IE: What's going on around BT Brinjal? Many people are not happy with you the way you were trying to resolve the problem?
Ramesh: Whatever you are saying is not my creation. As environment minister I am going by the rule book. The regulator appointed by the ministry cleared it and referred it to the government for a decision on commercialisation. Now as environment minister, what should I say? Was the regulator's recommen-dations useless?

IE: But there is the Sharad Pawar (Agriculture Minister) angle to the controversy and you have written a letter to him?
Ramesh: The government has every right and in fact, has basic responsibility to take the final decision when it comes to critical issues of human safety. I have never disputed that. In fact my letter to Pawar only strengthens that argument. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) had noted that on an issue of such vast implications, the final verdict rested with the government.

As agriculture minister, Pawar must be concerned with the farmers' point of view. According to me Bt Brinjal is not just a farmer issue. We cannot ignore larger consumer groups. To be frank, I have a very limited mandate of looking at the approval given to Bt Brinjal. I am not deciding on the future of genetically modified technology in agriculture.

IE: But these are serious differences that emerged in the government?
Ramesh: Well, differences are inevitable in a democracy. There are larger social and political issues involved here as also the issue of safety.

We were flexible…

IE: You have been taking up the government's stand on Copenhagen? Can you tell us how things moved?
Ramesh: We have always asserted that India's participation at the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change would be 'flexible' but without compromising basic national interests on various aspects of the issue. Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh himself led the delegation and we are glad that India has come out quite well at Copenhagen. I said so in my statement in Rajya Sabha. We have been recognized for our constructive approach. We will continue to play such a role.
In many ways we were flexible. Flexibility does not mean a sell out. We have made it clear.
As expected there were some attempts by some countries that developing countries should announce when their emissions will peak. India will never accept a legally binding emission reduction target.

IE: There was some interaction with China despite serious differences on other diplomatic fronts. Was there cooperation on this?
Ramesh: Yes, you are right. In fact, as I said in Parliament, we worked overtime with like minded countries like China and Brazil to ensure a comprehensive agreement. India along with China and Brazil had presented a draft for the Summit.

IE: How do you look at the outcomes of the Summit?
Ramesh: There were two specific outcomes of the Copenhagen Conference. In Bali, in December 2007, the Conference of Parties had decided to have negotiations on two parallel tracks, both of which were expected to be concluded at Copenhagen. These negotiations could not be concluded and the Copenhagen Conference decided to continue these negotiations to be completed later. In this respect, India, South Africa, Brazil, China and other developing countries were entirely successful in ensuring that there was no violation of the mandate for the Bali Action Plan.
Despite relentless attempts, the Summit succeeded in continuing the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol.

IE: How do you perceive India's role vis-à-vis climate change challenge in the future?
Ramesh: We have to deepen our capacity to pursue proactive climate diplomacy internationally. We have to get down to implementing a comprehensive domestic agenda of both adaptation and mitigation. We have to get on the road to cutting our emissions intensity by 20-25 per cent by 2020 on 2005 levels. This I agree may not be feasible but which can also be improved upon to the benefit of our own people. We must soon unveil a detailed roadmap for a low-carbon growth strategy. We must also strengthen our own scientific capacity to measure, monitor and model the impacts of climate change on different sectors of our economy. This issue also ought to be examined and in different regions of our country.

No immediate threat to Himalayan glaciers

IE: There were lately talks about immediate and serious threat to the Himalayan glaciers?
Ramesh: I am glad you raised this question. The government's contention that there was no immediate and serious threat to the Himalayan glaciers was vindicated with the latest evidence against the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim on the glaciers disappearing by 2035 due to climate change. In fact the fear expressed was not based on scientific evidence. But I have always maintained that the glaciers are a serious issue and the health of the Himalayan glaciers is a cause for concern. But the alarmist concern of the IPCC that these would disappear by 2035 is not based on an iota of scientific evidence. Science, I always say, is complex and we should not rush to conclusions.

IE: The country needs to undertake forestation programmes in a big way?
Ramesh: Yes, we are taking a number of steps. For the first time forestry in India will get such a huge outlay. To start with, we got an outlay of Rs.8200 crore for the entire Tenth Five Year Plan. This is the highest ever such high allocation. Unlike the past, no longer are the Ministries of Environment and Forests and Judiciary are working at cross purposes. This ministry considers the Judiciary partners in forestry and environmental management. I welcome judicial activism.

IE: Are you referring to Compensatory Afforestation Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA)?
Ramesh: Yes. Court and ministry officials have now worked out a set of guidelines to use the CAMPA funds, as it is called. Rs.11,200 crore was released by the Supreme Court in July for compensatory afforestation. These are to be used to improve the tree cover in six million hectares of degraded forest land all over India. The money is for the state governments. This huge sum has accumulated from the compensation that firms have to pay when the government agrees to divert forest land for some other purpose. It has been lying around in banks because there was no scheme to use this money.
Five states – Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra – that have had the maximum amount of forest land diverted, will get 55 per cent of the CAMPA funds. And I am happy about that.

IE: You have also taken up river cleaning programme especially with regard to River Ganga?
Ramesh: My Ministry has adopted a more business-like and time-bound regulatory system to make economic progress possible without harming the nature and natural resources . The Ministry's broad objectives are conservation and survey of flora, fauna, forests and wildlife, prevention and control of pollution, afforestation and regeneration of degraded areas, protection of environment and ensuring the welfare of animals. The National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA), under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister is in action. Mission Clean Ganga will ensure that by 2020 no untreated municipal sewage and industrial effluents flow into the river. An estimated investment of Rs 15,000 crore over the next 10 years will be required to create the necessary treatment and sewerage infrastructure.