DNA - India ranks 56 on global web index for freedom and access

India has been ranked 56 out of 81 countries in the annual Web Index, which looks at how the Web empowers people and delivers socio-economic impact.

Pakistan was ranked 6th in the list, showing the poor level of contribution the country has made to development and human rights.

The Web Index is the world’s first measure of the World Wide Web’s contribution to development and human rights globally.

Scores are given in the areas of access; freedom and openness; relevant content; and empowerment.

According to the report, first released in 2012, the 2013 Index has been expanded and refined to include 20 new countries and features an enhanced data set, particularly in the areas of gender, Open Data, privacy rights and security.

Sweden topped the annual Web Index which looks at how the Web empowers people and delivers socio-economic impact.

The World Wide Web Foundation's annual Web Index placed the Scandinavian nation in the top spot for the second year in a row.

It was followed by Norway, the U.K. and the U.S. The Philippines is the highest-ranked developing country.

The bottom ten countries are as follows

1. Vietnam

2. Burkina Fas

3. Malaw

4. Rwanda

5. Cameroon

6. Pakistan

7. Zimbabwe

8. Male

9. Ethiopia

10. Yemen

The Hindu - Climate talks and India

India needs an early agreement, and also adequate atmospheric “space” in terms of allowed carbon emissions to pursue its development goals. It needs to take a proactive stance on this

By all accounts, no dramatic developments are to be expected from the 19th edition of the Conference of Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that started in Warsaw last week. But it is generally acknowledged that the key issue at Warsaw, even if there are many other significant subjects on the agenda, centres around moving forward the negotiations on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (DPA) initiated at COP 17 two years ago.

It is widely understood that the Durban Platform was a game-changer, setting the stage for decisive climate action based on clear commitments to emissions reduction from all nations. Subsequently, the discussions in the Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform (ADP) have resulted in demanding timeline for achieving its aims, including a draft text to be produced by the COP in 2014, a global meeting of heads of states of all nations to be convened by the United Nations Secretary General to push forward such an agreement, and a final agreement to be reached by COP 21 in 2015.

While it is not a foregone conclusion that the DPA will achieve its stated goals by 2015, there are now additional factors conducive to reaching a global agreement. Even if no individual extreme climate event can be attributed exclusively to increased global warming, increasing awareness of the impact of climate-driven disasters, such as Typhoon Haiyan and the Uttarakhand flash floods, is contributing to a global recognition of the urgency of a climate deal, among governments as well as civil society. Significantly, the release of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over the next several months, culminating in the release of the final synthesis report of all its findings next year, will add to the sense of urgency.

At the UNFCCC, the European Union has been the most active in pushing forward the agenda of the Durban Platform, laying out in increasing detail the framework and broad outlines of its content and a methodology for securing commitments that would ensure an effective treaty. It has been joined in this effort by many African nations, especially South Africa, and have the strong support of the island-states of the world — support that was vociferously expressed at Durban in 2011. The United States has pursued a two-track policy with respect to the DPA. On the one hand, the U.S. insists that it would undertake only such emissions reductions as it deems feasible, a strategy that is referred to as the “bottom up” approach in the global climate discourse. On the other hand, it has not hesitated to support the European Union, the Africa Group and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) in their efforts to have a binding climate agreement with assigned commitments to all nations, especially when such commitments are to be imposed on China and India.

India’s interests

Where do India’s interests lie in the matter of a global climate agreement? There can be no doubt that India needs an early climate agreement, for two reasons. On the one hand, there is increasing evidence that unchecked global warming would lead to increasingly severe effects in several sectors, especially agriculture and water, apart from the increased frequency of extreme climate events. The enhanced climate variability that accompanies global warming will have serious impacts on Indian farmers, the bulk of whom are small-holders who even today suffer the consequences of weather and climate shocks, before the effects of global warming have risen to more alarming levels. An early climate agreement with the potential to restrict global average temperature rise to at least 2 degrees Centigrade, if not lower, is certainly a necessity. An early and effective limit on greenhouse gas emissions will also contribute to lowering the need, and associated costs, for climate change adaptation, which otherwise could be considerable.

At the same time, India needs adequate atmospheric “space” in terms of allowed carbon emissions to pursue its development. Even in a highly optimistic scenario in which renewable energy rapidly takes up the bulk of the requirements for sectors such as domestic lighting and heating, agriculture, and all energy needs of small-scale establishments, India will still need fossil fuels for a considerable time until reliable sources of clean energy become available for large-scale use in the expansion of industry, transportation and the like, all of which are needed for development. Even infrastructure needs for adaptation will require such emissions.

The IPCC’s AR5 report has brought to the centre-stage of discussion the notion of a global carbon budget, referring to the cumulative carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, from the beginning of the industrial era till the end of the 21st century, that are permissible, if the global temperature rise is to be kept below 2 degrees C. For a 66 per cent probability of keeping the rise in global average temperature below this limit, the world is allowed approximately 1000 billion tonnes of carbon emissions (taking account solely of carbon dioxide). But the nub of the issue is the equitable distribution of this space. In per capita terms, or indeed by several other measures of equitable distribution as well, the developed countries have already substantially exceeded their fair share of this global budget. As a consequence, a large number of developing countries, including China but especially India, will have to make do with less than their fair share of the global carbon space as their national carbon budgets for the future, if indeed global warming has to be kept in check.

‘Top-down’ agreement

To maximise the developing countries’ access to the global carbon budget, an early “top-down” agreement to impose constraints on the developed nations’ consumption of carbon “space” in the atmosphere is an obvious necessity. Even more obviously, an approach based on “voluntary” commitments to emissions reduction by developed and developing countries would not address India’s needs.

In view of these considerations, it is surprising that New Delhi’s guidelines for its Warsaw delegation should set aside India’s long-standing commitment to treating the atmosphere as a global commons, to be shared equitably by all nations, and instead back the “voluntary commitments” approach. Predictably, even before this approach has been articulated, it has run into rough weather. The EU is of course fully aware of the global carbon budget and hence demands that the gap between the sum of all voluntary commitments and the allowed global budget has to made up by further emissions reductions that all nations have to agree to. This demand, as well as India’s response that the gap must be made up by the developed nations based on historical responsibility for emissions, brings us back to what is indeed a “top-down” approach.

At the heart of the Government of India’s current confusion lies its unwillingness to acknowledge that in an eventual global agreement, all countries have to shoulder some part of the burden, even while any such burden-sharing must be based on equity and climate justice in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. New Delhi’s view currently is that developing countries will have no binding commitments whatsoever even into the future, a view that will increasingly isolate India from even others in the ranks of the G-77. The inadequacy of official India’s unhappy approach is brought out by the fact that it has allowed the term “equity reference framework” in the context of the ADP negotiations to be hijacked by other nations, including nations of the African Group as well as the EU. India and its like-minded friends are left in the unenviable position of opposing this term, claiming that developing nations will never undertake any binding commitment.

For too long, India’s official climate policy has portrayed the absence of a proactive stance on a climate agreement as a strategy to protect the country’s interests. Climate science as well as good climate politics demand that India shift to making clear to the world its commitment, in concrete terms, both to securing its developmental future as well as preserving the global environment.

(Dr. T. Jayaraman is Dean of the School of Habitat Studies at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences in Mumbai)

Reuters - Money market creation in India

(Reuters) - The era of easy money for Indian banks may be coming to an end. Unlimited access to cheap overnight funding from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) was tightened mid-year as part of measures to support a plunging rupee, and now the central bank is keen to use the restrictions to help it deepen money markets.

The ability of banks to continuously tap funds through the central bank's Liquidity Adjustment Facility (LAF) lowers their need to raise cash in the markets, which has thwarted the development of a proper money-market yield curve.

That seems set to change under new Governor Raghuram Rajan, who has pledged to deepen and develop India's financial markets. As a first step, he wants to encourage use of new term repos.

Sources say the RBI will deliberately go slow in removing the cap on funds banks can borrow via the LAF, even as it unwinds other emergency measures imposed to prop up the rupee.

Having a money-market yield curve would help investors and companies better price risk across a range of maturities, and should make markets more liquid.

"Globally, many central banks rely more on term lending than overnight lending. We also want to move to that kind of a system where the reliance on overnight borrowing from the RBI will be reduced to the minimum. This will help in building a smooth yield curve," said an official aware of the issue.

TURNING OFF THE TAP

Under the LAF, banks borrow overnight funds at the central bank's main lending rate, the repo rate, currently at 7.75 percent.

The facility is intended to help lenders smooth over daily fluctuations in their liquidity needs, but banks have instead used it to borrow easy money, and fund longer-term lending by repeatedly rolling over their collateral.

That changed since mid-year when the RBI limited borrowing first to 1 percent of bank deposits and then to 0.50 percent, about 400 billion rupees daily, in measures to tighten the supply of rupees and support its exchange rate.

"LAF is a liquidity management tool. But banks are using it to fund their loan book and they are not very actively mobilising deposits," said a second official familiar with the central bank's thinking.

Estimates are that banks now have to raise at least about 800 billion rupees each day outside of the LAF.

Some of that can be tapped via other central bank facilities, including an export refinance window where funds are borrowed at the repo rate, and the Marginal Standing Facility, emergency funding at a more punitive rate of 8.75 percent.

Banks can also raise funds from 7-day and 14-day term repurchase agreements (repos) that were launched in October. The first three auctions have attracted strong demand, and the RBI can eventually add more tenors to create a yield curve.

ADJUSTMENT

Having become accustomed to unlimited low-cost cash, the shift to market-based funding has led to some volatility as banks adjust to the new environment.

The Mumbai Inter-Bank Offer Rate, or MIBOR, an overnight rate that determines the pricing of short-term debt such as commercial paper, is moving in a range of about 100 basis points, compared with 10 to 20 basis points in mid-July.

Last week, MIBOR was at 8.80 percent, higher than even the 8.75 percent the RBI charges for emergency funding. But bankers acknowledge the long-term benefits of creating a yield curve.

"We are using the term repo facility. We are not facing any issues due to the repo cap. The RBI should gradually move to longer tenors to cover the duration till the 91-day T-bills. It will eventually help the development of an interbank term money market," said N. S. Venkatesh, treasurer at IDBI Bank.

It is not just a matter of commercial banks changing their practices. The Reserve Bank may also need to change some of its rules before the money markets can fully develop.

One of the major issues seen restricting the interbank term repo market is a set of regulations preventing collateral pledged in a repo being reused by the party providing the funds, a common feature in more developed markets.

"The RBI is trying to wean away banks from using the overnight window to support their balance-sheet activities," said R. Sivakumar, head of fixed income at Axis Mutual Fund.

"The ultimate success will be if they can develop a term money market outside the central bank's window." (Additional reporting Swati Bhat; and Archana Narayanan; Editing by Rafael Nam and John Mair)

The Hindu -phasing out HFCs

TOPICS

environmental issues

hazardous materials

In rushing to embrace the U.S. proposal to amend the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion, New Delhi has neither helped multilateral efforts to tackle climate change nor ensured that the appliances industry gets access to viable alternative refrigerants

It is 1994, and less than a year to Assembly elections in Bihar. The Indian economy is on the mend but the benefits of liberalisation are yet to reach semi-urban and rural areas. Standing in the way of government efforts to boost consumer spending is a little known international treaty called the Montreal Protocol. The Protocol requires India — which ratified it in 1992 — to control and phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons and halons, which are considered Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS). As a developing country, India has been offered a 10-year window to abide by its commitments to the Protocol.

‘Refrigerator or tiger?’

Reining in CFCs could possibly dent the consumer goods market in India: they are used as refrigerants in automobiles, electronic appliances, plastics and pharmaceuticals, among other applications. Of particular concern is the market for refrigerators, which has witnessed an unprecedented boom. Having acceded to the Protocol, the government has no option but to hard-sell it to the public. Maneka Gandhi — who as Environment Minister negotiated India’s entry into the Protocol — opts for a novel approach to the issue at an election rally in Bihar, in a constituency located near a tiger reserve. Ms. Gandhi — she would recall to the late political scientist Holly Sims — spins the story of “The Lady, or the Tiger” around to ask the crowd: “Do you want a refrigerator, or a tiger?”

Its impact on India’s consumer-driven growth notwithstanding, the Montreal Protocol was a much-needed instrument that addressed ozone depletion. The well-being of tigers is not directly linked to the decreasing volume of ozone in the atmosphere — but by comparing refrigerators to endangered animals, Ms. Gandhi simply sought to relate the importance of the treaty to laypersons.

This year, the Montreal Protocol is back in the spotlight. The United States and other developed countries are leading an effort to bring hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) within the ambit of the treaty. India, which has scrupulously adhered to its original commitments under the Protocol, is being arm-twisted into agreement. Cutting down on HFCs will deprive Indian industry of the only viable alternative to CFCs. Despite its potential impact on the economy, in an election season, the United Progressive Alliance has made no effort to convince the public why it is tagging along with the proposal.

The reasons are fairly clear: India’s negotiating position has not been borne out of some sense of responsibility to the environment. It has its genesis in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s promise to U.S. President Barack Obama — made both at the G20 meeting at St. Petersburg and during his visit to the White House in September 2013 — that New Delhi will not object to the West’s initiative.

The Montreal Protocol was negotiated in the aftermath of a stunning discovery by British scientists of a giant hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. This discovery in 1985 lent urgency to treaty deliberations. The Protocol owes its success to a sharply defined objective — to stem further ozone depletion. To this end, the treaty identifies the class and category of halons and CFCs that need to be regulated.

The West’s current proposal to sweep HFCs under the Montreal Protocol runs contrary to established principles of international law. In fact, it defeats the very purpose of the Protocol. HFCs do not harm the ozone layer. However, they contribute substantially to greenhouse gas emissions and thus, climate change. Since HFCs gained currency as an alternative to CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances, the West has argued, they too should be regulated under the Protocol. A treaty may have unintended consequences, but to amend it to tackle them all is neither feasible nor desirable. If it is found that conventional warfare has been on the rise on account of the absolute ban on nuclear weapons, should the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty be amended to impose limits on defence budgets of countries?

Bringing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol, some have argued, serves the larger goal of tackling climate change. But regulating the only commercially viable alternative to ODS is likely to encourage non-compliance from the Protocol. In any event, history suggests the West’s proposal is not solely driven by noble intentions.

In return for its consent, India has been promised financial and technical assistance to phase out HFCs. The U.S. offered exactly the same carrot when the Protocol was negotiated two decades ago. Although a Multilateral Fund was set up to provide support for developing countries, its quantum was subject to much dispute. While India sought $1 billion for the Fund, the West offered merely $240 million in the interim period between 1991-93, with additional pledges to follow. As of 2010, $2.7 billion had been pledged. Here is a figure to put that amount in perspective: the refrigerator market in India alone is valued at $1.8 billion.

While negotiating the Protocol, India was sceptical about claims of technology transfer, so the Environment Ministry sought to make it “mandatory.” Alternative technology was concentrated in the hands of private players in the West, India argued, and the treaty had to compel them into sharing it with developing countries. Industrialised nations, as the then chief U.S. negotiator Richard Benedick recalls in his memoir Ozone Diplomacy, saw this demand as “environmental blackmail.” The “mandatory transfer” provision failed to materialise after China softened its stance. India was projected as a holdout to the Protocol, which increased pressure on the government to ratify it.

The result? Companies like DuPont — which influenced the U.S. position on the Protocol — and Daikin made windfall profits by tapping into emerging markets with their patented substitutes to CFCs. Similarly, western companies stand to gain most if HFCs are to be phased out under the Protocol. The U.S. holds most of the patents for alternative hydrocarbon and magnetic refrigerants. These technologies, which have not seen wide commercial usage in developing countries, could be prohibitively expensive.

Meanwhile, India has once again been called out for “stalling” the proposal to amend the Protocol. The Hindu has reported how, at the Bangkok conference to review the working of the Protocol recently, the Indian delegation objected to the setting up of a “contact group” on HFCs. The Ministry of Environment and Forests is keen to address HFCs within the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. But setting a target to reduce HFCs under the Framework will lead to similar demands for other greenhouse gases, something the U.S. steadfastly opposes. HFCs are potent compounds but their contribution to climate change is currently minuscule compared to that of CO2 emissions. Tweaking the Montreal Protocol not only frees the U.S. from any commitment on other greenhouse gas emissions, but also works to favour its companies.

Phasing down HFCs

The Ministry has been thrown under the bus after the Prime Minister agreed — during his U.S. visit — to set up an Indo-U.S. Task Force to discuss “phasing down” HFCs under the Protocol. India’s negotiating position at climate talks have, regrettably, been held hostage to the Prime Minister’s foreign policy legacy.

If the Montreal Protocol is amended to include HFCs within its scope, India and other developing countries have no option but to import expensive and largely untested technology from the West. The government has proposed to allow for compulsory licensing to make it accessible to domestic players. Two wrongs, however, do not make a right. For starters, New Delhi will find it difficult to justify granting compulsory licences — regarded as an emergency measure — for green technology under the TRIPS regime. Second, compulsory licences are only going to serve the interests of big Indian companies which have the wherewithal to manufacture alternative refrigerants cheaply and on an industrial scale.

India’s accession to the Montreal Protocol offers a few lessons for this government. While it negotiated the terms of the Protocol during the late 1980s, it did not join as an original signatory. India adopted a negotiation strategy aimed at securing financial assistance in addition to a “grace period” to phase out CFCs. With the wisdom of hindsight it is clear that developed countries are not going to pay for the damage they have caused to the ozone layer. This does not dilute the imperative of tackling climate change — rather than rushing to embrace the U.S. position on the Montreal Protocol, India should stick to its original demand to address all greenhouse gas emissions through the UNFCC. At the U.N. climate talks, India’s commitment to stringent emission norms must doubtless be coupled with a legally binding assurance of technology transfer.

arun.sukumar@thehindu.co.in

Keywords: Montreal Protocol, ozone depletion, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, climate change

View comment(1)Post Comment

MORE IN: Lead | Opinion

9

The Hindu - OPCW winning Nobel Peace

In awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has given another leg up to the goal of ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction. In 2005, the Peace Prize went to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Though it is tempting to see the 2013 Prize as an acknowledgement simply of the OPCW’s difficult and ongoing mandate to monitor the destruction of Syria’s chemical munitions, the organisation has done a commendable job since it came into being in 1997 as the custodian of the Chemical Weapons Convention. As many as 189 countries are party to the CWC’s ban on chemical munitions; under the treaty’s terms, they are obliged to declare and destroy any stockpiles they possess within a clear timeframe. Unlike the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which gives the United States, Russia, China, France, and Great Britain special status, the CWC is non-discriminatory. Unfortunately, as the Nobel Committee observes in its citation for the OPCW, “certain states have not observed the deadline, which was April 2012, for destroying their chemical weapons. This applies especially to the U.S. and Russia.” The U.S. has sought another decade to destroy its arsenal, while Russia is expected to complete the process only by 2018. The irony of thrashing out a deal to eliminate Syria’s CW stocks while lagging behind on their own commitments must not be lost on both countries. For its part, India has complied fully with the treaty, having eliminated its chemical stockpile four years ago.

Apart from living up to their disarmament commitments, the big powers must also ensure there is no interference with the OPCW’s functioning. The organisation relies both on technical and diplomatic expertise to fulfil its objectives. Yet, it has been impeded by partisan politics in the past: in the run-up to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration managed to oust OPCW Director-General José Maurício Bustani when it emerged the Brazilian diplomat would stand in its way. Mr. Bustani had sought to engage Saddam Hussein, with a view to ensuring Iraq’s accession to the CWC. By bottling the OPCW and using entities like the U.N. Special Commission for Iraq to further its own interests, the U.S. has done no service to the goal of eliminating WMDs. The role of the OPCW in Syria — given the limited time it has for its mission — will now be thrown into sharp relief. The stakes are high and the organisation must be allowed to do its job without coercion or meddling from outside. The quick and effective elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons would reinforce the world’s faith in multilateralism and vindicate the Nobel Committee’s choice for what is arguably its most prestigious prize.

The Hindu - India and Indonesia

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s state visit to Indonesia from October 10 to 12 will attract a lot less attention than his recent trip to the United States or his meetings with the Chinese President. Yet, he has a lot more in common with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono than either Xi Jinping or Barack Obama.

Both Dr. Singh and Mr. Yudhoyono are currently in the final lap of their second terms in power. While both were initially heralded as potentially transformational statesmen, they are nearing the end of their tenure as lame ducks.

They have seen their countries crest a wave of economic growth over the last decade. India and Indonesia’s youthful demographic profile and expanding middle-class consumer base have led many an excitable investment banker to mark them as the economies to watch. But the once cantering economies have slowed, and current account deficits and plunging currencies are among the unappetising items on the Last Supper that Dr. Singh and Mr. Yudhoyono are left digesting.

But India-Indonesia parallels run a lot deeper. Since Indonesia’s transition to democracy in 1998, the commonalities with India have only increased. India is the world’s largest democracy and Indonesia its third largest one. The two countries are also home to the largest (Indonesia) and third largest (India) number of Muslims in the world. Both are members of important multilateral forums like the G-20 and East Asia Summit.

India and Indonesia are maritime neighbours. Given that Indonesia rules the major waterways between the Indian and Pacific Oceans—- waters through which more than half of all international maritime trade passes — the strategic significance of the relationship looms large. In fact India’s 2009 maritime strategy document listed the Sunda and Lombok straits, both under Indonesian control, as major choke points with complicating potential for Indian interests. Cooperation with Indonesia is a prerequisite to enable the Indian Navy’s operations in these waters. Joint coastal monitoring has been ongoing since 2010, but there is a need to step up this cooperation, including joint maritime exercises and training.

The relationship with Indonesia has also assumed greater importance in the context of China’s rise and expanding regional reach. Both India and Indonesia have the potential to act as balancing powers and can aid each other in their mutual goals of engaging China to benefit from its economic might, while ensuring that Beijing’s power is not untrammelled.

In the past Indonesia has proven helpful to India, as in 2005, when it lobbied within the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) for India’s inclusion in the East Asia Summit, a regional grouping that Beijing had been keen to keep New Delhi out of.

Mediator role

In recent months Indonesia has been playing the mediator’s role within Asean to find a solution to China’s maritime disputes with countries like Vietnam and the Philippines. These efforts appear to have born some fruit with Beijing agreeing to talks with Asean on a code of conduct for handling conflict in the South China Sea, despite it being a long-standing Chinese position that any such discussions be confined to bilateral meetings. India would do well to support Indonesia’s role in diffusing tensions in the region’s flashpoints.

Counter-terrorism is another field where Indonesia and India should deepen their cooperation. They have both suffered from major terrorist attacks by radical Islamist groups in the last decade. Indonesia’s record in cracking down on terrorist outfits has been excellent and its anti-terrorism training school based in the city of Semarang, is one of the region’s top institutions.

Economic relations between the two countries, another focus of Dr. Singh’s visit, are not insubstantial. Two-way trade was worth around $21.3 billion in 2012. Forty-six per cent of India’s trade with Indonesia consists of palm oil imports. India is in fact Indonesian palm oil’s largest consumer. Indonesia is also India’s biggest supplier of coal, with some 76 per cent of Indian coal imports originating there.

While there is some Indian investment in Indonesia, focused on automotives (Tata Motors has just launched three models of cars), textiles, steel and banking, talks on a comprehensive economic cooperation agreement (CECA) have yet to take off.

Indonesia has a large Indian diaspora, many of whom play an influential role in the Indonesian economy. The entertainment industry, with its Sindhi moguls, is a case in point.

Yet, India has failed to exploit these connections. The lack of direct flights connecting India and Indonesia is a dampener on business as well as people-to-people exchanges.

In contrast, the Chinese diaspora is an active economic bridge between mainland China and Indonesia, and several direct flights link Indonesia to Chinese cities, including second-tier ones like Fuzhou and Xiamen. Indonesia’s trade with China stands tellingly at $66 billion.

Indonesia has just concluded hosting this year’s APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) meeting and with it several world leaders held talks with Mr. Yudhoyono to cement ties with the archipelago. Dr. Singh will therefore be only one in a long line of international luminaries to have been seen shaking Mr. Yudhoyono’s hand over the last weeks.

And yet India and Indonesia can potentially have a special relationship. The manner in which Indonesia tackles issues like corruption, the balance between social justice and economic growth, political decentralisation, and communal harmony in a religiously diverse country, hold valuable insights for India. And India’s long history of democracy serves as validation for Indonesia’s more recent democratic transition.

If in the twilight of their terms in office, Dr. Singh and Mr. Yudhoyono are able to transcend feel-good rhetoric and help set up the mechanisms that would aid a sustained and substantial engagement between the two countries, it may yet add some luster to their legacies.

DNA - water stress by 2030

• 0

 X 

Half world may live under 'water stress' by 2030

 

Home > World > Report

Half world may live under 'water stress' by 2030

Wednesday, Oct 9, 2013, 10:02 IST | Agency: IANS

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has warned that by 2030, half the people on Earth would be living under "water stress," a measure defined as less than 1,700 cubic metres of water available per person per year, unless action was taken.

Addressing the Budapest Water Summit with Hungarian President Janos Ader, Ban Tuesday noted that while water was a government priority, no government could handle the work alone, Xinhua reported.

We "need the full engagement of all actors, communities, societies," he said.

Ban announced a conference devoted exclusively to climate change would be held next September during the UN General Assembly and called for representation from countries at the highest level.