ppgj
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,029
- Likes
- 168
The copenhagen climate conference 2009
- Thread starter roma
- Start date
I agree, BG, stop fooling around, how can this be possible, you were joking about BHO, the great leader of free world
ppgj
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,029
- Likes
- 168
Manmohan Singh at the Copenhagen summit :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz7b-AvREtQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz7b-AvREtQ&feature=player_embedded
ppgj
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,029
- Likes
- 168
'Lukewarm' climate change deal in Copenhagen
'Lukewarm' climate change deal in Copenhagen - Times Online
Pintu
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 12,082
- Likes
- 348
AFP: China 'positive' on Copenhagen summit
China 'positive' on Copenhagen summit
(AFP) – 3 hours ago
BEIJING — China on Sunday welcomed the outcome of climate change talks in Copenhagen, the day after a deal reached to fight global warming came in for heavy criticism.
"With the efforts of all parties, the summit yielded significant and positive results," foreign minister Yang Jiechi was quoted as saying in a statement on the foreign ministry website.
The agreement was assembled at the last minute by a small group consisting of leaders of the United States, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and major European nations, after it became clear the summit was in danger of failure.
It set a commitment to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), but did not spell out the important stepping stones -- global emissions targets for 2020 or 2050 -- for getting there.
Nor did it identify a year by which emissions should peak, and pledges were made voluntary and free from tough compliance provisions.
Yang, who never specifically mentioned the accord, said the summit had successfully maintained the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility," which recognises differing economic circumstances between emerging and rich nations.
China, the world's biggest carbon polluter, has always said rich countries should take the lead in committing to substantial emission reduction targets and provide finance to developing countries battling climate change.
The Copenhagen Accord set a goal of "jointly mobilising" 100 billion dollars for developing nations by 2020.
Yang added that the summit made a step forward with regards to developed countries' mandatory emissions cuts and developing nations' voluntary mitigation actions.
"Third, it reached broad consensus on the key issues of long-term global targets, funding, technology support (to developing countries), and transparency," Yang said, according to the statement.
China has pledged to reduce carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 based on 2005 levels.
China 'positive' on Copenhagen summit
(AFP) – 3 hours ago
BEIJING — China on Sunday welcomed the outcome of climate change talks in Copenhagen, the day after a deal reached to fight global warming came in for heavy criticism.
"With the efforts of all parties, the summit yielded significant and positive results," foreign minister Yang Jiechi was quoted as saying in a statement on the foreign ministry website.
The agreement was assembled at the last minute by a small group consisting of leaders of the United States, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and major European nations, after it became clear the summit was in danger of failure.
It set a commitment to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), but did not spell out the important stepping stones -- global emissions targets for 2020 or 2050 -- for getting there.
Nor did it identify a year by which emissions should peak, and pledges were made voluntary and free from tough compliance provisions.
Yang, who never specifically mentioned the accord, said the summit had successfully maintained the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility," which recognises differing economic circumstances between emerging and rich nations.
China, the world's biggest carbon polluter, has always said rich countries should take the lead in committing to substantial emission reduction targets and provide finance to developing countries battling climate change.
The Copenhagen Accord set a goal of "jointly mobilising" 100 billion dollars for developing nations by 2020.
Yang added that the summit made a step forward with regards to developed countries' mandatory emissions cuts and developing nations' voluntary mitigation actions.
"Third, it reached broad consensus on the key issues of long-term global targets, funding, technology support (to developing countries), and transparency," Yang said, according to the statement.
China has pledged to reduce carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 based on 2005 levels.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,779
- Likes
- 2,666
Obama barged into BASIC meet to clinch climate deal
Indrani Bagchi | TNN Welcome - Times Of India ePaper
Oh, you are all here. I had some things to discuss with all of you so it’s good that you are together in the same room,” US President Barack Obama said as he strode into the room where the BASIC countries — Brazil, South Africa, India and China — were holding their last, intensive meetings in Copenhagen.
“We really need a deal,” he said. “It’s better that we take one step forward rather than two steps back. I’m willing to be flexible.” And he rolled up his sleeves and sat down.
Obama had come to meet China’s Wen Jiabao, in the spirit of G-2 (US and China are the biggest polluters). He was told Wen was already in a meeting. But he wasn’t going to take no for an answer — especially since he feared the BASIC countries were preparing to walk out, which would have effectively killed the summit.
Obama’s securitymen pushed aside their Chinese counterparts as they shepherded him into the room. The Chinese retaliated by bringing in their TV crews and keeping the Americans out. But after that tense start, the meeting proceeded peacefully, according to Indian sources present in the room. They’ll try to split us, Wen told Man
Earlier that morning, the lounge at the Bella Center saw four men — PM Manmohan Singh, premier Wen Jiabao, Brazilian president Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva and South African president Jacob Zuma — sitting together to iron out the last issues of the climate change deal, particularly on the verification procedures and reducing temperature rise to 2 degrees. The buzz in the room grew, and soon the four men found themselves surrounded by other heads of state and government who had gathered there.
By this time, the four countries had, thanks to their accumulated clout and a unified front, grown to become a formidable bloc. When the PM landed in Copenhagen, it had become clear that the western officials were preventing any cutting of a deal, leaving it to the heads of government. This was not how India, or China, wanted it, but Indian officials going in realized soon enough that the whole game was going to be that the heads of government would use their personal charm or force to push through a deal. Therefore, the amazing spectacle of principals poring over texts and battling over phrases. In a p re - e m p t ive move, Wen held what could only be described as a heartto-heart with Singh. Holding hands, Wen told Singh, “I admire you very much. They will try to split us, but India-China unity should hold.” The PM reassured Wen, “Mr Premier, India will certainly stand by you.” The conversation went on in this vein for a while, said sources. “Many difficulties in the bilateral relationship were patched up,” said an official with satisfaction. The China-India bonhomie may not last, certainly on other issues where the two countries are at odds, but this time it worked.
China was the one country everybody hit out most during the summit. In retaliation, Wen even refused to show up for a meeting with Obama, saying he was meeting Singh instead. After the meeting, Obama walked across the hall to brief the Europeans (who had been left out of the crucial meeting). Walking back, he ran into chief Indian negotiator Shyam Saran. Putting his arms around his shoulders, Obama said, “Thank you for being so constructive and positive. It will work out well, I promise.”
SURPRISE! US President Barack Obama at a meeting with PM Manmohan Singh, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao and South African president Jacob Zuma
ppgj
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,029
- Likes
- 168
Taking stock of Copenhagen
T. Jayaraman December 24, 2009
Greenpeace activists protest the recent Copenhagen climate summit in Mexico City on Sunday. Photo: AP
The strategy of the major developing nations has provided a reprieve from the danger of the breakdown of global negotiations. But their compromise highlights the dilemma of engaging the United States without allowing it to dictate the global climate agenda.
It is evident that the Copenhagen climate summit has failed to produce an equitable and viable plan to combat global warming that responds to both the scientific and moral imperative. But without clarifying the import of Copenhagen in a careful evaluation, taking note of both the process and substantive aspects of what transpired at the summit, one would have little purchase on a future strategy and course of action.
Undoubtedly the success of the United States in forcing the Copenhagen Accord on to the agenda, with the active collusion of several developed countries, constitutes a serious threat to equitable and transparent global environmental governance under United Nations’ auspices. Following the personal intervention of President Obama with select leaders, the drafting of the accord, drawn up in a series of closed-door meetings with select participants setting aside the outcomes of earlier negotiations, completely ignored the norms of equality of all nations and transparency that are at the core of the U.N. process. It was the unanticipated but firm opposition of a few developing countries that ensured that the accord remained an agreement only between those nations that chose to declare their adherence to it, and was merely “taken note” of under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Nevertheless one of Copenhagen’s most valuable outcomes has been the guarantee of the continuity of UNFCCC negotiations, which will now continue at least for another year, despite the Copenhagen Accord. The summit plenary also mandated that these extended negotiations would be based on the negotiating texts as they stood prior to the introduction of the accord.
The developing countries have thus managed to ensure that the primary agenda of the developed countries in the run-up to Copenhagen, that sought to dilute or erase the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” has been pushed back in some measure. The attempts to set aside or replace the Kyoto Protocol and alter significantly the terms of the UNFCCC have not succeeded at the formal level, though the Copenhagen Accord itself is likely to be used for fresh attempts in this direction.
The most significant concessions by the developing countries though are in the substance of the Copenhagen Accord. Developed nations are only expected to voluntarily declare their emission reduction commitments by 31 January, 2010. It remains to be seen whether these nations will honour their pre-Copenhagen pledges as is expected. The most significant uncertainty though relates to whether the domestic legislative process of the United States would allow it to make any significant commitment to emissions reduction at all. The summit proceedings have also made it clear that the pre-Copenhagen emission reduction pledges of the developed nations fall well short of what climate science demands.
The accord also devotes disproportionately greater attention to the mitigation actions of developing nations, responding to the US obsession with `transparency’ in their reporting and verification. All developing nations too have to declare the mitigation actions they will undertake, with the pre-Copenhagen commitments of the BASIC four likely to be declared by the same cut-off date. The developing countries’ position that their voluntary mitigation actions, which are not financially assisted, will be reported only through periodic national communications and will be reviewed only domestically has been partially preserved. However, the developing countries have conceded that all their mitigation action will be subject to ``international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected.” The ambiguity in this formulation, that postpones the question of defining the guidelines to the future, is of a piece with the number of other ambiguities that plague the accord.
Despite the strident criticism of sections of climate change activists, it is clear that the BASIC Four (China, India, Brazil and South Africa) had little room for manoeuvre at Copenhagen. In retrospect the only way they could have evaded high-level political negotiations, would have been to reject at the outset itself the ``leader-driven” process promoted by the Danish Prime Minister on behalf of the United States. But faced with the stalemate in climate negotiations, and unwilling to risk being held responsible for pre-determining the summit’s failure, the four major developing nations, to varying degrees, were clearly willing to explore the Danish proposals. India went the farthest with its acquiescence in the statement on climate change from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting that explicitly welcomed the “leader-driven” process. At the same time, wary of the demands of the developed nations, all the four major developing nations jointly announced their main negotiating positions.
Eventually at Copenhagen, faced with the intransigence of the United States that none of the developed nations were able to mediate, the BASIC Four chose to avoid a summit failure, with its not easily calculable and potentially costly consequences. In a positive reading, the strategy of the BASIC Four appears to have provided a temporary reprieve from the danger of a total breakdown of negotiations. They have demonstrated that they recognise their special (though differentiated) responsibilities while deflecting potential criticism of standing in the way of drawing the United States into global climate action. It is unlikely though that they will have the luxury of a compromise of this nature in the future.
The summit also exposed the weakness inherent in the developing nations’ strategy of an undifferentiated unity that so far has not, in any formal way, distinguished between the major developing nations and the rest of the G-77 in climate negotiations. The U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s threat that the U.S. offer of climate finance for the poorest nations would expire by the end of the summit if China did not offer greater “transparency” in its mitigation efforts showed that that this unity could be turned against the developing nations themselves. The text of the accord demonstrates that the U.S. successfully used justified concerns regarding the emissions of the major developing economies to impose mitigation demands on the entire developing world. The protection of the most vulnerable nations at the frontline of climate change while guaranteeing the development needs of more than half the world’s population cannot be ensured without a more concrete differentiation among Third World nations, while continuing to insist that the developed nations take the lead in mitigation action.
Looking beyond Copenhagen, one can anticipate an even thornier path for future negotiations. Despite its lack of official status, the Copenhagen Accord will undoubtedly interfere with official UNFCCC negotiations for a legally binding agreement. Resolving this issue will not be easy since at its heart is the key dilemma of dealing with the United States on climate change. Unfortunately for the world, its foremost superpower is trapped domestically in a climate discourse that is short-sighted and parochial and yet seeks to impose this discourse on the entire globe. Engaging the United States for global climate action without allowing it to run away with the global climate agenda is a question that the nations of the world have yet to address adequately.
One possibility to partially resolve this dilemma is to look for new interlocutors on either side with better perspectives who could set the terms of the climate debate. A closer climate dialogue between the European Union, currently smarting from being sidelined in the U.S. end-run at Copenhagen, and the major developing economies could have much to offer in this regard. But such dialogues need a willingness to rise above current political prejudices and linkages and a greater expenditure of political capital on the climate question going well beyond the technical skirmishes and semantic battles of the global negotiating table.
(T. Jayaraman is Chairperson, Centre for Science, Technology and Society, Tata Institute of Social Sciences.)
The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : Taking stock of Copenhagen
T. Jayaraman December 24, 2009
Greenpeace activists protest the recent Copenhagen climate summit in Mexico City on Sunday. Photo: AP
The strategy of the major developing nations has provided a reprieve from the danger of the breakdown of global negotiations. But their compromise highlights the dilemma of engaging the United States without allowing it to dictate the global climate agenda.
It is evident that the Copenhagen climate summit has failed to produce an equitable and viable plan to combat global warming that responds to both the scientific and moral imperative. But without clarifying the import of Copenhagen in a careful evaluation, taking note of both the process and substantive aspects of what transpired at the summit, one would have little purchase on a future strategy and course of action.
Undoubtedly the success of the United States in forcing the Copenhagen Accord on to the agenda, with the active collusion of several developed countries, constitutes a serious threat to equitable and transparent global environmental governance under United Nations’ auspices. Following the personal intervention of President Obama with select leaders, the drafting of the accord, drawn up in a series of closed-door meetings with select participants setting aside the outcomes of earlier negotiations, completely ignored the norms of equality of all nations and transparency that are at the core of the U.N. process. It was the unanticipated but firm opposition of a few developing countries that ensured that the accord remained an agreement only between those nations that chose to declare their adherence to it, and was merely “taken note” of under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Nevertheless one of Copenhagen’s most valuable outcomes has been the guarantee of the continuity of UNFCCC negotiations, which will now continue at least for another year, despite the Copenhagen Accord. The summit plenary also mandated that these extended negotiations would be based on the negotiating texts as they stood prior to the introduction of the accord.
The developing countries have thus managed to ensure that the primary agenda of the developed countries in the run-up to Copenhagen, that sought to dilute or erase the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” has been pushed back in some measure. The attempts to set aside or replace the Kyoto Protocol and alter significantly the terms of the UNFCCC have not succeeded at the formal level, though the Copenhagen Accord itself is likely to be used for fresh attempts in this direction.
The most significant concessions by the developing countries though are in the substance of the Copenhagen Accord. Developed nations are only expected to voluntarily declare their emission reduction commitments by 31 January, 2010. It remains to be seen whether these nations will honour their pre-Copenhagen pledges as is expected. The most significant uncertainty though relates to whether the domestic legislative process of the United States would allow it to make any significant commitment to emissions reduction at all. The summit proceedings have also made it clear that the pre-Copenhagen emission reduction pledges of the developed nations fall well short of what climate science demands.
The accord also devotes disproportionately greater attention to the mitigation actions of developing nations, responding to the US obsession with `transparency’ in their reporting and verification. All developing nations too have to declare the mitigation actions they will undertake, with the pre-Copenhagen commitments of the BASIC four likely to be declared by the same cut-off date. The developing countries’ position that their voluntary mitigation actions, which are not financially assisted, will be reported only through periodic national communications and will be reviewed only domestically has been partially preserved. However, the developing countries have conceded that all their mitigation action will be subject to ``international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected.” The ambiguity in this formulation, that postpones the question of defining the guidelines to the future, is of a piece with the number of other ambiguities that plague the accord.
Despite the strident criticism of sections of climate change activists, it is clear that the BASIC Four (China, India, Brazil and South Africa) had little room for manoeuvre at Copenhagen. In retrospect the only way they could have evaded high-level political negotiations, would have been to reject at the outset itself the ``leader-driven” process promoted by the Danish Prime Minister on behalf of the United States. But faced with the stalemate in climate negotiations, and unwilling to risk being held responsible for pre-determining the summit’s failure, the four major developing nations, to varying degrees, were clearly willing to explore the Danish proposals. India went the farthest with its acquiescence in the statement on climate change from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting that explicitly welcomed the “leader-driven” process. At the same time, wary of the demands of the developed nations, all the four major developing nations jointly announced their main negotiating positions.
Eventually at Copenhagen, faced with the intransigence of the United States that none of the developed nations were able to mediate, the BASIC Four chose to avoid a summit failure, with its not easily calculable and potentially costly consequences. In a positive reading, the strategy of the BASIC Four appears to have provided a temporary reprieve from the danger of a total breakdown of negotiations. They have demonstrated that they recognise their special (though differentiated) responsibilities while deflecting potential criticism of standing in the way of drawing the United States into global climate action. It is unlikely though that they will have the luxury of a compromise of this nature in the future.
The summit also exposed the weakness inherent in the developing nations’ strategy of an undifferentiated unity that so far has not, in any formal way, distinguished between the major developing nations and the rest of the G-77 in climate negotiations. The U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s threat that the U.S. offer of climate finance for the poorest nations would expire by the end of the summit if China did not offer greater “transparency” in its mitigation efforts showed that that this unity could be turned against the developing nations themselves. The text of the accord demonstrates that the U.S. successfully used justified concerns regarding the emissions of the major developing economies to impose mitigation demands on the entire developing world. The protection of the most vulnerable nations at the frontline of climate change while guaranteeing the development needs of more than half the world’s population cannot be ensured without a more concrete differentiation among Third World nations, while continuing to insist that the developed nations take the lead in mitigation action.
Looking beyond Copenhagen, one can anticipate an even thornier path for future negotiations. Despite its lack of official status, the Copenhagen Accord will undoubtedly interfere with official UNFCCC negotiations for a legally binding agreement. Resolving this issue will not be easy since at its heart is the key dilemma of dealing with the United States on climate change. Unfortunately for the world, its foremost superpower is trapped domestically in a climate discourse that is short-sighted and parochial and yet seeks to impose this discourse on the entire globe. Engaging the United States for global climate action without allowing it to run away with the global climate agenda is a question that the nations of the world have yet to address adequately.
One possibility to partially resolve this dilemma is to look for new interlocutors on either side with better perspectives who could set the terms of the climate debate. A closer climate dialogue between the European Union, currently smarting from being sidelined in the U.S. end-run at Copenhagen, and the major developing economies could have much to offer in this regard. But such dialogues need a willingness to rise above current political prejudices and linkages and a greater expenditure of political capital on the climate question going well beyond the technical skirmishes and semantic battles of the global negotiating table.
(T. Jayaraman is Chairperson, Centre for Science, Technology and Society, Tata Institute of Social Sciences.)
The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : Taking stock of Copenhagen
ppgj
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,029
- Likes
- 168
Copenhagen, tsunami and hunger
M. S. Swaminathan December 25, 2009
A youth poses for his friends to take a picture on top of Escape Building built to be an evacuation point and temporary shelter in Aceh on Friday. Photo: AP
India’s food and water security systems will be the worst victims of a rise in mean temperature. Building our defences against potential climate change activated calamities through mainstreaming climate resilience in all developmental programmes should be the priority task in the New Year
The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is the core of the many climate agreements arrived at so far, including the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Bali Plan of Action (2007). The differentiated responsibilities aim to meet the special needs of developing countries for accelerated and equitable economic development. Both at L’Aquilla and Copenhagen, the industrialised countries proposed limiting the rise in mean temperature to 2 degrees C above normal. Even this seems to be unattainable in the context of the present rate of emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). Hence, the principle of common but differentiated impact of 2 degrees change in mean temperature is essential for prioritising climate victims. For example, small islands like Tuvalu in the Pacific Ocean, the Maldives, Lakshadweep and the Andaman and Nicobar, as well as Sunderbans in West Bengal, Kuttanad in Kerala and many locations along the coast will face the prospect of submergence. Floods will become more serious and frequent in the Indo-Gangetic plains. Drought induced food and water scarcity will become more acute. South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the small islands will be the worst victims. In contrast, countries in the northern latitudes will benefit due to longer growing seasons and higher yields.
Addressing the World Climate Conference in Geneva in 1989 on the theme, “Climate Change and Agriculture,” I pointed out the serious implications of a rise of 1 to 2 degree C in mean temperature on crop productivity in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. An Expert Team constituted by FAO, in its report submitted in September 2009, also concluded that for each 1 degree C rise in mean temperature, wheat yield losses in India are likely to be around 6 million tonnes per year, or around $1.5 billion at current prices. There will be similar losses in other crops and our impoverished farmers could lose the equivalent of over $20 billion in income each year. Rural women will suffer more since they look after animals, fodder, feed and water.
We are now in the midst of a steep rise in the prices of essential food items like pulses. 2009 has been characterised by both extensive drought and severe floods. The gap between demand and supply is high in pulses, oilseeds, sugar and several vegetable crops including onion and potato. The absence of a farmer-centric market system aggravates both food inflation and rural poverty. FAO estimates that a primary cause for the increase in the number of hungry persons, now exceeding over a billion, is the high cost of basic staples. India unfortunately has the unenviable reputation of being the home to the largest number of undernourished children, women and men in the world. The task of ensuring food security will be quite formidable in an era of increasing climate risks and diminishing farm productivity.
China, which was reluctant in Copenhagen to join other developing countries in efforts to restrict the rise in mean temperature to 1 to 1.5 degrees C, has already built strong defences against the adverse impact of climate change. During this year, China produced over 500 million tonnes of foodgrains in a cultivated area similar to that of India. Chinese farmland is, however, mostly irrigated unlike in India where 60 per cent of the area still remains rain-fed. Food and drinking water are the first among our hierarchical needs. Hence while assessing the common and differentiated impact of a 2 degree rise in temperature, priority should go to agriculture and rural livelihoods. What are the steps we should take in the fields of both mitigation and adaptation?
The largest opportunity in mitigation lies in increasing soil carbon sequestration and for building up soil carbon banks. Increase in the soil carbon pool in the root zone by 1 ton C/ha/yr will help to increase food production substantially, since one of the major deficiencies in soil health is low soil organic matter content. There should be a movement for planting a billion “fertilizer trees” which can simultaneously sequester carbon and enhance soil nutrient status. We can also contribute to the reduction in methane emission in the atmosphere from animal husbandry by spreading biogas plants. A biogas plant and a pond on every farm will make a substantial contribution to both reducing GHG emission and ensuring energy and water security. Similarly neem-coated urea will help to reduce ammonia volatilisation and thereby the release of nitrous oxide into the atmosphere.
2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. We can classify our crops into those which are climate resilient and those which are climate sensitive. For example, wheat is a climate sensitive crop, while rice shows a wide range of adaptation in terms of growing conditions. We will have problems with reference to crops like potato since a higher temperature will render raising disease-free seed potatoes in the plains of northwest India difficult. We will have to shift to cultivating potato from true sexual seed. The relative importance of different diseases and pests will get altered. The wheat crop may suffer more from stem rust which normally remains important only in Peninsular India. A search for new genes conferring climate resilience is therefore urgent.
Anticipatory analysis and action hold the key to climate risk management. The major components of an Action Plan for achieving a Climate Resilient National Food Security System will be the following:
— Establish in each of the 127 agro-climatic sub-zones, identified by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research based on cropping systems and weather patterns of the country, a Climate Risk Management Research and Extension Centre.
— Organise a Content Consortium for each centre consisting of experts in different fields to provide guidance on alternative cropping patterns, contingency plans and compensatory production programmes, when the area witnesses natural calamities like drought, flood, higher temperature and in case of coastal areas, a rise in sea level.
— Establish with the help of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) a Village Resource Centre (VRC) with satellite connection at each of the 127 locations.
— Establish with the help of the Ministry of Earth Sciences and the India Meteorological Department an Agro-Meteorological Station at each Research and Extension Centre to initiate a “Weather Information for All” programme.
— Organise Seed and Grain Banks based on Computer Simulation Models of different weather probabilities and their impact on the normal crops and crop seasons of the area.
— Develop Drought and Flood Codes indicating the anticipatory steps necessary to adapt to the impact of global warming.
— Strengthen coastal defences against a rise in the sea level as well as the more frequent occurrence of storms and tsunamis through the establishment of bio-shields of mangroves and non-mangrove species. Also, develop seawater farming and below sea-level farming techniques. Establish major research centres for sea-water farming and below sea-level farming. Kuttanad will be a suitable place for the Below Sea-Level Farming Research and Extension Centre. A major centre should also be established in the Sunderbans area.
— Train one woman and one man of every panchayat to become Climate Risk Managers. They should become well-versed in the art and science of Climate Risk Management and help to blend traditional wisdom with modern science. The Climate Risk Managers should be supported with an Internet-connected Village Knowledge Centre.
Today (December 26, 2009) marks the fifth anniversary of tsunami. The tsunami of 2004 was a wake-up call alerting us to the consequences of a sudden rise in the sea level. The “Copenhagen Inaction” will lead to more severe coastal storms, tsunamis and sea level rises. A Climate Literacy Movement as well as anticipatory action to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of all those living in coastal areas and islands will have to be initiated. Integrated coastal zone management procedures involving concurrent attention to both the landward and seaward site of the ocean and to coastal forestry and agro-forestry as well as capture and culture fisheries are urgently needed.
With the help of Tata Trusts, the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation is dedicating today to fisher and coastal communities a “Fish for All Research and Training Centre” at Kaverpoomipattinam (Poompuhar) for imparting training from fish capture to consumption. A college for coastal communities is also being established with the help of the Indira Gandhi National Open University. Artesenal fishermen going to the sea in small boats are being provided with cellphones which can give them information on wave heights and the location of shoals. This helps not only to save time but also allay fears concerning a sudden rise in the sea level. In 2010, India will complete 60 years of planned development. Hereafter, climate resilience must be mainstreamed in all development programmes. Let not the Copenhagen Inaction add to the number affected by deprivation and malnutrition.
(The writer is Chairman, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation and Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha))
The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : Copenhagen, tsunami and hunger
M. S. Swaminathan December 25, 2009
A youth poses for his friends to take a picture on top of Escape Building built to be an evacuation point and temporary shelter in Aceh on Friday. Photo: AP
India’s food and water security systems will be the worst victims of a rise in mean temperature. Building our defences against potential climate change activated calamities through mainstreaming climate resilience in all developmental programmes should be the priority task in the New Year
The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is the core of the many climate agreements arrived at so far, including the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Bali Plan of Action (2007). The differentiated responsibilities aim to meet the special needs of developing countries for accelerated and equitable economic development. Both at L’Aquilla and Copenhagen, the industrialised countries proposed limiting the rise in mean temperature to 2 degrees C above normal. Even this seems to be unattainable in the context of the present rate of emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). Hence, the principle of common but differentiated impact of 2 degrees change in mean temperature is essential for prioritising climate victims. For example, small islands like Tuvalu in the Pacific Ocean, the Maldives, Lakshadweep and the Andaman and Nicobar, as well as Sunderbans in West Bengal, Kuttanad in Kerala and many locations along the coast will face the prospect of submergence. Floods will become more serious and frequent in the Indo-Gangetic plains. Drought induced food and water scarcity will become more acute. South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the small islands will be the worst victims. In contrast, countries in the northern latitudes will benefit due to longer growing seasons and higher yields.
Addressing the World Climate Conference in Geneva in 1989 on the theme, “Climate Change and Agriculture,” I pointed out the serious implications of a rise of 1 to 2 degree C in mean temperature on crop productivity in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. An Expert Team constituted by FAO, in its report submitted in September 2009, also concluded that for each 1 degree C rise in mean temperature, wheat yield losses in India are likely to be around 6 million tonnes per year, or around $1.5 billion at current prices. There will be similar losses in other crops and our impoverished farmers could lose the equivalent of over $20 billion in income each year. Rural women will suffer more since they look after animals, fodder, feed and water.
We are now in the midst of a steep rise in the prices of essential food items like pulses. 2009 has been characterised by both extensive drought and severe floods. The gap between demand and supply is high in pulses, oilseeds, sugar and several vegetable crops including onion and potato. The absence of a farmer-centric market system aggravates both food inflation and rural poverty. FAO estimates that a primary cause for the increase in the number of hungry persons, now exceeding over a billion, is the high cost of basic staples. India unfortunately has the unenviable reputation of being the home to the largest number of undernourished children, women and men in the world. The task of ensuring food security will be quite formidable in an era of increasing climate risks and diminishing farm productivity.
China, which was reluctant in Copenhagen to join other developing countries in efforts to restrict the rise in mean temperature to 1 to 1.5 degrees C, has already built strong defences against the adverse impact of climate change. During this year, China produced over 500 million tonnes of foodgrains in a cultivated area similar to that of India. Chinese farmland is, however, mostly irrigated unlike in India where 60 per cent of the area still remains rain-fed. Food and drinking water are the first among our hierarchical needs. Hence while assessing the common and differentiated impact of a 2 degree rise in temperature, priority should go to agriculture and rural livelihoods. What are the steps we should take in the fields of both mitigation and adaptation?
The largest opportunity in mitigation lies in increasing soil carbon sequestration and for building up soil carbon banks. Increase in the soil carbon pool in the root zone by 1 ton C/ha/yr will help to increase food production substantially, since one of the major deficiencies in soil health is low soil organic matter content. There should be a movement for planting a billion “fertilizer trees” which can simultaneously sequester carbon and enhance soil nutrient status. We can also contribute to the reduction in methane emission in the atmosphere from animal husbandry by spreading biogas plants. A biogas plant and a pond on every farm will make a substantial contribution to both reducing GHG emission and ensuring energy and water security. Similarly neem-coated urea will help to reduce ammonia volatilisation and thereby the release of nitrous oxide into the atmosphere.
2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. We can classify our crops into those which are climate resilient and those which are climate sensitive. For example, wheat is a climate sensitive crop, while rice shows a wide range of adaptation in terms of growing conditions. We will have problems with reference to crops like potato since a higher temperature will render raising disease-free seed potatoes in the plains of northwest India difficult. We will have to shift to cultivating potato from true sexual seed. The relative importance of different diseases and pests will get altered. The wheat crop may suffer more from stem rust which normally remains important only in Peninsular India. A search for new genes conferring climate resilience is therefore urgent.
Anticipatory analysis and action hold the key to climate risk management. The major components of an Action Plan for achieving a Climate Resilient National Food Security System will be the following:
— Establish in each of the 127 agro-climatic sub-zones, identified by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research based on cropping systems and weather patterns of the country, a Climate Risk Management Research and Extension Centre.
— Organise a Content Consortium for each centre consisting of experts in different fields to provide guidance on alternative cropping patterns, contingency plans and compensatory production programmes, when the area witnesses natural calamities like drought, flood, higher temperature and in case of coastal areas, a rise in sea level.
— Establish with the help of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) a Village Resource Centre (VRC) with satellite connection at each of the 127 locations.
— Establish with the help of the Ministry of Earth Sciences and the India Meteorological Department an Agro-Meteorological Station at each Research and Extension Centre to initiate a “Weather Information for All” programme.
— Organise Seed and Grain Banks based on Computer Simulation Models of different weather probabilities and their impact on the normal crops and crop seasons of the area.
— Develop Drought and Flood Codes indicating the anticipatory steps necessary to adapt to the impact of global warming.
— Strengthen coastal defences against a rise in the sea level as well as the more frequent occurrence of storms and tsunamis through the establishment of bio-shields of mangroves and non-mangrove species. Also, develop seawater farming and below sea-level farming techniques. Establish major research centres for sea-water farming and below sea-level farming. Kuttanad will be a suitable place for the Below Sea-Level Farming Research and Extension Centre. A major centre should also be established in the Sunderbans area.
— Train one woman and one man of every panchayat to become Climate Risk Managers. They should become well-versed in the art and science of Climate Risk Management and help to blend traditional wisdom with modern science. The Climate Risk Managers should be supported with an Internet-connected Village Knowledge Centre.
Today (December 26, 2009) marks the fifth anniversary of tsunami. The tsunami of 2004 was a wake-up call alerting us to the consequences of a sudden rise in the sea level. The “Copenhagen Inaction” will lead to more severe coastal storms, tsunamis and sea level rises. A Climate Literacy Movement as well as anticipatory action to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of all those living in coastal areas and islands will have to be initiated. Integrated coastal zone management procedures involving concurrent attention to both the landward and seaward site of the ocean and to coastal forestry and agro-forestry as well as capture and culture fisheries are urgently needed.
With the help of Tata Trusts, the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation is dedicating today to fisher and coastal communities a “Fish for All Research and Training Centre” at Kaverpoomipattinam (Poompuhar) for imparting training from fish capture to consumption. A college for coastal communities is also being established with the help of the Indira Gandhi National Open University. Artesenal fishermen going to the sea in small boats are being provided with cellphones which can give them information on wave heights and the location of shoals. This helps not only to save time but also allay fears concerning a sudden rise in the sea level. In 2010, India will complete 60 years of planned development. Hereafter, climate resilience must be mainstreamed in all development programmes. Let not the Copenhagen Inaction add to the number affected by deprivation and malnutrition.
(The writer is Chairman, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation and Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha))
The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : Copenhagen, tsunami and hunger
India bailed out China from US-EU ambush at Copenhagen: Ramesh
BEIJING: India bailed out China from isolation during the Copenhagen climate talks and saved it from getting ambushed by the US and EU which wanted it to sign an agreement on verification of emission levels much against its wishes, environment minister Jairam Ramesh said on Sunday.
"Chinese leaders continue to harp on Copenhagen spirit because we were critical to China during the climate negotiations. At the Copenhagen talks Chinese in their heart of hearts know we saved them from isolation," Ramesh, who is on a visit to Beijing, said addressing the foreign correspondents' club of China.
Asked how India was critical to China for a sustained relationship, he said New Delhi had not yet reached a stage where it was critical to Beijing. But the Chinese leaders were well aware of benefits of friendship with India as established during the last year's climate negotiations.
During the climate talks, both the US and EU countries were determined to ambush China and get it sign a legally binding treaty, the minister said.
"The strategy of the most of the countries was to ambush China because it is the largest emitter of green house gases," amounting to 23% of the global emissions, he said.
The US has not ratified Kyoto Protocol saying that they would not do unless the Chinese do so.
The strategy, Ramesh said, was to get China sign on "some international agreement to give legal status" but "it did not happen."
"Given our English skills and our more cussedness in negotiating skills we bailed the Chinese out of many a difficult situations. Chinese know India was absolutely essential for the fact that China did not get isolated at Copenhagen," he said, adding that but for the agreement which was signed by BASIC along with US President Barrack Obama, Washington would have launched a tirade against Beijing for scuttling climate talks.
"Had the agreement with Obama was not signed he would have gone back to the US and painted China a villain of peace. The fact that he signed (accord), it gave Chinese a way out. They realized that," he said.
Ramesh also refuted allegations by European commentators that India and China scuttled Copenhagen talks. He said developing countries like India and China could have never signed a binding agreement without firm binding commitment from developed countries.
Part of the frustration of the Europeans was that they were completely bypassed by Obama and BASIC -- Brazil, South Africa, India and China -- during the climate talks, he said.
Amid China-U.S. climate debate, India goes missing
Ananth Krishnan
Disagreement between two countries slows down talks at Tianjin
U.S. wants China to agree to strict measurement and verification of projects
Beijing blames Washington for seeking to backtrack from Kyoto Protocol
BEIJING: The last round of negotiations before the year-end Cancun climate conference concluded on Saturday with modest progress, officials said, with the talks being slowed down by disagreements between China and the United States.
Even as the back and forth between Chinese and U.S. officials continued through Saturday, officials said they were struck by the absence of an Indian voice in the climate debate.
"India has been very, very quiet this week," Jacob Scherr, director, global strategy and advocacy, of the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), told The Hindu. "It has generally been difficult to follow the major developments in negotiations, with everything being done behind closed doors. But India has just not been very visible."
Negotiators from several countries and climate analysts said the talks yielded some positive results, most notably on bridging differences over climate finance from developed countries.
United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said she was optimistic that a plan for developed nations to fund $30 billion of "fast start" projects in developing countries to combat climate change would be finalised at Cancun, despite persisting differences. "I have said and I will continue to say that fast-track finance is the golden key to Cancun," she said. "I am confident that the golden key will be dutifully unlocked."
But this week's negotiations in Tianjin, a port city near here, have been overshadowed by continued sparring between China and the U.S.
U.S. officials said China could not expect industrialised nations to take on bigger commitments unless it first agreed to strict measurement and verification of projects, and also took on more than voluntary targets.
Chinese officials have blamed the U.S. for seeking to backtrack from the Kyoto Protocol during the talks, by calling for a substantial amendment. "Any move that aims to overthrow the Kyoto Protocol should be denounced," chief climate negotiator Su Wei said.
China's top climate official Xie Zhenhua earlier called on developed countries to "do more and do better."
"The talks have looked like a show going on between China and the U.S., with everyone else hiding behind the drama," Yang Ailun, Greenpeace China's head of climate and energy, told The Hindu. Ms. Yang, too, said India, along with Brazil and South Africa, had been "very quiet." "It is natural that with the talks being held in China, attention would be on the home country, but the silence of India has been very strange."
India is being represented at the talks by a 15-member delegation, headed by Additional Secretary of the Ministry of Environment and Forests J.M. Mauskar. Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh arrives in Tianjin on Sunday.
Representatives of climate groups and the media in Tianjin said the delegation had been largely silent this week, leaving much uncertainty over where India stood on issues such as climate finance that have dominated the debate.
India in the past closely coordinated its positions on most issues with China. Their interests and pressures have, however, diverged. China, as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases with 23 per cent of global emissions, was increasingly targeted by developed nations in talks this week. India accounts for only 5 per cent. It, however, stands much to gain — and lose —from the outcome of this week's debate, particularly on issues such as climate finance.
India, along with other developing nations such as Brazil and South Africa, had failed to take a leading role, analysts said, even as the debate was mired in disagreements between China and the U.S. This marked a contrast from the December climate summit in Copenhagen, where Prime Minister Manmohan Singh played a key role in negotiating the compromise Copenhagen Accord, along with U.S. President Barack Obama and the leaders of China and Brazil.
Debating climate funding
October 14, 2010 10:33:15 PM
Katherine Sierra
International cooperation on dealing with climate change faces challenges of increasing global imbalances, tensions over currency, fiscal constraints in developing countries and discord between the US and China. Leveraging the private sector and making climate change finance a reality could be a step forward
Last week, while climate policy watchers had their eyes on Tianjin — where the UNFCCC negotiators were making halting progress in their final meetings before the upcoming negotiations in Cancun — another debate on climate was being held in Washington. Ministers of Finance and Development, as well as representatives from the private sector, civil society and other development agencies, gathered for the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank. World Bank President Robert Zoellick's opening speech set the tone by highlighting the increased impact on developing countries from climate-related natural disasters and other environmental and social stress factors. Mr Zoellick also re-affirmed the World Bank's global priority on tackling climate change.
The backdrop to the meetings was not encouraging. There is a wide disparity between what science tells us, that global warming should not exceed 2 degree C (3.6 degree F), and the ambition of commitments under the Copenhagen Accord. Further, the gridlock in US legislation makes it difficult to reach our own commitments, weakening our ability to serve as a leader. There are challenges to international cooperation given the increase in global imbalances and tensions over currency, with tension between the US and China on these issues mirroring the tone in Tianjin. And there are fiscal constraints in the OECD countries that challenge the ability to finance the transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy in the developing world.
But there was room for some optimism. The delegates were purposeful in their discussions, and pressed for continued action within, and in parallel to, the UNFCCC talks to keep up momentum to reach a positive outcome in Cancun.
Five key messages for addressing the climate change challenge emerged from the annual meetings:
Go for building blocks. With UNFCCC officials clear that there are no prospects for a comprehensive global agreement in Cancun, the goal has shifted to Plan B: To reach agreement on a number of building blocks that were framed in the Copenhagen Accord that could ultimately shape an eventual global agreement. Likely candidates for agreement include: Mechanisms for supporting reductions in emissions from forestry (REDD+), building on the recent partnership forged by 58 countries at the Oslo Climate and Forest Conference; technology, including the setting up of regional innovation centers; a framework for adaptation, focusing on capacity building; and the principles of, and processes for designing, the Copenhagen Green Fund. But while convergence on these issues seems possible, the "building block" strategy may not advance due to the trickiest parts of the Copenhagen Accord-provisions for transparency about monitoring, reporting and verification of emission reduction targets and actions, and their linkages to the commitments on longer-term climate finance. At the annual meetings, some participants were quietly discussing a "Plan C" — that no formal agreements on these building blocks will be created in Cancun, but there will be continued movement through bottom-up activities supported by coalitions of interested countries.
Make climate finance a reality. The Copenhagen Accord included climate finance commitments of $30 billion in Fast Start financing to 2012, with long-term financing reaching $100 billion a year by 2020. Delegates acknowledged that meeting the Fast Start financing objective was critical to building trust, and countries are racing to demonstrate by Cancun that they are meeting these commitments. But the scope for the public sector to finance significant parts of the longer term $100 billion commitment has finance officials worried. They will also be looking for the kind of leverage achieved by the Clean Technology Fund, with some $4 billion leveraging $40 billion in investment in clean technologies. And, while we wait for the report on possible sources of innovative finance from the UN's high-level group on climate finance due by the end October, the message is that we should not expect a recommendation on how to raise this level of finance but rather a menu of possibilities to inform the debate on economic and political tradeoffs.
Focus on strategies for leveraging the private sector. Climate negotiators are divided on the role that public versus private finance should play in meeting the Copenhagen Accord ambitions. But OECD delegates to the annual meetings were clear that achieving the $100 billion per year in longer-term finance would require significant private sector flows. There was a strong push for the continuation of carbon markets beyond 2012. So, extension of the Kyoto Protocol in Cancun will be critical. Even then, the Clean Development Mechanism needs substantial reform to reduce transaction costs, support investment at scale through programmatic schemes, and become more accessible to a broader range of countries, including the least-developed countries. Other ideas included public-private partnerships with private capital; leveraging multilateral development bank risk mitigation capabilities; and using innovative public policy tools, like cross border feed-in tariffs, to support regional renewable investments.
Get ready for many channels of public sector climate finance. In Tianjin, the focus was on the often-contentious intricacies in the design of the governance arrangements for the Copenhagen Green Fund and its links to other issues, like transparency. In Washington this past weekend, the message from contributing countries was that while the Copenhagen Green Fund will be important, there will be many channels for climate finance, including: Existing funds like the Global Environment Facility and the Adaptation Fund, leveraging of the MDBs, and bilateral support. The link to MDB and bilateral funds to the UNFCCC continues to be a debatable point, with developing countries asserting the primacy of the Copenhagen Green Fund as a key part of any financial mechanism, guided by and accountable to the UNFCCC. Also underscored during the annual meetings was the key element of transparency-to reassure developing countries that money is flowing and balanced across different constituencies, and to assure taxpayers that funds are achieving results.
Don't forget the most vulnerable. There was a call for structuring new funding to also reach least-developed countries. Capacity building to help these countries access the many funding channels will be critical. A focus on special constituencies with significant climate challenges (small island states, sub-Saharan Africa and mountain nations) was also on the agenda. Further, some emphasised the need to ensure that funds, whatever their source or delivery channel, adhere to strong social and environmental standards so that benefits reach the poorest, including indigenous peoples. The productive dialogue on opportunities for the most vulnerable, which has surfaced as part of the REDD+ partnership, may set the path for the broader climate finance architecture.
While global agreement on tackling climate change is not in the cards for Cancun, the Conference of Parties will have the opportunity to move forward on the building blocks to set action in motion. Climate financing will be at the top of the agenda-including leveraging strategies for the private sector and debating the role and impact of public financing options. Ultimately, the least-developed countries, which have been, and will continue to be, hit hardest by climate-related natural disasters as President Zoellick emphasised at the annual meetings, need to see action, particularly financing, sooner rather than later.
-- The writer is a senior fellow in the Global Economy and Development programme, The Brookings Institution. A former vice president for sustainable development at the World Bank, she focuses on climate change and energy.
