Rio+20 update: Rich countries concede on green economy; stalemate on finance, technology continue

Rio+20 update

Rich countries concede on green economy; stalemate on finance, technology continue

Ajay K Jha, 17^th June, Rio de Janeiro

United Nations Sustainable Development Summit, billed as biggest event on environment and sustainable development in Rio de Janeiro, which was also the venue of historic Earth Summit in 1992 is witnessing stiff resistance from the developed countries. The Summit, which began on 13^th June with the aspiration of renewing political commitment to sustainable development, is plagued by the differences between developed and developing countries over a number of issues.

With only few days remaining before the high level forum from 20^th to 22^nd June, when more than 150 heads of the state for final declaration on the outcome of the summit, differences remain not only on language of the outcome document titled “the future we want” but also on fundamental and major issues such as reaffirming commitment to Rio principles laid down by the world earth summit in 1992, vision, finance, technology transfer, and sustainable development goals. The differences also plague negotiations on green economy and institutional framework for sustainable development, two themes of the Summit.

Several rounds of negotiations leading to the Summit have failed to bring a convergence, and many feel that it might ultimately prove a damp squib with no real and effective outcome to support sustainable consumption and production leading to sustainable development. United Nations Secretary General, Mr. Ban ki Moon, speaking at the inaugural Plenary termed the Summit as the once in a life time opportunity and urged the delegates to “make the most of time” in coming to an effective outcome. He also said that “launching the sustainable development goals and improving institutional framework on sustainable development” should be two objectives that the countries should work to achieve.

However, the negotiations till now do not show the promise of resolution of conflicts, which have become deeply entrenched on north south lines. While the developing a poor countries many of them entrenched in poverty, and lacking resources and technology to devise green development pathways insist that developed countries should lead the way in providing finance, technology and capacity building on the basis of common but differentiated responsibility, a key principle for international development cooperation as laid down in the Rio Earth Summit. They also insist that developed countries fulfill their previous promise of providing 0.7% of their GNP to developing and poor countries. However, rich countries say that Rio+20 is not a “pledging event” and that world has changed dramatically from 1992 and developing countries should “look forward rather than looking backwards.” Their common refrain is developing countries should take equal responsibility.

Very little has been achieved in the initial three days of negotiations in the third prepCom. A breakthrough of sorts was arrived when developed countries conceded on language of the green economy and agreed to use the “green economy policies” rather than “a green economy.” G77 insists that there cannot be universally applicable definition of “green economy,” which will be subject to circumstances of the particular country, and therefore, they should be allowed to define it according to their needs and priorities. However, major differences still remain on provision of finance and technology transfer, and the sustainable development goals. The US and the Canada, outrightly refuse to respect previous commitments regarding increase in the overseas development assistance (ODA), as they never agreed to it. On new and additional finance, rich countries say that finance has to come from south south collaboration, FDI, and the markets. Financial support from IFIs and UN systems is also not an option for rich countries. G77 insists that “global solutions will have to be supported internationally.”

Similarly, technology transfer is also a much hated word for the developed countries, and many of them including the US. The EU, Australia, New Zealand and Canada want to replace technology transfer with “technology development and innovation.” They also insist that language on technology transfer be changed to “technology transfer voluntarily or on mutually agreed terms. They also want to remove any references to IPR, patent rights held by rich countries for green technologies, are major handicap in transfer and effective use of technology in developing and poor countries alleges G77.

The delegates are wondering what will be the form of discussion and negotiation, after the end of the PrepCom. They also wonder whether the same level of transparency will be maintained henceforth towards the final negotiation and outcome. All await the new text that Brazillian  govt. chair the Summit has promised. The lull in the negotiations also reflect that uncertainty about the future of the planet and the environments.

End of message

Comments and feedback are welcome at k.ajay.j@gmail.com

MYTH OF CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE

MYTH OF CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE

(Ajay Jha, PAIRVI)

Climate change is not only an environmental issue but a defining problem for generations to come which can slow down the pace of progress towards sustainable development either directly or through increased exposure to adverse impact or indirectly through erosion of the capacity to adapt. It is estimated that developing countries will bear some 75% to 80% of the costs of the damages caused by the changing climate. Even if global warming is limited to 2°C (which is definitely not the case as of now), the costs of adaptation for developing countries are likely to be in the range of $ 75 billion to $ 100 billion a year in the period 2010 to 2050 (World Bank, 2009). It will have significant bearing on the sustainable development and poverty reduction in developing countries and their ability to attain Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015.

Globally, 1.7 billion farmers depend on agriculture, the proportion of which is substantially large in developing and least developed countries. The increasingly erratic climate variability and unpredictable extremes of weather are already having adverse impacts on agriculture and food security, which will increase. South Asia and Africa are projected to be particularly vulnerable to these changes due to their large populations and great dependence on agriculture for livelihoods. Majority of the developing countries and small island states are most likely to be affected. Even with a temperature rise of 1–2°C, the IPCC predicts serious effects, including reduced crop yields in tropical areas leading to increased risk of hunger, spread of climate-sensitive diseases such as malaria, water stress in Africa, increased risk of floods followed by drought and water scarcity for millions of people, inundation of coasts and threat of stronger tropical cyclones, complete submergence of some small island states and an increased risk of extinction of 20%–30% of all plant and animal species.

With public spending of less than 4%, agriculture contributes 29% of developing countries GDP and provides employment to 20% of the global and 65% of developing countries populations. The impact on agriculture will have profound impact on livelihoods, food production and access to food. Even without climate change impacts, prices are expected to increase significantly as population and income growth outstrip productivity and increase in total land area in agriculture. Climate change will further exacerbate this trend with wheat prices increasing by an additional 94-111% and maize by 52-55%. South Asia, a net exporter of food, is expected to become net importer of food by 2050 in no climate change scenario and with climate change its imports are estimated to increase by 550%. Sub Saharan Africa’s imports are expected to increase by 270% depending on the scenario. Latin America and the Caribbean countries would gain substantially and might turn into net exporter of cereals.^[1]

Agriculture and climate change connection

It is alleged that agriculture contributes to around 12% of total GHG emissions and it could be as high as 30% including land use changes and deforestation. The sector is responsible for 47% of the world methane emission and 58% of the nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions. Methane contributes of 3.3 Gt of CO₂e per year through enteric fermentation in livestock, and nitrous oxide contributes 2.8% Gt CO₂e as emissions from the soils as a result of application of nitrogen fertilizers and as nitrogen excreted in livestock feces and urine. CO₂ accounts to only a small proportion of agricultural emissions. Agricultural soils both emit and absorb large fluxes of CO₂e resulting in small net emission of 40 Mt CO₂e, less than 1% of global anthropogenic emissions.

It is alleged that more than 75% of these emissions originate in developing countries and can be easily mitigated through soil carbon sequestration. That by implication means that developing countries that are already under huge impacts of climate change brought about by the developed world will also have to take the burden of mitigation and adaptation also. The developing countries also have failed to see through the design that under the pretext of agriculture and food takes the focus out of sources of emission in the developed countries and being lured by money that mitigation in agriculture can bring to them. While we later come back to what is being offered on the table through rosy pictures of soil carbon sequestration to developing countries, let us first understand the agricultural emissions in developed and developing countries.

There is no denying the fact that majority of the agricultural emissions come from developing countries. The argument is also being extended to show how inefficient developing countries are in managing their agricultural emissions. However, as a matter of fact developed countries use three times more energy in producing one unit of food as compared to developing countries. The agricultural emissions of developing countries are huge only because the area of agriculture and livestock headcount in developing countries is far greater than in developed countries, where agriculture is highly mechanized and is a purely economic activity engaging insignificant proportion of population (less than 1% of the population in the US is engaged in agriculture) and makes insignificant contribution to the GDP. In absolute terms agricultural emissions in developed countries far outstrip the emissions in developing countries. In fact, mitigation in agriculture is being promoted by countries who have significant proportion of their emissions coming from agricultural exports and should be addressed first in these countries.

Agriculture in the UNFCCC and climate change negotiations

The Convention places obligations on Parties that could directly or indirectly affect agricultural activities. The linkage between climate change and agriculture is addressed directly in Article 2 of the treaty which states:

“stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system… should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

Under Article 4 of the Convention, developed countries have the specific obligation to “adopt national policies and take corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change by {…} protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs.” Preambular paragraph 4 of the Convention also mentions the role and importance of sinks and reservoirs of GHGs in terrestrial ecosystems. When formulating Party obligations, the Convention, rather than focusing on specific mandatory obligations, focuses on general preparatory measures, such as to:

• Promote and cooperate in the development, application and diffusion, including transfer, of technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions of GHGs in all relevant sectors including {…} agriculture.
• Promote sustainable management, and to promote and cooperate in the conservation and enhancement, as appropriate, of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gasses {…} including biomass.
• Cooperate in preparing for adaptation to climate change; develop and elaborate appropriate and integrated plans.

In climate change negotiations, agriculture appeared in  draft decision “J” in the LCA text in Copenhagen COP under the umbrella of article “I.b.iv” of the Bali Action Plan referred to as “cross-sectoral approaches,” mainly promoted by the agriculture export dominated “Umbrella Group” countries of New Zealand, Canada, Australia, supported by Switzerland and the United States. Later on few developing countries including Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Philippines, Thailand, and Bolivia have been participating in the debate. Saudi Arabia also remains engaged on this issue given that oil and energy are critical elements of “cross-sectoral” mitigation actions. In Bonn, India and African countries also engaged on this issue, with the concern of unilateral trade measures being imposed by certain countries in agricultural trade. 

The entire focus in agriculture remained on mitigation and the LCA adaptation chapter had only a footnote reference to agriculture linking the sector to projects and programmes. The COP 15 at Copenhagen remained embroiled in power politics and the three page outcome text of Copenhagen did not have any reference to agriculture. Post CPH, responding to the call of Copenhagen Accord (CA) to inform UNFCCC of their quantified economy wise emission targets, 35 developing countries included agriculture in their NAMAs. Subsequent meetings (at Tianjin and Bonn) further included texts in LCA (mitigation in agriculture) on the proposals of G-77, Argentina and Bolivia, and requested Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) of the UNFCCC to develop a Work Programme on Agriculture to study the impacts of climate change in agriculture and come up with firm proposals on mitigation. In the meantime a Global Research Alliance on Agricultural GHGs was launched led by New Zealand, US and Japan also. The Cancun COP failed to push work programme on agriculture and all the text from mitigation chapter in the LCA was dropped.

In Bangkok and Bonn inter-sessional conferences, the agenda fight also brought back the attention on agriculture on the issue whether agriculture should remain in the LCA or should be delegated to the SBSTA. New Zealand and Canada proposed a direct SBSTA work program or a broader discussion in the LCA outside of 1.b.iv, while the G-77 insisted that the framework of the Bali Action Plan be adhered to and thus agriculture should remain under 1.b.iv. They also pushed to address agriculture within the LCA in “additional matters” rather than under “cross-sectoral approaches” so as to remove references to trade in previous agriculture drafts. In the end, the G-77 fought hard to keep agriculture under cross-sectoral approaches, where they felt a general framework for cross sectoral approaches needed to be developed balancing all sectors, including bunker fuels. New Zealand and others wanted to launch the work program and/or deal with agriculture outside of cross-sectoral approaches to avoid a trade discussion. They also asserted that they wanted to address both adaptation and mitigation regarding agriculture. 

As of now, agriculture is not on the SBSTA agenda but remains in “cross sectoral approaches.”  However, there are pressures from other quarters as well. The Cancún Agreement, which form the basis of continuing negotiations, emphasize the role of carbon markets in climate finance, paving the way for an increase in agricultural offsets. LULUCF is being renegotiated as AFOLU to include most of the agriculture as Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use. It is mention worthy that under LULUCF reporting emissions from agriculture was optional which developed countries use to their advantage by not reporting. However, of late developing countries have shrilled the campaign on closing the gap in the LULUCF and hence developed countries want more market based mechanism to reduce their emissions and hence demand for including soil carbon sequestration under market based mechanism through REDD Plus. Originally REDD Plus allowed less than 1% carbon credits through soil carbon sequestration. Though REDD Plus is still being negotiated World Bank and FAO have already launched their pilot projects on soil carbon sequestration!

What’s the problem with soil carbon sequestration?

The soil carbon sequestration is a methodology mired in inadequate scientific knowledge, inappropriate existing data and capacity of countries to measure soil carbon given the large diversity in different agro climatic zones, and unsound techniques for evaluation. The technical difficulties and key uncertainties for carbon stocks accounting were strong enough reasons to dissuade the negotiators from including soil carbon sequestration in CDM originally. The Kyoto Protocol had ruled that soil carbon sequestration and avoided deforestation are not eligible for CDM credits. Now, economic and political powers (led by the World Bank, FAO, large agribusiness, and interested countries) are looking eagerly to rewrite the rules by expanding the eligibility of CDM projects to soil carbon sequestration mitigation activities, leaving aside the complexity and uncertainty of accounting for reductions in these sectors. However, new push for mitigation in agriculture shoves off all problems experienced and encountered till date. It is interesting to note that pilot projects launched for soil carbon sequestration does not have any baseline!

Climate smart agriculture and the associated evils

The climate smart agriculture being pushed down the throats of small farmers in the world is advocated as triple win, increased food production, cash for poor farmers and climate resilience in farming. It sounds impressive. However, there are no models yet to show that it can happen in the way which is being proposed. In fact what climate smart agriculture promotes is technical fixes in agriculture through no till conservation, increased use of GMOs and pesticide, agrofuels, industrialization and corporatization of agriculture. The hosts of solutions being offered have two certainties, one they will result in substantial profits for the agribusiness TNCs and secondly, they will be catastrophic for small farmers, which will not only be herded into large farm tracts to facilitate climate smart agriculture, but will also completely lose their sovereignty over seed, land, production and their autonomy to produce what they need and want.

Let us have a look at some of the proposals on the table, which are being proposed as a means to climate smart agriculture and sure shot formulae for sequestration of soil carbon (carbon transactions are today a US $ 300 billion market) and cannot in any way be a solution to the crisis either in agriculture or climate.

GM Crops: GM crops are not only dangerous for human and animal health and environment but also greatest threats to the seed sovereignty of small farmers. They are also increasing the danger of depleting the world’s seed-diversity, crucially important in a climate-challenged world. Only Du Pont has more than 40% of the patents registered for climate ready crops between 2008 to 2009. Together with Monsanto and BASF, it controls more than 66% of the patents registered.

No till or conservation agriculture: Monsanto has been lobbying since 1998 to get no till agriculture approved as CDM methodology. It claims that its roundup ready products help tackle climate change, as they do not require tilling and control weeding by heavy dousing of round up herbicides. Approval to no till agriculture methodology will enable it to lure farmers with the dreams of accessing carbon credits and sale of its chemicals will result in unimaginable profits. However, it will be a sure disaster for small holders and poor farmers, with companies falling over one another to control larger tracts of lands.

Bio-char: Bio-char methodology is based on the premise that applying charcoal to soils will create permanent carbon sinks and increase soil fertility and water retention. The concept originated from the discovery of organic carbon rich soil, or ‘terra preta’, in the Amazons.  It entails huge tracts of lands being kept fallow for centuries, requires ½ to 1 billion ha for carbon sequestration, which would have to be uncultivated for long times to come. To have any significant contribution in reducing agricultural emissions, the land required is 1.5 to 3 times the area of India. Whether land can be available at such a scale, can be taken out of critically needed food production - are huge questions? The UN Convention for Combating Desertification has already proposed bio-char, however, it did not find favor with many countries as it has serious impacts on fertility of the soil, food security for the present and significant contribution to acid rains. No biochar methodology has been approved by the CDM board yet, but a charcoal methodology has been approved which can be easily used by TNCs for biochar. Besides Plantar (Brazil) which initiated the proposed methodology and has extensive Eucalyptus plantations in Brazil, and Arborgen (South Carolina, USA), which develops genetically-engineered eucalyptus, are likely to benefit from it in a huge way. A recent study by MISEREOR has showed that none of the pilot projects on bio-char have been able to demonstrate any substantial benefit, and many of them have been already abandoned by the promoters.

Agrofuels: The CDM Board has approved (2009) a methodology for biodiesel production from dedicated plantations on ‘degraded or degrading land’. The definition of “degrading land” is so ambiguous that it covers almost all agricultural land and all ecosystems. Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill have benefitted directly and earned carbon credits. Other big biotech companies are also eyeing benefits from this methodology. It also needs to be noted that, with the spike in agro-fuel production in 2003-04, the amount of land under  conflict, and the no of land conflicts – have also sharply increased. It is mostly the land belonging to the indigenous communities and the village commons which are being targeted for agro fuel plantations, leading to serious existential crisis for these already threatened societies. On top of that, agro-fuels have large water foot-prints, aggravating an already serious water crisis due to the changing climate.

Agriculture financing needs and finance inflow from mitigation to agriculture; peanuts to peasants of the world

Large investments are required in agriculture to meet the projected demands and sustain food security needs. Even without climate change impacts, it is estimated that global investments of the order of US$ 9.2 billion annually will be required by mid century (FAO, 2009). Asia accounts for the largest share of investment (57%), with China and India alone requiring 41% of the projected investment. Sub Saharan and East and North Africa require 23% and Latin America requiring remaining 20%.

However, the public spending in agriculture is 4% in agricultural economies (developing and LDCs), which has risen significantly in the aftermath of food crises to 6%. More than 2/3rds of the investment in agriculture has come from private sector through local investments and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). About US $ 14 billion has been committed to farmland and agriculture infrastructure investment globally among more than 50 firms Agribusiness TNCs (OECD, 2010). UN statistics show that FDI in global agriculture production tripled between 1990-2001 to US $ 3 billion annually from less than US41 billion. The geographical focus of the investment centered on South America (led by Brazil) and Africa. These private investments are being deployed focused on production of major raw crops including oilseeds, corn, wheat and feed grains (83%), followed by in livestock production (13%). The trend shows a definite inclination towards forcing agricultural production to oil seeds, agro fuels and meat production. Low levels of public investment in agriculture have resulted in inadequate development in rural infrastructure, knowledge generation, and access to food and markets, which have kept the small farmers trapped in poverty.

Cancun agreement committed to mobilize US$ 30 billion from 2010-2012 to be scaled up to US$ 100 billion from 2020 onwards. There are significant uncertainties about from where the resources will be mobilized, and how it will be channelized. The apparent lack of money in agricultural finance has also provided an opportunity to advocates of market based mechanisms to ask for including agricultural mitigation in the CDM for look for new opportunities within market based mechanisms. However, as a matter of fact, even agricultural mitigation has awfully small money to offer to agriculture. Following financial channels are supposed to be main sources of finance for mitigation and a also adaptation in agriculture”

The global Environment Facility Trust Fund (GEF): The GEF operates the current financial mechanism of the Convention. For the period 2010–2014, a total of US$4.25 billion has been pledged, of which about US$1.35 billion is expected to be delivered to mitigation projects. These figures are considerably lower than the funding generated under the CDM and the sums are expected to flow through the Green Climate Fund, the GEF Trust Fund remains one of the largest sources of grant-based finance for mitigation.

UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol linked funds: The GEF also operates two other funds under the Convention: the Special Climate Change Fund, which focuses mainly on adaptation, and the Least Developed Countries Fund, which assists least-developed countries in preparing and implementing their NAPAs. Both funds provide adaptation funding for agriculture-related projects. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the Adaptation Fund supports projects and program in developing countries and is financed through a 2 percent levy on the share of proceeds from CDM project activities. Most of the projects accepted and proposed for funding to date have agriculture as a component.

The Green Climate Fund: The Cancun Agreements established the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as a financial mechanism under the Convention, with the World Bank serving as an interim trustee subject to a review three years after the fund begins operations. It is likely that the GCF will be set up by 2012, although it remains unclear where the resources for the GCF will come from and how much time it will take until the GCF starts receiving and channeling these funds to developing countries. It is also not clear to what extent the GCF will replace the GEF as the financial operating entity under the UNFCCC. The fact that Parties agreed that a significant share of adaptation funding will flow through the GCF shows that they expect a stronger role for the GCF in climate funding, at least with respect to finance for adaptation measures.

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs): NAMAs are voluntary mitigation actions by developing countries in the context of sustainable development goals and objectives that reduce emissions below the business-as usual baseline. Many developing countries have listed a number of activities related to agriculture in their NAMAs, for which they require international financial support.  However, the quantum and channel of support is indeterminable till date.

REDD+ and CDM: Though highly contentious, CDM and REDD Plus are being renegotiated to include agriculture, if that happens some finance will be available through this channel. However, most of them are likely to go the countries and agribusiness companies given the fact that claiming carbon credits is highly resource intensive and technical, and farmers and farming communities will have minimal access to whatever finance is available.

The truth of carbon finance for farmers; story of World Bank pilot project on soil carbon sequestration

The World Bank's flagship Biocarbon Fund project is billed as a triple win for more food production, cash for the poor and climate resilience. Really? The reality is that Africa's first "soil carbon" project – which will involve 60,000 Kenyan farmers planting trees, manuring the land, and farming in "sustainable" ways to save around 600,000 tonnes of carbon over 20 years – also exhibits the sheer madness of the carbon markets.

The US-based Institute for Agriculture Trade Policy (IATP) has now analyzed the fine print and found (PDF) that the project expects to earn $2.5m from the carbon markets. But to set it up, to employ advisers and consultants and to monitor it will cost $1.05m. The 60,000 farmers will then share the remaining $1.4m. This sounds good, but works out at a lowly $23.83 each over the 20 years, or just a little more that $1 per year. Moreover, they will only earn this if they change the way they farm and record precisely what they plant, burn and put on the land. Given that the poverty line in Kenya is around $1 a day, the chance for Africans to earn a tiny amount a year – while Swedish and other advisers earn massive amounts – is likely to end in tears.

Source: IATP

What happened with agriculture at Durban

The text on agriculture has remained unchanged for the last two years. The main reason for that was African countries insistence in bring in paragraphs on adaptation. Besides, at Cancun Argentina and Brazil supported insertion of text on trade “measures and agriculture,” which was fiercely opposed by New Zealand and the United States.

Looking at the extensive engagement of World Bank and FAO with African Ministers, some movement on agriculture was anticipated at Durban. Parties expected that taking up work programme on agriculture by SBSTA will be pushed again. Procedurally in Durban, the negotiations on agriculture were contained within the track on “Cooperative sectoral approaches,” and developing countries used this tactically to keep any conversation on agriculture linked to the broader debate about a “General Framework” for how all sectoral approaches should be addressed. Developing countries also used the space to leverage their text on trade, hoping some concessions as they thought developed countries will be too keen to have an outcome on agriculture. The developed countries hoped to take up the difference to the ministerial level talks, where they might be in better position to influence green room negotiations. The text framed by French Minister, after a series of meetings calls on SBSTA to consider taking up a work programme (at its 36^th session), and also calls on parties and observer organizations to submit their opinion by 5^th march 2012.

Text on agriculture agreed upon at Durban

D.  Cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions, in order to enhance the implementation of Article 4, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention

General framework :  (68). Agrees to continue its consideration of a general framework for cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions with a view to adopting a decision on this matter at its eighteenth session, as appropriate;

Agriculture : (69). Requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice [SBSTA} to consider issues related to agriculture at its thirty-sixth session, with the aim of exchanging views and the Conference of the Parties adopting a decision on this matter at its eighteenth session;

(70). Invites Parties and accredited observer organizations to submit to the secretariat,  by 5 March 2012, their views on the issues referred to in paragraph 69 above;

(71). Requests the secretariat to compile submissions referred to in paragraph 70 above by Parties into a miscellaneous document for consideration by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice at its thirty-sixth session.

Source: www. unfccc. int

While the decision to start a work programme on agriculture^[7] was delayed at Durban, however, what will happen further is not very unclear. The WB, FOA, CGIR in collaboration with the US, New Zealand, Australia and also EU, validation of soil carbon sequestration technologies as approved methodology might not be very far. Whether SBSTA takes up a work programme has become largely insignificant. As a matter of fact, the World Bank and the CGIAR have already made efforts, which makes the SBSTA work programme completely inconsequential. It is expected that pre determined outcomes of research programme on climate change and agriculture, will be soon showcased by these institutions. The momentum will be built up especially in Rio+20. Farmers and Civil society organizations need a collective and substantially enhanced strength and forum to counter these initiatives.

Small holders agriculture and CDM projects

Despite firm belief of institutions and countries pushing CDM in agriculture, natural and small holders farmers world over have overwhelmingly rejected CDM in agriculture as a solution to adverse impact of climate change on agriculture and food security. Their decision is based on imperfect functioning of markets in general and carbon markets in particular, and at the same time ethical objections against carbon credits, which have not only failed to have any contribution in climate stabilization but also have allowed polluting countries to pollute more. They believe market mechanisms divert the attention from root cause of the problem and incentivize further pollution and climate change and are against the notion of equity and Common but Differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities.

The African Biodiversity Network (Kenya), The Gaia Foundation (UK), Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), Practical Action (UK) came out with a charter immediately before COP 17, which brought out the myth of World Bank Climate smart agriculture project in Kenya. Their averments also reflect the feelings and apprehensions of small holder’s farmers’ world over. They argued:

1. Carbon markets are an over-hyped, unreliable, volatile and inequitable source of funding.  In spite of the vast volumes of money currently associated with carbon markets, only a tiny fraction of this goes to projects on the ground.  In 2009, out of a total global carbon market volume of $144 billion, just 0.2% of this was for project-based transactions. The remaining 99.8% was captured by large consultants’ fees and profits for commodity speculators, who trade carbon on international commodity markets like any other financialized product.

2. The global price of carbon is already too low and volatile to deliver reliable finance to projects.Analysts predict that with commodity markets facing turmoil, and carbon markets facing a likely flood of new offset products, the price of carbon will only go down.  This makes them a disastrous solution for food sovereignty, improved rural livelihoods and the agriculture adaptation needs of small producers.

3. Given the technical challenges and scientific uncertainties about the actual sequestration of carbon in soil, this makes for a poor “tradable asset”.  Given these uncertainties, soil carbon offset credits are ineligible for the European Emissions Trading Scheme – representing 97% of the global compliance market – until at least 2020.

4. Soil carbon and other agriculture offsets will not bring adequate, predictable, additional or reliable finance for adaptation or mitigation anywhere.   Instead these quasi-markets will require massive public funds for pre-financing, and serve mostly to generate profits for commodity speculators in the North.
5. Approval of a work programme could pave the way for costly and unproven technological fixes such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and other patented technologies and practices as solutions for “climate smart” agriculture. These technologies are not only prohibitively costly for developing countries, but also create new forms of corporate control over agricultural plant and animal genetic resources. Their safety is in doubt, and environmental, social and economic harm has already occurred from their use. They threaten to hinder rather than enhance agricultural adaptation to climate change.

What do farmers want?

There is considerable difference of opinion among the farmers’ organizations and civil society organizations working with farmers on the role of agriculture in climate negotiations. While most of them, see inclusion of agriculture only as a ploy of developed countries and agribusiness companies to rake up profit through mitigation in agriculture and are strongly opposed to any reference to agriculture in climate negotiations; there are others like Beyond COPenhagen who believe that while keeping agriculture completely out of climate negotiations might not be possible under intense pressure from umbrella groups and campaigning by big TNCs, it would be a better approach to help set games of the rules based on focus on adaptation, capacity building and technology transfer for adaptation needs of small farmers. We are extremely worried about the complete mitigation focus in agriculture. We believe that small holders agriculture is climate smart agriculture and there is no need to provide unnecessary techno fixes which will ensure complete hegemonization of agriculture by agriculture TNCs. We are extremely convinced that farming communities do have sufficient resilience against climate change and in the absence of which agriculture would have been in complete disarray given the impacts on agriculture. We strongly believe that much of the desired investment in agricultural adaptation will have to be come from public finance. Private investment in agriculture will be motivated by controlling and monopolizing agriculture in developing countries at the hands of big agribusiness TNCS and it shall have to be tailored by national governments to suit the needs of agriculture and farmers. The current debate on agriculture in climate negotiations offering technological fixes not only do not offer credible solution to the multiple crises of climate change, agriculture and food, but will definitely accentuate the crises. The international climate change negotiations are influencing national policies and especially agricultural policies to follow the international prescription, which is highly dangerous. The climate negotiators must make a distinction between highly industrialized high input western agriculture and low input sustainable agriculture in developing countries and mitigation in agriculture, if at all has to begin in countries with high emissions in absolute terms. The developing countries need to understand that climate change and agricultural solutions will have to be small farmer friendly, which are in dire need to adaptation support without being further burdened by mitigation. Sustaining small farmer’s agriculture in developing countries can only sustain economic growth with equity and food production and security, and mitigate climate change.

---

[1] Addressing Agriculture in Climate change Negotiations, A Scoping Report, Meridian Institute, 2011

[2] Turning farms into carbon sinks; agriculture and the COP 16 in Cancun, Joanna Cabello, GIZ, January 2011

[3] Biochar-a climate smart solution, Almuth Ernsting, MISEREOR, July 2011

[4] UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/press/news_room/newsletter/items/5563.php

[5] World Bank. Making the most of public finance for low‐carbon growth. 2009,

[6] http://www.adaptation-fund.org/node/794

[7] Work program, is supposedly a series of technical papers, workshops, leading to legal decisions. It might include work to develop and approve standardized methodologies to count emission reductions or carbon sequestration.

[8] Current price of CER is approx Euro 7 per CER, while majority of the climate finance discussion consider Euro 25 per CER as the floor price.

Critical Failures of Indian Weather Prediction in a Climate Challenged World

Critical Failures of Indian Weather Prediction in a Climate Challenged World

In terms of a farming tragedy, the drought in many parts of the country during the 2009 monsoon season, was yet fresh in the lives of our peasants, and it also took a significant toll on the Indian economy. Here we must make a difference between large scale, inputs intensive industrial agriculture – practiced in large scale in our grain belts of Punjab, Haryana and to some extent in Andhra Pradesh & Tamilnadu also – which were affected to a lesser extent (but still adversely affected) due to their capacity to access powered-irrigation, from the roughly 60% of Indian peasant farmers who still practice rain-fed cultivation, not necessarily by choice but largely out of lack of resources.   NORMALLY, one would not expect another drought like condition so soon – in 2012, especially with no adverse ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) condition in the beginning of the monsoon season, but these are not normal times in terms of the increasingly visible impacts of global climate change.  The beginning of the year 2012 saw a severe winter in Europe, by some accounts – the worst in the last 20 years.  Unusual snow-storms raged in southern Europe and also in north Africa.  Rome and Tripoli – of all places, experienced heavy snow falls. There was a large no of deaths in Europe from exposure to extreme cold, in late January and early February 2012.  This was followed by an unusually hot summer in southern and middle United States.  Its grain belt was scorched, leading to a significant fall in the production of corn, which combined with the US agro-fuel policy (of partly replacing mineral origin gasoline by biological origin ethanol and producing this from its abundant corn harvests) to create a global food crisis and food prices shooting up, leading to heavy hits being taken by the poor & food insecure in several countries.    And in the far northern summer, there are frightening decreases in the Arctic ice cover, and very worrying melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which are indications of things going way beyond normal.

The cold wave in Europe in the early parts of the year 2012 was caused largely by significant ‘incursions’ of the Jet Stream to the south over Europe, which allowed the colder air from northern latitudes to invade far south.  Northern hemispheric Jet stream is a large & strong band of upper atmospheric wind pattern between the temperate & arctic regions, and normally flow fairly straight from west to east – dividing the colder higher latitudes from the warmer southern ones, but when and where they protrude either south or north for long periods, these causes severe weather over these ‘invaded’ regions.  The jet streams (both northern & southern hemispheric ones), as is the ENSO phenomenon, are very much dependent on the global patterns of atmospheric & oceanic heat flows, both of which are undergoing fairly rapid (by geological time standards) and ‘erratic’ changes.  And these are causing drastic changes or ‘aberrations’ in the familiar weather patterns.  This is also evident from the apparently increasing frequency of the ENSO phenomenon, which were earlier occurring much less frequently – as shown by evidence from south American lake bed deposits (ENSO is an above normal warming of the equatorial waters of the western Pacific Ocean, from near the coast of south America, and the changes in precipitation & other resultant effects are recorded in the lake bed soil there). 

This global warming driven climate change is an unfortunate outcome of the energy intensive, consumption driven capitalist economic model that the world seems to have grown accustomed to, but we will not deal with that question here.  In this piece, let’s focus on the small farmers and other artisanal workers (including fish-workers and as such) of India, who have to depend on the blessings of ‘normal’ or familiar weather, and how the scientific community of meteorologists in India have failed to serve even their basic needs of reasonably correct information.   This is not to cut the usual jokes on our meteorological predictions (which are not entirely without justification) – as the challenges they face are significant, but to highlight how it is much more critical to generate and spread correct weather information to people dependent on such information for their livelihoods and also for the nation as a whole, not least in terms of disaster preparedness in the face of increasing number of devastating floods.  This is particularly important when the normal patterns of weather cycles people are accustomed to – are no longer holding true. It is also to bring to focus, that faced with this new challenge, new capacities need to be developed and deployed for the common good of the people, more so for the vulnerable, and here failures are and will continue to extract a heavier toll as the weather cycles become more & more ‘erratic’ or un-familiar from those observed over the last century.  We should also keep in mind – which is otherwise common knowledge – that for farming and also for disaster preparedness, the temporal & spatial distribution (time and geographic space wise spread) of rainfall is as important as the total rainfall, and this is one of the aberrations that is increasingly becoming a reality, with the number of rainfall days coming down along with an increase in rainfall intensity on a lesser no of days.  And it is here the failures of the India Meteorological Department – IMD – stands out more starkly.

Repeating its 2009 callousness, the IMD kept predicting a normal monsoon for the year 2012, though as a reflection of a lesson learnt from 2009 – they also added that they will closely watch the developing ENSO condition. This “normal monsoon” prediction continued till early July – again with an unfortunate similarity with 2009, in spite of atmospheric conditions over Pacific changing, and NASA satellites monitoring the developing El Nino and putting the information in public domains.  The other global signals – as highlighted in the first paragraph – were also clear.  There was hardly any good or positive signal from the Indian ocean dipole condition either. IMD also tried to assure the increasingly restless farming community and the other ‘stake holders’, by telling that the till-then deficient rainfall would very soon pick up and normal farming operations can resume.  This in spite of the rule of thumb that for Kharif wheat & paddy, July third-fourth week is normally the approximate cutoff period for enough rains for sowing, with 2-3 weeks of minimum lead time needed for field preparations. This is also dictated by the temperature regime and the time needed for these crops to mature.   Over the years, more and more farmers in mainland India have developed some (though not total – fortunately) dependence on the weather predictions by the IMD, in addition to their own indigenous methods.  The problem is, with climate change, these indigenous or traditional methods – which are based on long decades of observations of the connections between visible natural signs and the ensuing weather – are increasingly going off target.   The lamentable failures of IMD’s predictions  adds on to these woes, as farmers develop dependence on its predictions (see Economic Times Bureau article dated July 25, 2012), and pay a heavier price – while the IMD gets into yet another round of finding good excuses.  And it is not only in 2009 or in 2012 that we have seen this farmer-hitting costly prediction failures, as the figure below illustrates, the IMD’s reasonably correct predictions have come in less than 50% of the years, almost like the throw of a dice – painting its “scientific claims” in a very poor light. This is not a constraint of the science of meteorology, or the present state of the art, as evidenced by the ability of other agencies to ‘see’ well in advance – as evidenced by the USDA’s GAIN report, by the FRA-Japan’s reports etc.  This is indicative of the lack of expertise and effort on IMD’s part (starker in 2009 example), and unfortunate as we need a far better weather prediction success rate while facing the challenges of a world with rapid climate change.  The generous annual budgetary support to the dept has not improved the situation, will the new Rs.400 crore “Monsoon Mission” bring a better success rate ?

Since we are close to the end of the monsoon season (in northern India at least, by Sept. 20), let’s look at the total rainfall in different regions of India by end of July and also by mid-Sept 2012.

As a result of this deficient rainfall, the major Kharif  crop planting has also suffered (table below), putting many millions of farmers into distress.  Which the table below do not show is the amount of labour, money and other inputs that these farmers have put in, depending the “Normal Monsoon” prediction of the IMD, and the resulting financial distress.

Table 1. India: Progressive Planting of Major Kharif Food Grains

(Area in Million Hectares) Crop	Planting as of July 27, 2012	Planting as of July 29, 2011	Planting as of July 29, 2010
Rice	19.11	20.99	19.98
Corn	5.72	5.93	6.39
Sorghum	1.72	2.23	2.41
Millets	4.31	7.03	7.90
Pulses	6.30	7.39	8.18

Source – Ministry of Agriculture, GoI.

==================================================

Let’s take a look back into what happened in 2009.  The picture we saw of a weak South West

monsoon, unfolding as time went by.  About 177 districts out of a total of 600 odd had been declared drought-affected. Some more were facing drought-like conditions.  The ‘monsoon season

(June-Sept) was a little more than half way on, and reports of farmers’ suicides were already appearing from Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh etc.  Any travel in the dry districts of UP,  Bihar, AP, Jharkhand … showed vast tracts of land lying fallow or with dried up paddy seedlings.  And despite Govt. assurances of adequate buffer stocks, retail food prices shot up so much, as to force the non-rich to cut down on this essential consumption.

What went wrong ?  First let’s have a look at the rain-fall deficit for various regions of the country, and also for the country as a whole – from monsoon-start period of June 1 to July 29, 2009 (this data is  taken from the IMD release of July 31 2009) –

Seasonal Rainfall Scenario (1 June to 29 July 2009) – courtesy IMD

Period Ending	Country as a whole	Northwest India	Central India	South Peninsula	North East India
03.06.09	-32	-40	-50	-14	-32
10.06.09	-39	-31	-56	-15	-44
17.06.09	-45	-26	-72	-21	-46
24.06.09	-54	-49	-73	-38	-55
01.07.09	-46	-45	-59	-31	-41
08.07.09	-36	-50	-40	-18	-34
15.07.09	-27	-43	-15	-12	-40
22.07.09	-19	-38	3	-6	-43

Period ending	Country as a whole	Northwest India	Central India	South Peninsula	North East India
03.06.09	-32	-40	-50	-14	-32
10.06.09	-39	-31	-56	-15	-44
17.06.09	-45	-26	-72	-21	-46
24.06.09	-54	-49	-73	-38	-55
01.07.09	-46	-45	-59	-31	-41
08.07.09	-36	-50	-40	-18	-34
15.07.09	-27	-43	-15	-12	-40
22.07.09	-19	-38	3	-6	-43
29.07.09	-19	-33	1	-15	-39

So, this turned out to be a ‘bad’ monsoon, as most regions had large rainfall-deficits, except central India (which recovered late in July).  The grain belts of N-W & AP-TN were both badly hit.

What did the Indian Meteorological Dept. predict, in its early or “first stage” forecast ?

First Stage Forecast issued (by IMD) on 17^th April, 2009

“IMD’s long range forecast for the 2009 southwest monsoon season (June to September) is that the rainfall for the country as a whole is likely to be Near Normal. Quantitatively, monsoon season rainfall is likely to be 96% of the long period average with a model error of ± 5%. The Long period average rainfall over the country as a whole for the period 1941-1990 is 89 cm.”

That is way off the mark with the actual scenario, even during the first two months of the S-W monsoon season.  But that can possibly be explained by saying that this was the early prediction, Kharif sowing season was yet to begin, and the complexities of the monsoon system before many indicators became clear, added more errors.

The late or “second stage forecast” was issued on June 24, which is well into the kharif sowing season for several states.  It is far more crucial, as crores of farmers depend on this to decide what to sow and when.  The ‘climatic window’ of sowing kharif paddy (which needs large amounts of rain water in 58% of India’s agricultural fields which are un-irrigated)  --goes up to about July 15 or thereabout.  If rainfall is expected or ‘predicted’ to be significantly lower, farmers without access to good irrigation resources, use their back-up strategy of sowing crops that require much less water, like Maize, Millets, Sorghum, Pulses etc.  Thus it was critical for the IMD to make as accurate a prediction as possible, and they are supposed to be equipped for that with latest computers, sophisticated computerized models, access to many satellite imaging systems, thousands of meteorologists …. This writer kept wondering throughout July (and voiced this in meetings), what is the basis of IMDs optimism ?  

And what was their late prediction ?  See below  (taken from IMD release of 24^th June.)

“South-West Monsoon Season Rainfall

IMD’s long range forecast update for the 2009 south-west monsoon season (June to September) is that the rainfall is likely to be below normal. Quantitatively, monsoon season rainfall for the country as a whole is likely to be 93% of the long period average with a model error of ±4%. The Long period average (LPA) rainfall over the country as a whole for the period 1941-1990 is 89 cm.

  

ii)         Monthly (July & August) Rainfall

Rainfall over the country as a whole in the month of July 2009 is likely to be 93% of its LPA and that in the month of August is likely to be 101% of LPA both with a model error of ± 9 %.   The long period average and coefficient of variation of rainfall based on the 1941-1990 data for all India and 4 broad geographical regions are given here along ßwith the forecasts:”

Area	Long period Average (mm)	Coefficient of variation (%)	Forecast (% of LPA)
All India (June to September)	890	10	93
All India (July)	293	13	93
All India (August)	262	14	101
NW India	612	19	81
Central India	994	14	99
NE India	1429	8	92
South Peninsula	725	15	93

Please note that the IMD said that the most crucial July rainfall will be just below normal, whereas the important Aug. rainfall will be above that. Not really alarming or bad for paddy sowing. Only N-W India was ‘predicted’ to be having a significant shortfall.

As late as July 31, IMD was still assuring – wrongly it now seems clear – that the rainfall in August will pick-up fully and there’s no cause for worry.  The same ‘assurance’ was given by even the Minister for Agriculture! Even in their very late ‘prediction’ released on Aug.07/2009, the total rainfall was pegged down to 87% of the Long Period Average !!

So, again, WHAT WENT SO WRONG ?  Was there any clear meteorological indication(s) available of the possibility of a weak S-W monsoon ?  Was IMD aware of such a possibility ?  The answer to both seems to be “YES”. How do we say that ? 

Let us first look at IMDs own report, where it is clear that they were aware that El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions were developing in equatorial Pacific, starting in May 2009 itself.  El Nino conditions, or warming of sea surface in the equatorial Pacific, is known to weaken the south Asian summer monsoon, subject to a few other conditions, as they noted in their same June 24 release--  

“Since the middle of April, 2009, ENSO neutral conditions are prevailing with positive SST anomalies** observed over the equatorial Pacific from the beginning of May. The latest observations and forecasts from both dynamical and statistical models suggest high probability (about 60%) for El Nino conditions to appear during the monsoon season. The probability for ENSO neutral conditions is about 40% and that for La Nina is negligible. 

It is important to note that other factors such as the Indian Ocean Sea surface temperatures also influence the monsoon rainfall over India in addition to El Niño and La Niña events. Forecasts from few climate models suggest possibility of the development of a weak positive Indian Ocean Dipole event during the 2009 monsoon season, which may not have much impact on the Indian monsoon. However, IMD is carefully monitoring the possible evolution of El Nino conditions over Pacific and the Indian Ocean Dipole. “

(** “Positive SST anomalies” means higher than normal Sea Surface Temperatures).

The developing El Nino conditions, along with the absence of any countering sea surface temperature condition in the Indian Ocean (as happened in 1997, thus preventing a drought in India despite El Nino conditions in that year) , should have alerted any professional agency - and IMD is supposed to be a “Big One” – about strong possibility of  a weak S-W monsoon. 

The US Dept of Agriculture, in its Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) Report (no. IN9086), released on 29^th June, did exactly that. They also repeatedly warned that the “window” of kharif  paddy sowing, as well as those for corn, sorghum, millet etc will soon end, with even an warning of a possible drought.  A quote from that report  --

“The window of opportunity for planting of most kharif crops (rice, coarse grains, soybeans, peanut, cotton, and pulses) will be over by mid-July. If rains come in the next one week, planting operations will pick up. Otherwise the country will be heading for a drought, which could be more serious than the 2002 drought, which resulted in significant crop losses.

In some major rice growing states such as West Bengal, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh, the crop is mostly rainfed and dependent on monsoon rains. Although rice is mostly irrigated in the major surplus states of Punjab, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, the crop is still dependent on monsoon rains for replenishing ground water reserves and reservoirs required for irrigation and generating electricity to run tube wells. What is hurting the crop more this year is high surface temperatures (4 to 5 degree Celsius above normal) which is causing high evapo-transpiration. The lack of rains will also result in low fertilizer application, which also will have a negative impact on yields. “

Yet, throughout the month of July, the powers that be kept on repeating phrases like – “no cause for concern”, “rain fall will pick up”, … and the media flashed these all around the country, misleading all to the extent of little or no preparation for the coming drought !!  Only towards the 2^nd week of August (damage already done), did the Govt. admit and start preparing !!

The NASA MODIS satellite images, showing El Nino conditions developing in equatorial Pacific were also available to IMD (as they were to this writer, a non-specialist science activist), from June2009 or earlier, and we attach these here. The first pair compares the more developed El Nino condition on 25^th June 1997, with developing El Nino conditions on 16^th June 2009.  Notice the already warming equatorial Pacific water (yellow & red colours) in the middle of the 2^nd image, extending from the coasts of Peru  & Equador  –

A second NASA satellite image taken in late July 2009 (attached below) more clearly shows the El Nino conditions over the same area, indicating strong possibilities that the rainfall during the remaining part of the S-W monsoon is likely to be weaker than normal.  That is exactly what happened, with August rainfall till date (15^th August, ironically our Independence day, without any sign of the Indian people getting independence from these ‘disasters by design’ !) being far from the 101 % of LPA that IMD predicted !!

And farmers in large swathes of the country, along with the poor & lower-middle classes, are paying the heavy price of this careless (to use a soft word) folly of our “professional” weather-men. At last the Indian Govt. and the IMD has woken up from their callous slumber, and are sending messages like – “Weathermen warns : Less rain” on Aug.10, or  “Centre advises states to adopt water saving technologies for Rabi crop” on Aug.13,  thus writing off the most important cropping season in India in one stroke !! And we are told that the livelihood of about 65 crore Indians depend on agriculture !! The other 50 crores are also dependent on that food production.

A timely warning from IMD and the Indian Govt. could have alerted crores of farmers, and prevented them from sowing paddy where irrigation is scarce.  Bigger and more resourceful farmers have managed to save part of their crops by spending large amounts of money in pumping out groundwater for irrigation, leaving the smaller farmers even more parched. Those farmers in the 6 million plus hectares, who have not sown paddy due to lack of water and left their fields barren, have at least saved the sowing costs (and the debt from moneylenders) and labour.  A timely warning would also have guided them to sow – when the climatic ‘window’ was ‘open’, crops requiring much less water, as they know well. Now they are saddled with lost paddy in their dry fields, lost investments, lost opportunity to get some return from other crops, and an empty future to look ahead to.  Is it any wonder that desperate farmers have started committing suicide (despite Govt. obfuscations)?  It is not only the kharif crops which have taken a big hit, rabi crops will also suffer, as there will be very little ground water available, made  worse by desperate & indiscriminate pumping out to save whatever part of planted crops.  To make matters worse, reservoir levels in most of our river-basins are running very low!!

We have not even taken up the issue of possible changes in south-Asian summer monsoon in future, due to global warming.  Sophisticated modeling studies (by Purdue University, by renowned climatologist James Hansen at GISS etc) are indicating both a backward shift in time, and a decrease of total rainfall during S-W monsoon, along with change in regional & temporal distribution. To cope with these changes – when they become prominent, we will need a dependable, competent and sensitive weather agency / meteorological dept.  Will we get that ?

And it is not only the always-abused food producers who are paying the price.  Consumer Price Index for rural & manual workers have gone up by over 11%, that for urban non-manual workers even more (whatever the Govt. figure – one visit to the ‘weekly bazaars’ bears this out) – all on the back of a weak monsoon and the anticipated food shortages. Economic ‘pundits’ are predicting at least a one percent hit to the GDP growth from this and the consequent drop in rural demand.  The non-farming poor, lower middle class & even the middle class are cutting down on food intakes, due to much higher prices, which will have obvious health impacts. The appallingly shameful 45% malnutrition rate amongst our below-five children, is sure to jump to an even more shameful figure, as possible alternatives to water-guzzling rice – pulses/soybeans (protein sources now gone beyond the reach of most of Indians), were not sown due to lack of timely rainfall information and the non-availability of “kits’.

The IMD can say that they were not “one hundred percent sure” about a weak monsoon, and they will be right. But were they “one hundred percent sure” about rainfalls to the tune of 96% or even 93% of the Long Period Average ?  Obviously not.  So, why did they not come out openly with the apprehension – based on clear meteorological signs – of a weak S-W monsoon ? This would have prepared farmers across the nation to face a water shortage. Which caused far more damage to the country & its non-rich people ?   Was the prediction-failure caused by a fear that the newly elected Govt. will loose the “feel-good” factor if a bad monsoon possibility is broadcast?

The Indian people are paying a very heavy price, and they must have clear answers.  If not for any advantage this time, at least in the long term interest of the nation and its productive people. And shouldn’t the people’s representatives – our MPs & MLAs, raise these pertinent questions ?

Soumya Dutta -  soumyadutta_delhi@rediffmail.com 

Bharat Jan Vigyan Jatha / Beyond Copenhagen collective