Editorial 1: Giving shape to India’s carbon credit mechanism

Context

India’s carbon credit mechanism needs to be aligned with international and domestic realities if it is to be effective.

Introduction

The Conference of Parties-29, from November 11 to 22, 2024, in Baku, Azerbaijan, is about to shift focus to the heated discussion on the aspect of climate finance again. An essential component of this discussion will be the carbon credits framework and disagreements over it between developed and developing countries.

Steps taken by India towards Climate Change

• India updated its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in 2023 to underline, among other things, the establishment of a domestic carbon market as a part of its climate strategy.
• The Energy Conservation (Amendment) Act of 2022 provided a statutory mandate for such a Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS).
• Through this, India aims to align its climate commitments under the Paris Agreement with broader economic goals.
• Yet, for the market to truly support these objectives, it must be meticulously designed to ensure credibility, efficiency, and fairness.
• From global experiences, India must incorporate two pivotal lessons in its carbon market framework for long-term success.

Upholding integrity of carbon credits

• Integrity of carbon credits: At the heart of any carbon market lies the integrity of its carbon credits.
  • The global experience has seen the repercussions of inadequate accountability in credit generation, leading to instances of greenwashing.
  • This issue is pronounced in the voluntary carbon market (VCM), where investigations have exposed overstatements of project benefits, especially within the forestry sector.
• Risks in India’s Voluntary Carbon Market: A similar risk is feared in India’s voluntary carbon market operationalised under the Green Credit Programme (GCP).
  • The tree plantation guidelines released by the government under the GCP were criticised for perpetuating greenwashing by encouraging non-scientific tree plantation.
  • It is also feared that under the CCTS, projects may fail to ensure “additionality”, a critical measure ensuring that emission reductions exceed those of a business-as-usual scenario.
• Navigating the challenges: To navigate these challenges, India must enforce rigorous protocols to verify the authenticity of generated carbon credits.
  • A proposed national registry would be a robust mechanism to track carbon credits and address potential double-counting issues.
  • Additionally, independent third-party verifiers can play a crucial role in assessing the additionality and permanence of carbon reduction projects.
• Emulating global best practices: By emulating international best practices from entities such as the IETA or Gold Standard that have greatly emphasised the generation of carbon credits, India can cultivate a high-integrity market, attracting domestic and global investors.

Alignment with global standards

• Harmonisation with international carbon trading mechanisms: India’s carbon market must also harmonise with international carbon trading mechanisms, notably Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
  • Article 6.2 facilitates countries in achieving their climate objectives through Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs), making compliance a critical aspect for participating nations.
  • The Article 6 rulebook, finalised at the COP26 summit in Glasgow, outlines how countries can engage in carbon trading while upholding environmental integrity.
• Preventing double counting: For India, this means incorporating mechanisms to prevent the double counting of credits, a crucial step to maintain the credibility of global emission reduction efforts.
  • India can align its market with domestic and international standards by integrating transparent systems for accounting emissions reductions and carbon credit transfers.
• Ensuring environmental integrity: One of the critical aspects is ensuring environmental integrity, specifically under Article 6.2, which establishes a framework for countries to cooperate on climate mitigation efforts through international carbon markets.
  • The World Bank’s “Ensuring Environmental Integrity under Article 6 Mechanisms” report emphasised maintaining robust environmental integrity within carbon markets, especially under the Paris Agreement’s Article 6 framework.
  • The report highlights that carbon markets risk double-counting emissions reductions without stringent safeguards, which can dilute the credibility of climate commitments.
  • The report stressed that high governance, verification, and accountability standards are necessary to avoid “low-quality” carbon credits from entering the market.
• Need for alignment: Such alignment and a focus on global best practices will enable India to contribute to global emissions reductions while actively safeguarding national interests.

Focus on disclosure

• Ensuring transparency in Carbon Credit System: Ensuring transparency is one mechanism to ensure compliance and conformance with such standards.
  • To enhance transparency and uphold environmental integrity within India’s carbon credit system, it is imperative to have comprehensive disclosure of project details, including carbon reduction techniques, benchmarks, and third-party verification reports, on a centralised, easily accessible platform.
• Adherence to additionality criteria: Ensuring that projects adhere to stringent additionality criteria guarantees that the credits reflect real, additional emissions reductions.
  • Regular audits are essential for verifying the sustainability of these projects.
• Oversight and accountability: Oversight by independent auditors approved by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) in India is crucial.
  • Real-time tracking of credit transactions is needed to boost accountability and provide insights into the type of projects and their environmental impacts.
• Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI): The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI) framework introduces a tiered system for companies to assess carbon credit claims.
  • This is to ensure the credibility of carbon offset claims, aiming to enhance market transparency.
• Challenges in implementation: Implementation faces challenges, especially within India’s CCTS initiatives,
  • due to potential transparency issues and
  • the high costs of establishing monitoring, reporting, and verification systems.
  • These costs could deter smaller projects initially.

Conclusion

India’s carbon credit mechanism, albeit nascent, demands stringent enforcement and an alignment with international and domestic realities to be effective. By focusing on transparency and integrity, India has the opportunity to not only provide for a more mature carbon market but also to stimulate its climate finance aspirations, paving the way for practical, sustainable development. Thus, ensuring credibility, transparency, adherence to additionality, and independent oversight, and addressing challenges in implementation will help global world to come together and strengthen their own policies and work collectively for long-term success.

Editorial 2:Ending discrimination in prisons

Context

While the Supreme Court did away with caste discrimination in prisons, incorporating basic amenities in prisons by amending the Model Prison Manual 2016 will ensure a minimum dignified life inside prisons.

Introduction

On October 3, the Supreme Court in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024) reaffirmed the principle of non-discrimination in Indian prisons. The rules in jail manuals segregating prisoners based on caste was at the heart of this challenge. They were struck down for perpetuating caste discrimination and violating the fundamental rights of prisoners. Previously too, courts have often set aside prison rules that classified prisoners and treated them differently. Where the basis was either irrational, arbitrary, or a prohibited ground, it could not withstand the scrutiny of the equality code under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

No arbitrary segregation

• Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980): A distinction based on social status of prisoners was dealt with by the Supreme Court.
  • The Punjab Police Rules distinguished under-trial prisoners as ‘better class’ and ‘ordinary’.
  • Only the ‘better class’ were exempted from wearing handcuffs.
  • The Court reasoned that it was completely irrational for the state to assume that an indigent prisoner was more dangerous to the society than an affluent one.
  • Economic and social considerations could not be the basis for classifying prisoners for the purposes of handcuffs.
  • The provisions were held to be unconstitutional.
• Inacio Manuel Miranda v. State (1988): The Bombay High Court was faced with a different type of segregation affecting the prisoners’ right to write in prison.
  • The Goa, Daman and Diu Prisoners Rules treated prisoners differently for writing welfare letters.
  • ‘Class-I prisoners’ could write four letters per month, but ‘Class-II prisoners’ could only write two.
  • This was held unreasonable and discriminatory, affecting the convict’s right to be treated equally in their freedom of expression.
  • The Court followed its previous decision in Madhukar Bhagwan Jambhale v. State of Maharashtra (1984).
  • A prohibition on writing letters to co-prisoners, imposed by the Maharashtra Prison Rules, was struck down as having no logical basis and unduly inhibiting the prisoners’ constitutional rights.
• Non-Discrimination in Prisoners’ Rights: A principle that resonated with the Court was that the prison itself could not strip the prisoners of rights they would otherwise be entitled to.
  • Non-discrimination was one such right.
• Sukanya Shantha Case (Recent Decision): The most recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sukanya Shantha brought about the starkest case of prison segregation.
  • Here, caste hierarchy was the basis of classification for labour inside prisons.
  • This meant that only prisoners of certain ‘marginalised castes’ were given cleaning and sweeping jobs, and others were given jobs like cooking.
  • The State Prison Rules stated that these castes were “accustomed to performing such duties”.
  • This classification had no connection with the individual ability or qualification of the prisoner and did not aid reformation.
  • It perpetuated caste identity and prevented an equal opportunity to reform.
  • The State Prison Rules and similar executive decisions were therefore set aside as discriminatory under Articles 14 and 15, with directions to the States to undertake amends.

The way forward

In another case, three petitions came before the Calcutta High Court, which were decided together in August 2012 (Gaur Narayan Chakraborty and Others).

Gaur Narayan Chakraborty and Others (Calcutta High Court, August 2012)

• Main issue before the court: The main issue before the Court was whether Maoists who were waging a war against the state using arms, and who were charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and other special statutes, could be treated as political prisoners.
• Trial court’s decision: The trial court had rejected this demand of the petitioners in accordance with the West Bengal Correctional Services (WBCS) Act, 1992, on the premise that they were members of a banned terrorist organisation, and their activities were not for the common good of the people, but for the revolution with arms.

Calcutta High Court’s Ruling

• Interpretation of political prisoners: After discussing municipal and international viewpoints on the political offences and interpreting the WBCS Act on the classification of prisoners, the Court reached the conclusion that “the believers of any kind of political movement are to be acknowledged as political prisoners and thus, it cannot be held that those who participate in unlawful activities cannot be recognised as political prisoners”.

Significance of the Judgment

• Prisoners’ right to dignity and basic amenities: Though the Supreme Court did not have occasion to decide the special leave petition arising from this decision on merit, the Calcutta High Court’s judgment is significant for highlighting a similar right of prisoners to be treated in a dignified manner.
  • The High Court noticed that a person classified as a political prisoner is entitled to a few amenities, such as a chair, table, light, iron cot, mattress, pillow, blanket, and mirror.
  • He is entitled to cooking, services of a barber, writing material, and a newspaper, and is also permitted to receive books and periodicals from his relatives.
  • These facilities are a part of the basic human rights to which every prisoner ought to be entitled.
• Extension of amenities to all prisoners: The Court said these amenities should not be restricted to political prisoners.
  • It suggested that the state administration re-look into the classification of prisoners and provide basic amenities to all.
  • A slight improvement in the living conditions of prisoners in itself would erode the classification which the WBCS Act acknowledges.

Conclusion

While the Supreme Court’s recent judgment did away with caste discrimination inside prisons, incorporating basic amenities in prisons by suitably amending the Model Prison Manual 2016 will not only blur other distinctions, but will also ensure a minimum dignified life inside prisons. Incorporating basic amenities through amendments to the Model Prison Manual 2016 will ensure dignity and equality for all prisoners.