INDIA 2011=USA 1980

Globally, outrage and the ensuing chaos, as witnessed in India in recent months, have often been the harbinger of order for many countries. One such country that has been there and done that is the US and it has important lessons for us. Recent events notwithstanding, the US has, for the greater part of this century epitomised success- a country where the government delivers and true talent, innovation and entrepreneurship usually get rewarded.

Striking parallels

And yet it wasn’t always so. The crucible of such efficiency lay in circumstances, in the early 1900’s, which were remarkably similar to those that the Indian polity finds itself in now. Widespread corruption, lackadaisical governance and politician-businessmen nexus was commonplace.
Just as in India, there were allegations that the government often rewarded business houses with unfair advantages and contracts. There were business tycoons who, it was alleged, routinely bought seats in the House of Representatives. They manipulated legislatively determined pricing of critical national commodities (such as Gold and rail freight- the historical equivalent of telecom spectrum) in return for favors for the President’s family members.
In fact, some of the best known American universities were sponsored by individuals who were tainted with allegations of political graft. Noted political scientist, Fred W Riggs, might as well have been speaking of India when he described this state as a ‘Prismatic’ society-where prices could be determined by the reciprocal power of the trading partners and not due to the more impersonal relationship between supply and demand. Also, political control could be grabbed through coercion, violence, money, or charismatic rule, but not always through consistent application of constitutional law. Just as the recent scandals have led investors to doubt the Indian growth story, the American crises of 1894 and 1907 led foreign investors to doubt if a corrupt US governance system would ever get its act together. American democracy took time to mature and at times seemed just as inept and chaotic as the Indian governance appears today.

The turn-around

Given the striking parallels in the initial conditions, it is natural to think of the key causes for the American turnaround and the possible path that India might adopt going forward.
In the late 19th century, the US banking system was dependant on political patronage to receive licenses - not unlike the licensing raj that existed in India. The Regency Democratic Party held monopoly over the licensing regimen and used it extensively to fill party coffers.
However, reform emerged with the opposing Whig party’s desire to restrict the Democrat’s monopoly over these rents of patronage. Their intention behind deregulating the banking sector was more to end their rival party’s monopoly on bribes than to act against corruption itself.
Similarly, it was a rogue splinter group of the Democratic Party, the Equal Rights Party, composed of traders and entrepreneurs, which rose against its leadership. They did so only when it became apparent to them that a heavily regulated banking sector threatened their own economic interests. Personal gain and political brinkmanship played a bigger role in prompting reform than any sanctimonious regulation ever could.
In India, we have already seen some of this happen with the opposition having to clean its own tainted stable to maintain pressure on the government. Also, new interest groups, such as those led by Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev, have risen to take advantage of the ideological gap.

Popular angst

Ultimately, in a functioning democracy, popular angst usually creates enough political space for new political parties (and old parties with new found ideologies) to cash in on emerging public opinion. Reform doesn’t always need legendary leaders with far reaching vision, but invariably needs a critical mass of popular angst. And a hitherto stable equilibrium of mutually beneficial silence unravels into a game or a jostle for the newly emerging popular mandate- ultimately leading to sustained reform.
Secondly, it was the emergence of a truly independent judiciary and civil service that bucked the existing trend. Earlier in its history, the US had followed a system of political patronage for government jobs. Thousands of appointments were made purely as political favour to those who demonstrated loyalty to the ruling party. Even judicial appointments were heavily influenced by the choices that the ruling party made.
However, growing inefficiency and public disgust with corruption finally forced congressional action to create a separate civil service cadre. These were purely expeditious political decisions driven by short term factors. The decision makers never truly intended them to have the far reaching consequences that they did.
In India, we are already witnessing a resurgent judiciary, unafraid to test the government’s conviction in going after the corrupt. However, actions of the bureaucracy have so far remained muted. Indeed, historically we have seen it regress from being the steel framework supporting India’s democracy into a favor seeking extension of the political machinery. Provided these institutions can remain independent in thought and action, it is entirely conceivable that in India too, these institutions, along with the media, will raise the cost of corruption to a level where it outweighs the marginal benefits of being corrupt.
Crucially, in the US, neither of these reforms was borne out of an explicit vision or conviction to root out corruption. And yet these reforms emerged because the system, for all its ills, was one that allowed popular mandate to fully express itself. Subsequently, the invisible hand of selfish political survival guided the various players into reactions that inadvertently led to sustainable change and reform.
The current chaos engulfing Indian governance and policy making, seems utterly incapacitating. However, it would bear well to remember that it is part of a broader narrative, a journey that culminates in the emergence of hugely successful societies.

RESPONSE TO FDI ISSUE IN PUNJAB

Political rhetoric aside, a large cross-section in Punjab is batting for FDI in retail. Being one of the most progressive agrarian economies, Punjab will be a major sourcing state for any foreign retailer who sets up shop in India.
The ruling party in the state, SAD, may have been forced to take a U-turn on its support for allowing FDI because of political considerations, but in private, SAD leaders agree that it will help the state's sagging agro economy. However, concerns about small traders and farmers persist.
There is almost a consensus on the need for a regulator for the foreign retailers and some protectionist policy for the small domestic companies.
The Tribune spoke to some prominent politicians and an industry representative, asking them about FDI and whether it would help carry the growth story of Punjab's farm sector forward. Here is what they had to say:-

On FDI in retail sector

Amarinder Singh: Allowing FDI in retail will augur well for the farmers of Punjab and all other food producing states. The foreign players entering the Indian market in multi-brand retail will not only pay better prices to farmers but also help bring quality and good manufacturing practices in agriculture.
Navjot Sidhu: I believe that FDI in retail sector is in nobody's interest, be it consumers, farmers or traders. The Indian economy is dominated by the services sector which accounts for 58 per cent of the country's GDP. Allowing foreign players, with deep pockets, will kill competition and lead to loss of jobs. International retailers operate on the principle of buying internationally at cheapest prices. A majority of items to be sold by international retailers are going to be sourced from cheaper manufacturing economies like China.
Mohinder Aggarwal: The FDI in retail sector will be in nobody's interest, except big foreign companies that will get access to a huge Indian market. The government cannot allow foreign companies to flourish at the cost of thousands of small retailers and businessmen. All middlemen and small traders will be eliminated when foreign companies set their stores here, thus leading to unemployment.
Amarjit Goyal: Opening of FDI in retail will be beneficial for all, provided the government allows it with some riders. The government should enhance the limit of sourcing from local SMEs to 50 per cent (from the present 30 per cent), and it should be done only from Indian SMEs. Also, the government should ensure that the benefits reach farmers by putting a clause that the farmers be paid more than the actual cost of crop production.

On advantages for Punjab

Amarinder Singh: Punjab is one of the top food producing states. The state's experience with agri conglomerates, be it Bharti Wal-Mart, Tata Khet Se, or Pepsi Co, has proved that farmers supplying their produce to these companies are earning much more than those selling in mandis. In latter's case, it is the middlemen who are making profit. The corporate sector has also brought better agriculture practices by providing better seeds, educating farmers on efficient use of fertilisers/ pesticides; and helped them improve post-harvest technology.
Navjot Sidhu: Without getting into what the SAD is saying, I would like to reiterate that the FDI will not benefit the farmers. Those advocating FDI say the farmers will benefit. I only want to ask what do they have to say on the plight of sugarcane farmers who sell their produce right at the gate of sugar mills. If the farmer does prosper on account of international retailers then why it is that the farmers in the US and the European Union have to be subsidised to an extent of $1 billion per day.
Mohinder Aggarwal: The government is favouring FDI in retail, saying that it will help improve infrastructure. But that may not be the case. Two years ago, the government opened FDI in construction of cold storages, but it failed to attract any foreign player. The government has to realise that infrastructure development will have to be the joint responsibility of the state as well as the Central Government. As far as benefiting farmers in Punjab, even the big agri houses who are currently sourcing their produce from here, are paying only a small percentage of fixed profit to these farmers.
Amarjit Goyal: Punjab will be a major state for sourcing of food grains and vegetables. This will not only help improve the economic condition of farmers, but also help in crop diversification as more farmers will grow vegetables for these companies. We have already seen the benefits reaching those farmers who are supplying to big cash and carry stores in the state.

On parties playing politics

Amarinder Singh: There is no doubt that the hue and cry on FDI is merely to gain political mileage. The UPA has taken a step in the right direction to help recover the country's economy. Opening FDI in retail will also help curtail inflation, as it would bring better supply chain management. The fear allayed by the Opposition that the entry of foreign companies will ease out the mom and pop stores has no basis. Everywhere in the world, neighbourhood retail stores have coexisted with big retailers.
Navjot Sidhu: We were never for the FDI in its current form. We are not against FDI but want a regulator to keep a check on predatory companies so that they don't get a free hand to source from cheaper manufacturing economies like China. We are also against the government allowing the companies to have 51 per cent stake in FDI as it will allow these companies to have a say in policy determination.
Mohinder Aggarwal: A forceful Opposition is beneficial in the larger interest of the public, as it keeps a check on the government's functioning and also raises the concern of the common man. One cannot ridicule the BJP for taking up the cause of thousands of traders.
Amarjit Goyal: I would not like to comment on this. But a healthy opposition will obviously augur well for all stakeholders. The government will gain in the form of higher VAT returns through these retailers, consumers will get better quality of goods, and farmers will get higher prices for produce.

AIDS AND INDIA

Ever since the first case of AIDS virus came to light in 1986 and HIV infection became a major health crisis facing the country, the spectre of AIDS has loomed large. What has been more worrisome is that it affects the vulnerable sections of the population i.e. women and children, too. But as December 1 marked World AIDS Day, there was less cause for gloom. India has not only made considerable progress in tackling the scourge but has also led the decline globally. In the decade between 2000 and 2010 fresh HIV cases in the country were down by 50 per cent. Now, the news that more men in Punjab are opting for safe sex is reassuring as well.

Safe sex practice plays one of the most crucial roles in checking the spread of HIV, particularly among women. Of the total HIV cases in India, nearly 40 per cent are women and many of whom get the cases from their husbands. Safe sex offers protection against transmission of the virus to those women who are at risk. It’s heartening that Bollywood celebrities too are raising their voice for the cause and advocating safe sex through various social platforms. Aggressive awareness drives and high literacy rates do lead to a decline in infections.
Nevertheless, while the decline in infections needs to be welcomed, there is no cause for complacency. Even today India has 2.5 million HIV positive people and the challenges are many. UNAIDS has already cautioned India against being complacent. In the light of global donors backing out and the danger of new infections lurking by, it has asked the government to step up investment. Indeed, India, which has done a commendable job in fighting the menace of HIV/AIDS, cannot afford to fritter away the gains. Concerted steps and the early passage of the HIV Bill can not only ensure that the battle against AIDS is won; even the human rights of HIV infected can be protected. Zero new HIV infections, zero discrimination and zero AIDS-related deaths may become more than an aspirational goal.

NRI'S AND PUNJAB

IN October this year, the Punjab Legislative Assembly amidst pandemonium passed 11 Bills without any discussion. As a result, Punjab State Commission for NRIs Act, 2011 was enacted with a generous state government providing Rs.50 lakh during the current year for paying the salary of employees of the five-member Commission.
While Non Resident Punjabis generally descend here to reconnect with their roots, there has been a role reversal this year. With Punjab going to the hustings in 2012, Ministers in waiting and poll managers have flown in advance to UK, USA and Canada to lobby for support and seek greenbacks. Indigenous vote banks in rural Punjab are also influenced by the thinking of philanthropic and cash-rich NRIs in the matter of casting the ballot. Hence the scramble to woo them.
This regardless of the fact that only 38 NRI voters have actually registered themselves for casting votes, for which they will have to be physically present in Punjab. For wooing this perceived vote bank, the political competition and compulsion is about which party can devise the best mechanism for resolving the problems of the NRIs in Punjab.
About 5 million Punjabis, it is estimated, are settled abroad and are bound by family, property and business interests back home. Their problems do need solutions. Conventional laws and slow, tardy procedures do leave them disenchanted.
Who is an NRI or a PIO or an OCI for that matter?
Section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 (FEMA) defines a person resident in India and a person resident outside India but does not define the term NRI. However, a notification defines NRI to mean a person resident outside India who is either a citizen of India or is a person of Indian origin. Under FEMA, a person “resident” in India is one who resides in India for more than 182 days in the preceding financial year and who comes or stays in India for any purpose and a “non-resident” is merely defined as a person who is not a resident in India. Therefore, an NRI can be summed up as an Indian citizen who is ordinarily residing outside India and holds an Indian passport.
PIO: It means a foreign citizen who at any time held an Indian passport; or he/she or either of his /her parents or grandparents or great grandparents was born in and was permanently resident in India; or he/she is a spouse of a citizen of India or of a person of Indian origin. PIO card holders can visit India without visa for 15 years and will be required to register with Foreigners Registration Officer (FRO) in India when the stay exceeds 180 days continuously. PIOs enjoy parity with NRIs in respect of certain facilities but have no political rights and can apply for Indian citizenship after residing in India for a minimum of seven years.
OCI: A foreign national who was eligible to become a citizen of India on January 26, 1950, or was a citizen of India on or at any time after the said date or belonged to a territory that became part of India after August 15, 1947 and, his / her children and grandchildren are eligible for registration as OCIs. They enjoy multiple entry multipurpose lifelong visa for visiting India, are exempted registration with FRO/police authorities for any length of stay in India and are entitled to benefits notified under Section 7 B of the Citizenship Act. An OCI registered for 5 years and residing in India for one year can be granted Indian citizenship but have no political rights.
The Punjab State Commission for NRIs Act, 2011 is stated to be “An Act to provide for the constitution of the Commission for NRIs in the State of Punjab with a view to protecting and safeguarding the interests of the NRIs in the State of Punjab, and to recommend remedial measures to State Government."
It defines a “complaint” by stating that it “means all petitions/communications received in State Commission for NRIs from an NRI or any other person on his behalf, in person, by post, by telegram, by fax or by any other means whatsoever, alleging, disputes or violations or abetment thereof or negligence in the prevention of such dispute or violation, by a public servant or a private person or the material on the basis of which the Punjab State Commission for NRIs takes suo motu cognisance."
The flaws
The law however, does not define what is an “NRI dispute” or a “NRI violation". Consequently, the authority, jurisdiction and powers of the Commission, remain hazy and undefined.
Though the proposed body has extensive investigative powers through the existing official machinery, its capacity to provide practical relief and pass effective orders remains questionable. The NRI Commission cannot usurp the powers of courts and may well turn out to be unworkable.
Amusingly, the focus of the law enacted is more on the members of the Commission and what they will get as benefits. The actual emphasis on what the body in making would actually do and how it would dispense justice in relation to a defined arena of NRI disputes or violations is blissfully missing.
The grievances of NRIs revolve around family law related issues, property disputes, immigration related questions and trysts with criminal law. But then the system of Civil and Criminal Courts mandates that all disputes shall be adjudicated by Courts of competent jurisdiction as per statutory laws made by Parliament and applicable throughout India. Consequently, identifying an “NRI dispute” for being heard and decided by a different authority will clearly fall foul of the system of prevalent adjudication by existing courts. The aggrieved NRI will still need to invoke the powers of a competent Court for actual relief as a NRI Commission cannot enjoy parallel statutory adjudication powers.
In case the NRI Commission is meant to be a recommendatory body, the Law Commission of India and Punjab State Law Commission are already saddled with this exclusive role of suggesting changes in laws. In any case, no major exercise is needed to identify where amendments are required as both the problems and desired solutions are well known. Most of them relate to Central Laws within the ambit of Parliament. Hence, any state level exercise to achieve independent changes will be an exercise in futility.

WHY GROWTH RATE IS FALLING?

FROM aspiring to achieve a double-digit growth rate to actually slumping to 7 per cent or even less, if private predictions are to be believed, is quite a fall for the country, once widely seen as an emerging economic power. The latest official data shows the economy grew by just 6.9 per cent in the second quarter of this fiscal and it is the slowest in the last nine quarters. While the growth of manufacturing fell to 2.7 per cent, mining actually witnessed a contraction, shrinking by 3 per cent due to a ban on mining of iron ore following scams encompassing Karnataka, Orissa and Goa. Despite a normal monsoon the agricultural growth shrank to 3.2 per cent from a healthy 5.4 per cent last year. The slowdown in investment and private consumption shows that the troubles are here to stay.
The chief culprit for the dismal scenario is, no doubt, untamed high inflation. For too long policymakers kept predicting inflation would ease soon and delayed the RBI response. Then the government left the job of controlling inflation entirely to the apex bank and failed to address the supply side constraints. Low agricultural productivity, poor state investment, rising input and capital costs have subdued farm growth and pushed up food inflation. The belated attempts to open up multi-brand retail to foreign direct investment, which is expected to cut food waste and streamline the supply chain, are being scuttled by misinformed opposition. Chief Economic Adviser Kaushik Basu has blamed “slowdown in decision-making” for the economy’s poor performance. There are other factors: high interest rates, policy paralysis, major scandals, needless political standoff and uncertainty in global economy.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee has tried to shore up the sentiment by pointing to the deterioration in the global economic scenario and held out the hope that the country’s growth rate would pick up soon, but economists and industrialists are less optimistic. They feel exports, which have remained robust, will lose the advantage of a depreciating rupee to the loss of orders from Europe and the US. Dark clouds loom on the horizon

WHERE THE LOKPAL IS STUCK

Anand Marriage Act.

The Union Cabinet is set to consider the provision of independent registration of Sikh marriages under the Anand Marriage Act. Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid, talking to TNS, said his ministry had made two proposals following complaints by the Sikh community that the amendment to the Act in 2008 did not address their concerns.
The amendment in the Anand Marriage Act in 2008 allowed for a separate register to record Sikh marriages. However, there was criticism that the Anand Marriage Act continued to be part of the Hindu Marriage Act:1955 and should be made a separate Act.
Salman Khurshid said: “We have proposed a Central Act providing for registration of births, deaths and marriages. Under this, certificates submitted under the Anand Marriage Act could be registered. Alternatively, the provision for separate registration could be provided under the Anand Marriage Act itself.” The Law Minister said that both the proposals had been forwarded to the Home Ministry for consultation.
The ministry was expected to elicit the opinion of various ministers as well as Punjab leaders in Punjab. “Once this is done, the matter will be forwarded to the Cabinet for a decision”, he explained.
The Anand Marriage Act came into being in 1909 following a proposal by Maharaja Ripudaman Singh of Nabha.
Later, the Act became part of the Hindu Marriage Act that grouped Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism as offshoots of Hinduism. Hardeep Singh, SGPC member, said the amendment in 2008 was a mere eyewash .
He said even Pakistan and Bangladesh had separate Anand Marriage Acts and that India should follow suit.
However,Rajya Sabha nember Tarlochan Singh said amending the Hindu Marriage Act would be difficult and that the present amendment met the aspirations of the Sikhs and should be retained as such.

FDI IN RETAIL--- YES OR NO --- ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR

Parliament is debating the issue of the Cabinet decision on multi-brand foreign direct investment (FDI) in the retail market in cities with a population of one million persons and above. Direct investment in economic reckoning is labelled as good investment because it is stable investment and better than the fly-by-night kind — portfolio investment which is liberally allowed in our stock markets. The FDI is considered good investment because it goes, if not wholly, at least partly into the creation and development of infrastructure and cannot be taken out easily. The investor gains and suffers with the economy of the host country and has, therefore, interest in the growth of the economy.
Portfolio investment, on the other hand, can cause serious problems at the time of slump in the stock market. The volatile behaviour of investors can make the stock market go spinning in downslide, specially if the country does not have enough foreign exchange reserves to protect itself against the flying-out capital. Thus, the first aspect of FDI that needs to be appreciated is that it is a stable investment which endures with the economy in its thick and thin phases. Now we are faced with the question of this investment in the retail market and that too in multi-brand retail and with 51 per cent share-holding.
It is little realised that apart from the demand and supply gap, which may be there or not, the retail market, dominated by small shops and vendors, is the major culprit in giving vent to escalating inflation in the country and it needs to be disciplined through the creation of effective competitive alternatives. Corporate food stores and multi-brand stores for other products can be the only alternative in a free economy. When farmers were hardly able to get 60 paisa per kg of muskmelon in the wholesale market recently, the vendors in Ludhiana did not lower their retail price below Rs 10 per kg. Here it is a more than 17 times margin which cannot be justified by any standard. Today, in several wholesale markets of Punjab, potato is being sold by farmers at less than even Re 1 per kg. Yet the vendor sells it at Rs 10 per kg. In a Reliance store the price is Rs 5 per kg.
Just another example from the NCR — cauliflower in corporate stores sells at Rs 5.80 per kg and in the unorganised market the price is between Rs 8 and Rs 9 per kg depending upon quality. Comparative figures are Rs 6 and Rs 15 per kg for spinach, Rs 18 and Rs 25 for carrot, Rs 120 and Rs 150 for apple, and Rs 28 and Rs 40 per kg for mosambi in corporate stores and the unorganised market respectively. In fact, the unorganised market is a misnomer. It is so highly organised, in spite of a large number of vendors, that they are united to charge almost the same price for the same quality of the product. Prices may differ somewhat due to the quality differences. Even the vendors sell the products door to door at the same price.
Is it not an irony of fate for producers that after investment and the tiring effort for four to six months for vegetables and for a full year for fruits, with all the production risks suffered, they should hardly receive 10 per cent and the maximum 20 per cent of the consumer price! The retailer with no risk and only with a small place advantage with least investment should appropriate 80 to 90 per cent of what the consumer is forced to pay! Here the middleman does not do any processing to convert the produce into a new product. He sells the same raw produce and fleeces both the producer and the consumer with impunity because he has monopoly through a virtual cartel of small shopkeepers and street vendors in the absence of effective competitive alternatives.
The retailer in the country is such a bad conductor of the pulses of demand and supply that the benefit of high prices is not allowed to flow to the producer and that of low prices to the consumer. Breaking this unwholesome nexus will be possible only through the reduction of profit margins on the strength of a high volume of business by corporate stores in place of high margins on low volumes charged by vendors and small shopkeepers. What is true in the case of vegetables is equally true for other commodities, including food and non-food items.
Thus, the corporate sector must be freely allowed to enter the retail market in the interest of producers as wells as consumers. Second, since the retail market is extensive and requires billions of dollars to provide quality services to consumers, it is essential that the necessary infrastructure must be developed to reach small producers and consumers to provide a sustainable connect. Also, modern technology and infrastructure for an efficient conduct and performance of the market are a must to efficiently operate in the domestic and international markets.
Our corporates alone are not as yet in the financial and knowledge position to operate single-handed. Collaborative retail market projects can be of tremendous value for us to improve our retail market conduct to fulfil the aspirations of the consumers in the emerging economy of the country. The government in this respect has played its role very diligently and within safe margins. The mandatory provision of investment in infrastructure, including cold stores and warehouses as well as cold chains, etc, will improve not only the retail sector but also wholesale markets on a stable basis. Further, the condition of more than 30 per cent purchase of commodities from small producers is the right decision and a good safeguard. As markets develop, this provision of 30 per cent will automatically increase as producers get accustomed to and trained in quality production as demanded by corporate stores.
As to the fate of small shop owners and vendors, they have their niche markets where customers are used to do bargaining and are treated on a personal level. Nowhere in the world have small shop owners and vendors gone out of business in the presence of corporate openings so far. It is a misplaced fear. The only change that has occurred so far is that an element of price discipline has entered into their approach, which needs to be increased significantly through the creation of an alternative competitive market on an extensive scale.
One wonders why the government is restricting the spread of corporate retail and foreign direct investment to the cities having one million and more population only! It is unfortunate that opposition parties in our system of democracy are attuned to opposing any move by the government, howsoever good it might be for the public. Opposition for the sake of opposition is not good for any stakeholder. But who listens to logic in a vote-bank-oriented polity!

COP17

Coming in the backdrop of a worsening sovereign debt crisis in Europe and a political standoff in the US over debt and taxes, the Durban global conference on climate change does not inspire much hope, with top leaders, including US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, staying away. Only the heads of government of some African countries are present at “COP17” as the 17th conference of the parties to the UN convention on climate change is called. Unlike last year’s Cancun (Mexico) conference, which produced a pact to set up a fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change and evolve mechanisms for the transfer of clean-energy technology, the Durban negotiations remain a low-key affair.
Some 20,000 delegates from 194 countries meeting in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9 will try to save the Kyoto protocol, which is the only legal regime mandating emission cuts by industrialised countries. The protocol is set to expire in 2012 unless the negotiators reach a pact to extend its period. China, Brazil, South Africa and India favour its extension. Some major countries, including Canada, Russia and Japan, are reluctant to see a second protocol through and are reneging on emission targets and climate-change financing. The Kyoto protocol, they feel, has made the industrialised countries cut CO2 emissions, while leaving the developing countries out from any commitment. The US is not even a party to the Kyoto protocol and has refused to ratify it because of what it calls “asymmetrical obligations”.
Backed by China and Brazil, India has taken the stand that the climate summit should work on providing equitable access to sustainable development, technology transfer and unilateral trade measures. India and China are under pressure to agree to a binding commitment on emission cuts. The fate of the talks remains uncertain