The India Climate Observatory

Commentary, action and research on climate and development in India

Cows, scooters and climate talks

by Leave a Comment

RG_ICP_comment_pic_20140727

To what degree should international negotiation be India’s major theoretical activity when dealing with climate change? To what extent do India’s negotiators at the UNFCCC annual series of meetings represent its people at home, and if so through which channels? How are governance and determination of choices at the local level in India – choices that can lead to more communities becoming more responsible about their climate change impacts – translated by our negotiators at annual international meetings? These are some of the questions we find need to be asked more sharply, and more persistently, and for which we wish to hear answers.

Commentaries like ‘A map and a compass for climate talks’, by Navroz K Dubash and Lavanya Rajamani of the Centre for Policy Research (published in The Hindu, 23 July 2014), give us an interesting glimpse of the world that our international climate talks negotiators inhabit, but it has not posed such questions nor helped provide answers. This is the dialectic that needs to change, and quickly. It is 17 years since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted and every year thereafter, the number of meetings for negotiations has increased and the numbers of those who are now experts at negotiations has swelled at an ever faster rate. This new and hyper-mobile population of negotiators cannot claim any success, however minor, that has come from this annual festival of discussion (carried out by spending taxpayers’ money). What then is their use, to us in India especially?

In their article, Dubash and Rajamani have provided a rapid account of the adoption of negotiating positions by India and the differences between them at different periods. They have illustrated this by referring to articles written recently by former Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh and by Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, described as “a mainstay of India’s negotiating team for two decades”. Given the failure rate of the annual round of climate change negotiations, the strategical RG_ICP_comment_pic_20140727_cropquibbling by both Ramesh and Dasgupta are of very little use locally in India. That is why we think the Centre for Policy Research and similar institutes and establishments which study climate change in all its perplexing colours (none of them more frustrating than the UN negotiations) must alter the subject – to the ‘whom’ of people where they live rather than the ‘what’ of negotiating positions.

The two authors, looking ahead to “the next landmark climate negotiating session” – we ask that empty hyperbole like ‘landmark’ be dropped from a process that is nothing but 20 years of getting nowhere expensively – have said it is time to “look forward and anticipate how a principled approach, strategic vision, political acumen and technical expertise can be better combined in India’s negotiating approach”. Surely, Ramesh and Dasgupta (perhaps in reverse order) ought to be bluntly asked why India has not had a principled approach, strategic vision, political acumen and technical expertise which – and we emphasise this – helps deal with climate change locally, in the districts and towns, and which then becomes the position that India takes in the crowded climate talks ballrooms of the world?

The commentary is worried about preparations to be made before the next big meeting in 2015. The usual formula is there – “national contributions”, “emissions mitigation component”, “adaptation, finance, technology and capacity building” and (best of all for the financiers who haunt every COP) “proposed investments”. The authors then refer to the Economic Survey 2013-14, which has a chapter (it is chapter 12, out of place amongst the others as if it wandered in from some storybook) on climate change. This they say mentions the need to develop contributions but that this mention has come very late – cue Messers Dasgupta and Ramesh for sepia-toned explanations.

And finally, the authors complain that “there is little evidence of a serious national dialogue on such contributions, which is critical to ensuring ownership of, responsibility for and delivery of these contributions across levels of governance and segments of society”. They could have spoken more plainly. There is no dialogue, because the central and state governments have not invested in dialogue (ask Ramesh how he got his government to invest in an excellent national discussion about Bt brinjal), and because our negotiators at COP, CMP, SBI and SBSTA never bothered to ask for it either. Who did it suit to cloak climate negotiations as being about technology, finance and law to an exclusively expert degree, thereby shutting the citizen out?

What we wish to hear very much of – and the Ministry has not obliged – is where the priorities of the BJP-led NDA government mesh (or clash) with the theory of a multi-lateral approach to climate change negotiations (now 20 years old). The climate circuit and its habitues in (and from) India have become used to the vocabulary of the circuit, so used to it that they have neglected to learn some of the other vocabularies found in documents such as the Union Budget speech and the Economic Survey, which have very much less to do with multi-lateral feinting at UNFCCC meetings and very much more to do with gritty economics at home. It isn’t too late for India to sound more like Gorakhpur than like Geneva at such talks, and only when that happens will we see tehsil and municipality begin to respond – the ‘equity’ that India is said to be a champion of at the negotiations can only have substance if it begins at home.

– Rahul Goswami

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

by Leave a Comment

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


9 December, 2010

In December 2009, when environment minister Jairam Ramesh went to Copenhagen, he was seen off by a group of bright-eyed young Indian climate activists urging him to come back with a FAB (fair, ambitious and binding) deal. He promised to do so. Fast-forward to December 2010 and the Indian delegation is fighting tooth-and-nail to eviscerate any language on a binding deal at the UN’s climate talks in Cancun.
 
In resisting this, India is in shabby company – countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United States and Japan have been notoriously prevaricating or setting hurdles in the way of internationally binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
 
Leading the charge for a legally-binding instrument are the most vulnerable nations on earth – the small island developing states and African countries. United in political blocs such as AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) and the Africa Group, these nations are fighting for their very survival in the face of indifference by many major powers – developed and emerging alike.
 
Both AOSIS and the Africa group have managed to organise themselves into effective political forces with strong moral authority as unwitting victims of climate change. In so doing they have lifted the stranglehold of more powerful countries within the G-77 lobby group of developing countries, that had long prevented the concerns of the most vulnerable from surfacing.
 
In recent days, AOSIS and the Africa Group have managed to bring along a range of nations to their cause for a legally binding instrument under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change curbing greenhouse gas emissions. AOSIS has recommended specific language under the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action that has been supported by the European Union, Costa Rica and many others. All in all, support for this could run into more than 100 countries.
 
Only India and a small clutch of countries are resisting this move. In this, India has been virtually isolated from others in the BASIC grouping – South Africa, Brazil and China – with whom it has closely allied since last year. These nations are not blocking but are either supporting AOSIS or are open to further dialogue – but not India.
 
India has legitimate concerns in asking for clarity on issues such as the content of legally binding, the penalty of non-compliance and the system of monitoring. But so do others – yet, they are not blocking progress as India is doing because they recognise that some progress on the issue of ‘legal form’ of commitments is a deal-maker issue at this vital meeting.

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

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

The environment minister has taken to describing India as ‘the most vulnerable’ country in the world. Yet his rhetoric will cut little ice with vulnerable neighbours such as Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal and Bhutan who have all called for a legally binding agreement at Cancun.
 
Jairam Ramesh has won a following in India amongst environmentalists for the courage he has shown in the face of vested interests in the mining sector and flown the flag for India’s environmental integrity. He has also made singularly imaginative efforts to advance a more pro-active domestic climate policy in India. For this we salute him.
 
But if India’s old guard of bureaucrats prevent a similarly courageous and imaginative approach being taken at the international policy level, they should know they will receive the opprobrium of young and old Indians alike.

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

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

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

India Climate Watch – December 2009

by Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – DECEMBER 2009 (Issue 9)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

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

Editor:
Malini Mehra

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

From the Editor’s Desk

People will be discussing the Copenhagen climate conference for years to come. Opinions will be mixed as to whether it was a step forward or a failure. Only history will tell whether it was a turning point or a tipping point.
The Copenhagen Accord – the 3-page document to emerge from the UN Climate conference – has dubious legal status and was not adopted, simply ‘noted’, by the  Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 19 December 2009. Its very existence, however, could now risk the architecture established by the UNFCCC to combat global climate change.
There is much that is wrong with the agreement. It is not legally-binding, contains no mid-term or long-term targets for emissions reductions and critically does not refer to a ‘peaking’ year for global emissions in order to keep within the ‘safe’ limit of 2 degrees C of warming (since pre-industrial times).
 
Neither has it followed the guidance of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that indicates three benchmarks for avoiding dangerous climate change: (1) developed countries must reduce emissions by 25- 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels, (2) global emissions must peak and then begin to decline by 2020, and (3) global emissions must decline by 50% by 2050.
 
The Copenhagen Accord contains a reference to 2 degrees C but does not endorse it. Given that there are no targets, no peaking years, no trajectories for emissions reductions, only vague rhetoric, this is effectively an agreement for business-as-usual.
According to the Accord, countries that sign-on will not be required to adopt nationally-binding targets but invited to submit voluntary numbers. This will effectively convert what was hoped to be a high-ambition, globally-binding international regime into a more laissez-faire, self-determined ‘Pledge and Review’ system for each country with no international compliance mechanism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minister Ramesh defends Indian red lines in Parliament

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

India’s climate vulnerability

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

On per capita

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

India’s approach to Copenhagen

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

India’s ‘red lines’ for Copenhagen

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

A third red line is:

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

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

On leadership

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

Copenhagen COP15 – A Day-by-Day Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post-Copenhagen – Parliament debates the Accord

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minister clarifies Accord to Rajya Sabha

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

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

On the death of the Kyoto Protocol

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

On MRV (monitoring, reporting and verification)

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

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

On peaking years

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

On finance and technology transfer

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

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

India Climate Watch – November 2009

by 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.

 

India Climate Watch – October 2009

by 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.