Congratulations, it is an eye opener to other states that are thinking of such schemes.
In Hyderabad, the government...
Thanks. You have raised a very pertinent issue. My family is a great lover of Makhana and we use it in different ways. Slowly...
AN INITIATIVE adopted by Kamal Nath,
Union minister of environment and
forests, to mobilise developing countries to checkmate the move to modify
the 1992 London amendment of the
Montreal Protocol on phasing out
ozone depleting substances (ODS), labels
the deeper objective of developed countries to stake out markets for their substitute technology industries and multinational corporations as a "blatantly
Mooted at the May 8-12 Nairobi
meet, the proposed amendment to
Article 5.1 attempts to give developed
countries total export monopoly to
developing countries which lack choloroflourocarbon (CFC) and hydrochloroflourocarbon (HCFC) industries.
On the eve of the July 26-28, 1995
meeting at Montreal, Nath wrote 3 sets
of letters addressed to developed countries, developing countries and ODS-importing developing countries, criticising the move by rich countries to suit
"By restrictively reinterpreting the
definition of the words 'basic domestic
needs', the rich countries claim that the
exports from developing countries have
a negative impact on phasing out controlled substances in developing countries," states Kamal Nath, adding that
the claim was absurd.
For large and medium sector indus
tries, in 1994 India submitted the
replacement cost as us $2 billion. This
was approved by the Montreal Protocol
executive. But the actual flow of funds
will depend on the basis of individual
projects submitted, as most industries
are in the private sector. India had
signed the Protocol on September 17,
Industry sources say that the draft
amendment in respect of the supply of
controlled substances to meet basic
domestic needs of Article 5 countries,
would have far reaching adverse implications for them. On his part, Kamal
Nath has urged the c-77 countries to
issue a joint statement meant as a
counter-proposal to the proposed
amendment. "Redefining the concept of
basic domestic needs is not only unjust,
but limits the choice of the developing
countries. cFc producing Article 5
countries must be allowed full benefit of
the residual consumption of the non-producers," he stated.