CHIEF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS & THEIR ROLE IN CONSERVING ENVIRONMENT

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

It is an international institution that coordinates United Nationsenvironmental activities, assisting developing countries in implementing environmentally sound policies and practices. It was founded as a result of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in June 1972 and has its headquarters in the Gigiri neighborhood of Nairobi, Kenya. UNEP also has six regional offices and various country offices.

 It has played a significant role in developing international environmental conventions, promoting environmental science and information and illustrating the way those can be implemented in conjunction with policy, working on the development and implementation of policy with national governments, regional institutions in conjunction with environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). UNEP has also been active in funding and implementing environment related development projects. The World Meteorological Organization and UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. UNEP is also one of several Implementing Agencies for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, and it is also a member of the United Nations Development Group. The International Cyanide Management Code, a program of best practice for the chemical’s use at gold mining operations, was developed under UNEP’s aegis.International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

It is an international organization dedicated to finding "pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges".The organization publishes the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, which assesses the conservation status of species.

Founded in October 1948 at Fontainebleau ,France .

Headquartered at Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN supports scientific research, manages field projects globally and brings governments, non-government organizations, United Nations agencies, companies and local communities together to develop and implement policy. IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental network—a democratic membership union with more than 1,000 government and NGO member organizations, and almost 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries. IUCN’s work is supported by more than 1,000 professional staff in 60 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

 FAO is a specialized agency of the United Nations that leads international efforts to defeat hunger. Serving both developed and developing countries, FAO acts as a neutral forum where all nations meet as equals to negotiate agreements and debate policy. FAO is also a source of knowledge and information, and helps developing countries and countries in transition modernize and improve agriculture, forestry and fisheries practices, ensuring good nutritionand food security for all.

Established- 16 October 1945, in Quebec City, Canada

Headquarter- Rome, Italy

FAO's Regular Programme budget is funded by its members, through contributions set at the FAO Conference. This budget covers core technical work, cooperation and partnerships including the Technical Cooperation Programme, knowledge exchange, policy and advocacy, direction and administration, governance and security. The FAO regular budget for 2012 - 2013 biennium is US$1,005.6 million.

Its Latin motto, fiat panis, translates into English as "let there be bread". As of 8 August 2008, FAO has 191 member states along with the European Union,Faroe Islands and Tokelau which are associate members. It is also a member of theUnited Nations Development Group

Global Environment Facility (GEF)

GEF is the union of 182 countries in partnership with international institutions, civil society organizations (CSOs), and the private sector to address global environmental issues while supporting national sustainable development initiatives.

 Today the GEF is the largest public funder of projects to improve the global environment. An independently operating financial organization, the GEF provides grants for projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants. Since 1991, the GEF has achieved a strong track record with developing countries and countries with economies in transition, providing $11.5 billion in grants and leveraging $57 billion in co-financing for over 3,215 projects in over 165 countries.

The GEF also serves as financial mechanism for the following conventions:

•             Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

•             United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

•             UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)

•             Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

Founded in October 1991.

Headquarter  at  Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America

World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

It is an intergovernmental organization with a membership of 191 Member States and Territories. It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873. Established in 1950, WMO became the specialized agency of the United Nations for meteorology (weather and climate), operational hydrology and related geophysical sciences.

It has its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, and is a member of the United Nations Development Group. The current Secretary-General is Michel Jarraud. The current president is David Grimes.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations. It is the UN system's authoritative voice on the state and behavior of the Earth's atmosphere, its interaction with the oceans, the climate it produces and the resulting distribution of water resources. WMO has a membership of 191 member states and territories (as of 1 January 2013).

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty negotiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held inRio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992.

The objective of the treaty is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".

The UNFCCC was opened for signature on 9 May 1992, after an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee produced the text of the Framework Convention as a report following its meeting in New York from 30 April to 9 May 1992. It entered into force on 21 March 1994. As of May 2011, UNFCCC has 195 parties. The treaty itself set no binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. In that sense, the treaty is considered legally non-binding. Instead, the treaty provides a framework for negotiating specific international treaties (called "protocols") that may set binding limits on greenhouse gases.

Since may 1992 total 50 states ratified the treaty and it is signed by total 165 nations.

On the basis of there industrial status and commitments towards environment, all the member states (parties) are divided into following categories.

Parties to the UNFCCC are classified as:

• Annex I: There are 41 Parties to the UNFCCC listed in Annex I of the Convention. These Parties are classified as industrialized (developed) countries and "economies in transition" (EITs). EITs are the former centrally-planned (Soviet) economies of Russia and Eastern Europe. The European Union-15 (EU-15) is an Annex I Party.

• Annex II: There are 24 Parties to the UNFCCC listed in Annex II of the Convention. These Parties are made up of members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Annex II Parties are required to provide financial and technical support to the EITs and developing countries to assist them in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions (climate change mitigation) and manage the impacts of climate change (climate change adaptation).

• Annex B: Parties listed in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol are Annex I Parties with first- or second-round Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions targets (see Kyoto Protocol for details). The first-round targets apply over the years 2008–2012. As part of the 2012 Doha climate change talks, an amendment to Annex B was agreed upon containing with a list of Annex I Parties who have second-round Kyoto targets, which apply from 2013–2020. The amendments have not entered into force.

• Non-Annex I: Parties to the UNFCCC not listed in Annex I of the Convention are mostly low-income developing countries. Developing countries may volunteer to become Annex I countries when they are sufficiently developed.

• Least-developed countries (LDCs): 49 Parties are LDCs, and are given special status under the treaty in view of their limited capacity to adapt to the effects of climate change.

 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

 IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body, set up at the request of member governments. It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53.

Its mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects. It is chaired byRajendra K. Pachauri.

Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are reviewed by representatives from all the governments, with a Summary for Policymakers being subject to line-by-line approval by all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.

The aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:

1.            Human-induced climate change,

2.            The impacts of human-induced climate change,

3.            Options for adaptation and mitigation.

World Nature Organization (WNO)

WNO is the interim body for an intergovernmental organization which promotes global environmental protection.

The organization is focused on promoting activities, technologies, economies, and renewable energies which are regarded to be environment friendly; and rThe foundation of the World Nature Organization is one of the key outcomes of multilateral environmental protection negotiations.The role of the Organization is to turn declarations into implementable actions and to support the protection of the environment and climate at an international level.educing the impact of climate change.

The WNO will be established as an intergovernmental organization by the entry into force of the WNO-Treaty. In accordance with Article XVIII of the WNO-Treaty, the Treaty shall be registered in the United Nations Treaty Collection (UNTC) in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO)

It is an "international body for co-operation on conservation, management and study of marine mammals in the North Atlantic."

The body was founded in 1992 by its current members Norway, Iceland, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands. The organisation came about because the nations were (and continue to be) unhappy with the international management of cetaceans and other marine mammals by the International Whaling Commission. NAMMCO believes that whaling should be more extensive than that currently allowed under the IWC moratorium which prohibits all (large species) whaling with a few specific exceptions.

NAMMCO was founded in Nuuk, Greenland on 9 April 1992 by the signatories to Agreement on Cooperation in Research, Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals in the North Atlantic. The Agreement came into force on 7 July 1992 and was itself the product of a Memorandum of Understanding signed in Tromso in 1990 between the Norwegian and Icelandic governments and the Greenland and Faroese home rule governments.

Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)

IPBES is an independent intergovernmental body to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable development. It was established in Panama City, on 21 April 2012 by 94 governments.

All the Member Countries of the United Nations can join the platform and its Members are committed to building IPBES as the leading intergovernmental body for assessing the state of the planet’s biodiversity, its ecosystems and the essential services they provide to society. IPBES provides a mechanism recognized by both the scientific and policy communities to synthesize, review, assess and critically evaluate relevant information and knowledge generated worldwide by governments, academia, scientific organizations, non-governmental organizations as well as indigenous peoples and local communities.

Author: SHAILESH KR SHUKLA

Email ID:167shailesh.bot@gmail.com

Plant Tissue Culture

The term “Plant tissue culture” broadly refers to the in vitro cultivation of plant parts under aseptic conditions. Such parts as meristems, apices, axillary buds. Young inflorescence, leaves, stems, and roots have been cultured. A controlled aseptic environment and suitable nutrient medium are the two chief requirements for successful tissue culture. These essential nutrients include inorganic salts, a carbon and energy source, vitamins and growth regulators.

The basic technology can be divided into five classes, depending on the material being used: Callus, organ, meristem, and protoplast and cell culture. The technique of embryo, ovule, ovary, anther and microspore culture are used and can yield genotypes that cannot easily be produced by conventional methodology.

Brief History of Plant Tissue Culture

It was Gottlieb Haberland (1902) who in the first decade of this century pioneered the field of plant tissue culture. His idea was to achieve continued cell division in explanted tissue grown on nutrient medium. Following the discovery and use of auxins, the work of Gautherel, Nobecourt and White ushered in the second phase of plant tissue culture over 30 years ago. These and other workers determined the nutritional and hormonal requirements of the cultured plant tissues. It was observed that the whole plant could be successfully regenerated from undifferentiated tissues or even single cells in culture.

Papid advances in diverse aspect of plant culture have been made during the last few years and plant tissue culture techniques have been extensively applied to agriculture and industry. Condensed Cronology of Important Development in the Plant Tissue Culture:

Year	Worker	Contribution
1902	C.Haberlant	First attempt to culture isolated plant cells in vitro on artificial medium
1922	WJ Robbins and W. Kotte	Culture of isolated roots ( for short periods) ( organ culture)
1934	P R White	Demonstration of indefinite culture of tomato roots ( long period)
1939	R J Gautheret and P Nobecourt	First long term plant tissue culture of callus, involving explants of cambail tissues isolated from carrot.
1939	P R White	Callus culture of tobacco tumor tissues from intersepcific hybird of Nicotina glaucum X N.longsdorffi
1941	J Van Overbeek	Discovery of nutritional value of liquid endosperm of coconut for culture of isolated carrot embryo.
1942	P R White and A C Braun	Experiments on crownn-gall and tumor formation in plants, growth of bacteria free crown-gall tissues.
1948	A Caplan and F C Stewart	Use of coconut milk plus 2, 4-D fro proliferation of cultured carrot and potato tissues
1950	G Morel	Culture of monocot tissues using coconut milk.
1953	W H Muir	Inoculation of callus pieces in liquid medium can give a suspension of single cells amenable tosubculture. Development of technique for culture of single isolated cells.
1953	W Tulecke	Haploid culture from pollen of gymnosperm ( Ginkgo)
1955	C O Miller, F Skeog and others	Discovery of cytokinins. E.g. Kinetin, or potent cell division factor.
1955	E ball	Culture of gymnosperm tissues ( Sequoia)
1957	F Skoog and C O Miller	Hypotheses that shoot and root initiation in cultured callus is regulated by the proportion of auxins and cytokinins in the culture medium.
1960	E C Cocking	Enzymatic isolation and culture of protoplast.
1960	G Morel	Development of shoot apex culture technique.
1964	G Morel	Use of modified shoot apex technique for orchid proportion.
1966	S G Guha and S C Maheshwari	Cultured anthers and pollen and produce haploid embryos.
1974	J P Nitsch	Culture of microspores of Datura and Nicotina, to double the chromosome number and to harvest seed from homozygous diploid plants just within five months.
1978	G Melchers	Production of somatic hybrids from attached to plasmid vectors into naked plant protoplast.
1983	K A Barton , W J Brill and J H Dodds Bengochea	Insertion of foreign genes attached to plasmid vectors into naked plant protoplast.
1983	M D Chilton	Production of transformed tobacco plants following single cell transformation or gene insertion.

Kudamkulam: Ready to produce power?

Almost 11 years after concrete had first been poured in the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) in March 2001, India still awaits the 2000 MW electricity that the plant could generate. Six months after nuclear fuel-enriched Uranium was loaded into the core of the plant, with repeated tests being run to satisfy all safety parameters, Kudankulam is still on the brink. For the nuclear protesters that brink denotes a lurking disaster while for India's nuclear establishment, it is the power that could relieve a crippling shortage that has come in the way of growth.

The stalled project had seen its share of delays right from the beginning. A product of the Indo-USSR pact in 1988, the first hurdle came in the form of collapse of the USSR. Clearances, in line with the laws of those days, were obtained in 1989 and land acquisition completed by the 1980s. The plant had to be renegotiated with Russia in 1997.

But a different set of rules for environment safety were in place in 1997, under the Ministry of Environment and Forest. Any project that cost over Rs 50 crore needed to go through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a Public Hearing, after the copy of the EIA was given to the public/panchayats (local body governance) of the village in which the project was to come up. The notification mandated any expansion and modernisation of existing projects and new ones should go through a process of EIA by an expert committee chosen by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. The report had to be placed before the State Pollution Control Board, which would then convene a public hearing to find out objections to the project. Schedule I of the notification included nuclear plants and allied industries.

The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, the Indian company that is implementing the project, had also proposed four more plants in the site. A fresh inter-Government agreement was signed in 2008. While the two plants for which permissions were already in place did not have to go through additional processes, the other four proposed plants had to. Permissions for those four plants had come only in 2012 after much deliberation and changes in the safety plan, after EIA and public hearing.

HOME-GROWN INDUSTRY AND ITS SAFETY

The civilian nuclear energy programme in India is 62 years old with one of the safest records in the world. There have been no Chernobyl-like or Three Mile Island-like accidents, events that were believed to be caused by human factor. India also collaborated with the likes of Canada, France, USA. However with the Smiling Buddha operation in 1974, the country faced a nuclear apartheid. Countries that had then helped India set up reactors backed out of their commitments, setting back many projects. The fast breeder reactors, for which India was working with France, were delayed. A smaller test breeder reactor has been in operation for almost 30 years now, but the 500 MW Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) is yet to go on stream, the nuclear establishment attributing this delay to the manufacturing of a first-of-its-type equipment.

Since then the nuclear energy programme has been almost entirely home-grown and has often been praised elsewhere for the ingenuity and experimental facilities that is matched only by Russia. In that sense, Kudankulam then would come to mean a collaboration between two of the best in the world.

But then the project attracted so much opposition that it was almost derailed twice, and while the last rounds have come very close to commissioning, it has not reached that state. The residents of Idinthakarai, a village 6 km outside the 5 km sterilisation zone, have called for the project to be abandoned. In September 2011, the anti-nuclear movement started gaining momentum, forcing the State of Tamilnadu to call for a suspension of works in a ready-to-be commissioned project.

SUMMER OF DISCONTENT

Tamil Nadu was going through an unprecedented power shortage, with an installed capacity of 11,640 MW including from Central projects like Neyveli Lignite Corporation through power sharing agreements, and the state experiencing a 4,460 MW deficiency. The demand from the Power Utility was projected at 13,450 MW for 2013-14.

The Tamil Nadu Generation and Transmission Company – TANGEDCO – had to resort to extensive power cuts throughout 2012, some extending up to 12 hours in rural areas to manage the crisis. The crisis continues in 2013, with the state being energy-starved this summer also.

There has been little capacity addition since 2000 in the state and opposition to projects like the 1600 MW Jayamkondan Lignite Power Project had meant that the state quickly went from energy surplus to buying power from the North Eastern States. Demand had increased from 6000 MW in early 2000 to 12000 MW within a decade. Many of the thermal plants are operating only at 50 percent capacity and dwindling resources at Neyveli Lignite Corporation poses its own problems. The state needed to add capacity and add it quickly.

This prompted the Chief Minister to do a volte-face on her stand that KKNPP can only be commissioned after allaying the fears of the locals and seeking immediate consent. The consent came a day after parliamentary by-elections to Sankarankoil constituency, in the district of Tirunelveli, the same as Kudankulam in March 2012. It was an election fought over the poor management of power crisis. The AIADMK-government leveraged its victory to give consent to the project. It also upped its ante by demanding all of the 2000 MW for the state, negating the original power-sharing contract.

Both the AIADMK and its bitter enemy the DMK had contributed to the power crisis, by not adding capacity and by distributing freebies promised during elections like TVs, blenders, grinders and fans (and where fans were redundant induction stoves). These energy intensive appliances added another requirement of 250 MW per day, according to some TANGEDCO estimates. But with the by-elections won, the AIADMK government put the ball firmly in the centre's court.

EXPERT GROUP STRUGGLES TO WIN OVER

The centre was urged to win over the support of locals after allaying fears. Well-respected scientists including the former President of India Dr A P J Abdul Kalam were part of that effort. An Expert Group that went into safety aspects presented its report to the State Government. That report addressed how the Fukushima meltdown happened and how the design of the Kudankulam plant does not allow for that kind of events to happen. The Japanese plant was shut down when the 9.03 Richter scale temblor hit the North Eastern Japanese island; the six tsunami waves that followed cut off power supply to the plant that resulted in a level-7 meltdown. The earthquake was so powerful that it moved the entire main island of Japan, Honshu, by 8 ft and shifted the earth on its axis. Of note is the fact that entire Japan sits on seismic zone 5, while Indian authorities says Kudankulam sits on zone 2, the least prone to earthquakes.

When the Boxing Day tsunami, caused by a 9.1-earthquake off Sumatra, Indonesia, struck the Eastern Coasts of the Indian peninsula, two nuclear establishments saw some flooding. The Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) at Kalpakkam (70 km from Madras) was minimally affected. Water entered one of the 220 MW plants, which had been manually shut down safely. The residential colonies for the workers fared worse with five employees of the Madras Atomic Power Station drowning..

Kudankulam plant also saw tsunami water entering its incomplete premises. Kudankulam's neighbouring fishing villages were minimally affected by the tsunami.

The Expert Committee then pointed out the low seismicity of the region, the plant safety features including the higher elevation of the building and diesel generator to cool, double containment, measures to prevent explosions caused by release of hydrogen gas, like those that happened in Fukushima, to prove their point that Kudankulam is no Fukushima waiting-to-happen. The Nuclear Establishment has also agreed to implement the safety plan that the International Atomic Energy Agency proposed. Yet, these assurances were not good enough for the protesters.

The activists still demanded that the project be scrapped and even sought that the blueprint of the reactor be made public, an unprecedented step. This time around they also wanted it scrapped on the basis that it went against public sentiment. Their rhetoric revolves around nationalistic sentiments of Tamils and has received widespread support among parties that have espoused those values. After the main parties of Tamil Nadu, the ruling AIADMK and the DMK, toed the line of the expert group report, the Tamil Nationalistic PMK and the MDMK have extended support. This movement has also attracted the attention of supremacist elements involved in the Tamil separatist movement, like Naam Thamizhar Iyakkam.

CLOSE TO COMMISSIONING

While the Nuclear Establishment was looking at an October 2012 commissioning, the residents, organised under the umbrella of People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), filed a case in the High Court seeking the scrapping of the project. When that case was thrown out, they went to the Supreme Court to stop the loading of fuel into the plant. The court refused to stop the loading, but reserved its order pending the satisfaction of safety norms.

The residents then resorted to a sea siege. There were many incidents of disturbances of law and order, including a charge against peacefully protesting villagers. The atmosphere around Kudankulam continued to be rife with rumours.

With the plant expected to be commissioned by the following month, local media started reporting leakage of radiation claiming 40 lives. Those reports were then rescinded the next day and apologies issued. Sri Lankan anti-nuclear groups became involved at this stage claiming leaks and the Sri Lankan Atomic Energy Authority, which has radiation detectors installed near the Indian coast, had to issue a denial.

MOVING TOWARD TRANSPARENCY

In the last decade, India has signed the 123 Indo-US Nuclear Treaty with the USA, which mandates it to separate civil and military nuclear facilities and to open up its civil facilities to scrutiny by the IAEA.

As a last step of activating the pact, the government had to legislate The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010. With these steps the Nuclear Establishment of India hoped it could work toward removing some of the cynicism about its safety record and accusation of secrecy. These measures, however, have not even been recognised by the anti-nuclear movements in the country that quote the example of Germany and wants India to stop all civil nuclear energy efforts.

Those for nuclear energy have also demanded greater transparency in the working of the Nuclear Establishment. Most of the officials from the regulatory body, AERB, are from the nuclear establishments themselves. That expertise on nuclear energy does not exist outside the realms of the Department of Atomic Energy has been a concern. Many of the dialogues between the establishment and anti-nuclear activists have therefore been trenchantly inimical - a rather technical “he said-she said” than ones trying to move towards consensus building. And the one catastrophe that Kudankulam has already left us with is that of public relations.

For instance, the first ever nuclear project to have undergone a public hearing was the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor in 2001. When the public hearing was on in the presence of the Kancheepuram district Collector, the anti-nuclear groups organised residents to complain of the incidence of congenital deformities, believed to have been caused by radiation. These were listed by Doctors for Safer Environment. The then Collector, also a medical doctor, had requested that these be documented instead of blanket accusations being levelled. However, when this reporter spoke to those doctors and asked why the report was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, instead of being presented to journalists first, they were reluctant to answer questions.

On the other hand, the Nuclear Establishment maintains that radiation levels in Kalpakkam were much below those minimum requirements mandated by the AERB and that they are much below background radiation already present.

In recent times, the anti-nuclear protesters have also called into question the design/safety criteria that were taken into account during the design process.  Most reactors were designed taking into account storm surges, given that the east coast is prone to cyclones. But that the entire region is considered to be low-seismicity zone and not tsunami prone, unlike the Pacific Ocean, is pointed out as a poor design factor. Protesters have also put forth the view that a scientific body like the DAE and its constituents cannot afford to pick its safety concerns. It is true that these contentions of theirs have not been sufficiently addressed by the establishment.

Since the fuel loading in October 2012, NPCIL has run many tests and has submitted their results to AERB. The AERB has also called for many tests to be done in thoroughness. People who are observing the process see it as strategies to assuage the Supreme Court, where a PIL against the KKNPP filed by Prashant Bhushan in September 2012 is still pending. The Supreme Court had observed that the plant could be put on hold at this stage - when it is about to be commissioned - if it is not satisfied with the safety measures.

In all of this, the commissioning of the plant has simply been pushed beyond one deadline to another; The AERB has been periodically stating that the plant would be commissioned shortly; now, the latest assurance comes from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who has promised Russian president Vladimir Putin that the plant will be operational this month.  However, given the long history of roadblocks, and the fact that the verdict of the Supreme Court in the case against the power plant is still pending, one can only wait to see when the assurance becomes reality.

FALKLAND ISLANDS DISPUTE

Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas in Spanish) is disputed between Argentina and the United Kingdom. The British claim to sovereignty dates from 1690, and the United Kingdom has exercised de facto sovereignty over the archipelago almost continuously since 1833. Argentina has long disputed this claim, having been in control of the islands for a brief period prior to 1833. The dispute escalated in 1982, when Argentina invaded the islands, precipitating the Falklands War. Contemporary Falkland Islanders prefer to remain British. They gained full British citizenship with the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, after the Falklands War.

French Settlement

France was the first country to establish de facto control in the Falkland Islands, with the foundation of Port Saint Louis in East Falkland by French nobleman, Louis Antoine de Bougainville, in 1764. The French colony consisted of a small fort and some settlements with a population of around 250. The Islands were named after the Breton port of St. Malo as the ÎlesMalouines, which remains theFrench name for the islands. In 1766, France agreed to leave the islands to Spain, with Spain reimbursing de Bougainville and the St. Malo Company for the cost of the settlement.[1][2] France insisted that Spain maintain the colony in Port Louis and thus prevent Britain from claiming the title to the Islands and Spain agreed.

Spanish Settlement

In 1493 the Pope Alexander VI issued a Papal bull, Inter caetera, dividing the New World between Spain and Portugal. The following year, the Treaty of Tordesillas between those countries agreed that the dividing line between the two should be 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands.[4] The Falklands lie on the western (Spanish) side of this line. Spain made claims that the Falkland Islands were held under provisions in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which settled the limits of the Spanish Empire in the Americas. However, the treaty only promised to restorethe territories in the Americas held prior to the War of the Spanish Succession. The Falkland Islands was not held at the time, and were not mentioned in the treaty. From 1774 to 1811, the islands were ruled as part of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. In that  period, 18 governors were appointed to rule the islands. In 1777, Governor Ramon de Carassa was ordered to destroy the remains at Port Egmont. The British plaque was removed and sent to Buenos Aires.

British Settlements

The British first landed on the Falklands in 1690, when Captain John Strong sailed through Falkland Sound, naming this passage of water after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount of Falkland, the First Lord of the Admiralty at that time. In 1770 a Spanish military expedition was sent to the islands after authorities in Buenos Aires became aware of the British colony. Facing a greater force, the British were expelled from

Port Egmont. The colony was restored a year later following British threats of war over the islands. However, in 1774, economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forcedGreat Britainto withdraw from the Falklands along with many of its other overseas settlements. By 1776 the British had left Port Egmont, leaving behind a plaque asserting British sovereignty over the islands.Although there was no Britishadministration in the islands, British and American sealers routinely used them to hunt for seals, also taking on fresh water as well as feral cattle, pigs and even penguins for provisions. Whalers also used the islands to shelter from the South Atlantic weather and to take on fresh provisions.

On 2 January 1833, Captain James Onslow, of the brig-sloop HMS Clio, arrived at the Spanish settlement at Port Louis to request that the Argentine flag be replaced with the British one, and for the Argentine administration to leave the islands. While Argentine Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the Argentine schooner Sarandí, wanted to resist, his numerical disadvantage was obvious, particularly as a large number of his crew were British mercenaries who were unwilling to fight their own countrymen. The colony was set up and the islands continued under a British presence until the Falklands War. After their return in 1833, the British began moves to begin a fullyfledged colony on the islands, initially based upon the settlers remaining in Port Louis. Vernet’s deputy, Matthew Brisbane, returned later that year to take charge of the settlement and was encouraged to further Vernet’s business interests provided he did not seek to assert Argentine Government authority.

A British colonial administration was formed in 1842. This was expanded in 1908, when in addition to South Georgiaclaimed in 1775, and the South Shetland Islands claimed in 1820 the UK unilaterally declared sovereignty over more Antarctic territory south of the Falklands, including the South  Sandwich Islands, the South Orkney Islands, and Graham Land, grouping them into the Falkland Islands Dependencies. In 1850, the Arana- Southern Treaty otherwise known as the Convention of Settlement was signed between Britain and Argentina. The Convention was referred to as a “peace treaty”. The Convention of Settlement ended Argentina’s protests over the Falklands. After the Message to Congress in December 1849, the Falklands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress for 91 years until 1941.

Following the introduction of the Antarctic Treaty System in 1959 the Falkland Island Dependencies were reduced to include South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. In 1976 the British Government commissioned a study on the future of the Falklands, looking at the ability of the Islands to sustain themselves, and the potential for economic development.

Argentine Settlements

Argentina declared its independence from Spain in 1816, although this was not then recognised by any of the major powers. Britain informally recognized Argentine independence on 15 December 1823, as the “province of Buenos Aires”, and formally recognised it on 2 February 1825, but like the US did not recognise the full extent of the territory claimed by the new state. The new state, the United Provinces of the River Plate, was formed by provinces of the former Viceroyalty of the River Plate and as such claimed sovereignty over the Falklands.

In October 1820, the frigate Heroína, under the command of American privateer Colonel David Jewett, arrived in Puerto Soledad following an eight-month voyage and with most of her crew incapacitated by scurvy and disease. A storm had severely damaged the Heroína and had sunk a Portuguese ship pirated by Jewett called the Carlota, forcing the Heroina to put into Puerto Soledad for repairs. The captain chose to rest and recover in the islands, seeking assistance from the British explorer James Weddell. Weddell reported that only thirty seamen and forty soldiers out of a complement of two hundred were fit for duty, and that Jewett slept with pistols over his head following an attempted mutiny. On 6 November 1820, Jewett raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate and claimed possession of the islands for the new state.

Luis Vernet, controversially appointed Military and Civil Commander of Falkland Islands and the Islands adjacent to Cape Horn in 1829. In 1823, the Buenos Aires government granted land on East Falkland to Jorge Pacheco, a businessman from Buenos Aires who owed money to the merchant Luis Vernet. A first expedition travelled to the islands the following year, arriving on the East Falkland Island February 2nd, 1824, but failed almost as soon as it landed[citation needed]. Its leader was Pablo Areguatí, who brought with him 25 gauchos. Ten days later Areguatí wrote that the colony was perishing because the horses they had brought were too weak to be used, thus they could not capture wild cattle and their only other means of subsistence were wild rabbits. June 7th, Areguatí left the islands, taking with him 17 gauchos. July 24th, the remaining 8 gauchos were rescued by the Susannah Anne, a British sealer. After the failure, Pacheco agreed to sell his share to Vernet.

A second attempt, in 1826, sanctioned by the British[citation needed] (but delayed until winter by a Brazilian blockade), also failed after arrival in the islands.[citation needed] In 1828, the Buenos Aires government granted Vernet all of East Falkland, including all its resources, with exemption from taxation for 20 years, if a colony could be established within three years. He took settlers, including British Captain Matthew Brisbane, and before leaving once again sought permission from the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. The British asked for a report on the islands for the British government, and Vernet asked for British protection should they return.

On Vernet’s return to the Falklands, Puerto Soledad was renamed Puerto Luis. The Buenos Aires Government, headed by General Juan Galo de Lavalle (who took the governorship by force on December 1st, 1828, and executed the elected governor Manuel Dorrego) appointed Vernet “Political and Military Commander” in a decree of June 13th, 1829. The British objected as an Argentine attempt to foster political and economic ties to the islands. One of Vernet’s first acts was to curb seal hunting on the Islands to conserve the dwindling seal population. In response, the British consul at Buenos Aires protested the move and restated the claim of his government. Islanders were born during this period (including Malvina María Vernet y Saez, Vernet’s daughter).

Relation of Biotechnology with other Branches of Sciences

Following are some of the field s where biotechnology innovations are playing important roles:

1. Tissue Culture Techniques in Biotechnology:

An important aspect of all biotechnology processes is the culture of either the microorganism or plant or animal cells or tissues and organs in artificial media. While members in culture are used in recombinant DNA technology and in variety of industrial processes, plant cells and tissues are used for a variety of genetic manupulation. For example , another culture is used for haploid breeding , gametic and somatic cell or tissue culture are used for tapping gametoclonal and Somaclonal variation or for production of artificial seeds. Transformation of protoplast in culture leads to production of useful transgenic plants.

2. Gene Technology as a Tool for Biotechnology:

Most biotechnology companies make use of gene technology or genetic engineering which involves recombinant DNA and gene cloning. Most recently, extensive use of newly discovered polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has also been made for gene technology.

3. Hybridization and Monoclonal Antibodies in Biotechnology:

Rapid progress has been made in hybridoma technique and monoclonal antibodies which is extremely used in human health care. Enzyme conjugated antibodies are being used for detection of viruses both in plants and animals using ELISA test. Immunotixins are being produced from gene fusion so that the toxic drugs meant for killing tumour cells may be carried to the target sites with the help of specific antibodies.

4. Biotechnology in Medicine:

  In the field of medicine, insulin and interferon synthesized by bacteria have already been released for use. A large number of vaccines for immunization against deadly diseases, DNA probes and monoclonal antibodies for diagnosis of various disease, and human growth hormone and other pharmaceutical drugs for treatment of disease are being released.

5. Biotechnology and Protein Engineering:

Protein engineering will lead to production of superior enzymes and storage proteins. Biochemistry has also provided us with remarkable in the form of immobilized enzymes system, which allowed the production of variety of substances. E.g. High- fructose corn syrup using an immobilized enzyme, glucose isomerase.

6. Biotechnology in Agriculture:

Biotechnology has also revolutionized research activities in the area of agriculture which include following:

i) Plant cell, tissue and organ culture.

ii) Genetic engineering leading to transformation followed by regeneration of plants to give transgenic plants carrying desirable traits like disease resistance, insect resistance and herbicide resistance.

iii) Somatic hybrids between sexually incompatible species permitting transfer of desirable traits from wild or unrelated species to our crop plants.

iv) Transgenic animals produced in mice, pigs, goats, chicken, cows, etc. It is suggested that some of these will eventually be used as bioreactor to produce drugs through their milk, blood or urine, this area has sometimes been described as molecular farming.

7. Biotechnology and Environment:

Biotechnology methods have been devised for some environmental problems like i) Pollution control ii) depletion of natural resources for non-renewable energy. iii) restoration of degraded lands and iv) biodiversity conservation. For instance, microbes are being developed to be used as bio pesticides, bio fertilizers. Biosensors etc and for recovery of metals, cleaning of spilled oils, etc.