The India Climate Observatory

Commentary, action and research on climate and development in India

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.

India Climate Watch – July 2009

by Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – JULY 2009 (Issue 4)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

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

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting
Kaavya Nag, Malini Mehraand Dolan Chatterjee

From the Editor’s desk

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

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

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

India at the Major Economies Forum/ G8

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

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

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

Hilary Clinton visits India

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

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

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

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

CSM/ Avaaz 2 Degrees Action

Prime Minister Singh: Agree to 2 Degrees

On 8th July 2009, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was urged by fellow Indians to play a leadership role on climate change at the G8+5 Summit at L’Aquila, Italy. The biggest polluters in the world had gathered at the world leaders’ summit in Italy, to take a massive step towards tackling climate change. They were on the verge of committing to a global warming limit of 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.
For the first time, Indian citizens issued a call on their government to exert leadership on climate change and say ‘yes’ to a demand that scientists and civil society have long been calling for across the world. CSM, a leading force on climate advocacy, was the Indian NGO partner for the initiative, in association with Avaaz.org, a community of 3.5 million global citizens (including 80,000 Indians) who take action on major issues facing the world today.
 
In less than 24 hours, more that 2021 Indians signed the Avaaz.org petition calling on Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to show leadership on climate change. The petition was submitted directly to the Prime Ministers’ office by CSM a day before the meeting in Italy.

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

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

We want a climate deal that is:

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

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

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

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

How Green was the 2009-10 Budget?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate reporting – Indian style

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

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

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

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

Minster of Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh:

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

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

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

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

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

Businesses:

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

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

Climate science – India

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

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

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

Climate Action at the State Level

Karnataka: green energy leadership plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Bengal pioneers Asia’s largest solar power plant

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

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

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

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

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

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