How the...

This meant that while the accord was binding it could be easily altered through COP resolutions, which were no more obligatory.

Also, the most critical targets of the Paris Outcome, from $100 billion as the finance floor, are in the COP decisions but not in the agreement.

Backroom renegotiations led by Obama, who personally called up heads of governments of India, China, Brazil and South Africa, ensured that all countries were in agreement.

The US also cobbled together a last-minute high ambition coalition of over 100 rich and most-vulnerable nations, pushing India and China to near isolation.

If many at Le Bourget commune, the venue for the talks, are to be believed, the concept of the pact was prepared by the French president’s office with the US delegation having a battery of top experts on international law.

It was later discussed at the Indaba (Zulu word for “meeting of elders”) headed by French Fabius with ministers from 196 nations.

As the discussions went on, senior members of the US delegation led by Secretary of State John Kerry rushed to representatives of one country after another to get agreement on every point they wanted.

“In fact, they had a draft on which discussions with us was conducted. We were surprised but it addressed all our issues,” said a negotiator from a developing country.

An hour before the final Paris agreement was tabled, the US team was in the Indian office, explaining the rationale behind getting “shall” in Article 4 of the agreement altered to “should”.

The change meant that the burden on rich nations to reduce emissions would be non-obligatory like the developing world, diluting the firewall between the two.

While the French got all the applause for the Paris agreement, the US showed real brinkmanship to get an agreement of its choosing. The rest had no option but to fall in line. Any urban region must have a flood risk map. Mapping vulnerability to both natural and manmade disasters forms its major component,” said Subhankar Karmakar, associate professor, Centre for Environment Science and Engineering, IIT-B.

The first-of-its-kind study, conducted over a span of three years, mapped Mumbai’s 24 municipal wards by dividing it into 1kmx1km zones, and will be submitted to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) in the next two months. Funded by the union ministry of earth sciences, the study used various indicators to measure vulnerability – socioeconomic, infrastructure, critical facilities and adaptive capacity – for one of the most populous coastal cities in the world.

“Drawing out a spatial pattern for vulnerability during natural disasters gives insight into the problem and is a guiding force for the authorities to handle the situation,” said Sherly MA, research scholar, Iitb-monash Academy, lead investigator.

A majority of the low socioeconomic status regions such as Chembur, Trombay, Hay Bunder, Lower Parel, Mankhurd, Kurla West, Santacruz and Saki Nnaka, figured high on vulnerability ranking. In south Mumbai, a major portion of Colaba, which is socially and economically better developed, showed lower overall vulnerability. The city’s northern end of Borivli was also found to be low on overall vulnerability because of a very small slum area, indicating lower sociostudy revealed.

High air pollution levels enhanced vulnerability, especially in terms of higher morbidity and mortality, in Chembur, Tilak Nagar, Govandi, and Saki Naka. According to researchers, proper planning is important to reduce vulnerability.

For instance, while schools can also be used as evacuation shelters during disasters, any damage to schools during a disaster could affect hundreds and thousands of students. “The advantage of such a mapping is that it will help in prioritising evacuation and adaptation to combat disaster. So any city must have a vulnerability map,” said Karmakar. “Moreover, Mumbai is also the centre of trade and commerce for India.”

The study has not included the indicator of socioeconomic vulnerability such as fisherfolk, population above 65 years, population below the poverty level, rented dwellings, single parent households, and inadequacy of solid waste management because of unavailability and lack of reliable data.

The study ‘ Disaster Vulnerability Mapping for a Densely Populated Coastal Urban Area: An Application to Mumbai, India’ was published in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers in September. Shinde’s reply, Bakshi had, on November 17, sent the report to Dixit, asking him to conduct a departmental enquiry and conclude in no ambiguous terms whether the dereliction of duty by the police officers necessitated any departmental action.

Sources in the DG’S office said that apart from “some cosmetic work” the findings in the earlier report had been left intact. “Nothing more was added, apart from the remarks (for action) and the station diary entry at the Pen police station, as had been sought by the home department,” sources added.

In the second week of September, SP Raigad, Suvez Haq, had submitted a report into the botched up probe, implicating Mirge and Chavan, for failing in their duty by not registering an offence. Mirge claimed that he had not registered an FIR only because Shinde instructed him not to. However, Haq could not ascertain the veracity of Mirge’s allegation, as the scope of the inquiry was limited to officials of the rank of deputy SP. DGP Dayal had then asked for an explanation from Shinde, who refuted the allegations, say ing he had never given such an instruction. Bakshi termed Dayal’s report “inconclusive and ambivalent” and asked his successor Dixit for a fresh report.