Carbon markets and low-carbon investment in emerging economies: A synthesis of parallel workshops in Brazil and India

Abstract

While policy experiments targeted at energy and innovation transitions have not been deployed consistently across all countries, market mechanisms such as carbon pricing have been tested over the past decade in disparate development contexts, and therefore provide some opportunities for analysis. This brief communication reports on two parallel workshops recently held in Sao Paulo, Brazil and New Delhi, India to address questions of how well these carbon pricing policies have worked in affecting corporate decisions to invest in low-carbon technology. Convening practitioners and scholars from multiple countries, the workshops elicited participants’ perspectives on business investment decisions under international carbon markets in emerging economies across multiple energy-intensive sectors. We review the resulting perspectives on low-carbon policies and present guidance on a research agenda that could clarify how international and national policies could help encourage both energy transitions and energy innovations in emerging economies.

Read the entire article here: Full article (PDF-version).

BRICS, Columns/Op-Eds

Samir writes in Russia & India Report on ‘Evolving an Asian Trading Region’

September 26, 2011.
by Samir Saran and Nandan Unnikrishnan. Both are Vice President(s) at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.
Find here the original article.

It’s time economics replaced politics as the key driving force of the Russia-China-India (RIC) trilateral. The Big 3 of Asia has a major opportunity to create and drive an Asian Trading Region.

At a recent interaction in Moscow with scholars and editors, there was an interesting discussion on finding ways to significantly increase the economic interaction between Russia and India and, more specifically, change the nature of the G2G-driven bilateral trade. Our suggestion was spontaneous and to some outlandish. We suggested that for a paradigm shift in our trade volumes (less than $ 10 bn dollars currently) the two countries would need to work for an Asian Trading Region shaped and steered by Russia, India and China. Until then we (Russia and India) would remain prisoners of perceptions and perceived geographical distance.

It was apparent that this idea did not resonate well with many experts in the room. However, it did spark an interesting round of debate and many have subsequently written in with their own ideas on a trading zone or region in Asia. We still argue that the only sensible architecture would need to be fundamentally driven by and emerge out of the RIC arrangement. Even though the RIC was conceptualized as a club of the Big 3 in Asia and had more political overtones than economic reality, the vocabulary of cooperation emanating from previous RIC forum allows enough leeway to work towards the formation of an Asian Economic Zone beginning with an Asian Trading Region largely driven by Russia, India and China.

The then Russian Prime Minister Evgeny Primakov first voiced the idea of a Russia-India-China (RIC) Trilateral Forum publicly in December 1998 during a trip to India.The motivation was generally believed to be a desire to create a countervailing influence to the US, which at the time had unprecedented dominance in the international system. The fact that Russia, India and China saw the US as their primary interlocutor at the bilateral level did not appear to be an impediment at the time. However, despite regular Track II interactions between the three countries, it took four years for the first official interaction between the three – a meeting between Foreign Ministers on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 2002. The first RIC standalone meeting of the foreign ministers took place only in June 2005. Thereafter, on the sidelines of the G8 meeting in St Petersburg in July 2006, President Valadimir Putin, President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had a tripartite meeting. From 2007 onwards, the foreign ministers are conducting regular annual meetings.

During this period, the motivations driving the three countries in the RIC underwent a change. If Primakov’s fear in 1998 was a hegemonic U.S., by 2005 Russia was more concerned about China and its possible duopoly with the U.S. – the G2 scenario. Therefore, Russia was keen to support multilateral initiatives, which involved China, but kept the US out. RIC fitted the bill perfectly. China also appeared to be keen on such a formation as it realized its increasing influence and envisioned RIC as a group dominated by China. India’s motivation perhaps was not to upset the Russians. It was also the age of clublateralism and therefore the RIC was an opportunity to get into an influential circle. Some hesitation, if any, was probably because these were the heady days of Indo-U.S. friendship.

Today the situation has changed again. The uni-polar moment of the U.S.A. is evidently over. A multi-polar or polycentric world is emerging. China has emerged as an alternate power centre and no longer requires props like the RIC. It is following an assertive foreign policy that relies more on promoting bilateral relations with the established and emerging powers. Similarly, Russia is now less nervous about the emergence of a G-2. It is enjoying the “reset” in its relations with the US and has become a little more wary about China’s spectacular rise in stature. Moscow, like New Delhi, also realises that its efforts to restructure and modernise its economy will succeed only if it able to convince the West to buy into this effort. While China-India trade is at historic highs (at over $ 60 billion), India is also focusing on developing its ties with the US and the 27-nation European Union. RIC appears stymied by the proliferation of groupings like the SCO, BRIC, and BASIC and does not as yet offer a unique ‘agenda’ to differentiate it. And most importantly, the three countries consider the US much more important than any other bilateral or multilateral relationship. Therefore, the “glue” that held the RIC together is drying up.

This inevitably affects prospects for RIC. The lack of interest and expectation from this format has led to little of any substance emerging from the interactions, despite identifying early on a vast arena for mutual cooperation such as terrorism, drug trafficking, climate change, agriculture, disaster management and relief, health and medicine, information technologies, pharmaceuticals, infrastructure and energy. Given this backdrop, is RIC now irrelevant? Is it time to bury this body? The answer has to be an unequivocal “NO”. So can regional trade and economics be that ‘glue’. Russia and India, through their own recent policy announcements, have recognized the arrival of the yuan as a global currency and it is likely that in the coming months India also decided to denominate some of its reserves in the currency of our Northern neighbour. Russia is already engaged in yuan based trade and maintains a stock of this currency. That over $ 130 billion of trade takes place between India and China, China and Russia and Russia in India also places weight of volume behind the grouping. Irrespective of political ambitions and differences there is no denying the growth of economic interactions and the only limit to the economic story is politics. Can RIC be the political response to an economic arrangement?

RIC appears to be the only format which can help to create a truly Asian Trading Region, an idea that must be pursued based on the remarkable shift of global trade to within the region. The contiguous land mass, the size of the three economies and the growing levels of consumption, each provide a basis to make this trading region viable and worth investing in. The energy and transport corridors may be the place to start. While China’s rapid advances in the energy landscape in Asia can appear intimidating, it can also be seen as an opportunity to respond to the Chinese dynamism and be a part of the project. Would India consider providing access to the Indian Ocean to China? And through China for Russia? Would this create a dependency that could serve India’s interests? Would it be beneficial to open land and pipeline routes to Central Asia and Russia through China? Would these not create mutual dependencies between the two countries that would offset some of the key imbalances that exist today? India helps de-risk China its current hydrocarbon and trade flows through the Indian Ocean, while China offers alternatives to routes that would require India to traverse Afghanistan and Pakistan. At the opportune time can Russia and China be a part of the IPI and TAPI? Can China extend pipelines from Central Asia and Russia to India? With increased volumes of trade, the pipelines become viable in spite of the distance. The participation of all the three countries in these pan-continent pipelines also reduces the political risk that these large trans-national project invariably face.

The biggest gainer would, however, be Russia. They would have a market for their resources outside of the EU and China. As the demand in West Asia is released in the next 10 years due to growing commercialization of green technologies and production of shale and frontier gas in US and East Europe, Russia would increasingly depend on the growing demand from China and India. Without a cooperative arrangement or transport infrastructure, large volumes of Russian resources may have only one buyer – China.

Russia and China have already established significant cooperation in the area of energy. It is time that India becomes part of this equation and the three countries start the process of developing an Asian Gas Grid. The first steps could be modest. Russia could ship some of its piped gas landing in China through the Chinese eastern board to India, a step both symbolic and political and a harbinger of Asian tri-lateral trade. Over the years it could result in the grid that a former Indian petroleum minister strongly advocated and a gas market in the region that could evolve its own price and commercial dynamics. The next stage could involve jointly owned SEZs in Russia’s Far East with each of the countries within the SEZ enjoying privileges of home country. This could also be the experiment to test the free movement of men, material and ideas across Asia.

In the News, Politics / Globalisation

Samir speaks on China in New York Times video post.

Samir was interviewed by Poh Si Teng for the New York Times (from 3.30 m. onwards)
September 1, 2011
Link to original website

BRICS, In the News, Politics / Globalisation

Samir speaks at the China-South Asia Dialogues on ‘Shaping India’s Foreign Policy: Domestic Drivers in Policy and Practice’

March 23, 2011
Bejing, China
Link to original website

India is often described as an emerging economy, yet rarely are adequate linkages made between the domestic and foreign drivers of its growth. In the fifth installment of its “China-South Asia Dialogues” series, the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy invited Samir Saran, vice president and senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) in New Delhi, to discuss the domestic forces that shape India’s foreign policy. He was joined by ORF distinguished fellow, Ambassador H.H.S. Viswanathan, who offered a targeted analysis of these policies in practice, discussing India’s engagement of African countries. Carnegie’s Lora Saalman moderated.

India’s Economic Transformation

After twenty years of economic reform, nearly half of India’s Gross Domestic Product is linked to the global economy. Yet, while India is an important and sizeable market, it is still not a large economy in terms of per-capita income and the depth and range of its economic activity, Saran said. With the bottom 80 percent of the population contributing over 60 percent of Indian consumption, India remains sensitive to the rise and fall of prices for both goods and infrastructure. Saran suggested that India’s designation as an “emerged economy” needs to be re-assessed.

Wealth Disparity: Saran spoke of the vast wealth disparity in India between the extremely wealthy—including approximately 600 millionaires and billionaires—and the 800 million people who subsist on less than $2 per day. India possesses nearly half of the world’s poor, which strains its ability to deal with issues such as healthcare, education, energy, and water supplies.

Population Bulge: With the growing number of teenagers set to enter the domestic job market, India also faces some daunting challenges in creating adequate employment. One of the Chinese participants asked whether India’s youthful population was a source of instability for the country. Saran agreed that the country’s large young population exacerbates some of the threats that India already faces, such as left wing religious and political extremism, Islamic radicalism and an unstable neighborhood that at times leaks its impulses and intentions across its border.

IT Not a Panacea: Saran argued that while India is known for its booming information technology industry, this sector has only been able to provide 15 million jobs in the past decade-and-a-half, in a country with a population exceeding 1.1 billion. He estimated that India will need to add 10-15 million new jobs each year to fully employ to its youth. Saalman asked whether in the wake of China’s shift from a labor-intensive to a capital-intensive economic base, India might be able to absorb some of China’s manufacturing jobs. Saran doubted that this would occur on a large scale given the inability of India to devote the tracts of land necessary for major industry to thrive.

India and the Global Community

Diaspora and Outsourced Governance: One Chinese participant asked about the role of the Indian Diaspora in meeting India’s development goals. Saran noted that, with the exception of the United States and parts of the European Union, much of India’s Diaspora in other parts of the world remains at the lower rungs of the local society, such as those working in the Middle East. This group often exerts an indirect rather than direct political influence.

The China Dream: Saran explained that Chinese corporations are now entering Indian economic sectors like power, telecom, and infrastructure, sometimes replacing Western countries in key projects. They have even started offering commercial loans and finance. While India does not want to be overly dependent on China, the price sensitivity of the Indian market and the reality of the global economy may compel greater Sino-Indian cooperation. Yet, China offers India a more realistic goal than the “American Dream,” Saran contended. While India will have to stand up to a more demanding China in a geo-political context, he argued a segment of Indian industry already views China as an economic opportunity.

India’s Transformation in Practice in Africa

The international perception of Africa is changing, with the traditional view of its colonial past and lack of strong institutions giving way to economic revitalization, impressive growth rates, increased consumption levels, and expanded resource extraction and exports. The political resurgence in Africa has made African leaders more responsive to good governance, argued Viswanathan. As part of this process, India and China are engaging the newly resurgent Africa and creating new paradigms.

Beijing and Delhi Consensus: India, much like China, has taken a much more business-oriented and less politically driven approach to Africa, Viswanathan said. Both countries anticipate a shift in global institutions, where the traditional Western dominated power structure will be faced with alternatives from the developing world.

China and India Into Africa: Viswanathan spoke of the need for India to make greater investments in agriculture, infrastructure, health, and human resource development, alongside cooperative measures in combating terrorism, drug smuggling, and human trafficking within Africa. Noting the Western media’s strong focus on China’s role in Africa and India’s lengthy history on the continent, Saalman asked for a comparison of the role the two countries can play in the continent’s economic renaissance. Viswanathan answered that while China has had a varied level of engagement with Africa since the 1950s, India has maintained a consistent presence and strong level of integration in Africa. Many Indians immigrated to Africa and often hold citizenship in African nations, placing India in an advantageous position to boost Africa’s growth from within the continent.

Dispelling the Colonial Mindset: China and India are not out to dominate or control Africa, asserted Viswanathan. While both countries are engaged in the extraction of resources from Africa, they have also made strides toward helping Africa develop its infrastructure and human resources. For example, India has also brought some of its telecommunication savvy to bear in Africa, through business ventures to provide lower cost connectivity to Africa.

Between Hard and Soft Power: Viswanathan emphasized that much of India’s military aid has been non-lethal, such as providing uniforms and supplies. There had been some small arms trade with some countries but the greater concentration has been on defense training and the sharing of military personnel. Ultimately, Viswanathan argued that for both India and China, the soft power element of having their citizens on the ground and establishing cultural institutions like the Confucius Institutes has been more effective at penetrating Africa than hard power mechanisms.

BRICS

Summary of BRICS Think Tanks Symposium, March 2011

March 2011
Link to original website

Scholars and experts from BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries have said that the current crisis in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) regions should be resolved expeditiously in the interest of regional stability and in conformity with the aspirations of the peoples of MENA and said that the current crisis demonstrated that the global governance system needed to be more responsive.

This formed part of a recommendation document prepared for the Third Leaders Summit to be held at Sanya, China in April this year. At a meeting of 60 scholars of think tanks from the five BRICS countries, held in Beijing on March 24 and 25, 2011. A seven-member delegation of Indian experts, led by Observer Research Foundation, took part in the meeting of the BRICS Think Tank Symposium, hosted by the China Centre for Contemporary World Studies (CCCWS) and the China Foundation for Peace and Development (CFPD). It comprised of former Indian ambassadors Mr. HHS Viswanathan (Distinguished Fellow, ORF) and Mr. T.C.A. Rangachary, Mr. Samir Saran, Vice President and Senior Fellow, ORF, Dr. Ravni Thakur Banan, Associate Professor, Delhi University, Dr. Saroj Kumar Mohanty, Professor and Senior Fellow, Research and Information Systems for Developing Countries, Dr. Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya, Fellow, Indian council for Research on International Economic Relations and Sriparna Pathak, Junior Fellow, ORF.

In the recommendations proposed for the consideration of the Third BRICS Leaders Meeting to be held in April in China, the scholars said that the leaders should give attention to the changing international context, sluggish economic recovery, governance issues, reform of the international economic and financial architecture, Sustainable Development and Climate Change.

In the opening speech, Mr. Sun Jiazheng, Vice Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and President of CFPD, made three suggestions regarding cooperation among BRICS: (1) Undertaking intensive studies, and recommendations on issues that concern BRICS. (2) Focusing on major areas of international finance, international order, world peace and stability (3) Strengthening exchanges between think tanks of BRICS.

At the opening session, delegates from the five countries spoke on the need for reforming the global financial institutions, democratising global governance system, avoiding unilateralism, increasing discussions within the grouping on issues of wages, poverty, energy, health and education, defining a BRICS identity and mission and widening the BRICS’ agenda.

The first session discussed “Challenges and Opportunities- Environment and Background for the Development of BRICS Countries”. The presentations focused on the opportunities and challenges for BRICS post the financial crisis and the way ahead on issues of development and global governance Delegates from BRICS countries also spoke on issues of technological innovations, moving away from reliance on OECD countries, and greater engagement with other developing countries to enable sustainable growth.

On the topic of ‘Changes and Responsibilities: Agenda and Items for BRICS Countries in Advancing Global Economic Governance’, participants elaborated the need to realise inclusive growth and emphasised on stability, peace, shared prosperity, and development, South- South cooperation, open markets and mutual trade and investment among BRICS.

The theme of the third session was ‘Unity and Cooperation- Practical Cooperation and Institutional Building of BRICS Countries’. This panel discussed how BRICS can be a bridge for North- South cooperation, and the need within the BRICS grouping to resolve differences and seek common goals. Presenters also spoke on strengthening trade among BRICS, strengthening framework for polycentric world, promoting cooperation and engaging private sector actors in agriculture and other sectors among BRICS.

‘Exchanges and Mutual Trust- Cooperation Among Think Tanks of BRICS Countries’ was the final theme of the symposium. The discussions delved into ways to deepen BRICS interactions and the need to convene international seminars on areas of bilateral and multilateral areas interests. There was a strong emphasis on the need to establish a BRICS institutional framework at the governmental and non governmental level and to create working groups on select projects. It was also agreed to create a BRICS Think Tanks website for scholars to contribute to.

The interactions were free and friendly and there were no contentious issues. It was obvious that the delegates were trying to find the relevance, mandate and evolution of the Group.

One high level political interaction was organised for the delegates to meet Mr. Dai Bingguo, a State Councillor, where he praised the work of the delegates in coming up with new ideas. He also cautioned that the leaders may not have the same ideas. He spoke of “broadening” the Organisation, a concept not liked by the Russians.

Some divergences on issues like trade and currencies notwithstanding, there was a general feeling that BRICS is here to stay and contribute to a change in global governance. How this will be achieved is the question to which nobody seemed to have a clear answer. There were references to the need for an alternative model of development in which BRICS countries do not repeat the same mistakes committed by the developed world. There were also statements that BRICS should act as a bridge between the developing and the developed countries. But would the other developing countries (particularly potential aspirants to the Group like Indonesia, Turkey and Mexico) like BRICS to play this role?

One theme that came up constantly was the lack of intra-BRICS cooperation in comparison to the potential that exists. For example, BRICS contributes to about 20% of global GDP. Further, 60% of the global Foreign Exchange Reserves today are held by BRICS. But these are parked mainly in Western countries when BRICS themselves desperately need capital for development.

Apart from some general references to the need for reforms of global financial institutions and replacement of dollar by SDR as the global currency, no in-depth discussions took place on these issues. However, the increase in the voting shares of China, Brazil and India was referred to as a beginning of a change in the mind-set of the developed world. One theme that was very evident was the need to coordinate BRICS positions in G-20 so as to have a greater voice.

BRICS, In the News

China.org.cn reports on BRICS Think Tank meeting, 2011

April 15, 2011
Xinhua, China
Link to original website

Representatives from think tanks of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) discussed ways to fight climate change at a seminar here Wednesday. The seminar, called BRIC Think-Tank Summit, gathered members of think tanks from the BRIC countries to examine the global economic situation and the role of BRIC countries in the post-crisis global transformation.

World countries need to take joint action to fight climate change, said Indian representative Samir Saran from the Observer Research Foundation. Chinese representative Wu Enyuan, with the Institute of Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the developed countries had a bigger responsibility on carbon emission reduction as the current climate change is a result of some 150 years of industrialization process of the developed nations.

But he said the developing countries, including the BRIC nations, should take their fair share of responsibility as well, and adopt measures to fight global warming. “China has fulfilled its responsibility by taking practical actions in either energy conservation or environmental protection,” he said, adding that other BRIC countries have also committed themselves to carbon emission reduction.

Brazil’s representative Eduardo Viola said that implementing these measures is more important than holding discussions. Russian representative Nikolai Mikhailov said climate change unveiled the notion that human beings can treat nature as they want without caring about the consequences. Only a radical change in their attitude could make a difference, he said.

The two-day seminar was held on the eve of the second BRIC summit scheduled for Friday in the Brazilian capital.

BRICS, In the News

Chinese Crienglish.com reports on BRICS Think Tank meeting, 2011

March 26, 2o11
Link to original website

BRICS think-tanks call for closer economic ties

Think-tanks from five major developing economies are now calling for closer economic ties among the BRICS countries, just ahead of the group’s summit in Hainan, China next month. BRICS countries include China, Brazil, India, Russia and South Africa.
International relations expert Jin Canrong from China’s Renming University says, despite booming economies, the five countries still do not have enough say in global economic dialogues.

“The top agenda of the next summit is still the economy, and especially the top ten topics talked about at this year’s G20 summit in France. For instance, the fluctuating raw material prices, and the possibility of giving an index for economic imbalance – those are all important.” Samir Saran, senior researcher with India’s Observer Foundation, says the BRICS countries could find more shared interests economy-wise. “For the BRICS countries, there is still enough room to enhance their cooperation in energy, electricity, food security, agriculture and technology. Also, the five countries could learn from each other regarding eliminating poverty, improving healthcare and education.”

In the News

Samir featured in Hindustan Times article “Business and Barbs”, 2009

by Gaurav Choudhury
September 11, 2009, New Delhi
Link to original website

Here they are in the heart of Delhi, a maze of narrow corridors and shops where clones of the world’s sophisticated inventions can be bought after a good haggle: palm-sized iPods, sleek touch-mobiles, glitzy wristwatches. Don’t let the image mislead you. It’s a theatre of war. The 900-odd shops in the Old Lajpat Rai market are filled with cheap unbranded Chinese goods, as are thousands of markets across India, part of the same onslaught of consumer goods that China made across the world, and is now threatening millions of Indian craftsmen, businessmen and traders.

“The audio clarity in a Chinese mobile handset is even better than a Nokia phone,” said Narender Kumar, who runs a retail outlet of mobile handsets at the crowded market in Old Delhi. “About 90 per cent of the phones we keep are made in China,” he said, pulling out a Sycee Tong mobile phone that resembles a Nokia 6300 in shape and features. “While the Nokia set would cost Rs 7,000, the Chinese is priced at Rs 2,000.”

All that has made China — which fought a war with India in 1962 — its largest trading partner and the single largest source of imports, with a share of over 10 per cent of India’s total imports of $287.75 billion in 2008-09. From Barmer to Bangalore, thousands of Chinese engineers, computer hardware professionals and even unskilled workers are also working in India. And Indian companies like NIIT and Infosys are swiftly becoming the backbone of China’s computer software ambitions, with dozens of centres sprawling the nation.

It is an economic relationship that is soaring. One is the world’s factory, the other the global back-office. The two neighbours, housing nearly 37 per cent of world’s people, are also the hottest growth economies. If China sizzled with a 9 per cent growth in 2008, India grew at 6.7 per cent — at a time when the US, EU and Japan were reeling under recession. And yet, it is a relationship fraught with disputes, some niggling, some serious.

India is trying to crack down on the flood of counterfeits and cheap products using globally agreed-upon laws to prevent dumping, a manufacturer in one country exporting a product to another at a price below what it charges in its home market. China has accused India of adopting anti-trade measures, allegations New Delhi denies. In turn, it has blamed Beijing of imposing non-tariff barriers to prevent access to its market. There have also been instances of Chinese firms selling medicines under the “Made in India” label in Africa.

In June, the Nigerian Government Drug Regulatory Authority seized a large consignment of fake anti-malarial generic drugs labelled “Made in India” but allegedly produced in China, said an Indian commerce ministry official who declined to be named as he is not authorised to talk to the media. The tablets could have affected some 6,42,000 customers.

China remains out of bounds for Indian basmati rice exporters. India also believes that the Chinese government is blocking entry of fruits and vegetables on grounds not necessarily economic. New Delhi had sought market access for 17 fruits and vegetables including mango, guava and pomegranates. Only three have been allowed. This year, India has so far launched 38 anti-dumping investigations over goods as varied as sodium nitrite, sodium carbonates, tyres and even the seemingly innocuous Vitamin C drug. As many as 22 of these pertain to products originating in China.

India has also put quality restrictions on mobile phones, dairy products and toys in a measure primarily aimed at blocking the flood of cheap imports from China. India’s Directorate-General of Foreign Trade said mobile handsets without the International Mobile Equipment Identity number, which helps authorities track the sale and use of the phones, can’t be imported. While no official estimates are available, industry sources estimate that close to one million such phones enter India every month from China. China’s Ministry of Commerce (MoC) has expressed “serious concerns” over India’s intensive trade probes. “China hoped that India could show prudence and restraint in using trade remedies… it could pose a threat to bilateral trade,” MoC said in its web site. India shrugs off the criticism.

“Anti-dumping duties are imposed after a process of thorough investigation,” Commerce Secretary Rahul Khullar told HT. “Initiating the process of inquiry does not hinder imports.” He said even after final anti-dumping duties were imposed, they ended up affecting less than 1 per cent of the total trade. But in the big picture, as China-India relations go, all’s good, analysts say. In October last, the commerce departments of both the countries set up an expert group to promote cooperation. “Any nuance in India-China relations should be looked through the nuance of security and history,” said Samir Saran, vice president of the Delhi-based think-tank Observer Research Foundation.

BRICS, In the News

Sri Lanka’s TOPS.lk covers BRIC discussion on climate change

April 16, 2010
Link to website

BRAZIL: Representatives from think tanks of the BRIC countries(Brazil, Russia, India and China) discussed ways to fight climate change at a seminar here Wednesday. The seminar, called BRIC Think-Tank Summit, gathered members of think tanks from the BRIC countries to examine the global economic situation and the role of BRIC countries in the post-crisis global transformation.

Russian representative Nikolai Mikhailov said climate change unveiled the notion that human beings can treat nature as they want without caring about the consequences.Only a radical change in their attitude could make a difference, he said.

The two-day seminar was held on the eve of the second BRIC summit scheduled for Friday in the Brazilian capital.

BRICS, In the News

Philippine News cover BRIC countries’ think-tanks discussion on climate change

April 15, 2010
Brasilia, Brazil
Link to original website

Representatives from think tanks of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) discussed ways to fight climate change at a seminar here Wednesday. The seminar, called BRIC Think-Tank Summit, gathered members of think tanks from the BRIC countries to examine the global economic situation and the role of BRIC countries in the post-crisis global transformation

“China has fulfilled its responsibility by taking practical actions in either energy conservation or environmental protection,” he said, adding that other BRIC countries have also committed themselves to carbon emission reduction. Brazil’s representative Eduardo Viola said that implementing these measures is more important than holding discussions. Russian representative Nikolai Mikhailov said climate change unveiled the notion that human beings can treat nature as they want without caring about the consequences. Only a radical change in their attitude could make a difference, he said.

The two-day seminar was held on the eve of the second BRIC summit scheduled for Friday in the Brazilian capital.