Friday, February 22, 2013

Agricultural adaptation reaching limits due to lack of policy support


Brief report of the State workshop on “Best Practices of Agricultural Adaptation”, 15th and 16th Feb, 2013, Dehradun


Introduction
The farmers overwhelmingly expressed a serious concern with agriculture in times of climate change. Most of them have been bewildered by the change in the temperature, rainfall, snowfall patterns and do not know how to react to it. Policy responses too slow and too far apart, have failed to support them through adequate information, new and improved seeds and crops, irrigation technologies, risk and insurance coverage. Very few adaptation strategies except System of Crop Intensification, water harvesting and organic farming came to light. Most of them have reached the dead end of adaptation, and were left with no option but to migrate and swell the ranks of slum dwellers in nearby cities. This is particularly true for apple growers, who say that the apple line has moved to more than 1000 feet upwards. Farmers who depended on livestock also fared no better. People are forced to sell buffaloes (worth 30,000 to 35,000) to the abattoirs, who rate them on the basis of the quantity to meat they can provide (price typically ranging between Rs. 500-1000).
Farmers shared these experiences in a Workshop on “best practices of agricultural adaptation” organized by a number of NGOs including CECOEDECON, PAIRVI, UDI, HARC, PSI, Casa Mountain in collaboration with Oxfam India at Dehradun on 15th and 16th February.
Context and background
In the inaugural session, Ajay Jha (PAIRVI) speaking on behalf of organizers said, that there has been little support to agricultural adaptation (against climate change impacts), which needs to be identified and promoted through policy and financial support. He added that National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA), which is designed to increase resilience of agriculture through adaptation has very little to support adaptation. It is extremely technology centric, mitigation focused, promotes BT as one shoe fits all solution, and also promotes conversion of C3 crops into C4 crops, which is scientifically tedious. Besides, a large amount of money will be spent on technology promotion, and R&D, (85% all together) leaving little for capacity building. The Mission is focused on PPP in agriculture, which will only increase dominance of agri business companies on seeds, agricultural products and practices, agri research and markets. The focus on BT will increase monocropping severely affecting the diversity of crops and food. He also emphasized the direction of agriculture in the coming 12th Plan and said that 12th Plan will encourage small farmers to quit agriculture, without creating any alternative livelihood opportunity for them. He added that policy is geared to transform farmers into Farmer Producers Organizations, and farmers who fail to understand these nuances, will have to exit. He informed that a whole set of changes including those in tenancy and land lease Acts, APMC Act, modernization of mandis and market connectivity are being planned to facilitate taking agriculture from primary to secondary sector, which needs to be watched cautiously.

Mr. Jeso Johnson, Programme Officer, Oxfam India (Regional office, Lucknow) said that climate change affects agriculture in many ways, and most impacted are small farmers and women farmers. He added that the Government of India says that it is devoting more than 2% of the GDP on adaptation, however, there is very little support to agricultural adaptation on ground. He underlined that financial support and capacity building on adaptation in agricultural is necessary to insulate small farmers from climate shocks and will have to be factored in agricultural policies, climate change policies and state action plan on climate change.
Mr. Soumya Dutta (BJVJ) narrating the collectives efforts on democratizing National and State action Plans on climate change, said that plan documents are rich in narratives in agriculture, but laconic on providing support. He also emphasized that there has been very little work on mapping vulnerability and impacts, which are extremely essential for planning appropriate policies. Uttarakhand is highly vulnerable, the glaciers are melting faster and sooner than predicted, and the state must initiate assessment of vulnerability and impacts on ground without delay. Adding from the experience of working on SAPCCs in different states, he added that very little attention and financial support is pledged for sectors like agriculture, water, forests, which requires to be scaled up.
Mahendra Singh Kunwar (HARC) said that Hills are becoming empty, and most widely prevalent adaptation strategy in the hills is migration to plains and nearby cities. Soil erosion and soil moisture content depletion is most prominent in the hills and plain both, which is attributable both to climate change impacts and policies. He added that state like Uttarakhand, which has very low financial capacity must seek new ways of generating resources to support agriculture and farmers.

Ravi Chopra (PSI) referred a research conducted by PSI and giving startling findings. Alluding to the findings, he said that from the data collected from 400 villages, only 16% population is dependent on agriculture (whereas the figure was more than 60%, eight years back), people are leaving agriculture and migrating at a faster rate than understood, which hints towards extremely low viability of agriculture in the state.

The Chief Guest, Mr. Hemesh Kharakwal, Parliamentary Secretary, Min of Env and Forests, said that climate change is a real concern now, however, due to lack of visible and tangible impacts, it gets relegated to the backburner. However, he said that the government is serious on addressing climate change and has taken a number of measures including research and knowledge generation, environmental protection, protection of forests and bio-diversity, water and promotion to profitable agriculture and diversification. He underlined that climate change is an emerging issue with concern of unknown impacts in future; the govt is making all efforts to know and address its impact on water, environment and agriculture. He welcomed the comments on agriculture policies and climate change and offered to facilitate a discussion among various ministries for its appropriate disposal. He also welcomed suggestions in the State Action Plan on Climate Change and agriculture. Tej Singh Bhandari, UDI thanked the guests, panelists and the Chief Guest.

Climate change and its impacts on the agriculture of the state

J S Rawat, Coordinator, Uttarkhand Centre on Climate Change (UCCC) emphasized that the centre has done a study to understand “climate change imprints in Uttarakhand” which shows a number of impacts that are already taking place. He added that earlier the climate change discussion were based completely on IPCC data, however, the study generated a range of data sets from local data signifying clear impact on a number of climate sensitive areas. these include rising temperature, reduction in rainy hours, change in rainfall pattern, increase in frequency of droughts, shifting of vegetation line, transformation of glacial rivers, change of perennial rivers into non-perennial rivers, changes in snow periods, diminishing regulatory affects of glaciers, reduction in groundwater etc. These data will be soon accessible through a geo portal. He added that these impacts render policies addressing these impacts extremely urgent.

Dr. B P Maithani (CHimalaya), former CDAP Consultant and former Director, CAPART, said that agriculture has been reduced from primary occupation to tertiary occupation. Poor soil health and very small agricultural land  adds to climate change impacts. He added that CDAP has not been prepared in the spirit laid down by the RKVY, and therefore, there is no prioritization and local planning. Livestock promotion has also suffered, and water harvesting projects too have not given results as planned. He suggested that cooperativization of farmers as the way to increase their income and overcome the hurdles that small holders agriculture present in the state. He also added that RKVY gives the state freedom to utilize the resources in the best possible manner and the resources from it can be leveraged to enhance resilience in agriculture.
Dr V K Sachan,( KVK Chinyalisaur) attested to the impacts of climate change brought to light by the farmers and said that shifting of crops, reduced water holding capacity of the soil has been the main concerns. He said that KVK through the NICRA initiative has developed varieties of crops which can be harvested in 90-100 days as against earlier crops which took 100-130 days. He highlighted that millets like madua, bajra have not remained very beneficial for the farmers who can easily supplement their income by shifting to Pigeon pea (arhar) which has performed well. He added that while pigeon pea is a short crop and its productivity too is more than other pulses. He also added that KVK is also protective cultivation to save crops from frost and varieties of tomato (T4) and cucumber can be grown in polyhouses. He elaborated that selective breeding is also being promoted to improve breed of livestock.

Dr. Vinod Bhatt (Beej Vidyapeeth, Navdanya) emphasized that agriculture is being badly hit due to unpredictability of weather and reduced precipitation, pest infestation etc. He added that mixed forests are being converted into chirpine forests, livestock too does not get quality and adequate fodder and forage. Worst affected are farmers who are into monocropping of HYVs. He emphasized that organic farming and SRI, traditional seeds etc. are crop based and practices based adaptation that farmers have largely adopted, but many of them still remain outside the realm of adaptation and are struggling with continuously declining farm incomes. Navdanya has identified 54 flood tolerant varieties in Uttarakhand. He also shared that farmers are being affected by pests. Some of them in Almora have installed machines, emitting red light, which prevent infestation of particular pests. Mr. Mahendra Singh Kunwar also shared that many farmers working with HARC have switched to tulsi (basel), as monkeys do not attack it, however, they face problem in utilizing the product. He informed that besides making tulsi tea, HARC is in connection with a research Institute to explore how to utilize chemical properties in tulsi, so as to be able to sustain and utilize large production.

Agricultural adaptation practices

Farmers doing organic farming of basmati rice with the help of Uttakhand Organic Board shared their experience. Mr. Surya Prakash Bahuguna, and Mr. Umed Bora, said that switching to organic was difficult as initially they saw reduced output. However, it has been more than compensated now as they get good price of their rice not only in India but are also able to export it to countries like Germany, where it sells for Rs. 380 per kg. They said that earlier they used to grow rice varieties that took 120-140 days but due to change in climate, they had to harvest it in 90-100 days, and thus suffered heavy losses. Now they have shifted to kasturi, which take only 90-100 days, requires less irrigation and provides good productivity.
P S Sanwal, an apple grower from Dumar, Joshimath (Chamoli district), reported that he used to earn at least Rs. 30,000 to 40,000 per season from apples 40 years back. There were beautiful apple orchards in Urgam Valley (6500 feet) and half of the villagers used to grow apple. But gradually apples lost their colour, size and became hard, plants also started drying due to change in weather and reduced snowfall.
Now it’s not possible to grow apples in Urgam valley and can be done only at Dumar (7500 feet). He explained that a snowfall in January is must for apples, as it must remain in sub zero temperature for 100 hours. However, he added that he hasn’t seen snowfall in January, since 1987. Half of the villagers who used to grow apple have now either turned to NREGA or have migrated to cities. He tried to compensate with Chaulai and Rajma. Overuse of urea in Chaulai destroyed land and not finding enough twigs for staking Rajma creepers, compelled him to look for other vocation. He was yet to see and try another apple variety, (Anna), which local KVK guided farmers to grow in that belt, clearly showing gap in the information flow and reach out of the KVK. Another apple grower Mr. S C Rawat (Naugaon, Uttarkashi, 7000 feet) said that apple growers have suffered a loss of 50% to 70% during the last two seasons (2011-2012). He said that it used to snowfall for at least 7 days in January earlier, now it hardly snows for few days. The soil productivity has also reduced significantly. He added that Uttarakhand was better than Himachal in apple production earlier, but due to lack of support from government growers are facing hard times. He emphasized that while apple juice from Himachal is found all over India, Uttarakhand did nothing to promote apple. Now since there is no wood available for packaging of apple, the government provides paper cartons, which when carried on mules are torn easily. The government, should set up few food processing units near the apple zone, he suggested. Also that the government gives subsidy on the pesticides, but pesticides does not reach apple grower in the season. Kheema Devi and Mohini Devi women farmers growing vegetables shared hardships in growing vegetables and impact of changing climate.

Farmers feel that the organic farming and mixed farming are best adaptation practice for overcoming climate change impacts. Vijay Jardhari, who practices mixed/integrated agriculture and has more than 25 crops in the same field said that “I can survive irrespective of the fact that whether it rains or not. Even if it is a drought the millets will take me through the year.” “Farmers who switched from “supply driven” to “demand driven” agriculture turning to mono cropping” reasons Vijay, “are impacted the worst”. There is a symbiotic relationship between forests, water, bio-diversity, animals and agriculture, and a disturbance in their balance is affecting all, he adds. He underlines, that it is vested interest, who are out to promote wheat and rice, who coined the word coarse grain for millets, which are finer than best of basmati. He underlined that many traditional millets are flood and drought resistant and have excellent nutritive value at the same time. He explained that madua has rich calcium content, and Jhangora is best for iron deficiency. The state government also promotes these millets but with chemical pesticides and fertilizers, he lamented! He emphasized that agriculture has a strong connection with forests. Besides, forests also provide at least 50-60 twigs and plants, which are extremely popular as food and medicine (semal, Kuriyal, Kyola, Lengda, and many varieties of garlic and ginger etc.). He concluded by saying that due to warmer temperature, many new weeds have spread very fast (gazar ghas, lentana, kala basa), their spread should be contained, as expansion of Chirpine.
Dr. Dibakar Mahanta (VPKAS) also stressed on importance of organic farming and use of organic fertilizers (FYM, vermicompost). He said that though grains production has been affected to some extent, production of vegetables and fruits (akhrot, pomegranate), medicinal herbs have more than compensated for that. He also informed participants of the CDM project that Uttarakhand govt is looking to get approved. The project “Enabling small holders to improve life through carbon Finance” is being undertaken under “National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP)” ICAR. The project aims to manufacture vermicompost and FYM on a grid area spread over 10 km/sq and involving 1200 farmers, who will get Rs. 15 crore after 10 years. (A rough calculation suggested that every farmer household will be getting approx. Rs 1041 per month).

Livestock and fisheries

Farmers also shared that keeping an animal is not an option now due to lack of fodder, diminishing fertility and productivity of animals. Due to increasing temperature, animals give premature birth to calves and also does to give enough milk. This is being witnesses in all milch animals. Lack of common and green pasture, water, access to forests, green fodder result in poor health and less productivity. They also questioned that “now that government is promoting power tiller, we do not know what to do with a male calf?” Mr. Avatar Singh (Mount Valley Development Association) shared that it’s important to secure fodder first and then move to cattle rearing. More than 19 groups involving 200 women farmers are generating decent income (Rs. 4000-Rs. 6000pm) through the project.

The farmers suggested that govt has also discouraged keeping sheep. Sheeps used to help biodiversity by pollination and could have been excellent for reducing rural inequity. However, due to lack of support for wool production, people have stopped rearing sheep. Fisher folk are also faring no better. Firgun Bedi (Khateema, Udham Singh Nagar) who depends completely on her small farm pond and income from it, shared that, in the last two years, increasing cold and frost have adversely affected fish keeping. She finds few dies fishes everyday in her pond. The weight of fishes too has reduced. Many fishes like silver carp (Mahasir), ghariyal etc. have vanishing rapidly. Others added that government is not promoting local varieties, which are easy to rear in these conditions. Increasing use to bleaching powder too, is resulting in deaths of fishes, it was reported.

Ajeet Kumar (JVS, Tehri) shared their innovations with regards to agricultural equipments. They have designed an iron (plough), which helps reduce use of wood for plough making (iron mining is more environmental hazard). Besides, they also claimed to have invented weed marker, which helps women who had to pick weeds b y remaining in submerged field which affected their hands and feet.

Traditional knowledge and early warning system

The participants felt that merging traditional knowledge of weather and early warning systems with scientific systems in necessary to make weather prediction more accurate and reliable. Number of farmers shared local epithets, beliefs and bio-indicators, which were used to predict weather information. Some of them are listed as below:

1.       If it is cloudy on Friday, and remains overcast on Saturday, it’s almost sure that it will rain on Sunday.
2.       If the bright star in the western horizon shines brightly during the day, it signifies a drought in coming months.
3.     The halow around moon, the far it is from moon, it more likely the rains are, the close halow signifies a coming drought
4.       If kancha (a crow like bird) fly together in formations and are seen picking in village, the rains are likely. This is also true for bats.
5.       If birds bathe in sand, its likely to rain.
The participants also felt that most of the TK regarding EWS does not work anymore, however, there are many of them which have stood up the test of time, needs to be documented.

Linking local with global

The discussion also took into account positioning of agricultural adaptation in agricultural policies, national climate change and agricultural plans and international negotiations. It also involved a discussion on limits to adaptation and loss and damage in agriculture. Ajay Jha (PAIRVI) informed the participants on lack of support to adaptation in National Action Plan on climate change and state action Plans on climate change. He added that India’s climate change policy is highly leveraged in favour of mitigation and leaves little scope for adaptation, especially agricultural adaptation. He also shared that National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture, which aims at enhancing climate resilient agriculture. Is highly technology focused, and adopts same approach to expand green revolution in eastern states, through extensive use of inputs, technology, HYVs, and biotechnology, which is bound to reduce the resilience of agriculture against impacts and can be extremely risky. He highlighted that international negotiations on agriculture and climate change too are completely dominated by “mitigation in agriculture” approach, which is dangerous for small holder farmers. He shared the experience of “Kenya Carbon Agriculture Project,” saying that the most of the benefits will go to project developers and technical and financial analysts, with farmers ending up with less than USD 3 per year. He stressed that farmers need to be cautious about carbon finance projects in agriculture and also in forests. He also added that govt of India, also does have a clear position regarding mitigation in agriculture, though for now, India has opposed making mitigation essential in agriculture.

Loss and damage in agriculture

Mr. Soumya Dutta (BJVJ) talked about limits to adaptation and the concept of loss and damage. He said that many vulnerable countries and livelihoods cannot survive climate change impacts despite the best of adaptation, therefore the countries that have brought about this crisis are liable to pay for the damage caused, though many losses cannot be compensated at all. He explained that the concept of loss and damage is being talked about since COP 16 where under Cancun Adaptation Framework, a work programme on loss and damage was undertaken by SBI. The work programme was aimed at generating knowledge on (1) assessment of loss and damage, (2) range of approaches to address loss and damage, and (3) role of the convention. In the last two years, a lot of discussion has taken place. However, as far as the progress is concerned, the work programme has suggested “developing an “international mechanism” on loss and damage, which is being opposed by developing countries, particularly the US. He explained that while India as a country might not be a beneficiary under this project, assessment of loss and damage is important to advocate increasing investment in climate change mitigation and supporting adaptation in agriculture. The participants shared that as far as assessment of damage due to extreme climatic events are concerned, they can be assessed, however, losses including loss of life, loss of habitat, social capital, and spiritual losses are concerned, it’s impossible to assess their value in financial terms. They also emphasized that it was also extremely difficult to assess losses incurred due slow and gradual changes ie. change in temperature, snow fall, monsoon, soil health and moisture, and more efforts are required to develop a framework for its assessment.

Ms. Sabita Parida from Oxfam India, shared her perception on future work of Oxfam India, nationally and in the state. she said that Oxfam India is committed to the cause of small farmers, women farmers and enhancing resilience in agriculture nationally, at the state level, she emphasized that “documentation of case studies to learn more about adaptation practices, and assessment of loss and damage might be interesting to take up.” “Efforts will be made to see that State Action Plan incorporates the recommendations made by the workshop, and earlier consultations,” she added.

 RECOMMENDATIONS

1.       Climate change knowledge management, and monitoring

Climate change is having wide impacts in the state. Besides, IPCC data, this has been attested by many studies (including WWF, 4*4 Assessment, Max Plank Institute, ICIMOD). Recent study on climate change imprints in Uttarakhand conducted by the UCCC using local data, also clear impacts on temperature, rainfall, glaciers, glacial and perennial rivers, and other water bodies, snowfall period, shift in vegetation line etc. The state has set up UCCC and came out with a draft State Action Plan on Climate Change. The Action Plan proposes to have a steering committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister. Climate change is seen only as a responsibility of MOEF and Nodal Officer.
·      Close inter-ministerial coordination, and integration of climate change, agriculture, forests, water and disaster management
·      Improved weather information system and early warning system by merging traditional knowledge with scientific data
·      Enhance coverage of risks and insurance of crops and livestock to insulate farmers from weather shocks.
·      Policymaking should be based on local needs and ensure wider participation of people, farmers and local bodies

2.       Sustainable water use and soil moisture management

Data shows reduction in precipitation, glacial melting and retreat, conversion of perennial rivers in non-perennial rivers, change in monsoon and snowfall patterns, reduction in water table and poor ground water recharge, loss of traditional water bodies etc. Big dams have not resulted in expansion of irrigated areas as planned. Uttarakhand has a rich history of planned watersheds, however, they seem to have outlived their utility. Improving water holding capacity of the soil, preventing run off of rainwater and preventing loss of top soil must be first priority for the state.
·   Small check dams should be made to facilitate irrigation and improve soil moisture. No big dams should be made without assessment of cumulative impacts of big dams on environment.
·   Infiltration holes, trenches, bio percolation tanks can help improve water recharge
·   Increased plantation can prevent top soil and rainwater run off
·   Drip and sprinkler irrigation (currently has limited use) should be promoted by setting up technology banks, which small farmers can access and use.
·   Rainwater harvesting should be mandatory in cities.

3.       Crop Management

Uttarakhand has rich diversity of crops, millets, vegetables, fruits, medicinal plants, forest food plants, which are being lost of monoculture. High yielding varieties promoting monoculture are less resilient to climate change impacts and are likely to fare worse in future. Presently only few crops are available which are flood, drought, hailstorm resilient. Similar crops for pest resistance, thermal resistance, having less water foot print, and short duration crops are required. Chemical pesticides, fertilizers and increasing temperature has brought in various new pests and diseases in crops.
·      Sustainability of food production and agriculture lies in diversity, promoting local seeds and crops including millets.
·      Loss of top soil and water holding capacity of soil should be addressed with priority.
·      Traditional varieties of flood, drought resistant seeds should be promoted
·      Increased investment should be made in vegetables, fruits, flowers, medicinal herbs by making available infrastructure for storage, processing, marketing.
·      Promote increased use to biofertilizers through providing incentives to small farmers.
·      Prevention of animal infestation by controlling population of monkeys and wild pigs.
·      Prevent growth and expansion of useless grasses including gazar ghas, lentana, kala bassa and chirpine.

4.       Livestock Management

Livestock is a good adaptation strategy which makes up for the loss of crops. However, in view of lack of fodder and water, farmers are resorting to distress sale of animals. Sensitive disposal of aged and useless animals is not available. Livestock is also good to reduce rural inequity and poverty.
·   In view of changing composition of agriculture and increasing contribution of livestock in the state agricultural GDP, improved investment in livestock and fisheries demand urgent attention.
·   Prevent the spread of useless grasses and promote kharik, bhimal, Bedu
·   Reverse encroachment of village commons and pastures
·   The number of veterinary hospitals, AI centres, vet attendants, mobile vet health units needs to be increased substantially.
·   Selective breeding needs to be done for climate resilient varieties of cattle, the focus is still on brfeeding exotic varieties, which has very low climate resilience.
·   Sheep rearing needs should be promoted, the government should also make appropriate arrangements for processing and marketing of wool.
·   Livestock insurance has a very limited reach in the state, which needs to be enhanced.











Friday, February 8, 2013

Rubble from Rio; making sense of a failed Summit



The Rio +20 Summit came to a close on 22nd June with hundreds of the heads of the state appreciating the efforts of the hosts in creating consensus on an outcome document titled “the future we want,” after months of intense and often acrimonious negotiations. The President of Brazil Ms. Dilma Rousseff, in her closing speech cautiously described the event as “a starting point.” The other dignitaries described the outcome as “balanced” where all the countries had something close to their hearts. The EU Climate Commissioner Ms. Connie Hedegaard also made a tongue in cheek remark (in a brief meeting with the author), “of having placed hooks at the right places, which will not be easy to dismantle.” However, except for diplomats who are trained in the art of verbal dexterity, many others were not so discreet in their judgment about the near total failure of the Summit. Kumi Naidoo from Greenpeace, said that the outcome document was the longest suicide note. As a matter of fact, the Summit and the outcome document, acknowledged the urgency and need for action on all three pillars economic, environmental and social, but it did not go any further.  In the end “ the future we want” remained an opulent verbosity with no commitments. While the political leaders are happy to have salvaged the Summit; the people share an agonizing frustration over an opportunity wasted and sense of disbelief in multilateralism to deliver. Let’s ponder over few important issues and outcomes from the summit.

Poverty eradication: The outcome document identifies poverty eradication as a major challenge that the world faces today and renews political commitment to address it. It is in fact highly shameful that more than one sixth of the humanity still lives in abject poverty, more than 1 billion people without access to food, and 1.4 billion people without access to electricity, which has a key role in poverty reduction. The Para 2 of Our Common Vision declares “eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensible requirement for sustainable development. In this regard we are committed to freeing humanity from poverty and hunger as a matter of urgency.” Though the outcome document does not go beyond acknowledging poverty as a major challenge, its recognition itself is very important in keeping poverty eradication on the political agenda, not only in the developing countries, but also serving as stark reminder to the developed and rich countries of their responsibility in lending a helping hand to lift half of world population out of poverty.

Reaffirmation of Rio Principles and CBDR; Despite stiff resistance from the rich countries to keep the CBDR out of the document, developing countries solidarity could pull this off. The outcome document makes two references to the CBDR, the text in Reaffirming the Rio Principles and past action plans, and in the text on climate change. This is of extreme significance, as in the Durban, developing countries have carelessly bartered this away, and it was believed that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to bring this in due to extreme abhorrence of the US with the phrase. Though developing countries failed to bring CBDR in the language in the finance and technology transfer, in the chapter on means of implementation, nonetheless existence of CBDR and reaffirmation to Rio principles and climate change (in key thematic areas) is enough reminder to the rich countries of their historical role and impending responsibility to provide leadership in climate stabilization efforts.

Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies; The commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies can be the most remarkable outcome of the Summit, if the world leaders remain true to their words. It can definitely be a major take away from the Rio+20. More than 1 trillion of the USD is given to dirty energy companies, which is the major impediment is development of responsible and renewable energy choices. However, there is nothing to be very enthusiastic about the phasing out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. The G 20 summit in Pittsburgh (2009) committed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and every G8, and G20 summits hence have reiterated this commitment, however, very little action has reached the ground. As a matter of fact, high secrecy still envelopes fossil fuel subsidies and the ways in which it is given, with few countries like the UK and Japan outrightly reject existence of these subsidies in their countries.  Greater transparency and political will have to precede if governments are serious about actual reduction in subsidies.

Programme on sustainable consumption and production (SCP): The outcome text commits to undertake a10-yearframework of programmes on SCP. It can be extremely helpful in building capacity of business, communities and households on understanding and moving towards sustainable and responsible production and consumption patterns respecting the carrying capacity of the earth. In the current consumption patterns, global use of resources is likely to quadruple in 20 years. SCP has been on the international agenda since Agenda 21 (1992) identified unsustainable production and consumption patterns as the major cause for continued deterioration of the global environment. The JPOI adopted at the WSSD, Johannesburg (2002), adopted a ten-year framework of programmes in support of national and regional initiatives to accelerate the shift towards consumption and production patterns. UNEP launched the Marrakech process in 2003 and has since then convened three meetings. Rio+20 did nothing more than to agree to the adoption of a 10 FYP in the pursuance of process launched after the WSSD.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Initially proposed by Columbia, and supported by Guatemala, SDGs were seen as the most tangible outcome from the Summit.  While most of the countries seem to be agreeable to the concept of the SDGs, sharp differences existed on approach, content and implementation. The EU support for defining SDGs notwithstanding, the final document desisted from giving it a final shape and said “ SDGs should be action oriented, concise and easy to communicate, limited in number, aspirational, global in nature and universally applicable to all countries while taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting national policies and priorities…..”(Para 248).  It also committed to set up a thirty member working group in the 67th session of the UNGA and will submit a report to the 68th session, containing a proposal for sustainable development goals for consideration and appropriate action. (Para 248)

Green Economy: Vaguely defined concept of green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, one of the two themes of the Summit, was hotly contested, with many rich countries trying to push an action plan on green economy, and developing countries fearing a blanket green economy framework restricting their right to development. Unflinching stance of G77 and China, in demanding Green Economy as a tool won the day, with Green economy being referred to as “green economy policies”, or “policies for green economy”, rather than “a green economy.” The text mentions “we affirm that there are different approaches, visions, models, and tools available to each country, in accordance with its national circumstances and priorities, to achieve sustainable development in its three dimensions, which is our over arching goal. In this regard we consider green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication as one of important tools available for achieving sustainable development and that it could provide options for policymaking but should not be a rigid set of rules……”(Para 56). Removal of the vowel was widely celebrated in the Indian camp as victory on the last frontier.

Institutional framework for sustainable development (IFSD); Global environmental governance has been the weakest link in the sustainable development, and the Summit could have been a landmark event to strengthen it, make it more transparent and accountable, but it chose to do it in the weakest possible manner. From amongst the options proposed, consensus could be created on scaling up UNEP with universal membership and the finances. Aspirations of African group to make UNEP a specialized UN agency (which has greater clout) could not be realized and UNEP still remains an institution.The other proposal to form a Sustainable Development Council (SDC) on the lines of Human Rights Council, was transformed into setting up of a high level political forum, to take over from UNCSD. The General Assembly will define the format and organizational aspects of the HLF and will convene the first forum in 68th Session.

What Rio+20 failed to deliver

The zero draft was seen as a very weak and unambitious document from the beginning and there were several calls from developing countries to focus on root cause of unsustainable development namely, reform in global financial architecture and role of IFIs, technology transfer, reform in trade framework including making IPR restrictions flexible so that they can access and use green technologies, and strengthening the means of implementation to support their transition to a green and clean future. However, developed countries failed to raise the level of ambitions and provide additional finance or technology.

There is no money honey; The G77 and China had proposed setting up a sustainable development fund of 30 billion USD by 2013 to be scaled up to 100 billion USD by 2015. It was based on an old UNEP proposal made in 1992. However, developed countries completely refused to provide any new and additional finance saying that Rio+20 was a not a “pledging moment” and countries should “look forward rather than backwards.” They also suggested that most of the finances required will have to come through innovative finances, which literally means from market mechanisms and public private partnerships. South South cooperation and triangular cooperation are proposed to complement (read replace) north south cooperation.  A compromise between the warring blocks (North and south) was reached by a proposal to set up a 30 member expert committee to assess financial needs, which will complete its work by 2014. The Summit also urged the developed countries to ensure (Monterrey consensus) providing 0.7 % of the GNP to developing countries and 0.15-0.20% to the LDCs. The timing of the Summit when the Europe and the United states are fighting with continued economic recession too, did not augur well for the developing countries.

Summit trips on Technology transfer and IPR: Developed countries not only failed to provide much needed additional financial support, but also did a volte-face with regard to technology transfer. The developed countries are so much averse to the term technology transfer so that the title “technology transfer” was replaced by “technology,” and “technology transfer” was referred to as “technology transfer…… on favorable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed.” The references to IPR were altogether removed from the final text.

Key thematic areas; recognition of challenges but not rights: The outcome document also recognized 30 key thematic areas for further action and follow up such as poverty eradication, food security, nutrition and sustainable agriculture, water and sanitation, energy, sustainable tourism, sustainable transport, sustainable cities and human settlements, health and population, promoting full and productive employment, decent work for all and social protection, oceans and seas, small island developing states (SIDS), Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs), Africa, regional efforts, Disaster Risk Reduction, climate change, forests, biodiversity, desertification, land degradation and drought, mountains, chemicals and wastes, sustainable consumption and production, mining, education, and gender equality and empowerment of women. While they acknowledge the problems and challenges, and encourage action, there are no real commitments. While many alleged that the rights components have been further weakened in the final document, perhaps oceans and SIDS, received best possible treatment in terms of unambiguous language, bringing out clearly that business as usual is not the option.

Developing countries and Rio+20

The developing countries largely welcomed the document, even though they complained of lack of resources and technology for shift to green economy. Many of the developing countries wanted flexibility in defining green economy and SDGs, which has been left open enough for their own interpretations and definitions depending on their national circumstances, priorities and policies. This flexibility can be used well and also abused. The flexibility might allow the governments to get off the hook and get away with doing nothing new and continuing in business as usual approach. Many developing countries do have a track record of favoring the latter. BASIC countries too need to provide some real leadership and practice at home what they preach in big summits. Brazil has been under scanner as being the host of the summit. A world leader in clean energy with high hydropower production capacity and high ethanol production, Brazil set up a new climate regime in 2009 with voluntary national GHG reduction target between 36 to 39 percent. More recently, it has announced lowest deforestation rates, however, enhanced action is required as forest data predicts increased deforestation due to change in country’s forest code. South Africa has provided leadership to the African Union on climate change and sustainable development issues. However, the most remarkable outcome of the COP 17 hosted by the South Africa, was its fascination with “climate smart agriculture” under pressure from the World Bank, FAO, and industrial agriculture countries including the US, New Zealand, Canada and Australia. South Africa’s penchant for climate smart agriculture, which is a package of false solutions and agribusiness agenda, not only threatens food security and small, traditional and family farmers in the country but entire African continent undergoing second colonization through massive land grabs under the guise of responsible investment in agriculture in Africa. China and India have been perceived as blockers of Summits of late, have much to prove at home for their leadership in the developing world. China is an emerging giant in renewable energy, however, its investment in renewable energy is still dwarfed by its investment in dirty coal fire powered plants. Last but not the least in the league, India, even with three times increase in installed power capacity within the last three decades, it has failed to provide significant energy access to more than half of the population. Its continued dependence on coal, 10 proposed super critical ultra mega thermal power projects (4000 MW each approx), and fixation with nuclear energy continues to threaten millions of people with displacement, loss of livelihoods, forests and biodiversity. The lesson for them is to put their own house in order first.