In many of the present CDM projects, we see that community development is just a mere made up fraction as compared to actual development taking place in the field. Taking a break from all this, the Bagepalli CDM biogas project has been a refreshing example. The project has actually benefited 5500 poor households in the Kolar district of Karnataka. The key to the success of this project has been the active involvement of local communities.
The Clean Development Mechanism or CDM is a provision under the Kyoto Protocol which allows industrialized countries (known as Annex 1 countries) with greenhouse gas reduction targets to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries. The basic purpose of the CDM as defined under Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, apart from helping Annex 1 countries with meeting their emission reduction commitments, is to assist developing countries in achieving sustainable development.
The mechanism of carbon trading has been equated to the proverbial golden egg laying goose by many. It is so because carbon trading has ensured that the traditional principles and policies for a healthier environment in which the governments across the globe earlier used to yield a stick take a backseat and it has attached a price and an incentive to go green. There was a huge rush to have a share of this new profit making industry as many CDM consultancies offering services right since drafting project proposal and development to the selling of the final CERs cropped up. This was good for expansion of the sector but however in a mad scramble to earn money, profit making took precedence to the sustainable development theme underlying the Kyoto protocol.
Bagepalli is a small panchayat town in the Kolar district of Karnataka state. It is situated close to the city of Bangalore on the Bangalore-Hyderabad National Highway. The town is semi-arid in nature and prone to droughts which have led to the underlying poverty in the region. It has an average literacy rate of 63% which is higher than the national average. Based on the literacy rate figure only, it is easy to assume that Bagepalli would be one of the better towns in the Indian context. However the ground reality is very different. Bagepalli borders the Rayalseema desert belt in Andhra Pradesh which is one of the drought prone poverty pockets in India. This drought also has its bearings in Bagepalli, which have made sustainable development a challenging task in the area.
The Bagepalli Biogas CDM project is one which is adhering to the basic principles of the Kyoto. The project started way back in 2005. The origin and development of the project idea came from many sources, but however Anandi Sharan from the Women for Sustainable Development, an NGO working from Bangalore is amongst the first ones who took up the initiative of developing this biogas project, helping out 5500 families across many villages in the Kolar district of Karnataka. Alongwith the Nepal biogas CDM program, Bagepalli is amongst the rare few successful grassroots level CDM programs. The most interesting feature of this project has been the knowledge dissemination to the local communities. The people are not only aware about the benefits of the biogas digesters installed in their homes, but they are also very much aware of the benefits that they can reap by the CERs being generated through the project.
Ram Esteves from the Agricultural Development and Training Society (ADATS), an NGO based in Bagepalli along with Anandi Sharan visualized the development of the area through pioneering a biogas plant model involving the local communities. Their vision lay in their approach of having a bottom up approach, as the local households were the primary stakeholders, thus all major decisions came from the ground level. The project was pre-funded by including the revenues to be generated by selling the CERs. ADATS played a major role through building village level organizations known as the Coolie Sangha. These Coolie Sangha Units later played a major role in motivating the people across the villages to take up this project.
In case of the Bagepalli CDM project, the monitoring of the biogas units is done on a real time basis and specific people were made accountable for the proper functioning of these units which led to the proper functioning of these units. This was also one of the keys for the success of this project.
The project is not a perfect example but however it is one of the better examples of a CDM project which is benefiting the local community and actually aiding the whole concept of clean development mechanism. The local communities are now undertaking a 18000 household strong CDM project now as a continuation to the first project. The best part of the project has been the transition in the mindset of the village folks. Initially wary of installing gas units in their houses due to the fear of blowing up their houses to talking about revenues generated through CERs, they have come a long way.
The Clean Development Mechanism or CDM is a provision under the Kyoto Protocol which allows industrialized countries (known as Annex 1 countries) with greenhouse gas reduction targets to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries. The basic purpose of the CDM as defined under Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, apart from helping Annex 1 countries with meeting their emission reduction commitments, is to assist developing countries in achieving sustainable development.
The mechanism of carbon trading has been equated to the proverbial golden egg laying goose by many. It is so because carbon trading has ensured that the traditional principles and policies for a healthier environment in which the governments across the globe earlier used to yield a stick take a backseat and it has attached a price and an incentive to go green. There was a huge rush to have a share of this new profit making industry as many CDM consultancies offering services right since drafting project proposal and development to the selling of the final CERs cropped up. This was good for expansion of the sector but however in a mad scramble to earn money, profit making took precedence to the sustainable development theme underlying the Kyoto protocol.
Bagepalli is a small panchayat town in the Kolar district of Karnataka state. It is situated close to the city of Bangalore on the Bangalore-Hyderabad National Highway. The town is semi-arid in nature and prone to droughts which have led to the underlying poverty in the region. It has an average literacy rate of 63% which is higher than the national average. Based on the literacy rate figure only, it is easy to assume that Bagepalli would be one of the better towns in the Indian context. However the ground reality is very different. Bagepalli borders the Rayalseema desert belt in Andhra Pradesh which is one of the drought prone poverty pockets in India. This drought also has its bearings in Bagepalli, which have made sustainable development a challenging task in the area.
The Bagepalli Biogas CDM project is one which is adhering to the basic principles of the Kyoto. The project started way back in 2005. The origin and development of the project idea came from many sources, but however Anandi Sharan from the Women for Sustainable Development, an NGO working from Bangalore is amongst the first ones who took up the initiative of developing this biogas project, helping out 5500 families across many villages in the Kolar district of Karnataka. Alongwith the Nepal biogas CDM program, Bagepalli is amongst the rare few successful grassroots level CDM programs. The most interesting feature of this project has been the knowledge dissemination to the local communities. The people are not only aware about the benefits of the biogas digesters installed in their homes, but they are also very much aware of the benefits that they can reap by the CERs being generated through the project.
Ram Esteves from the Agricultural Development and Training Society (ADATS), an NGO based in Bagepalli along with Anandi Sharan visualized the development of the area through pioneering a biogas plant model involving the local communities. Their vision lay in their approach of having a bottom up approach, as the local households were the primary stakeholders, thus all major decisions came from the ground level. The project was pre-funded by including the revenues to be generated by selling the CERs. ADATS played a major role through building village level organizations known as the Coolie Sangha. These Coolie Sangha Units later played a major role in motivating the people across the villages to take up this project.
In case of the Bagepalli CDM project, the monitoring of the biogas units is done on a real time basis and specific people were made accountable for the proper functioning of these units which led to the proper functioning of these units. This was also one of the keys for the success of this project.
The project is not a perfect example but however it is one of the better examples of a CDM project which is benefiting the local community and actually aiding the whole concept of clean development mechanism. The local communities are now undertaking a 18000 household strong CDM project now as a continuation to the first project. The best part of the project has been the transition in the mindset of the village folks. Initially wary of installing gas units in their houses due to the fear of blowing up their houses to talking about revenues generated through CERs, they have come a long way.
19 comments:
Sreyamsa,
This example shows exactly the opposite of what you purport it to show. It is yet another illustration of why CDM has failed. If I had more time I'd post a detailed rebuttal of this on my blog but I'll try to explain here briefly...
An instance of carbon mitigation while earning CER's is not the same as an instance of carbon mitigation due to earning of CER's.
Progress made, society benefited, carbon mitigated - is all well and good. I'm not disputing that. But the question is, has it happened because to CDM?
This is the crux of the issue at hand. Is there evidence that this project would not have been commissioned had it not been for the earning of carbon credits?
If so, then how do you explain hundreds of biogas plants in the same rural Karanataka that have been commissioned in the past? If banks routinely provide loans and the government offers subsidy for building biogas plants - then where is the critical need for finance that the CER's is supposed to fulfill?
According to 2002 MNRE data, 270,000 biogas plants have been installed in Karnataka. There are several organisations in the state that help people install such plants. One of them, SKG Sangha alone had installed 43,000 of them by 2006. Not one of them using CDM credits.
So my question is, when such organisations have been installing biogas plants for years quite successfully (SKG claims not a single one of their plants is inoperational) for which finance and subsidies are readily available, and which are readily being commissioned by people in rural Karnataka, then what justification is there for earning CERs for such work?
I am sure ADATS not only saw it as carbon mitigation, but probably (and more importantly), as an opportunity to generate a revenue stream for itself to finance a programme. I think this is one of the most important aspects of CDM and is in sync with the current scenario where donor money is hard to come by for community development programmes.
Even if there is MNES money available, it is more often than not, hard to access.
This is as good as any incentive for grassroots NGOs to take up CDM linked programmes like biogas plants, micro-hydro electricity systems, LED lighting etc
> the current scenario where donor money is hard to come by for community development programmes.
This isn't true in this case. As I said, organisations such as SKG Sangha have been installing biogas plants in rural Karnataka through bank loans. SKG has installed over 50,000 plants in the last 15 years. Do you seriously think that would have happened with a lack of fund availability?
Unfortunately, now even SKG intends to profit through CER's.
Goes on to show the hollowness of CDM as a carbon mitigation scheme.
"The project like Bagepalli CDM biogas project is a good model showing how revenue from CERs (as a result of CDM) actually give a strong support to the projects to meet the sustainable development criteria. In this case, the additional income from CDM will add strength to this community initiative through Agricultural Development and Training Society (ADATS), the NGO involved. The amount would be utilized in the maintenance (which is the biggest challenge after commissioning of the project) of the 5,500 biogas plants.
It's not just setting up such a project, what matter is how they are maintained? How the finances are arranged so that the project keeps functioning successfully in the long run? The maintenance doesn't become burden on the poor? I believe that Bagepalli project is answers all these doubts… and motivates all that more such projects can be taken up.
For more information of this this project please refer to http://www.adats.com/cdm/gold_standard.php"
Bagelpalli is surely one of the good examples of a CDM project. The author is very correct in mentioning the reasons as to why this project is successful. It has community involvement.
The blog comes at a right time when The Econimic Times on the 23rd of June has actually reported a slump in the indian revenues through CDM projects.The reason cited there is the credebility of the projects. Numerous projects being promoted are actually money earning tools for big multinationals. In the Bagepalli example, it is heartwarming to see so many villagers actually supporting a project on their own. I hope that more NGOs get involved in promoting such CDM projects.
As for Mr Manu Sharma's comments , i would like to say that instead of just thrashing the entire concept of CDM, its time for us to open us a bit and look into what good cam CDM bring to poor communities. This blog is a beautiful example of just that.
It is high time for us to get out of personal biases and start thinking about how can CDM bring in good changes.
In an email to me, the author of this post has admitted that this project would have been possible without carbon credits. To quote Sreyamsa Bairiganjan: "I agree to the fact that progress in this project was possible without the aid of CDM..."
I don't think anything else remains to be said. But I'll still address Atul's arguments below.
CDM finance is needed for maintenance
First, this is not correct in light of the other biogas plants that are running successfully without CDM aid. Second, the author of this post admits as much himself as shown above.
Second, domestic biogas plants do not require round the clock maintenance as long as they are properly used. Projects fail due to poor *training* of stakeholders, not due to lack of round the clock maintanence staff. Maintenance is an only an aspect of training which doesn't cost a big amount.
Small village CDM projects better than big evil CDM projects
Where a project is implemented is less irrelevant under the main objective of UNFCC - only thing that matters is the amount of emission reductions achieved. By the author's own admission aid was not a determinant in commissioning of this project which means by getting credits for these, the project has given someone else "the right to pollute" thereby making a net increase of global emissions.
This was my primary objection with this post which has been vindicated by the author himself. As stated in my first comment
I do not disagree that people have benefited from this - only that CDM has caused this.
Embrace CDM for the poor
The Kyoto Protocol was NOT started for upliftment of the downtrodden communities. It was started for enabling genuine emission reductions that would not have been possible without it. If the latter causes the former then great, I'm all for it. But we should not lose sight of the fact that the ultimate objective of Kyoto Protocol is to achieve, greenhouse gas reductions as mentioned in the article 2 (objective) of the UNFCC.
Abandon personal biases
As a director of an emerging renewable energy company that will offset millions of pounds of CO2 over the next few years, I have more to lose from opposing carbon credits than perhaps anyone else here can gain by supporting it. Giving someone else the right to pollute by earning credits for our offsets will not be the policy of this company as long as I'm here. This is not how we can address climate change.
But now that the issue of bias has been raised, I'd like to know whether Atul, in his role as a consultant to Cantor Fitzgerald has ever dealt with CDM in the past or intends to deal with them in the future. I'd also be keen on knowing whether he found this post himself or was pointed to this by the author of this post. And finally whether he knows the author personally or not.
To anyone interested in learning about the CDM issue, I'd recommend listening to the linked BBC radio program that carried out an investigation into it recently: part one | part two
It's quite heartening to find CDM practically enabling sustainable development in a community in this case. It's a breather where the money actually trickles down to the bottom of the pyramid and helps elevate their standard of living.
People who have posted their comments prior to mine one, seem to be unnecessarily contesting for nothing when actually they are looking forward to the same super-ordinate goal (as goes the pulse of their comments) of Sustainable Development. It's high time to realise that CDM is merely a Market Mechanism which aims at reducing GHG emissions by negative reinforcements in the form of investments in less emitting clean projects or buying Carbon credits. Industries in the developed nations are using CDM to achieve economy of scale in meeting regulatory caps, saving costs of implementing green and clean options in their own geo-political territory whereas the real environmental performance needs development of cleaner technology and substitution of the polluting ones with green or cleaner alternatives in the highly industrialised developed countries only.
CDM is a prevalent market mechanism and for obvious reasons exploited by the industry in the developing nations as any other business opportunity would have been to put weight to the bottomline. Industries in the developing nations are siphoning CDM money to add to the revenue from their business. There is no point in criticising the disprovability of the additionality when it is done anyway. What should be of concern is that efforts are scarce to couple this financial Carbon benefits with the community development initiatives and CDM is about to lose its sanctity by becoming a soulless money making option only for the industrial biggies with heavy and deep pockets. That is where, this case makes it mark with its differential flavor.
I appreciate the passion and spirit that Manu exuberates while writing ”Giving someone else the right to pollute by earning credits for our offsets will not be the policy of this company as long as I'm here.” But that is not going to refrain others from walking the lane.
It is meaningless to trivialize the community benefit opportunities from CDM (“The Kyoto Protocol was NOT started for upliftment of the downtrodden communities”). Rather, CDM should be more and more employed in such initiatives to marry the first, the seventh and the eighth MDGs successfully.
Taking this as an example, there should be more capacity building initiatives at the grass-root community level to understand, plan and implement CDM projects in their activities to earn money for community development. NGOs can actually make this happen by virtue of the earned trust and confidence of the grass-root people in them.
When money is flowing, someone is going to grab it. Let it be grabbed somewhere near the soil.
Amen
Snehashis, thanks for what seems like a very thoughtful comment. However, I'm afraid, some more thinking is required on your part to understand the ramifications of what you're suggesting. If you do that, and I'll help along (see below), you'll realise that your proposal is in fact quite short-sighted.
If I can summarise what you're proposing, I think it is this: "Regardless of the lack of additionality, which is the case even with large projects as well, it should be applauded that at least here the money goes to the poor, elevating their living standard and enabling sustainable development."
Sounds reasonable and just when in fact it is precisely this kind of shortsightedness that has led humanity here - to the brink of our destruction. Yes, the funds generated from CER's (which we all, including the author, agree weren't needed to commission the project in the first place) might help the poor but you have to ask yourself...
At What Cost?
By selling spurious carbon credits, these funds are acquired at the cost of contributing to climate change which will kill hundreds of thousands of people over the coming decades, if not more and displace hundreds of millions.
Actually, that's an understatement because according to an estimate, the number of people displaced as a consequence of climate change is over one billion.
By another estimate, every cm of sea-level rise will affect 1 million people (don't have a link for this as I caught this on TV at the end of a program between channel surfing). This is scary because if Greenland or West Antarctica melt (or each melt by half), seal level worldwide will rise over 7 meters.
Therefore, the choice in this case, is between higher living standard of the poor by earning unjustified credits and people's lives in the future. By contributing to the former, you cannot avoid accountability for the latter.
It is impossible to put a number to exactly how many lives will be lost and how many more permanently affected due to climate change contribution of 129,079 tonnes of spurious CO2e reductions that the Bagepalli project is claiming.
But the relationship between the two is crystal clear: put more CO2 in the atmosphere, kill more people in the future.
Not my definition of sustainable development.
I hope the above will lead everyone here to reflect on this a little bit and think for themselves. It's important to see beyond our immediate actions. Just because everyone is doing it, does not make CDM just. It will perhaps go down in history as the greatest environmental farce ever perpetrated in modern times.
Dear Manu,
I would thank you for thinking out of the box and really being iconoclastic in your perspective on CDM. You have resounded my comment in a paraphrase that CDM is not a solution to the problem of Climate Change due to GHG emissions from the industry. Rather, this is a low cost instrument for the emitters to escape the cost implications of prevention and control of emissions in situ on real basis.
But, I would like to make a point here that if UNFCCC has issued CERs for the said project, then the project has surely met the criteria on which additionality is proved or justified in practice. I am too small someone to criticise the conditions of proving additionality as defined by UNFCCC.
If one project has been granted additionality wrongly as per your observations in this case, the same fallacy must have been replicated elsewhere with same flow of algorithm. So, basically accepting the point that you made in your previous observations leads me through the above argument to the conclusion that all the industrial biggies are making money selling the same 'false' CERs as observed by you. Then, no point criticising or disproving this project which must have earned a meagre amount of CERs compared to those.
Myopic although, my eyes glitter that this project will really light up hundred lights in the darkness of these non-corporate grass-root people.
If you can come up with a mechanism which can compel industries to reduce their emissions in situ on a real-time basis, I will look forward to going through a blog by you suggesting or explaining the same. Till then, I would say that don't criticise me buying little groceries for my little household from the same shopping mall where the elite frequents to buy green-labelled unsustainable products.
Thanks dear.
Snehasis, this didn't involve any thinking out of the box. Only connecting the dots. And it's unfortunate that more people working in the CDM industry or those trading in CER's aren't doing it. Even well-meaning, idealistic individuals don't connect the dots. If they did, they'd have trouble sleeping at night.
But they must do it. You must assume responsibility for your actions.
Not sure of the approval status of this project but I've already shown here in earlier comments that there's no additionality. The author himself admits it. To see how additionality is routinely taken advantage of in large projects, you only need to listen to the BBC investigative programme I linked above (part one).
Yes, earning nominal CER's relative to the large CDM projects makes Bagepalli project a smaller criminal in the bigger scheme of things but that doesn't make it less wrong. Also note that everything is relative. The large projects are only so until even larger ones come along. So lets not get into a question of size. The point is, CDM is an inherently flawed instrument in practice and we should do everything possible to discourage the mechanism.
It should be a crime to sing praises of CDM projects unless you really know what you're talking about and can demonstrate it. Which, as I've clearly shown above, isn't true in this case.
I don't think you have myopic eyes. I think you're squinting your eyes to become myopic while trying to ignore the bigger picture, which you're quite capable of seeing clearly otherwise. I hope the rest of humanity doesn't follow you because
...being myopic on a railway track can have tragic consequences.
The world is in the midst of deciding how to approach large-scale emission reductions beyond the Kyoto protocol and I sincerely hope UNFCCC doesn't extend the CDM scheme. Any harm that it has caused so far would pale in comparison to the disaster it will unleash then.
The Indian government has just announced as part of National Action Plan on Climate Change that it may launch a domestic cap and trade scheme on the lines of CDM. This will multiply the amount of harm caused. I will be trying to gather support against it and I hope it doesn't get implemented.
Does a more effective mechanism exist? Yes, it's called revenue neutral carbon tax. To learn how it works, head to the Carbon Tax Center. It has a lot of support among leading economists (including Noble Laurette), environmentalists such as Lester Brown, politicians such as Al Gore and now even some scientists like James Hansen are becoming proponents. I think it's the most
effective, most transparent and easiest to implement market mechanism for carbon pricing.
Dear Manu,
Its really nice to see you supporting a cause which you believe in.
Thats an eternal debate whether CDM is good or bad. The worst part in this whole debate has actually been in seeing you getting personal failing to see what all others are actually advocating.
I have been working in the energy and environment sector for the last 3 years and my interest in CDM is purely based on my ground knowledge of such projects. Its still being debated and climate strategies has actually come up with some great papers on what after CDM or how to address the numerous doubts popping up because of additionality issues.
As for the personal contact thing, I know Sreyamsa from his Multi Commodity Exchange days and know him to be an exceptional person. He had worked on CDM pricing issues before this and had advocated the cause that benefit should flow to the correct persons at the poorest rung and not to the consultants. As far as my commenting on his blog is concerned, if you go through some older blogs you will find my comments ,i am a regular on the blogging arena and do not need to be guided by anyone regarding this.
The issue you are trying to raise is well understood but there are subtle ways of saying so.
Lets talk for a better tomorrow. Sustainable development is one of the keys which i believe should also be taken as an important aspect to any CDM project.
Taken a while to reply back because i was not keeping well.
P:S: Plan Vivo is another such project which supports poor farmers through an agroforestry model. It generates VERs. The link is:
http://www.planvivo.org/
Climate strategies:
www.climate-strategies.org/
Dear Atul, hope for a quick recovery to you and look forward to seeing you offer a more substantial response to my arguments.
Hey Manu
Thanks for your concern. Take care
Atul
Quick note on Carbon Tax...
The problem with a tax is that there is imperfect information on the side of those who are setting price of carbon (not to mention the politics involved in setting the price and setting the cap on emissions). Due to this imperfect information many economists prefer and advocate market-based mechanisms because the price is transparent and determined by supply and demand.
The good news for the Carbon Tax advocates is that after 3 years of emissions trading we are starting to understand the market value and a real price is starting to emerge as I think the IPCC says that a it will require a price of 40-100 USD...at €25 it is getting close to that prediction on its own. The bad news is that business will counter that if the price is the same as in emissions trading why change the system?
As for the comments on what Kyoto does or does not advocate...the CDM was adopted precisely because the Kyoto Protocol would not have passed had this concession not been given to the G-77. The Kyoto protocol was in intensive care with no hope of revival until the CDM and Emissions Trading were suggested. So as a political tool, the CDM was successful. Granted the CDM hasn't lived up to expectations, there has been very little technological transfer and for the most part the CERs have come from projects which would have happened anyway in both large and small projects. But there are good projects out there...they are just hard to find.
As for the comments on sustainable development, I'll offer a different perspective. While I am not going to debate the additionality of the Bagepalli project project (unless it is over a beer), the BOP has the potential for the largest growth in demand for energy. One of the ways to try to alleviate the addition of new coal power plants is to establish a renewable energy precedent in people who's demand has the potential to rise exponentially.
Also within the Kyoto Protocol there is what is called article 12. It explicitly says that the CDM should be in line with the development goals of the host country. How these goals are defined is left to the host country to decide. Some are strict others are more lenient.
I don't know if we can say that the CDM has failed ...nothing that promotes such intense emotional feelings in people that there is a 5 page discussion on the subject of one project can in my opinion be considered a failure.
As a final comment, I think the one thing we can agree upon is the need for haste. If using some form of carbon finance aids this process...maybe the end justifies the means?
What if through the CDM SKG can accelerate the number of digesters they install from 7,000 a year to 14,000 a year? Wouldn't those extra 7,000 digesters be additional to the business as usual scenario?
One thing I forgot to mention. The rise in the price of oil has potentially a high cost in the price of lives as well. If the price rises further, governments are going to, due to fiscal necessity, remove the subsidy on oil-based products. This is going to push the cost of LPG higher and people are going to use more wood as opposed to paying the higher price of LPG. As these resources become more constrained and prices rise ever higher, there is going to be mass rioting and civil unrest. I don't know what this has to do with this post but I just thought I would point it out.
Manu,
I thing you mean to say that the GOI is considering implementing an emissions trading scheme along the lines of the EU ETS. The CDM is a project-based mechanism which allows the generation of off-sets which can then be sold on a carbon trading platform... The emissions trading system is the market-based mechanism which is needed in a cap-and-trade scheme.
Tim
Hi,
Once again after crash Nifty has started going up. Now we suggest all rises should be used as an opportunity to exit old long positions.
This bull run will continue for few more days. Overall market is in bearish mood as in medium term its just a small rally due to short covering
and result season.
Happy Trading,
ShareGyan
Established in 1997, St. Gregorious Edu-Guidance is a leading education consultancy services providing exemplary service to students all over India. We deal in Admissions to all major professional courses in Premier Institutes across India. We are your one step solution for all career related needs, it may be MD, MBBS BE, BTech (ALL BRANCHES), , MDS, BDS, BPharm, BArch, MBA, MTech, MS, , PhD or any other courses. We provide personalized career solutions on an individual basis keeping in mind the aspirations of our client as well as the affordability factor.
FOR ALL CAREER RELATED NEEDS CONTACT US :
St. Gregorious Edu-Guidance,
#2, 2nd Floor,
J J Complex, Above Chemmannur Jewellers,
Marthahalli - P O,
Bangalore - 560037
Karnataka
e-mail :jojishpaily@gmail.com
Contact: +91 9448516637
+91 9886089896, +91 9449009983
080-32416570, 41719562
Post a Comment