Kuttanad meaning low lying lands is one of the most fertile regions of the world spread

over the district of Alappuzha, Kottayam & Pathanamthitta which is crisscrossed by rivers,
canals & waterways. our ma!or rivers namely Achen"oil, Pampa, #animala & #eenachil
originating from the $igh %anges discharge their water into the Arabian sea through the
Kuttanad region.
&he Kuttanad 'etland (ystem )K'(* inclusive of the +embanad la"e is now receiving global
attention because nature is at the pea" of its beauty in this %amsar site. &he K'( comprising
of ,- Panchayats of Alappuzha district, -. Panchayats of Kottayam district and / Panchayats
of Pathanamthitta district is a predominantly agriculture belt of Kerala where people are
dependent on farming & allied sectors li"e fishing, animal husbandry etc for their livelihood.
&his is the only part of the world where rice is cultivated below sea level and this will be of
great importance in view of the pro!ected sea level rise caused by global warming. 0t is a
uni1ue wetland which permits one good crop of rice and one harvest of fish and an area of
thriving water tourism. Kuttanad is a biodiversity paradise. &he area is also popular for its
coconut cultivation, duc" rearing & coir industry.
#.(. (waminathan research foundation research conducted a scientific study of the region
and suggested suitable measures to mitigate agrarian distress in "uttanad. &his was accepted
by 2o0 for funding under central sector schemes.
3essons from the 4urban conference
Indias objectives:
0ndia had gone to 4urban with three predominant ob!ectives.
5.* &o secure the continuance of the Kyoto Protocol, whose first commitment period6 is
scheduled to end in -75-.
-.* (econd, to ensure that its particular concerns on e1uity, intellectual property rights
and unilateral trade measures, neglected in previous negotiating rounds, were
substantively integrated in the future climate agenda.
,.* And third, to preserve the notion of differentiation6 between developed and
developing countries, recognised through the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities6 )894%* in both the :.;. ramewor" 8onvention on
8limate 8hange ):;888* and the 5<<- %io 4eclaration on =nvironment and
4evelopment.
But what happened at Durban:
&he continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, important as it may be, offers little more than an
ephemeral gain. 'ith the :nited (tates refusing to ratify the treaty> 8anada blatantly
disregarding its previous ratification> and ?apan, Australia and %ussia e1ually disinclined
towards it, it is only the =uropean :nion6s commitment at 4urban that has still "ept the
Protocol alive. 9ut it is unli"ely to survive in its current form beyond this e@tended phase.
And, going by past record, its ability to enforce serious emission reductions in developed
countries also remains e1ually dim.
'hat 0ndia gave up in return at 4urban however holds far more serious conse1uences. &he
most important decision that Parties too" at 4urban was to terminate the ongoing
negotiating process on 3ongAterm 8ooperative Action6 )38A* that had been launched under
the 9ali Action Plan in -77., by the end of -75-. Adopted following tough negotiations, this
had notably maintained the firewall6 between developed and developing countries and also
the lin"ing clause6 that had made mitigation by the latter contingent on the level of
technological and financial support that they received from the former.
Copenhagen & Cancun
&he -77< 8openhagen Accord and the -757 8ancun Agreements were both negotiated under
this mandate. =ven though they diluted the 9ali firewall6, they nevertheless reaffirmed the
core :;888 norms, that nations would need to combat climate change on the basis of
e1uity6 and in accordance with the 894% principle, respecting the various provisions of the
8onvention.
&he new decision at 4urban that now replaces the 38A negotiating trac" with the 4urban
Platform for =nhanced Action6 remar"ably fails to ma"e even a passing reference to these
foundational principles. 8alling instead for the widest possible cooperation by all countries,6
a preferred formulation of the 'est, it launches a new process to develop a protocol, another
legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force6 by -75/, which is to be applicable to
all Parties6, and enter into force from -7-7. 9ut the fact that a "ey decision was adopted for
the first time in the entire -7Ayear history of international climate tal"s without even a
cursory mention of e1uity6 and 894% should give policyma"ers in ;ew 4elhi serious pause.
&his was a successful attempt by the developed world to detach the future climate
negotiations from their e@isting normative moorings, and to revise the very basis on which
their legal obligations, and the legitimacy of the positions and arguments of countries li"e
0ndia, have so far been based.
0ndia also failed in its bid to gain substantive recognition for the issues of intellectual
property rights and unilateral trade measures. =ven on e1uity6, the issue closest to its heart,
all that it managed to secure in the end is a wor"shop6 on e1uitable access to sustainable
development6, itself an ambiguous formulation, under a mandate that is now scheduled to
e@pire. &o what e@tent e1uity6 will find any formal operational recognition beyond -75-
remains an open 1uestion.
So What should India do now:
&he outcome of the 4urban conference B and 0ndia6s failure to attain most of its stated
ob!ectives B should now raise serious 1uestions about the wisdom of its negotiating strategy,
and especially its alliance management. 0t should also raise 1uestions about the capacity that
it has brought to bear in these negotiations to date. At 4urban, 0ndia fielded a delegation of
,C members, as opposed to <D from the :.(., 575 from the =:, --E from 9razil, 5D. from
8hina, and even 57- from 9angladesh. And insiders well "now what the teethAtoAtail ratio
even within this small group is. &here could be more slippages in the future unless this
capacity constraint is urgently, and meaningfully, addressed.
0f the interests of 5.- billion 0ndians are to be ade1uately safeguarded in the coming decade
and beyond, it is imperative that 0ndia develops both a coherent grand strategy to address
climate change that en!oys broad crossAparty parliamentary support, and a strong
negotiating team to see it through.
4urban is a wa"eAup call that it must not ignore.
Rio + 20 :
Developed countries pledge no funds; EU feels it was a waste of tie! India remains
disappointed with the wea" political will in developed countries to provide enhanced means
of implementation to developing countries. 'e are glad that we have agreed to set up two
important mechanisms, one for &echnology &ransfer and another for inance. 9oth were
0ndian proposals.
So thats the story from Rio victory in principles and standstill in practice.
It is, where it was.
%ioF-7 =arth (ummit B which was tas"ed with shaping a route for the world to reduce
poverty, advance social e1uity and ensure environmental protection B failed to achieve
anything substantial. $owever, strictly spea"ing from 0ndia6s corner, feel that the outcome in
%io de ?aneiro was not all that negative.
$ere is whyG first, due to 0ndia6s persistence, the important and nonAnegotiable principle of
common but differentiated responsibilities B the recognition that rich countries grew by
polluting and the emerging world cannot be forced to bear the cost of green development B
was brought bac" into the environmental discourse> and second, no timeAbound specific
targets were thrust on the developing world. ;either of the two came easily thoughG the
developed world, especially the =uropean :nion, had pushed for a oneAsizeAfitsAall green
agenda and advocated targets on environmental themes while diluting its own
responsibilities towards a greener, cleaner world.
0mportant proposals such as providing universal energy access and doubling renewables by
-7,7 were left untouched. 8onference will also be remembered for "ic"Astarting the process
on (ustainable 4evelopment 2oals. 0ndia6s position has been that the (42s should be
aspirational and nonAbinding , based on the principles of e1uity and 894%, and should not
impinge on 0ndia6s domestic policy space.
SDG
&he (42s could provide a logical se1uence and structure to the process launched almost -7
years agoG
in 5<<- the guiding principles were agreed to as well as a road map for sustainable
development>) Agenda -5 A is an action plan of the :nited ;ations ):;* for the -5
st
century
related to sustainable development and was an outcome of the :nited ;ations 8onference on
=nvironment and 4evelopment ):;8=4* held in %io de ?aneiro, 9razil, in 5<<-.*
in -77- a Plan of 0mplementation was defined>) World Summit on Sustainable
Development, '((4 or Earth Summit 2002 laid out the ?ohannesburg Plan of
0mplementation as an action plan*
and now in -75- we could consider identifying goals in order to better identify gaps and
needs and provide for more structured implementation of the principles and goals defined -7
years ago.
Hb!ectives agreed to internationally could eventually be underpinned by targets I as is the
case with the #42s A that reflect the realities and priorities at national levels. &hey would
thus be fully aligned with national conte@ts and could therefore be a useful tool for guiding
public policies.
&he (42s would play an important role in the identification of gaps and needs in countries,
for e@ample in terms of means of implementation, institutional strengthening, and capacity
building to increase absorptive capacity for new technologies.
4efined internationally, li"e the #42s, these would serve both for comparing results as well
as furthering opportunities for cooperation, including (outhA(outh cooperation.
(425 (ustainable 8onsumption and Production
(42- (ustainable livelihoods, youth & education
(42, 8limate sustainability
(42C 8lean energy
(42/ 9iodiversity
(42D 'ater
(42. $ealthy seas and oceans
(42E $ealthy forests
(42< (ustainable agriculture
(4257 2reen cities, (ustainable cities
(4255 (ubsidies and investment
(425- ;ew 0ndicators of progress
(425, Access to information
(425C Public participation
(425/ Access to redress and remedy
(425D =nvironmental !ustice for the poor and marginalized
(425. 9asic health
0mproved resilience and disaster preparedness
%ioF-7 has made wea" references to the human right to water, empowerment of women, the
poor, indigenous people, disabled and vulnerable groups, belying e@pectations of stronger
support. 'hat is important is for 0ndia and other fastAgrowing nations to invest heavily in
human capital to help such citizens, notably in education and health, and preserve its stoc"
wealth. 0t must also start producing data on sustainability indicators, such as polluting
emissions, nutrient overload in water bodies, health of select natural species, habitat
conversion, and fish stoc"s. &hat can ma"e development sustainable.
DE !"#!
2eoAengineering options include adding sunAreflecting chemicals to the upper atmosphere to
mimic the effect of big volcanic eruptions that mas" the sun, or fertilising the oceans to
promote the growth of algae that soa" up carbon from the air.
Among other ideas, a giant mirror could be placed in space to bloc" some sunlight or sea
spray could be in!ected into the air to create clouds whose white tops would reflect sunlight.
&hese have received enthusiasm at :; .
Contentious issues at Doha CO !" # Dec 20!2
5. ;o clear road map of action in terms of ambitious emission cuts from developed
countries or
-. A $inancial commitment for adaption or loss and damage.
,. &he issue of surplus emissions is not addressed, and
C. the length o$ second commitment to the Kyoto Protocol is left vague A from five to
eight years.
/. &he tric"y zone of intellectual property rights %&R' in relationship (ith
technolog) transfer remains vague.
D. Also in dispute is Jhot airK, the name given to =arthAwarming greenhouse gas emission
1uotas that countries were given under the first leg of the 5<<. Kyoto Protocol and did
not use B some 5, billion tonnes in total. &he credits can be sold to nations battling to
meet their own 1uotas, meaning greenhouse gas levels decrease on paper but not in the
atmosphere. Agreement on hot air is "ey to the 4oha delegates e@tending the life of the
Kyoto pact, the world s only binding pact on curbing greenhouse gases, whose first leg
e@pires on 4ecember ,5.
.. A new -7-7 deal, due to be finalised by -75/, will include commitments for all the
nations of the world. &he duration of an interim *second commitment periodK of
Kyoto is also in contention.
E. &he big battle is over e+uit) and common but di$$erentiated responsibilit), the
principles of e1uity, shared vision.
What is the ,D-
&he Ad $oc 'or"ing 2roup on the 4urban Platform for =nhanced Action )A4P* is a
subsidiary body that was established by decision 5L8P.5. to develop a protocol, another legal
instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the 8onvention applicable to all
Parties. &he A4P is to complete its wor" as early as possible but no later than -75/ in order
to adopt this protocol, legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force at the twentyAfirst
session of the 8onference of the Parties and for it to come into effect and be implemented
from -7-7.
&ndia.s response to climate change
Hver the last decade or so, 0ndias emissions B which now ma"e up five per cent of
global emissions, the third highest in the world B have displayed a clear shift from
agriculture, where rice cultivation and livestoc" contribute to methane production.
Hn the other hand, the energy and industrial sectors, which mostly produce carbon
dio@ide, now hold an increasing share of the total.
9etween 5<<C and -77., the yearAonAyear growth rate of agriculture emissions was only 7.D
per cent. =missions from the energy sector grew at a rate of C.E per cent over the same
period.
=ven though starting from a low base, emissions from waste have also risen sharply B seeing
a .., per cent growth rate between 5<<C and -77. B with urbanisation generating everA
larger 1uantities of municipal waste.
&he estimates for -77. show that the energy sector B including power, transport and
residential electricity B was responsible for /E per cent of 0ndias emissions, with industry
and agriculture following at -- and 5. per cent.
the government launched the ;ational Action Plan on 8limate 8hange );AP88* in
-77E. =ight national missions B dealing with solar energy, energy efficiency,
sustainable agriculture and habitats, water and forestry, the $imalayan ecosystem
and research B were charted under the plan.
&he two missions on mitigation B solar energy and energy efficiency B are more
sharply defined, but if you loo" at something as large and complicated as the
agriculture mission, it loo"s as though it was !ust rolled out hastily in time for Mthe
critical -77< :; summit atN 8openhagen without sufficient thought
0ndias energy losses in distribution and transmission are huge. &hat needs to be
addressed much more.
;AP88 stresses a lowerAcarbon model of the e@isting development path. J'e have
the opportunity to reAimagine our development pathway. or e@ample, urban
planning needs to revolve round nonAmotorised transport.K
%enewable energy B which stands at -E,777 #' today B is being propelled by mar"et
forces. 3oo" at the wind energy sector in &amil ;adu. 0t is being promoted by the te@tile
industry simply because it is a cheaper source of energy. 0f the government can galvanise
these mar"et forces, it could ma"e a bigger difference than regulatory regimes such as the
PA& scheme.
the solar and energyAefficiency missions as those which have started bearing fruit. JOou have
to realise that missions li"e agriculture and water are longAterm adaptation missions.K
2iven that the missions were launched in -77E and were planned to run till -75., they have
almost reached the halfway point.
$owever, the Prime #inisters 8ouncil on 8limate 8hange, which launched the Plan and
which was supposed to monitor its progress, has not met in the last two and a half years
;AP88 is only one part of 0ndias climate strategy. &he #!th $ive %ear &lan, which has
!ust been approved by the 8abinet, will play a "ey role in moving the country into a
sustainable development and lowAcarbon growth pathway.
'hile the 4urban platform clung on to the principles of e1uity as enshrined under the
:;888, the :.(. made it clear that it was not going to accept it. &he climate tal"s have
delivered less and less since 9ali where the twoAtrac" approach was mainly geared to
bringing on board the :.(, which is not part of the Kyoto Protocol. inances, adaptation,
mitigation and technology transfer were the "ey issues under the 9ali %oadmap. 0ndia, part
of the 2A.. group, plus 8hina had to ob!ect vociferously to the removal of the "ey pillars of
the tal"s from the 3ongAterm 8ooperative Action plan. the notion of e1uity was rooted in
historical responsibility.
;eed to ensure that the average global temperature at the end of this century did not e@ceed
that of the preAindustrial period by more than two degrees 8elsius.
At the heart of these negotiations is nothing less than the most challenging energy
transformation the world has ever seen. Past energy transitions have ta"en a long time to
unfold. irewood was man"inds first energy source and was not displaced by coal until the
5Eth century. 'ith an increasing pace of technological advance, it too" one century for oil to
replace coal as the primary global energy source. 8limate change is not the only motivation to
move toward more renewables and enhanced energy efficiency, but it has in!ected
une1uivocal urgency into an otherwise normal evolution.
&here were three contentious issues holding up a successful outcome at 8openhagenG )i* a
global goal for reduction of emissions by -7/7> )ii* measurement, reporting and verification
)#%+* of each countrys actions> and )iii* the need for a legallyAbinding global treaty.
the acceptance of a global goal could foreclose development options for developing countries.
a 1uantitative target would not be in the interests of developing countries.
the issue of international transparency of domestic commitments was paramount