APPENDICES Environmental Position Paper- Norway's co-operation with India

(1)

APPENDICES

Environmental Position Paper- Norway's co-operation with India

List of contents

A1. TOR 2

A2. Meetings and itinerary 5

A3. Minutes from meetings 6

A4. A new strategy for India 37 A5. Environmental programmes in India 45

A6.The NGO portfolio in India 56

A7. Norwegian consultants in the environmental field 62 A8. List of leading environmental NGOs in India 64 A9. Elements of a strategy for future co-operation 68

(2)

APPENDIX 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE

Develop a Draft Environment Position Paper for Norway's Co-operation with India

1. Background

India, with its rapid development of the economy, an intensive growth of industry, growth in transport and energy consumption and a population growth of more than 2 % a year, sets its natural resources under serious pressure. Especially the population living in poverty is affected by the degradation of the environment. The biological diversity is also endangered by this development. India with its increasing energy consumption should be an important partner in order to handle the global environmental and climate challenges.

Assistance from Norway to India in the area of environment has mainly been provided through two channels; bilateral programs for Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka, and to the civil society through NGO programs. Projects including environmental elements, as the hydro-meteorological and environmental buoys program, have also been supported.

Norwegian authorities wish that environmental issues should be central to the co-operation and dialogue with India in the years to come.

NORAD's activity plan for 2001 states that an Environmental Position Paper for the co- operation with India shall be worked out.

The study shall serve the purpose as a background document for the Norwegian environmental co-operation with India.

The study should also provide some initial guidelines and criteria for the next phase of the environmental co-operation program with Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh. For this program the intention is that the study will be followed by a joint workshop for the two states as a basis for their final planning of a next phase.

2. Objective

A Draft Environmental Position Paper should describe the main issues in the Indian environmental area. It will further outline the challenges confronting India in this field and India's position related to global environmental policy and processes.

Based on reviews and evaluations the paper will provide a brief assessment of the Norwegian environmental co-operation program with India.

Based on this assessment of the present co-operation and on Norway's wish to expand the overall co-operation with India regarding environmental issues, the Environmental Position Paper will identify possible areas of co-operation and fora for dialogue.

The paper will provide some recommendations on strategies/ overall guiding references for the next phase of the IND 063 Environmental Programme.

(3)

The paper will also provide information on institutions and firms in the two countries with capacity and potential to engage in and contribute to a co-operation in the energy sector, particularly as regards bio-gas and other renewable clean energy technologies.

3. Scope of Work

A Draft Environmental Position Paper shall describe and make a brief analysis of the following issues and, where appropriate, make recommendations on the following up of the Norwegian environmental co-operation with India. The relevance of the various sub-sectors, including biogas and renewable clean energies, should be taken into consideration.

3.1 The Indian environmental policy

- Economic development and possible environmental conflicts.

- The environmental situation and the major environmental challenges.

- The relationship between the environmental situation and poverty.

- The environmental policy at central and state level.

- Environmental management at central and state level.

- The know-how/competence level in important environmental sub-sectors.

3.2 Norwegian institutions and firms in the environmental area - Norwegian institutions in environmental management.

- Norwegian institutions, consultants and firms in the environmental area.

- Norwegian institutions with particular insight in Indian environmental problems.

- Assessment of Norwegian know-how, products and environmental management systems related to Indian environmental problems and challenges.

3.3 NORAD's development co-operation on environment with India - The governmental environmental programs at state level

- The support to NGOs.

- The energy sector, biogas and other renewable clean energy technologies, with the potential to initiate Norwegian–Indian co-operation in development initiatives beyond India.

- Other projects.

3.4 Environment-political dialogue between India and Norway

- An overview and assessment of Indian participation in international environmental and climate processes.

- Main areas of interest to Norway.

- Assess possible strategic use of environmental support programmes to facilitate and promote environment-political and policy dialogue with Indian authorities, bilaterally as well as in multilateral fora.

- Identify India's main institutions and resource centres and relevant national and international fora for environment-political and policy dialogue between Norway and India.

3.5 The next phase of the environmental co-operation program with Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh.

- Provide overall guiding references for the next phase of the environmental co- operation program with Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh.

(4)

4. The Team

The Team assigned to prepare the Environmental Position Paper as described in this Terms of Reference is as follows:

- Dr. Pål Vedeld, Noragric, Team leader and with the main responsibility for the study.

He will deal with the areas described in the ToR that is not covered by the Norwegian Ministry of Environment as described below.

- Atle Fretheim, Department Director, The Norwegian Ministry of Environment (MD).

He will cover 3.4 Environment-political dialogue between India and Norway.

The Norwegian Ministry of Environment, International Department will provide the information for 3.2; Norwegian institutions and firms in the environmental area including Norwegian institutions and their know-how and capacity regarding bio-gas and other alternative clean energy resources. MD will also contribute to the overall good and consistent quality of the report.

5. Time Schedule

Preparation in Norway will take place during May 2001. Communication with the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, NORAD in Oslo, Norwegian State Pollution Control Authority, State Natural Resources Authority, Norwegian Water and Energy Resources Directorate and other relevant environmental institutions and firms will take place as part of the implementation of the study.

Fieldwork in India will be carried out during a period of two weeks starting 28 May 2001.

Draft report will be forwarded to the Norwegian Embassy in New Delhi and NORAD Oslo within 22 June. The final report should be completed within two weeks after comments have been forwarded from the Norwegian Embassy in New Delhi and NORAD Oslo.

Resource utilisation by Noragric is planned as follows.

2 weeks for review of materials and meetings with institutions in Norway, 2 days for international travel.

2 weeks and three days (starting in New Delhi 28 May) in India for review of material, meetings with the Norwegian Embassy, Indian authorities and institutions and other donors, and drafting the report.

3 weeks for working out a draft report in Norway, communication with Norwegian Embassy and NORAD Oslo, and for completing the final report.

Resource utilisation by The Norwegian Ministry of Environment is planned as follows.

3 weeks for review of material and contact/discussions with institutions in Norway, 2 days for international travel.

1,5 week (starting in New Delhi 1 June) for review of material, meetings with the Norwegian Embassy, Indian authorities and institutions and other donors, and drafting the report in India.

2 weeks for completing a draft report in Norway, communication with the Norwegian Embassy and NORAD Oslo, and contribute to the final report.

(5)

APPENDIX 2. MEETINGS AND ITINERARY

Date Person Met Organization / Institution

30.05.01 Dr. P.Gautam World Wide Fund for Nature, India

31.05.01 Dr. Ravindrath UNDP

01.06.01 Gavita Kavan Centre for Science and Environment

04.06.01 Sudashan Rodriguez UNDP

04.06.01 Dr. Pandey Director (Pollution)

Ministry of Environment & Forests, GoI 04.06.01 Dr. Somnath Bhattacharya Director, Energy, Environment & Technology

TERI New Delhi 05.06.01 Mr. Bill Hillau World Bank

New Delhi

05.06.01 Dr. Alex Jørgensen Senior Project Implementation Officer Asian Development Bank New Delhi 05.06.01 Mr. Ravi S. Agarwal Co-ordinator, Toxics Links

International POPS elimination Network (IPEN) New Delhi

05.06.01 Ms. Anju Sharma Co-ordinator. Global Environment Governance. Centre for Science &

Environment New Delhi 05.06.01 Dr. Sujata Gupta Director, Policy Analysis

TERI New Delhi

06.06.01 Anita Kaul, IAS Chief secretary, Min. of Environment, Karnataka

06.06.01 Dr.Shamjaya Head of Office, CEE, KArnataka 06.06.01 Prof. B.N. Rgunandra CAOS, IIM, Banagalore

06.06.01 Prof. B.N. ASTRA, IIM, Banagalore

06.06.01 Gokulram Principal Secretary, Forest department, Bangalore, Karnataka

06.06.01 Staff, INEP INEP, Bangalore, Karnataka

07.06.01 Dr. Dilip Biswas Chairman. Central Pollution Control Board Delhi

07.06.01 Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh Head, Natural Heritage Division

INTACH (Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage) New Delhi

07.06.01 Mr. K. Roy Paul, IAS Special Secretary

(International co-operation, pollution, environment clearance, etc.)

Ministry of Environment & Forests Government of India New Delhi 12.06.01 Dr. Virender Sharma DFID

c/o British High Commission New Delhi 110021

12.06.01 Dr. Vinayak Rao School of International Studies

Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi

(6)

APPENDIX 3. MINUTES FROM MEETINGS

Dr. Parikshit Gautam, WWF-India. 30.5.2001

1. Areas of operation

Started in 1969 basically with education and awareness raising on environmental conservation.

WWF has 33 offices all over India and will be present in most states. In HP- they are represented from their Chandigardh office. In Karnataka they have a separate office. 100 staff in Delhi, 100 in rest of India. They work within 9 activity areas:

- Freshwater ad wetland conservation areas - Forest programmes

- Ocean and marine programmes - Wildlife and tiger conservation

- Wildlife trade monitoring, TRAFFIC-India - Education and awareness programme - Communications

- Environmental law - Information management

Their annual budget is around 50 mills. IRS. (NOK 10 mill.). 76% spent on national, 8% on international conservation work. and 16% is local overhead.

They get support from GoI, from WWF-International, from some international donors on project basis (Ford Foundation) from various ministries, from the Army, and from local fundraising activities.

2. Partners/work style

They have regular contacts with the government both at central and at and local levels. They assume a pragmatic approach, where they co-operate when possible and in line with own goals. They fight - even sue - government when and if deemed wise. This can be in matters of situations where local authorities try to change the status if conserved areas or in the case of establishing conservation areas and where local people's interests are not formally recognised by the state governments.

Central government makes the formal notification of NP and conservation areas and only they can cancel it. Planning, management and implementation is the responsibility of state governments- usually the Wildlife wing in the Dept. of Forestry and Environment. (Wildlife Protection Act)

They have good links to other international NGOs and to local NGOs and local societies and communities, with which they co-operate. Some important local NGOs are: Bombay Natural Society, Wildlife Institute of India (Dehradun) and Salimali Inst. of pal. and natural History.

(7)

In projects, they will typically work with local governments, and with local people to establish projects and programmes or structures and then pass them over to relevant institutions.

Supreme court plays a positive role in conservation relative to high courts and local courts and local administrations.

In HP they run a training programme for teacher son the environment, where they co-operate with local authorities- Min. of Education in Shimla.

He sees the relationship between state and central government on conservation issues as basically OK and not too much conflicts. Maybe because it is the same people and the same Ministry in charge and that there are rather clear rules and division of responsibilities.

Southern States in general more positive to conservation (started here). Even HP has a confined and compact state, where conservation is possible. In Bihar and UP it is more difficult.

3. Biodiversity

Involved in the international processes, international negotiations?

Yes, we are involved with implication at national and local level. WWF also puts pressure on government- made pressure to get India to accept responsibility. In the case of Ramsar- we made India commit itself for more than 20 lakes- up to now, there were only 5. This was possible through our international contacts. We are a silent member of the committee that prepares the national Wetlands guidelines. We also prepare technical reports for this.

4. Viewpoints on India' s position in this field?

(take up next week) 5. Approach

- WWF works with conservation but recognises tradeoffs between environment and development.

- Environment and human rights; much more emphasis on human rights than before and on participation and on fighting for local people's right of access to local resources such as fuelwood and grazing areas in cases of new areas being protected. This has increased over the years. Several conflicts here with local FD.

- environmental segment and divisions of rights and duties in Indian public governance system; conflicts and organisational structures; basically this is easier within Min. of Env. and Forestry than outwards towards other ministries. Controlling pollution is more cumbersome than working with conservation areas- as more min. are involved.

- environment and corruption: yes corruption is there as a problem; one tries to avoid.

important how one structures projects and how money flows.

(8)

6. Specific topics at present?

- a wide range of topics - no big special case - following up on Ramsar

- they have a separate programme for catching poachers

- a substantial amount of scientific reports are published every year.

7. International conventions

- Ramsar - wetlands (mentioned above) - CITES (trade in endangered species) - World Heritage convention

- Convention on Biological Diversity 8. Karnataka and Himachal?

Separate office in Karnataka; take up issues there- many activities related to conservation, wetlands, hot spots, environment and law.

In HP- educational effort mentioned above.

9. Literature/reports

-We were given annual report 1998-99.

-References to website: www.wwfindia.org

(9)

Venkata Ramana, UNDP 31.5.2001

Areas of operation

UNDP works in most states in India, and has a separate responsibility for donor c-ordinated activities in India. There are around 150 employed people at UNDP. They are in charge of most GEF programmes in India.

A total targeted input of 200 mill.USD related to target areas such as poverty alleviation, gender, environment and employment.

There are 4 main environmental areas in which UNDP works.

Country co-operation-framework bilateral agreements (1997-2001) There are two main thrusts under this issue;

The environment consists of around 20 different programmes within areas such as biodiversity, rural and urban environmental challenges, capacity building etc.

The energy component is also on building competence, on promoting commercial renewable energy resources, solar energy programmes. Biogas is running by itself in India and is not given much support these days.

GEF programmes

UNDP is in charge of most GEF programmes in India, except for the World Bank who also directly support a few programmes. There is a portfolio of around 25 mill.USD. under GEF I.

The programmes are linked to GEFs four main areas; climate change, biodiversity, international waters and ozone depletion. The projects are basically supported by World Bank UNDP directly and IFC. Most of the programmes relate to climate change (some 80% and most of the rest are within biodiversity. Projects are within solar energy, small Hydel projects, biomethanation, conservation areas

Montreal Protocol programme

MoEF is in charge of this convention and the follow-up. UNDP has a responsibility here and took part in the planning and the follow-up. This follow-.up consists of 158 projects all over India in 6-7 sectors with a substantial amount of different institutions involved. There is a portfolio of around 14 mill.USD.

Grant facilities

Under this bag post, there are two components.

One area is within NGO sector projects, where small grants are given to NGOs all over India, in different fields. This is managed by an NGO, Centre for Environmental Education, CEE, with whom NORAD also has a co-operation at present.

In addition is the small grant facility, where supports are issued to field like water sector, watershed management. These are joint programmes, where various donors are in; like SIDA, AUSAID, WB, Ford Foundation and others. In 1999, 82% of the projects were on biodiversity, 11 %on climate change. It is around 25 projects in 12 states. (1999).

(10)

Working relationship with the government and viewpoints in relation to the environmental field

UNDP works very close with the government, especially the MoEF. All projects have to be endorsed by the Government. In addition, UNDP will facilitate some of the expenses incurred through GoI involvement in the international negotiations of various kinds; see below.

Working with the central government is seen as taking time and much efforts are wasted on slow movements. Especially in projects with several actors and ministries involved, things take time, as one needs several types of clearances such as line ministry clearance, technical clearance, political clearances etc. When in addition state governments are involved, the pace gets even slower.

Some ministries are more difficult than other. The strongest Min. is MoF, Min.of Coal and Min. of Industry. Difficult to move. MoEF is weak, has low budgets and few possibilities to make an impact. However, the environmental clearances system gives some say in the government set-up.

UNDP has worked closely with state governments in developing systems for state specific Human Development Reports. HP is coming and Karnataka has been produced for 1 year.

UNDP has a separate co-operation system with NGOs.

Donor co-ordination activities

UNDP has a responsibility here. On the environmental field, it has not been done much the last few years. A problem. Some work is done in the water and sanitation field- not so much in the environmental field. These are to some extent sensitive to the government, as they would like a say in it. And it becomes more difficult to c-ordinate if the government is involved all the way.

International conventions and UNDP engagement relative to Indian follow-up locally:

Biodiversity

The interviewed does not know about this area. But UNDP has funded some of the interventions here.

wetlands

CITES (endangered areas) World heritage convention

Convention on biological diversity Climate

The involved actors in the negotiations are TERI, IIM in Ahmedabad, Astra, in Bangalore, Indira Ghandi for Development.

POP

India has not yet signed this convention. The involved actors in the negotiations are most likely institutions such as council for agricultural research, MoA, National Chemical. Of NGOs were mentioned Toxic Link and Greenpeace International.

(11)

WTO trade and environment

UNDP has been involved in funding also here. Swaminathan Foundation. There is also a professor at JNU, Vinajak Rao.

Summing up

Vijat Sharma, MoEF were mentioned in connection with the international work from MoEF.

It is MoEF that is in charge, but that there are rounds of discussions internally, with line ministries and with MoFA.

UNDP plays a facilitating role as funding processes, but it is specific environments that in general give the scientific inputs. UNDP has, if they have particular expertise joined the work, but not much.

Bio-energy in India and renewable energy

There used to be a joint Min. of Energy, but it was split into four ministries some 20 years ago, due to "scale problems".

- Min of Power - Min. of Coal

- Min. of Hydro Power

- Min. of Non-conventional energy

The last Ministry also has IREDA. The four Min. constitute a management problem, with lack of co-ordination and it contributes to make it difficult to promote renewable energy resources in a substantial scale.

Biogas is going OK at a local level. Solar energy and other types are not being promote up to its potential in India, much due to lack of a facilitating structure. IREDA has hopes to make renewable energy up to 10% but it is a long way.

At present in India 1/3 of all energy used is from renewable such as cow- dung and wood fuels.

Of the electricity production: coal 60-70%, 24% Hydro, 1.1 % renewable and 1.5% nuclear energy.

Of good research and development organisations in the energy field;

Astra, TERI, IIT in Delhi and Bombay, Development Alternatives, M.S. Swaminathan Foundation, Some State Level Universities

Programmes in Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh Literature/reports

India's development partners. June 2000 UNDP Netpage: www.undp.org.in

(12)

Gita Kavan, SCE. 1.6.2001

Areas of operation

SCE is an advocacy NGO working with awareness raising, policy research and advocacy, documentation and education and training in the environmental field.

They have around 100 staff. Their funding sources are diverse, including GoI, various international donors (Ford, UNDP, SIDA, Rockefeller, Tata trust, DANIDA, WWF, CIDA) and local contributions. Their total expenditures in 1998 was around 360 Lakh IRS (~7.5.

Mill. NOK).

Awareness raising

Main activities here is the publication of the weekly Down to Earth, the State of the Environment Reports, films, web- sites and dissemination of various reports and books.

Policy research and advocacy

They work with Health and the Environment, with Industry, with pollution management, natural resource management and global environmental governance.

Documentation

They produce books, documents, journals, new clippings, audio-visual resources and databases. They have a large documentation centre

Education and training in the environmental field.

The work with school education and arrange training programmes for various target groups, including decision makers.

Work areas/collaboration

They work with central government on a number of issues and give advise, especially in the field of pollution and pollution control. They were involved with the climate negotiations and participated in various ways. They have also worked with the Biodiversity issues towards the government. A special report has been published on International Environmental Negotiations.

The do not work much directly with state governments. They have been working a lot with Pollution control Boards, and have been actively criticising work done- or not done in this field. They work extensively with local people and with other NGOs.

On approach

It is an NGO strongly favouring sustainable use and is quite critical to the international conservationist movements. They are very vocal against public corruption problems. And work with securing rights for poor people especially to natural resources and genes.

International conventions and SCE engagement relative to Indian follow-up locally SCE has worked both with preparation issues and especially on the follow-up work by Indian authorities in several fields.

They are now working with a report on the follow-up of Trade and environment and other

(13)

Anju Sharma (4605334/335) Habitat Centre). Meeting next week..

Biodiversity wetlands

CITES (trade in endangered species) World Heritage convention

Convention on Biological Diversity There are several other NGOs working with this.

M.S. Swaminathan

- Dashwin Sharkar Groups

- Gene Campaign

- Rajiv Tawan (legal questions- public litigation) Climate

SCE has been very active here, both in public debates, towards the government and internationally.

POP and WTO trade and environment Talk to others next week

GEF

SCE is sceptical to GEF issues and has formed and leads a network of NGOs fighting GEF.

Programmes in Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh Little here.

Literature/reports

(14)

Mr Sudarshan Rodriguez, UNDP. 4 June 2001.

Present: Mr Vedeld, Mr Skudal, Mr Fretheim

R. is primarily concerned with biodiversity projects, but will no also take on POP projects relevant to the new Stockholm Convention of 23 May 2001. India has not yet ratified the convention, but is most likely to do so. Many projects are GEF funded.

R. informed about a study now being carried out by the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, assessing the implementation of global conventions. India is one of the countries studied.

A GEF funded project to develop a national action plan on biodiversity is under way and planned to be finalized by summer 2002. The plan will be important for Indian compliance with CBD 1992 requirements. The Indian NGO Kalpavriksh has been given the role as coordinator in preparing a draft plan. The plan will eventually have to be approved and adopted by the central government. The plan will cover also action at state level, and will include proposals for policy instruments to implement programmes and measures. A committee is formed to carry out job. Members both from government and NGOs. UNDP find it to be a well balanced committee. The action plan will incorporate and further develop the existing National Forestry Action Plan. The plan will include a list of concrete projects for possible funding by GEF or other donors. Normally, NGO involvement is required to obtain GEF funding for such projects. For large project a “steering committee” to oversee the implementation is often established, with representatives from both government and NGOs.

UNEP has held some workshops in India to promote biodiversity programmes and measures and the implementation of CBD.

R said that development and implementation of programmes, measures and legislation go slow in India. Proposals from the Government (MoEF) is not given priority in the Parliament.

Other ministries often look at policy in the area of environment protection as problematic and hampering economic progress. Based on present experience, UNDP is concerned that implementation of the new action plan on biodiversity will not be given priority at central and state level.

NGOs working on biodiversity issues

WWF has proven to be good in implementing projects in the area of wetland protection/management and protection of tigers. In other areas they may not be the best qualified in implementation at local level, but may be good supervising/organizing implementation by local NGOs. Good in organizing training and capacity building activities.

Other qualified NGOs mentioned by R:

- Wildlife Institute of India

- Foundation for the Revitalization of Local Health Traditions (FRLHT) - Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA)

- Kalpavriksh

- Centre for Science and Environment

- Centre for Environment and Education and WWF

(15)

Dr. G.K. Pandey, Director, MoEF, 4 June 2002

Present: Mr Vedeld, Mr Fretheim, and one of Mr Pandeys staff members (working on air and water pollution)

P’s areas of responsibility are air and water pollution, and waste management (municipal and hazardous).

P informed of the establishment of State Pollution Control Boards in India. There are now 31 SPCBs, and 3 under establishment. The SPCBs are governed by boards with representatives from government industry and environmental NGOs. The SPCBs are implementing central government policy and legislation at state level. Standards set by central government are minimum standards, and the SPCB may set stricter standards. SPCBs are under the instruction of MoEF and the Central PCB in implementing state policy/legislation.

Implementation by SPCBs are in many cases not satisfactory.

MoEF is carrying out capacity building activities in the states. Funds comes from both central government and donor agencies.

P mentioned that information to MoEF from SPCBs on state projects supported by aid agencies in many cases are not adequate.

In addition to legislation, voluntary schemes such as ISO and environmental audit schemes are used. Economic instruments are little developed. A “water use charge” (amount used) is in place, as well as a “license charge” for industry. The income of these regimes in some states contribute considerably to the financing of the SPCBs.

P made clear that improvements are needed in many areas, and mentioned in particular the following which could be of interest for Indian – Norwegian cooperation:

- Establishment of air pollution monitoring stations (many more are needed) - hazardous waste management, including pesticide waste and hospital waste - municipal waste management

- clean technology/techniques for small scale industries - energy saving in small scale industries

- water pollution from pulp and paper industry

- water pollution/waste management in distilleries (molasses based) - pollution from vehicles (from gasoline to gas)

Pollution from large industries is relatively well controlled compared to small-scale industries.

Too little attention has so far been paid to health aspects of pollution, and cooperation on these aspects could also be of interest.

P also mentioned that the training component of projects was not taken care of in a satisfactory manner. Too often “the director” did take part rather than the executive officers.

This has to be improved.

(16)

Dr. Battacharya, TERI. 4.6.2001

Teri (Tata Energy Research Institute) is an institution with an NGO status, but that operates more like a R&D institution. TERI has an estimated income (1999) of around 400 mill. IRS of which 50% is from national and 50% from international funding sources. 80% of the incomes are project related. TERI has a good international reputation. They work closely with the government. Much of what is stated below is documented in TERI (2000). Their main field is within energy research. They have five main divisions;

1. Regulatory studies and Governance division 2. Policy analysis division

3. Energy-environment division

4.Bioresources and biotechnology division 5. Information technology and services division.

In addition they have a regional centre in Karnataka, Goa and in Assam. They also host the Asia Energy Institute.

Short description of the main divisions:

1.1 Regulatory studies and Governance division

This division was established in 1999 to facilitate the process of structural transformations, infrastructure changes, environmental considerations and regulatory reforms in the energy markets in India, through filling the knowledge gaps, through R and D activities. They work closely with the World Bank and GoI in this.

1.2 Policy analysis division

This division works with local, national and international environment and energy policy issues. They contributed to develop India's position in 1999 (Teri 2000: 22) as well as to other countries in the region such as Bhutan, Laos, Korea to FCCC and to IPCC. They have also generated research on anticipated effects of climate change in India. They have also done research on potential CO2 abatement projects in India.

They are also into the use of GIS in relation to environment and energy use. They also provide inputs into GEF3.

Another area is the study of supply and demand scenarios for oil and gas. They also work with resource economic approaches to natural resource use and in the transport sector, they help develop models that can improve transport efficiency and identify new fuel technologies.

1.3 Energy-environment technology division

This division works with developing technologies, products and markets for environmentally friendly energy solutions; gasifiers, improved cupolas, improved biogas plants, solar lamps, improved kerosene lamps etc. both for domestic and industrial target groups. In industry they have also worked with improving chemicals and hydrogen energy systems.

(17)

1.4 Bio- resources and biotechnology division

This division works with R&D activities related to biotechnology and sustainable resource use; including research on mycorrhizal biotechnology, forest and biodiversity, microbial biotechnology plant molecular biology and plant issue culture.

1.5 Information technology and services division

They work extensively with promoting and dissemination R&D results to a wider audience.

1.6 Other activities

Teri has recently established offices in London and Washington.

TERI is host for Asian Energy Institute that works to promote regional co-operation on energy information, on training, R&D activities. CICERO, Oslo is an associate member of this institute. They have received some funding from MoFA- Norway.

How work with government and viewpoints on this relative to the environmental field TERI has close contacts with the government in several areas, and assists the government also in its climate change negotiations.

The Renewable energy- groups

The group works with how to promote policies for renewable energy for improved energy efficiency in various fields.

One programme area is on improved local energy use among small-scale rural energy within cast iron founding, glass, brick kilns and in ceramic pottery.

Have funds from the Swiss development agency on improving energy efficiency.

On approach

Stressed the importance of how to work with introducing new technologies, and stresses the lack of use of economic instruments in Indian environmental policy formulation. He mentioned the case from Agra 1996, where a ban on use of coal within a radius around Taj Mahal. Good- and bad as it does not well accommodate environment and development. The Supreme Court does not find flexible and well formed instruments.

International conventions and TERI engagement relative to Indian follow-up locally - Climate

- POP

- WTO trade and environment

Bio- energy in India and renewable energy

There are several possible solutions, but improved policy instrument use is necessary to get it going.

High pressure biogas is one type with a potential. 3500 mw potential.

Also wind power is there. A lot is developed- especially in Gujarat. It has increased over the last year- but new plants not so much because of change in policy framework concerning tax systems etc.

(18)

Biomass gasifiers have potential. Can be used for rural industries, especially were there is no grid available.

For household, sharing biogas systems is an option.

Industries where improvements in energy efficiency can be an option; cement, pulp and paper, textile, fertiliser, iron and steel and refineries. Some of these could form a basis for co- operation with Norway?

On pollution; leather industries and sugar industry is problematic today.

Programmes in Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh TERI has a separate unit in Karnataka, not in HP.

Teri 1999-2000 Silver Jubilee. TERI 25 years Annual Report.

Webpage: www.teriin.org

(19)

Bilal H. Rahill, Senior environmental specialist, IBRD. 4.5.2001.

The World Bank is by far the largest single multilateral operator in the field of foreign support to development activities in India. The cumulative lending from IBRD and IDA by June 2000, was 53 bill. USD, with around 50% for IBRD loans and 50% IDA credits.

The main sectors supported in 2000 in India would be to education (182.4 mill. USD.), power (140 mill. USD.), health 250 mill. USD), multisector/ rural development (100 mill. USD.), public sector management (250 mill. USD), social protection (25 mill. USD), telecommunication (62 mill USD) and transport (516 mill. USD) (From World Bank Annual Report, 2000). World Bank).

The Bank does not have a substantial portfolio in environmental specific programmes, and the Environmental Division works mainly with integrating environmental issues in the other programmes. The general policy for the Bank on environment is a very clear mandate to incorporate environmental issues.

The Bank has a big programme the Industrial pollution Control project, running from 1991- 1999 which basically building competence and demonstration programmes in four states;

Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. The total budget including partly privately financed demonstration projects was around 685 mill.USD. The experiences are documented in an Implementation Completion Report (Report number 19678 (1999). This report should be studied prior to a possible SPCB component in IND 063.

2. How work with government and viewpoints on this relative to the environmental field The bank works with the Government in all programmes.

3. Donor co-ordination activities

CII has made an environmental compendium. Should be out next week; on all donors and environmental programmes in India. It will be sent to the Embassy.

It is the UNDP that has a donor co-ordination responsibility. Last year, a meeting was held on donors and the environment, arranged by the Bank, through Mr. Carter. Nothing has come out from this meeting in writing. It was agreed to try and establish informal network groups on various environmental items; such as afforestation, solid waste etc. Nothing has come out so far.

4.International conventions and WB engagement

The Bank supports work with the Montreal Protocol in India.

On GEF, the Bank has some programmes running. In 1999, the Bank 4 and IFC one programme out of which 4 were within Biodiversity and one on climate change. The bank had a financial portfolio of 100 mill. USD. Linked to the UNDP- GEF co-ordinated initiatives (out of a total portfolio in India for GEF of around 142 mill. USD (in 1999: MoEF). The main programmes for the bank is the Eco-development project, the Alternative Energy project, India renewable energy project and the Solar Thermal energy project that alone accounts for around 50 mill. USD. (These projects are described in MOEF, 1999).

In the new GEFIII there is around 500 mill. USD. The Bank has been asked to contribute.

(20)

The power sector programmes have as an aim to improve efficiency of the systems, including transmission systems.

The Bank is planning to run a series of workshops in the fall, 2001 on GEF new programmes.

There is a National Strategy Study being carried out by the Swiss Embassy in this field.

On chemical issues, the Canadian CIDA has worked with this relative to POP. A point made is that of all environmental health related issues; pesticides in India are assessed to contribute to less than 1% of the problems.

5. Bioenergy in India and renewable energy

The Bank has some projects under the GEF umbrella in this respect such as the Eco- development project, the Alternative Energy project, India renewable energy project and the Solar Thermal energy project.

Programmes in Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh Need more information.

GEF Projects in India, MoEF, 1999 82 pp.

World Bank Annual Report 2000 www. worldbank.org

(21)

Alex Jorgensen. Senior project implementation officer, ADB.

4.5.2001

ADB is one of the main foreign donors/Banks in India. India is one of the founding members-at the same time as India receives a substantial amount of funds from ADB. The loan portfolio to India;

Sector loan numbers loan amount

(mill USD) %

Energy 19 3.416 37

transport/comm. 13 2155 24

Finance 11 1330 15

Social infrastr. 14 1330 15

Others 2 500 5

Multisector 6 425 5

Total 65 9,158 100

As we see, the energy sector is substantial loan-taker. The Bank has around 50 professional staff in India.

2. How work with governments and viewpoints on this relative to the environmental field

The Bank has little environmental specific programmes, but has environmental guidelines and checklists and EIA for their programmes and a quite detailed process before loan approval.

ADB joined GEF last year. All ADB- loans go through the government.

ADB is involved in financing programmes under the GEF, around 50 mill. USD. in the energy sector

2 projects coming up; Mangrove forest project and a water resource management programme in Madhya Pradesh.

- There is tank restoration programme in 6 major cities.

3. On approach

Corruption is a major problem in India.

4. Donor co-ordination activities Mostly with DFID and the World Bank.

5. Bioenergy in India and renewable energy ADB is more into traditional energy sources.

6. Programmes in Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh 7. References:

www. adb.org

(22)

Mr Ravi Agarval, Chief Co-ordinator, Toxic Link, New Delhi.

Areas of work is waste and toxic chemicals, in particular issues like:

- Hazardous waste, including hospital waste - Urban solid waste

- Toxic chemicals and products - Pollution from mercury - Ship breaking

TL has 3 offices in India, main office in New Delhi. They co-operate with a large number of NGOs all over India. Financing comes primarily from international sources (USA, NL and others)

TL is heavily involved in international co-operation, and takes part in meeting under the Basel Convention (hazardous waste) and the Stockholm Convention (chemicals).

TL is used as advisor to the government and is member of several government appointed committees and groups working in the areas of TLs competence.

TL is organising training workshops and is developing guidelines for the public and others in safe waste management and chemicals use.

Anju Sharma, Global Negotiations, CSE.

CSE has written a report on global environmental negotiations and on India’s role and position in these (Agarawal et al, 2000, pv 29). Anjita Shrama is working with this.

She states that few Indian NGOs are working in this field- too few (mostly WWF, Toxic Links, TERI, CEE). They are working with the establishment of a regional network of organisations in the field. Workshops will be held on capacity building, with funding from DANIDA and where co-funding may be possible. (on Rio+).

A general problem in India is a lack of follow-up of international conventions. Also, in many negotiations, not well prepared.

(23)

Sujata Gupta, TERI Policy Analysis Division. New Delhi.

Ms Sujata Gupta, Fellow and Dean, chaired the meeting.

The Division presented the areas of its work, which mainly did fall under the following three headlines:

- Clean energy - Climate change - Biodiversity

Further presentation concentrated on climate and energy issues. The Division was engaged in projects related to:

- Abatement option for CO2

- Impacts of climate change, short and long term effects

- Training/capacity building in climate change issues, including workshops in Lao PDR, Buthan and South Korea

- National communication under the UNFCC

- Improving performance/efficiency in the energy sector - Demand side management in the energy sector

- Renewable energy

They have much and good contact with concerned government institutions, and are used as advisor also in international negotiations.

The Division was presently also engaged in a study which should serve as input to the government in relation to questions of including trade provisions in multilateral environment agreements.

TERI is also represented in a government appointed committee to consider possible CDM projects under the FCCC/Kyoto Protocol on climate change. They expressed interests in identifying possible counterparts in Norway for such projects. The report is expected to be finalised in appr. 2 months time. Looking, among others, at clean coal technologies.

(24)

Anita Kaul, Secretary, Dept. of Environment, Min. of Environment, Ecology and Forestry. Bangalore, Karnataka.

6.5.2001

The Department of Environment is not a very strong department inside the Government structure. Their total budget is around 2 crore out of a total spending for the Department of Env. and Forests of around 136 crore.

It means that even INEP has more funds than the total Dept. of Environment. This implies that the scope for institution building and capacity enhancement is there.

The main tasks/authority lines are linked to its nodal functions;

- Head of the State Pollution Control Board - Heading the work with Biodiversity issues - Education and awareness raising

- Approving relative to EIA procedures - Surveys

2. How to work with government and viewpoints on this relative to the environmental field

The department is very weak and has problems in getting into the arenas where important decisions are taken.

The relationship to the general public should be improved- one means is to use public hearings.

Not very much is received in the environmental field for Karnataka.

4. International conventions and engagement relative to Indian follow-up locally Not so much done in Karnataka from Dept. of Environment. More from Dept. of Forestry.

5. New programmes in Karnataka

There is no state of the environment report; there is a Karnataka Human Development report to be produced annually; the first one was developed last year. However, there are no inputs on the environment in this.

MoE flagged an interest in having a state of the environment report developed. CEE can carry out this work. One should look for partners in such a process. Research environments other NGOs?

How link the work of an NGO up to line ministries etc. can be a problem.

Annual and five year development Plans to be sent

(25)

Dr. Shailaja, CEE. 6.6.2001

CEE is a national NGO with programme sin many states. It has more than 100 staff employed and an income in 1999 of around 67 mill. IRS for various activities. The main activity is within environmental education (see CEE Annual report 1999-2000 for more information).

In Karnataka they have worked within several fields; they have had a project on solid waste management under INEP.

2. How work with government

They have programmes working with the government in various fields.

3. On approach

They spend much time on developing good pilot and demonstration activities an don how to link them up with the government.

4. International conventions and engagement relative to Indian follow-up locally

They are at present the nodal agency for UNDP/GEF small grant facility for India, replacing Development Alternatives.

5. Programmes in Karnataka

The offer to run the State of the Environment report work on behalf of the government. The MoE has in principle agreed to this. There is a project outline. This could be a possible area under the INEP next stage.

Literature/reports CEE Annual Report

Various publications from own sources www. ceeindia.org

(26)

Professor J. Srinivasan, Centre for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.

A very brief meeting was hold with professor Srinivesan.

The Centre is involved in the work of IPPC under the UNFCC.

Mr S expressed the view that people in India were not too concerned about climate change issues, because it does not raise immediate concern (problems lay in the future).

Mr S presented a research project in the area of atmospheric aerosols. A laboratory is being developed at the Centre for characterising atmospheric aerosols and their effects on the environment and climate. They hope for GEF funding for the projects. The centre has some knowledge of Norwegian institutes working in related fields, and is interested in contacts and co-operation with such institutes.

Prof. B. N. Raghunandan, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science. Bangalore

A very brief meeting was held. Professor Raghundan is chairman of ASTRA.

ASTRA is involved in a GEF/Canadian project on the use of biomass as energy source in rural areas. 25 villages are involved. ASTRA has been working on such issues for 20 years.

In earlier projects a main problem has been that good single projects has not been replicated in other areas. The large number of villages involved now will substantially increase the possibilities for replication.

Mr R had good knowledge of the Norwegian projects on the treatment of effluent from coffee industries. He thought it was a good project.

Mr R argued that the development of micro hydro plants could be an interesting and

important area for co-operation, for instance in Karnataka. Many NGOs are interested in this.

Producing such plants can be commercially viable, and there are plans to establish a company for such production.

Mr R thought that biomass in the long run could cover up to 20% of energy use in Karnataka.

(27)

N. Gokulram, Principal Secretary, Environment, Ecology and Forest Department. Bangalore, Karnataka. 6.5.2001

The Department of Environment has a budget of around xxx out of a total spending for the Department of Env. and Forests of around 136 crore. (360 mill.IRS).

FD and the forestry sector receive a substantial part of the INEP (Indo-Norwegian Environmental Programme) funds; the Chamundi Hills, the Lakes programmes, the Arboretum are all linked to the forestry sector.

The main tasks/authority lines are linked to its nodal functions;

Afforestation plan. Present level is around 16%; should be developed further up to 20% of the area in our opinion.

Surveying for the Biodiversity work. Forest surveys follow ordinary procedures.

Wildlife wing; in charge of Parks and Zoos. Problems with elephants. Census on wildlife around every 10 years.

The department is rather powerful in Karnataka, but suffers from the division of authority, power and resources between local and central government.

Not very much is received in the environmental field for Karnataka.

DFID has a big programme in Karnataka on Joint Forest Management. This is a challenging area. Problems. One is considering making the most valuable forest areas not so accessible to people, for various reasons.

4. International conventions and engagement relative to Indian follow-up locally

The Dept. of Forestry. has given inputs to the work on Biodiversity. There is a suggested legislation on Biodiversity not yet notified. Emphasis in this also on people's rights and people's participation. Sustainable use is stressed in this work.

On greenhouse gases and ozone; a support regime is in place to help industries phase out polluting activities, within the timeframes set for compliance. Of course, India is not polluting a lot/capita but from sheer size, our emissions are on level with a country like Germany.

5. New programmes in Karnataka

Need development plan. Flagged more tanks in second phase. A project on oil extraction for fuel use.

Annual and five year development Plans to be sent.

(28)

D. Biswas. Chairman. Central Pollution Control Board. 7.6.2001

The Central Pollution Control Board is an autonomous directorate under the Min. of Environment. Under the Chairman and the Member Secretary with its 15 members, there are three main departments. Pollution assessment, pollution control and an infrastructure department.

The basic acts that have bearings on their activities are linked to the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981 and the later Environment Protection Act, 1986.

Concerning pollution assessment, they work with air, water and soil pollution, solid waste and awareness raising issues relative to inventory, monitoring and surveying issues with focus on problem areas.

Concerning pollution control, they work with regulation and legislative issues, co-ordination of actions at different levels and between different sectors, planning and zoning, controlling, auditing, training and education.

The Central Pollution Control Board has good relationships to the state Boards and also co- operate closely with the central ministries.

As India does not have a directorate in charge of Biodiversity issues, the Pollution Control Board are contemplating about suggesting a unit for biodiversity/nature conservation- like a national environmental protection agency.

NGO sector is an important addition to the field; has personally good relations with them.

This is not so for the SPCB system more in general.

3. On approach

There are a lot of pressures on the SPCB as they take on difficult tasks. The organisation structure could be improved, with better clarifications of distributions of rights and duties.

There are also frequent political pressures of various kinds.

The Supreme Court has now taken a very active position on environment/health related issues and industrial pollution.

CPCB has a number of projects with support form outside.

A major programme was on World Bank project on support to institution building in 4 states;

building up competence etc. in the organisations.

Norway has supported both the Boards in Himachal Pradesh (IND 056) and especially in Orissa through IND 049. There is also a project with NILU on air quality monitoring.

(29)

5. International conventions and engagement relative to Indian follow-up Not a lot has happened so far on POP.

IMO. There is a set of suggested guidelines out for IMO. These must be notified. This is a difficult issue. The shipping "does not look like industry the way we are used to work with". It needs special systems and organisational set-up.

SARC: There are some environmental programmes here. Some networks also with UNEP and Escap.

6. Programmes in Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh No time.

(30)

Dr. Ranjithsinh. INTACH. 7.6.2001

The Indian National Trust for Art and Culture is an NGO with aim to promote the natural and cultural heritage of India. Founded in 1984. They have sections all over India. They publish newsletters, books, reports etc. and they arrange seminars, workshops, awareness programmes etc. They also work with restoration of pictures, buildings, monuments etc. They also work with natural heritage. They also have a legal cell that advocates work with fighting legal battles to conserve and protect various items. Their total sources of funds for 1999-2000 is around 130 mill. Irs. (16 mill. NOK).

2. Areas of work/collaboration

They have close contact with the Government and the Min. of Culture and Tourism and the underlying department of Archaeology.

They take on projects government does not cater for. The Government has a list of protected/conserved monuments/symbols etc. Most of the Indian cultural heritage is privately owned. Local governments are not doing much- a big problem in India.

They have allocations from various trust funds.

NORAD support INTACH through the NGO-grant in Bhubanswar, Orissa; on the conservation of palm leaves manuscripts in Orissa.

4. International conventions and UNDP engagement relative to Indian follow

Work both on cultural heritage and on natural heritage but not in particular on follow-ups.

5. Programmes in Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh

They have chapters in Chamba, Shimla, Kangra, and Manali in HP.

In Karnataka they have chapters in Bangalore, Kutta (Coorg), Mysore and manipal.

(31)

Joint secr. Rajeev Kher and Special secr. K.Roy Paul, Ministry of Environment.

1. Areas of operation

The organisation chart for Min.of Environment and Forestry is found in chapter 4 in the report.

For 1999-2000, the total expenditures were around 551 crores, with 125 on the environment, 158 on the national River Conservation Development Scheme, 178 on Forest and Wildlife and 88 National Afforestation and Eco-development Board.

The main areas of work relates to;

- Survey of natural resources

- Conservation of natural resources, including forestry and wildlife - Environmental Impact Assessment (evaluated 254 projects in 2000) - Prevention and control of pollution

- Regeneration and development - Research

- Education training and Information - Legislation and Institutional support - International co-operation

- adm. etc

There is a project; Panchayat Raj and the environment; where a website has been developed;

http: sdnp.delhi.nic.in/node/ies

The division of labour between central and local level is placed on particular union, state and concurrence lists.

A particular focus on lack of donor co-ordination was mentioned. MoE will take an initiative on this shortly.

JIC is sponsoring a large Green Aid Plan.

Promised to send the Embassy SWM report.

3. International conventions and engagement relative to Indian follow-up

Biodiversity: There is an action plan with several involved parties Linked to GEF funding.

Kalpavriksha is the nodal implementing body for this. plus UNDP.

Climate: Not yet started properly- 4-5 months. On greenhouse gases and ozone, things are moving.

(32)

POP: Canadian CIDA has flagged a willingness to give a 20 mill.USD support.

Regional: Supported arsenic wells problems in Bangla Desh.

UNEP is involved in regional activities.

4. Literature/reports www.envfor.nic.in

(33)

Prof. Vinayak Rao, JNU, 12.6.2001

1. International conventions and engagement relative to Indian follow-up

Processes from inception, planning, preparation for conventions, negotiations, follow-up, assessments.

He stressed the nodal role of the MoEF but also that there has to be consensus inside the Government. It is also so that the Min. of External Affairs will be involved and have a say in any process where there are international negotiations.

MoE will run the everyday debate around these issues and they have a responsibility to generate and keep debates and awareness raising going.

The government policies are quite well entrenched, coherent and consistent through a time consuming activity of discussions and calibrations. 70-80% of all work with the international environmental negotiations preparations takes place in the public ministries. The role of other actors is quite limited. The government uses the NGOs in two ways; in a practical way to get assembled information etc. in a strategic way to avoid too much noise in the media etc. They thus leave space open for the civil society.

The civil society in this context consists of NGOs, research environments but he also stresses the role of a third party; the concerned elder, retired citizens and high rank officials. These people have a power base, they have resources and insight and can have substantial power in the Indian environment scene. Having such people on the team can thus be an important asset in the policy formulation and policy implementation processes.

Examples; Rajmani, the former Environmental secretary. Now works in Hyderabad on issues related to Biodiversity, benefit sharing and sacred groves.

Dr. Sharma. Now settled in Madras- works with ozone- greenhouse gases.

2. How does MoEF work with other agencies on negotiations;

a) The nodal min. formulates a background paper.

b) The officer in charge will circulate a position paper to other identified min.

c) There will be an inter- ministerial task force with top bureaucratic officials for most negotiations. For climate; min. of coal, power, agriculture, forest, energy, non- conventional, health etc. In climate; min. of coal as strong; "India has a coal based economy", as V.J.Sharma stated.

d) After rounds of negotiations an agreed version will be sent Cabinet for approval. Main job is done in the group.

In the negotiations. The environmental standpoints cannot interfere with more global overarching issues that are seen as much more important for India.

Survival versus luxury emissions..

(34)

e) After signing- follow-up; is in general very bad in India. The only good process has been the greenhouse gas ozone protocol follow-up. They have a separate cell in Habitat centre, a cell that is actually part of the MoE. There is need for proper institutional framing of the follow- up processes.

The planning commissions role in Indian policy formulation has changed. The commission was not important in the early 19990, but ha snow assumed an important role in the macroeconomic planning- for at least two reasons;

1) The globalisation has hit India like a hammer. A lot of new demands have come with the globalisation and the many international treaties.

3. On general environmental policy formulation in India

Very much of India's policies are Delhi- based. A problem- especially relative to implementation.

More integration local/national is necessary.

There is very little consciousness in India about environmental issue. Number 12 on agenda.

No politician in India has ever won an election based on environmental issues in the campaign. Other issues are more important. There is no trade-off if the environment does not matter. India has had no great disaster. Except maybe Bhopal, but that is seen as an industrial catastrophe more than an environmental accident.

There is also a lack of prominent leader; a few like Anil Agarwal, Swaminathan, A.Shiva, but not so many.

The lack of population policies in India is striking. Only indirectly and more in Southern states.

4. The role of research environments/universities in policy formulation processes

Research has a role, although a bit ad hoc; uses as an example TERI/CICERO; TERI has been given a project to do research on climate and agricultural change and on globalisation. Why TERI? They do not have the competence; should rather have used Swaminathan, ICRISAT, IITM, IIS (Gadgill), or Indira Ghandi in Bombay for example. Too much focus in Delhi.

Another example; Government does what it wants. The CNG debate- government made own decision different fromTERI/SCE.

5. Ideas for projects

Let MOEF centrally make reports on how the international processes are followed up. There is a lack of knowledge about this.

6. Literature/reports providing overviews of Indian environment policies

UNESCO MAB programme Indian case studies, Dr. Rahmakrishnan. Publ. by Oxford.

O.P. DWIVEDI: Indian Environment Policy Management.

Susanne Jakobsen: From CDR (Copenhagen): India and climate change.. It has a section on the environmental sector in India.

(35)

Dr. Virendra Sharma, DFID 4.5.2001

Virendra has previously worked with GoHP, in the Department of Science, technology and the environment and with IND 056. He worked to develop the Present State of the Environment Report for HP.

This work has now been carried on, and an Environmental Action Plan has just been approved for HP.

Other states with State of the Environment reports out; Orissa, Andra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh. The last is said to be good.

The present “Environmental Planning Unit” established he does not see as any serious institution building effort at all.

DFID works in four priority states; Orissa, MP, Andra Pradesh and West Bengal.

Their main areas is governance reforms, economic reforms, livelihoods and health/education.

The total frame is around 1 bill. NOK/year. and is the largest bilateral donor in India.

FD in HP has a better reputation than FD in Karnataka.

Planning commission has now a separate person in charge of environmental issues; Mrs.

Khanna. She should be contacted by the Embassy.

DFID has small supports to NGOs such as TERI, Indira Ghandi, WWF.

3. On approach

DFID has changed focus in India and much more now goes to areas of good governance and economic reforms (30%), 40% on livelihoods and around 30% to health. At a macro- level, environmental considerations are to be built into planning papers and the sector plans.

Co-ordinate with ADB, EU and the World Bank. It could be more than at present, not least in the environmental field.

DFID supports TERI and IIT Bangalore on reports and documentation relative to climate change.

5. International conventions and UNDP engagement relative to Indian follow-

DFID has not worked much with this. Dr. Sharma is involved in the work now with the Biodiversity plan. This work is taking off. The Biodiversity Act intends to establish a formal ground for new types of conservation areas. It also facilitates the establishment of National and State Environmental protection Agencies parallel to DN in Norway. This would involve wildlife, planning maybe, EIA approvals, and functions at present under Dept. of Science and

(36)

technology. This could be an area of institution building efforts for the INEP programme.

In Karnataka one may take up some work under the Environmental Protection Act related to Coastal Regulation Zones, which are covered there. On planning in this respect. This may be an idea for MoE in Karnataka and the long coastline of Karnataka.

6. Bioenergy in India and renewable energy

Nothing much here. Work more with reforms in power sector.

-

7. Programmes in Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh

HP has had a FD programme support in Mandi/Kullu. Now in a phase 2 establish some pilot activities under the chief minister in a Forest Policy Unit between VFC and Panchayats in different districts by merging them into one unit by strengthening the panchayats.

AUSAID is now starting a programme on watershed management and on capacity building in HP, with involved dept. such as Urban Local Bodies, Geology, Industry, Planning and also the SPCB. A Norwegian programme should thus be discussed with AUSAID also.

World Bank/GEF has a small medicine plant project in Kullu.

Email: diplomacy@vsnl.com