At home and abroad

August 18, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

The size and diversity of India’s federal structure (36 states and union territories) is steering this government towards an arrangement wherein the assessment of development needs and outcomes is carried out at least at the state level. As the new India Climate Watch has pointed out, this is where India’s contribution to the international climate change negotiations appears quite out of phase with the climate aspect of development discussions and actions in these 36 states and union territories.

We ask whether the state action plans on climate change (some of which in their final forms are now several years old) are fit for the task of guiding policy at this level, a serious and urgent question which, in our view, ought to precede India’s taking of international positions on climate change adaptation and mitigation measures (including financing and technology transfer).

With the meeting of the BASIC group of countries on 7-8 August 2014 in New Delhi, a stretch of negotiating has begun for India which will continue with greater intensity until the 21st Conference of Parties in Paris in December 2015. This is seen by climate negotiators as the final stretch of the Kyoto Protocol period and we can expect a flurry of weighty summations to be produced during this time, which may influence how the successor to the Kyoto Protocol will begin to be framed, a procedure that COP 21 will be devoted to.

For India, this period will proceed in parallel with the first term of the NDA government, which will be expected to deliver much more substantial leadership on matters of equity in the international arena, and which is already committed to strengthening the federal approach at home. Our view is that these are not exclusive, and that one can guide the other.

Under direction from the central government, our states have been preparing climate action plans geared to their conditions. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change reports that 28 of these plans have been prepared, and how these will integrate with the economic and social imperatives that each state government frames differently has not been explored. Until that happens as a policy commitment, the state action plans remain academic exercises with action on the ground in the form of relatively small projects channelled through ‘technology transfer’ agencies. These may help indicate how feasible a future course is but which is weak without state government and industry resolve. [Click this link for the India Climate Watch 2014 03 (pdf 186kb).]

A binding deal at Cancun – why India must do the right thing – 9 Dec 2010

December 9, 2010 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

A binding deal at Cancun – why India must do the right thing

9 December, 2010

In December 2009, when environment minister Jairam Ramesh went to Copenhagen, he was seen off by a group of bright-eyed young Indian climate activists urging him to come back with a FAB (fair, ambitious and binding) deal. He promised to do so. Fast-forward to December 2010 and the Indian delegation is fighting tooth-and-nail to eviscerate any language on a binding deal at the UN’s climate talks in Cancun.

In resisting this, India is in shabby company – countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United States and Japan have been notoriously prevaricating or setting hurdles in the way of internationally binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Leading the charge for a legally-binding instrument are the most vulnerable nations on earth – the small island developing states and African countries. United in political blocs such as AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) and the Africa Group, these nations are fighting for their very survival in the face of indifference by many major powers – developed and emerging alike.

Both AOSIS and the Africa group have managed to organise themselves into effective political forces with strong moral authority as unwitting victims of climate change. In so doing they have lifted the stranglehold of more powerful countries within the G-77 lobby group of developing countries, that had long prevented the concerns of the most vulnerable from surfacing.

In recent days, AOSIS and the Africa Group have managed to bring along a range of nations to their cause for a legally binding instrument under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change curbing greenhouse gas emissions. AOSIS has recommended specific language under the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action that has been supported by the European Union, Costa Rica and many others. All in all, support for this could run into more than 100 countries.

Only India and a small clutch of countries are resisting this move. In this, India has been virtually isolated from others in the BASIC grouping – South Africa, Brazil and China – with whom it has closely allied since last year. These nations are not blocking but are either supporting AOSIS or are open to further dialogue – but not India.

India has legitimate concerns in asking for clarity on issues such as the content of legally binding, the penalty of non-compliance and the system of monitoring. But so do others – yet, they are not blocking progress as India is doing because they recognise that some progress on the issue of ‘legal form’ of commitments is a deal-maker issue at this vital meeting.

There is also widespread commitment from most countries supporting the call for a decision to put in place a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol – the only internationally legally-binding mechanism we have for greenhouse gas reduction. A second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol is essential. As the Kyoto Protocol only covers 18% of global emissions, however, there is a stand-off between developed and emerging nations as to who should be covered by international emissions controls.

For the most vulnerable countries, this battle between the major emitters can seem academic and that is why they are looking at innovative strategies to close the divide between the main political players.

The environment minister has taken to describing India as ‘the most vulnerable’ country in the world. Yet his rhetoric will cut little ice with vulnerable neighbours such as Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal and Bhutan who have all called for a legally binding agreement at Cancun.

Jairam Ramesh has won a following in India amongst environmentalists for the courage he has shown in the face of vested interests in the mining sector and flown the flag for India’s environmental integrity. He has also made singularly imaginative efforts to advance a more pro-active domestic climate policy in India. For this we salute him.

But if India’s old guard of bureaucrats prevent a similarly courageous and imaginative approach being taken at the international policy level, they should know they will receive the opprobrium of young and old Indians alike.

Time is running out and the window of opportunity on climate action is closing. With every day and hour that passes without international agreement, we condemn our poorest and most vulnerable to an uncertain and insecure future.

As Indians, we call on the Minister and our government to do the right thing and join the ranks of those calling for a fair, ambitious and legally-binding agreement at Cancun. The UN cannot afford another failed climate summit and India has it in her power to make a difference. She must make the right choice.

Malini Mehra & Harish Hande
Malini Mehra is founder and chief executive, Centre for Social Markets, and H. Harish Hande, PhD is Managing Director, SELCO SOLAR Light (P) Ltd.

India Climate Watch – January 2010

January 31, 2010 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – JANUARY 2010 (Issue 10)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s desk
PM launches National Solar Mission
NAPCC to get budget and India low-carbon strategy
Regulation on Renewable Energy Certificates announced
BASIC take on Copenhagen Accord
Storm in a tea-cup? Himalayan glacier decline
Hungary’s EU presidency prioritises climate in India relations
India-Iceland partnership on geo-thermal
Indo- Pak conference discusses climate change
Himalayan water security discussed in region
Climate Action Group speaks up for Sunderbans
Events Round-up for January 2010

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting:
Kaavya Nag, Pranav Sinha, Somya Bhatt

From the Editor’s desk

The year has opened with post-Copenhagen recriminations and an unprecedented assault on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri. While Copenhagen continues to draw mixed assessments, the broadside against the IPCC and the invective carried in the UK’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper against Dr Pachauri caught many by surprise. Not that it should have. The infiltration of the email system of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) for a month late last year and the ensuing ‘Climategate’ storm with allegations of misconduct and bias by British climate scientists, should have alerted us that an orchestrated campaign against climate science had begun. Taking place conveniently in the lead-up to Copenhagen – no mistake that – Climategate sought to discredit the scientific basis for action on human-induced climate change. In that it had an effect, as opinion polls across the world showed a subsequent weakening of public confidence in assertions made by scientists and politicians for action on climate change.

Glaciergate, the revelation of mistakes in the IPCC’s peer-review process that allowed an error regarding the projected date of Himalayan glacier disappearance to appear in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, has caused similar damage to the reputation of climate scientists and the integrity of the IPCC as the gold-standard for climate research. The IPCC was slow to react to press allegations and too easily dismissed them out of hand before undertaking an internal assessment. The fact that the IPCC Chairman was under pressure at the same time for allegations of personal corruption did not help the IPCC’s media management. Beyond just a PR fiasco, the Glaciergate controversy has been highly personally damaging for Dr Pachuari and revealed for the first time the deficiencies in the IPCC’s own internal processes. Releasing a sex romp novel in the month that the IPCC came under the most intense public scrutiny of its life was perhaps not the wisest decision taken by its Chairman. Neither was the IPCC’s protracted admission that errors of oversight in the Glaciergate instance had been committed, and, indeed, that more could be expected given the IPCC’s over-reliance on scientists working in a volunteer capacity, rather than as full-time, paid professionals able to provide full due diligence of contributions. Overall, not a good month for science or scientists.

If the dirt thrown by Climategate and Glaciergate – however strongly politically-motivated by the climate-skeptic lobby – is not to stick, action must be taken swiftly. Both Dr Pachauri and the IPCC need to clear their names and re-establish the credibility that they enjoyed prior to these attacks. In the former it might well be suing those responsible for libelous personal attacks. In the case of the latter, it must surely be some degree of institutional reform to ensure that the deficiencies that have been brought to light lead to a changes in the peer-review and related processes. A number of proposals for reform of the IPCC are on the table. If the IPCC is serious about regaining public confidence – as opposed to merely the confidence of the cheerleaders of the climate advocate lobby – it must take them on board.

One thing we can be certain of – the climate skeptic and deniars lobby is not going away. The failure of the Copenhagen summit opened the gates of the last-chance saloon for the climate deniars. Here was manna from heaven. Climategate and Glaciergate have merely swelled their ranks and we will be seeing many more such orchestrated campaigns against the science, public trust, climate finance, carbon trading, and many more such issues in the coming months. We have been warned. If action on climate change is to have a chance, we will need a stronger strategy than one that has been on display so far.

PM launches National Solar Mission

After more than half a year of media leaks and speculation, the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, finally officially launched the NAPCC’s Solar Mission, named the Jawahar Lal Nehru National Solar Mission, in New Delhi on 11 January 2010. The PM issued a strong call on industry to create ’Solar Valleys’ along the lines of Silicon Valleys that had spurred the Indian IT industry across India. The PM proposed that these solar valleys become hubs for solar science, engineering and research, fabrication and manufacturing.

The National Solar Mission’s strategy is strongly predicated on research and development (R&D) as a key element of the overall intention to establish India as the global leader in solar energy. The R&D strategy includes basic research, applied research, technology validation and demonstration, R&D infrastructure in public private partnership and Centres of Excellence in thematic areas.

The National Solar Mission (NSM) proposes three major initiatives:
•   Creating volumes to allow large-scale domestic manufacture
•   A long-term policy to purchase power, and
•   Supporting R&D to reduce material consumption, improve efficiency, develop new materials and storage methods.

The PM stressed that the regulatory and incentive framework unveiled under the mission had been carefully crafted with several innovative features to rapidly scale up of capacity. This was intended to encourage technological innovation, generate economies of scale and lead to a steady lowering of costs. Once parity with conventional power tariff was to be achieved, there would be no technological or economic constraint to the rapid and large-scale expansion of solar power in India.

That is the theory at least. Press reports both before and after the official announcement were skeptical of the government reaching its targets and delivering on promises set out in the NSM. There was much pre-announcement press speculation on whether the GoI would keep to its pre-Copenhagen announced target of 20,000 MW of Solar by 2020, or whether this was being downgraded by 80-90 percent. Prominent critics such as Sunita Narain of CSE charged that the government had over-reached itself and not done its economics on the costs of solar right. The Government stuck to its guns and clarified that the 20,000 MW target would be met over a 2017-2022 timeframe. However, with ministries known to be fighting among themselves and finance for the Mission being a key sticking point, the matter was still unresolved. It is expected that clarity will be provided once the Union Budget is announced on 26 February and the allocations for different Missions under the NAPCC made clear.

NAPCC to get budget and India a low-carbon strategy

India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) may finally get some teeth this fiscal year. Nearly two years after the NAPCC’s launch in June 2008, the eight ‘missions’ outlined in it are likely to be allocated funds from the union budget. These funds are domestic funds and do not include international aid transfers. India’s special envoy on climate change, Shyam Saran, said “the ministries implementing each of the missions will be provided the necessary budget for it.” He also indicated that each of the missions would be discussed by the Planning Commission and incorporated into the twelfth five-year plan 2012-17. India Climate Watch is following developments closely and will be reporting on the 26 February 2010 Union Budget in detail in the February issue.

The flagship mission of the NAPCC, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission, officially launched by the Prime Minister on 11 January 2010 after much leaking and press speculation will also be brought into the budget plans.

Other post-Copenhagen domestic plans on the policy anvil include a low-carbon strategy for India, to be headed by a 26-member expert group under the Planning Commission. The expert group is expected to a release a report providing cost-benefit analyses for alternative low-carbon strategies for India and an action plan for critical low-carbon initiatives. This is intended to chart out a low-carbon strategy in keeping with India’s voluntary commitment to reduce its carbon emission intensity by 20-25% by 2020 compared to 2005 levels.

The expert panel is to be headed by economist Kirit Parikh and is said to include Ajay Mathur (Director, Bureau for Energy Efficiency), Ambuj Sagar (IIT Delhi) and stakeholders from business and industry. Following a first meeting in mid-January in Delhi, the group is scheduled to submit an interim report by end-April and the final plan by end-September 2010 outlining a map for low-carbon growth starting 2011. The report is intended to set specific targets throughout the 12th Five Year Plan and be consistent with the overarching objectives of poverty alleviation, sustainable development and inclusive growth.

Regulation on Renewable Energy Certificates announced

In order to promote the production of electricity from renewable energy sources, as well as develop a market for electricity, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) issued an important piece of regulation on Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) on 14 January 2010. This new framework of REC is expected to help boost the capacity of Renewable Energy (RE) in the country.

India’s Electricity Act 2003 and National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) are both intended to provide a roadmap for increasing the share of renewable in total generation capacity in the country. The Act also requires all states to purchase a certain percentage of their total electricity consumption from renewable energy sources through Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPOs). But RE resources are not evenly spread across different parts of the country and this inhibits State Electricity Regulatory Commissions in RE-deficient States from specifying higher RPOs. On the other hand, States capable of harnessing RE potential beyond the RPO level fixed by SERCs are discouraged from producing more because of higher generation costs.

The REC regulation seeks to address this mismatch between availability of RE sources and the requirement of obligated entities to meet their renewable purchase obligations. It provides a broad architecture of REC at the national level and is also expected to encourage RE capacity addition in States where there is potential for RE generation as the REC framework seeks to create a national-level market for generators to recover their cost.

Some important attributes of the regulation are:

•   Central-level agency to be designated for registration and issuance of REC to RE generators participating in the scheme.
•   Value of REC will equivalent to 1 MWh of electricity injected into the grid from renewable energy sources.
•   REC will be exchanged only in the Power Exchanges approved by CERC
•   The distribution companies, Open Access consumer, Captive Power Plants (CPPs) will have option of purchasing the REC to meet their Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPO)
•   Compliance auditors to ensure compliance of the requirement of the REC by the participants of the scheme.

BASIC take on Copenhagen Accord

Environment ministers from the BASIC grouping – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – the four developing country giants met in New Delhi recently and officially declared that they intended to “communicate information on their voluntary mitigation actions” under the Copenhagen Accord, as well as meet its 31 January 2010 deadline.

Following their meeting on 23-24 January 2010, the four nations issued a joint statement leaving little room for doubt that while the BASIC group is in support of the Copenhagen Accord, and while they will submit their voluntary mitigation actions, they clearly recognize the Accord as being “in the nature of a political document.”

India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is also understood to have sent a strongly-worded response to a letter sent by Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, urging all “friends of the Chair” (India is one of them), to publicly associate themselves with the Accord. The letter, which appears to throw UN weight behind The Accord as a political agreement (as opposed to the UN’s Kyoto and Bali Action Plan processes), may be the reason for the PM Singh’s strong response.

In their joint statement, the BASIC countries emphasised that while the Accord represents a “high level political understanding”, the UNFCCC process remains at the core of the negotiations, and is still the only game in town. And that while the Copenhagen Accord might ‘”facilitate a successful conclusion” of the two-track process under the UNFCCC, it is still the two-track processes that is the deal-making entity.

The joint statement asks the COP President (Denmark) to convene five pre-COP 16 meetings and an early flow of the USD 10 billion fast-track fund pledged for 2010 towards least developed and most vulnerable countries in the Accord. It also acknowledges the absence of the G77 Chair (Yemen) at the meeting. In effect appeasing the G77 and acknowledging the importance of funds going first and fastest to the small island states, African nations and least developed countries, as well as underscoring the importance of the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Action Plan for the developing world.

This joint statement, as well as India and China’s individual submissions to the UN with regards the Accord, have put much speculation to rest on just how much the two countries are willing to put on the table. India’s energy intensity targets are up on the table as offerings to combat climate change, but the letter sent to the UNFCCC makes no mention of the Copenhagen Accord, nor of India associating with it.

While over 95 countries have so far put in their voluntary mitigation action pledges, only four have signed on to the Copenhagen Accord. It seems evident therefore, that making pledges through the Accord is one thing, while acceding to it appears to be quite another.

Storm in a tea-cup? Himalayan glacier declineThe raging debate over the rate of glacier retreat in the Himalayas being lower than what was predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), may have calmed slightly since its turbulent beginnings some weeks back, but it has resulted in high-octane fuel being added to the climate denier camp.

What started out as a challenge to the IPCC quote: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate” (Working Group 2, page 493, Fourth Assessment Report, 2007), and the controversial “2035” year has turned into a wholescale challenge to the scientific integrity and credibility of the IPCC itself.

The projection of Himalayan glacier melt being “very likely” by 2035, apparently had its origins in a New Scientist magazine news report from 1999. The article quoted scientist Syed Hasnain, Himalayan glaciologist, as saying “most glaciers in the Himalayan region will vanish within 40 years” due to global warming – a statement the Indian scientist now challenges.

The IPCC reportedly relied on three documents, none of which were peer-reviewed – the gospel of the scientific vetting process, and what was mandated procedure for the IPCC – to arrive at the 2035 deadline. The IPCC has since issued a statement, accepting that “the assessment (of 2035) refers to poorly substantiated estimates… the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.”

Indian Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, who first challenged the 2035 deadline after a study released by the MoEF said that Himalayan glaciers are not retreating ‘abnormally’, says the retraction of this statement from the IPCC 2007 report has ‘vindicated’ his position. It must be noted, however, that Minister Ramesh’s claims of being vindicated, are not entirely based on peer-reviewed science of the highest quality. Nevertheless, the controversy over one unverified scientific prediction has been taken up by the international media and public at large, particularly by the climate denier camp, and helped damage the previously unimpeachable credentials of the IPCC.

The fact remains that the state of Himalayan glacier science and the impacts of climate change on India’s glaciers remains pathetic and this deficiency would be better addressed by more studies across all glacier types, not media brouhaha that does more damage than good. Robust and clearly justified scientific conclusions will only come once more quality data and studies are collated on Himalayan glaciers.

The hue and cry over the IPCC’s ‘Glaciergate’ has managed to distract attention from the main issue at hand – namely that glaciers around the world are in a state of retreat. While more detailed and specific studies still need to be carried out across all Himalayan nation states, a statement released by ICIMOD – a redoubtable source of regional scientific evidence on mountains – brings much needed perspective to the Himalayan glacier controversy when it concludes that the “majority of glaciers in the region are in a general condition of retreat, although with some regional differences.”

For full details on Indian media coverage, key statements and commentary on Glaciergate, go to CSM’s India/ climate change portal: www.climatechallengeindia.org

Hungary’s EU presidency to prioritise climate in India relations

Hungary together with Spain and Belgium, take over the presidency of the European Union (EU) from Sweden in 2010. In his capacity as part of the EU presidency trio, Péter Balázs, foreign minister of Hungary, paid an official visit to India between 16 – 21 January 2010. He engaged in talks with his counterpart, S.M. Krishna and reviewed several international issues. Mr. Balázs told his Indian counterpart that Hungary would give special attention to the strategic partnership of the European Union and India. Among other issues, they discussed climate change and were in agreement on climate change being one of the most important issues facing the international community. Mr. Balázs also emphasized on the use of renewable energy resources and the mutual development and application of green technologies.

Hungary, together with Spain and Belgium, have worked out priorities in the area of environmental protection during their turn at the EU presidency. Hungary has proposed giving special emphasis to five areas, including an evaluation of the 6th Environmental Action Programme and the preparation of the next such programme, sustainable development, climate change, water management and biological diversity.

India-Iceland partnership on geo-thermal

The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) organized an India-Iceland Workshop on Renewable Energy on 15 January 2010 in New Delhi, with a focus on the development and utilization of Geothermal Energy and Small Hydro Power. India had previously signed a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Iceland on Indo-Iceland Renewable Energy Cooperation in October 2007 and this was a continuation of the dialogue.

Addressing the India-Iceland workshop on Renewable Energy in New Delhi, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, Union Minister of New and Renewable Energy, said bilateral co-operation with Iceland was essential to making progress in the area of geothermal energy development. Twenty-four percent of Iceland’s energy requirements is produced by five geothermal power plants, and 87% of the country’s heating requirement is met by geothermal heating. Iceland has also been recognized by UNESCO as a region that will provide training in geothermal energy development. Mr. Abdullah indicated that Iceland’s expertise should be leveraged to train Indian scientists and technicians on all aspects of geothermal energy utilisation.

The two countries intend to establish a working committee to identify areas of cooperation and to monitor and evaluate cooperation activities. With high-temperature geothermal fields in Jammu and Kashmir as well as Chhattisgarh, the possibility of developing these are of keen interest to India.

Indo- Pak conference discusses climate change

An India-Pakistan peace conference organised in New Delhi in mid-January by the Heinrich Boell Foundation India office and partner NGOs from Pakistan also discussed climate change and its impacts on Indo-Pak relations. The climate change session was chaired by Lalita Ramdas (Chair, Greenpeace International Board). Panelists included Dr. Abid Suleri (Executive Director, Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Pakistan), Dr. Vandana Shiva (Founder, Navdanya), Farooq Tariq (Spokesperson, Pakistan Labour Party) and Amb. Chandrashekhar Dasgupta (Distinguished Fellow, TERI).

The proceedings of the conference echoed public sentiment in both India and Pakistan for peace between the two nations. However, the range of issues discussed gave a clear indication that people find climate and environmental issues as core components of a successful peace-process. A declaration at the end of the conference also saw participants resolving to work towards each of the areas identified in the sessions.

On climate change they agreed to:

•   Start common initiatives to adapt to the common challenge of climate change
•   Cooperate on international climate negotiations and within the SAARC grouping
•   Engage in joint approaches towards transfer of technology on renewable energy, adaptation and mitigation. India should assist Pakistan to develop a low carbon strategy and facilitate the transfer of regenerative technologies to Pakistan
•   Conduct joint research on ecological and climate related issues

Himalayan water security discussed in region

India’s Strategic Foresight Group (SFG) and the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies (BIPSS) organized the Second International Workshop on Himalayan Sub-regional Cooperation for Water Security in Dhaka on 15-16 January, 2010. Attended by 25 distinguished water experts from India, Bangladesh, China and Nepal, the conference affirmed that water scarcity is of major concern to the region and calls for greater collaboration over shared water resources.

The conference was a salutary reminder that increasing stress on the Himalayan region is leading to further problems of glacier retreat, floods, food security and inequity and that overcoming the challenge of increasing stress on the Himalayan river basin will require co-operation among the regional countries sharing the basin.

The workshop concluded with a declaration called the “Dhaka Declaration on Water Security”. The importance of water security in the Himalayan region and the need of a political commitment from the Basin countries were recognised. Recommendations were made by experts to prepare a roadmap for data sharing and transparency in information exchange. Establishment of joint research projects involving all countries were suggested and the issue of defending the interests of all the concerned countries were further highlighted.

Climate Action Group speaks up for Sunderbans

The Climate Action Group (CAG), an alliance of 15 civil society organisations in West Bengal, including CSM Kolkata as a founder partner, appealed to Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State for Environment & Forests, during a recent visit to Kolkata, to take urgent action on protecting and conserving the Sunderbans. In a letter submitted to the Minister in Kolkata, the CAG noted how cyclone Aila had ravaged much of coastal West Bengal in 2009 and had devastating impacts on the Sunderbans.

The CAG reminded the Minister that the Sundarbans are already subject to extreme weather conditions and rising sea levels, resulting in a loss of agriculture, livelihoods and habitation. But this combined with the impacts of climate change has put the Sunderbans’ five million people, its 54 islands, famed mangroves, Bengal tigers and other biodiversity at serious risk.

The CAG appealed to the MoEF to launch a Mission for the Sundarbans with core focus areas including Sustainable Agriculture, Safe Drinking Water, Renewable Energy and Mangrove Afforestation. The CAG has also called for the early implementation of a Disaster Management System Plan with a focus on Early Warning Systems, Evacuation Plans, and for building up a functional rescue centre for climate refugees from the Sunderbans. The CAG has also assured the Ministry of its support towards appropriate design and material for building embankments over 3,500 km along the coastline of Sunderbans.

The CAG now awaits a response from the Minister and MoEF.

Events Round-up for January 2010

1. 5-7 January 2010, EWRI’s 3rd developing nations conference: India 2010 – 3rd International Perspective on Current & Future State of Water Resources & the Environment, Chennai: This conference was organised by Environmental & Water Resources Institute (EWRI), and the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Madras. Participants were from a diverse background and professions including engineers, scientists, planners, economists and legal professionals from all over.
2. 8-15 January 2010, Energy Conclave, Kanpur: In order to address the global energy concerns of depleting fossil fuels and climate change, this eight day conclave was organised by Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. The conclave touched upon various aspects of energy issue including nuclear energy, energy policy, transport, energy delivery and PV technology and provided a platform to know, interact, exchange new ideas, discuss new developments and finally look at the challenges ahead for a sustainable future.
3. 11 January 2010, Climate Change and its impact on Indo-Pak Relations, New Delhi: As a part of India Pakistan Conference A Road map towards Peace, this session was organised at the India International Centre keeping in mind that Climate change and its impact on India Pakistan relations has become particularly relevant today, with water wars emerging as a real possibility. The session was chaired by Lalita Ramdas of Greenpeace International and included other distinguished speakers from both India and Pakistan.
4. 15-16 January 2010, Smart Energy – Generation, Promotion & Conservation, Patiala: with the aim of providing a forum and an opportunity to researchers, scientists, engineers, academicians, technologists, entrepreneurs and research scholars to exchange and share their experiences, new ideas and give views on recent developments in the areas of Smart Energy and Environment, and discuss the practical challenges encountered, changing world energy requirements and the solutions adopted this conference was organised by Chitkara University. The areas covered included clean/green power, energy management systems and smart environment protection.
5. 18-19 January 2010, New Frontiers in Biofuels, New Delhi: This conference was organised by Delhi Technological University (DTU) formerly known as Delhi College of Engineering (DCE), with the objective of harbouring a platform to facilitate the exchange of ideas and experience among scientists involved in various segments of biofuel research.
6. 19 January 2010, Assocham 12th Energy Summit, New Delhi: Organised by ASSOCHAM with the aim of providing a common platform to the representatives from the oil, gas, power, infrastructure, financing, equipment manufacturing and other related sectors for a meaningful B2B dialogue. The theme of the discussion was mainly centred on evolving and exploring business opportunities in oil & gas sector, which lay emphasis on sustainability and security aspects.
7. 23 January 2010, Environment Sustainability Leadership Program, New Delhi: Organised by the Climate Project India, it was a climate change training programme for the civil society. The objective of this program was to equip people with inspiring and comprehensive tools for spreading the critical message of climate change.
8. 24 January 2010, BASIC Meet, New Delhi: A BASIC meet was held in the Capital on 24th Jan. to build a common stand on climate and Copenhagen Accord. After the meet it was made clear that the accord is political in nature and the BASIC countries declared their support for accord. The idea of starting a climate fund to help poor nations with latest technologies to fight climate change was also given shape.
9. 26 January 2010, Inauguration of Renewable Energy Centre Developed by VSSU and ONergy at West Bengal, 24 Parganas: jointly developed and promoted by VSSU and ONergy, distribute sustainable renewable energy solutions in rural West Bengal, the Centre was inaugurated on 26th January 2010.
10. 27 January 2010, CSM’s first Kannada language 1-star (introductory) workshop on basics of Climate change: was organised in Bangalore targeting the students of Netaji S.C. Bose High School, Bangalore.
11. 28-29 January 2010, Conference on ‘Advancements in Renewable Energy Sector’, Mumbai: A two day conference was held in Mumbai with the focus on the expected dynamic growth in the Clean Energy Sectors of Solar, Wind, Waste-to-Energy, Energy Efficiency & Cogeneration. The program covered legislation, policies and regulatory overview, financing opportunities and market trends, technological innovation and case-studies with a focus on various Renewable Energy Sectors.
12. 28 January 2010, National level symposium on Energy and the Environment, Coimbatore: The main objective of this seminar which was organised by Karpagam Polytechnic College was to tap the potential and innovations from the learning minds and to find appropriate solutions for the existing challenges in the area of renewable energy and the environment and thereby transmitting the ideas for the development of the community.
13. 28 January 2010, Cleantech Mentoring Workshop, Bangalore: New Ventures India, a programme of CII-Sohrabji Godrej Green Business Centre and World Resources Institute, Washington D.C, organised this workshop in collaboration with TiE Bangalore and CIIE, Ahmedabad. The main objectives of this workshop were to Connect Cleantech entrepreneurs with investors and talent, create frank conversations about business models, risks, and collaboration and help interested talent to seek opportunities with cleantech businesses.
14. 30 January, 2010, Kolkata Sustainability Summit 2010, Kolkata: The first ever sustainability summit in Kolkata, brought together policymakers, experts and youth, to discuss a action roadmap, on how to act on sustainable and equitable development.

India Climate Watch – December 2009

December 31, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – DECEMBER 2009 (Issue 9)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s Desk
India announces energy intensity target
Minister Ramesh defends Indian red lines in Parliament
Copenhagen COP15 – A Day-by-Day Summary
Post-Copenhagen – Parliament debates the Accord
Minister clarifies Accord to Rajya Sabha

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting:
Kaavya Nag, Pranav Sinha, Somya Bhatt

From the Editor’s Desk

People will be discussing the Copenhagen climate conference for years to come. Opinions will be mixed as to whether it was a step forward or a failure. Only history will tell whether it was a turning point or a tipping point.
The Copenhagen Accord – the 3-page document to emerge from the UN Climate conference – has dubious legal status and was not adopted, simply ‘noted’, by the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 19 December 2009. Its very existence, however, could now risk the architecture established by the UNFCCC to combat global climate change.
There is much that is wrong with the agreement. It is not legally-binding, contains no mid-term or long-term targets for emissions reductions and critically does not refer to a ‘peaking’ year for global emissions in order to keep within the ‘safe’ limit of 2 degrees C of warming (since pre-industrial times).

Neither has it followed the guidance of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that indicates three benchmarks for avoiding dangerous climate change: (1) developed countries must reduce emissions by 25- 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels, (2) global emissions must peak and then begin to decline by 2020, and (3) global emissions must decline by 50% by 2050.

The Copenhagen Accord contains a reference to 2 degrees C but does not endorse it. Given that there are no targets, no peaking years, no trajectories for emissions reductions, only vague rhetoric, this is effectively an agreement for business-as-usual.
According to the Accord, countries that sign-on will not be required to adopt nationally-binding targets but invited to submit voluntary numbers. This will effectively convert what was hoped to be a high-ambition, globally-binding international regime into a more laissez-faire, self-determined ‘Pledge and Review’ system for each country with no international compliance mechanism.

Granted there are some ‘wins’ in the agreement, in four main areas: short and long-term finance; a review in 2015; transparency in monitoring, reporting and verifying (MRV) actions; and mechanisms on forests (REDD+) and technology. There is some cold comfort here. If the fast-track financing of $10 billion per year till 2012, and longer term financing of $100 billion per year by 2020, does materialize, it will come as much-needed adaptation assistance for the poorest, most vulnerable countries.

But the price paid for the Copenhagen Accord is a heavy one. The lure was the prospect of securing an Energy bill in the US Senate and finally getting US engagement in an international regime. Countries with the most to lose such as small island states, and even the European Union – which now remains the only region locked into legally-binding emissions controls – have given their acquiesance grudgingly for a deal seen as the least worst option on the table.

As a result of the low-ambition nature of the Accord, however, the EU now says that it will not raise its emissions cuts – long held as a bargaining chip – from 20 percent to 30 percent by 2020. An almost immediate chilling effect of the Accord.

Far worse, however, is the fear that if implemented according to the business-as-usual emissions targets announced so far by countries, the Accord will actually set the world on course for a 3 to 4 degree C world.

The ‘Copenhagen Accord’ is a cruel blow, a setback for millions around the world who had put their hope in their leaders to deliver on climate protection. Never before had such a constellation of groups and institutions calling for urgent and decisive action on climate change been assembled – from civil society, faith groups, business, investors, scientists, engineers and professional organizations, to the UN itself which ran an unprecedented ‘Seal the Deal’ campaign.
Leaders responded to the call and came – but they did not deliver. This is a failure of historic proportions because an ‘encore’ will be very difficult.

What Copenhagen made blindingly clear is how the world has changed. We are in a new geo-political era. Gone are the days of lazy definitions of the world as ‘developed’ and ‘developing’. The Copenhagen Accord was hammered through not by the US, EU and Japan as yesterday’s politics would have suggested. No, the Copenhagen Accord was negotiated by the US and the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China). These are the new power brokers in the climate arena – and when it comes to perceived national interest, each have shown that they will act as nakedly in their self-interest as western powers have.
It may well be that such an assessment is unfair and that the glass is half-full, instead of half-empty. At such a time in history, when the science is bleak and climate projections alarming, one has to take comfort wherever it can be found. The Copenhagen Accord might be a beginning – a first step towards a more collective approach to climate sanity by the major emitting countries, but it also marks the end of an age of illusion – and self-delusion.

India announces energy intensity target

All eyes were trained on the government this month as rumours spread of an imminent pre-Copenhagen announcement of Indian ‘numbers’ – a national target to follow on the heels of those already announced by other key developing countries such as China, Indonesia and Brazil. In a class act, Minister of State for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, eventually unveiled the GoI’s plans to a rapt Parliament on 3rd December at a special session on climate change. Coming just days before the opening of the UN climate conference in Copenhagen there was strong interest – especially amongst younger parliamentarians – on the Government’s plans for Copenhagen. The target announced in Parliament was for India to reduce its carbon intensity by 20 to 25 % below 2005 levels by 2020. An unfamiliar term, carbon intensity refers to carbon equivalents emitted per unit of GDP, and implies more ‘lock-in’ in terms of carbon emissions reduction when compared to the other soft metric, energy intensity.

Ramesh explained that meeting this target would entail a number of very specific meansure. The GoI was planning on the following: introducing mandatory fuel-efficiency standards by 2011, deploying supercritical and cleaner technologies in coal-fired power plants, and enforcing green building codes. Whilst all of these actions have already been detailed under one of the missions of the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) – the mission on Enhanced Energy Efficiency – this has now been pledged as a voluntary cut in carbon intensity internationally.

Compared to China’s voluntary target of 40 to 45 percent carbon intensity reduction, India’s numbers are low and India was the last major emerging economy to announce its pledge. Admittedly, China’s global emissions are almost five times those of India and the government has been keen to differentiate itself from China. Showing a new degree of political coordination, however, India’s announcement came shortly after the meeting of the BASIC group – Brazil, South Africa, India and China- in Beijing in late November.

Domestically, there is expected to be much debate on what carbon intensity cuts will imply, particularly for the manufacturing sector in India, and whether India should adopt a softer ‘energy intensity’ metric, rather than a ‘carbon intensity’ one. While India will not agree to any legally binding commitment that can be ‘wrapped up’ in a global agreement, this development is still within the boundaries of India’s ‘red lines’, and creates, according to Minister Jairam Ramesh, some flexibility in negotiating a climate deal.

India has agreed to have these domestic actions reported once every two years to the UN, as part of its National Communications to the UNFCCC. This is one of the major ‘gives’ India has acceded to.

For detailed commentary on the Indian target, see Malini Mehra’s piece ‘Hopenhagen – here comes India with a target and a plan’ in her Column on the Climate Challenge India Portal – www.climatechallengeindia.org

Minister Ramesh defends Indian red lines in Parliament

The 3rd December saw the Minister of State for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, lock horns with Parliamentarians in the Lok Sabha in a five-hour long session on climate that saw the Minister walk away having made his and the Government’s case with conviction and seeming to have won the house. There were eighteen interventions by MPs during the debate. Given the relevance of the responses, the Minister’s replies to key issues are provided in summary form below – largely in his own words:

India’s climate vulnerability

Forget Copenhagen, climate change is a very serious issue for India. The most vulnerable country in the world to climate change is India, not Maldives, not Bangladesh and not America because of our dependence on the monsoon, Himalayan glaciers and vast critical ecological areas which are threatened by climate change.

On per capita

The only position India had in International negotiations “Our per capita is very low; your per capita is very high; therefore we would not do anything.” Per capita is an accident of history because India could not control our population. India must negotiate from a position of strength; from a position of leadership. But, India need to offer something more to itself and to its own people, to Sunderbans, to Western Ghats, to Uttarakhand, to Himalayas, to the North-East not to the world.

India’s approach to Copenhagen

India is going to Copenhagen with flexible and positive frame of mind. Flexibility means the ability to move to rapidly evolving international situations. Being a developing country and having global aspirations; India wants to be recognised as a world power. But having global aspirations and assuming global responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. Although India has not caused the problem of global warming, it will try and make sure that it is part of the solution being constructive and proactive.

India’s ‘red lines’ for Copenhagen

The two complete, dark, bright, red lines non-negotiables for India at Copenhagen
1. Will not accept a legally-binding emissions reduction cut.
2. Will not accept an agreement which stipulates a peaking year for India.

A third red line is:

3. Subject all mitigation actions which are supported by international finance and technology to international review distinguishing between supported mitigation action and unsupported mitigation action.

But on this third non-negotiable, India could modulate its position in consultation with China, Brazil and South Africa.

On leadership

India needs to be aggressive on domestic obligation and pro-active on international obligation. India’s negotiating position is strengthened considerably if it goes to Copenhagen from a position of leadership, taking these pro-active measures and taking the responsibility as part of the 11th Five Year Plan, 12th Five Year Plan and thereafter between 2005 to 2020 our emission intensity would reduce by 20 per cent to 25 per cent on our own (Planning Commission Conclusion), in a legally non-binding agreement and to be reflected in any international agreement.

Copenhagen COP15 – A Day-by-Day Summary

7-19 December, 2009 marked the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen. In what was one of the largest conferences on the environment, Copenhagen witnessed the culmination of a two-year process that began in Bali in 2007, with 115 world leaders, 40,000 members of civil society, and unprecedented public attention. While many Parties (countries that are a ‘party’ to the UNFCCC) and most civil society organisations were hopeful of a FAB deal – and agreement that was Fair, Ambitious and Binding – what they left with was something completely different – the Copenhagen Accord.

Day 1 at Copenhagen opened with hope and anticipation at the Bella Centre, the conference venue. Most knew that a legally binding deal at Copenhagen needed a miracle, but many hoped that the outcome would put in place the process to firm up an inked commitment in Mexico at COP16 next year. Negotiators were urged to be “constructive, flexible, courageous and ambitious”, and it was decided that all Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) discussions would take place under a single contact group (as decided in Barcelona).

Key Indian negotiators, Chandrashekhar Dasgupta and Prodipto Ghosh were missing from the action, as they had still not arrived. Having challenged what they saw as the Minister’s ‘U-turns’ on India’s traditional climate negotiations, and seeking to play a hardline role, they were still in Delhi seeking ‘clarifications’ on the Environment Minister’s speech made in Parliament on 3rd December.
In the talks, the Indian delegation cautioned against mixing up the outcomes of the LCA and KP discussions with the high-level segment in week two.

Day 2 – LCA discussions broke into smaller working groups and negotiators were charged with filtering out core details of the LCA text. As the big numbers on targets, finance and commitments would be left to heads of state, negotiators were not entirely sure which non-paper to use as the basis for negotiations under each section of the LCA track. To make matters more complicated, a leaked Danish version of a proposed Copenhagen text created a buzz, with many Parties seeing it as a secretive and non-inclusive initiative that could potentially derail the focus of negotiations here.

Day 3 – President of the COP, Connie Hedegaard, chaired the Plenary sessions of the COP and COP/MOP on Wednesday. Proposals from new protocols under the Convention came from five countries at the COP. Tuvalu outlined its proposal for an amendment to the Kyoto and an additional legally binding protocol under the UNFCCC. Tuvalu’s request for a full contact group session to discuss all new proposals was backed by AOSIS, Latin America and Africa. But with India, China, Saudi Arabia and South Africa strongly opposing any such contact group, Connie Hedegaard’s proposal to establish one was shot down.

COP discussions were suspended as the intervention of the outspoken delegate, Ian Fry, from Tuvalu broken into the open the rifts within the 137-member grouping of G77 & China. Spontaneous civil society backing of the Tuvalu proposal broke out, and was marked by strong action even outside the Bella Centre.
Fry said: “Being one of the most vulnerable countries in world, our future rests on the outcome of this meeting … The time for procrastination is over. It is time to deliver.”

India rejected this and intervened four times – as did Saudi Arabia and China – to oppose formal discussions for a new protocol that would accompany the existing Kyoto Protocol, but include nations such as the USA which were not – and had clearly said that they would not be party to the Kyoto Protocol. The palpable nervousness in the room could well have been from major emerging economies wanting to maintain a Kyoto process out of the fear that a new treaty could ‘lock-in’ their own pledges and penalize them for defaulting on them.

In the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) discussions, India – supported by Saudi Arabia and China – asked for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to be included into the CDM process, even as several others advised caution on the inclusion of methodologies still under scientific review.

Day 4 – Discussions on new proposals continued, and Japan outlined its new proposal for a protocol, arguing that the Kyoto Protocol only addressed 30% of global emissions and the remaining emissions – and emitters – needed to come under the purview of a new agreement. While Annex I countries tried to get as far away from the Kyoto Protocol as possible, non-Annex I countries stressed the fact that the Kyoto Protocol was still the only legally binding instrument under the UNFCCC. Once again, Tuvalu with African, AOSIS and Latin American Parties asked to suspend the COP.

Day 5 – A 10-page draft text (for the adoption of a political statement) was tabled by the LCA and KP Chairs. The EU Council, meeting in Brussels, announced that it would contribute 2.4 billion Euro in fast-track climate financing up to 2012, and that it was willing to contribute its share to a 100 billion Euro Adaptation and Mitigation finance plan.

Indian minister of Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh arrived in Copenhagen, and once again reiterated India’s red lines. Yet, he made it clear that India was not here ‘for confrontation or scoring debate points’.

Day 6 – This marked the start of week two and the Ministerial session of the talks. COP President, Connie Hedegaard, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Yvo de Boer, convened informal discussions with ministers that continued until Sunday afternoon. At the reconvened COP, an emotional speech by Tuvalu asked for a serious consideration of its proposal, and asked Obama to honour his Nobel Peace Prize. The discussions of the LCA and KP texts showed that several Parties were dissatisfied with the text, with the EU saying the text did not give any assurance that the world could stay well below 2 degrees C. Officially, the UNFCCC secretariat said it would be difficult to expect a legally binding outcome, given the constraints of time.

India agreed with the G77 and China that the sanctity of a two-track process must be maintained, and again strongly resisted the Tuvalu proposal for discussions on a new protocol.

Marking the Global Day of Action in Copenhagen on 12th December, an estimated 30,000 people marched from the city centre towards the Bella Centre in a show of public force and demanding action for a FAB deal. However, with little progress on any discussions by end of week one, it was clear that without the major decisions in place, negotiations were unlikely to prove fruitful.

Day 7 – Any progress on LCA discussions were suspended as developing country Parties led by the Africa group asked for KP discussions to conclude first. The fear was that KP discussions would be kept for ‘later’ and that by the 18th it would be too late to decide on any issues under it. As far as the LCA Chair’s text was concerned, India had issues with six paragraphs of the text, which Jairam Ramesh said crossed the red lines.

Day 8 – Wednesday December 16th marked the start of the High-level segment with heads of state arriving and security went through the roof. As UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said “We are here today to write a different future”. With bi- and plurilateral discussions in full swing, and NGO access severely restricted to the Bella Centre, LCA discussions began only at 4:45 am on Wednesday morning. The Chair of the LCA said there was not sufficient consensus on areas of disagreement, and pleaded to Parties to move forward on the text. While delegates were kept awake throughout the night, the closing plenary was shifted to late morning on Thursday 17th owing to some ‘major problems’ that some Parties had with the texts.

India’s Jairam Ramesh was seen to keep a low profile during this time, only to be caught on camera while coming out of a conference to say that the Kyoto Protocol is in ‘intensive care if not dead’.

Day 9 – Discord and a fair amount of chaos marked the three days of the High-level Segment, with the Danish Prime Minister – who took over from Connie Hedegaard as President of the COP when the heads of state began to arrive – tabling the Danish text which was “put forward from the sky” in the words of a disgruntled Brazilian delegate. Supported by China, Brazil indicated that the procedure had been far from transparent, and that the AWGs were the only legitimate basis for negotiations.

France and the chair of the Africa Group, Ethiopia issued a joint call to limit warming below 2 degrees.

India asked for a preservation of the two track process, and Jairam Ramesh called Australia the ‘Ayatollah of the one-track process’ for its insistence on a single comprehensive outcome.

Day 10 – The resumed meeting of the COP saw little progress, even as heads of state began to arrive, owing to significant procedural wrangling. The High-level Segment continued throughout the day, even as the halls of the Bella Centre remained empty without civil society presence. The one good news for the day came with the arrival of US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who announced that the US would contribute to mobilizing a global fund of USD 100 billion a year by 2020 for poor and vulnerable countries on condition that major economies take meaningful mitigation actions and agree to full transparency. Japan re-announced its Hatoyama initiative, and pledged USD 11 billion in public finance towards developing country mitigation and adaptation actions.

Jairam Ramesh said his talks with Hillary Clinton were constructive, saying they had agreed 75% on a 4-point agenda for transparency on MRV. He also said the conditions for a political deal were present.

Separately, Jairam Ramesh and US Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, released Technology Action Plans to advance bilateral and multilateral cooperation on clean technology development.

Another faint ray of the day was the announcement that the two-track process would continue.

Day 11 – At the closing COP Plenary in the early hours of 18th December, Parties adopted the decision to extend the AWG-LCA’s mandate, since no decision had been reached at Copenhagen.

Following a lack-lustre and US-focused speech at the informal heads of state session, President Obama cancelled a one-on one meeting with Danish Prime Minister, to go into a multilateral meeting with several heads of state.

High drama and a turning point took place in an action-packed day (and night), when President Obama strode into a meeting of the Heads of State of the BASIC country group – Brazil, South Africa, India and China, saying “we really need a deal”. In an open attempt to persuade the BASIC countries agree to a consensus draft, he reportedly said “it is better to take one step forward than two steps back. I’m willing to be flexible”.

The essentials of a Copenhagen Accord were drafted by Heads of State themselves, with details left to negotiators. 28 nations, representative of all regional groupings, discussed the US/BASIC draft and rubber stamped the political agreement. As President Nasheed of the Maldives said, “The Copenhagen Accord is amicable – not the best, but a beginning that can migrate to bigger ambitions”.

Day 12 – Now well into overtime, the COP moved into Saturday 19th December for a plenary discussion on the BASIC-US deal that had been hammered out in the closed group of 28 countries the night before. Brought into the larger plenary of 193 nations, the Copenhagen Accord was not adopted – despite efforts by the UK, Maldives and others – due to vocal objections by a small number of Parties – Sudan, Venezuela, Bolivia, Tuvalu and a handful of others – who objected to the process by which this political agreement had been reached. Overtired delegations, struggled to stay awake through the marathon morning session.

The Danish prime minister – a novice at the diplomacy and technical skill required to run such an intergovernmental process had been persuaded to leave as Chair and in his place, seasoned officials took over and gaveled a swifter way to the end. Parties maintained their positions on fundamental issues to the bitter end, and a lack of consensus meant that ‘consultations’ would have to be undertaken in the following year. The Copenhagen Accord was merely ‘taken note of’ but COP decisions to extend the mandate of the LCA and KP working groups extended.

The “most important meeting in the history of the world” had come to an end.

For more detailed daily reporting from Copenhagen by CSM, see the Daily ICWs (India Climate Watch reports) from Copenhagen on the CCI Portal: www.climatechallengeindia.org

Post-Copenhagen – Parliament debates the Accord

Soon after Jairam Ramesh returned from Copenhagen, he presented India’s actions there, and defended the Copenhagen Accord to members of India’s upper house of Parliament, the Rajya Sabha. Highlighting India’s role in the drafting of the negotiations and defending India’s ‘red lines’, he detailed aspects of the Copenhagen Accord and emphasized that India’s red lines had been defended.

While admitting that India had deviated from its original stand on certain issues such as monitoring and verification (MRV) and agreed to a qualitative peaking – measured in terms of maximum global temperature rise of 2 degree Celsius – he assured MPs that this was not a breach of sovereignty, nor undermining India’s development interests. Rather, that this was to bring in more flexibility into India’s stand, considering the need to be ‘upfront’ in our thinking, and ‘not remaining frozen in time’. Ramesh stressed that in his opinion India did play a constructive role at the talks, but of note, was his reference to the need to ‘deepen our capacity to pursue proactive climate diplomacy internationally’. Clearly the government sees itself playing a more climate-sensitive and proactive role on this issue in the future, and could potentially display real leadership on the issue internationally.

Copenhagen was the beginning of a long road, one on which India has only begun to stretch its diplomatic wings and flex its political muscles. While the Copenhagen Accord in itself, is more likely than not, a beginning rather than a finished product, strong rebuffs came from the leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley. He called it a US-BASIC plurilateral Accord that was likely to be accepted by other countries in the course of time, but that was a complete betrayal of poor and developing nations – and one that let developed nations off the hook. Using the Copenhagen Accord as reference, Jaitley raised some pointed questions about what this accord now implies for the Kyoto Protocol, on text that makes developing countries ‘cooperate to achieve peaking of global emissions’, on unsupported mitigation actions being subject to some form of international ‘consultation’, and the lack of mention of intellectual property rights for technology transfer in the entire document.

Jaitley indicated that an in-principle acceptance of peaking only meant a time had yet to be fixed for this, while India had previously said any reference to peaking was not acceptable to India. While he may have been expecting too much for India to be on the priority adaptation finance list, he correctly pointed out that “we are either hiding behind somebody or we are out to please somebody’” While we should not be seen as the ‘fall guys’, our own interests must not fall, he said.

A lawyer by profession, Jaitley stressed the weak links in the Copenhagen Accord, particularly the fact that the language stands diluted on a phrase by phrase basis: from ‘will achieve’ to ‘in pursuit of’, from ‘sustained implementation’ to ‘will be guided by’.

The CPM Politburo also expressed its dissatisfaction with the Accord, and slammed it for “killing the Kyoto Protocol” and negating the ‘differentiated responsibility’ principles on which the UN climate convention was based. The Communist party MPs also raised concerns about the ambiguity of the text of the Copenhagen Accord and its ‘flexible nature’, which could allow several interpretations of the same text. Sitaram Yechury said “we have opened windows for the possible jettisoning of the entire United Nations framework”’.

D. Raja, MP from Tamil Nadu and former environment minister, said the only plus point about the Copenhagen negotiations was that the negotiation process did not break down completely.

In his response, the Minister acceded that on peaking year there had been a nuanced shift from India’s previous position, but he stressed that at some time or other, India had to decide a peaking year, and that that peaking year could not obviously be set in the next century. He defended the decision to have ‘international consultations’ on the national communications, which would include details on India’s unsupported mitigation actions, as there was a clear clause on national sovereignty. He said it was a bit much to expect India to receive any funds for adaptation when island states, African nations and least developed countries were most in need of such funds. He also placed great emphasis on recognizing India’s technological prowess in the development of clean technologies and the need to recast the technology transfer debate in the light of this reality.

While defending certain – in his own words – “nuanced shifts” in position during the negotiations, the Minister’s responses suggested a gradual evolution of the way in which climate mitigation and international climate politics are being approached. Subtle hints and comments from both Jairam Ramesh and Manmohan Singh reveal that the government has bigger plans in mind, and that it intends to see some of those plans through.

Minister clarifies Accord to Rajya Sabha

The Copenhagen climate conference finished on Saturday 19th December and within a day of the Indian delegation’s return to Delhi, Minister Jairam Ramesh was on the podium in Parliament on 22nd December, responding to the high degree of interest amongst India’s lawmakers on the outcome of the conference. This was also a time when emotions were running high with those dissatisfied with the outcome of the talks. In the upper house, the Rajya Sabha, concerns were largely to do with India not having sold out, or accepted a deal that would not be in the ’national’ or ‘developmental’ interest.

The Minister answered in detail and given some degree of confusion and mis-reporting in press reports and commentary, his replies to key issues that attracted attention are provided below:

On the death of the Kyoto Protocol

The Copenhagen Accord does not spell the demise of the Kyoto Protocol. It accepts that the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol will continue in 2010, but provides an alternative alignment. India is committed to taking the negotiations forward in 2012 which will culminate in Mexico. It is no secret that many countries want to leave the Kyoto Protocol. The accord was critical to bring the US into the mainstream of international environmental negotiations because they are the world’s number two emitter, accounting for almost 22 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions.

On MRV (monitoring, reporting and verification)

Before Copenhagen, India’s position was that it would accept international information reporting as far as our unsupported actions are concerned, but has now moved from the word ‘information’ to ‘consultations’ and ‘analysis in the Copenhagen Accord. In this respect, India’s position has shifted. But that is what meant by flexibility and this was not a unilateral decision of India, this was a decision taken collectively by China, Brazil, South Africa and India.

Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod’s statement – that the US would not only “review” the implementation of domestic actions by India and China in tune with the Copenhagen Accord but also “challenge” them if these goals were not met – was meant purely for domestic consumption to convince the US Congress and trade unions that China and India have been brought on board.

On peaking years

The Copenhagen Accord talks of global peaking but the Accord also talks of a longer timeframe for developing countries. It talks about the peaking in the context of the overriding priority being given to poverty eradication and livelihood security. The GoI has not accepted any peaking year for developing countries. But India should peak in the 21st century. Now, in which year in the 21st century, time alone will tell. But if India doesn’t peak in the 21st century, there may not be a 22nd Century.

On finance and technology transfer

India does not need any international aid and can stand on our own feet. Green technology is an area where India can emerge as a world leader. Ten years from now, India should be selling green technology to the world. Nobody is going to transfer technology for free and this needs to be negotiated and bought on commercial terms. Many Indian companies have already seen business opportunities in this. China has moved ahead. Today, of the top 10 solar companies in the world, four are Chinese. This is an opportunity for Indian technology to move ahead. In next few years India will be selling technology rather than keep repeating the stale mantra of technology transfer all the time.

India requires international financial assistance but not in the same category as Bangladesh or the Maldives or Ethiopia or Saint Lucia or Granada. There are countries in Africa, countries in small island states, countries in Asia which require more urgently than us for adaptation and mitigation. A country like India should be able to stand on its own feet and say ‘we will do what we have to do on our own.’ Why are we getting into this syndrome of always looking for international finance and international technology?

India Climate Watch – November 2009

November 30, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – NOVEMBER 2009 (Issue 8)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

UNFCCC hits buffers in Barcelona
10th EU-India Summit
PM state visit to USA
PM at Commonwealth Heads Meet
Jairam Ramesh visits China
MoEF Glacier report
JN National Solar Mission
Delhi climate change plan
Fuel efficiency labeling
BASIC grouping
India-Australia climate partnership
India-Egypt energy partnership
National climate events round-up

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting
Kaavya Nag, Pranav Sinha, Somya Bhatt, Malini Mehra

UNFCCC hits buffers in Barcelona

The UNFCCC resumed the last leg of its negotiations before the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in Barcelona from 2-6 November. The ‘two-track’ approach adopted since the Bali Action Plan of 2007 saw the ninth session of the AWG-KP (Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol) and the seventh session of the AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention) take place.
Regrettably, the meeting started in disagreement and ended in disagreement. With only five crucial negotiating days before the two week UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen, officials saw almost two days knocked off their schedule as a result of open disputes between nations.

On the opening day –partly as a result of rumours that the EU, Japan, Russia and others were seeking to ‘kill’ Kyoto and partly as a show of force by some developing countries – the African Group staged an impromptu and apparently unofficial walk-out from the negotiations. This caused consternation and seemed to be welcomed and reviled in equal measure. The consequence was almost two days lost from the negotiation schedule but a clear political signal sent that the delay in announcement of mitigation figures and finance numbers by key developed countries was no longer acceptable if progress on the two tracks was to be expected.

India welcomed this move although officials were reluctant to go on the record. The negotiations never really picked up from the drama of the walk-out and little progress was made on the key issues of mitigation and finance that had provoked the dispute in the first place.

Speaking at the end of the conference – and putting a brave face on the outcome – the UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Yvo de Boer talked up what he called “significant advances” in the negotiations on adaptation, technology transfer, capacity-building and reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD).

On the make-or-break issues of numerical mid-term emissions reduction targets – especially for the US which remains outside the Kyoto Protocol, and short- and long-term finance, de Boer called for industrialized countries to raise their game and make the announcements in order to avoid continuing deadlock.

Barcelona left the talks in the holding pattern that we had seen coming out of Bangkok. Although the five-day meeting was preceded by a ministerial meeting hosted by Danish Minister Connie Hedegaard, there was little sign that governments were going to make any further moves until just before Copenhagen.

10th European Union-India Summit

The Tenth India-European Union Summit was held in New Delhi on 6 November. India was represented by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The EU was represented by Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of Sweden, in his capacity as President of the Council of the European Union, and Jose Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission.

The EU and India addressed climate change, energy security, terrorism and other global issues. Leaders also discussed the international response to the global financial crisis, as well as reforming international financial institutions following the G20-Pittsburgh meeting. The summit underlined a joint commitment to achieve progress in negotiations on a bilateral trade and investment agreement.

In the field of climate change and energy, the summit underlined the importance of early implementation of the Joint Work Program on Energy, Clean Development and Climate Change, especially cooperation in solar energy, development of clean coal technology and increase in energy efficiency. It also welcomed the launch of call for proposals focusing on solar power technologies amounting to € 10 million, and two Euopean Investment Bank loans totaling € 250 Million.

Climate Change

India and the EU underlined that climate change is one of the most important global challenges. They reaffirmed the provisions and principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including that of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and will work together to achieve an ambitious and globally agreed equitable outcome of Copenhagen based on the principles and provisions of UNFCCC and the Bali Action Plan.

They recognised the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees Celsius but this objective should take into account the overriding priority of poverty eradication and social and economic development of the developing countries.

They agreed that, in the fight against climate change, equal priority had to be given to mitigation and adaptation, and recognised the critical role of enabling financial and technological support to developing countries to this end. The EU highlighted the importance of the EU Energy and Climate package. India highlighted the importance of its National Action Plan on Climate Change. They will prepare ambitious, credible and country-owned climate-friendly plans including adaptation and mitigation actions and will work together to implement the agreed outcome at Copenhagen.

Energy and Energy Efficiency

Both sides noted the ongoing cooperation under the India-EU energy panel and underlined the need also in this context to focus on energy efficiency, clean coal technology, energy conservation and renewable energy, and expressed their intent to develop expeditiously their cooperation efforts in these areas. To this end the leaders welcomed the launch of the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC) in May 2009 at the G8+5 Energy Ministerial Meeting in Rome and the ongoing establishment of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the Indian Government also signed a cooperation agreement in the field of fusion energy research during the summit. Fusion is the technology which aims to reproduce the physical reaction – fusion – that occurs in the sun and stars.

India-Australia meet discuss climate change

The Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd visited India from 11-12 November, his first visit to India as Prime Minister. Rudd’s travel to India follows the recent visits by the Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister, Julia Gillard, and Australia’s ministers for Immigration and Citizenship, Trade, Foreign Affairs and the Australian Treasurer. Together these visits demonstrate the key priority that Australia is giving to its relationship with India.

The focus of the visit was meetings with business and political leaders covering the full breadth of the fast growing Australia-India relationship including strategic affairs; shared multilateral priorities; energy and climate change; sport; high-end science, technology and education collaboration; and the fast growing economic and trade partnership.

Energy, climate change and water cooperation

Both leaders stressed the determination of Australia and India to work together to achieve a comprehensive, fair and effective outcome at Copenhagen, with the involvement of all countries. Rudd noted India’s plans to meet its future energy requirements by exploring and developing all sources of energy, including nuclear, renewable and non-conventional resources.

Both sides recognized the benefits of enhancing bilateral commercial exchanges of renewable and non-renewable energy resources and expressed their willingness to join efforts which promote a cooperative response to any global energy crisis, noting the important role of open and transparent energy trade and investment markets.

In developing a global response to climate change, the leaders agreed to engage constructively with each other, and with other countries, including under the UNFCCC and in other multilateral fora such as the East Asia Summit (EAS) and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP).

The Australian Government will provide A$1 million (4.315 crore rupees) to support a joint solar cooling and mini-grids project being undertaken by India’s The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
The Prime Ministers noted the positive contribution being made by the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI). An International Advisory Panel, which includes a TERI representative, will play a key role in guiding the work of the GCCSI.

A Memorandum of Understanding in the Field of Water Resource Management was also signed. Rudd also announced Australia would devote $20 million in funding over five years under the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research for joint research in dry-land agriculture in India.

A knowledge partnership

Building on the success of the Australia-India Strategic Research Fund, Australia will increase its commitment to bilateral research efforts to $10 million per year for the next five years, which will be matched by India. The expanded fund will introduce a new ‘grand challenge’ component, which will support large-scale research projects designed to deliver practical solutions to some of the major challenges like” energy”, “food and water security”, “health” and “the environment” in both countries.

Delhi adopts climate change plan

In alignment with the National Action Plan on Climate Change, the National Capital territory of Delhi came out with the Climate Change Agenda 2009-2012 on 5 November. Delhi now seeks to become a role model for the rest of the states by being the first e to release a separate climate action plan. This plan was drafted and completed after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asked each state’s environment minister to come up with a climate action plan to suit their regional needs and issues. It was released by Union Minister Jairam Ramesh in the presence of the State Minister Sheila Dikshit.

With the aim of making Delhi pollution free and tackling the issues related to climate change the plan presents sixty-five ambitious targets to be completed in a span of three years. These are divided across six core missions of Enhanced Energy Efficiency, Sustainable Habitat, Strategic Knowledge, Green India, Water Mission and Solar Mission. The main highlights of the plan included promotion of battery operated vehicles, introduce more CNG buses, encouraging use of solar power, promotion of CFLs, and increase use of bio-fuels, closing down of thermal power plants, installation of electronic waste facility among others. It has its basic missions picked up from the NAPCC which are presented with a new packaging.

The state level plan aims at retrofitting of buildings for energy efficiency as a part of solar-power mission but fails to mention about any mandatory emission standards. Similarly new policy measures like congestion pricing, tax relaxation for cleaner fuels, tax on diesel vehicles, switching over of all three wheelers to battery etc will take forceful mechanisms and strong political will to actually bear desired results in the given span of time.

The Delhi plan drew forth stinging criticism from the Minister for Environment & Forests, Jairam Ramesh, who charged that most of the claims made by the Delhi government were unfounded and that the plan would only be fruitful if what is mentioned in papers was practiced on the ground. He challenged the claims made about converting all buses to CNG suggesting these were a result of local city leadership and argued instead that this occurred as a result of Supreme Court intervention and rulings. Similarly he deplored what he saw as little progress on river clean-up of theYamuna despite a grant of 14,000 crore from a Japanese Bank.
No doubt the Delhi climate change action plan will attract supporters and detractors. The key thing is that the city government has finally put a roadmap on the table for vigorous engagement with stakeholders.

MoEF issues Glacier report

Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh released a report on the Himalayan glaciers in early November. The report reviews glacial studies and glacial retreat in India, as has been prepared ex-Deputy Director General of the Geological Survey of India V.K. Raina. Regrettably, what was hoped to “encourage informed science-based discussion and debate on critical environmental issues” is replete with biased and unscientific statements that have put the report in muddy waters. To add to the wide discrediting of the report, its untimely release comes just after India met with other SAARC countries (including 3 other Himalayan nations) and pledged to take action on climate change, and after the meeting of Himalayan Chief Minsiters in Simla to discuss a roadmap for development in a climate constrained world.

The report has come under fire from scientists studying the issue, including scientists from TERI, who say the report has completely missed out peer-reviewed scientific literature post 1980 – the period after which climate impacts became visible. For example, the report makes no mention of measurements that show glacial retreat in 466 glaciers in the Chenab region3, of an eight percent glacier area loss in Bhutan between 1963 and 1993 (Karma et al. 2003 in WGMS 2008), or an annual ice thickness loss of 0.8 m.w.e between 1994 and 2004 (Berthier et al. 2007 in WGMS 2008) closer to home, in Himachal Pradesh, or studies that indicate that 67% of glaciers in the Himalaya are retreating, with the main factor for retreat identified as climate change5.

This and the omission of reference of key scientific literature including Geological Survey of India (GSI) studies (Vohra, 1981 on Satluj River Basin glaciers, and Shukla and Siddiqui, 1999, on the Milam glacier), and reports from ICIMOD based on long-term monitoring studies in the Nepal and Bhutan Himalayas raises questions as to whether there is a political agenda behind releasing the report at this time.

Claim to fame

The report challenges internationally-accepted views that the Himalayan glaciers are receding due to climate change. Its concluding remarks suggest “glaciers in the Himalayas, although shrinking in volume and constantly showing a retreating front, have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat…”.

Such statements openly challenge the understanding that global warming is contributing to the large-scale retreat of glaciers around the world and to most glaciers in regions such as the Himalayas to recede substantially. Glacier changes are recognized as high-confidence climate indicators, and considered as evidence for climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Reports from the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) indicate that measurements taken over the last century “clearly reveal a general shrinkage of mountain glaciers on a global scale” (WGMS report). Despite this, this government report suggests that “to postulate that a glacier can warn of climate changes likely to take place in the future is a big question mark”.

The paper provides a summary of the history of glaciological science in India, and insights from such studies so far. However, it fails to mention international peer-reviewed scientific literature from studies within or outside of India (rest of Himalayas and Hindu Kush mountain regions), nor does it mention any IPCC reports and publications.

The MoEF/ Raina report argues that “none of the glaciers under monitoring are recording abnormal retreat”. It also indicates that the Kangriz glacier has “practically not retreated even an inch”. But such strangely unsubstantiated claims of “not even an inch”, “abnormal retreat”, “hardly any retreat” and “slowed down considerably” undermine their own credibility as scientific statements are based.

If merely words were an issue, disregard for ‘climate’ and ‘climate change’ is seen through statements such as ‘recent years’ by which the report means 2007-09. Clearly two years is too short a period to make sweeping conclusions about glaciers and climate science.

And yet, in direct contrast to statements aimed to generate disbelief in glacier retreat are data and photographs of these glaciers in the report itself. Below is an image of the Kangriz glacier (image also from report), which the report claims retreated ‘not even by an inch’. Where is the ice in the image on the right hand side?

The report awaits ‘many centuries’ of data to conclude that glacier snout movements are a result of ‘periodic climate variation’ or to make a statement that glaciers in the Himalayas are ‘retreating abnormally because of global warming’.

India-Egypt energy partnership

Indian-Egyptian joint investment history dates back to 1970s. As many as 275 Indian companies have been established in Egypt between the time span of January 1970 to September 2009. In October this year first Egypt invited more Indian investment in the country particularly in infrastructure projects to achieve a high growth rate and secure more jobs for its youth. Then later in November the Egyptian Minister for Energy and Electricity Hassan Younnes solicited Indian investment in Renewable energy in Egypt and put forward attractive offers like providing free land and government guarantee with every purchase and reducing the customs duty on renewable energy equipment from 2% to 0%. He said that they aim build the renewable energy projects by keeping 67% under private sector and 33% under Renewable Energy Authority.

Egypt has immense potential for tapping solar and wind energy owing to its climate and topography as stated by Hassan Younnes, and therefore he offered to provide subsidies for wind and solar energy projects. At present the solar of Egypt is 440 MW which is expected to increase up to 550 MW by May 2010. For wind energy project the government has already shortlisted one Indian firm. The aim is to increase the share of renewable energy in power sector from the current share of 10.5% to 20% by 2020.

Union Minister for Renewable Energy Farooq Abdullah and Minister of State for Power Bharatsinh Solanki stated that an MOU would possibly be signed when Dr. Farroq Abdullah visits Egypt in February next to increase cooperation in renewable energy.

Dr. Hassan who himself is a Ph.D. in electrical power engineering said that the reasons he was keen on promoting renewable energy share in the power sector is due to the exhaustible nature of oil and natural gas and the need for reducing greenhouse gas emissions which are the main cause of climate change. Thus the Egyptian minister also demonstrated his concern and willingness towards decreasing global GHG emissions and reducing the pressure on non-renewable natural resources.

Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission

The Government of India approved the Solar Mission under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCCC) on 23rd November 2009 and has renamed it after the first Prime minister of India Jawahar Lal Nehru. Although draft for the mission was finalised in April 2009 itself and got an in-principle nod from the Climate Change Council headed by the PM in August 2009. This Mission is one of the eight key National Missions which comprise India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change. The objective of the National Solar Mission is to establish India as a global leader in solar energy, by creating the policy conditions for its diffusion across the country as quickly as possible.

The Mission will adopt a 3-phase approach, spanning the remaining period of the 11th Plan and first year of the 12th Plan (up to 2012-13) as Phase 1, the remaining 4 years of the 12th Plan (2013-17) as Phase 2 and the 13th Plan (2017-22) as Phase 3. The third phase has been extended by 2 years from 2020 to 2022 to bring synergy with country’s 5 year plan development targets.

The first phase (up to 2013) will focus on capturing of the low-hanging options in solar thermal; on promoting off-grid systems to serve populations without access to commercial energy and modest capacity addition in grid-based systems. The Cabinet has approved setting up of 1,100 MW of grid solar power and 200 MW capacities of off-grid solar applications utilizing both solar thermal and photovoltaic technologies in the first phase of the Mission. In the second phase, capacity will be aggressively ramped up to create conditions for up scaled and competitive solar energy penetration in the country.

Mission Targets:

To create an enabling policy framework for the deployment of 20,000 MW of solar power by 2022.
To create favourable conditions for solar manufacturing capability, particularly solar thermal for indigenous production and market leadership.
To promote programmes for off grid applications, reaching 1000 MW by 2017 and 2000 MW by 2022.
To achieve 15 million sq. meters solar thermal collector area by 2017 and 20 million by 2022.
To deploy 20 million solar lighting systems for rural areas by 2022.
To ramp up capacity of grid-connected solar power generation to 1000 MW within three years – by 2013; an additional 3000 MW by 2017 through the mandatory use of the renewable purchase obligation by utilities backed with a preferential tariff. This capacity can be more than doubled – reaching 10,000MW installed power by 2017 or more, based on the enhanced and enabled international finance and technology transfer. The ambitious target for 2022 of 20,000 MW or more, will be dependent on the ‘learning’ of the first two phases.

Policy and regulatory framework

National Tariff Policy, 2006 would be modified to mandate that the State electricity regulators fix a percentage for purchase of solar power. The solar power purchase obligation for States may start with 0.25% in the phase I and to go up to 3% by 2022. This could be complemented with a solar specific Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) mechanism to allow utilities and solar power generation companies to buy and sell certificates to meet their solar power purchase obligations.
In order to enable the early launch of “Solar India” and encourage rapid scale up, a scheme is being introduced in cooperation with the Ministry of Power, the NTPC and the Central Electricity Authority, which would simplify the off-take of solar power and minimize the financial burden on Government.
Establish a single window investor-friendly mechanism, which reduces risk and at the same time, provides an attractive, predictable and sufficiently extended tariff for the purchase of solar power for the grid.
NTPC’s wholly owned subsidiary company engaged in the business of trading of power – NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. (NVVN) will be designated as nodal agency by the Ministry of Power (MoP) for entering into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Solar Power Developers.
Fiscal incentives – It is also recommended that custom duties and excise duties concessions/ exemptions be made available on specific capital equipment, critical materials, components and project imports.
Solar Manufacturing – To take a global leadership role in solar manufacturing (across the value chain) of leading edge solar technologies and target a 4-5 GW equivalent of installed capacity by 2020, including setting up of dedicated manufacturing capacities for poly silicon material to annually make about 2 GW capacity of solar cells.
Research and Development
Setting up a high level Research Council comprising eminent scientists, technical experts and representatives from academic and research institutions, industry, Government and Civil Society to guide the overall technology development strategy.
A National Centre of Excellence (NCE) shall be established to implement the technology development plan formulated by the Research Council and serve as its Secretariat.
The Research Council, in coordination with the National Centre of Excellence, inventorize existing institutional capabilities for Solar R&D and encourage the setting up of a network of Centres of Excellence, each focusing on an R&D area of its proven competence and capability.

Financing

Budgetary support for the activities under the National Solar Mission established under the MNRE;
International Funds under the UNFCCC framework, which would enable upscaling of Mission targets.

PM state visit to USA

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh led a delegation of ministers and business leaders to Washington DC this November when he and President Barack Obama had their first official engagement in the US capital. The PM’s visit was the first State visit to the US by a foreign dignitary under the new Obama Administration. The Indo-US visit was headlined by cooperation on issues such as nuclear energy, terrorism, trade, investment, agriculture, clean energy and climate change. A dizzying number of MoUs were signed including one on energy security, clean energy and climate change which would feed into the India-US Energy dialogue and the India-US bilateral dialogue on Global Climate Change announced earlier in July 2009.

The MoU seeks to establish an India–US Clean Energy Research and Deployment Initiative, with a Joint Research Center to promote innovation and cooperation to accelerate deployment of clean energy technologies. Priority areas of focus for this Initiative may include: energy efficiency, smart grid, second-generation biofuels, and clean coal technologies including carbon capture and storage; solar energy and energy efficient building and advanced battery technologies; and sustainable transportation, wind energy, and micro-hydro power.

This MoU was a component of a new ‘Green Partnership’ announced by Prime Minister Singh and President Obama on 24 November 2009. Sounding remarkably reminiscent of the language on display at the G8 meeting in Pittsburgh earlier this year, the Green Partnership sought to “reaffirm (the US and India’s) strong commitment to taking vigorous action to combat climate change, ensuring their mutual energy security, working towards global food security, and building a clean energy economy that will drive investment, job creation, and economic growth throughout the 21st century.”

The leaders ran through a list of new initiatives as part of a new drive to deepen cooperation on energy, agriculture and climate change issues. Other initiatives mentioned were new funds to support clean energy projects in India, two further MOUs on Solar Energy and Wind Energy enabling the lead bodies, the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) and India’s Solar Energy Centre to partner to develop a comprehensive nation-wide map of solar energy potential. It was announced that “more than two dozen U.S. and Indian cities will partner to jointly advance solar energy deployment”. On the wind energy side, the NREL and
India’s Centre for Wind Energy Technology would collaborate to develop a low-wind speed turbine technology program.

India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests also announced it would team up with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to support Indian efforts to establish an National Environmental Protection Authority focused on creating a more effective system of environmental governance, regulation and enforcement.

On the agriculture side, a number of initiatives to promote joint research on productivity and food security were flagged with climate change a key feature. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and India’s Ministry of Earth Sciences would lead on collaboration to “more accurately forecast monsoons, and thereby reduce risks associated with climate change and to develop early warning systems to protect people and crops from the adverse effects of extreme weather.”

All in all a blizzard of pronouncements by both sides. The visit was short of detail on how these initiatives would be implemented. Significantly, little was mentioned of the role of external stakeholders in giving these initiatives practical form and energy. Given the well-known capacity constraints on the GoI side, this seems an important point for concerned parties to follow up with the relevant ministries on.

PM at Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM)

The Caribbean island nation of Trinidad and Tobago was host this year to the annual meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh attended on behalf of India and made his way to Port of Spain the capital city at the end of his US state visit. CHOGM this year had a strong climate change focus and the PM made an intervention in the special session on the subject.

Held on 27 November, the meeting sought – in the Prime Minister’s words – to “send a powerful political message to Copenhagen so as to ensure an ambitious, substantive and equitable outcome.” He assured the Danish Prime Minister present at CHOGM that “my delegation will play a constructive and positive role and support all his efforts to secure a successful outcome. ” In his speech, Dr Singh expressed solidarity with the small island nations and vulnerable African countries, he also made a number of clarifying statements on issues regarding the potential outcome of Copenhagen as well as India’s red lines in terms of acceptance of an agreement.

On the legally-binding versus political agreement discussion currently taking place around the world, this is what the PM had to say:
“A view has been expressed that given the limited amount of time available, we should aim for a political outcome rather than a legally binding outcome. Our view is that we should not pre-empt the Copenhagen negotiating process. Whatever time is still available to us before the High Level Segment meets from December 16, should be used to achieve as much convergence as possible. If the consensus is that only a political document is feasible then we must make certain that the post-Copenhagen process continues to work on the Bali mandate and the UNFCCC continues to be the international template for global climate action. We must avoid any lowering of sights.”

On its core red line – which refers to arrangements agreed for burden sharing in terms of climate change mitigation, the Prime Minister said: “India is willing to sign on to an ambitious global target for emissions reductions or limiting temperature increase but this must be accompanied by an equitable burden sharing paradigm. We acknowledge the imperative of science but science must not trump equity.”

Fuel-efficiency standards for automobile sector

Transport sector contributes about 15 to 20 per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in India. At present, transport sector is placed at number three after the power and agriculture sector as far as the national emissions are concerned. But the rate at which the automobile sector is growing our own estimations are that by the year 2030 it could account close to 25 per cent of our GHG emissions.

The government of India is in the final stage of notifying the fuel efficiency standards for automobile sector in the country which will be enforced from 2011. After long tussle between Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Bureau of Energy Efficiency, the Prime Minister’s Office has finally given the authority to Bureau of Energy Efficiency to formulate the norms for auto fuel economy and notify the heavy industries, surface transport and power ministries about them under the Energy Conservation Act of India. It also stipulated that the implementation of these norms will be a responsibility of the surface transport ministry. Although in all likelihood BEE will formulate the norms and notify them under the Energy Conservation Act while the surface transport ministry will ensure the implementation.

Currently, administrative formalities are being finalised on how these standards has to be notified either through the Energy Conservation Act or the Motor Vehicles Act. By 2011, it will be mandatory for automobile manufacturers to sell vehicles with energy-efficiency tags, and adding information on the labels will have to be certified by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE). The industry has already come on board for voluntary certification, and in two years will take on the mandatory norms

The labelling of vehicles will not be based on one standard but different standards for different categories of automobiles such as small cars and commercial vehicles. Also, India will follow a conventional route of legislating the KMP (kilometre per hour) figure.

BASIC grouping and Jairam Ramesh China visit

India’s minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh was called to Beijing in the last week of November to finalise a counter-draft to the draft political agreement on climate change proposed by Denmark.

The Danish draft proposes a mid-term emission reduction target of 5 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, and asks for a peak in emissions by 2020. India and other major emerging economies strongly oppose this year as the peak year, saying these are unrealistic estimations.

The idea of a counter-proposal putting forth developing country perspectives came from Beijing. Reported to have been ‘in the making’ for some time now, Chinese climate negotiators prepared a first draft in mid-November. This 10 page counter-draft puts forward the absolute ‘non-negotiables’ and has been agreed to by the four major developing countries Brazil, South Africa, India and China (called BASIC for short). This draft is to be released in Copenhagen by China’s special envoy on climate change, Xie Zhenzua, on behalf of the four countries.

Jairam Ramesh as well as environment ministers from South Africa and Brazil arrived in Beijing on the 27th of November to make final changes and agree to the draft – this in an effort to come up with a ‘coordinated position to present in Copenhagen’.

This draft for a political statement that is to be adopted in Copenhagen, and is based on the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Action Plan.

The key ‘non-negotiables’ are:

No to legally binding emission cuts
International measurement, reporting and verification of unsupported mitigation actions
Use of climate change as a trade barrier

Jairam Ramesh agreed that China was definitely taking a ‘proactive leadership role’ in changing the climate debate, and said the draft “fully met” India’s requirements.

Incidentally, China and Brazil have both announced carbon intensity reduction targets by 2020, and while India has made no such announcement, recent calculations by ministry of new and renewable energy suggest that India’s carbon intensity could reduce by24 percent by 2020 compared to 2000 levels if most current plans under the National Action Plan on Climate Change are implemented. Officials say this figure could go up to37 percent if all plans of the NAPCC are implemented.

EVENTS ROUND UP FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER’ 2009.

3, 4 and 5 of November 2009, International Design Workshop on ‘Sustainability’ for Students, Mumbai: Organised by IIT Bombay, the theme of the event ‘In a Planet of our own – a vision of sustainability’. It was a three day International Design Workshop on ‘Sustainability’ for Students, filled with high energy interactive sessions with lots of enthusiasm to search, ideate, discuss and design. The workshop was meant to address and solve sustainability related problems
05 November 2009, Local Government Climate Roadmap – South Asian Regional Meet, , New Delhi : this was a one day event organised by ICLEI South Asia to release their research report, “The Carbon Emissions Profiles of 53 South Asian Cities” under the Climate Roadmap initiative.
06-07 November 2009, Climate Change and Sustaining Mountain Ecosystems, INSA New Delhi: A two day National conference was organised by LEAD India in collaboration with BHC. It provided a platform to Climate Leaders from different states, working on climate change issues at the ground level to, have o have an interface with policy makers, experts, institutions and donor agencies, who would be appreciative of their commitment and be a catalyst for their future endeavours.
6 November 2009, The 10th EU-India Summit, New Delhi:
This Summit marked a decade of growing relations, and sought to further deepen relations between the two strategic partners in key areas of cooperation. It also aimed at enhancing dialogue and cooperation on issues of major global concern such as climate change, energy security and fight against terrorism, as well as prominent regional issues and bilateral trade.
11 November, 2009, Women’s Tribunal on Climate Justice, New Delhi: Wada Na Todo Abhiyan (GCAP in India) organised the second Women’s Tribunal against poverty as a part of a larger process to discuss issues related to climate justice.
16 and 17 November 2009, 2nd Energy Efficiency Technology Cooperation Conference, New Delhi: As a part of the US-India Energy Dialogue, Confederation of Indian Industry is organised the “US – India Energy Efficiency Technology Cooperation Conference” jointly with US Department of Energy, US Agency for International Development and Ministry of Power, Govt of India. The conference focused on exploring the barriers to implementation of energy efficiency in India, illustrate ways such that barriers are overcome, and delineate approaches of how energy efficiency markets could be triggered in India in the buildings & industrial sectors.
16-20 November, 2009, Energy Efficiency Trade Mission” to New Delhi, Chennai, and Mumbai. Organised by U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC).
17 November, 2009, Interactive Meet with South Asian Journalists, Kolkata, organised by CSM-DFID-PANOS, This was an interactive session for a group of 15 journalists from Nepal, Bangladesh, and India who are on a Road Trip from the Himalaya to the Bay of Bengal to see and discuss the effects of Climate Change on people across the region and initiatives concerning Climate Change. The group was accompanied by John Vidal, Guardian’s environment editor and others from DFID.
17 November, 2009, International workshop on ‘Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture’, Ahemdabad: Organized and hosted by Space Application Centre (ISRO), this workshop focused on defining protocols and methodologies to efficiently and economically utilize remote sensing inputs for Assessment of climate change impact on vegetation and other ecosystems
17 November, 2009, National Conference on Climate Change in the Himalayas, New Delhi: Organised by Navdanya; Navdanya / Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology have carried out an in depth participatory study with local communities in the Himalaya on the impact of climate change. These have been supplemented by studies by experts. These studies were presented at this Conference.
19 to 21 November, 2009, National Conference on Forestry Solutions: Strategies for Mitigation and Adaptation of the Impacts of Climate Change in Western Himalayan Mountain States, Shimla: Organised by the HP forest department, the conference aimed to deliberate on the impact of climate change on the forests/vegetative cover of Western Indian hill states by involving various stakeholders including planners, implementers and beneficiaries to provide a road-map to devise relevant strategies for global warming and eco-services among mountain communities.
23 and 24 November, 2009, CENTAD Annual South Asia Conference ‘CLIMATE FOR A NEW CONSENSUS: POLICIES FOR A FAIRER GLOBALISATION ‘, New Delhi: the focus of this conference was to focus on the areas of Trade, Finance, Public Health and Climate Change and re-explore links between trade and development in the context of a rapidly evolving trade scenario.
23 and 24 November, 2009, Knowledge Sharing workshop ‘From Mountains to the Sea: Adapting to Climate Change’ New Delhi: Organised by WWF, the prime focus of this workshop was to bring together experts working on climate change research at various mountain and coastal areas and present their findings to come up with new ideas for adaptation.
22-24 November, 2009, Indigenous Technology, Livelihood Options And Habitat Utilization: Concepts And Perspectives Of Development, Guwahati (Assam). Organized by North East Centre For Research and Development (NECRD), IGNOU; North-East India as an important geographical space with unexplored resources, both human and natural, can augment understanding of global sustainability. The conference aimed to explore third world perspective to sustainability.
23 and 24 November, 2009, 4th Environmentally Friendly Vehicle (EFV) Conference And Exposition, New Delhi, With an objective to share the experiences with regard to ongoing measure for promoting or introducing environmentally friendly vehicles, Department of Heavy Industry, Government of India is organised this conference in Delhi.
25-26 November, 2009, 4th Sustainability Summit: Asia 2009 Winning Strategies for a Sustainable World, New Delhi: Organised by CII, the conference focused on how visionary businesses and institutions are turning crisis into opportunity to change our world into one that is sustainable and all inclusive.