Do High SDG Scores Truly Reflect States’ Preparedness for Climate Change?

The evidence for climate change posing catastrophic threats in ecologically diverse India is clear today. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and United Nations’ reports, climate change has a significant impact on rising temperatures, sea levels and extreme weather events, such as abnormal floods, landslides, melting glaciers, forest fires and droughts. This will not only endanger millions of lives and livelihoods, but also the nation’s productivity, biodiversity, diverse ecosystems and food security.

In light of the precarious conditions of various regions and the vulnerability of local communities to climate change, India has recently reported significant progress in implementing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) across its States and Union Territories (UTs). This can be seen in its recognition of and active role in developing long-term strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation under Goal 13: Climate Action. Uttarakhand and Kerala have emerged as top performers, particularly in Goal 13  and Goal 1: No Poverty, with significant improvements noted since 2020-21, even as they continue to face recurring disasters and loss of life and property.

SDG India Index (2023-2024)

The SDG India Index monitors the progress of Indian states and Union Territories (UTs) across 113 indicators, 70 targets and 16 goals, based on the National Indicator Framework (NIF) from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI). It assesses each state and UT’s advancement towards 16 SDGs of the 2030 Agenda, assigning overall or composite scores on a 0-100 scale, with higher scores indicating closer proximity to the targets.

Launched in 2018 by NITI Aayog, this index spearheads India’s efforts in SDG localisation, working closely with states and UTs to integrate the SDGs within their governance structures. The SDG India Index promotes both competitive and cooperative federalism, fostering collaboration and knowledge-sharing among states to address development gaps. The index claims to have continuously improved by using the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) methodology and incorporating insights from stakeholders, including states, UTs, ministries, and UN agencies. It aims to align global SDG objectives with India’s national priorities, adopting an inclusive, and whole-of-society approach to sustainable development.

The SDG India Index 2023-24 reported noteworthy progress in SDG implementation. Except for Meghalaya, Nagaland, Jharkhand and Bihar, which fell into the performer category (50-64 points), all other states and Union Territories were classified as ‘front runners’ (65-99 points). Reports show that India’s SDG progress reveals a steady rise, with Kerala consistently outperforming the national average, while Uttarakhand made a remarkable leap from 60 in 2018 to 79 in 2023-24. Goal 13 – Climate Action saw the highest increase in score, rising from 54 in 2020-21 to 67 in 2023-24, followed by Goal 1, which improved from 60 to 72.

Despite facing disasters and loss of life, Uttarakhand and Kerala emerged as front runners with a total of 79 points across the 16 goals. This highlights the critical role of state (or sub-national) leadership in driving SDG success. However, scholars have previously pointed out concerns with such broad categorisation and grouping of states, particularly the front runners (65-99), as such wide ranges lack clarity and nuance.

Also read: A Planetary Perspective

The paradox of front runners

It is no surprise that Kerala and Uttarakhand are hailed as sustainability champions in media outlets and government reports. However, an emerging paradox is evident: while these states rank as front runners” in climate action and sustainability, they are also grappling with ecological vulnerabilities and environmental disasters that seem to worsen each year. While these scores are promising on paper, do they fully capture the growing disaster vulnerabilities these regions face? What are the realistic achievements on the ground? Both states have been hit by environmental catastrophes this year – Uttarakhand by wildfires in May and Kerala by a deadly landslide in July.

According to the Forest Survey of India (FSI), 0.17% of Uttarakhand’s total forest cover is classified as extremely fire-prone, 1.60% as very highly fire-prone, 9.32% as highly fire-prone, 21.66% as moderately fire-prone and 67.25% as less fire-prone. Data from Global Forest Watch suggests that in 2010, Uttarakhand had 1.15 million hectares (Mha) of natural forest, extending over 32% of its land area. However, by 2023, it had lost 971 hectares of natural forest. The steady increase in forest fires and deforestation raises important concerns about environmental changes. Uttarakhand is highly vulnerable to climate-mediated risks. Are these fires simply seasonal, or are they a means to render forests unusable and eventually convert them for ‘developmental’ and construction projects?

Likewise, according to the Geological Survey of India, Kerala is the most landslide-affected state in India, with about 2,239 incidents occurring between 2015 and 2022. During the monsoon season, heavy rainfall heightens the state’s vulnerability to devastating landslides. The most recent landslide in Wayanad in July 2024 claimed around 400 lives, with 150 people still missing. Before this, the 2018 Kerala floods were among the worst in a century, causing landslides in Idukki, Wayanad, and Pathanamthitta, leading to loss of life, destruction of homes and damage to agriculture. In 2020, a landslide in Pettimudi (Idukki) buried an entire tea estate, killing over 60 people. Similarly, the 2019 Kavalappara landslide in Malappuram and the Puthumala landslide in Wayanad caused substantial casualties.

In both of these cases, human interventions have undoubtedly increased and are seen as a potential driver of change in the disrupted natural ecosystems. Despite being recognised for their climate action and sustainability efforts, these two states are increasingly vulnerable to environmental disasters.

The disconnect

Amidst these crises, the NITI Aayog released the fourth edition of the SDG India Index, highlighting the country’s improved global sustainability standing since 2018. However, with each fire and flood, it becomes clearer that these numbers do not fully reflect the reality on the ground.

Time and again, we have witnessed that disasters in these regions are often sensationalised in the media, which tends to ‘naturalise’ the fragile geographies and frame them through a climate-reductionist lens. Beneath the dramatic headlines, the normalisation of frequent crises leaves the dominant climate action and disaster discourse perplexed.

Often, under the rhetoric of development, solutions are downplayed. This contradiction raises a critical question: can these high SDG scores truly reflect the actual preparedness of these regions? Or do they create a dangerous disconnect between these scores and the situation on ground? Therefore, how meaningful is India’s SDG progress if it overlooks the climate change-induced issues upon which long-term sustainability depends, both nationally and across sub-national regions?

The ranking provided by the SDG India Index could be a valuable tool, as it claims incremental improvement. However, this alone may not be sufficient to create an effective roadmap for policy implications. 

The index has repeatedly faced scrutiny from scholars and policymakers regarding its values and methodology. While the rankings highlight areas of improvement, the reliability of the index is questioned. It may not fully capture the qualitative aspects of progress, such as identifying gaps in the adoption of policies, interventions, the absence of indicators, local/regional disparities, and the lack of stakeholder (community, experts, policymakers, academicians) engagement.

While focusing on specific indicators and sub-indicators, broader climate change-induced issues and the interconnected challenges of sustainability in specific regions may get overlooked. For instance, actions towards increasing electricity generation from renewable energy and industries complying with environmental standards may not be sufficient indicators to gauge the catastrophic threats posed by melting glaciers in the Himalayan ranges or rising sea levels in southern India.

A way forward would be to provide a more holistic picture by integrating the social, economic, cultural and ecological dimensions of change at the landscape level by combining quantitative and qualitative insights. The restoration efforts, ecological connectivity enhancement initiatives, disaster mitigation measures, climate adaptive living and the multiple nexuses at the local level need to be accounted for while evaluating sustainability. Similarly, due consideration of different knowledge systems, especially of the indigenous people and local communities (IPLCs), and their potential needs to be recognised while measuring and monitoring is undertaken before evaluation. 

Lastly, it can also highlight case studies to illustrate how Kerala and Uttarakhand have incorporated and implemented sustainable practices which could set an example for other states. The goal should be to provide a nuanced understanding of both successes and challenges, which can guide other regions in adapting and replicating effective solutions. A powerful example can be set how states can drive change through community engagement and involvement, and by training communities to adopt sustainable practices.