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.

India Climate Watch – August 2009

August 31, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – AUGUST 2009 (Issue 5)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s desk
Bonn3 – A Summary
Overview of India’s submissions to UNFCCC
Vulnerable nations unite on climate change
Climate reporting – what India’s papers say
Himalayan glacier melt – the science base
India’s green cover as a carbon sink – Why forests matter
Climate Calendar: Sept – Dec 2009

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting
Kaavya Nag & Malini Mehra

From the Editor’s Desk

The countdown to Copenhagen has begun. On August 28th we passed the 100 day mark to the commencement of negotiations at the UN climate summit in December. The day also saw the launch of a movement that has been in the making for much of this year –the launch of the TckTckTck campaign –denoting the sound of a ticking clock – by the Global Campaign for Climate Change (GCCA). The campaign marks an unprecedented coming together of the world’s leading, and lesser known, organizations working on climate change – from heavyweights such as Greenpeace, Amnesty, WWF and Oxfam, to the Climate Action Network (CAN), faith-based organizations, youth groups and trade unions. CSM is also a founding member. The campaign has a simple ‘ask’ – a fair, ambitious and binding (FAB) agreement at Copenhagen to succeed the Kyoto Protocol which will expire in 2012. Activities were held around the world to mark the launch of the campaign. In Delhi, Chinese and Indian activists came together around a melting ice statue to represent the lives of young children today which hang in the balance. A poignant message from citizens of two of the world’s emergent superpowers.

On his own journey of Sino-Indian diplomacy, the Minister of Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, visited Beijing in August to discuss the climate negotiations and cooperation between the two countries. On the face of it, the two countries have a united front on the negotiations, both being members of the G77 political bloc, but the posturing is tactical. Behind the scenes, the situation is more complex. As the world’s largest emitter, China has its own interests and relationships. For example, the country has been pursuing a wide-ranging bilateral dialogue with the United States on climate and energy cooperation with expectations of a deal between the two largest global emitters imminent. China has also benefitted from several years of serious government study of climate change impacts across the vast country and now has a head start in most policy areas compared to India. The country’s highest political body, the National People’s Congress also for the first time in its history issued a draft resolution on climate change which could turn into legislation in the near future.

The country is also discussing the necessity of capping its emissions at the highest political levels. Recently a leading Chinese think-tank issued a detailed 900-page report on a CO2 mitigation strategy that would see China’s emissions peak at 2030. Not music to India’s years. The response of the Indian government has been to criticize China for daring to speak about emissions reduction targets at a time when it is trying to scotch such discussions. In China, however, despite diplomatic assurances to Ramesh, the debate on caps and peaks is well underway. No responsible emergent superpower can afford to do any less.

Bonn3 – a summary

WANTED! Political momentum for Copenhagen

If Bonn2, the last round of negotiations in April, ended on a low note, the break in between has helped bring energy back into climate negotiations. Events after Bonn-2 saw a steady build-up of political momentum. In July, the G8 in L’Aquila and the Major Economies Forum (MEF) included a welcome commitment to keep global warming below 2°. India too signed the statement, despite a political ruckus back home. British PM Gordon Brown became the first Annex I leader to put down a US$ 100 billion figure for mitigation and adaptation for developing countries. A successful United States-China bilateral on climate change meant more cooperation from both sides – the two largest emitters. Closer home, a visit from the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to India as part of her Asia tour included a bilateral on climate change.

Bonn times III

Delegates from all over the world met for a third time this year for 10 days in August at the UNFCCC in Bonn, to whittle down a rather bloated 200-page ‘revised negotiating text’. Text that had grown in size during Bonn2 as all interested countries (in their favourite negotiating blocks) adding their own lengthy paragraphs.
The draft text is intended to be the first cut of an agreement that will be the successor to the Kyoto Protocol agreed in 1997 and move global action to the next commitment stage after 2012. With Copenhagen less than four months away, there is serious concern that there are fewer excuses for not rounding off a satisfactory deal.

At Bonn3, Parties started off with an attempt at finding ‘areas of convergence’ in the revised negotiating text. It was clear right from the start that the undercurrents of divergence were not going to remain ‘outside the purview of this negotiation’. The process of consolidating text would be as political as it would be difficult.

Sure enough, some Parties (including G77 and China and the AOSIS), were of the opinion that the suggestions they had included were no longer recognizable as ‘their own’. This was a turn-around from the previous session, where Parties had agreed that text would not be ‘attributed’ to any groups or countries. The move was read as a lack of trust – something that an exasperated Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer and AWG-LCA Chair Michael Cutajar alluded to in one session. But it also had more serious implications – namely that the already glacial pace of negotiations would slow even further.

Bonn3 concluded that the highly contentious process of whittling down the text be postponed to Bangkok. Some progress had been made in ‘consolidating’ the text on technology transfer, adaptation, REDD and capacity building. Necessary but not sufficient, given that Copenhagen is but three ‘negotiating weeks’ away.
A positive development was developing country voices asking for a legally binding outcome at COP15. Most developing countries also support strict adherence of the revised text to the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Action Plan. They argue that text which does not follow the guidelines of the KP or BAP would be a time-consuming venture that the Convention can ill afford at this point.

But for all the optimism that the MEF and other summits provided, Annex 1 countries with notable exceptions such as the EU, continued to issue emissions reductions targets far below what the science requires. The demand from G77/China was a 40% cut by 2020 at 1990 levels.The current average Annex 1 totals are way below this demand and play fast and loose with base years.

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) had number crunched the collective Annex I targets. The results were not pretty. For all the talk of commitments, the average for the group amounted only to a puny 18 percent reduction below 1990 levels. Disappointing given that science is calling for an 85% reduction by 2050.
Targets announced during Bonn3 pushed the average little better. New Zealand’s ‘conditional’ target contributed little to the pool. Japan expressed the view that failing to reach 25-40% reductions by 2050 is ‘not wrong’; while Australia’s Senate rejected Premier Rudd’s already low and conditional targets just before Bonn3 ended.

Lack of progress on mid-term targets remains one worry. Another is the lack of progress on the finance pillar – either in terms of figures or architecture. With only 118 days from Bonn3 to Copenhagen, Annex1 parties have moved little on capacity building, technology transfer and financial mechanisms for adaptation and mitigation. There is no ‘ambitious plan’ with ‘clear mid-term targets’ for movement to a low-carbon economy. Figures on finance to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, an obvious priority for the most at-risk countries, remains uncertain.

The United States, in an NGO briefing, openly stated that ‘there is no big money coming’, that ‘there are some countries that should not expect finances, and who should come on board and accept targets’, and that intellectual property rights ‘could not be given away at low cost’. Many fear that the ‘numbers’ will be left in limbo until the last day at Copenhagen, despite Annex I members like the EU asking for a top-down, scientifically informed, ambitious target.

The AOSIS and the LDCs remain the few strong voices of reason, repeatedly reminding Parties that our common future and atmosphere is at stake here – that the atmosphere should be more important than market mechanisms or making money.

Overall, there were but minor areas of convergence. If the G77 and China asked for ‘technology transfer and economical capacity building’, the developed countries reiterated their willingness to deploy ‘innovation centres’, ‘research facilities’, and ‘market mechanisms’ to help developing countries address their mitigation and adaptation requirements. If developing countries asked for stronger targets from Annex I and greater ambition, developed countries asked for key developing countries to come on board for ‘additional targets to be met’.

The role of external forums also came under scrutiny with the United States highlighting the importance of external forums that involved ‘key countries’ (G8, G20 and MEF summits), and the need to bring in new text. Those not involved in these exclusive groups of large powerful countries and major emitters – ie. the 170-plus countries with little presence but the greatest vulnerability to climate change, e.g. AOSIS, LDCs, SIDs and African Countries – were understandably wary of being iced out of discussions that could affect them the most.

The G77 and China as a block (India is a part of this block), strongly opposed linking these external fora to the UNFCCC process, saying that while these were clearly meant to build political momentum, their outcomes could not be ‘copy pasted’ into the Convention text without consensus.
India and China also made formal submissions to the Secretariat on emission reductions affecting trade. Several developing countries opposed ‘unilateral’ decisions to curb emissions through taxation, and said that an open and international economic system is critical to progress and equality.
Yvo de Boer’s closing comments through a press conference, made clear his disappointment with the lack of progress. He said “If we continue at this rate, we are not going to make it”.

We must take heart however in some key opportunities to build more ‘political momentum’ prior to the Bangkok session. Finance is a key stumbling block, and Finance ministers are the next potential game-changers in this highly political negotiation process. The G20 summit on September 24-45 will discuss climate finance, and comes just after the UN General Assembly Summit in New York. All these come just prior to Bangkok.
If serious progress is not made in the Bangkok session, and the Bangkok process is not ‘considerably accelerated’, we can have few expectations from Barcelona or even Copenhagen. The chance to capitalize on opportune summits and build serious political momentum is now.

For daily CSM reports from Bonn3, see Climate Challenge India

Overview of India’s submissions to UNFCCC

Early in August 2009, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) released a compilation of the GoI’s submissions to the UNFCCC. Entitled “Climate Change Negotiations – India’s submissions to the UNFCCC”, the publication is intended to educate the public about the logic behind India’s approach to the climate negotiations, and the country’s submissions from 2008 up until 2009.

The GoI has maintained that poverty and economic reform are prime national policy objectives that cannot be compromised, but that economic development must in the long term, be driven by sustainability principles, with the co-benefits of reduced emissions. The submissions in this report are based on this approach, but also make strong demands on developed countries to assist in mitigation and adaptation efforts through financial, technological and capacity enhancing measures.

The report seeks to explain the negotiation process in simple English, demystifies complicated UNFCCC jargon, gives the average interested citizen a perspective on where negotiations stand, what India’s contributions are, suggested text as contributed by India, and a layperson’s explanation of the legal terms and statements.
The report also cross references explanations and submissions to the Convention and the Bali Action Plan, and clarifies what India’s interpretation of each statement is. For example, the ‘ultimate objective of the Convention’ that must be achieved ‘in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention’ refer to accordance with Commitments in Article 4, and Principles enunciated in Article 2 of the Convention.

Submissions under the Kyoto Protocol (KP) detail the scale of emission reductions that Annex I Parties should achieve (collectively), and the use of clean development mechanisms (CDMs) under the Protocol for developed countries to meet some of their emission targets. Most demands are in keeping with IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports.

The KP-submissions also include a detailed proposal for rules and guidelines for the treatment of Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) and other CDM activities. India sees LULUCF as a mechanism to boost its forestry operations, and a monetary incentive for its existing forests, and this is the context under which it has submitted this text to the UNFCCC.

Under submissions for Long-Term Cooperative Action (LCA) under the Bali Action Plan, where Parties agreed to decide on medium and long-term targets and cooperative action, India’s submissions include several interventions. These include details of text on Shared Vision; Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable (MRV) mitigation actions of developing and developed countries (separately); Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) of developing countries, Reduced Deforestation in developing countries (REDD), Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), and Afforestation and Reforestation (A&R); enhancing action on adaptation, improving the architecture for financial commitments and flow of finances; and technology transfer mechanisms.

India is part of the G77/China negotiating block with takes common positions at the UNFCCC. Most submissions detailed in the guide are in line with G77/ China policies and positions, which more or less stress the principles of historical responsibility, and payment to developing countries for ‘using up’ their development space.

Vulnerable nations unite on climate change

One of the key political events at Bonn3 was the unprecedented coming together of 80 of the world’s most vulnerable countries – members of the erstwhile political blocs of AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) . Collectively accounting for less than 1% of global emissions, the new grouping called joined forces to demand that ”the new Copenhagen climate agreement limit temperature increases to as far below 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.” Urging countries to go even further than the 2degrees target long called for by the European Union and of late agreed to by the G8 and major emerging powers such as India, the new political grouping of vulnerable countries expressed dismay at the lack of progress and ambition of the talks.

Ambassador Dessima Williams, Permanent Representative of Grenada to the United Nations and Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, called on delegates: “With less than 115 days left to Copenhagen, the time for posturing and pretension is over. … Current pledges by industrialized countries add up to emission reductions in the range of 10 to 16 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. This risks taking us on a path to temperature increases in excess of 3 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Such a path would be catastrophic for all countries.”

AOSIS and the Group of LDCs are lobbying for a more ambitious target of 350 degrees parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide equivalent, as advocated most notably by US scientist, James Hansen, as opposed to the 450 degrees ppm currently on the table at the UNFCCC talks.

AOSIS and the LDC Group are calling for the following:

Industrialized countries to collectively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 45 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020;
Global emissions to peak by 2015, and fall quickly thereafter to ensure that total global emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 enabling emissions to decline to 350 ppm;
Financial support for adaptation and mitigation targeted at the most vulnerable and poorest countries of approximately 1 per cent of the industrialized world’s GDP, or approximately US$400 billion annually, in addition to current development aid.

Bruno Sekoli from Lesotho, the Chair of the group of LDCs reminded negotiators: “Climate change is here, and already delivering damage. … We will not allow negotiators and governments to continue to ignore the human costs of climate change – hunger, disease, poverty and lost livelihoods are all on our doorstep. These impacts have the potential to threaten social and political stability, and in some cases, the very survival of low-lying island states”.

Ambassador Williams highlighted the urgency of their fight, “We need to see the leadership and ambition that is often claimed in the media, but in reality, has yet to emerge in the negotiating room.” Expressing the common fear of the group of vulnerable countries, she concluded “The window of opportunity is closing quickly. Copenhagen is the last chance to avoid a global human tragedy.”

Climate reporting – what the papers say

An overview of reports appearing in the Indian press on key climate-related issues:

GOI and State Governments

Jairam Ramesh in China to discuss climate change strategy. India-China agree that they will take a common stand at UNFCCC, say no to legally binding emission targets
PM’s council on climate change meets to finalise National Mission on Enhanced Energy Efficiency
PM convenes first-ever meeting of state environment ministers. Asks states to roll out climate change and conservation plans by December. Special ask for hill states to speed up their preparations and plans
PM’s council on climate change meets to discuss National Solar Mission. Key ministries voice concerns, eventually okay 92,000 crore package (over 30 years) to boost solar energy contribution to energy sector to 20 percent
India-China for joint research on Himalayas and glacier systems
India, China, Brazil oppose G20 climate finance proposal to contain greenhouse gases. Say self-financing is not an option
Department of Science and Technology (DST) initiates National Programme on CO2 Sequestration Research. Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is an approach to mitigating climate change that is still under research and development, but could be a promising option for continued carbon-based fuel source use
Gujarat will come out on top of the solar energy charts in India in the next few years. Gujarat govt to invest in 34 projects at a total investment of 2.4 billion US Dollars – avoiding 1.25 million tones of CO2 emissions each year
India releases “India’s forest and tree cover” report – Jairam Ramesh says ‘forests will save India’
Haryana Government signs an MOU with private investors to produce 215 MW of electricity from renewable sources
MNRE: capital cost of solar power projects could come down from 6-8 crores to 14 crore (current)
India releases “Climate Change Negotiations; India’s submissions to the UNFCCC” – detailing India’s submissions over 2008-09 to UNFCCC Secretariat
GOI at Bonn
Sticks to prior stands, says revised negotiating text must not be inconsistent with Bali Action Plan and Kyoto Protocol
Scope for collaboration on ‘transformational’ technologies not ‘marginal’ technologies
India raises concerns about double counting emissions ‘here, there and there’
Calls for separation of developed and developing country NAMAs and MRV’s
Opposes external text from outside international fora into UNFCCC process
India tells NGOs plan for COP15 is not fixed, will decide track depending on developments

More news

Third-largest store of ice in Tibet receding fast says study from China
World Ocean temperatures at all-time high in July
Patna: Students call for more renewable energy in India
China sets firm emission targets, says will peak by 2030
Shirdi temple complex goes solar – joins Tirupathi and Mt Abu – makes annual savings of 100,000 kg of LPG p/yr
Villagers in Alibaugh protest against 10,000 MW power plant in the region. Form human windmill in massive show of protest
Chennai NGO Pasumai Thayagam puts up countdown clock at Spencer Mall
Ban-Ki Moon warns of climate catastrophe without global deal
Industries met on corporate opportunities and climate change at a summit organized by NEERI
SME’s more green energy targets to bring in more investments
CII outlines green building code
India has fastest rate of CDM clearance

Himalayan glacier melt – the science base

The Himalayas and the its melting glaciers have received some attention in the recent weeks, ever since controversial statements made by India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh suggested that glacier melt was not as serious as many scientists and other observers believed.

Here we take a look at some of the latest science on the subject.

First, some important vital statistics:

The Himalayas span five countries and are home to unique mountain species and human cultures. They also have the largest concentration of glaciers outside the polar ice caps, feed nine major river systems in Asia, and are a lifeline to an estimated 1 billion people. Melt water from glaciers provides a key source of water for the region in the summer months; as much as 70 % in the Ganges and 50-60% in other rivers.

Such high concentrations of freshwater reserves are not found outside of the Poles, and have earned the Himalayas the title ‘The Third Pole’. However, there is little doubt that the glaciers of the Hindu Kush Himalayan (HKH) region are melting and that the melting is accompanied by a long-term increase of near-surface temperature.

A warming trend has been observed since the beginning of the Industrial revolution (approx 1750) and corresponds with a temperature rise of 0.3 °C in the first half of the 20th century. A second burst of warming in the latter half of the 20th century (the last 25 years) by another 0.3 °C has resulted in an overall temperature increase of nearly 0.74 degrees C.

Glaciers are highly sensitive to temperature changes, and this warming trend has resulted in glaciers across the globe retreating dramatically. A 1997 study of 200 glaciers worldwide by Dyurgerov and Meier concluded that the reduction in global area amounted to between 6,000 and 8,000 km2 over the 30 year period from 1961 to 1990.

In line with the worldwide trend, Himalayan glaciers have also been found to be in a general state of retreat since 1850. However, what has been of particular concern to scientists has been the accelerated rate of glacier retreat, ranging anywhere between 10 and 60 m per year in recent years.
A 1999 report from the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world, and if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”.

The most striking examples of glacier retreat from the Indo-China region are some of the following: the Gangotri glacier in India by nearly 23 m per year (currently); the formation of the 1km long Imja lake formed from the meltwater of the Imja glacier in Nepal; and the retreat of the Khumbu Glacier by over 5km since the time Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay climbed the Everest. The China Glacier Inventory shows substantial melting of virtually all glaciers in the Quinghai region of Tibet – a major source of the Yangtze river.

Field monitoring of Himalayan glaciers is a difficult process, owing to which field-based records over the long term are only available only for select Himalayan glaciers. Indian Remote Satellites (IRS) are regularly used to monitor small glaciers and ice fields, as are field photographs of glacier terminus and estimation of areal extent of glaciers.

Analytical studies from the region suggest a reduction in the maximum flow-period and increase in glacial melt-water runoff by 33-38% and loss in glaciated area. Annual ice thickness loss in the Western Himalayas is estimated at about 0.8m per year between 1999 and 2004. This has serious implications not just for the glacial systems themselves, but also for people living downstream, particularly in the longer term.

Nearly 500 million people are dependent on the Ganges, Bramhaputra and Indus river basins. Severe glacial melt causes a declining trend in river discharge, and changes freshwater flow regimes. This can have impacts on biodiversity, water supplies, infrastructure, industry and agriculture. Another serious issue is the increase in number and extent of glacial lakes. This in turn increases the potential threat of glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) causing catastrophic discharges of water .
The frequency of GLOFs in the Himalayan region has increased in the second half of the 20th century, and the damage to lives and infrastructure estimated at close to USD 3 million.

Studies from the Chinese Academy of Sciences report 5.5 percent shrinkage in the volume of China’s glaciers over the last 24 years. In the Indian Himalaya, significant glacial retreats have been recorded in the last three decades, particularly in the Siachen, Pindari, Gangotri and Milam Glaciers. Most regularly monitored glaciers show frontal recession, substantial thinning and a reduced area and volume. Although glaciers in Bhutan have been less well-studied, there are some indications of glaciers such as the Tarina retreating at a rate of 35 m per year between 1967 and 1988. In the Nepali Himalaya, glaciers show remarkable changes from the 1960s to 2001, with an average minimum retreat rate of 10m per year.

Several studies now monitor glacier retreat through the growth of glacial lakes. The other objective of studying glacial lakes in the Himalaya is to serve as an early warning system in the event of GLOFs. One example of a GLOF was the outbreak of the Dig Tsho glacial lake in Nepal in 1985.

Recent research initiatives

India and China have recently agreed to work together on glacier research. This is in addition to the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and the Indian Space Research Organisations’ (ISRO) initiatives to monitor receding glaciers. DST is also in the process of establishing a National Centre for Himalayan Glaciology. Funds are also expected from the NAPCC mission on Sustainable Himalayan Ecosystems.

Monitoring studies initiated by ICIMOD and the UNEP in the Hindu Kush Himalayas undertake large-scale documenting and monitoring of GLOFs. These programmes aim at engaging key stakeholders to assess socio-economic impacts of GLOFs, needs and capacity assessments and building community-based preparedness and early warning systems. WWF India continues its long-term monitoring and mass-balance research of the Gangotri and Chota Sigri Glaciers. A number of glaciers have been taken up for monitoring studies in the different parts of Indian Himalaya by several Government agencies such as the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology (WIHG), Dehradun; Geological Survey of India (GSI); Snow and Avalanche Study Establishment (SASE), Chandigarh.

The most recent scientific undertaking for Himalayan Glacier research has been the EU-initiated ‘High Noon’ Project in Feb 2009. It aims at assessing the impact of Himalayan glaciers retreat and possible changes of the Indian summer monsoon on the distribution of water resources in Northern India. The EU has earmarked 3 million Euros (approximately INR 19.5 crores) for this 3-year project.

With such initiatives and their combined research capacity, policymakers may be in a better position to judge the severity of glacier melt and its implications for regional water and food security among other impacts. Notwithstanding the necessity of further research, India’s policymakers might be better advised to take a proactive approach and conduct risk analyses as a first line of defence for what could pose turn into a major security issue in years to come.

India’s green cover as a carbon sink – Why forests matter

Forests matter in the climate change debate because rising temperatures are likely to have a broadly negative impact on forest ecosystems. Tropical deforestation currently accounts for about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions each year. These are some of the reasons why deforestation and land use change are being address in the context of the UN’s climate discussions. The other aspects of the focus on deforestation are the need to promote conservation, prevent biodiversity loss and protect vulnerable indigenous communities and forest dwellers.

Deforestation is a serious issue in South America, SE Asia and Central Africa, as well as several other developing countries, where the monetary benefits of deforestation currently far outweigh the benefits of preservation. Given the potential impacts of climate change, developing countries are likely to come under severe stress in the future, in combating its adverse effects. This is very likely to place additional stress on country forest resources.
Forests in the UNFCCC process – REDD and REDD+

Under the current UNFCCC mechanisms, there are no monetary benefits or positive incentives for ‘reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation’ – REDD for short – or other forest-based activities. This implies there is little incentive for Indonesia for example, to stop deforestation for timber or conversion of forests to oil-palm plantations.

Recognising this issue and the need to bring in international-level policy controls to curb deforestation, Papua New Guinea, Costa Rica and a group of tropical forest nations put forward a proposal to the UNFCCC in 2005, to consider approaches to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) that could tie in with the UNFCCC process.

Since then there has been broad agreement that climate change mitigation efforts should address deforestation, and should incentivize forest conservation through a variety of market and non-market mechanisms.

Developing countries in which deforestation rates are more or less stabilized, are keen to introduce incentives for avoided deforestation, as well as for Sustainable Forestry Management (SFM) and Afforestation and Reforestation (A&R). Taken together, these measures are called ‘REDD plus’.
India’s stance

India and other developing countries have argued the case along these lines. They have made a case for payment for lost opportunity costs, and incentives to conserve forest land. They argue that these costs must be met at least in ‘substantial part’, by global climate agreements, since it is ‘in the interest of the global climate’ to preserve these forests.

In support this position, India’s ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) recently released a report, “India’s Forest and Tree Cover: Contribution as a Carbon Sink”. This report argues that forests have a significant role to play in carbon storage and sequestration, therefore playing a significant role in mitigating climate change. The report suggests that forests can absorb a certain proportion of India’s own emissions now and in the future.

In addition to the global importance of forests, India’s National Green Mission under the GoI’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) focuses on ‘enhancing ecosystem services and carbon sinks through afforestation on degraded land’. This mission is in line with the national policy of expanding forest and tree cover to 33 percent of the total land area of the country.

The report bases itself on Forest Survey of India (FSI) data on forest cover, which states that India currently has 23.4 percent (76.87 million ha) of geographical area under forest and tree cover.

The forest and tree cover report suggests that carbon stocks in India’s forests have increased from 6244.78 million tonnes (mt) to 6621.55 mt between 1995 and 2005 – an annual increment of 136.15 mt of CO2 equivalent. It details the proportion of emissions the country can offset in the future by increasing and maintaining forest cover. Estimates for country-wide emission levels in 2010 and 2020 stand at 45% and 95% (respectively) above 2000 emission levels. Calculations based on a continued increase in forest cover over the coming years, suggests that forests would still be able to offset 6.53% and 4.87% of projected annual emissions in 2010 and 2020 respectively.

The report also aims at reviewing methods use to assess forest carbon stocks, and possible ways to increase the carbon storage capacity of forests.
What’s wrong with the GoI’s REDD+ approach.

However, there are several issues of concern in the report, and implications for forest conservation, arising from the report.
The first is that the report relies almost entirely on government figures drawn from the Indian Forest Survey. These figures are not independently verified and do little to address the skepticism with which many in the conservation community regard official Forest Survey of India figures. For example, officially the government does not admit that there has been loss of forest cover. But its own 2005 FSI assessment reports a ‘marginal’ loss of forest cover (728km2 – an area larger than Mumbai city) between 2002 and 2004. This constitutes a 0.11% loss of forest cover (official figures) – an important discrepancy because loss of forests means loss of biodiversity, vital habitats for endangered species and overall reduction in ecosystem functions.

A related concern is that creating monetary incentives for large forest cover numbers will lead to the artificial inflation of the proportion of forest cover in India. In much the same way as tiger numbers in Rajasthan’s Sariska Tiger Reserve were inflated to satisfy political and commercial interests, when in reality there were no tigers left in the reserve.

A few other points are worth noting here in the context of the report:

‘Forest cover’ in India is defined as all lands, more than one hectare in area with a tree canopy density of more than 10% – there is no distinction between natural forests and plantations;
The value of 23.4 percent includes forest cover (20.6%) and tree cover (2.8%), where tree cover is defined as tree patches outside recorded forest areas exclusive of forest cover, less than the minimum ‘mappable’ area of one hectare. This value is also an estimate, not an actual value;
Forest cover mapping undertaken by FSI does not make any distinction between tree species (plantations are therefore considered forests), or land ownership (private land with shade-coffee for example, also gets classified as forest)
National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Conservation reserves cover a mere 4.74% of the country’s geographical area. The question therefore remains as to how increasing ‘forest cover’ can practically help preserve ecosystems, conserve endangered species, and prevent biodiversity loss;
Active ‘afforestation’ must be carried only in objectively classified ‘degraded’ land. Scrub forests cannot for example be classified as degraded land. Nor can naturally occurring grassland within protected areas or naturally low-density forests be ‘reforested’ or ‘afforested’ simply to boost up carbon stocks.
These and other concerns mean that REDD plus proposals must be subjected to greater scrutiny as to their actual environmental and social benefits. It would not be in the national interest to reduce the quality of India’s forests, the biodiversity they support, the communities they shelter and the ecosystem services that they provide. With the experience of the dubious climate and environmental benefits of many CDM projects in India, another proposal which is predicated on the prospect of ‘easy money’ needs to be studied with greater care than it appears the GoI has given it so far.

Climate Calendar: September – December 2009

16 -17 Sept: MEF meets in Washington DC
20 – 26 Sept: UN Climate Week, New York
22 Sept: High-level event on Climate Change, UN General Assembly.
24 – 25 Sept: G20, Pittsburgh.
28 Sept – 9 Oct: UNFCCC meeting, Bangkok.
2 – 6 Nov: UNFCCC meeting, Barcelona
7-19 Dec: COP15 UN climate change conference, Copenhagen.

India Climate Watch – June 2009

June 30, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – JUNE 2009 (Issue 3)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s desk
Bonn2 – Negotiating text appears
The GoI delegation – in their own words
Home front – recent developments
Latest climate science
What’s at stake

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting
Chandra Shekhar Balachandran and Manu Sharma

From the Editor’s Desk

June marks the midway point to COP15 at Copenhagen in December. The month was busy on the climate calendar with the UNFCCC negotiations at Bonn2, the Major Economies Forum (MEF) hosted by Mexico, and the passage through the US House of Representatives of the Waxman-Markey bill. The bill divided opinion but was a landmark in being the first time the US has agreed to control its carbon emissions. US NGOs hailed victory but what looked like big stuff in Washington DC seemed a small step when viewed from far away. In Geneva, at the Global Humanitarian Forum, the President of the Pacific island nation of Kiribati, spoke with calm dignity of the resettlement plans his nation was undertaking as they lost their island home to climate induced sea-level rise. To those countries on the frontline of climate extinction such as his, the tactics being followed by the major and the emerging powers in Bonn and Mexico must seem bloodless and cynical. The voices of vulnerable nations such as his – many of them united under the AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) umbrella – barely get a look in these days. But at Geneva their call was unequivocal – their survival was contingent on all nations reducing their emissions without delay – no-one had a license to pollute anymore. A clear challenge to the ideologues of G77/China and Annex 1 parties if ever there was one. Was anyone listening?

While there was a great deal of disappointment in the air this June, a surprise move by Gordon Brown at the end of the month brought some cheer. On 26th June, the British premier announced his call for a $100 billion per annum by 2020 international finance package of new public-private finance to help developing countries adapt to climate change, preserve forests and build low carbon economies. The move was designed to bring new impetus into negotiations that were becoming cagey and cynical by putting a high number out there that could raise the bar. The UK aim was to chart a high-ambition path now rather than wait when it might be too late. This is as it should be – more nations need to put their cards on the table now and shift the ambition level up several gears.

While the number was not as high as many wished, the Brown announcement did provide a shot in the arm on stalled finance discussions. The Pan-African Parliamentary Network on Climate Change (PAPNCC) came forward to welcome the move as did many others. In India there was an odd silence. The press – which had faithfully reported the returning Indian delegation’s disappointment with Bonn2 and the Mexico MEF meeting – were caught napping on the Brown announcement. Strange. This was one of the most constructive moves on the climate front all month and yet it was barely picked up. Perhaps because the Government itself had little to say on the subject. There was scant comment other than a press report quoting a senior negotiator saying, “It’s just a drop, but at least somebody has said something at last”. Compared to the trillions spent in bailing out failed banks, it might well be a drop in the bucket. But negativity will not win the day. Being positive might be hard, but it’s going to be essential for the next six months. Only then will we be able to defeat the self-fulfilling prophecy that failure at COP15 is inevitable. There is still everything to play for.

Bonn 2 – Negotiating Text Appears

The second meeting of the UNFCCC negotiations on climate was held in Bonn from 1-12 June. Called ‘Bonn2’ – a ‘Bonn3’ will be coming up in August – the highlight of the event was the appearance of negotiating texts from a number of countries and news from the US that the Waxman-Markey bill – the country’s first emissions control legislation – was likely to be passed by the House of Representatives. While these may have been the highlights for many – finally there was text on the table (which grew four-fold over the course of the negotiations) and the US Congress appeared to be coming on board – Bonn2 was marked more by low-lights than highlights. As CSM’s ‘man in Bonn’ reports back, there was a deep sense of despondency that talks were not on track to deliver the progress we hoped for at COP15 in December.

An air of gloom

The atmosphere on the first day was pessimistic. Catching parts of passing conversations, one could hear the pessimism. Asked how they felt about the process and where it stood, most delegates expressed pessimism. A few allowed room for pleasant surprises. Is this what one might call allowing a little cautious optimism?

At the opening of the plenary of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Commitment to Action (AWG-LCA), the Chair requested all parties to use the draft text that he had crafted as a starting point to arrive at a negotiating text. His language reminded the parties of the need for expediency also. Parties generally made statements agreeing to do so.

There was much apprehension over the stances and developments in two countries: the USA and Japan. The US delegation held their briefing for international NGOs. The reception accorded to the delegation was less enthusiastic than at Bonn-1 when they had freshly arrived. In the interim, the Waxman-Markey Bill had been discussed at considerable length in public and the version that emerged disappointed the advocates – including India – of deeper cuts from the US. It did not help advance the Bonn-2 process. This may have contributed to the more muted response to the US from the NGO community and many developing countries.

It’s about the numbers

Japan’s announcement of its emissions-reduction commitment created much apprehensive waiting. When it came, it disappointed but did not surprise; but protest was at the derisory figure suggested (see table below) was immediately and vociferously expressed. Russia’s equally paltry target when it was announced met with similar howls of protest.

The Indian delegation, rightly, expressed its disappointment at both announcements. Much of the focus of Bonn2 was on interim targets by Annex 1 (industrialized countries) – these targets, and the different baseline year suggested by some Annex 1 countries became the main news item of the sessions. We finally have figures for how countries are lining up on stated emissions reduction targets by 2020. The tally so far of proposed reductions looks like the following (analysis by Climate Action Network CAN):

Country/Group    Announced Target   Baseline    What it means over 1990

EU                        20%                         1990                     20%
Scotland               43%                          1990                     43%
Russia                    10%                    not mentioned            ?
U.S.                       20%                           2005                   ~4%
Japan                    15%                           2005                    ~8%
Australia                25%                           2005                    14%
CA                                                           2006

The overall average by Annex1 countries comes to 5-10% over 1990 levels by 2020.

Bonn2 showed what a long way we are on agreement on many points in the negotiations. Anxiety and urgency are mounting and new tactics will have to be tried if we are not to drown in the despondency that was apparent at Bonn.

The GoI Delegation – In Their Own Words

In previous issues of ICW we have pointed to the need for greater transparency and engagement from Government of India (GoI) officials at the climate negotiations. Someone appears to be listening because at Bonn3 there was greater engagement from the GoI delegation. A meeting with Indian NGOs was even organized thanks to the intervention of networks such as CANSA (Climate Action Network-South Asia). An Oxfam-initiated ‘Adopt a Negotiator’ programme also saw Indian youth leaders IYCN follow and report on the proceedings. We welcome these and related moves and look forward to seeing more of them in the coming weeks and months. With greater give-and-take between the GoI delegation and external voices we are more likely to see ideas emerge that can break the mold and help break the climate impasse.

Here we present the views of three of the key figures in the GoI delegation – in their own words – compiled from a range of meetings over the two weeks at Bonn2. They are illuminating and go beyond the often grand-standing speeches and interventions made at the formal negotiations:

Shyam Saran, Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change.

On LCA text: Document is ready for 3rd phase. For forward movement adherence to UNFCCC and BAP is necessary. The objective is not a new climate treaty but to enhance Kyoto Protocol. We are not negotiating a new protocol. Kyoto Protocol will continue post-2012 also; current negotiations aim at emission targets for 2nd commitment period. But 1st commitment period’s commitments and targets have not been met yet. Thus, key objectives of 2nd commitment period have not been met. 1990 as a baseline is non-negotiable. By August 2009 this must be properly recognized and adhered to. Action on climate change is key priority for Government of India. The Mission documents will be considered by PM’s Climate Change Council. The aim is to significantly enhance sustainable development.

On how much India insists on from developed countries: 40% is the number one priority based on IPCC report, and a ‘reasonable target’ by 2020. In 2nd commitment period, there must be compensation for shortfall of 1st commitment phase. [Reiterated National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) and commitment to significant deviation from BAU if finances are available.]

On (a) elaboration of NAPCC put up for public debate; (b) integration of NAPCC and 8-missions into COP process; (c) outside verification of NAPCC: National missions are under scrutiny of PM’s Council on Climate Change. Public input has been obtained – from scientists, academics, and NGOs. These are national actions, not international obligations. All actions will be in the public domain. National Communications will also be used. However, there will be no verification by extra-sovereign authority.

On impact of the 8 missions on emissions: Target is not uniform across missions. Sustainability is not about emissions alone. The approach is broader than emission control.

On (a) how much India needs, (b) whether India will go beyond NAPCC, and (c) when India’s emissions will peak: (a) We cannot give an exact figure, but estimates vary between 0.5 -1% of developed country GDPs. (b) NAPCC does not posit auditing, support, etc. We do it in national interest. We will do more if support is available. (c) Who knows?

On what India wants changed in the IPR régime: The context is extraordinary. Rapid and extensive diffusion of technology is needed. Capacity building is also needed on a large scale. Apply these to those technologies. Alternative global mechanisms can be devised by which innovators are paid. International R&D effort will be needed. None of these can be left solely to the competitive markets.

On (a) 15-30% deviation from Business as Usual (BAU), and (b) 30GW of solar by 2020: (a) Who determines the baseline as BAU. Will deviation be supported by technology and finance? We are committed to NAMAs. (b) We are exploring many alternatives.

On whether targets and deviation from BAU be quantified if there is agreement at COP15: This will be developed based on the funds available. Specifics need to be worked out.

On how India can push the process forward with leadership considering that it has considerable ability to do so: Collaborative platforms will contribute over and beyond UNFCCC. No one country can alone make things happen. It has to be a collaborative effort. Finger-pointing is no longer viable. The blame game is not going to take us forward. We are striving to create such collaborative platforms.

On REDD, India supported afforestation @ Bali but deforestation rates are higher than plantation rates: There is no problem of tropical deforestation in India. We have plans to extend our 23% forest cover to 32%.

On India’s position on China’s and Brazil’s opposition to REDD financing, reduction of C price by up to 75%: India is not fixated on CDM. On forestry use, we will examine proposals based on merit. Not everything is linked to CDM. CDM credit is welcome but not obsessed with it.

On (a) what India’s back-up plan is if COP15 does not meet India’s standards on technology transfer and financing, (b) India’s views on the registry, and (c) legal form of LCA outcomes that India desires: (a) We are not involved in making a new treaty. Kyoto Protocol is not ending. Every country has signed on to UNFCCC and current negotiation is for enhancement because climate change is more severe than what we had originally thought. We focus on succeeding. A lot of effort is underway towards that. We are optimistic. (b) Developing countries are already committed to sustainable development path. Mitigation action needs technology and finance. The Registry works well for this. MRV mechanism provides accountability. The problem is some countries went to go beyond that and want to scrutinize entire economic policy and strategy. This violates sovereignty. We are putting information out voluntarily and answerable to Parliament. National Communications are an agreed-upon UNFCCC instrument. (c) Discussion is ongoing and it all depends on the outcome of the current process.

On similarities between WTO & CC negotiations… “divide and rule” … India’s role in UNFCCC process compared to role in WTO; the measure of success; and whether India walk out if there is failure: We are collaborating with developing countries in several leadership roles where called upon. We are also bridging gaps with others. At Copenhagen, an outcome that is comprehensive (covering all four pillars), equitable (manner in which the burden of meeting targets), and balanced (no one pillar is more important than any others) is what we seek.

On India’s strategy on deletion parts from LCA text: We don’t reject World Bank, market, bilateral etc. financing. We want financing for CC to be under UNFCCC oversight and not as donor-driven funds. They must be driven by developing countries’ needs. Bilateral aid is separate from UNFCCC funding. UNFCCC funding should be predictable, stable, and sufficient. Countries cannot work with fluctuating C markets.

On India’s insistence on including nuclear power under CDM: We have produced safe, economic nuclear power for some time now. The infrastructure, HR base, and technologies exist. Yes, nuclear power is part of this strategy.

On (external) recognition of India’s domestic leadership and whether India will play similar leadership role in building consensus for COP15: We are already playing a role. We are doing a lot of work. NAPCC is a result of long-time sustainable action. This also aims at upgrading and intensifying existing sustainable practices. India is the first country to have a Ministry of Environment.

On what India can do to build confidence: We all need to work to influence political leadership’s opinions and perceptions. India’s NGOs have done a commendable job on this front. Civil society should speak out for equity.

On whether India would be open to decarbonization under Zero Carbon Action Plan (ZCAP): Decarbonization is only one thing. There are wider problems. We need to devise support mechanisms for actions far beyond the NAPC.

On opinion on MEF en route to CoP15 and ability of India to assure reduction of targets: MEF is not a negotiating forum. It is only to build trust, confidence, and to create a platform for collaboration. These can be brought to the CoP process if there is interest and support.

On why India is looking at 8-year commitment period: We have not committed to this 8-year period. It is still under discussion and will have to be negotiated. Nor have fixed time periods been discussed for financials.

Dr Prodipto Ghosh, TERI, Member of PM’s Council on Climate Change

On Financing: We are looking at financing mechanisms not as aid but as financing. Aid has donors and recipients, and it is donor-driven. The donors decide how much money is given and the terms and conditions under which it is given. They also pick the recipients and administer the money. The donors have expectations but not responsibilities. We want to have responsibilities [for all parties] under § 4.3 and §4.7 (on agreed full incremental costs) of the Convention.

Financing involves discharge of responsibility – it must be responsibility-based and not on noblesse oblige. This also implies that these have to be assessed based on common but differentiated responsibilities. The level of funding must be based on developing countries agreeing on what needs to be done and the cost. We will work on the operationalization of the financing.

The adaptation fund still has to evolve into a robust and equitable structure. … In any case, domestic fund-raising is a sovereign issue, and has to be without prejudice to international treaty obligations. … We are apprehensive that [developed countries] may pledge but not follow through. Compliance arrangements need to be made, for situations where financing does not come through.

On India’s stance on the Norwegian proposal: We would not like to get involved in Annex I countries’ internal issues. It is a question of their sovereignty. We believe likewise that assessment of NAMAs of developing countries is also a sovereignty issue.

On the scale and sources of finances needed to reach required level for a treaty [at COP15]: We adhere to the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities. We will come up with operationalizations. E.g.: aggregate reductions must be based on differentiated and (emphasis original) historical responsibilities. 79% reduction is required of developed countries, but 40% may be possible. Thus, 39% responsibility has to be discharged as historical responsibility.

On India’s views on the Norwegian and Mexican proposals: There must be assessed contributions to facilitate NAMAs. How do we do these? There are issues of sovereignty involved. Aggregate must be consistent with historical responsibility within and outside country borders.

On compliance and adaptation: Adaptation must have higher priority for funding. If not, the whole regime collapses. If any countries renege, the regime will become adversarial. This is not a good situation.

“India’s position seems to be resembling the American position on some issues …” Comment: Any resemblance of India’s position with that of the U.S.A. is purely coincidental.

R.R. Rashmi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests

On the general feeling about AWG-LCA’s direction: I cannot predict how the text will emerge. It will expand. No one is clear on outcomes. The question is, will there be movement on Annex I countries’ commitments? Unless they are keen and serious about Kyoto Protocol, and action on this happens, we cannot say. It is difficult to see how conclusion can occur. Annex I countries need to put down some numbers. There is no clarity on (a) Annex I countries’ commitment to reduction, and (b) technological and financial support. There are ideas [circulating] but agreement is needed.

On discussions on adaptation resources etc. with differentiation within G77+China: There is no differentiation within the Convention. Same vulnerable areas identified and agreed position. Annex I countries must agree, via the Convention, to fund adaptation.

Views on Mexican (strong government role) and Norwegian (money-centric) finance proposals; Indian submission on this? We have outlined our position to G77+China. No party has agreed to finance. No one has talked about raising it. Who will set up the fund? Who will contribute to it? Who will administer or manage it? These are all questions yet to be answered.

On India’s stand on NAMAs introduced in LCA text (unilateral, credited, etc.): We don’t distinguish among NAMAs. No NAMA occurs without technology. All are reportable.

On whether the structure of the adaptation fund is favored: Yes. It is agreeable, though not ideal.

On progress on climate change action by India: We are doing fairly well on volume of emission reduction. A $ 16b development process is on. More technology is needed for adaptation and mitigation in power and water. CDM is a vehicle for technology transfer. Much work is underway; we can do a lot more with greater technology transfer. Technology and finance are critical for all countries. These can flow bilaterally and through the market. Super-critical technology will have to come from bilateral cooperation because there is the question of who pays for incremental costs.

On whether India can show domestic mitigation and adaptation actions and seek financing for more: Have Annex I countries done this? NACPs of all countries have given sustainable plans. Energy efficiency has to improve.

On LDCs not being comfortable with MEF being able to help, what India will do at MEF, and how India will be a leader within South Asia: This is a USA-led process. Participation is by invitation only. I don’t know what it can achieve; it is too early to tell. It’s a process for collaboration on achievement, not a negotiation. Therefore, it should not be worrisome for G77+China. India is willing to work with partners. MEA will have to address those issues. But we are holding a workshop on CDM for SAARC in October. Also, SAARC has evolved a regional action plan last June [2008].

Home Front – Recent Developments

Solar Mission Details Emerge

More details emerged about the ambitious solar mission, which was leaked to the media last month and briefly analysed in our previous issue. The mission plan envisions a 4000 times growth in solar power over the next 11 years or a 39,990% increase over the current installed capacity.

The plan assumes this growth will largely come from mandating solar PV installations in all government buildings, mandating 5% capacity of new coal-fired power plants to come from solar PV, mandated use of vacant land in existing plants, establishing utility-scale solar thermal plants and establishing feed-in tariffs.

While the ambition of the plan is to be welcomed, the plan is silent on how such a big switch from consumers will happen over such a short period. It is silent on key issues such as India’s lack of expertise in solar thermal, on the subsidies given to fossil fuels, and on carbon tax – the most effective and simple mechanism to put a price on carbon and thereby encourage people to switch to renewable energy.

The solar mission plan makes assumptions about reduced cost of solar power generation and grid-power parity in the short-term that are not founded on key factors such as historical price reduction, future projections or advances in silicon-based photovoltaics. It is also silent on concentrated photovoltaics – the one solar technology where one could see cost reductions in the short-term. CSM be presenting an in-depth analysis of the mission document in the coming days.

MoEF and MNRE Get New Heads

As the new Congress government was sworn in this month, both Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) saw changes at the helm.

Congress stalwart, Jairam Ramesh, was appointed the new head of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Farooq Abdullah, former Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir was given charge of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy.

Abdullah is a newcomer to the cabinet post but the appointment of Jairam Ramesh has raised some eyebrows. Ramesh previously held the post of Minister of State for Commerce & Industry where he was responsible for making a big push for expansion of the nation’s power infrastructure to meet its five year-plan commitments.

His term saw removal of bottlenecks and red tape leading to large scale clearances of several big power projects including the UMPPs – Ultra Mega Power Plants – coal-fired behemoths of power production with capacities in the range of 4000 MW. Now in his new guise as the chief environmental administrator in the country it will be interesting to watch which way he moves.

Glacial Melting in Himalayas Began Around Industrial Revolution

A new study by researchers from the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology in Dehradun has put a date to the retreat of India’s glaciers to around the 1750s. This roughly equates with the emergence of the industrial revolution in Europe and presents a challenge existing opinion.

The new research contradicts a previous estimate by the Geological Survey of India which claimed that the Himalayan glaciers had shown stages of advance and retreat for the past 20,000 years and hence their melting could not be attributed to contemporary climate change.

According to Down To Earth magazine, researchers of the Wadia Institute study traced the advance and recession of the Chorabari glacier in Uttarakhand with the help of the yellow lichens that develop on the surface of exposed boulders after glaciers retreat. Studying their growth rate, the date of recession of the glacier from that site can be found by measuring diameter of the largest lichen, said the study published in Current Science, India’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Report Calls for Action to Reduce Climate Change Impacts

A new report by the World Bank entitled “Climate Change Impacts in Drought-and Flood-Affected Areas: Case Studies in India” warned the nation to prepare for a substantial shift in the pattern of rainfall towards the flood-prone coastal regions. The report suggested that India can further its climate resilience through a combination of measures and right incentives aimed at multiple levels of government.

The first of its kind in South Asia, the report looks at options to tackle the problem of adaptation to climate change in selected climate hotspots. Focusing on two drought-prone regions of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra and a flood prone region in Orissa, the study develops a new integrated modeling approach to assessing current and future climate risks.

Almost twenty percent of India’s GDP is attributable to agriculture and about 57% of its population employed in agriculture. Climate change, which will result in increasing severity and frequency of extreme events, such as droughts, floods and cyclones, which affect the poor most, and jeopardize agricultural production and livelihoods of rural communities, will therefore have grave food security and other social implications.

It is to be noted that India does not have a formal policy on adaptation for climate change. The Nation Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) focuses largely on mitigation and research. In ongoing international negotiations under UNFCCC, India is pursuing finance for mitigation and technology transfer but not for adaptation. The government argues that it is already doing enough on adaptation and has sufficient funds – a position often contradicted by its persistent calls for increased finance and attention to adaptation at other climate fora.

While a focus on mitigation is essential for the country as its emissions trajectory rises, adaptation is critical to enable the country and its people to adjust to climate change. Perhaps the devastation wrought by the recent cyclone Aila, which arrived within two days of the World Bank report’s release, will act a wake-up call on India’s policymakers.

Latest in Climate Science

Global Warming Doubles in Advanced Modeling

MIT has developed what’s being labeled as the most advanced and comprehensive climate modeling system yet. For the first time detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes have been combined in single model.

The new projections published in a peer-reviewed journal Climate indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 C by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This is more than double the median projected increase in a 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees.

Several factors led to this drastic difference such as improved economic modeling that reveals less chance of future low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. This and a variety of other changes led to a doubling of warming in the BAU scenario. It is interesting to note however that there is less change from previous work in the projected outcomes if strong policies are put in place now to drastically curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Without action the consequences are grim. Study co-author Ronald Prinn says, “… there is significantly more risk than we previously estimated … This increases the urgency for significant policy action. […] There’s no way the world can or should take these risks.”

Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses

An Antarctic ice shelf about the size of New York City that had been hanging by a thin ice-bridge for some time finally broke into icebergs after the collapse of the bridge in late-April. This was revealed by glaciologists at the University of Muenster in Germany after studying European Space Agency satellite images of the shelf.

Only nine other ice shelves have collapsed in the last 50 years, sometimes abruptly like the Larsen A shelf in 1995 and the Larsen B shelf in 2002. The latter, a 3250 km² shelf of 220m thick ice disintegrated and disappeared dramatically entirely in a single season. Scientists often cite this as a classic example of abrupt climate change.

The US National Research Council defines abrupt climate change as occurring when a climate system is forced to transition to a new state at a rate which is more rapid than the natural rate.

It should be noted that all IPCC projections currently guiding climate change negotiations, are based on a linear rate of change in the climate system. The IPCC does, however, acknowledge and warns (in its synthesis report) of the possibility of abrupt climate change that may render most of its projections exceedingly conservative and outdated.

Storms Have Greater Impact Than Previously Thought

New understanding has emerged on the affects of tropical storms on the carbon sinking properties of forests. A study covering one hundred and fifty years of tropical storm landfalls in the United States, reports that hurricanes and tropical storms kill or damage millions of trees and as vegetation decomposes, it returns more than 90 million metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually.

A number of earlier studies have shown that global warming will create more frequent and intense tropical storms. The researchers, of the report published by University of Windsor in Canada, conclude that their study is “an important baseline for evaluating how potential future changes in hurricane frequency and intensity will impact forest tree mortality and carbon balance.”

Sea to Rise More in Northeast U.S and Canada

Research led by the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), shows that melting of the Greenland ice sheet may drive more water than previously thought towards the already threatened coastlines of New York, Boston, Halifax, and other cities in the northeastern United States and Canada.

The study finds that the melting of Greenland’s ice at moderate to high rates would cause sea levels off the northeast coast of North America to rise by up to 50 centimeters more than in other coastal regions. The research builds on recent reports that have found that sea level rise associated with global warming could adversely affect North America, and its findings suggest that the situation is more threatening than previously believed.

Arctic Thaw Poses Huge Threat

A billion tonnes of greenhouse gases per annum will eventually be released accelerating climate change if melting permafrost in the Arctic is not curbed. This is the conclusion of a University of Florida-led team that measured how much carbon was escaping from the soil in the Arctic and how much was being absorbed by vegetation. The study revealed a net loss of CO2.

The fear is that as the land thaws, organic matter will be converted into the potent greenhouse gas, methane, which will seep into the atmosphere, accelerating the greenhouse effect. This in turn will stoke warming and cause more permafrost to thaw, which in turn will push up temperatures, and so on.

Once permafrost begins to thaw on such a large scale, scientists say, it would be self-reinforcing and could be almost impossible to brake. It is important to note here that the IPCC data does not consider these emissions in its projections of global warming.

What’s at Stake

Tales of Fear and Destruction

Cyclone Aila that battered lndia and Bangladesh this month left tens of thousands of people homeless with only a fraction of them having access to food and drinking water. Scores of others were killed.

Nearly 300 people ended up losing their lives and there was huge damage to embankments, roads and houses. A massive relief effort has been launched for the four million people affected by the cyclone. An estimated 125,000 affected people are still living in the open, as large areas remain flooded with sea water.

We bring you three stories of fear and destruction caused by the cyclone, a grim reminder of what lies ahead for millions of Indians, and our neighbours in South Asia, who are vulnerable to climate change.

Rushing to Flee Landslides
The Telegraph reports that although the monsoon has not yet set in, every time the skies darken, Puran Rai rushes with his family to a rented house 3 km away. The 39-year-old Puran is not alone. After Cyclone Aila struck last month, at least 40 families have refused to take any chances.
Fear of killer landslides has already forced eight families to rent apartments at Alubari and Jorebunglow, considered a safe zone. The story is the same at Sunar Busty across the hill. Nine of the 34 families have already shifted base since May 26, the day the cyclone triggered 40 landslides in the hills, killing 20 people.
“No one was killed in our village and only one house was damaged. That was perhaps the reason why little attention has been given to our village. However, the entire village can be wiped off any day if there is a torrential rain. The area is sinking and landslides have been an annual feature since 2000,” said Puran.
The villagers come back every morning and on the “dry days” to look after their fields. Rai Busty and Sunar Busty are located on slopes, as a result of which there are no protection walls around the villages. Besides, the soil is also loose. An inspection of the villages revealed that some of the areas had sunk below the normal level of land and houses have developed cracks.
Students With No School to Go

Cyclone Aila left more than 700 students of Pankhabari High School without a school to go to. They do not know when their classes will resume, reported The Telegraph, India. Classes had to be suspended when the roof of the two-storied building was swept away in the cyclone taking with it all documents and destroying twelve computers.

“Repair of the building has already started but we do not know when it will finish. We are expecting the work to finish soon so that we can start classes at the earliest,” said H.D. Chettri, the teacher in-charge of the school.

The school authorities have, however, started classes for the 150 students of Classes X and XII. “Since they will sit for the board exams and we have to finish their syllabus in time, we have started their classes in the three rooms of our administrative building,” said Chettri.

Other students have to wait till the repair is done. He also could not specify how long the repair would take. “We cannot at this time say how much time the work will take.” In the hills, the final exams are held in November and the winter vacation starts from December for at least two months

Chimney: A Village Torn Apart

Never before had the residents of Chimney ever witnessed what Mother Nature had to present its inhabitants when cyclone Aila hit the place. A historical village in Kurseong distrist of Darjeeling, Chimney, once considered by the British as the perfect resting place, is today in a state of anguish and disrepair. People who had been primarily surviving on farming and cattle are now left with just hope and prayer.

Ram Syangden, a farmer who had been sustaining his family of five lamented: “I had been looking after my family by means of dairy production but now with the death of five cows among seven, now I am not able to see what lies ahead.”

Chimney, a place mainly comprising old wooden houses and few concrete buildings, was badly hit by the strong winds and rain. Rudhra Tamang, an ex-army person had a typical story to share: “I was in my house praying hard for the intense rain to stop when I heard a deafening sound outside. I rushed towards the window to see the tin roof of the neighbor’s house being blown away and it flew towards the wooden electric post cutting down the wires. I tried to call for help in order to get the people of that house to safety but could not be heard due to the noise of the storm.”

Many people who met a similar fate are now “climate refugees” in Chimney Primary School. The Block Development Office has issued plastic sheets to them to cover areas where there is high possibility of landslide but the people seem discontented and helpless as this alone will not help. Binita, said “this aid provided to us is not enough as you can see. Our entire roof has been blown off which makes the situation much more vulnerable if it rains again.”
(Pictures available)

Source: Posted with permission from “Save the Hills” blog and its people who have been courageously bringing attention to landslides in the sub-Himalayan region largely resulting from unplanned urban development.

India Climate Watch – April-May 2009

May 31, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – APRIL-MAY (Issue 2)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s desk
Bonn 1 – the first round begins …
More transparency from the GoI needed
G20 – no show for climate
Home front – recent developments
Major Economies Forum, Washington DC
Latest Climate Science
What’s at stake – human impact
Economic models can mislead
Indian Parliamentary Survey
Home Front – National Action Plan
India’s solar energy mission

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting
Chandra Shekhar Balachandran and Manu Sharma

From the Editor’s Desk

We are now well into negotiation mode on climate change with governments releasing their public positions at the UN Climate Talks – but keeping details close to their chest. This much was evident from the Government of India’s position. In March, the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change released a lengthy Q&A document (included in full in ICW Issue 1) setting out India’s views on the climate negotiations. With the public position aired, lips on the GoI delegation and Indian ministries are now sealed. This is not just diplomatic discretion, it is government policy. The Cabinet Secretary has issued a letter to all senior Indian officials across the country forbidding them from making any pronouncements on climate change. What now amounts to a gag-rule on climate change for Indian government officials is now in place.

Perhaps this accounts for the reticence our inquiries have received from members of the GoI delegation in Bonn and officials in Delhi. Any deviation from the official line must be avoided. But a gag-rule on the most important issue facing the nation is not only undemocratic, it is wrong. For a country that calls itself the largest democracy in the world, there must be free expression for all. If we are to get this huge challenge right, we must have free, fearless and well-informed public debate on climate change in India. Both on our domestic response as well as our role as a global player. Only then will we get the buy-in and public engagement needed to make the changes we need to. Public officials – paid for by the public purse – must be free to engage in this debate. Perhaps then we will have a policy that looks forward not backwards. A policy that actually meets the challenges that we can no longer avoid and shows the world that India can lead.

Bonn 1 – the first round begins …

There are now five negotiating rounds until governments come together at COP15 in Copenhagen in December 2009 to agree a global way forward on climate change. Round 1 began in Bonn on 29th March and lasted till 8 April.

Held under the aegis of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Bonn Climate Change Talks consisted formally of discussion on the seventh session of the AWG-KP and fifth session of the AWG-LCA. In plain English, the first refers to the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol, and the second to the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention. The first deals with the mandatory commitments of industrialized nations (Annex I Parties) to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The second deals with the different components of the so-called Bali Action Plan agreed at COP13 (Bali) engaging all parties. The UN Secretariat Chief, Yvo de Boer, said that ‘solid progress’ had been made on key issues such as technology transfer and agreement to fund adaptation in poor countries, however, the numbers for developed country emissions reductions were far from what was needed.

NGOs were far more critical of what they saw as a lackluster session with little progress. CSM’s Chandra Shekhar Balachandran was at Bonn observing the delegations – here is his report:

The climate is changing

I attended the Bonn meetings of the UNFCCC as an observer from CSM Bangalore. I was particularly interested in observing the inputs of the Indian delegation. The stance of the G77 and China group of countries, together and separately, was pretty much what ad been stated many times before. A good part of the reiteration of their positions had to do, inter alia,with the position of the United States. The G77/China view was that the North/South impasse continues. Among CSM’s concerns is how to break the impasse by showing bold leadership on both ides. Of particular interest to us is the Indo-US dynamic. I attended the interactive session that the US delegation (led by Jonathan Pershing) had with international NGOs to share the US government’s position and to hear what NGOs had to say.
Pershing opened by declaring that the US is back at the table and wants to come on board for COP15. He was candid enough to say that they are scrambling to get to speed and clarify their position since the new Administration took over in January. He noted that the domestic political situation for the new resident is not favorable to push for what he (the President) wants. The gist of the position was that they are trying to make up for eight long years of obstructionism and inaction on the part of the US. They will certainly be party to the COP15 agreement, but … Yes, there is a but … They are concerned about he process underway. They did acknowledge that this is a tricky situation considering the US has been absent for eight years. They also acknowledged that their position is still evolving and their interactions at the Bonn meetings were to aid that evolution.

The US President has repeatedly stated that his administration is very willing to work with the global community. There is some evidence of this. During the talks, the Guardian newspaper reported that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had officially issued a mea culpa on behalf of her country. or the first time in eight years, we have the US administration acknowledging the high degree of the country’s responsibility for historic and present greenhouse emissions. An interesting recent development has been the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) haracterizing climate change as a public health issue. This could mobilize greater domestic support and provides an opening for discussions that hitherto have been virtually no-go areas in political Washington DC.

In other developments, Arlen Specter has switched sides to the Democratic party and it looks almost certain that Al Franken might well be seated in the Senate to represent Minnesota. Thus, it is almost certain that the Democrats will have the magic number of 60 in Senate to shield them from any filibusters. However, the political reality is that – and Jonathan Pershing said as much in the briefing – not all of the Democrats are with the President on the climate change platform. The
EPA report might help mobilize some more support however. Internationally, the sticking points remain the modalities, the finance and the kind of international cooperation that ‘developing’ countries are expecting the ‘developed’ countries to provide. For heir part, the latter will expect greater commitments towards emissions reductions from the two giants – India and China. What I saw at Bonn is now rapidly changing with each day as the Obama Administration starts to engage with the process. The challenge now is for the eveloping states – individually and in groupings such as G77 and China, AOSIS, etc. – to seize this new climate and rapidly explore common ground. In so doing we must break the North/South impasse that has plagued climate politics and discourse for so long.

The reality is that India and the United States are much more in sync on the opportunities than they seem to realize. It may well be difficult to accept the rhetoric coming from the US at face value, however. At least two members of the Indian delegation at Bonn said to me, “Yes, [the mericans] are making all the right noises, but we need to see it matched by actions!” Realpolitik will no doubt play a role. At an international meeting in Cancun, some decades ago, Indira Gandhi had said, “We are all, each, pro- his or her own country.” Each state must (and robably realizes) that it has to look out for its own interest. This will inevitably lead to accommodations and compromises. One does not need to be a Chanakya to know this. But I am hopeful that Copenhagen will produce a reasonable move forward with which we can all live. As someone once said, “Yes, we can!”

More transparency from the GOI needed …

In tracking the negotiations, one of our objectives is to get the Indian delegation to engage more with civil society. This remains a challenge. At Bonn, our reporter attempted to speak with members of the delegation several times and raise questions pertinent to the egotiations. Most simply refused. One person referred him to yet another member of the delegation who eventually obliged him by giving him some time. This is very much appreciated. It would be nice if the Indian delegation were to engage with observers from ndian and other NGOs more. Here is hoping that this will happen at Bonn 2.

G20: No-show for climate

The G20 Summit, which saw the participation of Indian premier, Manmohan Singh, concluded in London in early-April. The Summit began with a threat from the French president that he would walk out if there were no concrete actions addressing the financial crisis. As in years ast, the Summit attracted protests from an assortment of activists ranging from anticapitalists to those concerned with the banking system, economic policy, war on terror and climate change. The London Summit saw heavy-handed policing which resulted in the death f a man causing widespread protests and calls for a public inquiry into crowd control methods used. The Summit outcome, the Communiqué consisted of two primary outcomes – a $1.1 trillion inancial package for a range of programmes, and an agreement to better regulate global financial markets. Climate change was discussed in the side-lines but not as a headline issue. There was no agreement on this, no deal, no allotment in the trillion dollar stimulus package to ight climate change or resource depletion. The G20 defered the issue to COP15. On climate change, the Communique merely said: “We reaffirm our commitment to address the threat of irreversible climate change, based on the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities, and to reach agreement at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.” The Guardian columnist, George Monbiot, wrote wryly “… the G20 leaders appear to have ecided to deal with [environmental] problems only when they have to – in other words, when it’s too late. They persuade themselves that getting the economy back to where it was – infinite growth on a finite planet – can somehow be reconciled with the pledge ‘to address the threat of irreversible climate change.’ Next time this magical thinking fails, there’ll be no chance of a bail-out.”

Major Economies Forum, Washington DC

The Major Economies Forum (MEF) is a continuation by the Obama Administration of the Major Economies Meetings initiated by the previous Administration. It is a parallel and informal track to the formal climate negotiations taking place under the UNFCCC, and brings together 7 of the world’s nations accounting for more than 2/3 of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The MEF is supposed to provide space for more informal discussions away from the negotiating strictures of the UNFCCC COP15 process. India as a major GHG emitter (the orld’s fourth largest), is included in the MEF and was represented at the two-day meeting in Washington DC in May by Ajay Mathur, head of the Bureau of Energy Efficiency. In her opening speech, secretary of state Hillary Clinton said the United States “is ready to lead” and ake up for lost time in the fight against climate change. A positive indicator – one of many – that have emerged from the new Administration – but one that was not accompanied by any specifics on either mid-term targets for the US or commitments to financing adaption to climate change by poorer nations. At Bonn 1 (as noted above), little progress was made on these two key issues: the carbon missions mitigation targets to be adopted by Annex 1 (developed) countries, and how to raise finance to help poor countries adapt to climate change. The MEF failed to break that stalemate. Additional MEF meetings are expected leading up to a meeting of Heads of State at the G8 eeting on July 7 – 9th in L’Aquila, Italy. President Obama has also indicated that a preparatorymeeting may be held at La Maddalena, Italy in September and perhaps in Mexico City at a time to be determined.

Latest Climate Science

Arctic Ecosystem Threatened

A new study suggests that extensive climate change is now affecting every form of life in the Arctic. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached a record high according to data released by the Norwegian Polar Institute. CO2 concentration is now eaking at 397 ppm (parts per million) in the Arctic. “These are the highest figures collected in 50 million years,” said Johan Strom, professor of atmospheric physics at the NPI. In the past four years, air temperatures have increased, sea ice has declined sharply, surface aters in the Arctic Ocean have warmed and permafrost in some areas is rapidly thawing. In addition, new factors such as “Black Carbon” (soot), ozone and methane may now be contributing to global and arctic warming as much as carbon dioxide. “Black carbon and ozone
in particular have a strong seasonal pattern that makes their impacts particularly important in the Arctic,” says the report. It also highlights reduction in summer sea ice two years ago as the most striking change in the rctic in recent years. In 2007, 8 million sq.km of sea ice completely melted away in the Arctic – an event that shocked scientists worldwide. Some estimates have suggested that Arctic will be completely ice-free in less than five years. Climate scientist, Jim Hansen has said that urvival of Arctic summer ice is essential as its absence is expected to trigger the melting of Greenland. In the absence of ice to reflect sunlight back in the atmosphere, the Arctic sea would absorb much more sunlight putting more pressure on neighboring Greenland. If reenland completely melted away, scientific consensus is that sea level worldwide would rise 7m. According to the report, Greenland has continued to melt unabated. In 2007, the area experiencing melt was 60% greater than in 1998. Melting lasted 20 days longer than usual at ea level and 53 days longer at 2-3,000m heights.

Studies on Regional Impacts

IRELAND

‘Climate Change in Ireland’ – a new report by scientists at EPA and NUI Maynooth argue that extreme floods and heavy rain coupled with heat waves and droughts will be the norm by the middle of the century in Ireland. The summer months will experience longer heat waves mixed ith downpours and flash floods, with the south and east drying out the fastest and at severe risk of drought. “By 2050, reductions in summer rainfall of between 20 and 28 per cent are projected for the southern and eastern coasts, increasing to between 30 and 40 per cent by 080,” the report says.

TIBET

Research by a Chinese meteorologist, based on data from 38 weather stations at Tibet indicated that temperatures in Tibet have risen continuously over the past 48 years at a rate much higher than the national level. Tibet is one of the most sensitive areas to climate change, according to Du Jun, an expert with the Tibet Autonomous Regional Meteorological Bureau. The temperature change was a direct effect of global warming, he said, which triggered snow melting, glacial shrinking and rising water levels. Other phenomena included grassland degradation, more plant diseases and insect pests, a reduction in bio-diversity and higher risks of disasters. This is consistent with another study by the Institute of Atmospheric Environment of the Tibetan Plateau, which asserted that grassland in the cold highland region shrank by about 40 percent from 1988 to 2005 due to greenhouse effects, excessive grazing and human activities.

SCOTLAND

A report released by the Scottish Government says Scotland must make plans to adapt to catastrophic impacts of future global warming. The report details the likely impact of climate change – including a temperature rise of up to 3.5 degrees in the summer, drier summers, almost 90% less snowfall, and sea level rise of almost two feet. The country’s climate change minister warned that Scotland must take innovative action to face the challenges ahead arguing that this was not simply a “green issue”, but one that would have a real impact on the economy and on everyday lives. The likely effects of climate change could range from blocked sewerage systems due to flooding, the need to reroute roads and move other infrastructure and the loss of mountain habitats. Average snowfall may decrease, perhaps by up to 90% depending on the location, and snowless winters may become normal in some parts 70 years from now.

EPA Labels GHG Emissions Evil, Rapidly Reverses Bush’s Policies

The US Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed an “endangerment finding” that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” This is seen as a watershed in the long struggle to combat limate change. The EPA now calls climate change an enormous problem “in both magnitude and probability.” he Agency made the proposal under the United States’ Clean Air Act, legislation originally enacted by the US Congress to control air pollution in 1970. At present, the EPA’s ‘finding’ does not include regulation but has the potential to affect the daily life of every American as it allows the Agency to regulate every “building, structure, facility or installation” in every sector – industry, transport, building or agriculture – that is responsible for carbon dioxide emissions.
Critics argue that the proposal will open up a Pandora’s box of regulations and lead to litigation. The US is now, however, irrevocably committed to controlling its emission of greenhouse gases. The move has come about as a result of a change in the EPA’s leadership. earlier this year, President Obama put Lisa Jackson – veteran regulator with a history of climate activism – in charge of the Agency. As New Jersey’s chief environmental regulator, Jackson is credited with helping lead the state on the issue of climate change and encouraging it to adopt a moratorium on building new coal plants. During her tenure she successfully fought to triple New Jersey’s wind power capacity goal, as well as to double its goal for solar power. Over the last few months as head of the EPA, the Agency has been
rapidly reversing the Bush Adminstration’s anti-environment policies.

Economic Models can Mislead

Former chief scientific advisor to the UK, Sir David King told BBC News that the government is being misled by economic assessments of the impact of climate change. He believes that such models are underestimating the true cost of tackling the problem and leading to poor investments by businesses and governments. “Economic models such as those produced by Nick Stern are often based on steady growth,” he said. “But they are not very good at predicting the impact of catastrophic events,” he added. “It’s likely that because of sea level rise and changes in rainfall patterns people will have to migrate … That has the potential for massive conflict and massive geopolitical destabilisation and that can lead to a sudden downturn in the global economy”. Professor King argues that economic models are not fully able to account for such upheaval. This raises questions about how economists can put an accurate price on producing a tonne of carbon dioxide. He also said that these models do not properly cost the environmental impact of large infrastructure projects such as new coal-fired power plants and airports.

What’s at Stake – Human Impact

Climate change is expected to affect the poor the worst, according to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. The economic impact of climate change on four south-east Asian nations will be 2.5 times more severe than the global average by 2100, if carbon emissions continue at their current level, according to a new Asian Development Bank study covering Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. In India, the poor are primarily engaged in agriculture. Changing monsoon patterns will likely wreck havoc with agricultural productivity. A reminder of what confronts us came through reports of farmers’ suicides in India in news media internationally. According to the BBC, a report commissioned by the state government of Punjab estimated that there had been “close to 3000 suicides” among farmers and farm labourers in just two of Punjab’s 20 districts in recent years. Farmer suicide is a contentious issue in India with numerous instances reported from various states. No reliable figures exist but official statistics say close to 200,000 farmers have committed suicide in India since 1997. One of the reasons, among several others, is crop failure. Climate change will affect agriculture in several ways – by changing rainfall patters, by increasing water scarcity and directly affecting crop growth with rising temperature. Each of these may lead to failure of crops. The UK’s Independent newspaper recently reported that over 1500 farmers in the state of Chattisgarh had committed suicide after being driven to debt by crop failure. “The crop is so bad this year that we will not even be able to save any seeds. There were no rains at all,” a farmer is quoted as saying. Low food production also has implications for migration with people moving away from places where they don’t have food to places where they do. Half of India’s children are malnourished and this figure is expected to get worse. In neighboring China, the Guardian reports on 150 million eco-refugees who will have to be moved due to displacement caused largely by water shortages exacerbated by over-irrigation and climate change. Huang Cuikun is a relocatee whose village ran out of water and was swallowed by desert.

Since 1950, the oasis where Huang lived, has shrunk by 288 sq km, while there has been a four-fold increase in the number of annual superdust storms. In Liangzhou district, 240 of the 291 springs have dried up. The Chinese government pays farmers to stop production and has relocated thousands of others, like Huang, out of the worst affected areas.He was given a new home and land, but the desert winds still howl outside the door and his fields are bordered by sand dunes. Workers in the fields wear masks to protect their faces from the dust storms that whip in from the dunes. Huang likes his new home but it’s just 2km or 3km from here to the desert, so he has taken every measure one can think of to prepare for the desert moving closer.

Indian Parliamentary Survey on Climate Change

Early in May, CSM sent out a climate change survey to all election candidates from nationaland state level parties except independents. Over 3000 election contestants were asked to fill and mail back a questionnaire that aimed to assess their knowledge on the issue and how important it is to them.
When the responses arrived, most candidates fared poorly on the knowledge part but paradoxically, did well on the importance part. Unfortunately, CSM received only 18 responses and we decided not release the results. The low response rate could be attributed partly to apathy towards the issue of climate change and in part to the fact that election results were out soon after the candidates received the survey leaving the losing candidates with no interest in responding.
That said, we can still draw a few conclusions from the responses we did receive. The short questionnaire was composed of seven questions. Of this, four were based on facts – which either had a wrong answer and a right one while three other were on the importance allotted to this issue; their perception regarding the level of threat and on India’s international stand. Of the four factual questions, none of the respondents got all of them right. Most worryingly, 61% of respondents could not answer the simplest question on the cause of global warming with 22% saying it’s due to increase in solar output. One individual entered a comment that “pole shifting is the main cause.” However, 44% did know that IPCC 4th Assessment was the landmark scientific report on climate change was released globally in 2007.

The factual question that received least number of correct responses was which Hollywood film with Al Gore raised awareness about climate change worldwide and won an Oscar. About half the respondents voted in favor of imaginary names like “A Lost Continent” and “Earth in Jeopardy.” On the positive side, 100% respondents consider the issue to be either their top priority or a very important issue. This is somewhat paradoxical because other responses clearly show that they do not grasp even the basic science of global warming. When asked “climate change threatens people of your constituency in which way,” the responses were mixed. Fall in agricultural productivity was the main concern of 50% of people. Extreme climatic events like floods and cyclones came at number two with 22% voting in its favour, just behind the 17% that voted for the concern of large inflow of migrants from neighboring states or countries. Sea level rise did not constitute a major threat surprisingly, revealing perhaps that most considered it unlikely. On what should be India’s position in international talks on climate change — 61% responded that we should do everything possible to prevent runaway climate change regardless of action by others. 22% chose the second option — take some action if developed countries take the lead. Only 2% chose the option: we have no responsibility, the developed countries must do all the reductions. As stated earlier, the low rate of response means the results cannot be taken as representative of all election candidates. Therefore, CSM is now planning another survey with a new set of questions for all elected parliamentarians. The results should be interesting. Watch this space.

Home Front – Elections & National Action Plan

The Indian elections were held in April/May with the surprising news of a large victory for the Congress Party becoming evident shortly after 17 May 2009. With the Congress re-elected, the results is being seen as a vote for continuity and stability. In the climate change sphere, this means that the new government will continue with the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) released by PM Manmohan Singh in June 2007. The NAPCC lists eight national missions running up until 2017 (see box). However, one year on we are yet to see any of promised detail on the majority of these eight missions, with the exception of the draft Solar Mission (see analysis below) which appears to have been judiciously leaked to the press and others. There also appears to be a release of the Sustainable Habitat mission in the making and moves appear afoot on the Energy Efficiency mission. On the former, according to the Times of India, the Sustainable Habitat mission of the NAPCC is reportedly out. The mission report, finalized by the urban development ministry and cleared by the GOI is said to have been presented at the Prime Minister’s climate change council in May. This mission plans to standardize the norms for water harvesting and energy efficiency across the country, under a national standard. However, recognizing that national policies of this nature have little effect on state policy and implementation, the mission aims to leverage grants under the JNURM to get states on board this programme. While actual implementation of this mission may remain questionable, government sources inform the Times of India that they are looking at less coercive and inspection-based. The legal and regulatory measures will be consolidated under the National Sustainable Habitat Parameters, and the government plans to carry out a whole host of climate-friendly activities and programmes through the urban development ministry under the 11th five-year plan.It also seems that the government is planning move on its second mission: Enhanced Energy Efficiency through the reforms initiated in the power sector and various policy initiatives over the past few years, including the Energy Conservation Act (2001), the Electricity Act (2003), National Electricity
Policy (2005), and the Integrated Energy Policy. This is in addition to the formation of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) and the Indian Renewable Energy Department Agency (IREDA). As for the other missions, no details, leaked or actual are out as yet. But the new UPA-led coalition is expected to move on these issues this year given upcoming climate change talks in Copenhagen in December. In the run-up to the Copenhagen negotiations, India submitted documents on adaptation, financial resources, REDD and development and transfer of technologies in late April and early May. These along with submissions from other countries will be discussed in Bonn and pre-Copenhagen meetings. Of particular note is the financial resources submission, which states that developed countries should contribute 0.5% of GDP to a UNFCCC support action fund to support mitigation, adaptation and technology transfer.

India’s Solar Energy Mission Analysed

Claims and counter-claims

On 27 April 2009, a reputed national newspaper, The Hindu, released details of the Government’s as yet unannounced National Solar Mission. CSM investigated claims made in the article as the targets mentioned would form a dramatic departure from the Govt. of India’s stand on the issue including that in the NAPCC (National Action Plan on Climate Change).

What’s claimed Solar generation capacity (in MW):

20,000 by 2020
100,000 by 2030
200,000 by 2050

To put this perspective, the 2020 solar capacity projection exceeds even Greenpeace’s Energy [R]evolution scenario for that year.

The section above looks like science fiction when compared with India’s current total installed capacity — 5 MW. Here is the breakdown (as of Jan 2009):
Total grid-tied SPV* capacity = 2.12
Capacity addition in 2008 = 0
Total off-grid SPV capacity = 3
Capacity addition in 2008 = 0.07
TotalCSP capacity = 0
Capacity addition in 2008 = 0

So, the government is hoping to go from 5 MW in 2009 to 20,000 MW in a span of eleven years.

* SPV: Silicon Photovoltaic
** CSP: Concentrated Solar PowerSource: MNRE

NAPCC Projection

How does this look compared with what the National Action Plan on Climate Change (2008) said on capacities under its Solar Mission?

The NAPCC said its Solar Mission would aim for the following by 2017: 1000 MW of CSP 1000 MW annual _production_ capacity of SPV The latter is a crucial. Production capacity does not equal generation capacity. About 95% of India’s production of SPV is currently exported. It is incorrect to take credit for exports. The mission draft is different in this respect as it refers to generation capacity.

Ministry refutes figure A high ranking official in the Ministry for New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), who declined to be named, said the draft has not been released and he has no knowledge of these targets. The news reporter from Hindu said her information comes from a very reliable source in the Prime Minister’s Office. The impression given was that the PMO might be independently setting the targets. Is it possible? It is certainly possible to achieve these targets. Many would like to see the government adopt a path to generate 100% of the nation’s electricity from non-fossil fuel based sources by 2030. However, the size of the challenge must be understood and our actions must reflect that understanding. That does not seem to be the case here. Large capacity additions in centralised solar power worldwide come mainly from concentrated solar power or solar thermal. India does not have expertise in CSP at all without a single plant in operation right now. Thankfully, this is changing with a couple of universities leading the charge. However, with the first pilot plant two years away, it will take us decades to catch up with Europe and the US that have been researching and deploying these technologies since the early 1980s. What we probably need is create attractive incentives for companies abroad to set up plants in India. As an aside, in an NGO email chain, someone suggested, quoting McKinsey, that “100 GW solar capacity by 2030 equate to about 80% of existing power capacity in 2005. “This is incorrect. 1 GW of a solar power plant is not equivalent to 1 GW of coal based thermal plant. This is due to the different capacity factors of these plants. While coal-based power plants work at around 90% capacity year round (75% in India), solar plants work at only 20-25% capacity. So, 1 GW of solar is only equivalent to about 0.30 GW of a thermal power plant. In other words it would take over 3 GW of solar capacity to equate with 1 GW of coal.

The key: how this could happen

What would make this ambitious plan turn to reality is the strategy that accompaniesit. Few details about how the targets will be met are revealed in the article.
Solar power is extremely expensive right now and much outside the scope of even the city dweller. Unless the targets are accompanied by specific plans — such as, long-term low-interest financing, and / or increase in fossil fuel prices through mechanisms like carbon tax or removal of subsidies — it’s hard to see where such growth will come from. If not, the government seems to be resting its projection upon new technology that will dramatically lower the cost of solar power generation over the next two years, and be ready to be deployed on a massive scale soon thereafter. For the real facts, we will need to wait for the draft document expected to be released after the new government takes oath over next few months.