Vijay Kumar Gaba

 The NITI Aayog recently published “India Innovation Index 2021” report, which presents “an in-depth analysis of the state of innovation in the Indian economy”. The India Innovation Index 2021 presents state-wise rankings based on the innovation landscape and performance of the country’s states and union territories. The latest framework of the index has been mapped from the Global Innovation Index, published annually by WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization).

The report earnestly recognizes that human capital is the source of innovative ideas, knowledge, and practices. It notes that high innovation capabilities need heavy investment in human capital development at all levels to develop skills beyond technical knowledge, e.g., imaginative thinking, devising methods to tackle complex issues and keeping pace with the times.

The report emphasizes “the practice of promoting innovation at the grassroots is necessary to fully utilise the potential of the indigenous knowledge bases by engaging the local communities in the process.11 The exercise is of greater significance in a country like India where a considerable share of the population is engaged in the informal sectors. To monitor and promote grassroots innovation, the Government of India in 2000 established the National Innovation Foundation (NIF) as an autonomous body of the Department of Science and Technology. The foundation aims to drive innovation at the grassroots through documentation, protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and commercialising innovation and innovative techniques devised by unaided small-scale innovators. The institution was able to file 114 patents in the year 2019-20.”

R&D has played a significant role in the growth of developed countries. The countries that have high per capita R&D expenditure tend to have higher per capita GDP as well.

Innovation in India

In India, R&D investment has been relatively low. In the past few years, R&D investment in the country has declined from 0.8% of the GDP in 2008–09 to 0.7% in 2017-18. This is lower than the other BRICS nations—Brazil spends about 1.2%, Russia about 1.1%, China just above 2%, and South Africa around 0.8%, with the world average being about 1.8%. On the other hand, developed countries like the United States, Sweden, and Switzerland spend about 2.9%, 3.2% and 3.4%. Among all nations, Israel spends the most, 4.5%, of its GDP on R&D.

Dismal private participation in R&D

Besides very low R&D spends, another challenge in India is lack of private participation in the innovation process. About 60% of all R&D spend is incurred by the government against USA 10%, UK 6%, and Israel 1.5%. A major chunk of India’s R&D expenditure is thus on defense and space research; whereas healthcare and manufacturing account for ~13% of public sector R&D spending.

Huge regional disparities

The ability to innovate is dependent on the quality of human capital. It rests on the opportunities in terms of research and development. Lower spending on R&D, and less innovative opportunities may lead people to move from one region to another region - state/ country for better opportunity.

Overall Global Innovation Score for India is a dismal 14.56. Besides, there exist huge regional disparities within the country. Most of the R&D effort in India is concentrated in few states and cities. Some clusters in NCR, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu Maharashtra, Telengana and Gujarat account for a large proportion of overall innovation effort in the country.

Suggestion for improving the innovation rank of India

The report makes the following suggestions for improving the global innovation score of India to aid faster economic growth and development.

1.    GERD needs considerable improvement and should touch at least 2%, which would play an instrumental role in India achieving the goal of a 5 trillion economy and further influence its innovative footprint across the globe.

2.    The role of the private sector in research and development needs to pick up pace.

3.    The expenditure on human capital has been unable to create that knowledge base in the country, which could be due to the intricate reasons of bureaucracy, administration, outreach, etc. It is observed that innovation is skewed against the manufacturing sector. This requires inexorable efforts to overcome challenges and make the best use possible.

4.    India has been able to provide a conducive environment for businesses to thrive, in terms of a business environment, safety, and a legal environment, but we have not been able to support the same in terms of investment and knowledge workers. We need to harness the energy and potential of youth to augment knowledge workforce.

5.    We need to sincerely fill the gap between industry demand and what we produce through our education system.

6.    India needs to undertake efforts in creative goods and services, which have been ignored for a long time.

7.    In India, intangible assets like patents and trademarks filing process are complex and face procedural delays. We need to streamline this.

8.    Our states and Union Territories need to break silos and start working in tandem, as no state/UT can thrive alone endlessly without taking care of its peers.

 In the past 3months, the NITI Aayog has published two important reports regarding electric mobility in India. The first report presents a blueprint for inclusion of electric vehicles (EVs) in priority sector lending to stimulate the demand for EVs. The second report, emphasises on the need for advanced chemistry cell energy storage in India. These two are inarguably amongst the primary considerations to promote faster and wider adoption of clean fuel operated mobility solutions in the country.

It is pertinent to note in this context that India has committed to the global community that by the year 2030, the share of electric vehicles in the total vehicles sold in India would be 30% (EV30@30).

The key highlights of the NITI Aayog’s reports are as follows:

Facilitating easy and adequate credit for EVs

·         Cumulative investment in India’s electric vehicle (EV) transition could be as large as INR 19.7 lakh crore ($US266 billion) between 2020 and 2030. There is a need for higher liquidity and lower cost of capital for EV assets and infrastructure.

·         Given the nascency of EV technology and adoption, FIs such as banks and non-banking finance companies (NBFCs) are not lending to EVs due to associated asset and business model risks (see Exhibit 3). These risks are both real (e.g., uncertainty of resale value) and perceived (e.g., product quality). As a result, if financing is available, EV buyers are unable to obtain terms (i.e., interest rates and tenures) that are comparable to ICE vehicles. Governments across the world are recognising this challenge and are introducing supportive measures to facilitate easier financing of EVs.

·         Off-grid solar and off-grid renewable energy solutions for households were included within PSL guidelines in 2012.21 In 2015, renewable energy was included as a priority sector. This widened the scope of lending to larger installations and renewable energy-based public utilities.

·         Including EVs in the Reserve Bank of India’s priority sector lending (PSL) guidelines can complement the $US300 million facility and encourage the financial sector to mobilise necessary capital. It can ensure a swift and equitable transition to EVs.

·         The economic case for promoting the adoption of Electric two- and three-wheelers, as well as four wheelers in commercial use cases is compelling. Easy and cheaper formal credit is desirable for higher rate of adoption in rural areas, especially due to high employment creation potential.

·         While inclusion of EV credit in priority sector lending mandate is promising, additional policy and market measures would be required to address other challenges, which include state level fiscal incentives, open data on vehicle performance, industry-led buyback programmes, and loan guarantee facilities.

·         NBFCs will be important to expanding financing for EVs due to several factors. First, the vehicle finance market share of NBFCs has been increasing over the past five years. However, NBFCs have been facing a liquidity crunch since 2017 that has been worsened by the effects of COVID-19. This may translate to EV-first NBFCs struggling to access low-cost finance from banks. The PSL guidelines allow for co-origination of loans to the priority sector between banks and NBFCs. Both entities thus share risks and rewards.

Developing an advanced energy storage ecosystem

·         At the COP26 summit, India committed an ambitious target of 500 GW of non-fossil fuel-based energy generation in India by 2030 and reduction in the total projected carbon emissions by 1 billion tonnes by 2030. Obviously, to meet these targets India needs a significant amount of grid storage and a large increase in the number of electric vehicles (EVs). This requires stepping up local manufacturing, exploring new avenues, and allowing global competition in the energy storage business.

·         A matured domestic battery manufacturing ecosystem is expected to create competitive advantages and contribute to India’s energy security. This will require a combination of demand and supply-side measures.

·         The annual market for stationary and mobile batteries in India could surpass US$15 billion by 2030, with almost US$12 billion from cells and US$3 billion from pack assembly and integration, under the accelerated case scenario. Even under a more conservative case it amounts to an annual market of US$ 6 billion.

·         Currently, India has a negligible presence in the global supply chain for manufacturing of advanced cell technologies. Advanced batteries are a cornerstone technology, and their manufacturing within India could allow domestically sourced batteries to cater to the demand generated from EVs, grid storage applications, consumer electronics, and other uses. It is an opportune time for India to step forward and support the development of a domestic battery manufacturing ecosystem that meets its future energy storage market needs and helps reduce its dependence on imports to meet the future advanced energy economy demands.

·         In the accelerated scenario, battery demand is expected to rise to 260 GWh by 2030. This would require nearly 26 gigafactories with an average advanced battery production capacity of 10 GWh per year. The conservative scenario battery demand would require 10 gigafactories by 2030. Since India has no manufacturing plants at this scale now, developing and rapidly scaling its advanced battery manufacturing industry is expected to require focused and coordinated public-private actions.

·         Batteries currently account for 25%–50% of the total cost of an EV depending on range and performance. While battery costs are declining rapidly, the battery will remain a critical component of the EV supply chain.

·         For grid operators, energy storage systems can provide a suite of ancillary services that supports the reliable and efficient operation of the electricity grid. Renewable resources such as wind and solar can fluctuate in output both at the daily scale and the seasonal temporal scale. Seasonal storage is required at very high levels of renewable penetration to store large amounts of energy for weeks to months to bridge the gap between seasonally variable renewable energy output.

·         The mobile and electronics industry in India is fast growing and diverse with a significant reliance on high-performance batteries across a wide range of applications. Mobile phones, power banks, IT hardware, telecom devices, smart agriculture, defence electronics, and other portable devices all require high density and safe integrated batteries.

 The work on developing as crypto currency started in early 1980s. The idea was to create a medium of exchange that is independent of any central authority, is based on trust and is accepted by distributed consensus. The process was formally commercialized in 2009 with release of Bitcoin, the first decentralized crypto currency. May be uncertainty over future of fiat currencies post global financial crisis (which led to printing of unprecedented amount of new money) prompted adoption of an independent currency as medium of exchange. Since then, the crypto currencies based on block chain technology have been gaining popularity. Presently, besides Bitcoin, over 6000 variants of crypto currencies are in vogue. The present value of all bitcoin in circulation is over US$250bn and the average daily trading value of bitcoins id over US$23bn. It is clear that Bitcoin is emerging as a serious challenger to Gold as an alternative currency or medium for exchange of value.

In India, RBI issued a circular in 2018 directing all entities regulated by it (Banks and NBFCs) not to deal virtual currencies or provide services for facilitating any person or entity in dealing with or settling those; thus virtually banning use of crypto currencies in India. The Supreme Court quashed the said RBI circular in March 2020, on the appeal of the Internet and Mobile Association of India, representing various crypto currency exchanges. The SC accepted the argument of the appellant that in the absence of any specific law banning crypto currencies, dealing in these is a “legitimate” activity, hence RBI’s circular banning these is untenable.

In August various media reports suggested that a “note” had been forwarded to the concerned ministries for inter-ministerial consultation to promulgate a legislation banning the use of crypto currencies in India. Reportedly, the inter-ministerial committee headed by the former Finance and Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) secretary, Shri Subhash Chandra Garg (who has been in news recently for criticizing the government for backtracking on reforms) had drafted the Bill of the law to ban crypto currencies. In the meantime, as per various media reports, since March 2020 SC order quashing the 2018 RBI circular, the local crypto exchanges have reported as much as 10x trading volume growth and a significant increase in the number of signups.

The question therefore arises are we blind to the opportunity and numb enough to not sense the winds of change blowing across our faces! The answer is a categorical “No”.

In January 2020 itself, NITI Aayog (the think tank of the government of India on policy matters), had released part 1 of the discussion paper on “Blockchain: The India Strategy”. The well-researched and well-presented paper unambiguously stated that the government recognizes the opportunity, importance and need for blockchain based crypto currencies. For example, note the following excerpts from the discussion paper:

“‘Blockchain’ has emerged to become a potentially transformative force in multiple aspects of government and private sector operations. Its potential has been recognized globally, with a variety of international organizations and technology companies highlighting the benefits of its application in reducing costs of operation and compliance, as well as in improving efficiencies.”

“Blockchain is a frontier technology that continues to evolve. In order to ensure that India remains ahead of the learning curve, it is important to understand the opportunities it presents, steps to leverage its full potential and such necessary steps that are required to help develop the requisite ecosystem.”

“Blockchain technology has the potential to revolutionize interactions between governments, businesses and citizens in a manner that was unfathomable just a decade ago.”

“Blockchain is seen as a technology with the potential to transform almost all industries and economies. It is estimated that blockchain could generate USD3 trillion per year in business value by 2030.”

Obviously, the government recognizes the potential, opportunity, need and importance of crypto currencies. Apparently, however, it wants to tread with extreme caution. For example, the following excerpts from the discussion paper highlight the cautious stance of the government.

“Blockchain has been positioned as a revolutionary new technology, the much needed ‘silver bullet’ that can address all business and governance processes. While the promise and potential of blockchain is undoubtedly transformative, what hasn’t helped this technology, that is still in nascence of its evolution, has been the massive hype and the irrational exuberance promulgated by a bevy of ‘Blockchain Evangelists’.”

“Despite the fact that the technology is still in a nascent stage of its development and adoption as it continues to evolve, it is important for stakeholders such as policy makers, regulators, industry and citizens to understand the functional definition of the entire suite of blockchain or distributed ledger technologies along with legal and regulatory issues and other implementation prerequisites. Equally important is the fact that this technology may not be universally more efficient and thus specific use cases need to be identified where it adds value and those where it does not.”

“Any transformative technology, in its initial stages of development, as it moves out of research / development phase to first few applications to large scale deployment, faces several challenges. Part of the problem is that such technologies are initially intended to solve a specific set of problems. Bitcoin, which has led to the popularity of decentralized trust systems and has powered the blockchain revolution, was intended to develop a peer-to-peer electronic cash system which could solve for double spending problem without being dependent on trusted intermediaries viz. banks. As Bitcoin started gaining prominence, the potential of underlying blockchain technology started getting traction. However, some of the early design features that made Bitcoin popular, primarily limited supply and pseudonymity, have become potential challenges in wide scale implementation of blockchain.”

Given the nascent stage of evolution of block chain technology and crypto currencies based on it, the cautious approach is understandable. However, the caution must be pragmatic and should not transgress to typical dogmatic bureaucratic paradigm. We may avoid rushing to capture a still uncertain opportunity; but we should not arrive too late either.

(The NITI Aayog discussion paper “Blockchain: The India Strategy” could be read here.)