The United Nations Climate Conference at Cancun has come to an end on a rather optimistic note. It was a welcome change from the Copenhagen summit that had rich countries dominate the proceedings. Cancun proceedings were better organized and steered providing the space for the developing world to articulate its concerns. The main achievements can be listed as below:

• The targets set by industrialized countries for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are recognized as part of the multilateral process. They must now draw up low-carbon development plans and strategies and also report their inventories annually.
• In the case of developing countries, actions for emissions reduction will be recognized officially- a registry will record and match their mitigation actions to finance and technology support from rich countries; and they will report their progress every two years.
• The formulation of global goals for emissions reduction has been linked to considerations of equity in formulating these goals.
• There has been advance in areas such as adaptation and technology transfer; there are specific recommendations with some give and take marking progress in the contested area of monitoring, reporting, and verification.

http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/13/stories/2010121363301200.htm

These are small and slow yet significant steps. The main achievement of the Cancun meet has been that some degree of faith has been restored in the multilateral process without too much of arm-twisting or collapse of the process of dialogue. It is indeed a huge challenge to find an acceptable outcome where there is so much difference and contestations between the developed and the developing nations.

Cancun creates an opportunity for the world to raise the collective level of emission-reduction targets. However, it doesn’t guarantee success, and there is no more agreement on how much should be done and by which countries. These are THE critical questions that have been put off till the next year’s summit in Durban, South Africa.

Do you think Cancun delivered on its promise?

• Global tourism services exports amount to US$ 3 billion per day, representing one third of global services exports.
• Tourism currently drives an estimated 6% of jobs in G20 economies with a strong multiplier effect on related services, manufacturing and agriculture, which depend on travel demand.
• Tourism and travel represents some 5% of GDP of G20 countries and 27% of their services exports.
• The wildlife tourism industry is among the most important and rapidly growing sectors of the international tourism industry. In Kenya, wildlife tourism presently brings in approximately US$200 million every year, and is the country’s largest earner of foreign currency.
• In Ecuador, the Galapagos Islands tourism raises as much as $60 million annually, and provides income for an estimated 80% of the islands’ residents.

Source: UNWTO (World Tourism Organisation), in their News magazine 2/2009; p.4-5: (see http://www.unwto.org/index.php ) and Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 (UN CBD 2006):

Travel and tourism is slowly but yet steadily being recognized as an important contributor to national economies providing people with livelihood. In many of the worlds poor countries, tourism is furthermore the main growth and trade driver. It is one of the largest employment sectors in most countries and a fast entry vehicle into the workforce for young people and women in urban and rural communities. While India is too big a country for its GDP to be dominated by tourism, there are opportunities that should be explored to enhance the role of sustainable tourism in development.

The process of globalization and the integration of world economies require more people to travel across the world for work and leisure. Over the last few decades there has been a tremendous growth in tourism – from 25.3 million international tourist arrivals in 1960 to 880 million in 2009. In 2009, international tourism generated US$ 852 billion in export earnings (UNWTO, 2010). Advances in transport technology allowing long-distance travel coupled with advertising creating surreal images stimulates interest of the affluent North in ‘exotic’ Southern locations (UNESCO). The trend is only likely to continue and increase as globalization touches more people and places. At the same time, can we undermine the damages that it does to environment and the problems it creates for the people living in the so called ‘tourist areas’?

Is it possible to evolve mechanisms to converge tourism and sustainability- in ways that optimize benefits and reduce damages?

As a global industry dependent on high quality natural environment, tourism has stakes in promoting sustainable practices. However, despite assurances at the global level for engagement in sustainability initiatives and development of promising tools and concepts for measuring and managing environmental and developmental damages, progress in transitioning from principles to pan-industry practice is limited. Strong political leadership, efficient delivery mechanism that prioritizes local sustainability concerns, committed and accountable tourism industry, informed tourists demanding responsible tourism are the essential pre-conditions for sustainable tourism. The extent to which we are able to meet the preconditions would determine the success of making tourism sustainable. If we think of a sustainable- unsustainable continuum, we are on the unsustainable end and from these pre-conditions appear to be rather utopian. However, a focus on the local determinants of sustainability and working towards achieving those is the only way of ensuring sustainability at the global level. Without this, sustainable tourism will remain rhetorical used only by experts with little meaning for those on ground.

Should travel and tourism be included as a developmental strategy in India?

As is common in the summer months, rural water-supply has again emerged as a problem. According to a newspaper report, in some tribal belts of Andhra Pradesh, women have to forgo their daily wages as they spend around three hours a day fetching water from another tandha (small tribal village) as all water sources in their thanda has dried up. Groundwater levels are so down that digging bore-wells have also not yielded any results .

The situation continues to worsen despite initiatives like the National Rural Drinking Water Program (NRDWP). In many thandas, providing water through tankers does not work because of their location in remote and at times inaccessible locations.

The drinking water problem is also rife in the sub urban areas and small towns. There is almost a cyclic relationship between the summers and the monsoons- while some measures are taken during the summer, the water supply points are damaged in the floods during the monsoons. There are reports of families now depending on the percolation pits dug in the river beds. A recent report states that in village Laxmipuram, 10 kms from Kurnool town, the entire population is dependent on percolation pits in the Hundri river bed. Villagers spend an hour every day to fetch water from the pit. While many have piped water supply at home, the quality of water is so poor that it cannot be consumed.

As India lauds itself for its economic achievements, access to drinking water continues to be a major problem for a huge part of the population. According to the Human Development Report, 2009, around 89 percent of the Indians are using improved water sources (2006 data). However, given that according to the same report, 75.6 percent of the population lives on less than two dollars a day. (http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/data_sheets/cty_ds_IND.html). These two figures really do not go very well together as the access of the poor to safe drinking water is likely to be impaired.

There is also the issue of contamination with most water sources reportedly contaminated by sewage and agricultural runoff. India has made progress in the supply of safe water to its people, but gross disparity in coverage exists across the country. Also, although access to drinking water has improved, the World Bank estimates that 21% of communicable diseases in India are related to unsafe water. In India, diarrhea alone causes more than 1,600 deaths daily (http://water.org/projects/india/)

Given the situation, it is important to take urgent measures to improve access to safe drinking water. Given that it is intrinsically linked with overall health and nutrition of the people, it is an issue that needs immediate interventions if we are serious about human development.

What can be done to improve access to safe drinking water?

The protected area (PA) network in India currently covers an area of 8.1 million ha, encompassing about 14 percent of the country’s forest area and 4.61 percent of its land mass.

Most PAs in India have a core zone with National Park status and a peripheral buffer zone, which can be either a wildlife sanctuary or a reserve forest. Resource use has been restricted to the buffer zones, where it has been regulated, while core areas are completely closed.

The basic approach to management of PAs has been exclusivist that understands natural resource management essentially as protection of the parks from people living in surrounding areas and shield wildlife and other natural resources from exploitation. Attempts to protect PAs from human intervention by coercion have often led to hostile attitudes of local people towards wildlife management and sometimes to open conflict.

In recent years there has been a shift towards participatory approaches in forest management and biodiversity conservation. The National Forest Policy (1988) declared that local communities were to be involved in natural resources conservation. Subsequently, in 1990 the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a circular for joint forest management (JFM) and resource sharing. The JFM approach seeks to develop partnerships between state forest departments (as owners) and local community organizations (as co-managers) for sustainable forest management. User groups receive usufruct rights only; land is not to be allocated or leased.

Since 1991, the Government of India has committed funds, particularly in the field of PA management, for eco-development (also called integrated conservation and development) and a site-specific package of measures for conserving biodiversity through local economic development. All the eco-development activities are administered by village eco-development committees (VECs) or forest protection committees (FPCs). Eco-development integrates environmental and forestry activities with those of other development agencies including such activities as the provision of drinking-water and irrigation facilities, village road-work, health care camps and employment generation for local communities in the vicinity of PAs. These activities have improved relationships between local communities and PA management staff.

However, Eco-development, as interpreted and implemented in India, has some inherent weaknesses-it limits local people’s participation in the management of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. The Forest Department, hierarchical in its decision-making processes, has difficulty to practice the new approach. Consequently, participation often means informal discussions. Also, under the present tenurial arrangements, it has been difficult to involve local people in conservation, since the earlier exclusionary approach failed to develop interest in conservation among local communities. Finally, while the list of eco-development activities can be quite comprehensive, it does not amount to a strategy. As a result, the conservation-development linkages are generally weak.

Given the scenario, the need to rethink about our intentions and how we go about implementing these need to be scrutinized. Are we ready for it?

Does the present approach to Protected Area (PA), protect the rights of the people dependent on it?

A year after cyclone Aila, the inhabitants of Sunderbans continue to live precariously.

According to newspaper reports, nearly three hundered thousand families were affected in South 24 Parganas district in the wake of Aila. District authorities said only about half the claimants have received the compensation amount so far. (http://www.hindu.com/2010/05/26/stories/2010052660100900.htm).

For the lucky few who received compensation, the amount was so meager that only temporary houses could be re-built. Those close to the now damaged embankments were washed away by heavy tidal waves, less than a year after they were re-built. The promised 600 crores central assistance for building 900 kms of damaged embankments is yet to arrive.

For many, the compensation has been used to buy basic provisions. With a failed crop and soil that continues to be affected by salinity, food production has been severely compromised. Degraded fields mean less work as agricultural labour.

While this is certainly a matter of concern, what is more appalling is the institutional apathy. Even in the wake of the First anniversary of Cyclone Aila, there was still no Disaster Management System or even an Early Warning System in place, instituted by the Government.

Aila was certainly a big blow, but life and livelihoods in Sunderbans have always been precarious. Tidal waves ravage villages every year. Roads and embankments are washed away every year. Crop failures of various degrees happen every year. Aila, being so devastating and sudden made it to the headlines. Civil Society Organizations working in the areas know that shocks and disasters are cyclic, whether or not they are newsworthy.

Quite a few NGOs are working it the area. Some of them have repaired water sources like tube wells post disaster. Some are engaged in providing disaster resistant water supply sources. Others are supporting alternative livelihood activities. However, the magnitude of the problem is such that it cannot be addressed by NGOs. According to their own estimates, all NGOs taken together impact approximately five hundred thousand people, of the estimated 45 hundred thousand who live in the Sunderbans.

The urgency of action cannot be over-stated. There are some recent efforts by NGOs working in the area and by academic institutions like Jadavpur University to study, document and recommend strategies and action plan for the development of this area. One can only hope that the effort is able to preserve the delicate man-nature balance in this fragile ecosystem.

How can the Sunderban areas be more resilient to natural disasters?

As we discuss the ways in which we can achieve sustainable development balancing economic, environmental and social aspirations, we are increasingly faced with the inescapable question of institutional choice.

When we talk environmental protection, who do we think should be in charge?

The Ministry of Environment and Forest, the Government of India?

The Forest Departments of the various states or the structures created by them?

Local governmental structures like Panchayti Raj Institutions and/ Municipal Corporations?

Environmental NGOs?

Local people?

All of the above?

Clearly, the answer is not straightforward. While we may talk about stakeholder participation, we know that it is easier said than done. Bringing these multiple actors on a common platform is not just difficult but often impractical.

There is often a conflict of approach as the different stakeholders conceptualize nature in different ways. The state represented by its ministries and departments often want to have some kind of an ‘ownership’ and control over the natural resources (and be the de facto owner even when some de jure community based structure like Forest Protection Committees are formed). The environmental NGOs (though any such generalization is problematic as there are many kinds of NGOs with varying ideologies) often view nature as a pre-social category that leads to the exclusion of the people, local institutions are often not empowered enough to balance access with conservation. So the question remains tricky.

Numerous studies including those by the Institutions and Governance Program, World Resources Institute have shown that countries and agencies claiming to support democratic decentraliza­tion often fail to empower democratic local governments. Instead, powers are transferred to a plethora of institutions, in­cluding non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private associations, which can be detri­mental to the legitimacy of local democratic institutions. The answer instead needs to be searched for in the context of institutions that empower the public do­main in conservation and the im­pact on the issues of representa­tion and accountability.

Which are the appropriate institutions for conservation of natural resources?

Climate change is the latest media scoop. It is almost fashionable in the media to ‘expose’ one ‘flaw’ after another of the findings of the International panel of Climate Change (IPCC). For many it is a vested group supported malign campaign. At the same time, it is also irresponsible media reporting that totally obscures the wider and real picture.

There is no denying that there was a mistake, particularly on its predictions about the future of the Himalayan glaciers. It’s a crucial mistake considering IPCC’s came into existence in order to facilitate scientific assessment, bring together robust evidence and undertake scientific studies on global warming and climate change. However, while all institutions should be open to questions, discrediting the entire climate debate based on this is stretching it too far.

The IPCC mistakenly published a figure that was not drawn from peer-reviewed literature, disregarding its stringent review processes. IT has subsequently issued a formal apology and has promised a stricter review process for the upcoming Fifth Assessment Report, which will summarize the current state of climate change science. Climate science plays a complex and important role in shaping vital policy decisions. Any misstep in the IPCC process is therefore of concern, and must be remedied.

However, the important thing is to, again, keep looking at the broader picture. The mistake, however serious, does not challenge the basis of climate change science, or evidence of global warming that is already visible across the globe. After many years of concerted international effort, to a great extent led by IPCC, our understanding of climate change has improved dramatically. There is no doubt that greenhouse gas emissions are leading to higher temperatures and sea levels, greater stresses on water supplies, and changes in ecosystems. They are also a leading factor in the retreat of most of the world’s glaciers.

Yes, the glaciers will not be gone by 2035, but the water they store will diminish throughout the region. This means additional stress on the region’s already limited freshwater supply. In recent years, groundwater level in northern India has been dropping one metre every three years. Meanwhile, demand for water in India is projected to double in the next 20 years. These additional stresses combined with regional warming pose a major challenge to the availability of adequate water supplies for the region in future. (Source: TimesofIndia) Can we discount all these concerns? Should we not develop a plan to deal with the situation? If not, who will be accountable?

It is important to be alert of the media scoops and fads. It will move from one sensational issue to the other, often without realizing the damage it might have caused. Also, it is convenient to be a climate skeptic in this climate of denial. However, it makes more sense to accept the ‘inconvenient truth’ about climate change and take steps to ensure that our children have a safer future.

Is the IPCC goof up eroding people’s faith in the climate change debate?

Suddenly everybody is talking glaciers?

What do we know about the glaciers, by the way? We dealt with them in our Class V (or VII) geography lessons: “A huge mass of ice slowly flowing over a land mass, formed from compacted snow in an area where snow accumulation exceeds melting and sublimation.”

 In recent times, building on concerns regarding climate change, there is a bit of an addition to the definition: “The retreat of glaciers affects the availability of fresh water for irrigation and domestic use, mountain recreation, animals and plants that depend on glacier-melt, and in the longer term, the level of the oceans. Studied by glaciologists, the temporal coincidence of glacier retreat with the measured increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases is often cited as an evidentiary underpinning of global warming”.

Glaciers are natural reservoirs, storing valuable freshwater on remote mountains for much of the population on our planet. For communities downstream of mountain glaciers, most of the energy, agriculture and infrastructures are developed in the context of an annual cycle of gradual melt-water runoff during the dry season. Naturally, the disappearance of the glaciers would have enormous socioeconomic impact around the world and with global warming that process is already underway- it might take more than what the IPCC had mistakenly predicted for the Himalayan Glaciers, but the process is on.

Peru and Bolivia have more than 90 per cent of the world’s tropical glaciers within their territories, and are also two of the poorest countries in Latin America (with 49 per cent and 63 per cent respectively of their populations living below the national poverty line). From the early 1970s to 2006, the surface area of glaciers in Peru and Bolivia decreased by 30 per cent. A long-term decline in water availability during the dry season would have very significant consequences for millions of poor people in both countries. (Human Development Report, 2007-2008).

 Studies predict there will be a dramatic decline, in the long-term, in water availability in the dry season in areas fed by glaciers. The accelerated melting of the tropical Andean glaciers is an undisputed fact. Dozens of articles in scientific journals have charted the demise of the ‘water towers of the world’ as a result mainly of rising air temperatures. Different modeling methods predict small increases in overall water availability in many areas fed by glaciers over the next 25-50 years due to increased glacial melt.(Human Development Report, 2007-2008).

 We do not know nearly enough about glacier behaviour, or about how the different drivers of water supply interact. Finally, more scientific research, subject to careful peer review is critical to build a body of knowledge about glaciers. However, even if we were armed with better data, climate change is riddled with variability and surprises for which we should be prepared.

In the context of geographical variability and unpredictability, what should be done to strengthen the knowledge base on climate change? Is there a need for greater decentralization?

A couple of years back, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. One of the important claims was that the world’s glaciers were melting at a rapid pace and that those in the Himalayas could melt by 2035. This was a very serious concern as it could have had long term and disastrous impact with both flooding and water scarcity predicted as possible happenings.

However, in the past few days, the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report. Also, the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with a scientist who has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and not supported by any formal research (Source: TimesofIndia).

While it is definitely a good news, it reflects one of the most serious failures in climate research. It also puts the Nobel prize winning institution, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in an embarrassing position as it was set up to lead and put together scientific evidence and advice on climate change. The IPCC report did not trace back the source of the claim. The WWF study that it referred to had borrowed the figure from the interview that was not based on any rigorous scientific evidence.

Glaciologists from the Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun based on their study of 10 years shows 15-20 metres recession which is not considered alarming. The research also pointed out that many were receding at a much slower rate of 5-7 metres per year and some weren’t receding at all.

Contraction and expansion of glaciers is also a part of natural geological process. Also, the Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to disappear by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise.

However, it is a reality that the glaciers are melting. What is being debated that they are not wasting away at the rate suggested by the IPCC. What is most disturbing is the fact that in the context of an increasingly skeptic world, to an extent facilitated by strong industry lobby- automobiles, etc and to an extent by those resisting lifestyle changes, this gives another reason to continue with a business as usual approach. This is really worrisome as there is so much more to climate change that just melting of glaciers.

Do you think that the recent controversy about melting of the Himalayan glaciers, undermine the general risk perception about climate change?

While women are likely to most impacted by a changing climate, their issues have not received the attention they deserve in the recent debates and negotiations, according to the 2009 edition of the United Nations Population Fund’s State of World Population . The report argues that women’s issues, and especially women’s health issues, have been largely overlooked in discussions leading up to the UN climate talks in Copenhagen this month.

While it has been widely documented that the poor are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, what does not get noticed is that the majority of the 1.5 billion people living on $1 a day or less are women.

The vulnerability of women is enhanced as when livelihood shrinks as a result of failing agriculture or due to unfavourable natural phenomena such as floods and droughts, at the household level, the women are the first to go without food. Also, more often than not, the poorest live in unsafe homes in marginal areas that are vulnerable to floods, rising seas, and storms. Research cited in the report and elsewhere shows that women are more likely than men to die in natural disasters-including those related to extreme weather-with this gap most pronounced where incomes are low and status differences between men and women are high.

However, it is not just about ‘vulnerabilities’ that make women central to the climate change discourse - it is their rather their ‘capabilities. Investments that empower women and girls-particularly investments in education not only enhance their developmental potential but their capabilities to impact climate change. Girls with higher levels of education, for example, tend to have smaller families as adults, and the ensuing lower fertility rates contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions and improved adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Also, educated and sensitized women with control over household management are more likely to adapt to greener technologies and sustainable ways of doing things (for example drying clothes outdoors rather than using a dryer).

However, a recent report published by Worldwatch and the United Nations Foundation, Global Environmental Change: The Threat to Human Health, notes that 200 million women worldwide currently lack access to the family planning services, ranging from contraception to reproductive health counseling. Providing these services and empowering women to take reproductive decisions is an important step towards controlling populations that in turn would reduce pressure on resources.

How should the gender dimensions of the climate change discourse be better articulated?