The India Climate Observatory

Commentary, action and research on climate and development in India

  • Home
  • About
  • Monsoon 2018
  • Current
  • Bulletin
  • Contact
  • Announcements

India Climate Watch bulletin, on Budget 2014-15

July 14, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

ICW_2_image_for_ICPThe first Union Budget of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance government has focused on the growth of the economy. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has through India’s 2014-15 budget said he will “usher in a policy regime” that takes the country “towards a sustained growth of 7-8 per cent or above within the next 3-4 years”.

Such an approach will have a very sizeable impact on India’s response to climate change. Industry and the states take their cues from the broad direction given in the annual budget, which is the most authoritative and powerful regular statement by the government that guides citizens, businesses, the public sector, and administrations at every level. In this edition of India Climate Watch, we quickly analyse the 2014 budget for what it will mean to the country’s ability to deal with a changing climate.

ICW_2_image_for_ICP_smIn the second India Climate Watch of our new series, we unpack key statements in Union Budget 2014-15 for what they mean to the country’s need to balance economic imperatives against the growing national footprint. We find a few positives and several points of concern, which are:

  • The Finance Minister said it is his duty to steer towards desired macro-economic outcomes of higher growth, lower inflation, sustained level of external sector balance and a prudent policy stance. He added that “it would not be wise to expect everything that can be done or must be done to be in the first Budget presented within forty five days of the formation of this government”. Positive, with qualifications
  • Higher growth is presented as the “sine qua non” that continues in this budget -as has been the trend for the last decade – to search for a link with bringing a large section of India’s population out of poverty. Negative
  • A number of individual provisions collectively mean greater support to renewable energy and to making efficiency in conventional energy generation the basis for power generation. The use of electricity in agriculture (by erratically metered or unmetered pumpsets) is to be addressed by solar power-driven pumpsets. A ‘clean energy cess’ on the extraction of coal has been doubled. Positive

The relationship between the central government and states is a factor that influences budgetary support for dealing with the effects of climate change. Read why in the India Climate Watch bulletin 2014 02 (pdf, 187kb).

Filed Under: India Climate Watch, Reports & Comment Tagged With: 2014-15, Arun Jaitley, BJP, budget, energy, finance, India Climate Watch, NDA, renewable

India Climate Watch – July 2010

July 31, 2010 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

 INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – JULY 2010 (ISSUE 16)

 

 

Inside this issue
From the editors desk
India pushes technology transfer
Energy Efficiency Mission gets a boost
World’s First Clean Energy Ministerial
Climate Science
Other Developments
If you thought Indian cities and states were sitting pretty…
Events round up for July 2010

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting

Kaavya Nag, Somya Bhatt, Malini Mehra


From the Editor’s Desk

Late this month, the UK’s new prime minister, David Cameron, led the largest delegation of ministers and business heavyweights on an official visit to India. Economic concerns were front and centre and Cameron’s objective was to win trade and investment for British business. Climate change too was high on the agenda and the visit saw the first Indian meet of the UK India Business Leaders Climate Group with high-level participation.

Initiated by The Climate Group in February 2010 in London, the Group seeks to advance opportunities for bilateral cooperation on low-carbon economic development and green job creation. It has assembled an A-list set of companies on the UK side – Marks & Spencers, Rolls Royce, HSBC, Johnson & Matthey, News Corporation, etc. The Indian line-up includes renewable energy pioneers such as Suzlon and telecoms leaders such as Bharti Enterprises but is lacklustre compared to the UK assemblage. The Indian side is largely a FICCI-led affair, with FICCI Secretary General, Amit Mitra, as co-chair of the UK India Group with M&S’s Sir Stuart Rose as his British counterpart.

This is the same Dr Mitra who has acquired something of a reputation as an arch climate sceptic for his association with local climate deniars such as the Liberty Institute, and his infamous letter to Dr Manmohan Singh prior to Copenhagen suggesting dire consequences for Indian industry if India were to take on emissions cuts.

Perhaps Dr Mitra experienced a Road to Damascus conversion on climate issues on his road to Copenhagen last December. At any rate, the UK India Business Leaders Climate Group will be one to watch in the coming months. Another forum for meaningless grandstanding or a real platform for low-carbon transformation? Let’s watch and see …

India pushes technology transfer

India will try to push for a common agreement on clean technology sharing under the UN climate change negotiations at a two-day ministerial in November this year. The talks are said to be aimed at clarifying rules on future innovation sharing and existing issues over current technology intellectual property rights (IPR).

A senior government official said “we want a common position on technology transfer through partnerships in which poor countries are given access to technology and that they can get help with applying it as well.”

Energy Efficiency Mission gets a boost

The Perform, Achieve and Trade scheme (PAT) of the National Mission on Enhanced Energy Efficiency – intended to work like a carbon trading scheme between carbon-intensive Indian industries – will take off in April 2011 and run through March 2014.

The announcement was made by Ajay Mathur, head of the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE). It is also understood that the Energy Conservation Act (2001) has been amended in order to provide a legal mandate for the PAT scheme. The amendment has already been tabled in the Lok Sabha (Lower House) and will go through the Rajya Sabha (Upper House) of Parliament in the next session.

Mathur was delivering an inaugural address at the Confederation of Indian Industries’ (CII) workshop on PAT. He said that prior to the scheme itself, methodologies to specify energy consumption, institutional arrangements for certificates and the like, and general systems and processes would have to be put in place. Bangalore-based C-STEP (Centre for Study of Science, Technology and Policy), will work on the methodology aspects, while a baseline study is to be completed by October 2010.

World’s First Clean Energy Ministerial

On July 19th and 20th, ministers of 24 countries gathered in Washington DC for the world’s first-ever Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM). This meeting brought together countries responsible for 80 percent of the world’s emissions, in order to accelerate the global transition to a low-carbon future. India was represented by the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, Montek Singh Ahluwalia.

While one of the key issues remains finding funds to finance these operations, eleven initiatives were launched at the ministerial. Italy made the first contribution of USD 10 million to the International Finance Corporation (IFC) as part of this process.

These initiatives are intended to avoid needing to build 500 mid-sized thermal power plants over the next 20 years, promote the rapid development of electric vehicles and allied technologies, and bring off-grid electricity to more than 10 million people by 2015.

Director of the Department of Environment, United States, Steven Chu, said “The Clean Energy Ministerial has brought together leaders from around the world to take unprecedented actions to deploy clean energy technologies – from energy efficiency to renewable energy to smart grids to carbon capture”.

Here’s how the leaders intend to do it:

As part of a ‘Global Energy Efficiency Challenge’, governments launched five initiatives. India is part of all but one of these:

1. Super-efficient equipment and appliance deployment initiative – a government-led market transformation initiative. High-priority appliances include televisions and lighting, which account for 15 percent of home electricity usage. The project is likely to be funded through GEF (Global Environmen Facility) funds. India will collaborate with Sweden on developing standardised testing methods for LED lighting in India.

2. Buildings and Industry – the Global Superior Energy Performance (GSEP) partnership will help large buildings and industrial facilities, which account for 60 percent of global energy use, to measure and reduce their energy consumption over time.

3. Smart Grids – International Smart Grid Action Network (ISGAN) – an ‘association of associations’, ISGAN will help accelerate development and deployment of smart electricity grids the world over through high-level government-dialogue and best-practice sharing.

4. Electric Vehicles – the Electric Vehicles Initiative will help countries deliver on electric vehicle targets throught sister-city partnerships. This initiative is expected to help deploy at least 20 million electric vehicles by 2020. India is not a part of this initiative.

5. Capacity-Building for developing country policymakers – through Clean Energy Solution Centres and a network that will facilitate best-practice sharing on emerging policy trends. The initial focus will be on energy efficiency.

Other initiatives are in clean energy supply (carbon capture and storage, wind and solar, bioenergy, and hydropower), and clean energy access (off-grid appliances and women in energy).

Climate Science

Dr. S. Ayyapan, head of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), at a convocation address said 2009 was a drought year, and owing to a 27 percent deficiency in rainfall, resulted in a shortfall of 15 million tonnes of rice alone.

In related news, a recent UNDP report has warned that nearly 15% of the Sunderbans Delta – home to the world’s largest mangrove forests – could be submerged due to sea-level rise and climate change by 2020.

The report of a district-wide human development survey, indicates that over-reliance on natural resources by the inhabitants of the 54 of 102 islands could harm an already fragile ecosystem.

Other Developments

Solar plane completes historic 24 hour run

Solar Impulse – the world’s first solar powered plane to complete a 24-hour flight, marked the longest and highest flight in the history of solar aviation. Piloted by the man widely known for going round the world in a hot air balloon, Swiss national Bertrand Piccard said the success of the flight showed that “we can be much more independent from fossil energy than people usually think.”

The carbon-fiber solar glider plane has 12,000 solar cells built into its 64.3 metre wings, and can reach a maximum speed of 68 knots, and a maximum altitude of 8,564 metres above sea level.

Tata Nano Wind

Tata Power is all set to grab the personal (mini) wind turbine space with a ‘nano’ version of a wind turbine. A 2 KW wind turbine which can be mounted on rooftops, will be tested for its potential to generate enough electricity.

The test turbines are good enough to power multiple fans (60 W), bulbs/lights (40W) and additional appliances if excess battery support is added.

Now a ‘Puneri’ CleanTech for startups

Pune-based startups in the cleantech field have reason for cheer, with an exclusive venture capital fund, awareness and networking platform being formed. Started by Pune-based Harshad Nanal and Anil Pranjpe, in association with New Ventures India (NVI), the forum intends to bring like-minded people together to provide startups in and around Pune with the necessary support.

The network brings together technology professionals, entrepreneurs, students, policy makers, investors, and citizens interested in Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, Waste management, Water Management, and Environmentally-Friendly Design/Development/Delivery Alternatives to Traditional Products and Services.

Paranjpe lists the off-beat projects they have come across so far, including a solar-power milk chiller, a hybrid small wind turbine that can take care of small family’s electricity needs, and an efficient system to manage effluent treatment.

Elite runners gather for Himalayan climate action

CSM and India’s foremost Ultrarunner, Dr Rajat Chauhan, joined forces in July to bring attention to the impact of climate change on the Himalayas through a feat of human endurance.

An international team of elite runners assembled for a 139-mile (222km) run over Himalayan peaks to raise attention to climate change. Called ‘The High’ this was certainly the highest and possibly the toughest Ultramarathon in the world.

The route took the runners from Khardung Village along the Leh-Manali Highway to Morey Plains in Jammu & Kashmir. The run was non-stop and completed within a superhuman 72 hours from Saturday 24th to Monday 26th July.

Runners climbed peaks such as Khardung La 5395 m (17,700 ft) and Tanglang La 5359 m (17,582 ft) with a cumulative vertical ascent of 3,107 m and a cumulative vertical descent of 2,704 m.

“With 70 percent of the route above 14,000 feet (4267 m), seven to ten days of acclimatization is compulsory,” says race organizer, Dr Rajat Chauhan, “Not only for the participants but for the 17 volunteers who will assist them.”

American Ultrarunner Bill Andrews, who has run more than 100 Ultramarathons, says, “We are simply demonstrating that it’s possible to expand the envelope of what people perceive are limits of human endurance and capability.”

The brainchild of Dr Rajat Chauhan, a sports medicine and rehabilitation physician from New Delhi, the run is about human endurance and a chance to highlight the threat to ecosystems and livelihoods by climate change in this mountainous region.

The Himalayas are often called the ‘Third Pole’ because they contain the largest store of fresh-water in the world after the North and South poles. The Hindu-Kush Himalaya region is home to ten major river basins and provides water for one fifth of the world’s population.

But the life-giving glaciers – the water towers of Asia – are melting. Scientists estimate that these peaks are melting at twice the rate of surface temperature and we are therefore witnessing the impact of climate change on high-altitude glaciers earlier than the plains.

CSM is profiling the run on its India Climate Portal and building a network of organisations active on climate issues in the Himalayan region.

CSM’s chief executive, Malini Mehra, a runner who completed the London Marathon this year, said: “The controversy over Glaciergate has detracted attention from the urgent need to address the threat to the Himalayas from global warming and black carbon. We need to be doing more and challenge political complacency. Sport is a great way to highlight the issues and we are committed to making ‘The High’ a regular fixture on the Ultra calendar.”

If you thought Indian cities and states were sitting pretty…

Solar Cities: Chandigargh and Kohima

Chandigarh’s master plan to become a solar city has been approved by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE). The city administration has submitted a detailed plan to reduce the city’s energy consumption by 10% in 2012 and by 20% in 2018.. The solar cities plan is one of the components of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission, aiming to have sixty cities designated as such.

The plan has been prepared under the consultation The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), and recommends energy efficiency measures for both residential and commercial areas. Solar power plants of 1 to 5 MW are to be installed in several parts of the city, and consumers will be encouraged to generate electricity, supplying the surplus to the grid. Consumers can avail of a rebate on their bills based on the energy they supply.

Nagaland’s capital, Kohima, one of the first Indian cities to get Solar City status, is expected to reduce its power consumption by 10% over the next ten years.

New Delhi: Government buildings to go green

The New Delhi government will soon issue a proposal to make all its government buildings green buildings by implementing energy efficient measures. All buildings are also expected to become Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC) compliant. The ECBC will also be implemented in all upcoming buildings of the city and is expected to reduce energy consumption by 25 to 40%.

This proposal forms one part of the government’s climate change plan.

Each district in Maharashtra will have a green plan

In a first-of-its kind step, the Maharashtra government has decided to conduct a detailed assessment of climate change in the state, and its effect on various sectors like fisheries, agriculture, rainfall. The study will be conducted by The Energy Resources Institute (TERI), and the outcome is an action plan for the state, with implementation at every level in all 35 districts of the state.

The implementation of the action plan will be monitored by a special committee headed by the chief secretary and it will also seek assistance from the National Environment Protection Authority (NEPA) which is expected to be set up soon, and the National Green Tribunal.

Tamil Nadu for renewable energy park

The Periyar Science and Technology Centre (PSTC) is all ready to inaugurate a renewable energy park in association with Tamil Nadu Energy Development Agency (TEDA), at the cost of Rs. 1.2 crore.

The park will have models and devices that use non-conventional energy sources, including various types of solar thermal systems (cookers and water heating), solar desalination plants, solar air heating systems, photovoltaics, tidal power generation unit, water power generator, ocean thermal energy conversion system, geothermal energy and fuel cell working models.

Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh release draft solar policies

Both Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh have released draft solar policy plans this month, and say theye aim to go solar in a big way.

Rajasthan has the maximum solar radiation intensity in India and the least rainfall, thus making it best suited for solar power generation. The Rajasthan Energy Department released the draft solar policy for the state in July. The objective is increase Rajasthan’s solar power capacity to 10,000 – 12,000 MW. This will help achieve long-term energy security for Rajasthan and neighbouring states, and ensure ecological security through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The government will create a large R&D hub for the deployment of various combinations of solar technologies and solar based hybrid co-generation technologies, and encourage solar power developers to establish manufacturing plants.

Madhya Pradesh is currently heavily dependent on conventional sources of energy to meet its energy needs. A draft solar policy ocument aims to accelerate the development of solar energy in the state. The initial target is a total capacity of 500 MW, not quite as ambitous as Rajasthan, but one that hopes to provide a clean and reliable source of energy even in the remotest rural areas of the state.

EVENTS ROUNDUP FOR JULY 2010

1. 11 June – 12th July, Public Consultation meetings on Green India Mission in June-July 2010: MoEF organised a series of public consolation meetings on Green India Mission with the help from Centre for Environment Education (CEE), starting from 11 June 2010 in Guwahati. The second public consultation was held at Vishakhapatnam on 16 June. Subsequent consultations were held at Pune, Dehradun, Bhopal, Jaipur and Mysore to finalise mission. The meetings were organised after the draft version of the mission was released earlier in May 2010.

2. 1-2 July 2010, FICCI Environment Conclave (FEC), New Delhi: Organised by FICCI the conclave offered a platform for facilitating policy dialogue, business linkages, technology tie-ups and public private partnerships in sustainable waste management. The main focus of the conclave was industrial and municipal waste management with different thematic areas.

3. 13-14 July 2010, Environment and Climate Change Conference for Asian Students and Teachers, Chennai: Organised by EC3o Asia the conference was an avenue for students and teachers alike to interact with and learn from global experts including environmentalists, fisheries scientists, social scientists, biologists and climate change scientists.

4. 14-15 July 2010, Green Power 2010 : International Conference & Exposition on Renewable Energy Technologies, Chennai: Organised by CII with the aim of bringing together leaders in the fields of technology, policy, industry, and finance to create a profitable platform for High level Networking and Business development in the renewable energy sector. This conference was widely attended by national and international experts, manufacturers, investors and financial institutions.

5. 23-29 July 2010, Climate Change workshops in Kolkata: CSM conducted a series of interactive climate change workshops in eight different schools for students in Kolkata.

6. 24-26 July 2010, The High: The world’s toughest and highest ‘ultramarathon’ run in the Himalayas to bring attention to climate change. (See CSM story above for details.)

7. 29-31 July 2010, International Conference on Environmental Pollution, Water Conservation and Health, Bengaluru: The international conference on environmental pollution, water conservation and health (ICEPWCH-2010) brought together students, engineers, scientists and other professionals from different countries, involved in various aspects of environmental science to exchange and share their experience, new ideas, research results and latest developments in all aspects related to environmental pollution, water conservation and its impact on ecology and human health.

8. 30 July 2010, E-waste Management and handling for Sustainable Cities, Gujarat: Organised by Society for Environment Protection the E-waste conference scheduled as a part of Waste to Resource day celebration; focused on various aspects of E-waste, its global and Indian scenario, the darker side and grey areas of E-waste management and handling, existing legislative framework its pros and cons, Gujarat perspective on E-waste and also technicality of E-waste management, handling and recycling.

9. 30 July 2010, Seminar on “Climate Change & Conservation – Global Issues & Local Concerns, Kolkata: an initiative by EMPATHY the seminar had expert speakers from different fields of climate change and environment protection. The focus areas were Climate Change and Sustainable Development, How we individually are responsible: Our Carbon Footprints and Tiger – The Beauty and The Crisis. This was followed by an interactive session between the attendees.

10. 31 July 2010, Green Buildings: A step towards sustainable future, Gujarat: Organised by Society for eco protection This uniquely designed conference was packed with various prominent speakers like Ar. Jatindra Mistry, Prof. Himanshu Parikh, Ar. Nimish Patel and many such prominent professionals; who shared their experiences on Green Building and Green building rating system.

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: Budget 2010, Centre for Social Markets, CSM, Green CWG, ICW, India Climate Watch, India gets panel on climate change, Indian state action on climate change, Maldives, Shyam Saran, Shyam Saran quits, UNFCCC

India Climate Watch – April 2010

April 30, 2010 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – APRIL 2010 (Issue13)

Inside this issue
Editorial: Meetings like this?
SAARC summit: promise of possibility?
Industries get a PAT this year
New EU Climate Commissioner visits Maldives and India 
Old wine in new bottle: BASIC meet and declare
Uttarakhand Government’s meet on environment
Climate events round-up

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting

Kaavya Nag, Somya Bhatt, Pranav Sinha, Malini Mehra


April was a month of high-profile climate meetings. While neighbourhood diplomacy stepped up a gear with the SAARC Summit, the newly-emerging markets powerbloc, BASIC, met in Cape Town to strategize on climate positions. A continent away in Europe, UN member states came together for the first time since the fiasco of Copenhagen to declaim on climate and prepare for the 16th Conference of Parties (COP16) meeting under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Mexico later this year. The short weekend meeting – held from Friday 9th April –  Sunday 11 April, brought the two Working Groups on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 11) and Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 9), together for the next round of negotiations following on from Copenhagen.

The mood music was not cheerful. Recriminations were still floating and bruisings from the battle for the Copenhagen Accord still evident. Not the best indication that the world is on course to meet the climate challenge – still in the world of diplomacy, if one meeting fails, there will surely be another one not far off. Not the ideal sense of urgency one would hope for but it does means that the June session of the UNFCCC in Bonn has to raise the game considerably.

SAARC summit: promise of possibility?

Climate Change was the theme of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Heads of State of SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation), which took place in Thimphu, Bhutan, on 28-29 April 2010. Heads of State of the eight countries adopted the ‘Thimphu Statement on Climate Change’, which includes  among other things, establishing an inter-governmental expert group on climate change, and planting ten million trees in the region over the next five years (2010-15).

The statement is fairly detailed in the promises it hopes to keep, including providing capital for low-carbon technologies, a massive regional afforestation and reforestation campaign, future plans to protect archaeological monuments, strengthen understanding of shared oceans, biodiversity, mountain ecosystems, monsoon initiative, and plan for disaster risk reduction.

The summit also called for cooperation among member states on a range of issues including the formation of an expert group, knowledge sharing and capacity building.

The leaders underscored the need to initiate a process to formulate a common SAARC position on climate change for COP16, including issues such as separate financing for adaptation and mitigation, and technology transfer. Divergent economic drivers have so far been some of the biggest barriers to a common SAARC position, with countries such as the Maldives and Bangladesh on the one hand pushing for strong international pledges in the interests of reducing the adverse future effects of climate change, and developing major India, also a part of SAARC, committing only to reducing emissions intensity by 20-25 percent by 2020.

Listed below are the key initiatives and proposals:

·        Establish an Inter-governmental Expert Group on Climate Change to develop clear policy direction and guidance for regional cooperation
·        Commission a study on ‘Climate Risks in the Region’
·        Explore the feasibility of a SAARC mechanism that will provide financial capital for low-carbon technology and renewable energy projects
·        Strengthen the understanding of shared water bodies in the region through an Marine Initiative
·        Inter-governmental Mountain Initiative to study mountain ecosystems and glaciers, and their contribution to livelihoods and sustainable development
·        an Inter-governmental Monsoon Initiative on the evolving pattern of monsoons to assess vulnerability due to climate change
·        SAARC Inter-governmental Climate-related Disasters Initiative on the integration of Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) with Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)
·        Establish institutional linkages among national institutions in the region to facilitate sharing of knowledge and capacity building programmes in climate change
·        Enhance cooperation in the energy sector to facilitate energy trade, development of efficient conventional and renewable energy sources including 
         hydropower.
·        Action Plan on Energy Conservation would be prepared by the SAARC Energy Centre (SEC), Islamabad and creation of a web portal on Energy Conservation 
         for exchange of information and sharing of best practices among SAARC Member States.

Climate change has become a core issue for SAARC as the entire region is vulnerable to the impacts of environmental degradation and regional collaborative efforts to mitigate the impacts of climate change have gained prominence. However, although climate change has been part of the agenda right from the 5th SAARC Summit in 1990, even a 2007 ministerial meet in Dhaka and the ‘SAARC Action Plan on Climate Change’ yielded no concrete results. Pledges to act on the Action Plan between 2009 and 2012 have not yet been initiated. While leaders have pledged in Thimphu to review its implementation and  establish an expert group under it to develop a clear policy direction it remains to be seen whether actions will follow words.

Neither did SAARC countries defend a common position at Poznan (2008) or Copenhagen (2009) at the UN conferences on climate change.

While this April 2010 Thimphu Summit provided an opportunity to devise a common climate agenda as a regional group, it remains to be seen whether possible areas of cooperation will be implemented or shelved, as is the normal pattern.


Industries get a PAT this year

Indian industry is the primary consumer of electrical energy in India, accounting for 42 percent of the country’s total commercial energy use in 2004-05. With a high growth rate across all industry sectors (small, medium and large enterprises), electricity capacity addition needs to touch 400 GW by 2030 if it is to meet the demands of all consumers (private and commercial) across the country.The Indian government hopes to meet some of this deficit by improving energy efficiency across both electricity providers and consumers through the National Mission on Enhanced Energy Efficiency (NMEEE). This rather than increasing production while doing nothing about inefficiencies in the sector appears to be the way forward.

The NMEEE is expected to account for annual fuel savings in excess of 23 million toe by 2014, achieve a cumulative avoided electricity capacity addition of 19,000 MW, and save 98 million tons CO2 emissions per year.

The “Perform Achieve and Trade” (PAT) scheme is a market-based mechanism under the NMEEE, crucial for achieving these targets. It aims to fix specific energy consumption (SEC) targets for large energy-guzzling installations across India. Nine sectors in which the PAT scheme is to be operationalised have been identified – power stations, cement, steel, fertilisers, aluminium, chlor-alkali, paper, textiles and railways. 714 energy-intensive installations across these sectors have been identified as the initial targets for the PAT scheme.  The scheme is limited to energy efficiency targets, and does not cover other sources of carbon emissions.

Under the PAT scheme, the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (the implementer of the NMEEE) will issue Energy Savings Certificates (ESCerts) to the identified (714) installations (factories or power production facilities), against targets that the BEE will set for them. Installations will have to meet their targets, and those having excess ESCerts can sell credits to those who fall short – much like the Kyoto protocol’s carbon credit mechanism.

Speaking at the 2nd Indo German Energy Symposium, BEE Director General, Ajay Mathur said ‘a wide bandwidth of energy efficiencies occurs in almost all industry sectors which creates a differentiated potential for energy savings. Designing benchmarks and standards are challenging tasks for us’. What he means to say, for those of us unfamiliar with energy terms, is that owing to several standards and benchmarks, BEE is not going to insist on one single benchmark across all industries. Instead, Industry will be allowed to gradually become more energy-efficient from their present levels.

A time frame of three years, beginning April 2011, has been set out by BEE for driving energy-intensive manufacturing companies to adhere to energy conservation norms, and for ESCerts to become a reality.


New EU Climate Commissioner Visits Maldives and India  

The European Union’s new Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard, visited Maldives on 6 April and India on 7-9 April to convey a fresh EU negotiating strategy on climate talks post Copenhagen. The Maldives and India were among the countries which negotiated the Copenhagen Accord, the principal outcome of the Copenhagen conference, and both have pledged emission reduction actions under it.  

This visit was part of the EU outreach programme to pick up the threads from the December 2009 UN climate conference in Copenhagen and discuss how to take international negotiations forward.

As part of her visit to India, Commissioner Hedegaard met environment Minister Jairam Ramesh and the Minister of Coal & Mines, Prakash Jaiswal. She also met with a small group of representatives from industry, NGOs, think tanks, and the World Bank to discuss adaptation and mitigation of climate change including options for low carbon strategies and measures in India.

She commented that India and China cannot be looked at as a single unit, since challenges are different for both countries. Also, that the United States and China need to be moved on climate action. She hoped that India through BASIC as well as other forums could influence China. Hedegaard was against using climate and environment opportunities to create new trade wars, but rather to channel the opportunities through an international framework for a carbon trading system.

As far as the international climate negotiations, the EU wants to get agreement on key elements in Cancun, where the COP16 talks are scheduled in 2010 December, and knock in some progress on contentious issues such as legal form for discussion between Cancun and South Africa (2011).

Also, 24-member European parliamentary delegation, led by Chairman Graham Watson visited India between 26-29th April 2010 to seek fruitful dialogue with India on security, terrorism and climate change, apart from greater cooperation in energy security, cultural and people to people exchange.

Old wine new bottle: BASIC meet and declare

Environment Ministers from the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) block of countries met in Cape Town in late April, in what is now the second time since Copenhagen that the group has met.

The group issued a joint statement in which it called for renewed focus on maintaining the existing framework of the international negotiations – the two-track approach of the Kyoto Protocol for short-term industrialised country emission reduction targets, and the Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) for action under the Convention. Ministers maintained that political agreements on contentious issues must be ‘translated’ into the official negotiating texts, but that the UNFCCC is the only legitimate forum for climate change negotiations.

Stating that ‘internationally binding legal agreements already exist’ under the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and the Kyoto Protocol, Ministers felt that the UNFCCC process must conclude a legally binding outcome by Cancun this year, or at the most, by 2011 when negotiations will be held in South Africa. The Joint Statement also pushed for operationalising the promised fast-track finance of USD 10 billion to developing countries for adaptation and mitigation action.

The previous meeting, held prior to the January 31st deadline for the Copenhagen Accord’s proposed country actions submissions, was held in New Delhi. Here, ministers met to discuss a common strategy and response to the Copenhagen Accord. The group also indicated that they would soon announce a  BASIC-led fund to help other developing countries cope with climate change. However, no details regarding the BASIC fund have emerged from the April 25th Cape Town meeting, although reference to the Delhi meeting was made in the joint statement.

While the Joint Statement elaborated areas under the UNFCCC negotiations that could make progress prior to Cancun, such as fast start finance, implementation of REDD, architecture on technology transfer, adaptation programmes and a MRV work programme; no significant internal (i.e. BASIC-centric) actions were proposed or elaborated from previous meetings.

The BASIC countries decided that moving forward, they would hold another meeting, this time in Brazil, to recast the equity debate


Uttarakhand Government’s meet on Environment

Following in the footsteps of Nepal, which held a cabinet meeting at the Mount Everest base camp to draw the attention of the world community towards receding glaciers, the government of Uttarakhand held a 12-member cabinet meeting on the banks of River Ganga at Haridwar. The main objective of this meeting was to highlight the environmental concerns of the state with a major focus on the River Ganga and the receding Gangotri glacier.

The meeting led to the decision to set up a Ganga Conservation Board  – an autonomous body which will work towards the restoration of the river and the Gangotri glacier. The government has also billed a plan called the ‘Ganga Nirmal Yojna’ which will work on the cleaning the river. A six point resolution was passed in order to achieve the mammoth task of cleaning the river.

EVENTS ROUNDUP FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2010

1.      1, 2 and 3 April 2010, The Al Gore Sustainable technology venture competition, Chennai: Hosted by IIT Madras, it is Asia’s first and most prestigious sustainable/clean technology business plan competition, founded in 2007

2.      7 April 2010, National Workshop on Climate Smart Disaster Risk Management, New Delhi: Organised by SEED and Christian Aid with support from DFID, this conference focused around filling the gaps between climate change adaptation, social protection and disaster risk reduction.

3.      12 and 13 April 2010, Algae Bio-fuel Workshop, New Delhi: Organised by the Grow Diesel Climate Care Council the main focus of the workshop was the next generation bio fuel using algae as a main feedstock. The workshop brought together investors, entrepreneurs, Bio fuel companies, renewable fuel experts, their associates and academia to share their valuable experiences and knowledge.

4.      13 April 2010, Climate leader initiative on ‘Climate Change and Conservation’, Kolkata: Organised by EMPATHY this seminar focused on the key issues related to Environment and conservation and saw participation from different stakeholders.

5.      23 and 24 April 2010, National Conference on Ensuring Food Security in a Changing Climate, New Delhi: This conference was jointly organised by Gene Campaign and Action Aid India the conference was attended by participants from twenty two states. A range of speakers representing the scientific community, the government, academics, international organizations and civil society groups working on agriculture and environment spoke about the various issues involved in ensuring food security in a changing climate.

6.      27 April 2010, Water Conclave, New Delhi: Organised by CII with proper management of available water resources being the main theme this conclave saw the participation from a number of investors, entrepreneurs, academia, scientists, water resources experts and other stakeholders.

7.      28 and 29 April 2010, 2nd Indo-German Energy Symposium, New Delhi: Organised by the Indo-German Energy forum this symposium had two main focus areas being decentralized renewable energies and demand side energy efficiency.   Meeting the objective of decoupling development from energy consumption and related CO2 emissions, India submitted within the National Action Plan on Climate Change the National Solar Mission and the National Mission on Enhanced Energy Efficiency. The agenda of the Symposium was to strengthen the bilateral dialogue focussing on these initiatives

 

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: Budget 2010, Centre for Social Markets, CSM, Green CWG, ICW, India Climate Watch, India gets panel on climate change, Indian state action on climate change, Maldives, Shyam Saran, Shyam Saran quits, UNFCCC

India Climate Watch – March 2010

March 31, 2010 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – MARCH 2010 (Issue12) 

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

Comment: Earth Hour 2010
India accepts CA with reservations – special focus on Chindia and UNFCCC
Shyam Saran demits office; India on lookout for key negotiators after Ghosh & Dasgupta quit
MoEF splits into Forests & Wildlife
Chindia co-operation for environment
Chindia MOU & bilaterals – analysis
Global Warming casts its shadow upon Kerala
Climate events round-up for March 2010

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting

Kaavya Nag, Somya Bhatt, Pranav Sinha, Malini Mehra


Highlights

MoEF to spilt traditionally clubbed wildlife and forestry divisions into two. Process officially approved by PM

India accepts CA with reservations – special focus on Chindia and UNFCCC

After months of dilly-dallying on whether or not to put its name into the Copenhagen Accord, India finally allowed for a conditional association. In full coordination, and just a day after, China too asked for its name to be put under the accord conditionally.

While both countries were key players in drafting the Accord while in Copenhagen, they soon distanced themselves from it, maintaining that the Accord was undoubtedly a political exercise.

In his letter to the then Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer on March 8th, key Indian negotiator R.R. Rashmi made clear three points;

1)      The Accord is a political document and is not legally binding.
2)      The Accord is not a separate and third track of negotiations outside of the UNFCCC
3)      The purpose of the Accord is to bring about greater consensus on the existing two-track UNFCCC process, and to ‘facilitate the ongoing two-track negotiations under the UNFCCC…’.

Rashmi further indicated that India would be willing to be listed in the chapeau of the Copenhagen Accord, given the understanding that neither the Accord nor portions of it would become a new track under the UNFCCC negotiations. And neither would it be included in any part of the negotiating text.

Just a day later, Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh address Parliament, explaining why India has acceded to the Accord. He indicated that the government believed, that acceding to the Accord would ‘strengthen our negotiating position on climate change’.

Similarly, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao said ‘it is neither viable nor acceptable to start a new negotiation process outside the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol’. But China too, on 9th March, agreed to have its name included in the Accord, with the Director General of China’s department of climate change Si Wei confirming that the UNFCCC could include its name in the Accord.

A Ministry of Defense annual report clearly highlights tensions on China’s modernization of military forces along the northern borders. Nevertheless, India and China have rapidly moved towards convergence on climate-related issues. With both countries pursuing high-growth development pathways and refusing to accept any legally binding emissions under the UNFCCC, their climate-relationship continues to be cemented.

Chinese Vice Premier Hui Liangyu reportedly told Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh, that China regards cooperation in the field of climate change as the most successful example of bilateral cooperation with India.

This has been evident ever since the two countries signed an agreement to address climate change, and teamed up along with two other developing giants to form the BASIC group.

Bilateral cooperation has charged ahead with the two countries meeting in end March to chart out their future course of action. This round of talks will be followed up with two more rounds in April and May.

Shyam Saran demits office, India looks for new negotiators

As reported earlier, Shyam Saran – the Prime Minister’s special envoy on climate change – demitted office on 14th March 2010. Mr. Saran resigned from the post on February 19 reportedly after having differences with Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh over India’s climate policy.

India had shifted its stance on climate change policy—from one that out and out refused to take on any binding emission reduction targets to a more accepting stance of taking on voluntary cuts in emissions intensity. All this, within a calendar year. The move effectively shocked old guard bureaucrats and policy-makers, who had, up until then, been the sole drivers of India’s climate policy.

With this, speculation over the reconstitution of the Prime Minister’s Panel on Climate Change has also become stronger. Union minister (of state) for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, has reportedly dropped Prodipto Ghosh and Chandrashekhar Dasgupta — his most vocal critics — from the suggestive list of members on the negotiating team, which he forwarded to the PM. The two veteran ex-bureaucrats along with Saran, often held dramatically different views than Ramesh on what India’s negotiating position should be at the international climate talks.

This move, as well as statements to the press by Ramesh, have sent out clear signals that Ramesh believes bureaucrats must not be able to sway national policy based on their beliefs. In effect, only those officials who are willing to follow a more flexible approach at the negotiations are welcome to remain.

It is expected that a new negotiating team will be in place for the next round of climate talks which begin in Bonn on April 9th. The MoEF had approached Ajay Mathur, the director general (DG) of Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) to represent India in Germany. However, Mathur was not keen on donning the role of a chief negotiator, considering his work at BEE was likely to suffer. The new list of negotiators is expected to be short listed by none other than Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The government also plans to create an inter-ministerial body coordinated by the climate change division at the department of science and technology to resolve contentious scientific issues on the impact of global warming on India. This body will complement the efforts of the environment ministry, but concentrate on sorting out differences of opinion between experts on the actual impact of climate change on India’s monsoon, forests and farming systems and see that whatever input we present internationally will be unanimous.

India-China team up on environment

The two major developing giants India and China, particularly given their rapid and escalating rates of growth, are likely to be two of the largest resource users in the years to come. Given this, ambitious scientific and economic cooperation between the two is essential in order to combat the effects such development will have on climate change and biodiversity loss.

While possibly not for such egalitarian reasons, India and China’s growing environment-related cooperation is a step in the right direction. The growing bonds of environment and climate cooperation are a stark contrast to the bitter military disputes in the past. But after forming the group of BASIC countries, the first bilateral relations on environment which began on 26th March, are further cementing Chindia’s green relations.

Chinese Vice Premier Hui Liangyu met with Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh to discuss cooperation in forestry and wildlife, application of biotechnology in agriculture, environment management and climate change. Ramesh indicated that forestry and agriculture dominated the discussions.

China’s plans of increasing artificial forest cover by 4 million hectares each year seem to have inspired India, which is ten times as slow, at 4 million hectares in ten years. China currently has the maximum area under artificial forest cover for any country – over 53 million hectares – according to statistics released by the State Forestry Administration (China). Plans are to increase area under forest cover from 18.21 percent in 2008 to 26 percent by 2050, and plant 40 million hectares of forest over the next ten years.

India’s own aspirational target is 30 percent forest cover. Currently and according to government figures, ‘tree cover’ in India is pegged at 20 percent, and after the talks, seems to have gained some inspiration from this high level of Chinese ambition.

A high level team is scheduled to visit China in April to discuss possibilities for forestry research, surveys and management.

While BT crops and their related issues were discussed, wildlife protection was also an area that was touched upon.

Eight researchers from across the world have incidentally published an appeal for greater scientific cooperation between India and China in the journal Science. The report comes close on the heels of this bilateral between the developing majors. The report calls for ‘more earnest cooperation between the world’s two most populous countries’.

ChIndia MOU & bilaterals – analysis

China India’s ‘Bhai-Bhai’ cooperation on Climate Change reached the next level in late October last year, when the two sides signed a five-year agreement to jointly fight climate change and negotiate international climate deals. The partnership is also expected to strengthen their bilateral dialogue. The agreement, which came ahead of United Nations climate-change summit held in Copenhagen in December 2009, was signed by the Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh and China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) Vice-Chairman Xie Zhenhua. China’s NDRC and India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests will be designated authority for implementation of this agreement. The cooperation is also important in terms of negotiations as there is virtually no difference between Indian and Chinese negotiating positions on international climate treaties, said Ramesh in a statement.

Highlights of the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA)

·         Hold ministerial consultations to deepen mutual understanding, strengthen coordination and enhance cooperation, and conduct regular exchange of views
·         Establish an India- China Working Group on Climate Change. The Working Group will hold annual meetings alternately in China and India to discuss respective domestic policies and measures and implementation of related cooperative projects.
·         Agree to strengthen their exchange of views and cooperation on mitigation policies, programmes, projects, technology development and demonstration relating to greenhouse gas emission reduction on following: (a) Energy conservation and energy efficiency (b) Renewable energies (c) Clean coal (d) Methane recovery and utilization (e) Afforestation and sustainable management of forests and ecosystems (f) Transportation (g) Sustainable habitat.
·         To enhance cooperation in the area of adaptation recognize the equal priority of adaptation and mitigation in tackling climate change

Experts from both sides who participated in a workshop, shared their respective national action plans to tackle climate change including domestic initiatives, issues in multilateral negotiations (mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer and finance) and outlook for the Copenhagen conference in December 2009.

In order to take forward the bilateral cooperation in tackling issues of climate change, India and China held talks on 26th March 2010 to chart out future course of action. During the visit, Vice Premier of China Mr Hui Liangyu regarded Climate Change as the most successful example of bilateral cooperation. He said,” We will be exchanging ideas on what more we need to do.” As part of the cooperation, Ramesh will be visiting China April 10-11 and May 7-9 to attend meetings related to climate change. Recently, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh also announced an agreement with China for glaciological studies would be finalised soon as shrinking glaciers is a big area of cooperation.

Global Warming casts shadow on Kerala

Kerala- ‘God’s Own Country’ has been witness to the effects of global warming in past, in the form of changes in rainfall pattern, depleting groundwater and rise in mean annual temperatures among others. With its 550km of coastline, Kerlala has already been predicted in IPCC reports to be one of the worst affected  from increasing sea levels and drying up of fresh water resources.  By mid-March this year, temperature across the state rose to unprecedented levels, leading to more than 20 cases of severe sun burns . The highest temperature recorded was 42 degree centigrade from the Palakkad district , and at a time of year when temperatures never rose to more than 37 degree C in the past, leading to a state of panic amongst the locals as well as the state officials.

A disaster management team was sent by the state government soon after the cases were reported . Later in the month, members of the state assembly agreed  on setting up a task force with short and long term goals to combat the effects of climate change. Finance and revenue minister KP Rajendran announced a fund of Rs 15 crore for relief activities and fight against the looming danger of drought. Chief Minister V.S Achuthanandan has commissioned the Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS) at Thiruvananthapuram to carry out a detailed research of climate related variations in the state and submit a report that will help formulate effective adaptation and mitigation strategies for the state.

EVENTS ROUND UP FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2010

1.      2, 3 and 4 March, 2010, Methane to Markets Partnership Expo, New Delhi: Organised by US EPA, Govt of India and Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce (FICCI) this expo was attended by people from diverse backgrounds ranging from project developers and financers, policy makers, manufacturers and vendors and industry representatives. The programme included discussions on key methane capture technologies and policy, methane marketplace and government and industry partnerships.

2.      4 and 5 March, 2010, Conference on Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission-The Way Ahead at World Trade Centre, Mumbai: In view of the importance of announcement of the National Solar Mission by GoI Solar Energy Society of India and Electronics today jointly organised this two conference which witnessed global participation and many key issues related to solar power production, policy, technology and implementation were discussed.

3.      5 and 6 March, 2010, Climate Change and CDM opportunities, Hyderabad: This Workshop on climate change and clean development mechanism opportunities in industries, urban infrastructure, buildings, railways, municipalities, agriculture was organised by CCCEA and Siri Energy with the aim of familiarising the participants with the key issues and opportunities in CDM post Copenhagen.

4.      18 March, 2010, World Renewable Energy Technology Congress and Expo 2010, New Delhi: With the central theme of Global Technology Cooperation for Renewable Energy the expo aimed to supplement the efforts of the government by providing a platform to showcase opportunities in the Indian market for global players.

5.      24 March, 2010, Youth Interaction at the British Deputy High Commission, Kolkata: This interactive meet was attended by Young journos, NGO representatives, students of the JU Global Change Program, and Environment Science

6.      25 March, 2010, CII meet on Climate Change, Kolkata: CII, Eastern Region, organised a panel discussion on how to strengthen NGO business partnership to cope with the challenges being thrown up by climate change, according to a CII-ER release. The keynote address was given by Mr Fergus Auld, First Secretary, Climate Change & Energy, British High Commission. Among other speakers were Mr Debal Roy, Chief Environment Officer, Government of West Bengal; Ms Malini Mehra, CEO, Central For Social Markets; Mr Subhas Dutta, green activist; Mr Ram Agarwal, Chairman, West Bengal State Council and Director S R Batliboi & Company; and Mr Sanjay Wadhvani, Deputy High Commissioner, British Deputy High Commission in Kolkata.

7.      29 March, 2010, National Seminar for post-Copenhagen: Immediate task for India, Hyderabad: This was a Seminar for media personnel at the Engineering Staff College of India, Hyderabad.  Organised with the aim of providing an opportunity to the participants to further strengthen their knowledge base on this most important topic of current times to help them educate and inform the public effectively.

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: Budget 2010, Centre for Social Markets, CSM, Green CWG, ICW, India Climate Watch, India gets panel on climate change, Indian state action on climate change, Maldives, Shyam Saran, Shyam Saran quits, UNFCCC

India Climate Watch – February 2010

February 28, 2010 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – FEBRUARY 2010 (Issue11)


INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s desk
Budget 2010- how climate friendly was it?
Shyam Saran resigns as PM’s special envoy
Yvo resigns, India proposes Sharma as UNFCCC chief
India to get panel on climate change
Per capita approach to be revisited?
Climate skeptics get platform in Delhi
Maldives seeks India’s help
Green Commonwealth Games?
Indian states get active on climate change
Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
Indo-UK study looks at water cycle changes
Climate events round-up

Editor:

Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting

Kaavya Nag, Somya Bhatt, Pranav Sinha, Malini Mehra


From the Editor’s desk

What a month. From high-profile resignations to Union Budget announcements, there has scarcely been a day without climate in the news. While the much-maligned but also fulsomely-supported IPCC chair and TERI supremo, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has managed to hold onto his post for another month, February saw the announced departure of both Shyam Saran and Yvo de Boer. Neither was a surprise.

In Saran’s case, there has been a war of attrition with the Minister of State for Environment & Forests, Jairam Ramesh, since it became apparent that the Minister had a mind of his own when it came to Indian climate policy and politics. Since he took office in May 2009, the Minister and the Prime Minister’s special envoy have been at loggerheads with the former a reformist and the latter in the traditional mould of a defender of the faith. (The faith being the per-capita based climate orthodoxy followed by Indian governments since year dot.)

Not unsurprisingly, the Minister has had a tough time of it battling the ranked masses of supporters of the orthodoxy in both his Ministry as well as the press. But his sheer bloody-mindedness in getting things done has had an impact. Week on week and month on month, one has seen the needle rise with ever more initiatives on the multi-headed Hydra that is climate change. The Minister has made his ministry rise to the tempo and consolidated his grip on environment and climate policy across the government.

In the battle of wills with Saran, the Minister has won. But in the battle for the heart and soul of India’s climate policy, the Minister is not yet done – he has barely just begun. This is not a short-game. It is a long-game of changing risk-averse and change-averse institutions and demonstrating the economic and political benefit of action on climate change. This requires a powerful new narrative and it is not clear whether the Minister has found his compelling story on this as yet. One that will connect with both the titans of industry and the tillers in the field.

The fact that he is not quite there yet was revealed by yet another Union Budget that failed to make provisions for the much-vaunted eight Missions of the National Action Plan on Climate Change. Two years on and still no clear allocation as to how these expressions of intent are to be funded and implemented. With the riveting exception of the National Solar Mission, the flagship mission of the Government, one is at a loss as to explain how the Government has placed climate change at the heart of its policy-making. It seems very much like an ad-hoc affair still.

At the sub-national level, though, one can see the impact that a little bit of energy on climate change can unleash. State after state – though still not in the double digits – appears to be moving on climate change and expressing a new-found ambition to be ‘carbon neutral’ or the greenest state in the country. Much finer ambitions than merely to have the highest state-level GDP growth rate in the country. Especially if that growth is green and sustainable, not carbon-based and cancerous. If the national politics on growth and climate changes as a result, we could well be in very different territory come the next elections.

Budget 2010- how climate friendly was it?

India’s Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, announced the Union Budget for 2010-2011 in Delhi on 26 February 2010. With global attention on climate change and India having announced its own voluntary commitment to reduce emissions intensity by 20-25 per cent by 2020, the question many were asking was: is the government going to put its money where its mouth is? The Minister’s speech signaled the government’s intention to transform India’s energy mix and meet the twin challenges of energy security and climate change. The Budget 2010 did contain some important announcements and initiatives – perhaps the most significant of which was the National Clean Energy Fund and the energy cess on coal (domestic and imported).

Here’s a look at some of the key measures:

Direct Funding

  1. To establish a National Clean Energy Fund for funding research and innovative projects in clean energy technologies and harnessing renewable energy sources to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
  2. A doubling of the budget for the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) – largely to fund the Government’s flagship Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission. (The Solar Mission has an ambitious target of reaching 20,000 MW of solar power by the year 2022, effectively making India a leading player in solar energy in years to come.)  MNRE’s budget rose by 61 percent – from Rs 620 crore in 2009-10 to Rs.1000 crore in 2010-11.
  3. An allocation of Rs 200 crore for launching the Climate Resilient Agriculture Initiative. This seeks to sustain gains made in the green revolution but strengthen conservation farming, which involves soil health, water conservation and biodiversity preservation.

Tax Proposals

  1. Clean energy cess on coal produced in India at a rate of Rs.50 per tonne. The cess will also apply to imported coal to build the corpus of the National Clean Energy Fund.
  2. Concessional customs duty of 5 per cent on machinery, instruments, equipment and appliances etc. required for the initial setting up of photovoltaic and solar thermal power generating units and also exempt from Central Excise duty. Ground source heat pumps used to tap geothermal energy would be exempt from basic customs duty and special additional duty.
  3. Exempt a few more specified inputs (some were already exempt in last year’s budget) required for the manufacture of rotor blades for wind energy generators from Central Excise duty.
  4. Halve Central Excise duty on LED lights from 8 per cent to 4 per cent. This now places LEDs on par with Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs).
  5. Provide concessional excise duty of 4 per cent to CSIR-developed ‘Soleckshaw’ – the solar version of a hand-pulled cycle rickshaw which runs on solar-powered batteries. The Soleckshaw’s key parts and components would also be exempt from customs duty.

National Clean Energy Fund and cess on coal

The National Clean Energy Fund (NCEF), a provisional title for this initiative, and the cess on coal are arguably the most interesting innovations in the budget. The former is intended to provide a source of investment for entrepreneurial ventures and research into clean energy technologies. The bulk of the funds for the NCEF are to be raised through a clean energy cess on coal produced in India as well as imported coal at a rate of Rs 50 per tonne. This cess on coal is not the first such ‘green tax’ to be applied in the India. The water cess has been levied and collected by the State Pollution Control Boards for prevention and control of water pollution for some time.

How large is the fund likely to be? The estimated demand for coal in India in the Budget period is likely to be 440 million tonnes (2010-11) and 518 million tonnes (2011-12) respectively. An extrapolation from this suggests that the size of the NCEF could be anything in the range of INR 22,000 million to INR 25,900 million respectively for FY 2010-11 and 2011-12. This will increase as India’s appetite for coal increases, but the revenues generated could build a core funding base for the Missions under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC).

By making the tax environment less friendly for fossil fuel firms and by providing fiscal relief for companies in the renewable energy sector, the government has provided a helping hand. This is to be welcomed but will need to be built on aggressively if the scale of the ‘greening India’ challenge is to be met effectively. For now, though there is at least something for those in the renewable energy industry to capitalise on.

Looking across the Budget, it can be seen that energy security concerns and environment have been further embedded with some fiscal incentives and budgetary support for green measures. An allocation has been made for the Solar Mission but the remaining seven Missions of the NAPCC are still left stranded, and the mitigation and adaptation challenge faced by the country has been inadequately addressed. The Government has not made good on its promises to put budgets next to programmes.

For example, the National Mission on Enhanced Energy Efficiency (NMEEE) was supposed to be one of the two priority Missions in the NAPCC. The NMEEE is supposed to be implemented from April 1 2010. The Government says that it is aiming at building a market worth Rs 74,000 crore for energy efficient products and accrue avoided capacity addition of over 19,000 MW, however, no budget has been announced for this. One can only surmise that as the Ministry of Power will be overseeing the MNEEE, and as the Ministry of Power’s budget allocation has more than doubled from Rs 2,230 crore in 2009-10 to Rs 5,130 crore in 2010- 11, that we will see baseline funds for the MNEEE. But in the absence of clarity from the Government, this remains speculation. 

More worryingly, the status of the six other missions of the NAPCC continues to be in limbo. The table below provides an update of where things are presently at. (Budgetary updates 2010-11 have been indicated in square brackets.)

Status of NAPCC Eight Missions (February 2010)

  1. Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission – Approved by Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change (PMCCC); to be coordinated by M/o New & Renewable Energy. [Funds approved in Budget 2010-11]
  2. National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency – Approved by PMCCC and to be implemented from 1 April 2010; to be coordinated by M/o Power.
  3. National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem – Draft dated 26 October 2009 approved by PMCCC in principle.
  4. National Mission on Strategic Knowledge on Climate Change – Final draft (15 October 2009) considered by PMCCC but decision unknown.
  5. National Mission on Sustainable Habitat – Final Draft Mission document prepared by M/o Urban Development, under consideration by PMCCC.
  6. National Water Mission – Mission document prepared by M/o Water Resources, under consideration by PMCCC.
  7. National Mission for Green India – Mission document prepared by M/o Environment & Forests, under consideration by PMCCC.
  8. National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture – Mission document prepared by M/o Agriculture, under consideration by PMCCC.

Shyam Saran resigns as PM’s special envoy

On 20 February 2010, the Prime Minister’s Office released a simple line, “The Special Envoy to the Prime Minister on Climate Change has been permitted to demit office from Friday, March 14”, indicating that Shyam Saran would no longer continue in post. His sudden resignation from office, at a time when he was due to chair a key strategy meeting for India’s post-Copenhagen plans, clearly indicates changes are afoot in the Government’s climate configurations.

India’s environment minister Jairam Ramesh, the relative newbie to climate change who has barely been in office for nine months, has been pushing the envelope on the way India approaches international climate negotiations. He may well have had the highest level of backing for many of his statements and they now leave little room for doubt that India is serious about carving out a new space in international climate politics. Ramesh’s outspokenness had long raised the hackles of Saran and the old guard who saw the Minister has stepping on their turf and contravening accepted shibboleths of India’s climate change policy, particularly at the UNFCCC.

The differences of opinion between Shyam Saran on the one hand – a retired senior diplomat who drafted the controversial Indo-US nuclear deal – and the Minister of State (without a cabinet seat) for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, on the other had been evident ever since the Minister took office in May 2009. Differences were first seen when Ramesh expressed his disappointment at Saran’s handling of statements about the Major Economies Forum (MEF) Summit at La Aquila, Italy. In the run-up to Copenhagen, however, Saran and his allies seem to have got their own back when a letter from Ramesh to the Prime Minister was leaked. The letter allegedly asked for a review of India’s position and led to threats of resignation by senior negotiators. These officials effectively held the government to ransom with a no-show on the first day of talks at the Copenhagen climate conference in December. It was only when the Prime Minister intervened and called for Ramesh and Saran to sit together and formulate a ‘joint statement’ on India’s approach for Copenhagen that peace broke out in Team India.

Even after Copenhagen, the differences were evident with Saran reportedly in favour of India rejecting the Copenhagen Accord, while Ramesh was in favour of it. A Member of Parliament even commented that internal politics were harming peoples’ understanding of Indian climate politics, and that a coordinated effort was needed.

While Shyam Saran maintains that his decision to quit was for personal reasons, in a leaked letter to the Prime Minister last year, he clearly indicated his misgivings regarding the Minister’s attempts to change India’s negotiating stance. While Jairam Ramesh initially refused to comment on Saran’s resignation, he later said that bureaucrats cannot dictate policies as they are consultants. He pointedly noted that it is the job of the Ministry to decide policy as the Ministry is accountable to Parliament.

Saran’s resignation comes at a time when Ramesh has commissioned a study on the various approaches that India could take to international burden sharing on climate change other than its long-standing per-capita approach. This also comes at a time when the climate negotiating team is expected to be re-cast as India prepares its climate change strategy, and when budgetary allocations for key programmes such as the Solar Mission are only just being put in place. In sum, it seems that for the present, the Minister of State is firmly in charge.

Yvo resigns, India proposes Sharma as UNFCCC chief
 
In another spectacular resignation, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer, announced that he would be stepping down with effect from 1 July 2010. After four years in the post- and momentous ones at that – the former Dutch civil servant said he was leaving to enable the UN Secretary General to appoint a suitable candidate in time for the important COP16 talks in Mexico in November.

Although his term officially ends in September, few doubted that the job had taken its toll on the straight-talking Dutchman whose dry wit and emotional commitment – few would remember his tears of frustration at Bali – had endeared him to many involved in the climate negotiations.

Expecting to steer the world to a successful conclusion at Copenhagen, the eventual collapse of the talks was partly attributable to the failure of de Boer and the Danish Presidency to find a timely and adequate point of political convergence. Although herding cats would have been easier than trying to create consensus from parties with such widely divergent interests.

Yvo himself has characterized Copenhagen as “an absolute disaster” and has now freed himself to speak his mind in a non-political role as advisor to global services firm, KPMG, on climate change. With his departure, the field has now opened up for candidates – in particular from developing countries –to fill the post of UNFCCC head.

India was swift off the block to propose its own candidate, Vijai Sharma, Principal Secretary at the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF). Sharma has been leading the Indian delegation at the climate negotiations and is seen as a competent if dull bureaucrat in the traditional Indian mould.

In proposing his candidacy, Jairam Ramesh, Minister of MoEF, said that Sharma would be a candidate from the BASIC grouping and already enjoyed backing from the Chinese. While India and China enjoy a you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours relationship on climate change, it is not self-evident that Brazil and South Africa will wish to support India’s candidate.

The field is expected to widen and it may well be that a candidate from a less politically spiky country – such as Indonesia’s foreign minister, Hassan Wirajuda – could emerge as a frontrunner; or even one of the many seasoned diplomats from the AOSIS countries who were in evidence in the final chaotic hours of Copenhagen.

One thing is for sure: with so many eyes watching the process and with the UNFCCC’s legitimacy at stake, the result had better not be a stitch-up.

India to get panel on climate change

On 4 February 2010, the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced that India would be establishing its own answer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dubbed the Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment (INCCA), the network was established in October last year at the initiative of the Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, but has taken on an enhanced role in the wake of criticism of the IPCC and a recognition of the weakness of Indian climate science.

The INCCA is made up of 200 scientists from 120 institutions across the country and will focus on the “three M’s” – measuring, modeling and monitoring. It will expected to issue its first report by November 2010 and will contribute formally to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report due to be released in 2014.

Minister Ramesh said the intention of forming the INCCA was not to snub the IPCC but to provide a regional response as “India as a large and diverse country cannot depend only on IPCC reports” to formulate its climate action strategies. Foreign experts and scientists from surrounding countries including Nepal are also expected to be engaged in INCCA.

Per capita approach to be revisited?

In another recent development, Minister Jairam Ramesh announced in February that he has commissioned US-based Indian economist Arvind Subramaniam to evaluate the per capita approach that has long been the bedrock for India’s climate negotiations. While Indian newspapers were full of speculation that Ramesh intends to junk the per capita approach, the case Subramaniam appears to have made in the past is an argument for the per-capita approach.

Leading Indian negotiator Ambassador Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, in a column in the Indian newspaper Telegraph, wrote that the Minister had commissioned Subramaniam to prepare a “paper on alternative options”. Dasgupta seemed perturbed at the prospect of the paper being commissioned, possibly fearing it being implemented on the “whim” of a single person (Ramesh) as opposed to the supposed consensus of the entire nation.

However, previous research by Arvind Subramaniam and his colleagues (May 2009) – and the likely reason that the Minister commissioned the study – calls for a “new per capita approach”. Subramanian et al’s approach takes into account the gravity of the climate crisis and seeks to show India as a responsible emerging power attempting to secure its growth.

In their approach, per capita emissions are broken down into emissions that disentangle pure energy consumption (for welfare), from the efficiency of CO2 emissions generated by production and consumption. This breaking up of emission “sources” highlights the high levels of inefficiency in production in developing countries, as opposed to the very high levels of energy consumption in developed countries. Their argument is that while countries such as India will strive towards emissions intensity that reflects today’s technological frontiers (1990-2005) in terms of welfare emissions, there will be no compromise on the country’s future development trajectory.

Old wine in new bottles? It remains to be seen just how different the Subramaniam study will be to the orthodoxy followed in India for more than a decade.

Climate skeptics get platform in Delhi

The Liberty Institute and the India International Centre teamed up to organise a tub-thumbing anti-climate science seminar on 23 February in New Delhi. Called Challenging Climate Post Copenhagen India, the seminar featured two professional climate deniers, Dr. Fred Singer (founder director, Science and Environment Policy project) and Dr Benny Peiser (Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation) from the UK.

A reprise of a similar event organized by the Liberty Institute in May 2008, this year’s event failed to attract the official participation the former event had. While the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, Dr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, himself had keynoted the Liberty Institute’s former event, this year the official representation was thin. One of the star turns promised – Dr Prodipto Ghosh, former Principal Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests, and redoubtable climate negotiator and member of the PM’s Advisory Council on Climate Change – failed to show up, being warned away no doubt.

Undeterred, the foreign visitors laid out their wares and made a hard sell to attract as many senior Indian scientists, foreign policy elites and opinion shapers to their cause. Evidently the idea behind the event was to create a critical mass and build a solid grouping of authoritative commentators who could deter the public from listening to pro-climate voices in India.

The primary arguments to doubt the ‘conventional wisdom’ on climate change presented by Drs Singer and Peiser are worth laying out in some detail as an illustration of the methods used:

  1. Do we know enough that global warming is caused by humans?
  2. The biggest problem facing the humanity is not climate change but the political messaging of creating fear, and the control of cheap and plentiful energy use which is important for poverty alleviation and development.
  3. Climate Change is cause by neutral and natural forces not human beings
  4. The IPCC exaggerated impacts. Climategate, Glaciergate, Amazongate and many more errors illustrate this. The IPCC misused and misinterpreted data. It misused and manipulated the peer review process – opting for selective data sets based on human influence and ignoring other factors
  5. The last 10 years of data show no correlation between CO2 and global warming. Need to differentiate surface and atmospheric temperature.
  6. Solar activity and cosmic rays released have an indirect impact on climate. Water vapour is a more potent GHG gas than CO2 but has been totally ignored and is not under control of human beings.
  7. For another 20-30 years, we will not know who is wrong or who is right (who has better evidence – climate skeptics or climate pros?)
  8. The climate negotiations are totally political and do not depend on science.
  9. The European Union’s climate policy is in serious crisis as the Copenhagen Accord was reached without the EU’s participation
  10. In Britain, energy intensive companies (although few) are slowly becoming less competitive due to enormous carbon and green taxes
  11. Citizens in Britain pay more than 10% of their income for electricity – leading to energy / fuel poverty
  12. There is a backlash of people in the EU and North America against climate policy
  13. Solar will never be competitive in another few years as it did not happen in last 30 years
  14. The EU has three options post Copenhagen;Carbon tax on all imports if other countries don’t take carbon reduction targets;Targets are conditional based on other countries – especially on Indian and Chinese commitments; Close eyes and pretend that nothing has changed. In Mexico, we will solve the problem.
  15. In the US one sees serious opposition within Obama’s own party
  16. The political climate has changed drastically in last two years

Relying on a devious combination of outright falsehood, innuendo and plausible political commentary, the duo set out to cast doubt in the minds of those present on the veracity of climate science and the merit of a country like India taking (costly) action on climate change. A false dichotomy was set up between development and taking action on climate change. Little mention was made of a precautionary or risk management approach to the issue, especially for a country as highly vulnerable to climatic variability such as India.

The Indian discussants present chimed in to support the main speakers, however.

Dr. Dev Raj Sikka, former director, Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology agreed that the IPCC is biased and charged that social scientists were kept away from the Panel’s work. He stated that the medieval warm period of 1300-1600 was warmer than now with fewer numbers of droughts. He noted that glaciers are indeed melting but this is a period of deglaciation, and such melting is part of the natural cycle. He admitted that models show that temperature and climate will change but said the extent of the change is still debatable. In sum, he argued that the Indian scientific community needs to be aware of “both sides of the story”.

In his remarks, Prof. Deepak Lal from the University of California, laid the problem at the door of population and said that ecologists and greens had always been against population growth. He argued that all multilateral environmental organizations such as the IPCC, the 1992 Rio Conference (Earth Summit) and the UN Environment Programme were tainted political organizations.

In the discussion that followed, the IPCC and Dr Pachauri came in for much criticism and few pulled their punches in expressing their views.

Clearly there is a role in the debate for contrarian views, but Messrs Singer and Peiser are so far off the curve that it makes one wonder what the India International Centre is doing giving them a platform. Or is the country’s most prestigious foreign policy centre a haven for closet climate skeptics? Perhaps the IIC could redress the balance by hosting an event with CSM next …
 
Maldives seeks India’s help

The Maldives hit international prominence last year with the efforts of the media-savvy President Nasheed to highlight the country’s acute vulnerability to climate change. One of the most low-lying countries in the world, the Maldives has now sought India’s cooperation to access new technologies particularly renewable energy, and data gathering to tackle climate change.

Vice president Mohammed Waheed Hassan said that Asian countries should pool their resources and create a fund without waiting for help from developed countries.

Green Commonwealth Games?

India took its first steps towards hosting the world’s first “Green” Commonwealth Games (CWG), when New Delhi’s chief minister Sheila Dixit and Suresh Kalmadi, Chairman of the XIXth CWG, released an Ecological Code on 17 February. The ecological code aims to minimise the impact of the Games on energy and water consumption, air quality and on the release of carbon dioxide emissions. The Ecological Code is promoted jointly by the CWG Committee and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the organizers say it will be pushed out strongly in the eight months remaining until the start of the CWG.

UNEP has been advising the CWG to ensure that international best practice is adopted to green this event ever since it signed a MOU with the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee (CWOC) in 2007. (UNEP was also the key advisor for the Beijing Olympics, as well as the Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket tournament.)

Among the measures adopted by Delhi in its efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of the Games, has been the closure of one of the city’s coal-fired power plants. The CWOC is also reportedly looking at recycling waste generated during the games and offsetting emissions through a plantation drive. The city’s Thyagraj Stadium has incorporated rain water harvesting and used recycled bricks and rooftop solar panels in its construction – making it one of the greenest stadia in the country.

With one of the largest CNG-run bus fleets in the world and a metro in the process of enlargement, Delhi is inching its way towards a more sustainable transport infrastructure. Can more be done in the coming eight months given the controversy that has dogged the Games? If the CWOC is to be believed, more must be done to live up to the carbon neutral claims made by the organizers. If so, it will surely go down as the greenest sporting event in India of recent times.

Indian states get active on climate change

Himachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh is already ahead of most of India’s 25 states when it comes to taking green initiatives and is on its way to becoming the country’s first carbon neutral state by increasing its forest cover and earning carbon credits.  The state also notched another ‘first’ when it sent its Chief Minister to visit another country to gain exposure on best practice on climate action.

In 2008, Himachal announced its Environment Master Plan. Some of the initiatives under this Master Plan include the complete banning of felling and plastics, as well as a ban on setting up highly polluting industrial units in the state. The state also levies an innovative voluntary ‘green tax’ on vehicles to generate funds for climate change initiatives. Furthermore, all government buildings have been given a mandate to undertake environmental auditing.

The latest initiative was Chief Minister Dhumal’s visit to Costa Rica (9-17 February, 2010), to learn about how that renowned Central American state managed to increase its forest cover so successfully. Costa Rica’s lessons are apparently to be incorporated in HP’s Master Plan to increase the green cover in the state.

During his overseas visit, the Chief Minister also announced the establishment of a climate research centre for the state which would help it in tackling natural disasters such as earthquakes, landslides, glaciers outbursts and flash floods, and devise suitable adaptive and mitigation strategies.

He also met the heads of various NRI (Non-resident Indian) organisations in the United States and invited them to invest in the eco-friendly industrial development of the state.

In related action, the World Bank has agreed to give a Programmatic Development Policy Loan of $450 million to Himachal Pradesh for sustainable environmental growth, as well as a loan for watershed management – to be sanctioned once WB officials visit the state in March 2010.

Orissa

The Eastern state of Orissa has faced as many as eight cyclones – including one super cyclone – seventeen droughts and twenty floods in four decades (1965-2006). With these impacts uppermost in their minds, the Orissa government is in the process of finalising a State Action Plan on Climate Change with the support of DFID and the World Bank. Several rounds of meetings between state officials and representatives from both DFID and World Bank have been held in this regard. The Orissa government is planning to set up nine sectoral committees which would focus on nine impact areas of climate change including health and social vulnerability, energy, transport, agriculture, urban development, water resources, coastal and disaster, mining and forests. These committees would be headed by the secretaries of the respective state government departments, and the government is in the process of nominating nodal officers for each of the nine committees. After final rounds of meetings in March, the SAP (State Action Plan) on Climate Change is expected to be finalised by April 2010.

Gujarat

Gujarat’s canny state government has taken a lead in combating the effects of climate change in the state, as the commercial benefits thereof become evident. The government plans to invest a total of Rs. 3,600 crore over the next few years on climate change initiatives and Chief Minister Narendra Modi has allocated Rs. 100 crore to the state government’s Climate Change Department for its work. The main focus of action will be reducing the state’s total greenhouse gas emissions and thereby earning carbon credits.

The Climate Change Department – only the fourth such in the world – will work on a wide range of projects including research, development and commercialisation of green technology; research on impacts of climate change on agriculture and health; awareness and advocacy on climate change issues; and launching the Green credit movement. The state government is also in the process of finalising a State Action Plan on climate change which will include separate plans for each district bearing in mind regional environmental concerns.

Madhya Pradesh

Following in the footsteps of Himachal and Gujarat, Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan of Madhya Pradesh announced the establishment of a climate research centre for the state recently. This would focus on collecting data on climate change impacts on the state and thus help in formulating effective mitigation strategies. However, no timeline or date by which this centre will be established and fully functional has been announced by the Chief Minister.

Delhi Sustainable Development Summit 2010

Post-Copenhagen Delhi witnessed the first major gathering of a large number of present and former heads of states, several ministers, representatives from various research and developmental organisation, non-governmental organisations, academia, professionals, corporate sector and media, from around the world – at TERI’s tenth Delhi Sustainable Development Summit on 5 February 2010 in the capital city.

The three-day summit, called ‘Beyond Copenhagen: new pathways to sustainable development,’ included sessions addressing everything from accelerating socio-economic development as a key to adaptation, to building institutions for effective climate governance, and financing opportunities.

Coming at a time when both the IPCC and its Chair – and DSDS host – Dr Rajendra Pachauri, had come under sustained assault in the press, both featured heavily in speeches and discussions at the Summit. In his inaugural address, the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh said he fully supported the IPCC and its leadership. He also highlighted the efforts India has taken on climate change and referred to the country’s leadership at Copenhagen, especially in securing the Copenhagen Accord which the government welcomed. However, he maintained that India will forward a catalogue of voluntary commitments to the UNFCCC and not commit to a set of negotiated legal obligations.

Other keynote speakers included Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh; Prime Minister’s special envoy on climate change, Shyam Saran; former Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer; and Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University.

When he took to the stage, Jairam Ramesh, in a show of solidarity gave a hug to the IPCC Chair and TERI head, Dr Pachauri, seeking to dispel rumours of bad blood between the two men.

In his address, Yvo de Boer said that Post-Copenhagen, the UNFCCC had received indications in the form of targets and commitments from 56 nations accounting for 80 percent of GHG emissions but there is was still need for further effort. He listed the main challenges needing to be tackled as: unsustainable lifestyles globally; an ever-increasing population and rising demand; lack of good economics on why the present development model was unsustainable; and very few countries willing to undertake initiatives.

Despite the attacks on climate science of late and on the credibility of the IPCC in particular, there was unanimous agreement from speakers at the Summit on the problems associated with climate change, and consensus that serious impacts were in store if substantial efforts to cut GHG emissions were not undertaken swiftly.

Indo-UK study looks at water cycle changes

India and the UK signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on research co-operation to study changing water cycles on 17 February in New Delhi. The MoU was signed between Ministry of Science and Technology, Prithviraj Chavan, and UK Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills, Pat McFadden, as part of bilateral efforts to promote scientific exchange. The collaborating partners under the MoU would be the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Indian Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES).

Changes in the global water cycle as a result of climate change pose a serious threat to society and currently there is insufficient data to accurately predict its implications for monsoon patterns in India. Since most of India’s agriculture depends on monsoon rainfall it is all the more important to study changes in the water cycle such that crop patterns can be adjusted accordingly and help mitigate the effects of climate change on agriculture.

Under this collaboration scientists from both the UK and India will jointly study changing rainfall patterns, with the improved information exchange resulting in better flood and drought mapping and predictions for both India and the UK. This is intended to help increase the preparedness of different states to natural calamities and address the issues of food security, loss of livelihood and loss of property.

At present UK and Indian scientists are already working to improve the prediction of floods and drought in India and NERC has committed £10 million towards this as part of its Changing Water Cycle Programme.

Events Round-up for February 2010

  1. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit, 5-7 February 2010, New Delhi: Organised by TERI with the central theme, Beyond Copenhagen: new pathways to sustainable development.
  2. CII-The Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy Conference, 8 February 2010, New Delhi: Organised by CII the conference gave a common platform to senior government officials, global investors and leading Indian entrepreneurs to discuss the promotion of the exciting potential of renewable energy to millions of people across India. Delegates discussed how renewable technologies could be scaled up at the national level, and the role business could play in improving livelihoods, health and education opportunities whilst tackling climate change.
  3. Environment Partnership Summit 2010, 11-13 February 2010, Kolkata: This summit was organised by the Indian Chamber of Commerce for preparing a road map for global competitiveness and brought together multiple stakeholders discussing on a wide range of focus areas including carbon oriented economy, current clean technologies, water and waste water management in an industrial setup, environment management and environment health and safety.
  4. Global Warming and CC: The Copenhagen Summit Talks, 13 February 2010, Jadavpur: Organised by Dr. Sugata Hazra this summit witnessed some distinguished speakers reflecting on climate change, and achievements and failures post Copenhagen summit.

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: Budget 2010, Centre for Social Markets, CSM, Green CWG, ICW, India Climate Watch, India gets panel on climate change, Indian state action on climate change, Maldives, Shyam Saran, Shyam Saran quits, UNFCCC

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.

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: BASIC, Centre for Social Markets, Himalayan glaciers, ICW, India Climate Watch, India Climate Watch - January 2010, India low carbon, Solar Mission

UN COP Negotiations

January 1, 2010 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

UN Climate Negotiations – Copenhagen [07 Dec – 18 Dec 09]

CSM Reporting Live from Copenhagen – India Climate Watch – Daily

CSM Statement – Opening of UN Climate talks in Copenhagen

AOSIS – Press Release

South Says: ‘China do the right thing – lead in Copenhagen’

India
– Act Now – Save Copenhagen

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: Centre for Social Markets, COP15, CSM reporting live from Copenhagen, India Climate Watch, reporting live from Copenhagen

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?

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: BASIC, Centre for Social Markets, COP15, COP15 Summary, Copenhagen Accord, ICW, India Climate Watch, India Climate Watch - December 2009, India energy intensity, Jairam Ramesh, Parliament debates Copenhagen Accord, Rajya Sabha

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:

  1.  No to legally binding emission cuts
  2. International measurement, reporting and verification of unsupported mitigation actions
  3. 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.

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 6 November 2009, The 10th EU-India Summit, New Delhi:
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 16-20 November, 2009, Energy Efficiency Trade Mission” to New Delhi, Chennai, and Mumbai. Organised by U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC).
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.

 

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: Barcelona, BASIC, Centre for Social Markets, CSM, Delhi climate change plan, fuel efficiency standards, Glacier Report, ICW, India Climate Watch, Jairam Ramesh, JNNSM, MoEF, UNFCCC

India Climate Watch – October 2009

October 30, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – OCTOBER 2009 (Issue 7)


INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s Desk
UNFCCC Bangkok Climate Talks
Global Day of Action – Genius of 350.org
European Union Wobbles on Climate Finance
Jairam & the Leaked Memo Controversy
Delhi Climate & Technology Conference
SAARC Environment Ministers Gather in Delhi
ASEAN Leaders Talk Climate

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting:
Malini Mehra, Kaavya Nag, Pranav Sinha



From the Editor’s Desk

October saw a number of lackluster international meetings – the London Major Economies Forum and the G20 Finance Ministers Summit – that passed without much of note being delivered. The real action from an Indian perspective lay at the national level. Delhi not only hosted a major international conference on climate change and technology development, but also several regional and bilateral visits including the first Sino-Indian climate change workshop and a SAARC environment ministers meeting.

At the same time as states such as Kashmir were signaling the alarming rate of glacier disappearance in the valley and the threat of catastrophic floods to come, the Government was finally getting a grip on the appalling state of climate impact awareness in the country. The Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, announced the establishment of an Indian Network of Climate Change Assessment (INCCA) and sought to strengthen domestic scientific coordination and capacity on the subject.

The real story of the month, however, was the controversy over Jairam Ramesh and his leaked memo to the Prime Minister allegedly changing the course of Indian climate policy. In the furious ‘trial by media’ that followed, disaffected Indian climate negotiators (covertly) and the nation’s commenterati (overtly) lined up to take pots shots at the Minister and his political future hung by a thread. The Minister was forced to issue a public statement and held onto his post by a whisker.
What the incident illuminated, however, was the abject state of Indian discourse on climate change with more venom being vented over alleged betrayals of national interest, than an examination of what that national interest was in a climate changed-age when basic assumptions about the nation and its future had to be questioned.

In contrast, the Global Day of Action on 24 October saw an awe-inspiring move by ordinary people to send a clear message to their cloth-eared political leaders: climate change required real action and the target had to be a maximum of 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In almost 300 separate events across the country, Indians too joined in the global call.

Given that the UNFCCC’s Copenhagen talks are discussing a 450 ppm target not 350 ppm, such calls may seem heroic at best and implausible at worst. But public opinion will be a decisive force in this debate. And public opinion is now getting globally organized. Importantly, as the 350.org events showed, more and more young people are becoming politicized on this issue. Politicians had better prepare to listen – the personal impacts could very well lie in store at the ballot box.

UNFCCC Bangkok Climate Talks

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held its penultimate session before the Copenhagen climate conference in Bangkok from 28 September to 9 October 2009.  Coming on the heels of the UN Climate Week in New York the week before, the aim of the Bangkok talks was to start ‘real’ negotiations and make a dent in the still highly-bracketed 200+ page official document. The outcome hoped for was the draft of a negotiating document that could be the basis for agreement at Copenhagen in December.  

By Day 2 of the negotiations, however, it was clear that the real work of line-by-line discussions would only start the following week. While the news dampened spirits, two key portions of the Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) section of the document progressed much faster than the others. After the downer of Week 1, expectations for an outcome-led Bangkok round of talks were left for Week 2.

Areas that progressed well were textual agreement on enhanced action on development and transfer of technology, and enhanced action on adaptation and means of adaptation. Co-chairs were given unanimous mandates to consolidate the text, and updated ‘non-papers’ on the text were ready by the first Friday of the talks. While discussions on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), a part of the discussion on mitigation, moved forward, progress on developed and developing country mitigation actions (under separate Contact Groups), and response measures saw no progress, as did discussions on finance.

The stock-taking Plenary on Friday, 2nd October was a key milestone that would measure progress made at Bangkok. On the LCA, by Friday, the adaptation text had been streamlined, and text on technology had been reduced substantially. The text on finance had not yet finished its first reading, and little progress had been made on mitigation. On the Kyoto Protocol (KP) Working Group, while there was some progress on LULUCF (land use and land use change and forests), overall there was little progress. It was clear that Parties and their negotiators at Bangkok did not have the go-ahead from their political masters to go further. They could not commit to anything of substance – not on targets, monitoring, base-years or commitment periods, nor LCA mitigation or finance. Clearly, until more ambitious mandates comes from capitals, there could be little hope of progress.

Week 2 of the Bangkok talks saw Contact Groups on all sections of the LCA and KP breaking into informal sessions (to which observers are not allowed), to iron out key differences and issues in the text. Week 2 also saw the level of distrust between Parties growing. While revised texts (non-papers) were presented on REDD, agriculture and LULUCF, international aviation and maritime transport, no significant progress was made on substantive issues even on these sections.

The final Plenary session on Friday 9th October took stock of all the progress made at Bangkok. The main objective of the Bangkok session had been to consolidate text under the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action and the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol. A number of non-papers were produced under the AWG-LCA, for further discussion in Barcelona in November. Many delegates described progress on adaptation, technology and capacity building as ‘satisfactory’ but agreed that big divides remained on finance and mitigation.

On the Kyoto Protocol, no conclusions were reached on the first commitment period until 2012. The only good news on targets was Norway’s pledge to reduce its emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2020. However, in line with many other developed country targets, the Norwegian target does contain offsets and is conditional on key emitting countries making similar commitments.

The Bangkok talks ended on an acrimonious note with charges by the Sudanese Chair of G77/ China that Annex 1 countries were plotting to ‘kill’ the Kyoto Protocol. In the febrile environment of the last few days of talks such grandstanding made media headlines but glossed over differences in negotiation stances among both Annex 1 and non-Annex 1. While the US had made unequivocal statements about its objections to the Kyoto Protocol as a non-signatory, those countries legally bound by Kyoto Protocol commitments, such as EU Member States, had more nuanced responses.

The status of the KP in a post-2012 regime, however, will undoubtedly resurface in the Barcelona talks due for November and continue to be the subject of intense discussion at Copenhagen.

The Global Day of Action – Genius of 350.org

This year has marked an unprecedented coming together of civil society around the world fighting to push climate change higher up the political agenda. The largest grouping is the Global Campaign on Climate Action (GCCA) with its TckTckTck campaign which brings together NGOs, faith groups, labour unions and a diverse range of civil society groups united on a common demand for a Fair, Ambitious and Binding (FAB) treaty from Copenhagen. CSM is proud to be a founder member of the GCCA and a proponent of the TckTckTck campaign.

Of the many initiatives that make up the rainbow GCCA flotilla, one of the most imaginative and impressive is 350.org –the movement co-founded by American journalist, Bill Mckibben which call for atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to return from the present 390 parts per million to 350 parts per million. The level leading scientists – including Dr Pachauri of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change- argue is the safe upper limit for humanity.

The power of this simple message has set imaginations alight across the world and sparked a new movement for climate action from young to old. The genius of 350.org has been the simplicity of the ‘ask’ and the intuitive elegance of its message. Everyone wants to do their bit and 350 provides a concrete and scientifically-tenable goal. To express their support, people are asked to display the number -350 – in all the endless variety of geographical, cultural, physical and aesthetic locations the world offers, indicating the broad mass of support for it.

The Global Day of Action on climate change – 24 October 2009 – brought this out in an unprecedented and awe-inspiring manner. People around the world rallied to the 350.org call and the website registered over 5200 events in 181 countries. CNN called it, “the most widespread day of political action in history.” Of these events, more than 2000 took place in the United States alone – in every state of the union – belying the indifference to the climate change that has long been associated with the country.

India too saw action up and down the sub-continent. Almost 300 rallies, marches and events profiling the 350.org call for action took place in virtually every region in the country. It was a call that Indians took up as our own. CSM’s Bangalore and Kolkata offices played a key role in local coalitions on climate change that took to the streets prominently displaying their support and attracting strong media attention.

This story was multiplied in towns and cities across the world. The 22,000 photos from every imaginable corner of the world displaying the ‘magic number’ in every imaginable setting can now be seen on the 350.org website.

The Global Day of Action saw the full force of Margaret Mead’s oft-quoted reflection, “Never doubt that a small group of people can make change. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.” The difference being that this event could only have happened in the modern inter-connected multi-media, social networking age. It was the first time that small groups of people had issued a common call, virtually simultaneously, from almost every nation on the planet.

There is no doubt that 350.org and the Global Day of Action have unleashed a prolific public movement – gold dust in campaigning terms. People have responded to the call for a simple public statement – make 350.org the target for atmospheric concentration in order to prevent dangerous climate change.

Taken together, this and the World Wide Views project of 26 September, have shown that global public opinion is clearly for strong and meaningful climate change. Politicians looking for a mandate for action need not look far- they have it in these two events. But how quickly can people move from slogans to social transformation? And how will these events impact the negotiations? These and other questions remain. The next Global Day of Action will be on 12 December – right in the middle of Copenhagen. We will see then how responsive – or not – the world’s politicians have been.

European Union Wobbles on Climate Finance

EU finance and environment ministers and Council meet

Expectations were high going into the EU finance ministers meeting on XX October on funds for climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, but ministers failed to deliver. The hope had been that finance ministers would get the EU to accept a figure of 100 billion Euros for climate financing to help vulnerable countries meet their climate needs from 2012 onwards.

The EU however failed to agree on an internal financial burden sharing formula as to who would pay what as a collective contribution to climate adaptation and mitigation financing for poor countries. The meeting highlighted strong differences within the 27-member EU between richer and poorer states – in particular, new EU member states from Central and Eastern Europe, such as Poland, who led the charge for fairer burden sharing. Britain’s Chancellor Alistair Darling said although the meeting was a ‘good opportunity, a number of countries wanted two things that the majority found unacceptable’.

While Poland and its allies asked for ‘fast-start’ financing to be contributed on a voluntary basis, they also wanted to contribute less and less to EU’s responsibilities over time. The Polish premier argued that the EU’s poorer member states and those still in industrial transition such as Romania and Albania, should not be expected to pay for the carbon transition of major emitting economies such as China and Brazil which had better infrastructure, technology and standard of living in comparison.

While the EU Finance Ministers meeting was inconclusive on climate finance, the EU Environment Ministers picked up the baton the next day and managed to overcome internal debate on targets and offsets. They agreed to the EU’s 2050 targets of 80-95% below 1990 levels, and an upper warming limit of 2 degrees Celsius. There was also discussion on excess credits in many EU countries, and the issue of hot air or excess Assigned Amount Units (AAUs).
 
The EU Council meeting of 30 October did reach broad conclusion on figures needed at a global level for climate finance and endorsed the European Commission’s estimate of 100 billion Euros annually by 2020. This was agreed as the net incremental cost of mitigation and adaptation in developing countries to be met through a combination of efforts. However, the outcome indicated a wide-range figure of EUR 22 to 50 billion per year to be the required amount through international public support. Missing also were any specifics as to the EU’s contribution to this total sum other than to indicate that the EU was ready to take on its ‘fair share’.

Jairam & the Leaked Memo Controversy

On 18 October, the Times of India broke  a story that Minister of State for Environment  & Forests, Jairam Ramesh, had, in a confidential memo to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, allegedly “suggested that India junk the Kyoto Protocol, delink itself from G77 — the 131-member bloc of developing nations — and take on greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments under a new deal without any counter guarantee of finances and technology.” Furthermore, the paper argued, the Minister sought to align himself with the USA and Australia in agreeing to water down the distinction between Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries entrenched in the Kyoto Protocol, and proposing permitting IMF and WTO-style review and `surveillance’ of national mitigation actions that India takes voluntary at its own cost in
At the recently-concluded Bangkok talks, the paper argued that India and the G77/China had opposed the US and EU-backed ‘Australian Proposal’ which they said sought to “kill” the Kyoto Protocol, and alter the character of the UN Framework Convention. India’s negotiators charged that a single legal instrument, as proposed by Australia, would “unilaterally impose new commitments and burdens on developing countries and undermine the exiting convention”. The paper characterized Ramesh’s proposals in the leaked letter to the Prime Minister as marking a “major shift” in India’s climate policy.
The story created a storm of controversy in India. In further reporting, the paper pointed to a wide rift between India’s negotiating team and the Minister saying that he had exceeded his own ‘red lines’ as given to the Indian Delegation in their Brief for Bangkok.
In the days following the report, the Minister’s political future hung by a thread. With little visible public backing – but not insignificant behind-the-scenes support – the Minister was forced to issue a retraction but the speculation continued.

Here we attach the Minister’s statement in full:

 “Yesterday, a leading newspaper had carried a news- item on a discussion note that I wrote on climate change. The news-item has quoted only partially and selectively from this note, and significantly added its own editorial interpretations, thereby completely distorting and twisting its meaning .Let me reiterate India’s non-negotiables in the ongoing international climate change negotiations.

While India is prepared to discuss and make public periodically the implementation of its National Action Plan on climate change, India will never accept internationally legally binding emission reduction targets or commitments as part of any agreement or deal or outcome. Inida will never accept any dilution or renegotiation of the provisions and principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In particular. we will never agree to the elimination of the distinction between developed (“Annex I”) countries and developing (“non-Annex I”) countries as far as internationally legally binding emission reduction obligations are concerned. Internationally legally binding emission reduction targets are for developed countries and developed countries alone, as globally agree under the Bail Action Plan.

India will agree to consider international measurement, reporting and verification (“MRV”) of its mitigation actions only when such actions are enabled and supported by international finance and technology.

India, like other developing countries, fully expects developed countries to fulfill their obligations on transfer of technology and financial transfer that they committed to under the UNFCCC and the Bali Action for both mitigation and adaptation actions.

There has always been a broad political consensus regarding the Indian position on climate change. India has been engaged in climate change negotiations, whether in UNFCCC or multilateral fora, based on a clear and definite brief which has not changed since 2004.

My note suggested the possibility of some flexibility in India’s stance, keeping the above non –negotiable firmly intact and keeping India irrevocably anchored in the UNFCCC of 1992 and the Bali Action Plan of 2007. I have never at any stage considered or advocated abandoning the fundamental tenets of the Kyoto Protocol, as was stated in the article- this is a mischievous interpretations of the newspaper. My basic point is that India’s interests and India’s interests alone shall dictate at our negotiating stance. As far as the insinuations by the newspaper that I am reflecting a pro-US bias, I will let my actions speak for themselves. India is working, and will continue to work, closely with our partners in the G-77 and China in articulating a common position on this issue, while also engaging with other countries to our benefit.

I had written a comprehensive 7-page letter to a large number of MPs from all political parties and to all Chief ministers in early October 2009 detailing our thinking, making our position very clear and stating that accountability for our actions on Climate change-through outcome-based legislation ,if found acceptable by our Parliament-is to our Parliament and to our Parliament alone. I welcome the feedback that I have been receiving on it. Earlier, in August, I had written to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha suggesting that four Member of Parliament-based on posts that they hold-be included in the official delegation to the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP-15) to be held at Copenhagen in December,2009.I will continue to keep political leadership across party lines and civil society fully engaged on this issue over the coming weeks and months.”

For a comment piece by Malini Mehra & Bittu Saghal on this issue, please refer to ‘Can India win if it loses the climate battle?’ on the CCI Portal: http://www.climatechallengeindia.org/Can-India-win-if-it-loses-the-climate-battle-30-Oct-2009

Delhi High Level Conference on Climate Change & Technology Transfer

Held in Delhi from 22-23 October 2009, the Government of India and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) jointly organized a high level conference  to promote international technology development and transfer in the context of the Bali Action Plan. The conference was India’s official contribution to the UNFCCC process towards Copenhagen and also included an international exhibition on climate technologies in the sidelines of the conference. The conference followed on from discussions initiated at the Beijing High-level Conference on Climate Change: Technology Development and Technology Transfer, co-organized by the Chinese Government and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) in 2008 which had taken stock of clean technologies, barriers to transfer and the potential for technology collaboration.
The Delhi conference brought together 58 delegations, of which 30 were at ministerial or vice ministerial level with around 30 experts who shared their knowledge of key aspects of technology transfer and deployment. The Prime Minister of India and the President of the Maldives opened the inaugural session and India’s Finance Minister inaugurated the Clean Technology Exhibition which saw the involvement of 148 companies from around the world (and a stall by the Centre for Social Markets). The conference concluded with the adoption of a formal ‘Delhi Statement on Global Cooperation on Climate Technology’.

Key messages from the conference:

1. Technology development and transfer cannot be discussed in the abstract but must move towards specificity in global mechanisms for technology development, deployment, and transfer.
2. Must learn from lessons of the Green Revolution in which India led the way with international cooperation in 1960s and 1970s. Many speakers alluded to the CGIAR network as a model for addressing the challenge of climate change as well as energy poverty.
3. Need for accelerated investment in research and development, including collaboration in research between advanced and developing countries, and support for capacity building in developing countries. Both public and private financing important to enable accelerated large-scale development, transfer and deployment of technologies for adaptation and mitigation.
4. Widespread recognition of need for special mechanism under the UNFCCC for technology transfer, development, and deployment. This should be supported by a special fund with periodic performance assessment and a mechanism to oversee the functioning of an IPR regime for climate and development goals.

SAARC Environment Ministers Gather in Delhi

Environment ministers of Member States of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) met in New Delhi, India on 20th October 2009 for the Eighth Meeting of the SAARC Environment Ministers. They adopted a Delhi Statement, agreeing on specific joint actions to further strengthen environmental governance, biodiversity conservation, and climate change cooperation. They also agreed to hold a joint side event on climate change, voicing the shared concerns of the region at COP-15 in Copenhagen.

The Ministers recognized that the South Asia was amongst the regions most vulnerable to climate change and there was a need to build up capacity in the region to cope with extreme weather events and other adverse effects of climate change. By the Sixteenth SAARC Summit at Thimphu, Bhutan, in April 2010, a SAARC Agreement on Natural Disaster Rapid Response Mechanism is also expected to be finalised for signing. The Government of India will provide US$ 1 million each to the SAARC Forestry Centre, Thimphu, and the SAARC Coastal Zone Management Centre, Malé, to strengthen these Centres.

SAARC Ministers underlined the crucial importance of close cooperation in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP-15) in Copenhagen, with a view to enabling the full, effective and sustained implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). They said SAARC will “stick to the Kyoto Protocol, Bali Action Plan and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” and a joint statement on climate change would be issued at the Copenhagen summit in December.

The Ministers underscored the need to undertake and enhance cooperation in areas related to environment amongst the Member States in order to have a coordinated response to climate change and agreed to institutionalize an annual workshop – a South Asia Workshop on Climate Change Actions (SAWCCA). The Government of India will host the first workshop in early 2010. Also, Bhutan proposed to adopt ‘Climate Change’ as the key theme of the Sixteenth SAARC Summit to be held in Thimphu in April 2010 – a move which was welcomed by all members.

Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA) holds ‘Civil SAARC’

Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA) organised a ‘Civil SAARC’ conference on 19 – 20 October 2009 on the sidelines of SAARC Environment Ministers Conference in New Delhi. The objective of the conference was to find a common voice among civil society institutions of the SAARC countries. The seminar was mostly given a miss by ministers and government officials from India and SAARC countries with the exception of a minister from the Maldives. Many of India’s neighbours such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Maldives emphasized the benefits of moving to low-carbon economic base and questioned India’s comparative reticence on the subject. The Maldives outshone other countries in the level of its ambition – the country has vowed to become carbon neutral by 2010 – and acted as the moral voice from the region. The differing views expressed revealed a gap between Indian rhetoric of regional unity and a reality where it is clearly seen as a regional power not living up to neighbourhood expectations on climate leadership.

ASEAN Leaders Talk Climate

India ‘Looks East’

ON 24 October 2009, leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and India came together in the sidelines of the 15th ASEAN summit in Thailand to discuss present and future relations of the 7th ASEAN-India Summit. Among other issues, leaders discussed food security, agriculture and forestry, disaster management and climate change. The ASEAN-India Business Council was reactivated at this summit, and India’s ‘Look East’ Policy given a boost.

ASEAN leaders and India issued a joint statement in which they indicated their shared vision and common concern on the impacts of climate change to the economy, environment and well-being of the people. Leaders emphasized the need to work in a coordinated fashion towards the full realization of the UN Climate Convention and for the successful outcome of the Copenhagen Conference of Parties (COP).

India proposed a joint programme on disaster management and sharing satellite data on areas affected by natural disasters. This was initiated in light of the recent spate of natural disasters in India and Southeast Asia, and would build on India’s expertise in Information Technology and space technology.
 
It was also proposed that an ASEAN-India climate change network be established. Leaders stressed the importance of cooperation in science, technology and environment to promote dynamic and sustainable development in the region. There was also talk of activating the ASEAN-India Science and Technology Fund and the ASEAN-India Green Fund – a fund to which India has contributed USD 50 million.

Bilateral Climate Research Initiatives – Argentina, China, Norway, Scotland and United Kingdom

India-UK Join Hands for Solar Research

A two-day conference held in late September in London marked the start of an India-UK tie-up on solar energy research. The Department of Science and Technology (DST) from India, in collaboration with the Research Councils UK (RCUK), are looking to strengthen collaboration between research organizations of the two countries. Representatives from IIT also interacted with counterparts from UK universities such as Oxford and Cambridge. The DST and RCUK have already called for research proposals on a range of solar photovoltaic and energy generation areas, including low-cost materials for PV systems, power systems and distribution and thin film performance and stability. This initiative comes on the heels of the GoI internal agreement on the Solar Mission announced under the National Action Plan on Climate Change. It remains to be seen whether this UK-India research cooperation will be incorporated as part of the Solar Mission or be a separate, short-term initiative.

Climate Change Research Centre (Bangalore)

Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State of Environment and Forests, announced India’s plan to set up a world-class ‘data hub’ facility to carry out climate change research and investigate its impacts on the economy and environment. To be set up in Bangalore, the institute is to be called the ‘National Institute of Climate and Environment’ (NICE), and receive an initial funding of INR 40 crore. The programme will involve the use of Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) satellites to measure greenhouse gas emissions and monitor Himalayan ecosystems. This will be the second such institute on climate change in the country, the first being the Centre for Climate Change Research at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) in Pune.

NICE builds on the Minister’s efforts to strengthen India’s in-house capacity on climate research, especially in climate monitoring and modeling, and generate more locally-relevant, quantified data on greenhouse gas emissions in India over time. The partnership between the MoEF and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) is an effort to generate more research and scientific literature and papers from developing countries, since much of the data on emission levels, baselines and standards are currently based Western models.

The Minister argued that domestic research institutions needed to strengthen their capacity to collect and analyse locally-relevant data to avoid biases creeping in with dependence on Western scientific data. If so, this will be a welcome and long-overdue change in policy emphasis in India where research on domestic climate impacts and knowledge generation has been stagnant compared to countries such as China and South Africa.

Climate Change – Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs)

October has been the month of India signing MoUs on climate, energy and clean technologies with foreign powers. Although progress on the UNFCCC multilateral negotiations on climate change might be moving slowly, Indian ministries have been responsive to invitations from foreign partners for bilateral cooperation agreements on climate change.

With four MoUs on partnership and cooperation, there has been an increased focus on South-South cooperation. India and Argentina signed a strategic partnership in mid-October to cover issues of global concern. Efforts to energise consultations will take place in May 2010. The two heads of state were in favour of closer bilateral ties on renewable energy and alternative energy sources and respective technologies.

In mid-October, a senior official for the Ministry for New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) travelled to Edinburgh to sign a bilateral India-Scotland MoU to drive innovation in renewable energy. Both governments agreed to increase supplies of wind energy, solar power and biofuels and leverage Scotland’s work in energy research and boost collaboration between Indian and Scottish universities. India is a potentially large market into which expertise and technologies on renewables can enter on a for-profit basis through the private sector, and also through the Energy Technology Partnership (ETP), an alliance of Scottish universities.

The big MoA this festive season was between the two young Asian giants – India and China. The agreement marked the start of cooperation on addressing climate change. The MoA was signed by Xie Xhenhua, vice chairman National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) of China, and Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State for Environment ad Forests, in New Delhi. The two countries are keen to intensify collaboration on energy efficiency, renewable energy, clean energy technologies, sustainable agriculture and afforestation. Key areas of focus are mitigation actions, policies and programmes. However, the two other areas of focus are adaptation and capacity building.

The India-Norway MoU was the last bilateral deal of the month, on cooperation in the implementation of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects under the Kyoto Protocol, to remain in force until 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period lapses. The pact was inked between the environment ministers of the two countries. The Parties will also provide information on domestic CDM regulations and procedures to companies from both countries. This proves as an added boost to CDM projects in the country. India is currently the second-largest beneficiary of CDM projects (1400 approved) after China. Minister Ramesh indicated at the conference, that if all these CDM projects were to be implemented, the result would be a net inflow of $6 billion into the country. This MoU implies Norway will support CDM projects coming to India. However, Norwegian minister of environment and international development also said CDM projects must benefit countries in Africa, where CDM has negligible presence.

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: 350.org, Bangkok climate talks, Centre for Social Markets, Climate technology conference, CSM, EU climate finance, Global day of action, ICW, India Climate Watch, India Climate Watch - October 2009, Jairam Ramesh, Leaked letter to PM, Manmohan Singh, SAARC, UNFCCC

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Indiaclimate twitter

Tweets by @Indiaclimate

Notable

Between contemplation and climate

Whether or not the USA, Europe, the Western world, the industrialised Eastern world (China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan), adhere to or not their paltry promises about being more responsible concerning the factors that lead to climate change, is of very little concern to us. We have never set any store by international agreements on climate […]

The ‘Hindu’, ignorant about weather and climate, but runs down IMD

We find objectionable the report by ‘The Hindu’ daily newspaper accusing the India Meteorological Department of scientific shortcoming (‘IMD gets its August forecast wrong’, 1 September 2016). The report claims that the IMD in June 2016 had forecast that rains for August would be more than usual but that the recorded rain was less than […]

dialogue

  • Misreading monsoon | Resources Research on Misreading monsoon
  • Satish on A tribute to the weathermen of Bharat
  • Climate portal editor on A tribute to the weathermen of Bharat
  • Climate portal editor on A tribute to the weathermen of Bharat
  • Climate portal editor on A tribute to the weathermen of Bharat

Categories

Copyright © 2025 indiaclimateportal.org.