India Climate Watch – December 2009

December 31, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – DECEMBER 2009 (Issue 9)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

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

Editor:
Malini Mehra

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

From the Editor’s Desk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India announces energy intensity target

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minister Ramesh defends Indian red lines in Parliament

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

India’s climate vulnerability

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

On per capita

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

India’s approach to Copenhagen

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

India’s ‘red lines’ for Copenhagen

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

A third red line is:

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

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

On leadership

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

Copenhagen COP15 – A Day-by-Day Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post-Copenhagen – Parliament debates the Accord

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minister clarifies Accord to Rajya Sabha

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

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

On the death of the Kyoto Protocol

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

On MRV (monitoring, reporting and verification)

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

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

On peaking years

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

On finance and technology transfer

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

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

India Climate Watch – November 2009

November 30, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – NOVEMBER 2009 (Issue 8)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

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

Editor:
Malini Mehra

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

UNFCCC hits buffers in Barcelona

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

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

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

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

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

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

10th European Union-India Summit

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

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

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

Climate Change

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

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

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

Energy and Energy Efficiency

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

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

India-Australia meet discuss climate change

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

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

Energy, climate change and water cooperation

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

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

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

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

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

A knowledge partnership

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

Delhi adopts climate change plan

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

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

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

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

MoEF issues Glacier report

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

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

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

Claim to fame

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India-Egypt energy partnership

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

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

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

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

Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission

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

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

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

Mission Targets:

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

Policy and regulatory framework

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

Financing

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

PM state visit to USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PM at Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM)

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

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

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

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

Fuel-efficiency standards for automobile sector

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

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

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

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

BASIC grouping and Jairam Ramesh China visit

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

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

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

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

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

The key ‘non-negotiables’ are:

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

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

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

EVENTS ROUND UP FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER’ 2009.

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

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 – September 2009

September 30, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – SEPTEMBER 2009 (Issue 6)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s desk
India shifts on climate
UN Climate Summit
Major Economies Forum
G20 – Pittsburgh
AOSIS Summit
Kathmandu to Copenhagen
Foreign Visits to India
South Asian Youth Climate Forum
MoEF and McKinsey GHG abatement reports

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting
Malini Mehra, Kaavya Nag, Pranav Sinha

From the Editor’s Desk

With the start of the UN General Assembly in New York this month being heralded by the UN Climate Summit at Secretary-General BAN Ki-Moon’s instigation, the UN system is now in full campaign mode on climate change. In an unprecedented move, the UN has adopted a ‘Seal the Deal’ campaign emphasizing the need to finalise a global deal on climate change at the UNFCCC talks in Copenhagen this December. After years of diplomatic neutrality, the UN has become an NGO and is campaigning hard on climate change. Across the UN system, bodies ranging from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to UNICEF, the UN’s children fund, have taken on the ‘Seal the Deal’ logo and all major UN documents are being badged with the logo to drive home the message that 2009 must be the year of action on climate change.

The message has been taken on institutionally and has been driven forth determinedly by the Secretary-General. But have the UN’s 192 member states taken it on board? If the response to the BAN Ki-Moon’s call for head of state attendance at the UN Climate Summit was any indication, then there is a slow gathering of political interest. 150 heads of state responded to his call, making it the largest gathering of world leaders on climate change in history. An encouraging sign. But had the location been Washington DC instead of New York, there might have been more impact. It is the 100 Senators seated in the US Capitol who need to see that the world is moving on climate change. It is time they did too.

India shifts on climate

On 11 September 2009, at a business conference in Delhi, in the presence of the visiting Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, said it was time for India to stand up and be counted. He said India would “unilaterally and voluntarily” take “bold new responsibilities” to take targeted CO2 emissions cuts, something it has “evaded doing in the past”. Gone was the taboo of mitigation. The Minister ran through a number of current and planned measures under the Government’s National Action Plan on Climate Change that could reduce emissions by promoting a shift to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Measures included generating power from clean coal technology; 15-20% of total energy generation from renewable energy (excluding hydro); new efficiency requirements for appliances by 2010; fuel efficiency norms by 2012; reducing emissions from agriculture; and ensuring compliance of public buildings with energy conservation laws by 2012.

All of these were designed to show that India was moving and recognised the importance of reducing emissions as it grew its economy in the years to come to provide development for its people. Ramesh revealed that the government was considering laws on mitigation modelled on the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, domestic legislation that had set a defined band for government deficits. He was apparently reviewing draft legislation which would set broad ‘indicative’ targets, not mandatory targets, for the five most polluting sectors of the Indian economy. This would, he said, amount to India having “a legislative agenda for mitigation which will bring credibility to the actions via domestic political consensus.” The emissions would be quantified and monitored domestically with the resultant figures shared with the rest of the world.

Ramesh’s words were a stunning reversal of government policy and were part of a pattern of growing reforms within his Ministry. In his first 100 days in office, Ramesh has gone on the front foot with a series of initiatives to improve communication. The GoI’s submissions to the UNFCCC climate negotiations have been bundled into one omnibus document. His ministry has released a report on the role of India’s forests in carbon sequestration – part of the REDD+ offensive. The results of five modeling studies on India’s GHG emissions have been published with a call for the report to spark discussion and debate. Good communication moves and a shift away from the previous closed culture of the ministry.

It is in this context of making good on his promise to be the new broom that sweeps clean that his September 11th remarks should be seen. These were not off the cuff comments. This was a deliberate statement made in presence of the Prime Minister of the host country of this year’s Climate Summit. The message was clear India was in the game and ready to play. It was time to shake off India’s reputation as being negative, defensive and obstructionist in the negotiations. In Ramesh’s words “we are proactive, constructive, we want a fair and equitable agreement in Copenhagen”.

Abridged from ‘Jairam finds his voice – India shifts on climate policy’.

UN Climate Summit

On 22nd September, the UN launched an unofficial week of climate activities in New York. The day prior – 21 September – had seen the first Global Day of Action on climate change organized by the TckTckTck coalition, 350.org and other activist groups. With a coordinated global ringing of alarm clocks citizens around the world issued a ‘Global Wake-up Call’ to world leaders to take action on climate change.

The UN’s Climate Summit marked the largest ever gathering of heads of state on climate change. The Secretary-General, BAN Ki-Moon, had called the Summit as an unprecedented moment to raise political will ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit in December. According to the UN, 150 countries participated in the Summit. In his Chairman’s Summary at the close of the day, BAN Ki-Moon said: “Today marked the moment when the political momentum has shifted in favour of sealing a fair, effective and ambitious global climate deal in Copenhagen.” He highlighted five key issues in the climate negotiations that constituted areas of convergence among leaders present at the UN Summit: “A package on adaptation; ambitious mid-term mitigation targets by industrialized countries; supported actions by developing countries to slow the growth of their emissions; scaled-up financing and technology support to unlock investment and catalyze green growth; and equitable governance that address the needs of developing countries.”

The day had opened with a high-level line-up of heads of states and celebrities. The UN Secretary General was joined by the presidents of the USA, China, France, the Maldives and Costa Rica, along with the prime ministers of Japan, Rwanda and Sweden. Two Indians joined them on the opening panel, Dr RK Pachauri, head of the IPCC and 13-year old schoolgirl Yugratna Srivastava from Lucknow, representing global youth.

Obama’s UN damp squib

One man’s speech was perhaps more eagerly awaited than any other. President Barack Obama made his debut speech at the United Nations at the Climate Summit. However, despite high expectations, the President Obama cut a disappointing figure. Facing one hundred heads of state, he was unable to commit to leadership on something that BAN Ki-Moon called the “pre-eminent geo-political and economic issue of the 21st Century.” The President’s speech was aspirational but vague. There were no targets and no numbers – either on emissions cuts or climate finance. This time the soaring rhetoric was not matched by substance.

Others did much better. Japan’s new premier, Yukio Hatayomo, catapulted his country onto the climate A-list with promised emissions cuts of 25% by 2020 – up 17% from previous figures – and substantial new and additional finance to help poor countries fight climate change. President Nasheed of the Maldives, a nation on the frontlines of climate extinction, committed to make his country carbon neutral within a decade. China’s President Hu Jintao, stopped short of the grand announcement that had been anticipated by many, but spoke of the momentous investments the country was making into resource conservation and energy efficiency. China is now the largest producer of renewable energy in the world and the President promised to cut CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by a “notable margin” by 2020 at 2005 levels

India at the UN Summit

With the exception of the visible presence of Dr Pachuari and Yugratna Srivastava at the opening of the UN Climate Summit, India’s presence was low-key to virtually invisible. The country was not represented at head of government or head of state level, instead the Indian Delegation was led by Foreign Secretary, S M Krishna, accompanied by MoEF Minister Jairam Ramesh. India was not noted as one of the participants in the two parallel sets of Roundtables held during the Summit for participating governments. Indian business was, however, represented in the private sector session of the day and both Dr JJ Irani, Chairman of Tata Sons, and Pramod Chaudhari, CEO of Praj Industries, engaged actively in addressing the role of business on climate change.

Major Economies Forum

The Major Economies Forum is a Bush-administration legacy that has been continued by the Obama Administration. President Obama announced the launch – or rather resumption – of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate on March 28, 2009. According to the US, the Forum is “intended to facilitate a candid dialogue among major developed and developing economies, help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, and advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”

The 17 major economies participating in the Major Economies Forum are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Collectively they account for upto 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Denmark, in its capacity as the President of the December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the United Nations have also been invited to participate in this dialogue.

The US was host to the latest monthly round of MEF meetings on September 17-18, 2009. Todd Sterns, Special Envoy for Climate Change headed the US participation at the MEF in Washington DC and Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs Michael Froman served as chair. The Indian delegation was led by the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, Shyam Saran, and this was the first meeting since the MEF at leaders level took place on July 9, 2009 in L’Aquila, Italy.

As media participation is restricted and little information on the proceedings is made public, the actual deliberations remain secret and speculation tends to pass for informed comment. What is apparent is that the MEF has not as yet developed as an external Forum outside of the UNFCCC’s strictures which can be used by participant countries to push for greater progress than possible within the highly-politicized UNFCCC. The next MEF meeting is to be hosted by the British and may see greater transparency as to both the substance of the discussions and the outcome of the proceedings.

G20 – Pittsburgh

As part of two weeks of international climate change events, the US was host to the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh, PA, on 24-25 September 2009. The Pitsburgh Summit was themed around green jobs and green recovery and suitably held at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, the world’s first and largest green convention center. At the G20, the world’s financial representatives and leaders came together to discuss economic policies and address the global financial crisis. Although climate change was on the agenda, very little progress was made. While advance was expected to be made on the thorny issue of climate finance, countries such as China declined to engage in such discussions outside of the UNFCCC. While the US sought to use the Summit to make progress in addressing fossil fuel subsidies, India was far more interested in addressing the global financial crisis.

The eventual Communique issued out of the G20 at Pittsburgh consisted of 7- paragraphs.The relevant sections of the paragraphs on energy and climate change were as follows:

On fossil fuel subsidies, the key sections are as follows:

“We commit to rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption. As we do that, we recognize the importance of providing those in need with essential energy services, including through the use of targeted cash transfers and other appropriate mechanisms. This reform will not apply to our support for clean energy, renewables and technologies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We will have our Energy and Finance Ministers, based of their national circumstances, develop implementation strategies and timeframes, and report back to Leaders at the next Summit. We ask the international financial institutions to offer support to countries in this process. We call on all nations to adopt policies that will phase out such subsidies worldwide.”

“We request relevant institutions, such as the IEA, OPEC, OECD and World Bank, provide an analysis of the scoope of energy subsidies and suggestions for the implementation of this initiative and report back at the next summit.”

The key sections on climate finance, read:

“As to financing we think the following principles should be explored as a resource to the UNFCCC negotiations:

Green growth is indispensible to sustainable growth.
Effective and efficient finance to address climate change must be integrated with development planning, policies, and investments.
Public and private financial resources to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries need to be scaled up urgently and substantially, with public resources utilizing a variety of delivery channels and drawing upon the expertise of existing institutions.
Carbon markets need to be improved, in terms of their development, oversight, and expansion.
It is important to consider means to leverage private sector investment.

We welcome the work of the Finance Ministers and direct them to report back at their next meeting with a range of possible options for climate change financing to be provided as a resource to be considered at the UNFCCC negotiations in Copenhagen.”

Given the significance of a good deal on climate finance to the possibility of a good deal at Copenhagen, these conclusions now raise the stakes for the remaining high-level finance minister meetings that take place before the UNFCCC meeting in December. Namely the EU finance ministers meeting in October and the next G20 Finance Ministers meeting in November.

AOSIS Summit – 1.5 to stay alive

Bahamas. Maldives. Mauritius. Cyprus. Seychelles. Papua New Guinea. No longer are the names of these countries associated with exotic locations, white sands and tourist destinations. They are now associated with island survival in the face of climate change. States such as the Maldives, the Bahamas and Kiribati are so low-lying that the adverse effects of climate change will threaten their very existence. Sea level rise by even 1 meter above current levels will inundate costal zones, make drinking water saline, impact agriculture and fishing, and affect infrastructure now and in the future.

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) is a coalition of 43 small and low-lying coastal countries that have the most to lose from global climate change and have come together to assert their interests. AOSIS nations are pushing for the latest science to be incorporated into global policies to prevent dangerous climate change. This includes stronger mitigation commitments and a greater sense of urgency.

AOSIS held an agenda-setting Summit on 21st September in New York, one day ahead of the UN Secretary General’s Climate Summit. At their Summit, AOSIS heads of state signed a joint declaration urging the world to act quickly and substantially on climate change, and to limit temperature increases “well below” 1.5 º C.
Tillman Thomas, Prime Minister of the Grenada said “We see climate change as a threat to our survival… and failure by rich countries to act would be tantamount to a kind of benign genocide”.

The AOSIS summit was a key opportunity to highlight the vulnerability of small island developing states (SIDS), but also to express the high level of disappointment within AOSIS member states at the “apparent lack of ambition” within the negotiation process. They called upon the international community to take “urgent, ambitious and decisive action” that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and protect vulnerable countries, communities, cultures and ecosystems from the impacts of climate change.

AOSIS along with the group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are now the two major negotiating blocks at the UNFCCC calling for environmental integrity, and asking for the atmosphere to be placed before markets and money on the list of things ‘to prioritise’ at climate negotiations.

Despite being among those least responsible for the climate crisis, AOSIS and LDC states have quickly become the moral voice of the negotiations, pushing for the highest level of ambition, the largest emission cuts, and the smallest degree of temperature rise.

Despite the grave tone of the Declaration, Vice-Chair of the AOSIS summit, President Mohammed Nasheed of the Maldives addressed the UN climate summit the following day and called on world leaders to seize the opportunity, and focus on what countries can do. He asked for “island survival” to become the benchmark for climate change mitigation success. Arguing that negotiations have, until now, revolved around a “prohibitive list”, he pushed for fresh thinking and positive lists that would change the nature of negotiations and herald real change.

Kathmandu to Copenhagen: Addressing climate risk

The Government of Nepal hosted a South Asian regional climate change conference, “From Kathmandu to Copenhagen: A Vision for Addressing Climate Change Risks and Opportunities in the Himalaya Region” on August 31 – September 1, 2009 in Kathmandu, Nepal. This was part of a Joint Initiative of the Government of Nepal, Department for International Development (DFID), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), and the World Bank.

The focus of the regional conference was the South Asia Himalayas which comprise the world’s highest mountains, store the largest body of ice outside of polar region and are the source of some of the world’s greatest rivers, fed by the monsoon. These rivers supply the world’s most densely populated flood plains, settled by over 700 million people in the region. Since the region shares geological formations such as, the Himalayas and river basins, natural hazards frequently transcend national boundaries. Over 50 percent of South Asians – more than 750 million people – have been affected by natural disasters in the last two decades. With climate change, the frequency and incidence of such natural disasters is projected to increase.

The conference was attended by ministers, parliamentarians, government officials from the seven regional nations, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Kyrgyz Republic. Other participants included NGOs, academic bodies, development partners and media.

The conference sought to provide a forum for countries in the Himalayan region to share knowledge and experience about common risks that climate change brings, and the immense development opportunities that could be fostered. There was also an attempt to develop a common message to the global community on regional climate change challenges. The conference also stressed the need to translate the principles of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ and historical responsibility of the developed countries as envisaged in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) into operational practice. The conference noted that the world had spent more on corporate/financial bailouts than on promoting sustainability and addressing climate change.

The conference resulted in the following key outcomes:

All attending nations agreed a Vision Document for addressing climate risks. The document states: South Asia including Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH) region is a climate change hot spot and highly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change especially water resources. The South Asian countries must therefore come together to fill the knowledge gaps through collaborative actions and shared research aimed at enhancing capacity building to enhance their climate change responses through SAARC and other institutions as agreed. The document also states that enhanced climate change responses require additional financial and technical resources which should come from Annex 1 Parties to the UNFCCC and Development and transfer of clean technologies should not be constrained by the high upfront costs of intellectual property rights. It further asks for recognition and payment for credits from the forestry sector must include a comprehensive approach to sustainable management and conservation of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.

In addition, fourteen donor agencies signed an agreement (Compact on Climate Change in Nepal) to support the Government of Nepal in its fight against climate change. The compact outlines 7 principles of participation between the Government of Nepal, Ministry of Environment and development partners on ways to address climate change challenges. The agreement will support the government of Nepal to implement a series of actions designed to (a) identify and assess climate risks, particularly to the most vulnerable people and sectors, (b) elaborate, test and implement adaptive responses, and (c) establish the basis for a climate resilient economy.

It was also announced that the Global Ministerial Conference of the mountain countries will be held in Kyrgyz Republic in 2010 to discuss on issues of cooperation in the post-Copenhagen period.

Foreign Visits – Danish and British dignitaries visit India

Danish premier visit Delhi for climate talks

Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen visited New Delhi from September 10-12, 2009 in preparation for the UN climate conference in Copenhagen later this year.

Premier Rasmussen held talks with his counterpart, Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, along with Minister for External Affairs S. M. Krishna and Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh. During the meeting, India and Denmark signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on mitigation of energy emissions and transfer of green technology. Denmark is a world leader in solar, wind and other renewable energy sources and a pioneer in promoting green technologies

Mr. Rasmussen also met Dr. RK Pachauri, Chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to discuss the Road to Copenhagen. He stated that India’s views are extremely important both because of India’s climate change challenge, but also because India is home to 17 percent of the Earth’s population.
Finally, recognizing important role of industry in tackling the climate challenge the Danish premier hosted a business seminar on the opportunities for India in a ‘Green Economy’ in cooperation with the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII). Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh and Shell India Chairman V.S. Mehta joined Mr. Rasmussen on the panel.

Mr. Rasmussen welcomed India’s stand on climate change but hoped that all countries would come to an agreement by the year-end. He told delegates at the CII event:

“The Indian approach is very ambitious. It goes hand in hand with fighting poverty. We cannot ask you in developing countries to take on the responsibilities. You have your obligations.”

UK Ministers – Edward Miliband and Douglas Alexander visit India & Bangladesh

British Minister for Energy and Climate Change, Edward Miliband, and the Minister for International Development, Douglas Alexander, came on a two-day joint ministerial visit to Bangladesh and India to get support for a climate deal that is fair to the region’s economy and its people.

Highlights of the Bangladesh trip included:

The Ministers attended the launch of the British Council’s International Climate Change Champions Project
The Ministers called on H.E. Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh and the members of the cabinet
The Ministers visited an island in Sirajganj and met some of the people most directly affected by severe storms and extreme weather and saw how they are adapting their homes and livelihoods to live with climate change.

In India, the two young Ministers visited Kolkata and Delhi. Highlights of the Kolkata (India) trip included:

The Ministers visited a slum improvement project supported by Department for International Development
They also explored India’s first solar housing complex in Kolkata .
Highlights of the Delhi (India) trip included:
In Delhi, the Ministers held talks with their Indian counterparts on a wide range of issues on climate change and development
They met Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission; Rahul Gandhi, MP; Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Environment and Forests; and Shyam Saran, PM’s Envoy on Climate Change among others.
They also took a Metro ride to learn more about Delhi’s green transport initiatives along with youth representatives of IYCN.
Ministers also gave a speech and Q&A session at British Council. Later, Mr Alexander also launched a partnership with The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and announced funding of up to £10 million to support the work of TERI over the next five years which will enable TERI to improve knowledge, policy analysis and development practice across a broad range of issues critical to growth, poverty reduction and environmental sustainability in India.
The ministerial visit was an opportunity to underscore three points strongly emphasized by both Miliband and Alexander during the trip.
Firstly, the UK recognises developed countries’ historic responsibility for climate change. The UK has set out plans to reduce its emissions by one third by 2020 compared to 1990 and Climate Change Act puts the stringent targets in legislation.

Secondly, developed countries must meet their commitment to provide finance and technology to help developing countries address the challenges of climate change. Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently launched a climate finance initiative which put a global figure of roughly $100 billion every year by 2020 to help developing countries address climate change, including adapting to its impacts.

Thirdly, while developed countries must lead on climate change, and developing countries in South Asia will not take on national emission reduction targets, developing countries must pursue low carbon development paths if the world is to have a hope of tackling climate change.

South Asian Youth Climate Forum

From Maldives to Bhutan: South Asian Youth gather forces for climate action

If the “demographic dividend” of South Asia’s largely young population is to pay off, it must include the active engagement of South Asian youth on climate change. This was one of the key conclusions of the South Asian Youth Summit on Climate Change held in Nepal from 3-6th September.

South Asians already feel the impacts of climate change, and urgent action is necessary. Youth involvement must take place at two levels: At a philosophical level, it must include the beginnings of a paradigm shift in peoples’ relationship with nature – catching them young is the best option. At a more immediate level, there needs to be a coordinated groundswell of activity and awareness on climate change with engagement in the policy and negotiation process.

Such involvement is a ‘leveragable’ option on which youth have a particularly strong position – they are key stakeholders in the future, and therefore, crucial agents of change today. Capitalising on this asset at an opportune time is vital for effective change and a more secure planet.

At a time when there has been much debate about the voices of the Global South being heard in climate negotiations, the youth of South Asia have been actively involved in garnering other young people from their countries towards a whole gamut of actions – from engagement in policy advocacy, action campaigns, clean energy projects, outreach, science, communications, arts and culture and cleaner consumerism.

So far, engagement has largely been at a national level. But recognizing that South Asia as a region is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, youth from the subcontinent came together to hold the South Asian Youth Summit on Climate Change this year.

The aim of the summit was to create a common platform that would bring youth from the region together and help energize action, enable information exchange, facilitate insights into climate change, and initiate efforts to align and synergize actions under a broader framework.

A key outcome of the summit was a South Asian Youth Declaration on Climate Change, as well as the initiation of youth networks in Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Youth intend to hand over copies of their declaration to the UNFCCC secretariat, SAARC countries and to the SAARC secretariat as well as national and international institutions and ministries. Another important process initiated through this platform, will be a South Asian delegation to Copenhagen, ideally with five members from each country being part of the process.

A key demand is for strong commitments from developed countries, particularly in funding mitigation and adaptation projects. However, China and India as advanced developing countries also have responsibilities in terms of emission reduction commitments. Another key demand is for a top-down, science-informed approach to setting targets for developed country and long-term emission reductions.

Chaitanya Kumar of the Indian Youth Climate Network (IYCN) suggests youth are in a better position to leverage change, through a better understanding of the issues of their day, while capitalizing on creativity, entrepreneurial skills and political awareness. However, he also adds that there is a need for leadership from people in the policy making and business sectors to set the standards for sustainable practices across all sectors.

The youth believe that strong and relentless campaigning is necessary to get action from our leaders. In achieving actionable outcomes from this strategy, says Rishikesh Ram Bhandary of the Nepal Youth Climate Network (NYCN), Nepalese youth have been involved with writing position papers and holding briefings with government officials. They have also been recognized as the youth partners for Nepal’s National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs).

Next steps include building mutual capacities, focus on a high ‘impact factor’ at Copenhagen, and building a network that works across and along all levels – from grassroots to country-level. More action can also be expected from South Asian country nodes in the run up to Copenhagen, which will in turn be uses as a building block securing a safer future.

MoEF and McKinsey GHG abatement reports
India’s projected emissions until 2031: 5 studies

India has historically rejected domestic greenhouse emissions reductions on the grounds that critical development and poverty alleviation would be seriously hampered. But a growing international reputation as a deal-breaker (including the collapse of the WTO talks in July 2008 for which many nations blamed India), seems to have been taken up by the Government’s high command quite seriously. A directive from the Prime Minister, allegedly asking Indian negotiators to engage positively in the UNFCCC negotiations appears to have had some effect in reframing its position on climate change.

As part of this re-branding effort, the GoI is supporting charismatic politicians such as Jairam Ramesh to argue publicly that ‘India wants to be a deal-maker’ and that ‘we have to take up bold new responsibilities that we have evaded so far’. (See Malini Mehra’s Column on the CCI Portal for more – www.climatechallengeindia.org )
Ramesh’s Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is also opening up and putting more information into the public domain. One example of this is the recently released compendium of GHG modeling studies that looks at India’s greenhouse gas emissions profile and projected emission trajectories up until 2030. The report ‘India GHG Emissions Profile: Results of Five Climate Modeling Studies’ was released by MoEF in August. Few of the studies are new (three of the studies were originally commissioned by the GoI), but they have now finally been compiled in one place and put in the public domain for discussion.
India GHG Emissions Profile: Results of Five Climate Modeling Studies

The report summarises the initial results of five studies which attempt to project India’s emissions profile over the next two decades. The five studies were undertaken respectively by the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER); Integrated Research and Action for Development (IRADe); two studies by The Energy Resources Institute (TERI); and McKinsey and Company.

Each of the studies have differences in model structure, as well as model assumptions and parameters, and therefore project a range of results for India’s absolute and per capita emissions and energy intensities. The estimates for India’s per capita GHG emissions in 2030-31 vary in the studies from between 2.77 tonnes to 5.7 tonnes per capita per year; and in absolute terms, India’s GHG emissions by 2031 varies from 4 billion to 7.3 billion tonnes.

Subsequent phases of modeling will involve assessing mitigation options and costs, and economic and food security implications for India.

In general, the international debate on future emissions trajectories has been informed by results from complex models on energy-economy, energy-technology, GHG concentration, macroeconomic growth and impact models (water resources, agriculture, coastal impacts, diseases and so on). A majority of these studies, having been developed in the West and, it is argued, may not fully reflect the ground realities of economic growth or policy structure in India. This set of MoEF studies was initiated as an effort to use models that enable an integrated assessment of India’s emissions profile, while better reflecting regional policy and regulatory realities.

Each study also specifies an ‘illustrative’ scenario for 2030-31, that specifies total GHG emissions (indicated above), per capita GHG emissions (indicated above), GDP growth rate, commercial energy use, fall in energy intensity and fall in CO2 intensity. The common constraint across all studies for this illustrative scenario is that no new GHG mitigation policies are put in place. Such a scenario would indicate what India’s emissions would be under a ‘business as usual scenario’.
Even while energy intensity in India as well as around the world continues to drop, there is little doubt that the major proportion of economic growth (and therefore CO2 emissions) will come from countries like India. A McKinsey analysis suggests this growth will make India the third-largest energy consumer in the world.

18 months to action

However the plus side of this growth is an opportunity to leap-frog inefficient and/or coal-based technologies provided the cost of abatement– which is significant – would be met. A scenario detailing such cuts is developed in the latter part of the McKinsey report, for which carbon emissions in the ten largest sectors (consuming and emitting) in India have been analysed.

The report suggests that capturing these opportunities would push India into a ‘blue ocean space’ in the clean technology and energy security sectors. It also says that all necessary action at the centre is actionable within 18 months, given full backing of state and local governments, plus their own carbon-efficient growth plans.

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 – July 2009

July 31, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – JULY 2009 (Issue 4)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s Desk
India at the MEF/ G8
Hilary Clinton visits India
CSM/ Avaaz 2 Degrees Action
How Green was the 2009-10 Budget?
Climate reporting – Indian style
Climate science – India
Climate action at the state level …
– Karnataka’s solar leadership plans
– West Bengal launches first 2 MW solar plant

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting
Kaavya Nag, Malini Mehraand Dolan Chatterjee

From the Editor’s desk

July saw hullabaloo in India as the Prime Minister signed up to 2 degrees at the Major Economies Forum meeting in Italy. Rather than congratulate Manmohan Singh for finally accepting what scientists, civil society and the European Union had been advocating for years, there was uproar in Delhi as the PM signed up to a statement that global warming should not exceed 2 degree Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. In an unprecedented move, a disgruntled negotiator, a senior GoI official briefed against the PM and criticized Singh for agreeing to a move he claimed would ‘box India into a corner’. In a letter leaked to the Times of India, the official concluded “India’s poor will pay the price for this political declaration” and that the PM’s signing was a “body blow to everything that we (the Indian officials) have fought for.”

The charge that India’s negotiating position would be irretrievably undermined and that India was now on the slippery slope to accepting legally binding emissions reductions was vehemently refuted by the Prime Minister, his Special Envoy, Shyam Saran, and the Minister of Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh. But the histrionics carried in the media fuelled further questions in Parliament and even more contentious debate on whether India had sold out its national interests at the MEF. In the midst of all this rather well-lathered brouhaha the inconvenient fact that even 2 degrees Celsius does not represent a ‘safe’ upper level for humanity given the gravity of climate change (much as GoI officials still challenge scientific consensus on this) did not cut much ice. Also ignored was the plea from the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and vulnerable nations such as India’s neighbours Bangladesh and the Maldives for a more ambitious 1.5 degrees upper limit to warming.

The ruckus brought home for many the need for a less politically motivated and better informed debate on climate change in the Indian media and Parliament. The Prime Minister did the right thing in agreeing to 2 degrees as an upper limit – it was hardly a revolutionary move but it did show leadership. It is regrettable that he paid the price of leadership – we will need much more of it in the days to come.

India at the Major Economies Forum/ G8

The latest meeting of the MEF took place in the sidelines of the G8 meeting in L’Aquila, Italy, on 9th July. Comprising 17 of the largest economies (including India) accounting for 80% of global emissions, the Forum was established by President Obama in March 2009 as a continuation of the Major Economies Meetings initiated under the Bush Administration. The MEF’s stated objective is to “help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, and advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.” All this in a more informal, non-negotiation setting than is possible under the UNFCCC process. India has played a somewhat cautious, semi-detached role in the MEF, staying on the sidelines and preferring to observe rather than engage actively. It did sign up to the MEF L’Aquila Declaration however, a non-binding political statement which contained significant language on deviation from business as usual and the two degrees target.

On the former the MEF Declaration said: “Developing countries among us will promptly undertake actions whose projected effects on emissions represent a meaningful deviation from business as usual in the midterm, in the context of sustainable development, supported by financing, technology, and capacity-building.” The text on 2 degrees echoed language subsequently adopted by the G8’s official Communique. The MEF statement read: “We recognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees C. In this regard and in the context of the ultimate objective of the Convention and the Bali Action Plan, we will work between now and Copenhagen, with each other and under the Convention, to identify a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050.”

This was all good stuff and a victory for groups which had lobbied for years for 2 degrees as a safe upper limit – including CSM and Avaaz which had lobbied the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on this issue (see below). But as the IPCC Chair, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, and others pointed out, while the MEF and G8 agreed to 2 degrees as the upper limit for global warming, they did not draw out its logical conclusion which, according to the IPCC, was that global emissions must necessarily peak by 2015 if even a 50/50 percent chance of staying within 2 degrees was to be met. Instead the MEF issued a motherhood-and-apple pie statement saying “The peaking of global and national emissions should take place as soon as possible, recognizing that the timeframe for peaking will be longer in developing countries.” If the MEF process is to truly deliver the goods in Copenhagen it will have to embrace the inevitable and recognize the need for peaking by 2015 for industrialized countries. Anything short of this will be justifiably seen as consensus-driven waffle.

Hilary Clinton visits India

From 18-20 July, Hilary Clinton paid her first official visit to India as Secretary of State as part of a regional tour taking in Thailand and China. The visit was intended to signal the importance the Obama Administration attached to a strong relationship with India as a global player – in Clinton’s words “We see India as an economic power, a strategic partner, a country that has an unlimited potential.” Accompanying her was Todd Stern, the President’s special envoy on climate change. Although the visit encompassed defense cooperation, health, education, agriculture, science & technology partnerships – the issues that hit the headlines were Pakistan, civil nuclear cooperation, and climate change. Keen to not appear to be preaching, Clinton admitted the responsibility of the USA for climate change: “… we have made mistakes … and we, along with other developed countries, have contributed most significantly to the problems that we face with climate change. We are hoping that a great country like India will not make the same mistakes.” She also emphasized the opportunity agenda for India: “… just as India went, from a few years ago, having very few telephones to now having more than 500 million mostly cell phones by leapfrogging over the infrastructure that we built for telephone service, we believe India is innovative and entrepreneurial enough to figure out how to deal with climate change while continuing to lift people out of poverty and develop at a rapid rate.”

During a visit to the ITC Green Building, an Indo-US collaboration and one of only 11 platinum-certified LEAD buildings in India, Todd Stern similarly admitted the ‘special responsibility’ of the US as the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, asserting “we are taking strong action, in light of that responsibility.” But he also pointed to future emissions, noting “It is still true that over 80 percent of the growth in emissions as we go forward is going to come from developing nations like India and others.” It was the response by Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State for Environment & Forests, that hit the headlines and stayed there for weeks.

In what was seen as a political rebuff by some and India standing tall by others, the Minister accused western countries of pressuring India to take on targets and stated categorically “I would like to make it clear that India’s position is that we are simply not in a position to take on legally binding emission reduction targets.” Keen to underscore that this did not mean that India was running away from her responsibilities he singled out India’s ambitious newly-adopted $3 billion forest regeneration and restoration programme as an example of leadership. Many saw Ramesh’s reference to emissions targets as setting up a straw man argument for domestic political purposes. Not that a politician playing to a domestic audience should come as a surprise anyone, but as the Minister would have known, neither the UNFCCC, nor the MEF nor other multilateral processes call for legally binding emissions reductions from India. (Although these are eternally suspected by the GoI through the back door.) Under the Convention, legally binding targets are at present only required for Annex1 (industrialized countries) and this is widely accepted. What is being asked by some of major economies such as India is a deviation from business-as-usual – i.e. a change in the trajectory of national greenhouse gas emissions not absolute emissions cuts. As the negotiations heat up, no doubt we will see more such ‘war of words’ that cloud rather than clarify.

The last word on the visit should perhaps go to the host, Minister Ramesh, who promised a number of partnerships between the U.S. and India on specific areas such as environmental management, forests, energy efficiency, clean coal, solar energy, biomass, and energy efficient buildings, noting he had made specific proposals to the Secretary of State. We will stay tuned for details on these and hope there will be scope for stakeholder engagement so that citizens can be fully involved.

CSM/ Avaaz 2 Degrees Action

Prime Minister Singh: Agree to 2 Degrees

On 8th July 2009, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was urged by fellow Indians to play a leadership role on climate change at the G8+5 Summit at L’Aquila, Italy. The biggest polluters in the world had gathered at the world leaders’ summit in Italy, to take a massive step towards tackling climate change. They were on the verge of committing to a global warming limit of 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.
For the first time, Indian citizens issued a call on their government to exert leadership on climate change and say ‘yes’ to a demand that scientists and civil society have long been calling for across the world. CSM, a leading force on climate advocacy, was the Indian NGO partner for the initiative, in association with Avaaz.org, a community of 3.5 million global citizens (including 80,000 Indians) who take action on major issues facing the world today.

In less than 24 hours, more that 2021 Indians signed the Avaaz.org petition calling on Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to show leadership on climate change. The petition was submitted directly to the Prime Ministers’ office by CSM a day before the meeting in Italy.

India is a country heavily dependent on its natural resources and the monsoon, and has already been victim to disastrous climate change. However, the Indian government is standing in the way of this important agreement by which, practically all heavyweight leaders of the world would agree to keep global warming to below 2 degrees C. They would, in effect, agree (although currently non-binding), to emission cuts that will help the world stay below the 2 degree mark.

The simple call on the PM was to “take immediate and serious steps towards a global climate deal and call on you to agree a 2 degree limit agreement now.”

We want a climate deal that is:

AMBITIOUS: enough to leave a planet safe for us all.

FAIR: for the poorest countries that did not cause climate change but are suffering most from it.

BINDING: with real targets that can be legally monitored and enforced.

With the PM now having delivered on this at L’Aquila a letter of thanks has been sent to the Prime Minister’s Office. In the face of resistance to his move by sections of the Indian media and Parliamentarians, it is important to send the PM an unequivocal signal that many Indians – especially young ones – are mobilizing for leadership and will not only welcome it but also reward it.

How Green was the 2009-10 Budget?

In a year that is supposed to be about action on climate change and when even the usually conservative United Nations has committed to an unprecedented campaign to ‘Seal the Deal’ at Copenhagen, how green and climate-literate was the government’s Budget announced in July?

Does the 2009-10 budget have any elements that ‘decouple’ carbon and development? Does it bolster India’s position in the fast emerging global clean technology market? Does it take the opportunity to attract green investments, prop-up ‘green’ exports or move faster towards energy efficiency?

The 2009-10 budget comes at a time when the IMF predicts the global economy is expected to register a contraction of 1.3 percent in 2009 – with projections by the World Bank being more pessimistic. This clearly has had adverse impacts for India’s capital inflow and exports. However, the Indian economy is showing signs of revival. In large part due to government expenditure which accounts for 38 percent of GDP in 2008-09

As expected, the budget focuses on the key issue of economic revival, while ensuring medium-term (financial) sustainability – trying to bring the economy into the green.

According to ratings agency, CRISIL, several social and infrastructure initiatives are expected to provide a key demand driver for 2009-10. These include the following:

National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) under National Highway Development Programme (NHDP) up by 23 percent
Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) up by 87 percent
Accelerated Power Development and Reform Programme (APDRP) up by 160 percent
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) up by 144 percent
Allocation for Bharat Nirman (a four-year plan for rural infrastructure) up by 45 percent

But there is little concerted and directed planning through the budget to bring development into the ‘green’. The budget revealed a lack of directed incentives for a low-carbon budget, when though the yearly Economic Survey for 2009-10, tabled in Parliament days before the budget, indicated that over 2.6 percent of India’s GDP is currently spent on adapting to climate variability.

So far, none of the schemes mentioned above actively focus impetus for clean technology or renewable energy development/deployment.

A further angle contributing to lack of incentive by the government to incorporate a green push is tactical reasons. India will not take on any hard emission targets at the UN climate negotiations unless there is financial aid in technology transfer and R&D. This makes it all the more difficult to incorporate a low-carbon push for the economy into the budget.

What we have therefore, is a token attempt at changing a few things around.

However, no details on the financing of the eight missions under the NAPCC are out. The Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee admits that numbers are likely to be out by December this year, and even the missions themselves are still being a finalized, over a year after their announcement.

Maybe we will have to wait until the details of the NAPCC are (finally) revealed in December, to see how much and how far the push for greener development can go.

Climate reporting – Indian style

How clued-in is the Indian media on climate change? What have they been reporting about the issue this past month?

Headline and Prime-time news: Off late, climate change has gained sufficient importance to be on par with defense, Indo-Pak relations and other high-importance news.

Early July: India at the MEF. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh along with the 15 other MEF leaders gives out a joint statement on climate change. A key statement includes preventing global temperatures from rising above 2 degrees C
India-Japan agree to cooperate on climate change
Budget 2009-10 and Economic Survey 2009-10 released. Budget has minimal green sops, Economic Survey says current GDP expenditure on adapting to climate variability is 2.6 percent. Agriculture, water resources, health and sanitation, forests, coastal-zone infrastructure and extreme events are specific areas of concern.
Mid July: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits India along with the US special envoy on climate change Todd Stern. Sparks fly at a joint press conference. Meeting is not as successful as hoped.
India said it will not commit to any legally binding targets, takes firm stance on climate change – unmoved by US pressure.
Minister of External Affairs S.M. Krishna and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agree to bilateral cooperation on energy security, energy efficiency and climate change. Agree to set up a panel on climate change.
India seeks cooperation with US on R7D for technology transfer, asks to remove barriers on technology and R&D.

India’s special envoy on climate change Shyam Saran: defends the Prime Minster’s MEF joint statement on climate change, but reiterates that stand on climate change same, not changed. Says details of two of the eight missions under the National Action Plan on Climate Change have been finalized.

Minster of Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh:

India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change a domestic policy, not for international scrutiny
Makes strong comments at a joint press conference with US secretary of state, that India ‘simply cannot take on emission cuts’
Makes presentations to the Rajya Sabha, presents information on national temperature rise of 0.52 degrees C in past hundred years, no evidence of monsoon variations being related to climate change.

India International: UN Chief Ban Ki Moon and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chief support India’s stand – want rich nations to take emissions cuts fastest and first.

Pachauri: climate change massive security threat to India
Pachauri: cautions US against import tariffs and carbon tax on imports

Ministries and State Departments: Ministry of Environment and Forests, BEE and MNRE all in the news this month.

MoEF and experts unable to define ‘Business As Usual (BAU) for India
Karnataka Govt set up committee to combat climate change
Government proposes to launch new scheme on afforestation. SC releases money for forestry-related schemes
MNRE defines wind energy target of 10,500 MW for XIth Five-year plan
Minister for New and Renewable Energy Farooq Abdullah says US-India need to cooperate on technology transfer and R&D for clean tech sector
Master plan to make Chandigarh a Solar City in the pipeline

Businesses:

Wipro enters green-space with EcoEnergy
Indian cleantech companies raised $131 million last quarter
Smart metering set to come to India
Astonfield to invest $2bn into renewable energy sector in India, most in solar, part in electricity generation from solid waste

Full details on these articles and more can be found on Climate Challenge India

Climate science – India

India is now making concerted efforts to improve its climate change research and to upgrade meteorological data gathering. Funds from the 2009-10 budget for the Ministry of Earth Sciences, which oversees the country’s climate change, ocean and weather research has doubled to Rs. 12 billion.

Indian Meteorological Department data suggests that maximum and minimum temperatures have been above normal over most parts of the country, and that average annual temperatures have gone up by 0.52 degrees C (Source: IMD)

Rainfall patterns are likely to shift with climate change, and that has serious implications for dryland agriculture in India. ICRISAT’s studies in Indian dryland agriculture villages since 1975 indicates that a drought mitigation strategy might be useful. ICRISAT has created an advanced biotechnology laboratory to enhance breeding of drought tolerance in key.

Climate Action at the State Level

Karnataka: green energy leadership plans

The Government of Karnataka has, in recent years resolved to cater to the ever-increasing demand of power though encouraging generation from renewable energy sources. It has therefore been considering the formulation of a comprehensive policy, directed towards greater thrust on overall development and promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies – called the Karnataka Renewable Energy Policy 2009.

The aim of this policy is to harness clean, green renewable energy sources in the state for environment benefits and energy security, with the aim of renewable energy power generation from 2400 MW to about 6600 MW by 2014. A twin goal is to conserve 7901 MU of energy by 2014 through energy efficiency and energy conservation measures in all sectors.

The policy is extensive in covering all issues on renewable energy, and is set to be applicable from 2009 to 2014, within which time span 6600 MW of energy from wind, mini and small hydro, cogeneration in the sugar industry, biomass/ biogas, waste to energy and solar PV/CSP/thermal are expected to be generated. Detailed strategies are outlined for all power generation projects.

Project financing for the various projects, estimated to cost 22,950 crore over the next five years, is expected to come from a Green Energy Cess of 0.05 paise per kWh levied on industrial and commercial consumers (expected to rake in 55 crore); a public private investment trust; suitable land to be made available from government land and through land identification projects; a portion (10 percent) of the Special Economic Zones also to be use only for renewable energy projects.

To enhance speed of project clearances and implementation, a single window clearance mechanism will be made more effective and a mandatory time limit for project completion. In addition, there are a slew of other mechanisms including the feed-in tariff, a solar tariff, roof-top solar tariff, and a facility for banking electricity, net metering.

Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency: The second goal of energy efficiency ties in with the national level Energy Conservation Act 2001. KREDL is to be the Designated Agency for this portion of the project. Specific programmes to be implemented during 2009-10 include residential high efficiency lighting program, school/ college capacity building and training, public buildings partnership programme, solar/LPG water heating and energy efficiency financing. Other programmes chalked out for 2011 to 2014 include agricultural efficiency programmes. Street lighting, green buildings and municipal energy efficiency programmes.

It is hoped that this policy will soon be implemented, but also that the Karnataka Renewable Energy Department Limited (KREDL) has sufficient powers to execute and follow through on this sound but ambitious policy.

West Bengal pioneers Asia’s largest solar power plant

West Bengal is all set to become the first state in India to implement a 2 megawatt, grid-connected solar power project at Asansol in West Bengal. On average, West Bengal receives 1600 kWh/m2 of solar energy per year, with an average of 250 sunny days and 60 partial sunny days.

The plant has been built on the premises of a thermal power plant that shut down in 1997.
With an actual capacity of 1.25 MW, will produce 3 million units annually, taking into account 300 sunny days in a year. This plant is set to be Asia’s largest solar power plant, and is expected to save ten tones of carbon dioxide per day.

The project has been pioneered by director of WBREDA, Dr. Gon Choudhury, and has been executed by the West Bengal Green Energy Development Corporation (WBGEDCL) – a company formed by the WB State Electricity Distribution Company and the West Bengal Renewable Energy Development Agency (WBREDA).

The Central government is providing assistance for this project through a Power Finance Corporation (PFC) loan. The loan will be paid off through a generation-based incentive of Rs. 10 per unit for three years from the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE). The company has entered into a power purchase agreement with WBGEDCL.

Dr. Choudhury, director of WBREDA, says the solar power plant is only awaiting an inauguration date, but that a major challenge facing the project is the lack of confidence in the project, owing to the absence of any prior examples of solar power projects of this scale in India in the past. In an exclusive interview with CSM’s Dolan Chatterjee, he said another difficulty they faced in implementing the project was in obtaining clearances from the various government agencies, and changing the mindset of the coal lobby.

Dr. Chaudhury said West Bengal has been working on implementing solar energy projects since 1983, and said that states like Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan have shown interest and approached WBGEDCL to assist them with detailed project reports for replication.

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.

India Climate Watch – March 2009

March 31, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – MARCH 2009 (Issue 1)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s desk
From Bali and Poznan to Copenhagen …
Know your delegation
Indian non-governmental voices at Poznan
Govt of India position on climate change – in Q&A style

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting
Chandra Shekhar Balachandran and Manu Sharma

From the Editor’s Desk

2009 could well be the most important year in human history. Not for the global economic recession, which will pass in time. But because 2009 must mark a turning point on climate change. After decades of dilly-dallying, when global CO2 emissions have risen not fallen, the need to act has become acute. With every week that passes, new scientific data reveals just how close our planet is coming to ‘runaway’ climate change. When respected scientists make statements such as ‘civilisation will end in our grandchildren’s time’, we need to sit up and act. The global scientific community is increasingly nervous at the lack of a serious political response. As Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said, we have less than 10 years to act if we are to avert catastrophic climate change. All eyes this year will be on the Copenhagen Climate Summit (COP15) from 7-18 December 2009, when governments come together to chart a way forward on climate change. Held under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Copenhagen meeting could be the last chance to forge a serious collective response to dangerous climate change.

2009, therefore, matters – hugely. But one would be hard-pressed to reach this conclusion judging from the Indian press. Climate change barely figures in reporting – with notable exceptions – and is largely absent in political debate even in an Election year. This situation must change. India is on the frontlines of climate change. We are hugely vulnerable and climate impacts are already devastating communities across the country. Equally, climate change presents an opportunity to radically decarbonise our economy and promote smarter, more sustainable development. India will be a key player in the global climate talks. Yet the voices of Indians have been largely absent. The Government of India has been engaged but that is not the same thing. As Indians we all have a stake in the negotiations and the outcome of COP15. It is time for us to become more involved and help secure a positive outcome to the global climate talks. With this bulletin we start the process of greater engagement.

India Climate Watch (ICW) will bring a spotlight on the government, the process, the players and the issues involved. This first edition lays the groundwork with an introduction to the Government of India’s position, key Indian officials, and the views of some of the Indian groups who were at the last UNFCCC meeting in Poznan (December 2008). The ICW bulletins will come out regularly over the coming year with future issues focussing on particular issues, providing independent analysis, interviews and coverage of all the major meetings.

From Bali and Poznan to Copenhagen …

The climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 – the so-called fifteenth meeting of the ‘Conference of Parties’ (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – will draw on the two preceding COPs for its agenda. COP13 held in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2007 which resulted in the Bali Road Map, and COP14 held in Poznań, Poland, in December 2008. According to the UNFCCC, the Poznań conference ended with a “clear commitment from governments to shift into full negotiating mode next year in order to shape an ambitious and effective international response to climate change, to be agreed in Copenhagen at the end of 2009. Parties agreed that the first draft of a concrete negotiating text would be available at a UNFCCC gathering in Bonn in June of 2009.”

At Poznań, the UN reports that “finishing touches were put to the Kyoto Protocol’s Adaptation Fund, with Parties agreeing that the Adaptation Fund Board should have legal capacity to grant direct access to developing countries. Progress was also made on a number of important ongoing issues that are particularly important for developing countries, including: adaptation; finance; technology; reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD); and disaster management.”

…via Bonn

During the course of 2009, there will be three major meetings leading up to COP15 in December. There will be two in Bonn, Germany, and one in Bangkok, Thailand. The next major official meeting will take place from 29 March to 8 April 2009 in Bonn. At these meetings, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the UNFCCC (AWG-LCA) will get into full swing with negotiations opened on their respective agendas.

What the science says …

The most recent gathering of distinguished climate scientists took place at the International Scientific Congress Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions on 12 March 2009 in Copenhagen. Attended by more than 2,500 delegates from nearly 80 countries, the six main preliminary messages from the findings are as follows:

Key Message 1: Climatic Trends

Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.

Key Message 2: Social disruption

The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on “dangerous climate change”. Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2C will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.

Key Message 3: Long-Term Strategy

Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid “dangerous climate change” regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.

Key Message 4 – Equity Dimensions

Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.

Key Message 5: Inaction is Inexcusable

There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches ? economic, technological, behavioural, management ? to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.

Key Message 6: Meeting the Challenge

To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.

Know your Delegation

A glimpse of India’s delegation to the UNFCCC negotiations from a range of ministries, agencies and institutions such as the Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Bureau of Energy Efficiency, The Energy Research Institute, etc.

Shyam Saran, Special Envoy of the Prime Minister for climate change.

Climate Change has become an urgent and pervasive preoccupation across the globe. It is a global challenge which requires an ambitious global response. India and other developing countries would be among those most seriously impacted by the consequences of Climate Change. It is for this reason that India, along with its G-77 + China partners, has been playing an active and constructive role in the ongoing multilateral negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, to ensure that the forthcoming 15th Conference of Parties in Copenhagen in December this year, delivers an ambitious, but also an equitable outcome.

Vijai Sharma, Ministry of Environment & Forests. (Head of the Indian delegation at Poznan COP14.)

Surya Sethi, Senior Energy Adviser, Planning Commission R.R. Rashmi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) .

Dr Prodipto Ghosh, TERI; Member of the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change

Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, Distinguished Fellow, TERI; former Ambassador to EU, Belgium, Luxembourg and China

Ajay Mathur, Head, Bureau of Energy Efficiency

Manjith Puri, Ministry of External Affairs

Indian non-governmental voices at Poznan

A number of Indian NGOs attended COP14 at Poznan. Here a selection of them give their views on the proceedings at the conference in December 2008.

Srinivas Krishnaswamy, Greenpeace India

I was part of the fairly large delegation of Greenpeace at the Meeting/Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Poznan in December 2008. As is the practice in Greenpeace, the delegation members are assigned to track specific negotiation streams in addition to actively lobbying with their country delegation and also other country delegations as and when required and issue based.

In Poznan, I was tracking the key negotiations on “Shared Vision of parties to address climate change” involving critical issues such as the extent of industrialised countries emission reduction as well as the extent to which the non-industrialised countries will address mitigation issues. In addition, I was also tracking negotiations on technology transfer and financial mechanism. Being from the South, I was also on a number of NGO delegation to lobby a number of industrialised country delegations in addition to gathering intelligence from our own Indian delegation.

My experience as far as the negotiation went in Poznan was that it was highly sluggish and seemed to give the impression that countries, particularly the industrialised countries were buying time and not really interested in taking the negotiation to the next level in order to get a successful agreement in Copenhangen. I also realised that the non-industrialised countries were taking more interest and seemed to be taking an initiative to ensure a good Copenhagen agreement. I particularly found the Indian presentation and submission on technology transfer as very innovative.

Tirthankar Mandal, CENTAD

The recently concluded COP once aganin exposed the difference of interest between the developed and the developing world. The progress made from BALI was really slow, however, the fact that the Adaptation Fund Board has been given the legal status is a welcome one and it will make the developing countries have their say in the decision making process equitable. While number of ideas regarding the two most contentious issues namely the technology transfer and financing were put in place by the developing countries, the developed countries followed the non-engagement principle, and this has been the major cause of concern. The progress we made through the formulation of the BALI Roadmap gave a kickstart to the problem of correcting the climate change, but the Poznan COP was unable to make any substantial move on that. However, in a post Poznan scenario, we need to pull ourselves up to secure the equity and development goals in a climate resilient way for the coming year.

Sunita Narain, Centre for Science and Environment

I spent a week at the climate change conference in Poznan, and realized the world is in deep trouble and deeper denial. Worse, the denial is now entirely on the side of action. It is well accepted that climate change is a reality. Scientists say we need to cap temperature increases at 2° C to avoid catastrophe, which means capping emissions at 450 ppm. We know global average temperatures have already increased by 0.8° C and there is enough greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to lead to another 0.8° C increase. There is still a window of opportunity, a tiny one, to tackle the crisis.

But where’s the action? In the 1990s, when the world did even not understand, let alone accept, the crisis, it was more willing to move to tackle climate change. Today, we are in reverse gear. The rich world has realized it is easy to talk big, but tough to take steps to actually reduce emissions. The agreement was that these countries would reduce so that the developing world could increase. Instead, between 1990 and 2006, their carbon dioxide emissions increased by a whopping 14.5 per cent; even green countries of Europe are unable to match words with action.

So it was that, at the Poznan conference, rich countries aggressively pushed a new climate-tack. They cannot reduce at home, so they have decided to find every way to (1) ‘offset’ their fossil fuel emissions by buying emission reduction certificates in developing countries; or (2) pay to protect emission-absorbing forests; or (3) simply pump their carbon deep into the ground. Indeed, every dirty way not to cut, but to pay, bribe and cajole others to cut will do. Then if all this fails there is the easy fallback: use China and India as punching bags as well as excuses for not taking on hard reductions at home.

Kartikeya Singh, Indian Youth Climate Network

The UN Climate Talks held in Poznan continued to display that the sense of urgency is lost in the labyrinth process of the negotiations itself. With two lame-duck administrations of major emitters, United States and Canada, and luke-warm responses both from the European Union climate package and the Australian emissions targets, shows that the industrialized countries are still not showing the kind of leadership that the hour requires. Still we are seeing more concrete actions taken on by the devleoping countries in the form of targets to reduce deforestation in the global south and commitment towards building green economies (as displayed by China). The youth threw their forces behind the voices of the AOSIS and the LDCs to ensure that the underlying principal of the new framework be to “ensure the survival of all peoples and all nations” to reignite the kind of urgency that is required to make a just and equitable global deal on climate change.

Debajit Das, Winrock International India

I attended Poznan to share Winrock International’s work on Energy Efficiency Interventions at the Re-Rolling Mills located at Bhavnagar. Initiated by International Center for Environmental Technology Transfer (ICETT), the side event was held during COP14 on 5 December 2008. The event was chaired by Elmer Holt, Chair of CTI executive committee and the panels for the discussion were Ms. Wanna Tanunchaiwatana, Manager, Technology, UNFCCC secretariat and Mr. Peter Storey, CTI PFAN co-ordinator including myself. Mr. Holt gave the welcoming remarks and an Introduction and overview of CTI. I talked about the Energy Efficiency Intervention which has been undertaken by WII at Re-rolling Mills of Bhavnagar, Gujrat. I explained in detail how a systematic approach of conducting Energy Audit study has been proved very useful in coming out with measures for the demonstration units in building up the whole cluster into an energy efficient one. The results were highly appreciated by the many representatives from various countries and enquiries were also received in terms of technical and financial support for carrying the project to a more effective destin of implementation. I also attended many of the other main and side events related with climate change at COP-14 and it was really a knowledge enriching experience in terms of collecting and feeling the various countries stands and expectations for adaptation and mitigation under Kyoto protocol and outcome of various negotiations will go a long way in formulating climate change policies worldwide.

Richie Ahuja, Environment Defense Fund

Environmental Defense Fund initiated engagement with India a few months before the COP 14 in Poznan. EDF has always focused on US policy which is where it has most responsibility and influence, but especially in Poznan, global leadership shifted distinctly to the South. EDF had three main efforts in Poznan. First was helping long-time Brazilian indigenous allies express their views on protecting the rainforest. Second was ensuring the world the US is definitely going to cap carbon and, sooner or later, that means low-carbon technologies will take hold. Third was supporting the leadership role that Brazil, Mexico and other emerging economies took in moving toward national carbon caps.

Considering the urgency around the issue of Global Warming, the results from the conference were barely adequate. More could have been done. The talks provided clear mandate and guidance to move forward, but there is a lot to do and less than a year to do it. Global leadership, both from the North and South, will be necessary to get this done. We remain cautiously optimistic.

Govt of India Position on Climate Change – in Q & A style

Q1.What are India’s expectations with regard to the Copenhagen outcome?

Ans. The mandate of the fifteenth Conference of Parties (COP) in Copenhagen is to enhance long-term cooperation on Climate Change under the Bali Action Plan (BAP). It is not about re-negotiating the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The BAP adopted by consensus at the thirteenth COP, envisages long-term cooperation in terms of enhanced action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Mitigation), and increasing the capacity to meet the consequences of climate change that has already taken place and is likely to continue to take place (Adaptation). These objectives must be supported by sufficient financial resources (Finance) and technology transfers (Technology) from developed to developing countries.

We expect that Copenhagen will result in an ambitious outcome, representing a cooperative global response to the challenge of Climate Change, but an outcome which is also fair and equitable. It must be in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, a principle that the entire international community has, by consensus, enshrined in the UNFCCC, concluded in 1992 at the historic Rio Summit.

India is a country which is and will continue to be severely impacted by Climate Change precisely at a time when it is confronted with huge development imperatives. We would, therefore, expect that the Copenhagen outcome not only provides us with the space we require for accelerated social and economic development, in order to eradicate widespread poverty, but also create a global regime which is supportive of our national endeavours for ecologically sustainable development.

Q2. India is resisting calls by developed countries to take on specific targets for the reduction of its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions despite the fact that its total GHG emissions are the 3rd largest in volume after the US and China. How can an accord be possible, if India and other “major emitters” refuse to accept responsibility in this regard?

Ans. Firstly, Climate Change is taking place not due to current level of GHG emissions, but as a result of the cumulative impact of accumulated GHGs in the planetary atmosphere. Current emissions are, of course, adding to the problem incrementally. Even if current emissions were, by some miracle, reduced to zero tomorrow, Climate Change will continue to take place. The accumulated stock of GHGs in the atmosphere is mainly the result of carbon-based industrial activity in developed countries over the past two centuries and more. It is for this reason that the UNFCCC stipulates deep and significant cuts in the emissions of the industrialized countries as fulfilment of their historic responsibility.

Secondly, the UNFCCC itself does not require developing countries to take on any commitments on reducing their GHG emissions. This was also recognized in the subsequent Kyoto Protocol which only set targets for developed countries, the so-called Annex I countries. It is inevitable that the pursuit of social and economic development by developing countries, will result in an increase in their GHG emissions, for the foreseeable future. This is recognized in the UNFCCC itself. Despite this, India has already declared that even as it pursues its social and economic development objectives, it will not allow its per capita GHG emissions to exceed the average per capita emissions of the developed countries. This effectively puts a cap on our emissions, which will be lower if our developed country partners choose to be more ambitious in reducing their own emissions.

Thirdly, India can, by no stretch of imagination, be described as a so-called “major emitter”. Our per capita CO2 emissions are currently only 1.1 tonnes, when compared to over 20 tonnes for the US and in excess of 10 tonnes for most OECD countries. Furthermore, even if we are No. 3 in terms of total volume of emissions, the gap with the first and second-ranking countries is very large. The US and China account for over 16% each of the total global emissions, while India trails with just 4%, despite its very large population and its rapidly growing economy.

Fourthly, for developing countries like India, the focus of Climate Change action cannot just be current emissions. There is the equally important issue of Adaptation to Climate Change that has already taken place and will continue to take place in the foreseeable future even in the most favourable Mitigation scenarios. India is already subject to high degree of climate variability resulting in droughts, floods and other extreme weather events which compels India to spend over 2% of its GDP on adaptation and this figure is likely to go up significantly. Therefore, the Copenhagen package must include global action on Adaptation in addition to action to GHG abatement and reduction.

Q3. India is resisting the setting of a specific emission reduction target on a global basis for 2050, even though there is enough scientific evidence to show that to keep global warming within 2ºC increase (the maximum permissible to avoid possible catastrophic consequences of Climate Change), this is the minimum reduction required. This stand prevents global action on Climate Change.

Ans. India has, in its national submission, called for multilateral negotiations to focus on the long-term goal for stabilization. However, the setting of any such goal must be decided in tandem with the establishment of a basis for equitable burden-sharing. The Copenhagen outcome must be concluded on the principle of equity, recognising that every citizen of the globe has an equal entitlement to the planetary atmospheric resource. Furthermore, a global long-term goal must go beyond number-setting, to incorporate the economic and social development imperatives of developing countries, which the UNFCCC has recognised as being of “first and over-riding priority”. The setting of a reduction target for 2050, must also specify interim targets for developed countries and indicate the manner in which these reductions will be distributed among different countries. To achieve 50% reduction globally by 2050, developed countries will have to undertake much more significant cuts in emissions than currently indicated.

Q4. There are proposals which would require developing countries, except the LDCs, to commit to at least 20% to 30% reduction in their GHG emissions from business as usual, while developed countries commit themselves to absolute reductions in their emissions, upto 2020. The cost of such deviation which cannot be met by domestic resources, could be posed for international financial and technological support. Would India be ready to accept a compromise along these lines?

Ans. As far as India is concerned, it has announced a National Action Plan on Climate Change which incorporates its vision of sustainable development and the steps it must take to realize it. In the context of multilateral negotiations under the UNFCCC, the BAP envisages nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) as they are called, based on the national circumstances and priorities of the developing countries themselves. Moreover, the BAP also stipulates categorically that these actions i.e. NAMAs must be “supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building.” It is also important that an equal emphasis must be accorded to actions required for Adaptation.

Q5. While India is raising objections to proposals from other countries, it has not put forward any of its own ideas on what the Copenhagen package should look like. India’s negative altitude is, therefore, holding up negotiations.

Ans. India has put forward its own perspective on Climate Change issues and how it should be tackled. It is India’s view that the planetary atmospheric space is a common resource of humanity and each citizen of the globe has an equal entitlement to that space. The principle of equity, therefore, implies that, over a period of time, there should be a convergence in per capita emissions. Any global Climate Change regime which results in merely freezing of the huge divergence in per capita emissions, will not be acceptable on grounds of equity. Furthermore, in tackling the challenge of Climate Change, both production and consumption patterns need to be addressed, with a willingness to address lifestyle issues.

India believes that Climate Change, which we all agree is an extraordinary challenge, deserves an extraordinary response. All countries of the world, developed and developing, need to join in a collaborative effort, to bring about a strategic shift, across the globe, from production and consumption patterns based on carbon-based fossil fuels to those based on renewable energy and non-carbon fuels. We should devise a global package which:

(a)commits developed countries to significant reductions in their GHG emissions;
(b)achieves the widest possible dissemination at affordable costs of existing climate-friendly technologies and practices; and
(c)puts in place a collaborative R&D effort among developed and major developing countries, to bring about cost-effective technological innovations and transformational technologies, that can put the world on the road to a carbon-free economy.

Such a package will go beyond market mechanisms and competitive economic models, which would not be able, by themselves, to achieve the scale of response required.

The Indian approach will require appropriate handling of the IPR issue, since widest possible dissemination will require existing climate-friendly technologies and goods to be made available, especially to developing countries, as public goods. Competitive bidding for such technologies, financed through multilateral funds, could be used to avoid loss to the innovators. The collaborative R&D effort could be similarly funded through a multilateral fund under the UNFCCC with its products being available as public goods, enabling rapid and widespread dissemination. India, like other major developing countries, would be willing to be an active participant in any such initiative. It would also be necessary to provide for large-scale capacity building, particularly in developing countries, to enable successful absorption and application of climate-friendly technologies. A Copenhagen package incorporating these components, with an accompanying multilateral financing package, would be an outcome worthy of a concerned global citizenry.

India has made written submissions to the UNFCCC on each of the following issues being considered in the negotiations, as a constructive contribution to negotiations.These are:

Submission on Long Term Co-operative Action
Submission on enhancing action on Adaptation
Financing Architecture for Meeting Financial Commitments Under the UNFCCC
Submission on Technology Transfer Mechanism
Submission on Mitigation Actions of Developing Countries under Paragraph 1 (b) (ii) of the BAP
Submission on Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) – under Bali Action Plan (BAP) 1 (b) (i)
Submission on Reduced Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD), Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), and Afforestation And Reforestation (A&R), Under the Bali Action Plan (BAP)
Submission on Nationally Appropriate Actions of Developing countries,
Submission on financing Flows (Why Financial Contributions to the Financial Mechanism of the UNFCCC cannot be under the Paradigm of “Aid”.

More submissions will be made as the negotiations proceed.

India has also joined together with its G 77 + China partners to make several constructive contributions to the ongoing multilateral negotiations.

Q6. India has taken a negative stand on the setting up of Climate Investment Funds under the World Bank and to the possible financial flows from market mechanisms such as a Cap and Trade system in carbon. This goes against its demand that financial resources be made available by developed countries to developing countries to enable them to tackle Climate Change challenges.

Ans. India has not taken a negative stand on the above-mentioned financial mechanisms. What we have pointed out is that, in terms of the UNFCCC itself, these can only be considered supplemental flows. It must also be recognised that the market mechanism has its own limitations. They cannot be considered as a substitute for the multilateral financing mechanism, both for Adaptation and Mitigation, envisaged under the UNFCCC. The flow of funds under such a mechanism, would be in the nature of net transfer of funds i.e. grants, whose disbursement would be governed by a multilateral structure constituted by Parties to the Convention itself. This has already been recognized in the establishment of the Adaptation Fund. This is important because the provision of financial resources to developing countries, as envisaged under the UNFCCC, should follow the priorities of the recipient countries and not those of the source countries. Financing for Climate Change must also not be seen as another form of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) but rather payments for entitlements of developing countries under an equitable regime. The financial contributions for addressing Climate Change are net and additional. These can neither be treated under the paradigm of aid, nor driven by markets which are, in any case, dependent on the level of emission reduction obligations taken up by the Annex I Parties.

Q.7 While India has announced a National Action Plan on Climate Change, it is resisting proposals for the actions specified under the Plan, to constitute commitments by India in a global Climate Change agreement. How can one explain this contradiction?

Ans. India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change, with its eight National Missions, is India’s domestic plan for sustainable development. The specific projects under each mission, with targets wherever possible, represent what India believes it needs to do in terms of ecologically sustainable development. Such action is very different from binding international commitments or legal obligations, which are of a different nature altogether. An international agreement reflects a careful balance of interests of parties to the agreement and not merely a collation of nationally determined intentions to act. For instance, inability to reach a certain target for renewable energy use under a national plan, would have very different consequences than a similar legal obligation under an international agreement. The two cannot be equated. In fact subjecting national aspirational efforts to an international compliance regime may result in lower ambitions.

Further, there is a clear distinction between the national actions taken by India with her own resources and without external support, and those envisaged under the BAP that are to be supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity building.

Q8. While it may be difficult for India to accept emission reduction targets on a national basis, why does it oppose the setting of such targets on a sectoral basis for carbon and energy intensive industries? These targets can be set, taking into account the different levels of economic development of different countries. This will also address the apprehension of developed countries that assumption of strict emission standards by them would render their industries uncompetitive relative to those in major developing countries.

Ans. India has an Energy Conservation Act under which it has identified 9 energy intensive industries for observance of mandatory energy efficiency standards. The NAPCC also has a National Mission on Improving Energy Efficiency. India also encourages Indian industry to collaborate with its counterparts across the world to exchange best practices and improve energy efficiency through better management and/or technological innovation. However, the setting of global standards for efficiency and/or emissions on a sectoral basis, as legally binding commitments, is a different matter altogether. Firstly, such standards cannot reduce to a single benchmark, wide differences in industrial processes even within the same industry, on account of differences in input use, the technology adopted, the skill level of personnel employed and the overall social and economic context in which production takes place.

Secondly, if sectoral standards become the basis, as is being argued, for the imposition of compensatory tariffs to ensure a so-called “level playing field”, then protectionism will become rampant under a green label.

Thirdly, global action on Climate Change, based on the UNFCCC, is not conditional upon maintenance of trade competitiveness or level playing fields. These issues belong to global trade negotiations not to Climate Change negotiations. Introducing these new dimensions into the Climate Change discourse, would make our task more complex and difficult than it already is.

Climate change negotiations should remain focussed on addressing the grave implications of Climate Change and should not impose conditionalities or additional burdens on developing countries. Climate Change negotiations are taking place against the backdrop of an increasingly globalized and interconnected and interdependent world economy. Development must, therefore, remain at the centre of the global discourse. Action on Climate Change must enhance, not diminish the prospects for development. It must not sharpen the division of the world between an affluent North and an impoverished South, and justify this with a green label. What we require is a collaborative spirit which acknowledges the pervasive threat of Climate Change to humanity and seeks to find answers that enhance, not diminish the prospects of development, particularly of developing countries. All members of our common global family should have equal entitlement to the fruits of prosperity.

Q.9 The world is undergoing an unprecedented financial and economic crisis. It is, therefore, likely that the level of effort required to address Climate Change, particularly in respect of financial resources, may not be forthcoming. What is India’s stand in this regard?

Ans. India believes that investment in addressing Climate Change, specially in renewable energy, could create new industries, new jobs and spur technological innovation. Action on Climate Change must become part of the solution to the financial and economic crisis, in its causality. It is in this context, that India has welcomed US President Obama’s plan for a 10-year, US$ 150 billion Renewable Energy Initiative and expressed its readiness to become an active partner.

Who’s Who in Climate Change in India – 2008 Poznan Edition

January 4, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

Who’s Who in Climate Change in India – 2008 Poznan Edition
9 December 2008, United Nations conference on climate change Poznan, Poland. Buy Now!