The India Climate Observatory

Commentary, action and research on climate and development in India

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

India Climate Watch – July 2010

July 31, 2010 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

 INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – JULY 2010 (ISSUE 16)

 

 

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

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting

Kaavya Nag, Somya Bhatt, Malini Mehra


From the Editor’s Desk

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

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

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

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

India pushes technology transfer

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

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

Energy Efficiency Mission gets a boost

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

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

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

World’s First Clean Energy Ministerial

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

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

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

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

Here’s how the leaders intend to do it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Science

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

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

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

Other Developments

Solar plane completes historic 24 hour run

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

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

Tata Nano Wind

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

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

Now a ‘Puneri’ CleanTech for startups

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

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

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

Elite runners gather for Himalayan climate action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you thought Indian cities and states were sitting pretty…

Solar Cities: Chandigargh and Kohima

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

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

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

New Delhi: Government buildings to go green

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

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

Each district in Maharashtra will have a green plan

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

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

Tamil Nadu for renewable energy park

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

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

Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh release draft solar policies

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

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

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

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

EVENTS ROUNDUP FOR JULY 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India Climate Watch – April 2010

April 30, 2010 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – APRIL 2010 (Issue13)

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

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting

Kaavya Nag, Somya Bhatt, Pranav Sinha, Malini Mehra


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

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

SAARC summit: promise of possibility?

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

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

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

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

Listed below are the key initiatives and proposals:

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

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

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

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


Industries get a PAT this year

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

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

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

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

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

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


New EU Climate Commissioner Visits Maldives and India  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old wine new bottle: BASIC meet and declare

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

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

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

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

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

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


Uttarakhand Government’s meet on Environment

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

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

EVENTS ROUNDUP FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

India Climate Watch – March 2010

March 31, 2010 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – MARCH 2010 (Issue12) 

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

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

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting

Kaavya Nag, Somya Bhatt, Pranav Sinha, Malini Mehra


Highlights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shyam Saran demits office, India looks for new negotiators

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

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

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

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

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

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

India-China team up on environment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ChIndia MOU & bilaterals – analysis

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

Highlights of the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA)

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

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

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

Global Warming casts shadow on Kerala

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

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

EVENTS ROUND UP FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India Climate Watch – February 2010

February 28, 2010 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – FEBRUARY 2010 (Issue11)


INSIDE THIS ISSUE

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

Editor:

Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting

Kaavya Nag, Somya Bhatt, Pranav Sinha, Malini Mehra


From the Editor’s desk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget 2010- how climate friendly was it?

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

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

Direct Funding

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

Tax Proposals

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

National Clean Energy Fund and cess on coal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Status of NAPCC Eight Missions (February 2010)

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

Shyam Saran resigns as PM’s special envoy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India to get panel on climate change

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

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

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

Per capita approach to be revisited?

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

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

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

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

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

Climate skeptics get platform in Delhi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Green Commonwealth Games?

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

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

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

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

Indian states get active on climate change

Himachal Pradesh

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orissa

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

Gujarat

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

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

Madhya Pradesh

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

Delhi Sustainable Development Summit 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indo-UK study looks at water cycle changes

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

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

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

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

Events Round-up for February 2010

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

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

India Climate Watch – November 2009

November 30, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – NOVEMBER 2009 (Issue 8)


INSIDE THIS ISSUE

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

Editor:

Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting

Kaavya Nag, Pranav Sinha, Somya Bhatt, Malini Mehra

 


UNFCCC hits buffers in Barcelona

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

10th European Union-India Summit

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

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

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

Climate Change

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

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

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

Energy and Energy Efficiency

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

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

India-Australia meet discuss climate change

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

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

Energy, climate change and water cooperation

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

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

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

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

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

A knowledge partnership

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

Delhi adopts climate change plan

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

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

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

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

MoEF issues Glacier report

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

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

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

Claim to fame

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

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

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

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

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

And yet, in direct contrast to statements aimed to generate disbelief in glacier retreat are data and photographs of these glaciers in the report itself.  Below is an image of the Kangriz glacier (image also from report), which the report claims retreated ‘not even by an inch’. Where is the ice in the image on the right hand side?
 
The report awaits ‘many centuries’ of data to conclude that glacier snout movements are a result of ‘periodic climate variation’ or to make a statement that glaciers in the Himalayas are ‘retreating abnormally because of global warming’.

India-Egypt energy partnership

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

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

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

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

Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission

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

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

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

Mission Targets:

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

Policy and regulatory framework

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

Financing

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

PM state visit to USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PM at Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM)

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

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

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

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

Fuel-efficiency standards for automobile sector

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

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

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

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

BASIC grouping and Jairam Ramesh China visit

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

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

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

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

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

The key ‘non-negotiables’ are:

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

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

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

EVENTS ROUND UP FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER’ 2009.

  1. 3, 4 and 5 of November 2009, International Design Workshop on ‘Sustainability’ for Students, Mumbai: Organised by IIT Bombay, the theme of the event ‘In a Planet of our own – a vision of sustainability’. It was a three day International Design Workshop on ‘Sustainability’ for Students, filled with high energy interactive sessions with lots of enthusiasm to search, ideate, discuss and design. The workshop was meant to address and solve sustainability related problems
  2. 05 November 2009, Local Government Climate Roadmap – South Asian Regional Meet, , New Delhi : this was a one day event organised by ICLEI South Asia to release their research report, “The Carbon Emissions Profiles of 53 South Asian Cities” under the Climate Roadmap initiative.
  3. 06-07 November 2009, Climate Change and Sustaining Mountain Ecosystems, INSA New Delhi: A two day National conference was organised by LEAD India in collaboration with BHC. It provided a platform to Climate Leaders from different states, working on climate change issues at the ground level to, have o  have  an  interface  with policy makers,  experts,  institutions  and  donor  agencies,  who  would  be  appreciative  of  their commitment  and  be  a  catalyst  for  their  future endeavours.
  4. 6 November 2009, The 10th EU-India Summit, New Delhi:
  5. This Summit marked a decade of growing relations, and sought to further deepen relations between the two strategic partners in key areas of cooperation. It also aimed at enhancing dialogue and cooperation on issues of major global concern such as climate change, energy security and fight against terrorism, as well as prominent regional issues and bilateral trade.
  6. 11 November, 2009, Women’s Tribunal on Climate Justice, New Delhi: Wada Na Todo Abhiyan (GCAP in India) organised the second Women’s Tribunal against poverty as a part of a larger process to discuss issues related to climate justice.
  7. 16 and 17 November 2009, 2nd Energy Efficiency Technology Cooperation Conference, New Delhi: As a part of the US-India Energy Dialogue, Confederation of Indian Industry is organised the “US – India Energy Efficiency Technology Cooperation  Conference” jointly with US Department of Energy, US Agency for International Development and Ministry of Power, Govt of India. The conference focused on exploring the barriers to implementation of energy efficiency in India, illustrate ways such that barriers are overcome, and delineate approaches of how energy efficiency markets could be triggered in India in the buildings & industrial sectors.
  8. 16-20 November, 2009, Energy Efficiency Trade Mission” to New Delhi, Chennai, and Mumbai. Organised by U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC).
  9. 17 November, 2009, Interactive Meet with South Asian Journalists, Kolkata, organised by CSM-DFID-PANOS, This was an interactive session for a group of 15 journalists from Nepal, Bangladesh, and India who are on a Road Trip from the Himalaya to the Bay of Bengal to see and discuss the effects of Climate Change on people across the region and initiatives concerning Climate Change. The group was accompanied by John Vidal, Guardian’s environment editor and others from DFID.
  10. 17 November, 2009, International workshop on ‘Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture’, Ahemdabad: Organized and hosted by   Space Application Centre (ISRO), this workshop focused on defining protocols and methodologies to efficiently and economically utilize remote sensing inputs for Assessment of climate change impact on vegetation and other ecosystems
  11. 17 November, 2009, National Conference on Climate Change in the Himalayas, New Delhi: Organised by Navdanya; Navdanya / Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology have carried out an in depth participatory study with local communities in the Himalaya on the impact of climate change. These have been supplemented by studies by experts. These studies were presented at this Conference.
  12. 19 to 21 November, 2009, National Conference on Forestry Solutions: Strategies for Mitigation and Adaptation of the Impacts of Climate Change in Western Himalayan Mountain States,  Shimla: Organised by the HP forest department, the conference aimed to  deliberate on the impact of climate change on the forests/vegetative cover of Western Indian hill states by involving various stakeholders including planners, implementers and beneficiaries to provide a road-map to devise relevant strategies for global warming and eco-services among mountain communities.
  13. 23 and 24 November, 2009, CENTAD Annual South Asia Conference ‘CLIMATE FOR A NEW CONSENSUS: POLICIES FOR A FAIRER GLOBALISATION ‘, New Delhi: the focus of this conference was to focus on the areas of Trade, Finance, Public Health and Climate Change and re-explore links between trade and development in the context of a rapidly evolving trade scenario.
  14. 23 and 24 November, 2009, Knowledge Sharing workshop ‘From Mountains to the Sea: Adapting to Climate Change’ New Delhi: Organised by WWF, the prime focus of this workshop was to bring together experts working on climate change research at various mountain and coastal areas and present their findings to come up with new ideas for adaptation.
  15. 22-24 November, 2009, Indigenous Technology, Livelihood Options And Habitat Utilization: Concepts And Perspectives Of Development, Guwahati (Assam). Organized by North East Centre For Research and Development (NECRD), IGNOU; North-East India as an important geographical space with unexplored resources, both human and natural, can augment understanding of global sustainability. The conference aimed to explore third world perspective to sustainability.
  16. 23 and 24 November, 2009, 4th Environmentally Friendly Vehicle (EFV) Conference And Exposition, New Delhi, With an objective to share the experiences with regard to ongoing measure for promoting or introducing environmentally friendly vehicles, Department of Heavy Industry, Government of India is organised this conference in Delhi.
  17. 25-26 November, 2009, 4th Sustainability Summit: Asia 2009 Winning Strategies for a Sustainable World, New Delhi: Organised by CII, the conference focused on how visionary businesses and institutions are turning crisis into opportunity to change our world into one that is sustainable and all inclusive.

 

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

India Climate Watch – October 2009

October 30, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – OCTOBER 2009 (Issue 7)


INSIDE THIS ISSUE

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

Editor:
Malini Mehra

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



From the Editor’s Desk

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

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

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

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

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

UNFCCC Bangkok Climate Talks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Global Day of Action – Genius of 350.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

European Union Wobbles on Climate Finance

EU finance and environment ministers and Council meet

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

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

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

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

Jairam & the Leaked Memo Controversy

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

Here we attach the Minister’s statement in full:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delhi High Level Conference on Climate Change & Technology Transfer

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

Key messages from the conference:

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

SAARC Environment Ministers Gather in Delhi

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

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

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

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

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

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

ASEAN Leaders Talk Climate

India ‘Looks East’

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

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

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

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

India-UK Join Hands for Solar Research

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

Climate Change Research Centre (Bangalore)

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

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

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

Climate Change – Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

  1. Industrialized countries to collectively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 45 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020;
  2. 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;
  3. 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:

  1. ‘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;
  2. 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;
  3. 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)
  4. 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;
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: AOSIS, Bonn 3, carbon sink, Centre for Social Markets, CSM, Himalayan glacier melt, ICW, India Climate Watch, India's green cover, India's submissions to UNFCCC, UNFCCC, why forests matter

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.

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: 2 degrees, Avaaz, Centre for Social Markets, Climate Action, climate reporting, CSM, G8, Hilary Clinton, ICW, India Climate Watch, Manmohan Singh, MEF, Solar leadership, State

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):

  1. 20,000 by 2020
  2. 100,000 by 2030
  3. 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.

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: Bonn, Centre for Social Markets, Climate Science, CSM, G20, GoI, ICW, India Climate Watch, Indian Parliament, MEF, National Action Plan, Solar Energy Mission, UNFCCC

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:

  1. Submission on Long Term Co-operative Action
  2. Submission on enhancing action on Adaptation
  3. Financing Architecture for Meeting Financial Commitments Under the UNFCCC
  4. Submission on Technology Transfer Mechanism
  5. Submission on Mitigation Actions of Developing Countries under Paragraph 1 (b) (ii) of the BAP
  6. Submission on Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) – under Bali Action Plan (BAP) 1 (b) (i)
  7. Submission on Reduced Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD), Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), and Afforestation And Reforestation (A&R), Under the Bali Action Plan (BAP)
  8. Submission on Nationally Appropriate Actions of Developing countries,
  9. 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.

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: Bali to Poznan, Centre for Social Markets, Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, CSM, ICW, India Climate Watch, India Climate Watch - March 2009, Indian UNFCCC delegation, Malini Mehra begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting, ndia's climate policy, Pradipto Ghosh, Shyam Saran

Indiaclimate twitter

Tweets by @Indiaclimate

Notable

Between contemplation and climate

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

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

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

dialogue

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

Categories

Copyright © 2025 indiaclimateportal.org.