobilizing the $1.3 trillion annual target advocated by the Global South appears increasingly unlikely.

The stakes could not be higher. A recent study projects that unchecked climate change could slash global GDP by up to 10% by 2050, equating to $178 trillion in damages. For the Asia-Pacific region, economic losses could reach $3.2 trillion annually by mid-century without robust mitigation efforts. Even developed nations are not immune: the U.S. faces $20 billion in annual wildfire damages, while Europe’s escalating heatwaves could cost €200 billion annually by 2050.

For India, the risks are even more immediate. With extreme weather events occurring on 342 days in 2024 alone, the country faces an annual GDP loss of 2-2.5% by 2050 if global temperatures exceed 1.5°C. These numbers underscore the urgent need for binding commitments and effective mechanisms to mobilize climate finance at scale.

COP29’s inability to address the core issues of climate finance represents a critical failure of global leadership. The Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage, intended to support nations facing irreversible impacts, remains underfunded and inadequately operationalized. Similarly, progress on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which could enable global carbon markets, has stalled. Experts estimate that a robust Article 6 framework could reduce global emissions by 5 gigatons annually by 2030, yet this potential remains unrealized.

The summit’s proposed $250 billion annual target, while a step forward, lacks the scale and urgency needed to meet the climate challenge. Moreover, the absence of clear accountability mechanisms or enforceable timelines risks perpetuating the cycle of broken promises that has plagued previous negotiations.

As COP29 wraps up, it leaves behind a troubling legacy of unresolved ambitions. The promised $1.3 trillion in climate finance remains elusive, with a fragmented consensus revealing more divides than unity. While G20 nations control 85% of global GDP and three-quarters of emissions, their failure to deliver actionable solutions underscores a troubling inertia. This summit could have marked a turning point; instead, it serves as a cautionary tale of political gridlock in the face of an escalating crisis. The cost of inaction grows steeper each day, and the question remains: how much longer can the world afford to wait?

The writers are associated with National Council for Applied Economic Research, New Delhi. Views are personal.