The verdict of COP6b in Bonn was one for continuation of responsible Climate Change negotiations and pursuing old agreements such as Kyoto Protocol, albeit modified and weaker. It was a verdict against the unilateralism and the dogmatic myopic position of the US Administration. For the first time in the arena of multilateral environmental agreements, all the member state Parties in the world combined together to continue to support KP and US remained singled out and totally isolated.

The recent terrorist events of 11 September in New York and Washington D.C. forced US Administration to a rude awakening and to acknowledge the need for global partnerships on global concerns. Climate change is one of the greatest global threats. US, the greatest GHG polluter must return to its role of a responsible and full-fledged negotiator in the KP process. Most US citizens want their Administration to do so too.

COP7 is most likely to focus on CDM but decisions made in COP6b have already diluted its potential by incorporating sinks. If CDM intends to work as a market mechanism involving the private sector, there is a fear that most of the projects will be concentrated in a few countries reflecting the experiences of FDI. But CDM must be a universal mechanism, to succeed.

Cop 6b also decided to establish a Special Climate Change Fund and a special fund for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). There is an urgent need for greater resource mobilization and establishment of proper financial and institutional mechanisms. At the same time the LDC negotiators must play pro-active roles to advance their particular causes, through appropriate position in the negotiations.

The battle for negotiation is on, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) must see the ratification and full commitment from all Annex-I countries, including the USA to implement the KP. This must soon be followed by initiating a negotiation framework beyond KP and for the Second Commitment period and enhanced reduction of GHG emissions to save the world from threats of climate change.

In a stunning marathon negotiation session that went on for 31-long hours, the ministerial body of the resumed session of the Sixth Conference of the Parties (COP 6b) in Bonn July 2001 wrapped up a political agreement on the rules for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (KP). The Protocol was signed by the global community during COP3 in 1997 in Kyoto, the ancient capital of Japan, to slow the process of global warming by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The negotiations in Bonn was a continuation of the failed one in COP6 in The Hague on issues concerning acceptance of sinks as a major modality to abate GHG emissions from industrialized countries.

Finally in Bonn the key representatives of all the Official Parties to the UNFCCC broke the deadlock and, without the otherwise ‘vital’ support from the United States (US), reached a political consensus that they will ratify the KP. US, for the first time in the decade long negotiations remained totally isolated. Even the usual dedicated friends of US, such as Japan, Canada, Australia, Norway etc. found US position totally immoral and unacceptable and agreed to support continuation of KP, though a weaker one.

The Conference operated under the handicap of coming just a few months after the US repudiated the KP as ‘fatally flawed’ and harmful to the US economy. Since US is the major polluter, emitting about 36% of all GHGs released by the Annex-I countries, its rejection voiced doubts concerning saving of the Protocol. Through reaching the consensus the KP is in the process of being ratified and implemented, although the details of enforcement modalities are yet to be resolved. COP7, which is scheduled to be held in Marrakech, Morocco during 29 October to 9 November should see that these rules of business are set and agreed upon so that the Protocol can be operational for saving the planet.

The agreement came as a big and fuzzy compromise. However, it made a lot of activists happy with a few still frustrated. Many zealous campaigners representing global civil society called it a ‘geopolitical earthquake’. Others found it ‘a long overdue step’ forward, while many enjoyed the moral victory against Bush administration who rejected the KP.

Many NGO activists found glimmer of hope in the outcome of salvaging the treaty. Now that a CDM regime is about to be established with an emerging international multi-billion dollar industry, many vulnerable countries are contemplating adaptation measures with the pledged 2% of proceeds from all CDM transactions across the globe. It is expected that a new fund estimated at US$ 600 million will be made available to enhance capacity of the most vulnerable countries towards adaptation. Representative of an AOSIS state found the so called ‘adaptation fund’ extremely useful.

On the contrary, some NGO activists found the agreement as incomplete as ever. Anil Agarwal of India noted that, “… the polluters played their cards well. They wanted major concessions on the use of vegetation to sequester carbon, they got it - to an amazing extent. Now every small area under trees can be calculated as a sink…”. The weak definition of ‘forest’ made it happen. Although ‘sink’ as an issue ‘stinks’, as the reasons have been clearly described in ClimeAsia Special Issues on COP6 and COP6b, EU had to accept Sinks as a measure of reducing CO₂ from the atmosphere - just to keep Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand on the ‘green’ side of the KP.

B.R. Cohen, a senior fellow at the Lexington Institute, Virginia, commented that, “… desperate to keep the enterprise afloat, negotiators in Bonn have watered down the treaty so much that they have created a diplomatic wetland. Its purpose is to prod the industrialized countries to ratify the KP and thus isolate the US”.

There are others who found hope against hope. Jennifer Morgan of the WWF said Japan “won concession after concession, while conceding little”. However, she pointed out that “while the deal is weaker than WWF had hoped, it provides sound architecture for the protocol and will put CO₂ emissions from industrialized countries on a downward trend”. Bill Hare, the Climate Policy Advisor for Greenpeace International, found the treaty watered down by the fossil fuel industry and US allies. “They failed to kill off the KP at the meeting in Bonn, but they came close, and what survives is a weaker version of the agreement than what was adopted in Kyoto in 1997”, he said.

Under the UNFCCC two separate funds are now being tossed, as agreed in the COP 6b. There will be a Special Climate Change Fund to address (a) adaptation, (b) transfer of technologies, (c) energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry, and waste management, and (d) activities to assist developing country Parties to diversify their economies under Article 4.8(h). It is agreed upon that the fund will be channeled through the GEF, an agency created by UNDP/UNEP/WB, which is criticized globally for its lack of governance, bureaucratic procedures, and transparency. Questions have also been raised whether the existing guidelines of GEF will remain as such and this will be a fund in addition to the existing ODA. Many are skeptical about these unresolved issues.

It is also agreed that the least developed countries will enjoy the benefit of establishing another fund. This will be primarily utilized toward implementing National Adaptation Programme of Action for the LDCs.

Now comes the next hurdle: the ratification battle. Japan and New Zealand, the members of JUSCANZ who tried to kill the KP in the Hague, already have decided to ratify the treaty. Members of the OPEC are in the process of ratifying it too: Jordan has already declared its intention to do so. Australia announced Kyoto proposals, the Labour party is inclined to ratify the Protocol.

Once the ratification process is done with succinct modalities of compliance and its independent monitoring, then only one can contemplate a little success amidst fears of host of adverse impacts likely to be observed across the globe. The developing country Parties are neither in a position to exploit the benefit of new funding opportunities created under the UNFCCC and KP, nor are they prepared to take advantage of the emerging CDM market. There is dearth of need for building capacity in the developing countries in order to handle the situation and take advantage of the opportunities. An immediate measure has to be chalked out first, and implemented without wasting any time towards this end. Capacity building will also be necessary in order to plan and subsequently implement the country-specific National Adaptation Plan of Actions when these developing countries will be awarded with funds from all these sources.

There is no denying the fact that the South Asian (SA) countries will need long-term anticipatory adaptation measures to reduce their vulnerabilities to adverse impacts of climate change. This is about time for these South Asian LDCs to position themselves in the negotiation regimes to obtain their fair share from the LDC and other funds to enhance their capacities towards adaptation. South Asian economies have inherent inefficiencies in energy utilization in various sectors: transport, industry, energy production, transmission and distribution, etc. These must be addressed by utilizing the funding opportunities made available. Transfer of technology should be given due emphasis. All this will help these South Asian countries to promote sustainable development, and simultaneously reduce GHG emissions for the global benefit. Pro-poor equitable growth strategies must be pursued.

It all started during Rio, in the Earth Summit, in 1992. In Johannesburg, South Africa in 2002, the global leadership is expected to examine the progress of the Rio process. Despite the fact that the Protocol was saved in Bonn, the world is destined to face the furies of nature under a climate change regime - with increased vigor and frequency. It has been said time and again in the past that the most vulnerable countries are the ones with very little contribution to GHG emission. But they will have to pay penalties so much so that their struggle to achieve sustainable development will be jeopardized. Can the negotiations in Marrakech bring any additional hope than the ones being brought by the ‘watered down’ KP? How the issues of equity, adaptation, and roads to sustainability will be resolved before the world’s leaders sit together in less than a year in Johannesburg?

One hopes that the world’s leaders will rise to the occasion and find appropriate means, within the purview of the KP, to save the most vulnerable countries. One leading negotiator commented that, if one cyclonic storm surge kills half a million people along the coastal areas of a vulnerable country, it will have no other choice but to call the so called Annex-I countries “climate criminals”, knowing that the industrialized countries are mainly responsible for inducing the event so catastrophic by enhancing the process of global warming. The recent most unfortunate events of 11 September 2001 has forced US to realize the futility of their “go alone” or isolationist policy, and value of global partnership. This must guide US to again become a full and responsible partner in the climate negotiation.

Talks beginning in October 2001 in Marrakech, Morocco would reach agreement on a set of rules to make the Kyoto pact on global climate change fully operational. Approval of the rules package would pave the way for governments to ratify the 1997 Kyoto treaty and bring it into force, ultimately leading to reductions in the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. Michael Cutajar, the top climate change official of the UN, expressed his expectations that with the rules nearly in place, the anti-global warming pact would be ratified in time for next September's World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.

Cutajar told a news conference recently "… there is a lot of work to be done. I am not complacent, but I am optimistic that there will be a good result. The political will to bring this phase to conclusion is there." He predicted that enough countries would ratify the pact to put it into force despite President Bush's move earlier this year to drop out of the Kyoto accord.

Countries accounting for 55 percent of the 30-odd wealthy industrial nations' carbon dioxide emissions must ratify the treaty for it to take effect. Ratification obliges them to meet specific targets for cutting the emissions blamed for global warming from their 1990 levels. Since the United States, which accounts for some 36 percent of carbon dioxide emissions among developed nations, has already rejected the deal, virtually all the other big polluters, including European Union states, Russia, Japan and Canada, must ratify for the pact to take effect.

While there had been some speculation Washington might ease its opposition to the Kyoto pact as a result of an ongoing internal policy review, it was now focused on its war against terrorism following the September 11 suicide airliner attacks and was paying little attention to climate change, Cutajar said. He predicted that Russia, another question mark, would ratify following tough negotiations in Marrakech.

More than two dozen US states and cities, no longer waiting for the Bush administration to seize the initiative against global warming, have begun taking steps to reduce emissions that scientists say are heating the planet. From Vermont to Oregon, state and local governments are calling for broader use of energy-saving devices, more energy-efficient building standards, cleaner-burning power plants and more investment in such renewable energy sources as wind and solar power – all to help reduce greenhouse gases that trap the sun's energy near the Earth's surface.

Many of the strategies being promoted mimic those endorsed in July by 180 nations as part of an international campaign against global warming that the Bush administration declined to join. In August, six New England states and five eastern Canadian provinces signed a pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under the agreement, the signatories pledged to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2010 and by 10% below that level by 2020. Those cuts are to be followed by even deeper reductions. It is the most ambitious goal set by state governments and it was supported by three Republican governors, two Democrats and one Independent from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine.

No single state or region can make a substantial reduction in GHGs. Moreover, much of the success of state and local efforts relies on voluntary compliance from industry. Still, advocates of state and local initiatives are confident that there is enough public support to ensure broad cooperation in the private sector.

"Public demand for action on climate change increased when the United States was not a part of the [international] agreement. It had a powerful impact on the thinking of all kinds of people, including governors and heads of large companies," said Tom Peterson, director of domestic policy for the Center for Clean Air Policy in Washington.

"This is a way [for states] to distinguish themselves from the Bush administration," California Resources Secretary Mary Nichols said. "A lot of practical, moderate people are recognizing climate change is a reality, not a theory, and they need to take it into account and help move the direction of the world by doing something about it."

California was an early leader in reducing dependence on fossil fuels that release greenhouse gases. Today, 12% of its electrical power comes from renewable sources, more than any other state.

President Bush has sent mixed signals concerning global warming. Shortly after he took office, he reneged on a campaign promise to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas. He said he rejected the international accord, outlined in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 and ratified last summer, because it would cost US jobs and did not immediately impose limits on emissions from developing countries, including India and China.

Last spring, Bush announced the formation of a task force of Cabinet members to formulate US policy. The work of the task force was slowed by disagreements among its members and by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

In the meantime, several members of the Congress, including Senators J.M. Jeffords, J. McCain and J.I. Lieberman, have begun formulating policy. McCain and Lieberman announced in August that they would develop legislation to cap greenhouse emissions and reduce them using a market-based trading mechanism. But that bill, too, has been delayed as Congress grapples with the enormous fallout from the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Meanwhile, officials of several states say they are making measurable progress.

In New Jersey, officials say they are on track to cut greenhouse gases by 3.5% below 1990 levels by 2005. The plan relies on capturing emissions from methane--which traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide--from landfills, securing voluntary reductions from various industries and preserving open space and trees, which can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, said Amy Collings, spokeswoman for the state Department of Environmental Protection.

New York Governor George Pataki in June announced a series of measures to improve energy efficiency and trim greenhouse gases. Specifically, the Republican governor ordered state buildings to get 20% of their electricity from renewable sources, such as solar or wind power, by 2010.

In the Northwest, Seattle City Light, the local electric utility, will offset any carbon dioxide emissions from power generation with wider use of clean-fueled vehicles and other measures.

In Oregon, more than 20,000 people have signed up for the "Blue Sky Program" by paying an extra $3 per month on their utility bills to ensure that Pacific Power and Light

purchases electricity from sources that don't contribute to global warming, said Tim Honadel, sustainability coordinator for Gov. John Kitzhaber.

The California Legislature has established a registry to track greenhouse gas production. It gives businesses interested in reducing their emissions a place to record their progress. Such progress will be rewarded when the state, as anticipated, begins to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. There are growing indications that businesses, large and small, do want to cooperate, if only to ensure that they have a hand in crafting policies and regulations many see as inevitable.

A group of Fortune 500 companies joined with the Philadelphia-based Pew Charitable Trusts to study and develop market-driven solutions to global warming. Among the companies participating in the project are British Petroleum, Boeing Co., Enron, Lockheed Martin Corp., Toyota Motor Corp. and International Energy Corp.

At a carpet mill in Industry, where Interface Inc. employs 500 people, workers are busy producing "climate neutral" carpet for commercial buildings, which is made without generating greenhouse gases. The company recently installed a $1-million solar array at its plant so it can make its product without any adverse impact on the Earth's atmosphere, said Jim Hartzfeld, vice president of sustainable strategies for the Atlanta-based corporation.

"This is about good business," Hartzfeld said. "It's not about philanthropy or altruism. It's about delivering better value.

The emperor of Kyoto is not wearing any clothes. This is certainly the case of the weary, weakened and pretty much nothing agreement on climate change the world agreed to in July. The meeting on the Kyoto Protocol - the agreement by which the industrialized world had to cut its emissions by roughly 6 per cent over its 1990 levels - was predictably difficult. But we did not realize that the world would give away so much to get so little.

George Bush, leader of the world’s biggest economy and polluter had already declared that the protocol was “fatally flawed in fundamental ways” and walked out of the multilateral discussions. The final permutation was that Japan, Canada, Australia and Russia held the key to the agreement. These polluters played their cards well, prevaricating to the last moment to ensure they got the deal they wanted.

Firstly, these countries wanted major concessions on the use of vegetation to sequester carbon.

They got it, to an amazing extent. Now every small - 0.05 ha - area under trees can be calculated as a sink. Making it possible, in this extremely creative manner, to calculate just about every garden’s ability to soak up carbon emissions. Every scrubland is included, as an area with 10 to 30 per cent tree cover has been defined as a forest. And even areas with no trees temporarily, but which are expected to revert back to being forests, can be added. Countries can also now add up any management measures taken to improve productivity of forests, agricultural and grazing lands as their contribution to cut greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, if a new fertilizer use enhances carbon storage, then the impact that it will have on the ability of the cropland to soak up carbon will be used to calculate the reduction in the country’s emissions.

Under the final agreement Japan, for instance, can meet well over 50 per cent of its reduction commitment by using better forests, grazing lands, and even better agricultural management practices. The same sink advantage is gained by all other polluters which can now either fix carbon in their own lands or buy their emission reduction targets by fixing carbon in developing country forests, agricultural or grazing lands. The enormous scientific uncertainties in measuring the effective reductions in emissions, makes the Kyoto compromise nothing less than a grand and shameless fudge account.

North America

Vector borne diseases like malaria, dengue fever, or Lymes disease more rampant.

Dryness and potential drought in Canada’s Prairies and US Great Plains.

Storm surges expected in Florida and much of US Atlantic coast.

New York, New Orleans and Miami are among cities highly vulnerable to SLR.

Lower water levels in the Great-lakes/St. Lawrence area.

Possible destruction of unique natural ecosystems like prairie wetlands, alpine tundra, and cold water ecosystems.

Asia

Tens of millions of people expected to be displaced in the low-lying coastal areas of Asia due to SLR.

Increased precipitation and more intense tropical cyclones in tropical and temperate Asia.

Agricultural production threatened by climate induced disasters, leading to diminished food security.

Already stressed Asian ecosystems further threatened – especially the coral reefs and mangroves.

Latin/South America

Tropical cyclones, floods, and droughts.

Water shortages because of the loss and retreat of glaciers. The water that is left could be contaminated by flood sediments.

Biodiversity loss and decreased crop yields.

Coastal dwellers’ farm and sources of livelihood consumed with the SLR.

Europe

Half of the Alpine glaciers and large permafrost areas could be completely gone by 2100, leading to flooding of rivers across much of Europe, coastal dwellers at substantial risk.

Loss of important habitats will even further threaten species.

Southern Europe vulnerable to droughts, decreased agricultural productivity and water availability.

Summer heat waves and associated heat stress in humans and livestock.

Africa

Diminishing food security because of decreased grain-yields.

Projected significant further extinction of plant and animal species.

Mediterranean and southern areas of Africa can expect less water availability.

Egypt, Senegal, Gambia, the Gulf of Guinea, and all along the East-South African coast especially at risk from the projected spread of disease, frequent floods, droughts, and extreme weather events.

Southern, North, and West Africa will see the process of desertification made much worse.

Australia and New Zealand

Main issue will be water because of the predictions of a drying-out over much of the region and a change to a more El Nino-like average state.

Ecosystems vulnerable in areas of southwest and inland Australia, alpine systems and coral reefs.

Certain species which are unable to migrate because of the landscape stand to become endangered or extinct.

Increased frequency and intensity of cyclones

Polar Region

Further loss of thickness and extent of sea-ice and glaciers (loss already dramatic)

Further changes expected to be the largest and most rapid of any region on earth, causing major physical, ecological, socio-logical, and economic impacts.

Polar regions contain important drivers of climate change once they are triggered could wreck havoc on sea level and ocean circulation for centuries, even long after GHG concentrations are stabilized.

Small island states

Will be among the first to be affected by climate change because of size and low-lying nature.

Projected sea-level rise will lead to wide-spread displacement and dislocation of people as they lose their land and property.

Often limited water supply will be seriously threatened.

Food supply and livelihoods of the people (who rely on fishing to survive) also in danger because of coral reef bleaching and destruction of coastal ecosystems.

Agriculture for food and export also hit very hard because of the already limited land space.

Secondly, given this extremely creative accounting, the polluters wanted an agreement in which the crooks if caught, would not get penalized. The next big concession came on the issue of compliance. In the Kyoto Protocol, the world had to design an enforcement mechanism for the rich and powerful. The initial talk was for a punitive and legally binding compliance regime, which would put in place severe monetary penalties for not meeting the target. But the final agreement lacks teeth, with the enforcement branch politely termed as the facilitative branch. With an ineffective compliance regime, the Kyoto Protocol is now a voluntary agreement, not legally binding.

But why should we be surprised? The climate negotiations are not about the environment but the economy and every nation is working overtime to protect its right to pollute. In this sham act, Japan has been the convenient ploy to get concessions. The European Union (EU), which makes much of its green commitment, has a history of caving in, at the very last moment. In the same week when it was busy making euphoric proclamations about how it has saved the world by getting an agreement, the EU has decided to postpone by a further 10 years its program to remove subsidies on coal, the filthiest and most carbon intensive fuels. Before the “historic” Kyoto agreement, the EU was going to phase out these subsidies from July 2002. The EU has also decided to postpone its plan for domestic emissions trading. Why? Because its own “green” companies complained that they would lose their competitive advantage.

The next grand compromise, we predict, will come when the world will bow down to the US. Bush has made it clear that the most important part of his opposition comes from the fact that key developing countries like China and India do not have binding commitments under the protocol. In round three, which is predicted to happen at the next conference of parties meeting in November, we will be the next targets and the probability is that we will get a ten-year grace period to take on legally binding commitments. Forget the fact that our emissions are nowhere close to the emissions of the industrialized North.

Solar power could cover a quarter of global energy demand by 2040, over 9,000 terawatt hours (TWh), a new report by Greenpeace and the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) claimed recently. Solar power is seen as a way to help combat climate change, provide easier electricity access to the world's poor and give greater energy security and independence than fossil fuels can. "It's a realistic, achievable goal, based on the current state of the industry and opportunities in the market, but it requires clear political support from governments around the world," Sven Teske, energy expert with environmental group Greenpeace's German branch, said in a statement.

The report projects an average photovolatic market growth rate of 30 percent up to 2020 and 15 percent between 2020-2040. The International Energy Agency forecasts that global energy demand will rise to 27,000 TWh in 2020, and 35,000 TWh in 2040. "If by 2020 global solar output reached 276 TWh, it would replace 75 new coal-fired power stations, saving 664 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions," the report said. By then, the global solar infrastructure would have an investment value of $75 billion a year, it added.

The US could viably meet at least 20% of its energy needs through renewable energy generation by 2020, saving consumers a total of $440 billion, according to an investigation of the costs and benefits of using clean energy by a group of research and energy organisations. A new report, Clean Energy Blueprint, by the Union of Concerned Scientists, in conjunction

with the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy and the research organisation, the Tellus Institute, has revealed that renewable energy could solve a variety of the US's energy problems. The report includes a suite of energy policy suggestions, and states that, not only can renewable energy meet 20% of the nation's energy needs in less than 20 years, but by the end of this period, consumers could save $105 billion per year, or $350 per year for a typical family.

This high level of renewable generation would be achieved through a 'renewable portfolio standard', which would require utilities to increase non-hydropower renewable energy from today's level of around 2% to 20% by 2020.

Following the Clean Energy Blueprint scenario, the country's use of high-priced natural gas could be cut by 31% and coal by nearly 60% compared to a 'business as usual' energy programme, saving more oil in 18 years than can be economically recovered from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 60 years. The clean energy plan could also avoid the need for 975 new 300 MW power plants, retire 14 existing 1000 MW nuclear plants, and reduce the need for hundreds of thousands of miles of new gas pipelines and electricity transmission lines.

Under a business as usual scenario, by 2020, natural gas use would increase from 16% to 36%, with a predicted 20% price rise, coal would increase by 21%, whilst non-hydro power renewable electricity would increase from 2% to only 2.4%, says the report. By following the Union of Concerned Scientists' policy recommendations, there would also be a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by two-thirds by 2020 in the US, with a cut in emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by 55%, says the report, which would help restore international good will and credibility.

The volume is an integral part of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), produced by Working Group III (WGIII) of IPCC. It highlights all the aspects of GHG mitigation including technological and biological options, their costs and ancillary benefits, barriers of their implementation, and policies, measures, and instruments to overcome these barriers. It is a must read for everybody involved in Climate Change issues.

James J. McCarthy, Osvaldo F. Canziani, Neil A. Leary, David J. Dokken, and Kaseu S. White (editors)

Editorial Board : Dr Saleemul Huq(BCAS), Dr A Atiq Rahman(BCAS), N.Haque (CANSA), M.Alam (BCAS), Ahsan Ahmed(BUP), F.H. Abed (BRAC), K.F. Ahmed (Proshika MUK), Ashok (DA, India), R.K. Pachauri (TERI, India), Anil Agarwal (CSE, India), Jyoti K. Parihk (IGIDR,India), Amulya Reddy (India), Asif Karim (Pakistan), Ravi Algama (Sri Lanka), Kanak Dixit (Himal, Nepal), Dipak Gyawali (Nepal), Amod Pokhrel (Nepal), Abdullahi Majeed (Maldives), Kunzang Yonten (Bhutan).

Produced by : Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS).
Web Master : Md Shah Nawaz
E-Mail : web@bcas.net

..

climate action network-south asia (CANSA) newsletter
October-November 2001	COP 7 SPECIAL ISSUE
Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies