Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity have been an integral part of Indian ethos. The varied eco-climatic conditions coupled with unique geological and cultural features have contributed to an astounding diversity of habitats, which harbor and sustain immense biological diversity at all levels. With only 2.4% of world's land area, India accounts for 7-8% of recorded species of the world. In terms of species richness, India ranks seventh in mammals, ninth in birds and fifth in reptiles. In terms of endemism of vertebrate groups, India's position is tenth in birds with 69 species, fifth in reptiles with 156 species and seventh in amphibians with 110 species. India's share of crops is 44% as compared to the world average of 11%. India also has 23.39% of its geographical area under forest and tree cover. Of the 34 globally identified biodiversity hotspots, India harbor 3 hotspots, i.e., Himalaya, Indo Burma, Western Ghats and Sri Lanka. Western Ghats are recently included in World Heritage list. It is very rich in flora and fauna and serves as cradle of biodiversity. One of the most pressing environmental issues today is the conservation of biodiversity. Many factors threaten the world's biological heritage. The challenge is for nations, government agencies, organisations and individuals to protect and enhance biological diversity, while continuing to meet people's needs for natural resources. Efforts have been initiated to save biodiversity both by ex-situ and in-situ conservation. International Biodiversity day is celebrated across the globe on 22nd May every year.



BIODIVERSITY ACT 2002



The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 is a federal legislation enacted by the Parliament of India for preservation of biological diversity in India, and provides mechanism for equitable sharing of benefits arising out of use of traditional biological resources and knowledge. The Act was enacted to meet the obligations under Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to which India is a party. The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) was established in 2003 to implement India’s Biological Diversity Act (2002). The NBA is a Statutory, Autonomous Body and it performs facilitative, regulatory and advisory function for the Government of India on issues of conservation, sustainable use of biological resources and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of biological resources.



LEVELS OF BIODIVERSITY



Marine Biodiversity refers to 'Life in the Seas and Oceans. The marine environment has a very high biodiversity because 32 out of the 33 described animal phyla are represented in there. Marine organisms contribute to many critical processes that have direct and indirect effects on the health of the oceans and humans. Forest biological diversity is a broad term that refers to all life forms found within forested areas and the ecological roles they perform. As such, forest biological diversity encompasses not just trees, but the multitude of plants, animals and micro-organisms that inhabit forest areas and their associated genetic diversity. Genetic diversity, refers to the total number of genetic characteristics in the genetic makeup of a species. Genetic diversity serves as a way for populations to adapt to changing environments. With more variation, it is more likely that some individuals in a population will possess variations of alleles that are suited for the environment. The population will continue for more generations because of the success of these individuals. Species Diversity is the effective number of different species that are represented in a collection of individuals (a dataset). Species diversity consists of two components: species richness and species evenness. Ecosystem Diversity refers to the combination of communities of living things with the physical environment in which they live. There are many different kinds of ecosystems like deserts, mountain slopes, the ocean floor, Antarctic etc,. Each ecosystem provides many different kinds of habitats or living places. Agriculture Biodiversity includes all forms of life directly relevant to agriculture: rare seed varieties and animal breeds (farm biodiversity), but also many other organisms such as soil fauna, weeds, pests, predators, and all of the native plants and animals (wild biodiversity) existing on and flowing through the farm.



BIOSPHERES AND BIODIVERSITY RESERVES



The Indian government has established 18 Biosphere Reserves in India, which protect larger areas of natural habitat and often include one or more National Parks and Reserves, along buffer zones that are open to some economic uses. Protection is granted not only to the flora and fauna of the protected region, but also to the human communities who inhabit these regions, and their ways of life. Animals are protected and saved here.



HOTSPOTS



            A biodiversity hotspot is a biogeographic region with a significant reservoir of biodiversity that is under threat from humans. Around the world, 25 areas qualify under definition of hotspots. These sites support nearly 60% of the world's plant, bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian species, with a very high share of endemic species. The biodiversity hotspots hold especially high numbers of endemic species, yet their combined area of remaining habitat covers only 2.3 percent of the Earth's land surface. Each hotspot faces extreme threats and has already lost at least 70 percent of its original natural vegetation. Over 50 percent of the world’s plant species and 42 percent of all terrestrial vertebrate species are endemic to the 34 biodiversity hotspots.



UNO EFFORTS FOR CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY



            Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was signed in Washington, DC, on 3 March 1973. In August 2000, 152 States were parties to this Convention. The aim of CITES is to put a ban on international trade in wildlife. The World Conservation Union IUCN brings together States, government agencies and a diverse range of non-governmental organizations in a unique world partnership. IUCN seeks to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and sustainable use of natural resources. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was adopted in Rome in November 2001 to create a legally binding framework for the protection and sustainable use of all plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992 known informally as the Biodiversity Convention, is a multilateral treaty. The Convention has three main goals like conservation of biological diversity (or biodiversity); sustainable use of its components; and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. The most significant feature of 1972 World heritage Convention is that it links together in a single document the concepts of nature conservation and preservation of cultural properties. The Convention recognises the way in which people interact with nature and fundamental need to preserve the balance between the two. The law of sea 1982, envisaged by UNO aims at protecting marine biodiversity and to control marine pollution.



DESERT NATIONAL PARK



Desert National Park is a unique biosphere reserve for conservation and development of biodiversity in India. It is situated in the West Indian state of Rajasthan near the town of Jaisalmer. This is one of the largest national parks, covering an area of 3162 km². The Desert National Park is an excellent example of the ecosystem of the Thar Desert. Sand dunes form around 20% of the Park.



ROLE OF WILDLIFE CORRIDORS IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION



            A habitat corridor, wildlife corridor or green corridor is an area of habitat connecting wildlife populations separated by human activities such as roads, development, or logging. This allows an exchange of individuals between populations, which may help prevent the negative effects of inbreeding and reduced genetic diversity that often occur within isolated populations.





WETLANDS REPOSITORIES OF BIODIVERSITY  



Wetlands are complex ecosystems and encompass a wide range of inland, coastal and marine habitats. They include flood plains, swamps, marshes, fishponds, tidal marshes natural and man-made wetlands. The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty which provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources.



BENEFITS OF BIODIVERSITY



            Biodiversity provides food from crops, livestock, forestry and fish. Biodiversity is of use to modern agriculture as a source of new crops, as a source material for breeding improved varieties and as a source of new biodegradable pesticides. Biodiversity is a rich source of substances with therapeutic properties. Several important pharmaceuticals have originated as plant-based substances, which are of incalculable value to human health. The industrial products like timber, oils, lubricants, food flavours, industrial enzymes, cosmetics, perfumes, fragrances, dyes, paper, waxes, rubber, latexes, resins, poisons and cork can all be derived from various plant species. Biodiversity is a source of economical wealth for many areas, such as many parks and forests, where wild nature and animals are a source of beauty and joy, attract many visitors. Ecotourism in particular, is a growing outdoor recreational activity. Biodiversity has also great aesthetic value. Examples of aesthetic rewards include ecotourism, bird watching, wildlife, pet keeping, gardening, etc. Biodiversity is also essential for the maintenance and sustainable utilization of goods and services from ecological systems as well as from the individual species. These services include maintenance of gaseous composition of the atmosphere, climate control by forests and oceanic systems, natural pest control, pollination of plants by insects and birds, formation and protection of soil.



THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY



            The destruction of habitats is the primary reason for the loss of biodiversity in terrestrial and coastal ecosystems. Habitat loss could be attributed to conversion, habitat degradation and fragmentation. When people cut down trees, fill a wetland, plough grassland or burn a forest, the natural habitat of a species is changed or destroyed. Introduction of invasive species may cause disappearance of native species through biotic interactions. Invasive species are considered second only to habitat destruction as a major cause of extinction of species. Communities are affected by natural disturbances, such as fire, tree fall, and defoliation by insects. Man-made disturbances differ from natural disturbances in intensity, rate and spatial extent. For example, man by using fire more frequently may change species richness of a community. Exploitation, including hunting, collecting, fisheries and fisheries by-catch, and the impacts of trade in species and species’ parts, constitute a major threat for globally threatened birds (30% of all), mammals (33% of all), amphibians (6% of those assessed), reptiles and marine fishes (Baillie et al. 2004). Trade affects 13% of both threatened birds and mammals. Extinction is a natural process. Species have disappeared and new ones have evolved to take their place over the long geological history of the earth. It is useful to distinguish three types of extinction processes.   Over-fishing, habitat destruction, widespread marine pollution and human induced climate change threaten the survival of marine biodiversity. Pollution, oil and gas drilling and oil spills may increase the risks of extinction by increasing mortality of marine organisms. The Silent Valley Project in Kerala was abandoned because it was considered as a threat to biodiversity in the region.



BIODIVERSITY AND FOOD SECURITY



            In a recent estimate it was speculated that over 25 per cent of the world’s plant species might be lost by the year 2025 AD, if the current rate of plant genetic erosion continues. Preserving this germ pool is an integral part of food security. It is evident that preservation of wide range of germ pool is an integral part of breeding programme. If we are unable to combat the problems of genetic erosion, it may lead to losing sources of resistance to pests, diseases and climatic stress and, finally, leading to crop failure in future. It is well-known that out of over 20,000 edible species only a few dozen of plants are domesticated and now feed most of the people. All types of protected area constitute over 12% of the total forest area of the country. This network of protected areas covers most of the representative habitat types in the country and affords protection both to the wild flora and fauna.



International Biodiversity day is celebrated across the globe on 22nd May every year

Technical Problems of GSLV ,Indigenous Production of Cryogenic Engine

The Government has sorted out the technical problems of Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) which may carry heavy satellites and put them into orbit. The earlier flights GSLV-F02 on July 10, 2006, GSLV-D3 on April 15, 2010 and GSLV-F06 on December 25, 2010 could not accomplish the mission objectives due to technical problems. In GSLV-F02 flight, the primary cause of mission failure has been the loss of thrust in one of the liquid strap-on motors of the first stage. The anomalous behavior was attributed to the malfunctioning of propellant regulator of the gas generator system in this strap-on motor. The GSLV-D3 flight, with indigenous cryogenic upper stage, failed as the indigenous cryogenic engine after its ignition couldn’t sustain the combustion beyond 1 second, due to the anomalous stoppage of Fuel Booster Turbo Pump. In GSLV-F06 flight, with Russian cryogenic upper stage, the primary cause of the failure was the untimely and inadvertent snapping of a group of ten connectors located at the bottom portion of the Russian Cryogenic Stage, due to structural failure of the Lower Shroud. Based on the suggestions made by the failure analysis committees, ISRO has implemented the modifications and improvements in GSLV, which include independent inspection and quality checks for all critical components and sub-assemblies, change of bearing housing material, revision of tolerances and seal clearances of Fuel Booster Turbo Pump of Cryogenic Engine, redesign of the Cryogenic Stage Lower Shroud, revision of connector mounting scheme and wire tunnel configuration. After implementing the modifications and improvements in GSLV, the next flight GSLV-D5 was successfully launched on 5th January 2014 from Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharikota. India has prepared its own indigenous cryogenic engines meant for GSLV and flown in GSLV-D3 and GSLV-D5. Cryogenic engine required for next flight GSLV-D6 is also prepared and is undergoing acceptance testing. Indigenous Production of Cryogenic Engine The Cryogenic Engine of 7.5 Tonne thrust meant for Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) is indigenously produced and successfully flight tested in GSLV-D5 flight on 5th January 2014. The Cryogenic Engine of higher thrust (20 Tonne) meant for next generation of GSLV viz. GSLV-MkIII launch vehicle is under advanced stage of development. Design and Development tests of sub-system elements of this new high-thrust cryogenic engine have been carried out successfully. Cryogenic engines are already in production in Indian industries. So far, eleven cryogenic engines for GSLV and two higher thrust cryogenic engines for GSLV Mk-III have been realized. In the twelfth five year plan, 192 Crores has been allocated for realisation of cryogenic engines and stages, under GSLV programme.

India Deploys its First Sub-Surface Ocean Moored Observatory in the Arctic

A major milestone in India’s scientific endeavors in the Arctic region has been achieved on the 23rd July, 2014 when a team of scientists from the ESSO-National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR) and the ESSO-National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT) successfully deployed IndARC, the country’s first multi-sensor moored observatory in the Kongsfjorden fjord of the Arctic, roughly half way between Norway and the North Pole. This moored observatory, designed and developed by ESSO-NIOT and ESSO-NCAOR with ESSO-Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services (INCOIS) was deployed from the Norwegian Polar Institute`s research vessel R.V. Lance during its annual MOSJ-ICE cruise to the Kongsfjorden area. The observatory is presently anchored (78°57´ N 12°01´E), about 1100 km away from the North Pole at a depth of 192 m and has an array of ten state-of-the-art oceanographic sensors strategically positioned at discrete depths in the water column. These sensors are programmed to collect real-time data on seawater temperature, salinity, current and other vital parameters of the fjord. The Kongsfjorden is an established reference site for the Arctic marine studies. The Kongsfjorden has been considered as a natural laboratory for studying the Arctic climate variability, as it receives varying climatic signals from the Arcitc/Atlantic in the course of an annual seasonal cycle. ESSO-NCAOR has been continuously monitoring the Kongsfjorden since 2010 for understanding response of the fjord to climate variability at different time scales. The temperature and salinity profiles of the fjord, water column nutrients and diversity of biota are being monitored at close spatio-temporal scales throughout the spring-summer-fall seasons. There exists a great need to know on how the fjord system is influenced by, or responds to exchanges with the water on the shelf and in the deep sea outside during an entire annual seasonal cycle. In particular, there is a need for continuous observations of the water transport into the interior part of the fjord. One of the major constraints in such a study has been the difficulty in reaching the location during the harsh Arctic winter and obtaining near-surface data. The IndARC observatory is an attempt to overcome this lacuna and collect continuous data from depths very close to the water surface as well as at different discrete depths. The data acquired would be of vital importance to the Indian climate researchers as well as to the international fraternity. In addition to providing for an increased understanding of the response of the Arctic to climatic variabilities, the data would also provide a good handle in our understanding of the Arctic processes and their influence on the Indian monsoon system through climate modelling studies. The deployment of the country’s first polar mooring is a testimony to the capabilities of the ESSO in designing, developing and installing underwater observatories. The technical and logistics support extended by the Norwegian Polar Institute, is a good example of the increasing scientific and technical co-operation between India and Norway in addressing the global climate change.

Employment rises 34% to 12.7 crore in 8 years to 2013

 The number of employed people in the country grew by 34.35 per cent to 12.77 crore in eight years to 2013, according to the sixth economic census.

Employment in urban parts increased by 37.46 per cent to 6.14 crore in 2013, whereas in rural areas the growth was 31.59 per cent to 6.62 crore compared to 2005.

The proportion of women in total workforce rose to 25.56 per cent in 2013 from about 20 per cent in 2005. In urban areas, the proportion of female workers was 19.8 per cent and 30.9 per cent in rural areas.

Maharashtra has the maximum number of employees at 1.43 crore, followed by Uttar Pradesh at 1.37 crore, West Bengal at 1.15 crore, Tamil Nadu 1.08 crore and Gujarat at 90.63 lakh.

Among union territories, Delhi has the maximum number of employees at 29.84 lakh followed by Chandigarh at 2.38 lakh and Puducherry at 2.17 lakh in 2013.

The country's population was over 121 crore in 2011, according to 2011 census.

The economic census does not include employment in agriculture, public administration, defence and compulsory social security services activities.

When asked about employment scenario, National Statistical Commission Chairman Pronab Sen said, "The growth in employment at 34 per cent in eight years period is a good rate. That means that it had grown at an annual rate of over 4 per cent when the population is growing at 2 per cent."


Census officials noting down details.

The number of establishments or firms increased by 41.73 per cent to 5.84 crore in 2013 over 2005 level. The number of firms grew by 45.57 during eight years to 2.34 crore in urban areas. Such firms grew by 39.28 per cent to 3.5 crore in rural areas during the period.

Intervention, evasion, destabilisation

If Libya, Syria and Iraq are coming undone and Ukraine has been gravely destabilised, it is the result of interventionsby big powers that claim to be international law enforcers when, in reality, they are lawbreakers

Big powers over the years have targeted specific regimes by arming rebel groups with lethal weapons, thereby destabilising some states and contributing to the rise of dangerous extremists and terrorists. The destabilisation of Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Libya, among other states, is a result of such continuing geopolitical games.

It is the local people who get killed, maimed and uprooted by the interventions of major powers and their regional proxies. Yet those who play such games assume a moral posture to rationalise their interventionist policies and evade responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Indeed, they paint their interference in the affairs of other sovereign states as aimed at fighting the “bad” guys.

Cold War echo

Take the blame game over the downing of Flight MH 17, which was shot down by a surface-to-air missile (SAM), allegedly fired by eastern Ukraine’s Russian-speaking separatists, a number of whom have clearly been trained and armed by Russia. Russia’s aid to the separatists and Washington’s security assistance to the government in Kiev, including providing vital intelligence and sending American military advisers to Ukraine, is redolent of the pattern that prevailed during the Cold War, when the two opposing blocs waged proxy battles in countries elsewhere.

Today, with the Ukrainian military shelling rebel-held cities and Russia massing heavy weapons and troops along the frontier, the crisis threatens to escalate to a direct U.S.-Russia confrontation, especially if Moscow directly intervenes in eastern Ukraine in response to the worsening humanitarian crisis there. The United Nations says the fighting in eastern Ukraine has uprooted more than 230,000 residents. Over 27,000 of them have taken sanctuary in Russia.

After the MH 17 crash, U.S. President Barack Obama was quick to hold Russia and its President, Vladimir Putin, guilty in the global court of opinion over the downing and to spotlight Russian aid to the separatists. Through sanctions and diplomacy, Mr. Obama has steadily ratcheted up pressure on Mr. Putin to stop assisting the rebels. Yet, Mr. Obama has had no compunction in gravely destabilising Syria through continuing covert aid to “moderate” militants there. The aid is being channelled through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the jihad-bankrolling oil sheikhdoms.

Regime-change strategy

Mr. Obama set out on the mission of regime change in Syria by seizing the opportunity that opened up in 2011, when popular protests broke out in some cities against President Bashar al-Assad’s autocratic rule. The detention and torture of a group of schoolchildren, who had been caught scribbling anti-government graffiti in the city of Deraa, led to protests and demands for political reforms and a series of events that rapidly triggered an armed insurrection with external assistance.

From bases in Turkey and Jordan, the rebels — with the clandestine assistance of the U.S., Britain and France — established a Free Syrian Army, launching attacks on government forces. Washington and its allies simultaneously mounted an intense information war demonising Mr. Assad and encouraging officers and soldiers to desert the Syrian military and join the Free Syrian Army.

It is clear three years later that their regime-change strategy has backfired: Not only has it failed to oust Mr. Assad, it has turned Syria into a failed state and led to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant — a brutal, medieval organisation seeking to establish a caliphate across the Middle East and beyond. With radical jihadists now dominating the scene, the Free Syrian Army has become a marginal force, despite the CIA continuing to train and arm its members in Jordan.

Had Mr. Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President François Hollande not embarked on this strategy — which helped instil the spirit of jihad against the Assad regime and opened the gates to petrodollar-financed weapons to Syrian jihadists — would murderous Islamists be in control of much of northern Syria today? It was this control that served as the staging ground for the rapid advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant into Iraq. This group now is in a position to potentially use water as a weapon through its control of the upstream areas along the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in Syria and Iraq, including important dams.

By inadvertently turning Syria into another Afghanistan — and a threat to regional and international security — the interveners failed to heed the lessons from the CIA’s funnelling of arms to the Afghan mujahideen (or self-proclaimed “holy warriors” of Islam) in the 1980s. The funnelling of arms — partly financed by Saudi Arabia and some other oil sheikhdoms — was a multibillion-dollar operation against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan that gave rise to al-Qaeda and monsters like Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammad Omar, chief of the Taliban who remains holed up in Pakistan. It ranked as the largest covert operation in the CIA’s history.

Now, consider a different case where a regime-change strategy spearheaded by the U.S., Britain and France succeeded — Libya. The ouster of Col. Muammar Qadhafi’s government through U.S.-led aerial bombardment in 2011, however, ended up fomenting endless conflict, bloodletting and chaos in Libya.

The virtual crumbling of the Libyan state, more ominously, has had major international implications — from the cross-border leakage of shoulder-fired SAMs from the Qadhafi-built arsenal, including to Syrian jihadists, to the flow of other Libyan weapons to al-Qaeda-linked groups in the arid lands near the Sahara desert known as the Sahel region. Nigeria’s Boko Haram extremists have also tapped the Libyan arms bazaar.

The weapons that Qatar and, on a smaller scale, the United Arab Emirates shipped to Libyan rebels with U.S. approval, including machine guns, automatic rifles and ammunition, have not only destabilised Libya but also undermined security in Mali, Niger and Chad. These weapons had been handed out like candy to foment the uprising against Qadhafi.

There cannot be better proof of how the toppling of Qadhafi has boomeranged than the fact that the U.S., whose ambassador was killed in a 2012 militant attack in Benghazi, the supposed capital of the Libyan “revolution,” has now shut its embassy in Tripoli, citing increasing lawlessness. The predawn evacuation of its entire embassy staff to Tunisia, with U.S. warplanes providing air cover, represented a public admission of defeat.

The plain truth is that it is easier for outside forces to topple or undermine a regime than to build stability and security in the targeted country. With neighbourhoods becoming battlefields, Iraq, Syria and Libya are coming undone. Another disintegrating state is Afghanistan, where Mr. Obama is seeking to end the longest war in American history.

Marginalisation of U.N.

Such is the United Nations’ marginalisation in international relations that it is becoming irrelevant to the raging conflicts. To make matters worse, the U.N. Security Council’s five permanent members, although tasked by the U.N. Charter to preserve international peace and security, have helped spark or fuel regional conflicts and aided the rise of insurgent groups through their interventionist and arms-transfer policies. These five powers — all nuclear-armed — account for more than 80 per cent of the world’s official exports of conventional weapons and most of the unofficial transfers. Chinese arms, for example, have proliferated to a number of guerrilla groups active in Africa and Asia, including insurgents in India’s northeast.

The only mechanism to enforce international law is the Security Council. Yet, its permanent members have repeatedly demonstrated that great powers use, not respect, international law. They have a long history of ignoring international rules when these conflict with their plans. In other words, the international law enforcers are the leading lawbreakers.

Mr. Obama, in toppling Qadhafi through the use of air power, and Mr. Putin, in annexing Crimea, paradoxically cited the same moral principle that has no force in international law — “responsibility to protect.” Indeed, the transition from the 20th to the 21st centuries heralded the open flouting of international law, as represented by the bombing of Serbia, the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Against this background, it is scarcely a surprise that, despite the continuing rhetoric of a rules-based international order, the world is witnessing the triumph of brute force in the 21st century.

If the Security Council is to act more responsibly, its permanent members must look honestly at what they are doing to undermine international peace and security. This can happen only if the Council’s permanent membership is enlarged and the veto power abolished to make decision-making in that body truly democratic.

World's first malaria vaccine to hit markets soon

The world's first malaria vaccine will be available in the market by next year. 

Pharma company GSK has submitted a regulatory application to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for its malaria vaccine candidate, RTS,S. 

RTS,S will be exclusively for use against the Plasmodium falciparum malaria parasite, which is most prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). 

Around 90% of estimated deaths from malaria occur in SSA, and 77% of these are in children under the age of 5. 

Data from the phase III vaccine trial programme conducted at 13 African research centres in eight African countries (Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Tanzania) including over 16,000 infants and young children have also been included to support the filing. 

Results from a large-scale Phase III trial showed that over 18 months of follow-up, children aged 5-17 months at first vaccination with RTS,S experienced 46% fewer cases of clinical malaria, compared to children immunized with a control vaccine. 

An average of 941 cases of clinical malaria were prevented over 18 months of follow-up for every 1,000 children vaccinated in this age group. 

Severe malaria cases were reduced by 36%; 21 cases of severe malaria were prevented over 18 months of follow-up for every 1,000 children vaccinated. 

Malaria hospitalizations were reduced by 42%. 

RTS,S aims to trigger the body's immune system to defend against the P falciparum malaria parasite when it first enters the human host's bloodstream and/or when the parasite infects liver cells. The vaccine is designed to prevent the parasite from infecting, maturing and multiplying in the liver, after which time the parasite would re-enter the bloodstream and infect red blood cells, leading to disease symptoms. In the phase III efficacy trial, RTS,S was administered in three doses, one month apart. 

Trials showed that the vaccine effectively protected young children and infants from clinical malaria up to 18 months after vaccination. 

GSK said "Over 18 months of follow-up, RTS,S was shown to almost halve the number of malaria cases in young children (aged 5-17 months at first vaccination) and to reduce by around a quarter the malaria cases in infants (aged 6-12 weeks at first vaccination)". 

GSK has vowed to sell the vaccine at cost price plus 5%, which it said would fund further research into tropical diseases. The new results are from a study of 15,000 babies and children in seven African countries. 

The submission will follow the Article 58 procedure, which allows the EMA to assess the quality, safety and efficacy of a candidate vaccine, or medicine, manufactured in a European Union (EU) member state, for a disease recognised by the World Health Organization as of major public health interest, but intended exclusively for use outside the EU. 

This assessment is done by the EMA in collaboration with the WHO, and requires products to meet the same standards as vaccines or medicines intended for use in the EU. 

The EMA submission is the first step in the regulatory process toward making the RTS,S vaccine candidate available as an addition to existing tools currently recommended for malaria prevention. To-date there is no licensed vaccine available for the prevention of malaria. 

If a positive opinion from the EMA is granted, the WHO has indicated a policy recommendation may be possible by end of 2015. 

A positive opinion from the EMA would also be the basis for marketing authorisation applications to National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) in SSA countries. 

Dr Sophie Biernaux, head of the Malaria Vaccine Franchise, GSK said "This is a key moment in GSK's 30-year journey to develop RTS,S and brings us a step closer to making available the world's first vaccine that can help protect children in Africa from malaria".

The real threat to WTO

Aside from war and migration, observed the Nobel prize winning economist, Thomas C. Schelling, “trade is what most of international relations are about. For that reason, trade policy is national security policy.”

One of the few economists to take any serious academic interest in national security issues, and known for his analysis of nuclear deterrence from a game theoretic perspective, Schelling made these observations in 1971 to a United States Congressional Commission on “National Security Considerations Affecting Trade Policy”.

While economists like to believe that trade policy is defined by rational calculus, the wielders of power and policy have always known that trade policy is integral to a nation’s strategic policy. The transatlantic powers created a post-war trading regime under the auspices of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) designed to serve their geoeconomic interests. This was sought to be democratised, though only partially, with the World Trade Organisation (WTO), creating not just a “rules-based” trading system but also a disciplinary mechanism to enforce those rules.

India correctly took the view that it had a “strategic stake” in such a multilateral rules-based system, and successive governments have worked hard with the West through the WTO. The current impasse in the WTO has in fact been created by the dilution of Western commitment to that regime, and not by developing-country intransigence, much less India’s.

In the current stand-off on India’s stance on its food security policy, Western powers are pretending as if they are the upholders of fair play and India the spoiler. The fact is that major trading powers have never shied away from being spoilers in multilateral trade talks whenever it has suited their national interest. It should be recalled that the US and EU have readily deployed non-economic weapons to threaten their trade partners whenever their economic interests have been threatened. When Japan emerged as a competitive global exporter, building a huge trade surplus vis-à-vis the transatlantic economies, the US deployed domestic laws, Special and Super 301, to get Japan to adopt “voluntary export restraints” (VERs). The EU “single market” was created in the early 1990s as a conscious response to Japan’s rise.

Hence, it would be churlish for the West to criticise the Indian government for giving primacy to domestic politics in external trade negotiations. The real threat to the WTO-based multilateral trading system has come in recent months from the US initiative to enter into WTO-plus plurilateral agreements, namely, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

While a plethora of such agreements around the worldhas virtually sidelined the WTO, the TPP/ TTIP challenge is the biggest threat so far to a rules-based development-oriented multilateralism. This assessment came through clearly at a recent conference on “Trade and Flag: Changing Balance of Power in the Multilateral Trading System”, organised by the Geoeconomics and Strategy Programme of the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS).

The TPP and the TTIP have been cooked up as a “geoeconomic” response to China’s emergence as a “mega-trader”, while being touted as defining a new “gold standard” for international trade. While Japan has reluctantly joined the TPP, most major emerging economies, especially the BRICS economies — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — remain outside TPP-TTIP.

It is against this larger “Great Game” in global trade that one must view India’s current stance. True, the shadow of domestic politics, and public concern about food inflation and food security, loom large over the Narendra Modi government’s stance, which is but a continuation of the view taken by the Manmohan Singh government.

However, it is also clear that this is not the only factor shaping Indian official thinking on trade policy. There seems to be an assessment that the transatlantic powers are digging their heels in on market access, trade liberalisation and weakening the WTO’s “rules-based” trading system. Perhaps India is not the target of their actions and China is. But India would suffer collateral damage and, so far, the US has not provided any assurance that India would not be a victim of the unintended consequences of a US-China trade war.

Differences over trade come against the background of several other differences that have dogged US-India relations during the tenure of President Barrack Obama. These issues ought to be ironed out when US Secretary of State John Kerry meets India’s new political leadership.

Regrettably, Kerry’s remarks on WTO and India, on the eve of his arrival in New Delhi, are not particularly helpful. He said on Tuesday, “India must decide where it fits in the global trading system. Its commitment to a rules-based trading order and its willingness to fulfil its obligation will be a key indication.” It could well be argued that the US too must come clean on its commitment to a “rules-based” system that is fair to developing economies.

The impasse in Geneva will get sorted out when Washington DC’s intentions behind TPP/ TTIP are better explained and the US wins the confidence of developing countries. The US must address Indian concerns that it may abandon the WTO and pursue a trade agenda inimical to India once it gets the trade facilitation deal through. For its part, India must reform its food security system and its agricultural economy as a whole, and ensure they are WTO-compatible. For now, however, the US and India must resist quarrelling on this issue and revive their relationship.

What can perhaps change the game and revive trust between India and the US is a revival of the larger strategic engagement between the two democracies that was initiated by US Presidents BillClinton and George Bush. Obama has not been able to retain that trust with India. Prime Minister Modi has made a new beginning. It remains to be seen whether Kerry is able to  win back New Delhi’s trust and affection, restoring balance to a wayward relationship.