Cyclone Fani that hit the Odisha coast on May 3, 2019, was indeed an extremely severe cyclone — when a super cyclone had hit the state 20 years ago, it had witnessed a loss of life of over 10,000 people!&nbsp;

In 2013, cyclone Phailin with a similar intensity saw 550,000 people being evacuated and an estimated loss of more than Rs 4,000 crore.

Despite over a million people being evacuated from sensitive zones, cyclone Fani caused the death of about 30-plus people in Odisha alone. However, this is still an admirable achievement, given the poor infrastructure in the state, the high incidence of poverty and the normally unwilling response of potential evacuees.

The effort, which the state government of Odisha put in along with the national disaster response agencies and many volunteers, was remarkable in reaching out to vulnerable populations across the length of the Odisha coast, convincing people to evacuate quickly to safe shelters.

The trail of destruction that Cyclone Fani left behind is mute testimony to the enormous avoided costs in terms of human lives.

While we deservedly pat ourselves on our backs for a job done well in minimising the loss of lives due to an extreme event, we need to do a lot more to make the recovery process from such events less traumatic.

As evacuees in Odisha go back to their villages, they face the humongous task of rebuilding their homes and their lives. Can we provide them requisite support in a timely manner to enable them to stand on their feet quickly once again? How long will the medical and educational services take to serve the needs of these people and alleviate their misery? Do banking services exist in these areas? What financial and material support can be immediately mobilised and delivered? Getting food and water to the affected people days after the incident is inhuman to say the least.

It would also be crucial to ask whether the wider community was mobilised in advance to respond to the needs of those affected. How well were the shelters stocked? Were effective community mechanisms defined to administer relief in the immediate aftermath of the event?&nbsp;

Several questions above address themselves to disaster response and relief measures. But some of them also point towards the need for building systemic resilience in vulnerable populations.

Scientists predict that the looming climate change will result in more frequent and intense extreme events. While Cyclone Fani was not caused by climate change, it would be accurate to say that it probably received its intensity on account of climate change.

The impact of such coastal events would also be exacerbated by rise in sea levels, higher ocean temperatures, wind speeds and changing monsoon patterns. Hence, for both historical reasons and projected intensification, India needs to evolve from merely disaster preparedness and response to investing in and building resilient societies and systems.&nbsp;

Proper zoning laws that would govern developmental activities, quality of construction, development and maintenance of natural barriers, insurance for life and livelihood, empowered village committees and mobile clinics, among others, are some long-term measures to build resilience and to adapt.

Governments at all levels — national, state and local — need to recognise their responsibility and accountability for creating such robust systems.

Cyclone Fani caught the attention of the global community because it was an extreme event of mammoth proportions. However, environmental degradation is also resulting in what are known as creeping events — events that are slow, but inexorable. If we are not watchful, as we tend not to be with creeping events, they can result in tipping points that would have impacts on scales larger than what we experience from extreme events.&nbsp;

Falling water tables, soil degradation, desertification, air pollution and loss of biodiversity are all examples of creeping events that India is already facing.

Climate change is likely to exacerbate these creeping events through its own impact – accelerated melting of our glaciers in the Himalayas that cater to half of India’s population, shifts/variability in monsoon patterns that would be very difficult for farmers to adapt to in current conditions, salt water intrusion and rising temperatures.&nbsp;

It is time for India to wake up and take an integrated approach to its development, more urgently in the context of the existential threats that it is facing.&nbsp;

Our water and food security are under enormous threat and closely inter-linked. India is hosting the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) in September this year. A major focus of this COP is to work towards land degradation neutrality. As a theme, this would be a wonderful test case to see how different ministries of the government of India will participate in this conference and if we are able to design a coherent strategy for reversing the land degradation taking place.&nbsp;

Nearly 30 per cent of India’s lands are already degraded and climate change impacts will further exacerbate this damage.&nbsp;

Similarly, several of our cities are becoming (have become?) unliveable – Delhi has demonstrated that there are no silver bullets! Just because we do not have the research (no support for inconvenient questions!) to establish a clear attribution of cause to effect, does not mean that the crisis does not exist – that we are not facing disasters in our daily lives.

Question is: do we have the courage to transform our governance structures and processes to enable effective systemic solutions? 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-going-beyond-cyclone-fani-2746668">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

 
&nbsp;

Cyclone Fani that hit the Odisha coast on May 3, 2019, was indeed an extremely severe cyclone — when a super cyclone had hit the state 20 years ago, it had witnessed a loss of life of over 10,000 people!

Cyclone Fani that hit the Odisha coast on May 3, 2019, was indeed an extremely severe cyclone — when a super cyclone had hit the state 20 years ago, it had witnessed a loss of life of over 10,000 people! In 2013, cyclone Phailin with a similar intensity saw 550,000 people being evacuated and an estimated loss of more than Rs 4,000 crore. Despite over a million people being evacuated from sensitive zones, cyclone Fani caused the death of about 30-plus people in Odisha alone. However, this is still an admirable achievement, given the poor infrastructure in the state, the high incidence of poverty and the normally unwilling response of potential evacuees. The effort, which the state government of Odisha put in along with the national disaster response agencies and many volunteers, was remarkable in reaching out to vulnerable populations across the length of the Odisha coast, convincing people to evacuate quickly to safe shelters. The trail of destruction that Cyclone Fani left behind is mute testimony to the enormous avoided costs in terms of human lives. While we deservedly pat ourselves on our backs for a job done well in minimising the loss of lives due to an extreme event, we need to do a lot more to make the recovery process from such events less traumatic. As evacuees in Odisha go back to their villages, they face the humongous task of rebuilding their homes and their lives. Can we provide them requisite support in a timely manner to enable them to stand on their feet quickly once again? How long will the medical and educational services take to serve the needs of these people and alleviate their misery? Do banking services exist in these areas? What financial and material support can be immediately mobilised and delivered? Getting food and water to the affected people days after the incident is inhuman to say the least. It would also be crucial to ask whether the wider community was mobilised in advance to respond to the needs of those affected. How well were the shelters stocked? Were effective community mechanisms defined to administer relief in the immediate aftermath of the event? Several questions above address themselves to disaster response and relief measures. But some of them also point towards the need for building systemic resilience in vulnerable populations. Scientists predict that the looming climate change will result in more frequent and intense extreme events. While Cyclone Fani was not caused by climate change, it would be accurate to say that it probably received its intensity on account of climate change. The impact of such coastal events would also be exacerbated by rise in sea levels, higher ocean temperatures, wind speeds and changing monsoon patterns. Hence, for both historical reasons and projected intensification, India needs to evolve from merely disaster preparedness and response to investing in and building resilient societies and systems. Proper zoning laws that would govern developmental activities, quality of construction, development and maintenance of natural barriers, insurance for life and livelihood, empowered village committees and mobile clinics, among others, are some long-term measures to build resilience and to adapt. Governments at all levels — national, state and local — need to recognise their responsibility and accountability for creating such robust systems. Cyclone Fani caught the attention of the global community because it was an extreme event of mammoth proportions. However, environmental degradation is also resulting in what are known as creeping events — events that are slow, but inexorable. If we are not watchful, as we tend not to be with creeping events, they can result in tipping points that would have impacts on scales larger than what we experience from extreme events. Falling water tables, soil degradation, desertification, air pollution and loss of biodiversity are all examples of creeping events that India is already facing. Climate change is likely to exacerbate these creeping events through its own impact – accelerated melting of our glaciers in the Himalayas that cater to half of India’s population, shifts/variability in monsoon patterns that would be very difficult for farmers to adapt to in current conditions, salt water intrusion and rising temperatures. It is time for India to wake up and take an integrated approach to its development, more urgently in the context of the existential threats that it is facing. Our water and food security are under enormous threat and closely inter-linked. India is hosting the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) in September this year. A major focus of this COP is to work towards land degradation neutrality. As a theme, this would be a wonderful test case to see how different ministries of the government of India will participate in this conference and if we are able to design a coherent strategy for reversing the land degradation taking place. Nearly 30 per cent of India’s lands are already degraded and climate change impacts will further exacerbate this damage. Similarly, several of our cities are becoming (have become?) unliveable – Delhi has demonstrated that there are no silver bullets! Just because we do not have the research (no support for inconvenient questions!) to establish a clear attribution of cause to effect, does not mean that the crisis does not exist – that we are not facing disasters in our daily lives. Question is: do we have the courage to transform our governance structures and processes to enable effective systemic solutions? (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Going beyond Cyclone Fani: India needs to do a lot more to make recovery process less traumatic

After extended hours of negotiations, the COP 24 held in Katowice, Poland, finally sent out a sigh of ‘temporary’ relief.&nbsp;

The rule book for implementing the Paris Agreement is an important milestone in the ‘global’ quest to address climate change in accordance with the principle of equity and common, but with differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities.&nbsp;

Dodging the skepticism rooted in the hard negotiations and slow progress in the run-up to COP 24, an agreement, even if with rued nods from many parties, is a positive step.&nbsp;

However, the unfolding of the negotiations warrants that developing countries invest in greater scrutiny of the implementation as well as subsequent discussions at COPs.&nbsp;

For over a decade now, the meaning of ‘global’ quest is being, subtly, pushed towards, what may be called, Third World’s burden irrespective of respective capabilities and responsibilities.

Many influential thought leaders from the developed world, while revealing their helplessness with, and discounting the withdrawal of the USA from the Paris Agreement by citing the commitments from the various state governments and cities, urge the developing countries, particularly China and India, to take on greater commitments without taking into account their own roles and responsibilities.

This convolution of differentiation was obvious at least in four instances during proceedings of the COP24: First, the unwillingness of industrialised countries to include providing credible and verifiable information on financial flows in the Global Stock Take process was in clear defiance of the objective of the Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement aims to ensure financial flows consistent with the requirements of the climate resilient low-carbon development pathways.&nbsp;

After doing away with the distinction between Annex I and non-Annex I countries, providing climate finance to developing countries is the most significant substantive parameter of ensuring equity.&nbsp;

The diplomatic keenness of France to protect the Paris Agreement, by announcing annual replenishment to GCF, when the finance agenda was to become a point of deadlock explains the centrality of finance to successful climate negotiations, as well as ‘global’ climate action.

Second, the opposition to the use of accumulated credits from the market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol in the new market mechanism under the Paris Agreement by many developed countries is equivalent of arguing for quantified emission reduction targets for developing countries, post-facto, when the relevant global agreement did not require them to have any.&nbsp;

The argument that the new rules are stricter, leading to the issues of environmental integrity, is not merely a technical point. It is symptomatic of political cunningness of trickery by rules.

Doubts over environmental integrity of certain Clean Development Projects (CDM) had been discussed in great detail during the reform debates and many proposals were made, including the use of a discount rate. These options are valid for the new market mechanism as well.

Discarding a celebrated market mechanism’s legacy in its next avatar and putting developing countries in a disadvantageous position must be understood as the reflection of the core political design of industrialised countries.

Third, the opposition by developed countries to the flexibilities given to developing countries in complying with the reporting requirements, along with the demands for greater details, leaves the process of Global Stock Take far from being congenially resolved.&nbsp;

The proposal to divide the rule-book into multiple agreements, which was rightly opposed by developing countries, was a clever attempt by developed countries at keeping the developing country parties under undue pressure of ‘global’ (read Northern) scrutiny.&nbsp;

Finally, as has been much debated, the unwillingness of some of the developed countries to ‘welcome’ the 1.5 degrees report from the IPCC – despite having asked for this assessment – is a clear indication of their unwillingness to adopt stricter mitigation measures today, even though this may result in significantly larger impacts in the world and on those that have greater vulnerabilities and lower adaptive capacities.&nbsp;

We are once again proving that we are not able to deal with the science truly, in face of political compulsions. To sum up, as noted by India in her formal reservation statement, implementation of the principle of equity and differentiation is constantly being undermined.&nbsp;

Having done away with the top-down distinction between industrialised and developing countries, now the attempt is to erase it, if not reverse it, through the details of implementation of the Paris Agreement.&nbsp;

Both the governments as well as the researchers in developing countries, therefore, need to be extra vigilant in tracking climate policy globally and nationally. 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-cop-24-developed-nations-unwilling-to-adopt-stricter-mitigation-measures-2697234">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

After extended hours of negotiations, the COP 24 held in Katowice, Poland, finally sent out a sigh of ‘temporary’ relief. The rule book for implementing the Paris Agreement is an important milestone in the ‘global’ quest to address climate change in accordance with the principle of equity and common, but with differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities.

After extended hours of negotiations, the COP 24 held in Katowice, Poland, finally sent out a sigh of ‘temporary’ relief. The rule book for implementing the Paris Agreement is an important milestone in the ‘global’ quest to address climate change in accordance with the principle of equity and common, but with differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities. Dodging the skepticism rooted in the hard negotiations and slow progress in the run-up to COP 24, an agreement, even if with rued nods from many parties, is a positive step. However, the unfolding of the negotiations warrants that developing countries invest in greater scrutiny of the implementation as well as subsequent discussions at COPs. For over a decade now, the meaning of ‘global’ quest is being, subtly, pushed towards, what may be called, Third World’s burden irrespective of respective capabilities and responsibilities. Many influential thought leaders from the developed world, while revealing their helplessness with, and discounting the withdrawal of the USA from the Paris Agreement by citing the commitments from the various state governments and cities, urge the developing countries, particularly China and India, to take on greater commitments without taking into account their own roles and responsibilities. This convolution of differentiation was obvious at least in four instances during proceedings of the COP24: First, the unwillingness of industrialised countries to include providing credible and verifiable information on financial flows in the Global Stock Take process was in clear defiance of the objective of the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement aims to ensure financial flows consistent with the requirements of the climate resilient low-carbon development pathways. After doing away with the distinction between Annex I and non-Annex I countries, providing climate finance to developing countries is the most significant substantive parameter of ensuring equity. The diplomatic keenness of France to protect the Paris Agreement, by announcing annual replenishment to GCF, when the finance agenda was to become a point of deadlock explains the centrality of finance to successful climate negotiations, as well as ‘global’ climate action. Second, the opposition to the use of accumulated credits from the market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol in the new market mechanism under the Paris Agreement by many developed countries is equivalent of arguing for quantified emission reduction targets for developing countries, post-facto, when the relevant global agreement did not require them to have any. The argument that the new rules are stricter, leading to the issues of environmental integrity, is not merely a technical point. It is symptomatic of political cunningness of trickery by rules. Doubts over environmental integrity of certain Clean Development Projects (CDM) had been discussed in great detail during the reform debates and many proposals were made, including the use of a discount rate. These options are valid for the new market mechanism as well. Discarding a celebrated market mechanism’s legacy in its next avatar and putting developing countries in a disadvantageous position must be understood as the reflection of the core political design of industrialised countries. Third, the opposition by developed countries to the flexibilities given to developing countries in complying with the reporting requirements, along with the demands for greater details, leaves the process of Global Stock Take far from being congenially resolved. The proposal to divide the rule-book into multiple agreements, which was rightly opposed by developing countries, was a clever attempt by developed countries at keeping the developing country parties under undue pressure of ‘global’ (read Northern) scrutiny. Finally, as has been much debated, the unwillingness of some of the developed countries to ‘welcome’ the 1.5 degrees report from the IPCC – despite having asked for this assessment – is a clear indication of their unwillingness to adopt stricter mitigation measures today, even though this may result in significantly larger impacts in the world and on those that have greater vulnerabilities and lower adaptive capacities. We are once again proving that we are not able to deal with the science truly, in face of political compulsions. To sum up, as noted by India in her formal reservation statement, implementation of the principle of equity and differentiation is constantly being undermined. Having done away with the top-down distinction between industrialised and developing countries, now the attempt is to erase it, if not reverse it, through the details of implementation of the Paris Agreement. Both the governments as well as the researchers in developing countries, therefore, need to be extra vigilant in tracking climate policy globally and nationally. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

COP 24: Developed nations unwilling to adopt stricter mitigation measures to address climate change

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Leena Srivastava

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.