Copenhagen Conundrum

The only thing that's interesting - and significant -- about the ongoing UN climate change conference in Copenhagen is the rallying together of the so-called weak countries: the African nations, Bangladesh, Island nations and others and their being backed by the BASIC four - Brazil, South Africa, India and China. And why wouldn't they fight for their survival, pushed to the wall as they are by the rich world?

Why is it so surprising that wealthy - and selfish - countries led by the likes of Denmark, Australia and the US are holding a brief for their like-minded brethren, refusing to commit themselves to targets and figures to slowdown global warming? Of their outright rejection of the Kyoto Protocol that was formulated with great thought, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility? What happened to the upholding of the polluter-pays-principle that requires those with historical responsibility to make amends in the interests of the common good? Isn't it inhuman to expect that while they remain well fed and uncommitted, poorer countries - who are only now taking the path of poverty alleviation and basic development needs - ought to reduce their energy consumption and infrastructure programmes? Is this not a violation of human rights?

Even as the rich countries wrangle over their right to continue to pollute, they have chosen to forget that the developing world is only asking for help - by way of clean technology transfer and funding for adaptation - to not take the same indiscriminate, environment-unfriendly path the developed world has taken so far. Is that asking for too much? Mary Robinson, former UN Commissioner for Human Rights, delivering a global verdict along with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, says: "International human rights law says that 'in no case may a people be deprived of its means of subsistence'. Yet because of excessive carbon emissions, produced primarily by industrialized countries, millions of the world's poorest people's rights are being violated every day. This is a deep and global injustice."

Could there be any reasonable argument against this stand? With just four days to go before the current UN climate change conference concludes, tensions are running high with no sight of either monetary and technology transfer nor emissions cutback commitments from developed countries despite the UN framework underlining the fundamental principle of equity and justice in all such international negotiations.

The rich countries are guilty of several human rights violations against millions of people in the developing world, and these include the denial of the right to livelihood, the denial of the right to their homes, the denial of the right to food, shelter and clothing, the denial of the right to employment opportunities, the denial of the right to freedom from disease, denial of the right to preservation of cultures and traditions and in all, the denial of the right to a future free of poverty.

In its March 28 resolution in 2008 the UN Commission on Human Rights declared that climate change "poses an immediate and far-reaching threat to people and communities around the world" and that the link between climate and change and human rights could no longer be ignored. From the International Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report it is clear that there is scientific evidence that the acceleration in climate change and the ensuing consequences of the increase in the frequency and intensity of floods and droughts, and other what were hitherto seen as "natural" calamities are no longer natural but man-made, on account of the huge volume of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere with fast-paced industrialization and burning of fossil fuels, mostly by the developed world.

What the UN conference ought to address urgently is how culpable countries can be made to account for their responsibilities with regard to righting human rights violations of people living in vulnerable countries who had little or no part in the creation of the climate change problem in the first instance. If this question remains unanswered, maybe it is time the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change calls it a day, admitting that the entire expensive exercise - that began in 1992 with the Rio summit - has been a dismal failure, contributing to rather than helping to solve the problem that inspired the creation of the framework in the first place.

Sorry delegates, for squashing your plans for your next junket to Mexico City.

India's population will peak at 1.7bn in 2060: UN study

India's population is projected to peak at 1.718 billion in 2060, after which it will decline. At its peak, India will be the most populous country there has ever been or probably ever will be.

According to population projections released by the United Nations on Tuesday, India's share in the world's population will peak in 2030 after which it will decline, and the growth in the world's population from then on will be fuelled by Africa.

China at its peak in 2025 will have 1.395 billion people. In fact, when China peaks, India will have already surpassed it in population.

India's population will begin to decline only in 2060, a full 35 years after China. By the turn of the century, India's population, though declining, will be almost double that of China.

The latest numbers come from the UN's 2010 revision of the World Population Prospects. The last revision was in 2008. The "medium variant" for 2010 – the population projections based on national trends, which is neither the best nor worst-case scenario – produces a world population in 2050 of 9.31 billion, that is 156 million larger than the 2008 revision.

At the turn of the century, the world will have 10.1 billion people. On October 31 this year, the world will have its seven billionth person.

India's population will peak in 2060 and decline thereafter but still be double that of China's by the turn of the century, projections released by the UN say.

The rise and ebb of India's demographic dividend is played out starkly in the new numbers. Today, India's median age is 25 years, which makes it younger than China, Africa, the developed world and the global average. As fertility drops and life expectancy increases, India will grow older than the world as we cross the middle of this century. By the end of the century, even the developed world will be younger than India, whose median age will have almost doubled.

In 2010, just under two-thirds of India's population was of working age, that is, between 15 and 60 years. In contrast, less than half the population of the developed world is in its working age group, 24-60 years. By the turn of the century, less than half of India's population will be working, the rest dependent on it. The developed world will be nearing a two-thirds dependent population.

Whether the current demographic composition pays its promised dividend will depend to a large extent
on improved access to higher education. According to an Asian Development Bank draft report released on Wednesday, enrolments in tertiary education in China (21%) and India (12%) are far below those in the developed world.

However, postgraduate enrollment in China has now surpassed levels in India, growing more than five-fold, from 70,000 in 1998 to 365,000 in 2006, of which doctoral enrollment is 208,000.

Foriegn Funds To NGO's

Foreign contributions or donations to any registered organization in the country will now be monitored more strictly. The home ministry has come out with stringent rules which include banning 'organizations of political nature' from receiving foreign funds and asking NGOs to register themselves with the government after every five years.

The Foreign Contribution Regulation rules, which came into force on May 1, have also fixed a ceiling on administrative expenses of a registered organization so that NGOs cannot arbitrarily show their spending during audits.

As the rules explain, any trade union whose objectives include activities for promoting political goals, any voluntary action group which participates in political activities and any organization which habitually engages itself in or employs common methods of political action like bandh or hartal will come under the category of 'political nature' which is now banned for getting foreign funds.

Doing away with the concept of "permanent" registration, the FCR rules state that all existing registered organizations will have to renew their registration every five years. This provision will help the monitoring agency and banking institutions to keep a tab on such NGOs which have not been active but are somehow getting foreign donations.

The procedure for suspension and cancellation of registration has also been prescribed in the rules. These did not exist in the rules so far. Besides, guidelines have also been framed to deal with bona fide mistakes of the NGOs. The home ministry has put the rules on its website: www.mha.nic.in.