January 15

Science & Technology - Bytes

Slow and steady
Despite evolving at a very slow pace, crocodiles have maintained genetic diversity

Photo: Jean-Philippe Gille

CROCODILES HAVE evolvedat a relatively slow rate-about a quarter of the rate of evolution of birds. But
despite this, they have been able to maintain genetic diversity and survive millions of years. This has
emerged from a study which compared the genome sequences of crocodiles, birds and turtles. The finding
could help us understand their disease resistance, susceptibilities, adaptation to changing environments,
and the diversity of captive and wild saltwater crocodile populations. The findings also provide clues to
the characteristics of the common ancestors of the species. All extant crocodilian species-the Australian
saltwater crocodile, the American alligator and the Indian gharial-were studied in the research. Science,
December 12
HEALTH

Blood vessel de-clogger

It IS known that nitrite-rich food, such as beetroot, improve blood flow and are good for the heart. But
how this happens was not clear. A study shows that nitrite works as a signal to haemoglobin, found in red
blood cells, to form nitric oxide. This reduces platelet activation which causes blood clots. Researchers
now aim to enhance this ability of haemoglobin to treat conditions such as hypertension, sickle cell
disease and stroke.Journal of Biological Chemistry, December 3
ECOLOGY

Cologne camouflage

Source: Tane Sinclair-Taylor

Camouflage NEED not always be visual. Filefish use a cologne they prepare from the corals they eat to
hide from the nose of predators. A study in Australia found that crabs were unable to smell filefish
because they smelled like the corals. Insects are known to use the technique but this is the first time that
a vertebrate has been found to use chemical camouflage. The find indicates that there could be more
species which use it. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, December 10
GEOLOGY

Most abundant mineral named

The MINERAL that makes 38 per cent of Earth has finally been named-bridgmanite. For around 50 years,
the mineral, a form of magnesium iron silicate found 660 km inside Earth, could not be studied or named
because it did not survive the trip to the surface and its properties remained unknown. However,
meteorites that fall on Earth have the same element in "frozen" form. X-ray analysis of Tenham, a
meteorite that crashed in Australia in 1879 and had bridgmanite grains, revealed that mineral contains
high amounts of ferric iron and sodium.Science, November 28

News Briefs - January 1-15, 2015

`GDP-driven growth is not sustainable' UN

Source: World Malaria Report 2014, World Health Organization

In THE last two decades, the world's gross domestic product (GDP) has increased by 50 per cent, whereas
inclusive wealth has increased by a mere 6 per cent. This is the conclusion of the second biennial
Inclusive Wealth Report. According to the report, in recent decades GDP-driven economic performance
has only harmed inclusive wealth like human capital and natural capital like forests, land and water.
While the world's human capital, which stands at 57 per cent of total inclusive wealth, grew by only 8 per
cent, the natural capital, which is 23 per cent of total inclusive wealth, declined by 30 per cent worldwide
in the last two decades. The data was collected from 140 countries for the period from 1992 to 2010.

Guidelines for deep sea fishing revised

Photo: Henric Sil Versno

The CENTRAL government has issued revised guidelines for deep sea fishing by big ships in the country's
exclusive economic zone (EEZ), an area of the sea between 22 km and 370 km from the coast. The
guidelines permit fishing with letter of permission from the Centre. They were issued even as fisher
communities in 10 coastal states are agitating against permission for fishing by big vessels in EEZ. "For
the past many years we have been highlighting how deep sea fishing by big ships in Indian waters is
affecting the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of fishers who use traditional, motorised and
mechanised boats to catch fish," says Vincent Jain, chief executive officer of the Association of Deep Sea
Going Artisanal Fishermen, Thoothoor, Tamil Nadu.

Hailstorms hit Maharashtra

Photo: Lokesh Tiwari

Heavy AND unseasonal rains and hailstorms have damaged an estimated 88,000 hectares of standing
crops and orchards in Maharashtra. Nashik, Jalgaon, Dhule, Nandurbar and Sangli are the worst-affected
districts. Farmers in these areas were already facing a dual crisis, brought on by a deficient monsoon and
similar hailstorms in February and March 2014. In December, farmers from Nashik district blocked traffic
on the Mumbai-Agra highway, demanding a complete loan waiver and fresh interest-free loans for the next
crop season.

Delhi chokes
Centre for Science and Environment, non-profit in Delhi, has found that people in the Capital are exposed
to shocking levels of air toxins; much higher than the officially measured ambient levels. For example, at
7 -8 am on November 23, when Delhi Marathon started at India Gate, the levels of particulate matter PM
2.5 were 815 g per cubic metre. This was 2.4 times the background ambient level of 339 g per cubic
metre. The permissible standard is 60 g for 24 hours. It was the first study in India to measure
individuals' exposure to PM 2.5 through the day.

Oil spill threatens Sunderbans ecology

An OIL spill occurred in the Sunderbans area of Bangladesh when an oil tanker carrying more than
350,000 litres of bunker oil sank in the Selariver after being hit by a cargo vessel. The collision occurred
inside the Chandpai dolphin sanctuary. Experts have warned that the chemical could harm the delicate
ecology of the Sunderbans. The spill is likely to threaten rare Irrawaddy dolphins. There are reports that a
dead dolphin has already been spotted in the Harintana-Tambulbunia channel of the Sela River. Official
announcements have not yet clarified the extent of the damage. Indian authorities are trying to find out
whether the spill is spreading to India or not. Locals, however, claimed that the Indian side of the river is
affected.

$54 mln fine for radiation leak

Source: lanl.gov
New MEXICO has blamed the federal government for the fire accident and radiation leak at a nuclear
waste management plant located in the state. The accidents took place in February 2014. The state has
blamed the department of energy for 37 violations of hazardous waste permits at the waste isolation pilot
plant near Carlsbad and the Los Alamos National Laboratory at Santa Fe. The state has demanded $54
million in fine for safety violations. The investigation included the "underground fire" reported in February
and the "radiological release" in the same month, both at the WIPP facility. An official press release says
there were "procedural problems that contributed to these events" and the response was "less than
adequate".

Proposal to cut trans fats

A NEW draft notification of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India proposes to limit the
maximum level of trans fatty acids to five per cent (by weight of total quantity), in fats, oils and
hydrogenated vegetable oils. In India, the present maximum limit for trans fatty acids is 10 per cent by
weight. The notification was first released in November and is open for suggestions and objections by the
public till February 2015. The draft, however, does not talk about regulations on labelling and packaging.
The final notification would be implemented from August 2016.

Reports

Solar light is new lifeline for sea erosion-hit

Odisha village
Date:Jan 15, 2015
It is widely believed that the village which is situated on the eastern coast of India will be wiped out from
the map within a decade

A girl passes by a solar panel placed outside a house in Satabhaya village (Photo: Ashis Senapati)
At least 3,500 people in Satabhaya village of Kendrapada district in Odisha have lived without electricity
for years. It was only last year that Satabhaya, along with two other villages Rabindrapalli and Barahapur,
under Satabhaya gram panchayat started receiving uninterrupted power supply, thanks to solar energy.
Last year, solar lights changed everything in our village when a few non-profits donated solar lanterns to
the residents of the village. Later, many people also purchased solar panels from Odisha Renewable
Energy Development Agency (OREDA) and markets in neighbouring Kendrapada and Pattamundai
districts to light their houses, says Nigamananda Rout, sarapanch of Satabhaya gram panchayat. He
further adds that unlike other towns which witness a few disruptions in power supply, in Satabhaya
people can continue to watch television or read without any interruption.
A 20-watt solar light usually costs around Rs 1,200. But those who have television sets prefer to spend
another Rs 12,000 to purchase 200-watts solar panels along with a battery which costs Rs 800, said
Subrat Jena Grossky, a seller of solar panels in Kendrapada. Therefore, nearly 220 out of 300 houses in
the village are now fitted with solar panels and about 150 houses have television sets. Even during
cloudy days, we manage to get around seven to ten hours of energy from these panels, says Rout.
"My son Kartik who works at a plywood factory in Kerala had sent me the money to purchase two solar
panels Three months ago. Now, I can happily watch television whenever I wish to," says Giridhari Mallick
of the same village.
According to Santaram Prasad Nanda of Save the Children, last year 472 solar lanterns were distributed
under Phailin Recovery Programme to the residents living by the seaside. The initiative was supported

by non-profits Natures Club and IKEA Foundation and the cost of supplying each lantern was Rs 1190.
The arrival of these lamps has transformed our village.
Now there is some buzz even after sunset," says Bijaya Nayak of Satabhaya. Jiban Mallick (72), another
villager in Satabhaya is happy to see that unlike a few years ago, people in this village can be found busy
in their chores even after sunset and can lead a comfortable life.
We can now get rid of the kerosene lamps which are a major health hazard. Moreover, we feel safe at
night despite the village being situated within the Bhitarkanika National Park from where animals like
wild boars and snakes easily entered our village, says Dibyalochan Rout, a member from Satabhaya
panchayat samiti.
Satabhaya: Odishas neglected village
Residents of the village believe that since Satabhaya will be wiped out from the map of India within a
decade, the government has not bothered to encourage development in the area. Therefore facilities like
roads, clean drinking water and sanitation are absent in the village.
The 12-kilometre-long stretch of the beach at the seaside Satabhaya is said to be the fastest-eroding
beach on the Odisha coast. More than 1,200 homes and large tracts of agricultural land have already
been wiped out due to rising sea levels within past 40 years, says said Pramod Kumar Das, collector of
Kendrapada. He further adds that the government will not provide electricity to the village as it has
decided to rehabilitate all the 571 families to 53 hectares of land in nearby Bagapatia village, about 20
kilometres away from the sea.

Indias climate strategy needs revision

Jan 15, 2015
Climate change negotiations are by now predictable. The already-industrialised come to each conference
of the parties (COP) with a clear game plan, that is, to erase their contribution to the emissions already
present in the atmosphere, thereby effectively remove the differentiation between their responsibility and
that of the rest of the world to act. This would rewrite the 1992 convention on climate change and let
them evade the obligation to provide funds and technology for action in the developing world. The problem
is that developing countries do not come with an equally clear plan or proactive position. As a result, in
each meeting, including the recently concluded COP20 at Lima, developing countries lose. The terms of
the agreement change progressively and deliberately against the poor and the Planet.
Indian negotiators believe they can maintain the status quo and delay any new agreement, but as climate
negotiations show, this tactic does not work. We block but the rich countries shove and the ground slips
from under our feet. We need to revise our strategy.
For instance, India went to the Lima COP all guns blazing to oppose ex-ante review of mitigation
commitments. It has been decided that all countries will declare their Intended Nationally Determined
Contributions (INDCs)how much emissions they will cut, why and when. The ex-ante review is to
measure and review whether a country has met its target. It is also to see if the sum of these actions is
sufficient to keep the world below the guardrail of 2C increase in temperature. If not, then to decide on
further action.

Why did India oppose this? Because when the idea was first proposed at the Copenhagen conference in
2009, it was definitely unacceptable. The proposal was to move the world from setting mandatory carbon
dioxide reduction targets to voluntary action. Under the target approach, the world would decide on the
carbon budgethow much can it emit and still stay below 2C riseand then set targets for each country,
based on past contributions to greenhouse gases. Under the voluntary approach, countries would decide
how much emission they would (or could) cut. These commitments would be ex-ante reviewed.
India rightly fought the obliteration of the principle of differentiation, which meant targets would be based
on equity and past responsibility. The review was also seen as a dilution of national sovereignty.

But that was the past. Since then India has agreed that the post-2020 climate agreement is not just
applicable to all countries, but that all will take voluntary mitigation commitments (called contributions)
which will be domestic actions. So, it has already tacitly agreed to dilute the principle of differentiation.
The only peg it is hanging its hopes on is that all this action will be done under the principles of the
convention, which inscribe equity. But in this new regime, India has to be proactive and nimble to
operationalise the principle of equity.
If it wanted to do this, India could have proposed to hold the rich accountable for their commitments
through the ex-ante review. In this way, each countrys domestic contribution would include an equity
metrics of its per capita emissions and the carbon space it will occupy. This contribution and subsequent
action would be reviewed before the post-2020 climate change agreement is signed so that targets can be
revised to take into account ambition and fairness. This way we not only keep the world safe, but also
ensure that each countrys actions are based on rightly shared common atmosphere.
Instead at COP20, India decided to stand with China, which has a definite interest in opposing the exante review because it aims at peaking its emissions by 2030. China has already dumped us and moved
on. Under an agreement with the US, it has agreed to match its emissions with that of the US at a

massive 12 tonnes per capita per year in 2030. The two big polluters will appropriate the bulk of the
carbon space, leaving nothing for the growth of the rest of the developing world.
In the Lima Call for Action, there is no provision for ex-ante review. Now countries will provide information
about how their INDCs will be fair and ambitious, but in light of national circumstances. We have no
mechanism to ensure that the commitments by the rich countries are equitable, and not crippled by what
countries can do. In the final communiqu in Lima, even the basic principle of equitycommon but
differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities (CBDR)has been fatally twisted. Now it says
CBDR will be in light of different national circumstances. Effectively, this means the US can say it
cannot do more because its Congress will not pass legislation. It has legalised lack of ambition or inequity
of action. The rest can follow this course as well.
We can call this a win for developing countries or for our heating Planet, only if we are delusional.

Cop-out
Jan 15, 2015
Hopes were pinned on the latest UN climate summit at Lima. It was supposed
to prepare the ground for a new climate deal that will replace the existing Kyoto
Protocol at Paris in 2015. But the Lima talks pave the way for an
inconsequential Paris treaty, which will make it nearly impossible to restrict
global temperature rise to below 2C.
In the early hours of December 13, as I was leaving San Borja in Lima, the
venue of the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the negotiators from 195 countries
had just been handed over a draft text from the co-chairs for consideration.
Twenty-four hours later, by the time my flight landed in Amsterdam, the deal
was done and the final text was out. The text, titled Lima Call to Climate
Action, this time was from the president of the COP.
In the last 24 hours of the Lima talks, co-chairs were sidelined, their draft
decision was rejected, and the COP president Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, who is also
Perus environment minister, was asked by the Parties to prepare a new text,
taking into consideration the views of different groups of countries. Ultimately,
the Parties accepted the text proposed by the president.
In between the presentation of the two textsone by the co-chairs and the
other by the COP presidentboth developed and developing countries made
compromises. They always do. But the question is who benefited and who lost
from these compromises? Will these compromises help achieve an effective
climate deal in Paris in 2015?

For the sake of clarity, Lima Call to Climate Action does not promise any new
commitment from the Parties either on emissions cuts or on finance and
technology transfer. It is nothing more than a template for the Parties to
continue their negotiations at Paris, where a new global deal on climate change
is to be signed to replace the existing Kyoto Protocol from 2020.
Dissension galore
From day one of the Lima talks, the fight was on Intended Nationally
Determined Contributions (INDCs)climate action plans that countries have
agreed to submit before the Paris meeting. Lima COP was to finalise the kind of
information that Parties should submit on INDCs so that their contributions
could be compared and evaluated. The fight was on what all will go into the
information and how the information would be used. (See The Lima diary)
Developed countries insisted that INDCs were only about emissions cuts, or
mitigation. Developing countries, on the other hand, wanted INDCs to include
actions they would take in adapting to the changing climate as well as finance
and technology support they would need from developed countries to
undertake mitigation and adaptation. Developing countries also wanted the
Lima text to reflect their desire to have strong commitments on loss and
damage in Paris.
At the 19th Climate Conference in Warsaw in 2013, Parties had agreed to
establish an international mechanism for loss and damage to help vulnerable
developing countries cope with impacts of climate change, such as extreme
weather events. However, as per the Warsaw decisions, the discussion is
scheduled to take place in 2016, a year after the Paris agreement. Developing
countries, mainly the least developed and small island nations, however, want
stronger commitments, especially financial, in Paris for loss and damage. They
did not want this decision to be left for 2016 and, therefore, wanted the Lima
text to reflect this.
This fight over what would go into INDCs took an ugly turn and almost derailed
the talks in Lima. Developing countries accused the co-chairsArtur RungeMetzger from Germany and Kishan Kumarsingh from Trinidad and Tobagoof
partisanship and doing the bidding of the developed countries, especially the
members of the European Union.
There were other issues in INDCs as well. The vexing issue was related to the
ex-ante review of INDCs. The EU had proposed that well before the Paris COP,
countries should submit their INDCs, which should be formally reviewed for

equity and ambition. It also wanted a review of how all INDCs add up to meet
the goal of limiting global warming to less than 2oC.
In the beginning of the second week itself, India made it clear that it did not
want any review of INDCs as it feared that such a review would be an
unnecessary intrusion into its national sovereignty. In simple terms, India
considers INDCs as domestic pledges and does not want anyone to say whether
its pledges are equitable or ambitious or not. India was supported by the Like
Minded Developing Countries (LMDC)a group that includes developing
countries as varied as Bolivia, Saudi Arabia and China.
The US also desired such a position. So none of the big polluters, except the
EU, had any interest in the ex-ante review of INDCs.
Result: a compromised deal
To partly meet the demand of developing countries, the Lima text includes
adaptation and loss and damage. For instance, it affirms (not decides) that the
Parties will strengthen adaptation action under the Paris agreement in 2015.
The text also recalls and welcomes the progress made in Lima on Warsaw
International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, but makes no other
commitments.
Major compromises were, however, made on INDCs.

INDCs remain primarily about mitigation but countries have the option
to include adaptation component. The final text does not mention finance
or technology transfer in relation to INDCs.

There has been a major dilution of the provision of information that

Parties will submit on INDCs. In the text proposed by the co-chairs, it
was a decision paragraph. It stated that the Parties shall provide a
certain set of information on their INDCs that will allow clarity,
transparency and understanding as well justify how their INDCs are fair
and ambitious in light of their national circumstances. In final text,
however, it has been converted into an agreement paragraph. That is,
Parties, instead of deciding, will now only agree on what information to
submit. The list of information to be submitted, though remains the
same as the text of the co-chairs, has been made optional. Instead of
shall it has become may include. This gives option to Parties to
submit information of INDCs as they think appropriate. For instance,

some may think it is inappropriate to justify their INDCs for fairness or

ambition, while the others may not.

Parties can now communicate their INDCs by October 1, 2015. Earlier

there was a proposal for Parties to submit their contributions latest by
May/June 2015 so that it could be analysed and reviewed by all.

There is no ex-ante review of INDCs; not even a non-intrusive and

facilitative dialogue, as proposed by the co-chairs, for clarity,
transparency and understanding of the contributions of different Parties.

However, all the INDCs will be published on UNFCCC website and a

synthesis report will be prepared by November 1, 2015, on the aggregate
effect of INDCs communicated by all Parties.

Obligations of rich countries diluted

The text produced by the co-chairs did not mention Common but Differentiated
Responsibilities (CBDR), which puts the obligation to reduce current emissions
on developed countries on the basis that they are historically responsible for
the current levels of greenhouse gases. The final text contains an explicit
commitment for an ambitious agreement in 2015 that reflects the principle of
CBDR but weakens it by adding in light of different national circumstances.
Todd Stern, lead US climate negotiator, has gone on record to say that he and
Xie Zhenhua, Chinese chief negotiator, had thrashed out this deal on CBDR on
the last night in Peru. They took the lineCBDR, in light of different national
circumstancesfrom the recent US-China climate pact and inserted it into the
final Lima text.
Countries like India have claimed satisfaction over the inclusion of CBDR in the
final text. But its linking with national circumstances will have far reaching
implications for developing countries. For one, they will not be able to demand
strong emissions cuts from developed countries nor demand finance and
technology support from them. The inability of the US Senate to pass an
ambitious climate deal can now be justified as national circumstances. The
EU can use recession as an excuse when its commitment on finance or
technology transfer will come up for negotiation.
Developed countries managed to evade a stronger decision on the issue of
increasing their emissions cut ambition from now till 2020, both in the texts of
co-chairs and COP president. They avoided any decision on providing means of
implementation, including technology, finance and capacity building support

for developing countries so that they too could increase their mitigation
ambitions from now till 2020.
So, now it is up to Paris to decide whether the world will do more to cut
emissions between 2016 and 2020, or remain content with the highly
inadequate pledges of developed countries. One must keep in mind that
developed countries made no commitment on finance and technology transfer
for the post-2020 period either.
Who won, who lost
It is clear that developing countries got some choice words, but no money or
technology from the developed countries. The big polluters among the
developing countries managed to avoid any serious commitment to reduce
emissions by diluting the INDCs.
Developed countries, however, gained substantially. They made no
commitments to reduce emissions in the pre-2020 period more than what they
have already committed (and they have committed very little), nor did they
promise money and technology to help developing countries to increase their
mitigation commitments during the period. With weak provisions on INDCs,
they managed to avoid mitigation as well as financial commitments for the
post-2020 period.
It is important to understand that one of the success criteria for the Lima COP
was how much money developed countries would put on the table for the
Green Climate Funda fund set up to support mitigation and adaptation in
developing countries.
By the time the marathon talks finished in Lima, developed countries had
pledged only $10 billion as climate finance for developing countries for the next
four years. The ridiculousness of the number can be gauged from the fact that
if $2 were levied as a tax on every international flight ticket, it would generate
$2.5 billion a year. The biggest win for developed countries was that they
managed to dilute and compromise the principle of CBDR, the cornerstone of
climate negotiation. But in this win, the planet has lost big time.
A bumpy road to Paris
Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, described the new
definition of CBDR as an important breakthrough. Its very clear that from
now on when you speak about the responsibility and capacity of countries to
address climate change there will be a third point, national circumstances, that

need to be included. This statement of Figueres is the most important outcome

of the Lima COP.
Developed countries managed to dilute the differentiation between them and
the developing countries further by linking CBDR with national circumstances,
and thereby reinterpreting the Convention. Under UNFCCC, actions that
countries would take on addressing climate change are based on equity and
CBDR. They, in turn, are based on the responsibility of a country in causing
climate change and its capability in solving it. By bringing national
circumstances in the equation, developed countries have put themselves at the
same level as developing countries. Developing countries had so far used
national circumstancessuch as poverty reduction and achieving certain
level of developmentnot to take absolute emissions reduction targets.
Developed countries can now use similar argumentshigh level of mitigation
costs, recession and low growth rateto justify their inaction. Now, no country
will take ambitious action and the world collectively will fail to meet the climate
goals.
Similarly, INDCs have been so compromised in Lima that an effective deal in
Paris is now nearly impossible.
Under the Lima formulation, every country will now decide what it wants to do
to reduce its emissions and adapt to climate change impacts. As their actions
will now reflect national circumstances, they will not compulsorily be asked to
explain how their efforts are fair and ambitious; if they want they can explain
on their own volition. They will also not face any rigorous assessment process
ahead of the Paris summit. No questions asked, none answered is the final
decision from Lima. But this final decision has left the world with a fait
accompli. Just before the Paris COP, when it would become clear to everyone
that the INDCs of countries are a big let down and are not adding up, there
would be nothing that the Parties could do to rectify the situation in Paris as
there will be neither time nor any process to jack up the ambition of countries.
Paris will become a lame duck COP.
Implications for India
India, which played a key role in dilution of INDCs and went along with China
and the US in reinterpreting CBDR, has lost big time. The reinterpretation of
the principle of CBDR means that the burden of tackling climate change will
decisively shift to developing countries like India, making their efforts towards
poverty reduction and sustainable development difficult and expensive. The
weak INDCs, with no promise of finance or technology from developed

countries, means that India should now be ready for a much weaker climate
agreement, which will augur ill for the country in many ways.
Firstly, the world will continue on its trajectory of 4oC warming leading to
increase in extreme weather events like extreme rainfalls as India witnessed in
Uttrarakhand, Jammu and Kashmir and Meghalaya in the past two years.
Monsoon will become more unpredictable, affecting agriculture and livelihoods
of more than half of the Indian population, especially marginal farmers (see
Mapping climate change in India on p35). The worsening climate will create
new poverty traps and make poverty eradication more difficult. In fact, India
will start losing developmental gains due to climate change.
Secondly, by 2030, big polluters in the world would have appropriated most of
the available carbon space, leaving nothing for most developing countries,
including India. A weak climate deal in Paris means that in 2030, the US and
China will have per capita emissions of 12 tonnesfour times more than that
of India. After 2030, countries like India will be asked to go to an emergency
emission reduction plan which will be highly detrimental to the economic
development of the nation.
COP20 has further widened the trust gap between the developed and
developing countries. The Lima agreement only postpones the inevitable: big
fight next year in the run up to the Paris meeting and eventually a weak Paris
deal risking the lives and livelihood of billions of poor people across the world.
The Lima diary
Lima has resulted in a biased deal as rich countries shrugged off historical
responsibility for climate change The Lima climate talks began on December 1
on a positive note. In his opening speech, COP President Manuel Pulgar-Vidal
said he wanted the summit to provide "a clear and solid foundation for the
new global agreement". But the optimism faded away when negotiations over
the new climate treaty that will replace the existing Kyoto Protocol from 2020
began.
The negotiations are held under the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban
Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) where its contact groups hold discussion.
At Lima, the documents under discussion included a "draft text", which
included elements relating to the 2015 Paris agreement, the intended
nationally determined contributions (INDC), which would be countries'
actions to curb climate change, the pre-2020 climate actions till a new
agreement is in place; and a "non-paper" on "elements for a draft negotiating

text". The Parties, however, disagreed over the working method of the contact
groups. Countries, including Bolivia, China and India, demanded that the
texts be displayed on a screen "as a simple and fair" working method. The
African group remarked that such methods only erode trust. It took the cochairs two long days to put up the texts on screen.
The finance sessions of ADP saw more resistance when developing countries
pointed out that the draft text and the non-paper did not address the issue of
"adequacy" of funds. CBDR, or common but differentiated responsibility, was
the other point of disagreement. The rich countries were bent on diluting
CBDR, as drafted under UNFCCC in 1992, which recognises their historical
responsibility to address climate change and gives concession to developing
countries. With no comprise in sight, the negotiation on "non-paper" was
stopped. The negotiators focussed on finalising the "draft text".
The last days of the summit were marked by confusion and revision of texts.
At the high-level ministerial meeting on December 10, the divide between
developed and developing countries was clearer than ever as countries
refused to budge from their stated positions.
The next day, ADPco-chair Arthur Runge-Metzge asked how the Parties
intended to take the negotiation forward, as their was no breakthrough in
sight. G-77 and China replied that "they were working on a proposal which
needed time". The session was suspended while Parties and observers waited
for the proposal.
There was a rumour that a "secret" draft text, rigged in favour of developed
countries, got leaked on the official website and was removed. This triggered
accusations and counter-accusations. There was no official confirmation
about the leaked text. When the contact group re-convened later that day, the
proposal drafted by G-77 and China was rejected due to strong opposition
from developed countries.
On December 11, as the summit was drawing to a close, Pulgar-Vidal
instructed the co-chairs in the evening to produce a revised text by 9 pm. He
urged the Parties to arrive at a "consensus on the substance of the text, not
on commas and full stops". His comments were widely applauded. He roped in
lead negotiators of Norway and Singapore to help the Parties reach a
consensus. The contact group convened for the third time in the day at
around 10:30 pm, with the co-chairs presenting the revised text. But the
revised text had no provision for CBDR and was criticised by the developing

countries for not being inclusive. As an agreement could not be reached on

December 12, the final day, a revised draft text was released just past
midnight and the session was suspended. With little hope in sight, it seemed
that the climate talks would fall in disarray.
On the morning of December 13, developing countries rejected the text,
calling it "unbalanced". The COP president was called upon to restore the
balance and make sure that the demands of developing countries are met. He
assured them that the process will be taken forward "with the spirit of trust".
Closed door meetings, consultations and deliberations ensued, as delegates
started leaving the venue. Finally, the text, titled "Lima Call to Climate
Action", was handed over at 11.30 pm. It included CBDR, but it was to be
decided by every country's "national circumstances". It also had INDCs, but
they too were to be decided by individual countries. The pre-2020 ambitions
found a passing mention. The parties were given about an hour to go through
the text. They agreed and the deal was sealed.

A victory and a retreat on CLs

Jan 15, 2015
Supreme Court upholds India's first compulsory licence but government
baulks at giving the second
December has been a landmark month on legal questions surrounding the
compulsory licence (CL). On December 12, the Supreme Court of India set the
seal on a three-year battle launched by multinational drug company Bayer
against the first and only CL issued so far. That was to produce the anti-cancer
drug sorafenib tosylate (Nexavar). The apex court dismissed Bayers special
leave petition against the Bombay High Courts decision upholding the CL
granted to Indian generics firm Natco to manufacture Nexavar.
The ruling on Nexavar is momentous as it was a test case. The CL given to
Natco in March 2012 by the Controller General of Patents had resulted in a
nasty campaign against Indias patent regime by drug MNCs who claimed that
its laws did not protect intellectual property rights (IPRs). The Nexavar CL,
although perfectly legal, was used by US pharma majors and trade lobbies to
portray India as a maverick on patents. The fact is that CLs are a WTOapproved provision that allows governments to issue a licence to override

patents in special circumstances. The irony is that the US has issued the
highest number of CLs to date.
Bayer had first challenged the CL at the Intellectual Property Appellate Board
(IPAB), then in Bombay High Court and finally at the Supreme Court. Analysts
believe the December ruling is a major victory for access to medicines and that
the earlier judgements of IPAB and the high court have set important
guidelines for the grant of CLs.
In earlier columns, we had explained the significance of the Nexavar case where
several critical issues such as the cost of the drug, its limited availability in
India and Bayers reluctance to manufacture it in the country had all played a
role in the issuance of the CL.
But other developments are testing the countrys commitment to CLs. At the
same time that the Supreme Court gave its ruling on Nexavar another critical
case involving CLs came up in the Delhi High Court. The suit was filed by
Novartis against leading generics maker Cipla for infringing five patents
covering its Indacaterol drug (Onbrez) that is used to treat chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD). Novartis has sought damages for this infringement.
Cipla, however, was testing the waters on CL through another route (see Ciplas
audacious move, Down To Earth, November 15-30, 2014). In November when
Cipla broke the Novartis patents by producing a low cost generic version of
Onbrez, it had also petitioned the Department of Industrial Policy and
Promotion (DIPP), the nodal agency on IPR matters, to revoke the Onbrez
patents. Cipla contended that COPD having reached epidemic proportions,
the government should exercise its powers under Section 92 of the Indian
Patent Act to issue a CL. Cipla also argued that Novartis was not
manufacturing the drug locally and was importing only limited quantities and
thus limiting its availability. Besides, the medicine was too costly. It was citing
the very same grounds under which the Nexavar CL was issued.
DIPP, however, did not rise to the challenge. As a result, Novartis has sued
Cipla and refuted the companys claims on availability of the drug. More
pertinently, Novartis was quoted by Reutersas saying, Cipla did not use any of
the processes provided for in the Indian legal system to either challenge validity
of the patents, establish non-infringement or to seek a license for these
patents.
The health ministry had backed Ciplas recommendation so why did DIPP
refuse to act? One reason thats been bruited around is that DIPP was not sure

if it was on firm legal ground. The other theory is that the government was
afraid of provoking the US. Most people believe this is the real reason.

Digging their Destinies

Jan 15, 2015
Villages in arid areas of Vidarbha and Marathwada fight back drought by
reviving natural depressions along stream beds

The revival of dohs has stopped migration from Dhangarwadi, an impoverished

tribal village of mainly sheep farmers (Photo: Aparna Pallavi)
JANABAI KOHALE cannot remember a time when she did not have to climb
down a well in summer to collect the last drops of water left in it. There was a
large well with steps all the way to the bottom, and every summer, women
would climb down it and fill their pots by scooping up the little water at the
bottom with a small vaati (bowl). It took at least half an hour to fill up one pot,
remembers the septuagenarian from Ghoguldara village in Maharashtras
Yavatmal district.
Two decades ago, the step well collapsed, and the government dug two new
wells. The women had no option but to tie a rope around their waists and let
themselves down the wells. Sometimes, my daughter-in-law would have to go

at night to fetch water. The government provided tankers, but they were
unreliable, says Janabai grimly.
Under usual circumstances, this year, the situation in Ghoguldara should have
been even worse than what Janabai describes. This year, Yavatmal received just
450 mm of rain, which is half the average rainfall for the district. Cotton
production in the district is down to a dismal 325 kg per hectare, and no one is
so much as thinking of sowing the rabi crop.
Ghoguldara, however, appears to be an exception in this scene of despair. It has
harvested 1,625 kg of cotton per hectare, and the rabi sowing, though delayed,
is all done. The water level in the villages two wells is three metres in
December, when most wells start drying up even in a good rainfall year. This
tiny impoverished village of Kolam and Gowaritribals, which used to be among
the 4,376 villages to put in a request for water supply by tanker every year, has
dropped out of the tanker list since 2013.
Reviving ancient wisdom
The metamorphosis is the result of recent attempts by Ghoguldara residents to
revive dohsdeep pits that occurred naturally along the bed of a stream.
These dohs acted as natural rainwater harvesting structures, explains
Madhukar Dhas of Dilasa. The non-profit is helping communities across the
dry, rocky areas of Marathwada and western Vidarbha revive dohs. Dhas says
people in these regions used to rely on dohs till a few decades ago.

Dohs have been around since the times of our grandparents, says Sadobai
Selar, an elderly matriarch from Dhangarwadi village in Yavatmal. It was a
summer-time community space where people would bathe, wash and take
animals for a drink. Most of them had designated usessome for bathing and
washing, others for animals, she adds.
With modernisation, dohs have rapidly disappeared from all over Vidarbha. The
prime reason was deforestation which led to heavy siltation. The result was a
frustrating flood-drought cycle.
During the monsoon, the silted-over streams would flood and water would get
into our farms, and once the rains were over, they would go bone-dry, says
Selar. The water scarcity allowed for just one rain-fed crop a year, and postmonsoon migration rates were high, says she. What else could we do, with no
water for us or our animals?
Low cost, no siltation
Compared to the governments usual approach of constructing check dams as
part of watershed development, doh revival has many advantages, explains

Mansoor Khorasi, an engineer, who provided technological support to the

process. Under the governments watershed programme, the cost of harvesting
10 million cubic metres of water is estimated at Rs 1.5 lakh, but doh revival
costs no more than Rs 40,000 to Rs 50,000 for the same amount of water.
Since expensive construction material like iron or cement is not used, the
model is not only environment friendly, but also gets completed in a shorter
time.
But the biggest advantage of doh revival is that the rate of siltation is extremely
low. Most check dams silt over in four years at the most. But natural dohs
have been around for centuries without silting. The lighter silt material is
borne away because of the constant flow of water, while the heavier material
sinks, forming a sand layer which is much more porous than silt and hence
does not choke the stream bed, says Khorasi.
Incredible metamorphosis
The change that the dohrevival has brought has to be seen to be believed. In
Dhangarwadi, where work started in 2006, dohs have been dug along three
streams with a total length of 1,500 metres, for harvesting 30 million litres of
water annually. Cultivated land area in the village has gone up from 30
hectares to 136 hectares. The villages agricultural income has risen from Rs 4
lakh to Rs 1 crore annually. And all this for a total expenditure of just Rs 33
lakh over five years, says Dhas.
Migration has also dropped to zero in this village of sheep farmers. We now
have enough fodder and water all year round for our sheep, says sarpanch
Krishna Ahire.
In Ghoguldara, the village handpump, which used to dry up in December, is
still running smoothly this year. Fetching water was a nightmare earlier. Now,
we have much more time for other work, says resident PanchafulaKohale.
Farmers now are growing two crops. People are crying for water in other
villages. And I made Rs 15,000 by selling vegetables ins summer, says farmer
Santosh Dhoke.

It's nice but not sunny

Jan 15, 2015

It will take more than ambitious targets for the government to increase India's
solar capacity
Since its inception, the present National Democratic Alliance government under
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has stated its intention to provide 24x7
electricity to all. India already has an installed capacity of 250 GW, dominated
by fossil fuels; the additional electricity demand creates a massive opportunity
for renewable energy resources, Modi said in a press release.
On November 17, Union renewable energy minister Piyush Goyal made an
important announcement, What we inherited was 20 gigawatt (GW) up to
2022, which we are trying to reset to 100 GW...we see enormous potential on
the solar front... Even though the government sees potential in it, the solar
sector in India is currently not looking that bright. Investments have declined
in the past few years. In 2012, only $1.8 billion (Rs 9,676.94 crore) was
invested in solar power in India, which declined to $1 billion (Rs 5,895.27
crore) in 2013.
This is despite the fact that the capital cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) projects
has reduced by almost 60 per cent since January 2010, when the Jawaharlal
Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM) was introduced.
Chandra Bhushan, deputy director of the Delhi-based NGO Centre for Science
and Environment (CSE), says, The decline in investments in renewable energy
was largely because of policy uncertainty within the Ministry of New and
Renewable Energy (MNRE).
Financing has been an issue in the country, especially for high-cost projects.
India needs $30 billion (over Rs 1.91 lakh crore) investment in the renewable
sector every year but received only $6 billion (about Rs 35,155.63 crore) in
2013, UpendraTripathi, secretary, MNRE, said in September. MNREs policies
have not been able to persuade Indian banks to provide loans for solar power
projects. Development in the sector has also been deterred by high interest
rates. Local banks are reluctant because they fear cash-crunched discoms will
not be able to pay for the solar feed-in tariffs. The power purchase agreements
signed between developers and discoms are not bankable because there is no
certainty whether the produced power would be bought by the discoms, says
Harish Ahuja, President, Strategy and Corporate Affairs at Hindustan Power
Project, one of the developers of solar power projects.
To revive the industry, MNRE wants the government to back a loan of 1 billion
( Rs 7,953.78 crore) sought from German bank KfW to promote rooftop solar

systems of 1.6 GW capacity across the country. The World Bank is already
collaborating with the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) for financing an
ultra- mega solar project in Madhya Pradesh. Coal India recently signed a
memorandum of understanding (MoU) with SECI to install 1 GW solar power
plants in the solar parks in different parts of India. NTPC, the largest power
producer in India, has about 4 GW of solar power projects in various stages of
development across India.
Is India prepared?
India needs to achieve 100 GW by 2022 as per the plans of the Modi
government. By September 2014, the installed capacity of solar power was 2.76
GW. The capacity needs to grow more than 12 GW every year to meet the target
in the next eight |years. Developing at the rate of 12 GW in a year would also
mean 12 times the supply of modules, 12 times the amount of capital-both
debt and equity, 12 times more human power and enormous land management
to support such growth, says Raghunath Mahapatra, vice president, strategy,
Welspun Energy.
Such increases have to be planned meticulously. A 100 GW sounds like a good
idea, but implementation of this target is an important aspect. Is the
government machinery capable of providing the policy support, stability and
dynamism that is required? questions Ahuja. As of now, there are no plans for
the improvement of the existing transmission lines to accommodate more of the
intermittent power that solar would be.
Hurdles to be crossed
Adding 100 GW of solar energy would mean increasing the proportion of
intermittent renewable power in the national grid. Given the lack of motivation
and huge financial losses of the existing state discoms, they are reluctant to
improve the transmission network that would be required to incorporate such
big changes in their system. The biggest challenge would be the rooftop
programme. MNRE is implementing the Grid Connected Rooftop and Small
Solar Power Plants Programme where rooftop solar systems of capacity 1 kW to
500 kW in residential, commercial, institutional and industrial buildings are
connected to the national grid. The programme has a provision of financial aid
of Rs 24 per Watt from the Centre to encourage consumers to install solar
rooftop systems.
However, the problem arises over the issue of surplus power. Extra power
produced by a rooftop solar system, which is not consumed by the producer,

can either be stored in batteries to be used at night or can be transferred to the

national grid. At least that is what the Centre envisions.
But transferring the power to the national grid would require state discoms
support and only four states have announced their rooftop policies so far. It is
easier for the government to focus on large-scale utility solar projects; the
biggest challenge would be enhancing rooftop solar installations given the fact
that there are serious hurdles to be crossed-capital support, grid stability and
development, storage technologies and manpower requirements, comments
Jasmeet Khurana, head of market intelligence, Bridge To India Energy.
Ambitious targets are a good sign, but the government needs to back that up
with reforms in regulation and electricity market that can support such scaling
up of solar power. This is one of the reasons Solaire direct is reluctant to enter
the rooftop solar market, says Gaurav Sood, managing director of Solaire direct
India, one of the developers that has set up projects under JNNSM.
The government may not achieve the target without announcing new incentives
for solar power developers and equipment manufacturers.
Streamlining the rooftop solar programme is important along with the idea of
decentralised distributed generation because there are still more than 300
million people in the country with no access to electricity. All the expansion in
the solar field has been on account of large -scale projects feeding the grid. But
that does not guarantee basic energy access to all. The biggest social and
economic impact of renewable energy will be providing clean energy to the
energy- deprived. But there are no incentives focused on developing
decentralised energy access solutions, says Bhushan.
The general view is that an ambitious target is not enough. The government
should make sure that the supporting institutions, both financial and
regulatory, are also developed to meet the target. Low-cost financing, along with
payment guarantees for the developers, is essential to increase investment in
the sector for solar power to achieve grid parity. A few steps taken at the right
time can ensure these projects become viable soon.

New Bill, old problems

Jan 15, 2015

The government is considering setting up a new authority to regulate civil

nuclear facilities, saying it will be autonomous and more powerful than the
current Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. Experts doubt the claim

The atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Indias nodal civil nuclear regulatory
body, is likely to be soon replaced by a statutory authority. The government is
considering legislation to dissolve the board, which was formed by an executive
order, and create the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority. The move is
important because India is expanding its civil nuclear power sector. It has 21
functional rectors, six are under construction and 35 are proposed, including
the 12 to be developed with Russia for which a pact was signed this December.
Talking to Down To Earth, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) chairperson Satinder Singh Bajaj said changes were under consideration to make
the regulatory system more robust. The main change proposed is the structural
autonomy of the new authority. The Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority
(NSRA) will not report to anyone. Its reports will be tabled directly before
Parliament. Under the current set up, AERB reports to the Department of
Atomic Energy, headed by the prime minister.
The proposed system also seeks to establish a Council of Nuclear Safety (CNS),
headed by the prime minister, to oversee and review the policies on nuclear
safety, say officials, requesting anonymity. All activities relating to civil nuclear
power and nuclear material will be allowed only after NSRA grants licence for
them. Unlike AERB, which was set up by an executive order in 1983 and can
be changed by a similar order, NSRA will be a statutory body and command
greater authority. Any change in NSRAS structure or functions will have to
come from Parliament.

Demand for a robust and autonomous body to oversee security issues related
to civil nuclear establishments emerged in 2011 after the Fukushima nuclear
accident in Japan. In its report released on July 5, 2012, Japans Fukushima
Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission said that the disaster
was human-made and the problem was rooted in Japans nuclear safety
regulatory body. To avoid a similar incident in India, the United Progressive
Alliance government tabled the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill in
Parliament in 2011 to create NSRA. But the Bill was sent to a standing

committee which suggested changes, and with

the change in government in 2014 the Bill
lapsed. Though the current government has not
listed the Bill for discussion in Parliaments
ongoing session, sources say it plans to table
the same Bill in the next session.
But what exactly is wrong with the way AERB is
functioning? Although Bajaj says AERB is doing
its job well, several institutions, including the
Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India
and the Public Accounts Committee, have found
problems in the way it functions (see CAG has
not understood our point). In a performance
audit report of AERB submitted to Parliament in
2012, CAG said, In the present framework, the
legal status of AERB is one of subordinate office,
exercising delegated functions of Central
government and not that of regulator.
It is noteworthy that in countries which have a
large number of nuclear establishments, such
as Australia, Canada, France and the US, the
regulators have been given complete
independence through legislation. AERB,
however, has not been given any power to frame
rules. Nor can it enforce laws or levy penalties
on defaulters. Former secretary of AERB, K S Parthasarathy, says, I hope the
new Bill enhances the legal robustness of AERB in line with other nuclear
regulatory agencies worldwide. I believe that a legally robust nuclear agency
with enhanced technical capability is essential for continuing the good work
that is being carried out by AERB.
A December 2013 report by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which
scrutinises CAG reports and financial accounts tabled in Parliament, said that
despite three decades of existence AERB has not formulated nuclear and
radiation safety codes. PAC highlighted the fact that the notification under
which AERB was constituted authorised it to frame the codes. PAC also said
the Meckoni Committee in 1987 and the Raja Ramanna Committee in 1997
stressed the need of developing codes, standards, guides and manuals related

to nuclear safety, but AERB did not fulfil its responsibility. Both these
committees were constituted to review AERBs functions and responsibilities.
M V Ramana, physicist at the Nuclear Futures Laboratory, Princeton
University, US, says the reason for AERBs incompetence is the lack of technical
staff and facilities in the board.
Will NSRA be effective?
Despite the obvious problems with AERB, there are doubts if NSRA will be any
different. Former chairperson of AERB A Gopalakrishnan, says it is good that
the government has not listed the Bill in the ongoing session because it needs
more work.
The questions raised on NSRA are not without basis. A few parts of the Bill
have raised doubts over the independence of the authority. As per the Bill,
NSRA members can be removed by an order of the Central government. This is
bound to undermine its autonomous character.
G Sundarrajan, a Chennai-based activist who has filed several cases in the
Supreme Court regarding safety of Indias nuclear plants, echoes
Gopalakrishnans views when he says that there is nothing new in the NSRA
Bill. What is needed, he emphasises, is a completely autonomous body.
AERB will be replaced by NSRA and the new system will not report to anyone.
It will directly submit its report to Parliament. It is intended to make the
system of regulating nuclear establishments more robust and safe. AERB is
also strong enough. The existing system is adequate and the regulatory work
in place.
But AERB has faced severe criticism from CAG and Public Accounts
Committee.
CAG has not understood our point. It says that we have not developed safety
codes. But this is not the case. We have already developed around 140 safety
codes [relating to construction and running of nuclear facilities, storage of
nuclear material, etc]. It says some 26 more codes should have been created.
It is quite obvious that there are many things to improve and are improving.
But CAG overlooked the work done by AERB and highlighted only those points
which were not done.
When will the new Bill appear in Parliament and what other changes are

proposed?
There are several Bills pending. It completely depends on the priority of the
government. As far as changes are concerned, it will be cleared only after the
Bill is tabled in parliament.

January 31
News Briefs - January 16-31, 2015
0 Comments
Jan 31, 2015 | From the print edition
India consumes more fat now
The RECENTsurvey of the National Sample Survey Office shows that consumption of fat has increased
significantly in India. The survey found an increase of almost 10 g of fat per person per day in the past 18

years in both rural and urban areas.

While the intake in rural India has

risen from 31.4 g per day in 1993-94 to 41.6 g in 2011-12, for urban areas it has gone up from 42 g to
52.50 g during the same period. The increase in Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat,
Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan,
Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal ranges from 5-6 g in 1993-94 to 17-18 g in 2011-12.
100% FDI in medical devices
The CENTRAL government has approved 100 per cent foreign direct investment (FDI) in the medical
devices sector via automatic route. Medical devices come under the pharmacy sector in which 100 per
cent FDI through automatic route is permitted only in case of new ventures. Approval of Foreign
Investment Promotion Board is needed in the case of brown field investment acquisition of existing
companies. At present, the medical devices sector is subjected to FDI limits and other conditions such as
mandatory government nods as in the case of brown field investments in the pharmacy sector. But the
new policy does away with this distinction in the medical devices sector. For long, industry has been
demanding opening up the medical device industry for FDI through automatic route, saying that in the
absence of big firms for medical devices in India, the threat of merger or acquisition does not exist.

Courtesy: wikipedia.org
Armed against big dams
The ANTI-big dam movement in Assam, which has over the few years been strengthened by politicians
and academicians, has now found the backing of the United Liberation Front of Asom-Independent, or
ULFA (I). The ULFA (I) has also threatened to carry out an armed struggle to stop the construction of the
2,000 MW Lower Subansiri Hydroelectric Power Project. It has said that the organisation is opposed to the
construction of proposed mega dams in the Northeast region. PareshAsom, commander-in-chief of the
ULFA (I), said that it is shocking that the Indian government is putting every effort to ensure completion
of the project, despite experts saying that these dams could be catastrophic to the region.

Photo: Arnab Pratim Dutta

Most wanted green criminal arrested
In a major breakthrough, one of the world's most wanted environmental criminals was recently arrested
in Zambia. It was the first big catch by the Interpol after it issued the first-ever public appeal a month
ago. According to British daily, The Guardian, Ben Simasiku, a 31-year-old suspected ivory smuggler, was
arrested by the Zambia Wildlife Authority's intelligence and investigations unit on December 2. Simasiku
had been on the run since a shoot-out between wildlife officials and 13 alleged poachers in Botswana's

Chobe National Park, on the Zambian border in July 2014. One suspected poacher was killed in the
gunfight.
88 swine flu cases reported
The DEADLY H1N1 influenza virus has returned and continues to spread across the country, especially in
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. At least 88 positive cases of swine flu were reported in Telangana and
Andhra Pradesh.

Though deaths due to swine flu have not been confirmed yet, it is suspected that eight to
10 people, especially in the two southern states, have died so far.
According to official data, Delhi has had 43 confirmed cases of swine flu, five of them since January 1,
2015. The Indian Medical Association (IMA) said that swine flu has not taken epidemic proportion yet,
unlike last year. In the last winter season, Delhi alone reported 16 deaths. The IMA said the rise in cases
in three weeks should call for immediate attention.
Drought grips Maharashtra
More AREAS in Maharashtra are to be officially declared drought-affected. Another 5,700 villages are to
be added to the list of drought-hit areas, taking the total number of villages which lost more than 50 per
cent crops to around 24,000. This figure is twice the number of villages affected by the 2012 drought in
the state. The findings have come to light in the final Paisewari survey conducted by the State Revenue
Department. The final report of the department is likely to arrive soon.

Aparna Pallavi
State Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said in the Legislative Assembly that the state government has
asked the Centre for Rs 3,925 crorefor drought relief. He, however, added that if the number of affected
villages increases, then the aid will also have to go up, and the current aid plea only takes crop damage
into account. The new aid package will also include provisions for water and fodder, he said.
Plachimada Bill returned
The WAIT for justice for the victims of the groundwater exploitation and pollution caused by Coca-Cola at
Plachimada village in Palakkad district of Kerala has just got longer. After sitting for more than three
years on a draft legislation that ensured compensation to the victims, the Centre has asked the state to
approach the National Green Tribunal. It has not forwarded the Bill passed by the state Assembly to the
President for assent. The Centre argues that environmental compensation comes under the purview of the
green tribunal, and the state cannot form a separate tribunal to deal with the issue.