Climate change is now high on the political and public agenda. In the developing countries, special attention is being paid to the impact this global phenomenon will have on agriculture. This is because climate change has the potential to seriously affect the food security of a vast majority of the world's poor.

On the other hand, the northern latitude countries could benefit from the increased growing period due to increase in temperatures. Areas that cover the ice will be used more than the areas that cover the sand on this planet. Thus, climate change could contribute to the widening of inequality between the developing and the developed countries.

Global studies focussing on agriculture so far, have indicated that the climate change impact could be relatively minor in the first half of the 21st century and even beneficial for a few countries. There are two broad approaches relating to the agriculture-related impact on climate change: agronomic-economic approach and the Ricardian approach. In the first, the physical impacts (namely, changes in yield and/or area), are assessed through detailed crop simulation exercises, and the results are introduced into an economic model exogenously as Hicks neutral technical changes.

Since the scope for adaptation is rather limited in the agronomic-economic approach, the Ricardian approach was evolved in mid-1990s as an alternative. This is similar to the Hedonic pricing approach adopted for environmental valuation. While all possible adaptation are accounted for in the impact estimation based on this largely statistical approach, the constant relative assumption could lead to biases. Carbon dioxide, the key greenhouse gas responsible for climate change, can act as aerial fertiliser and boost crop yields. However, to benefit from this carbon fertilisation effects, the crops must not be limited by other crucial inputs.

While northern latitude countries could make use of more lands for agriculture, farming and mining purposes, the developed and poor countries of southern latitude will face many natural disasters which will lead to refugee problems. It is overwhelmingly the poorer third world states that do not close their borders and accept millions of refugees, some of whom remain for years, like Bangladeshis in India and African people in South Africa.

Today, among developed countries, the US, Sweden and Finland offer temporary shelter to victims of natural disasters, and Denmark accepted some Afgan drought victims from 2001 to 2006.Global warming, however, is already on a point of creating a new category -the climate refugee. According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), current mitigation efforts could result in a global average temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius rather than two degrees. In that event, the Economic Review of Climate Change suggests,550 million more people would be at risk of hunger, and 170 million more would suffer coastal floods. Crop yields would fall sharply, and there would be more droughts interspersed with more severe flooding.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that climate change may displace 150 million people by 2050; the Stern Review puts the figure at 200 million. Largely, climate change poses potentially gigantic refugee problems. To start with, it is harder to identify the victims of slower processes than those of sudden natural disasters. Secondly, the victims of wider climate change fall through the net of definitions in international law.

The current UN treaty, the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, dates from 1951, and applies only to those who fear or flee persecution. As far internal displacement is concerned, the current UN document, Guiding Principles on Internal displacements, dates from 1998 and is not legally binding, though it seems to cover most of those who flee natural disasters but do not cross national borders.

The problem with more severe climate change is that those who cross national borders will not be covered by any UN instrument, as they will not satisfy the 1951 definition of refugees. Reopening the 1951 convention would be legally risky because the original negotiations that brought it into being were very difficult, and it may be easier to reach an agreement now. The difficulty of reaching, let alone enforcing any agreement, will be compounded by the fact that it is the poorest in the poorest countries who will suffer most and in the greatest numbers.

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is the core of the many climate arrangements arrived at so far, including the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Bali Plan of Action (2007). The differentiated responsibilities aim to meet the special needs of developing countries for accelerated and equitable economic development.

At Copenhagen, the industrialised countries proposed limiting the rise in mean temperature to 2C above normal. Even this seems to be unattainable in the context of the present rate of emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). Hence, the principle of common but differentiated impact of 2 degrees change in mean temperature is essential for prioritising climate victims. For example, small islands like Tuvalu in the Pacific Ocean, the Maldives, Lakshadweep and the Andaman and Nicobar, as well as Sunderbans in West Bengal, Kuttanad in Kerala and many locations along the coast will face the prospect of submergence.

Floods will become more serious and frequent in the Indo-Ganges plains. Drought induced food and water security will become more acute. South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the small islands will be the worst victims. In contrast, countries in the northern latitudes will benefit due to longer growing seasons and higher yields. We are now in the midst of a steep rise in the prices of essential commodities, and food items.

2009 has been characterised by both extensive drought and severe floods. The gap between demand and supply is high and the absence of a farmer-centric market system aggravates both food inflation and rural poverty. The task of ensuring food security will be quite formidable in an era of increasing climate risks and diminishing farm productivity. China which was reluctant in Copenhagen to join other developing countries in efforts to restrict the rise in mean temperature to 1 to 1.5 degrees C, has already built strong defences against the adverse impact of climate change. Chinese farmlands are however, mostly irrigated, unlike in India where 60 per cent of the area still remains rain-fed. Food and drinking water are the first among our hierarchical needs. Hence while assessing the common and differentiated impact of a 2 degree rise in temperature, priority should go to agriculture and rural livelihoods.

What are the steps we should take in the fields of both mitigation and adaptation? The largest opportunity in mitigation lies in increasing soil carbon sequestration and for building up soil carbon banks. Increase in soil carbon pool in the root zone by 1 ton C/ha/yr will help to increase food production substantially, since one of the major deficiencies in soil health is low soil organic matter content. There should be a movement for planting a billion "fertiliser trees" which can simultaneously sequester carbon and enhance soil nutrient status.

We can also contribute to the reduction in methane emission in the atmosphere from animal husbandry by spreading biogas plants. A biogas plant and a pond on every farm will make a substantial contribution to both reducing GHG emission and ensuring energy and water security. Similarly the neem-coated urea will help to reduce ammonia volatilisation and thereby, the release of nitrus oxide into the atmosphere.

2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. We can classify our crops into those which are climate resilient and those which are climate sensitive. Anticipatory analysis and action hold the key to climate risk management. The major components of an Action Plan for achieving a Climate Resilient National Food Security System will be the following: Establish with the help of ISRO, a Village Resource Centre with satellite connection; develop Drought and Food codes; organise Seed and Grain Banks; Train one man and one woman of every Panchayat to become Climate Risk Managers; strengthen coastal defences against a rise in a sea level; establish Agro-Meteorological Station with the help of the Ministry of Earth Sciences; establish a Climate Risk Management Research and Extension Centre in agro-climate sub-zones and organise a Content Consortium for each centre consisting of exports in different fields to provide guidance on alternative cropping patterns.

Integrated coastal zone management procedures involving concurrent attention to both the landward and seaward site of the ocean, and to coastal forestry and agro-forestry as well as capture and culture fisheries, are urgently needed.

About 45,000 people travelled to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen - the vast majority conceived of the need for a few global agreements on climate change. So why did the summit end without one? Key governments do not want a global deal: Until the end of the summit, it appeared that all governments wanted to keep the keys to combating climate change within the UN climate convention.

In Copenhagen everyone talked, but no one really listened. The end of the meeting saw US and BASIC countries hammering out the last minute deal, neglecting others. The chief Danish negotiator Thomas Beker was sacked just weeks before the summit. This destroyed the atmosphere of trust that developing country negotiators had established with Mr Becker. The strategy of the major developing nations provided a reprieve from the danger of the breakdown of global negotiations. But their compromise highlights the dilemma of engaging the United States without allowing it to dictate the global climate agenda.

It is evident that the Copenhagen climate summit has failed to produce an equitable and viable plan to combat global warming that responds to both scientific and moral imperative. Undoubtedly, the success of the United States in forcing the Copenhagen Accord on to the agenda, with the active collusion of several developed countries, constitutes a serious threat to equitable and transparent global environment governance under United Nations' auspices.

Following the personal intervention of President Obama with select leaders, the drafting of the accord, drawn up in a series of closed-door meetings with select participants setting aside the outcomes of earlier negotiations, completely ignored the norms of equality of all nations and transparency that are at the core of the UN process. Nevertheless one of the Copenhagen's most valuable outcomes has been the guarantee of the continuity of UNFCCC negotiations, which will now continue at least for another year, despite the Copenhagen Accord.

The developing countries have thus managed to ensure that the primary agenda of the developed countries in the run-up to Copenhagen, that sought to dilute or erase the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities", has been pushed back to some measure. The attempts to set aside or replace the Kyoto Protocol and alter significantly the terms of the UNFCCC have not succeeded at the formal level, though the Copenhagen Accord itself is likely to be used for fresh attempts in this direction.

Developed nations are only expected to voluntarily declare their emission reduction commitments by 31st January,2010. But the domestic legislative process of the United States may not allow it to make any significant commitment to the emissions reduction at all. The climate science demands more emissions cuts from developed nations to match with scientific truth, whereas the oil and coal lobbies of US refuse to comply with it.

On the other hand, the developing countries have conceded that all their mitigation action will be subject to international consultation and analysis, under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected. Despite the strident criticism of sections of climate change activists, it is clear that the BASIC Four (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) had little room for manoeuvre at Copenhagen. In retrospect, the only way they could have evaded high-level political negotiations, would have been to reject at the outset itself, the leader-driven process promoted by the Danish Prime Minister on behalf of the US.

But faced with the climate negotiations, and unwilling to risk being held responsible for pre-determining the summit's failure, the four major developing nations, to varying degrees, were clearly willing to explore the Danish proposals. The BASIC Four demonstrated that they recognise their special responsibilities while deflecting potential criticism of standing in the way of drawing United States into global climate action. The summit also exposed the weakness inherent in the developing nations' strategy in uniting BASIC Four with G-77 in climate negotiations. The US, on the other hand, successfully used justified concerns regarding the emissions of the major developing economies, to impose mitigation demands on the entire developed world. Looking beyond Copenhagen, one can anticipate an even thornier path for future negotiations due to short-sighted and parochial domestic problems of the US.  

Even though the Copenhagen Accord is not legally binding, the United States would not only review its implementation by India and China, but also would challenge them if they do not meet the goals set by the agreement. India has rejected this statement by saying that accord did not compromise on the sovereignty of the nation, rather, it enhanced the country's interest. This shows that the confrontation between developing nations and the developed ones are very intense.

The climate summit at Copenhagen is far from being a democratic exercise. But the struggle to prevent the terrible consequences of climate change must continue. The deal done between President Obama and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, along with India, Brazil and South Africa - tells us a lot about how diplomacy will happen in future. New players are coming into the stage, Russia was absent, The EU was nowhere and the rest had to go along. The future of the planet hinges on the balance of power based on new equation.  Political and legally binding commitments should match with scientific truth about climate change in future.

A difficult period lies ahead as governments have to sign up to making cuts and everyone will be watching to see who does something and who does nothing. Perhaps there was just too much to bite off. It is often the case of international diplomacy that tackling problems salami-style is more effective than trying to digest them all at once. It is true that mega-conferences are very difficult to handle because of the wide diversity of opinion and interest. So many countries were trying to negotiate at too late a stage at Copenhagen and found it very difficult to compromise or commit.

Instead of MRV -measurable, reportable and verifiable - the BASIC nations agreed to allow a provision for "international consultation and analysis" on the mitigation actions. Some countries observe that there is major shift in policy decisions and in this accord, the sovereignty of nations are compromised. Some people think that international consultation and analysis of our mitigation actions is reframing of measures for reporting and verification. Intellectual Property Rights regime on transfer technology was effectively negated in the accord and financial commitment is not clear.

There are indeed many risks, many hazards and many threats when developing countries negotiate with mighty rich nations. Developing countries have to be extraordinarily vigilant and watchful, negotiating tough, but always from position of strength. China and India to some extent have some power to talk from their position of strength to the rich nations headed by mighty United States. UN looks very helpless before US and sometimes works under the direction of US.  

After the disintegration of the USSR, US becomes the unipolar power of the world and is trying to dictate terms. Though China is the first growing super power economically and militarily, but it is still lagging behind compared to US.  Undoubtedly, many developed countries want to see an end to the Kyoto Protocol, but so far, developed countries thwart these attempts for the time being.

Kyoto Protocol wants to punish US and EU for emitting carbon gas for two centuries and in the process became rich nations at the cost of poor countries. But they are not ready to finance and transfer technology to poor nations for mitigation and adaptation programme, nor are they ready for deep emissions cuts. If they follow the Kyoto Protocol, then in the long run, some first growing developing countries will surpass the rich nations and there will a major shift in global power.

However, every country should try unilaterally to draw a road map for low-carbon growth to save the planet from emissions. India has committed itself to cutting its carbon emission intensity by 20-25 per cent by 2020 levels. China who is the No.1 emitter of carbon at present, is trying hard to cut its carbon emission by 40 to 50 per cent.

China has negotiated its domestic action at Copenhagen summit. The BASIC group have emerged a powerful force to face US in their negotiations and their unity was instrumental in ensuring that the Copenhagen Accord was finalised, though, US still holds the upper hand. Environment ministers of the BASIC countries are meeting in March, 2010 in New Delhi to discuss the approach to be taken at the June 2010 Ministerial Conference in Bonn and the 16th meeting of the conference of the parties in Mexico City in December.

The climate conference went into an extra day of discussions in Copenhagen, but failed to adopt a legally binding treaty or commitments, only "taking note " of an agreement cobbled together by US President Barak Obama in discussion with India, China, Brazil and South Africa and several industrialised nations.

After 24 hours of backroom discussions, intense lobbying and high-level diplomacy, the document that emerged was hastily put into the UN records by conference president, after three adjournments of the plenary, when several countries took strong objection to the way the deal had been put together.

Dr. Singh had put his foot down on the question of a legally binding treaty on which the European Union wanted to begin negotiations, because there is already a legal treaty in Kyoto Protocol. However, India and the other three countries (China, South Africa, Brazil) had agreed to reporting and verification issues after China reached a compromise with the US.

The BASIC leaders also refused to allow for their emission cuts to be verified by the international community, as this would impinge on their sovereignty. Copenhagen Accord aims at a 2 degrees Celsius limit to global warming by reducing emissions by 50 per cent by 2050. However, there is no penalty clause for nations who fail to meet their commitments. There is also no deadline for global emissions to peak, which pleases India, but left many scientists, activists and vulnerable countries disappointed.

So, the resulting Copenhagen Accord was protested by several nations that demanded deeper emission cuts by the industrialised world and felt excluded from the major-nation bargaining process. The Indian team is also happy about the focus on equity, but admitted that it had relaxed its position on monitoring and verification of domestic mitigation action.

The Copenhagen Accord arrived at during the climate summit will instantly forgive the industrialised countries' historical responsibility for climate change, eliminate the distinction between developed and developing countries and fatally undermine efforts to renew the Kyoto Protocol. Accusing India of buckling under pressure in Copenhagen, the CSE, in a statement, said the Copenhagen Accord agrees to weak and non-legally binding commitments from the developed world. The Copenhagen Accord agrees to a process which will ultimately kill the Kyoto Protocol and undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It changes the framework of equity and historical emissions. It states that actions by developing countries which are not supported through international finance and technology also be open to international consultation and analysis, which could become a backhand way of bringing in international commitments on these countries.

Greenpeace said global leaders had failed to act to avert a catastrophic change. Mr. Singh and other leaders of BASIC group failed India and the world when they let the US and developed countries off the hook. We have seen a year of crisis, but today at Copenhagen summit, it is clear that the biggest crisis facing humanity is a leadership crisis. The real fact is that rich nations are not ready to hold historical responsibility that they are the real cause for the climate change. They only became rich by emitting gas that spoiled poor countries and they are not ready to sacrifice to save the planet.

Copenhagen Accord also failed to act on one issue many thought was near success here: A plan to protect the world's rain forests, vital to the healthy climate, by paying some 40 poor tropical countries to protect their woodlands. Deforestation for logging, cattle grazing and crops has made Indonesia and Brazil the world's third and fourth biggest carbon emitters, after China and the US. So the already agreed-upon emission cuts fall far short of action needed to avoid potentially dangerous effects of climate change. These cuts are to be made by 2020 ; US, a 17 per cent, China 40 to 45 per cent, India 20 to 25 per cent,EU,30 per cent and Japan, 25 per cent.

Wealthy nations will rise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer nations cope with the effects of climate change, such as droughts and floods. Short-term funding of roughly $30 billion over three years will begin in 2010, to help developing countries adopt to climate change and shift to clean energy.