|
According to sources, Jairam Ramesh, Environment Minister of India, has sent a confidential letter to the prime minister suggesting that India should do away with the Kyoto Protocol, disassociate itself from G77, which is the 131-member bloc of growing nations, and indulge in greenhouse gas emission control tasks under a fresh treaty without emphasizing on finance and technology.
This suggestion from the Environment Minister came only after he had sent a proposal to the Prime Minister on giving permission for stringent external scrutiny as carried out under IMF and WTO to examine mitigation policies at their own cost.
It is pointed out that if government accepts this, the suggestion of the minister will reflect a sharp change in India’s stand on climate negotiations. Since 1990, all the different political bodies have supported India’s outlook on the climate issues. It was also represented strongly at the recent UN discussions that took place in Bangkok earlier this month.
The minister says that his proposal should not be taken in a wrong spirit. He holds that India is not a ‘deal breaker’ and should put efforts to control emissions as per its own interest. The environment minister has also hinted at the advantages that India can secure adopting his proposals. According to him, a change in stance can help India create a permanent place for itself in Security Council.
He had written a letter to the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on October 13, in which he said that by separating itself from the Kyoto Protocol, India would be able to develop stronger relations with the US. Under the Kyoto Protocol, it is the responsibility of the listed rich nations to take emission control measures. Jairam Ramesh says, "We must welcome initiatives to bring the US into the mainstream, if need be through a special mechanism, without diluting basic Annex 1/non-Annex distinctions. If the Australian Proposal of a schedule maintains this basic distinction and nature of differential obligations we should have no great theological objections."
The Union Minister said, “I am surprised that a privileged communication between me and the Prime Minister has found its way into the public domain. I am shocked. And whatever I had to say I have said to the PM." He declined to comment further on the issue.
Ramesh has said in his letter that India is viewed as a hobgoblin for the rich nations in the climate talks. "India must listen more and speak less in negotiations" as its stand is "disfavoured by the developed countries, small island states and vulnerable countries. It takes away from India's aspirations for permanent membership of the Security Council."
He has also proposed that India should soften its stand on asking for the compensation from the developed nations in terms of finance and technology for the damage they have done to climate. He has written that "The position we take on international mitigation commitments only if supported by finance and technology needs to be nuanced simply because we need to mitigate in self-interest."
In his earlier letter to PM, he had suggested that India should adopt the review and 'surveillance' measures for even emission control as followed by IMF and WTO, at its own expense and under its own legislation.
Apart from being radical in nature, his proposals hold significance as they come only one week after when India boldly clung to its own negotiating terms at the Bangkok round of talks. In UN discussions that took place in Thai capital, India led the pack of G77 and China drew attention to its stand against Australian Proposal. The environment minister is in support of this, as reflected in his letter to the PM.
Along with other nations, India has pointed out that the developed nations were trying to “kill" the Kyoto Protocol by launching US and EU-supported Australian Proposal, and modify the essence of the UN Framework Convention. Indian delegation had said that by demanding single legal means, the Australian Proposal would "unilaterally impose new commitments and burdens on developing countries and undermine the exiting convention".
However, the minister now maintains that India should "not stick with G77 but be embedded in G20. We should be pragmatic and constructive, not argumentative and polemical." Recently, India had opposed the idea of changing its stand on the climate change issues and forgoing its rights to demand financial compensation at the G20 talks.
The environment minister has approved the Bangkok agreement contained in an internal document of the government that says India will not support the commitments of the developed nations to be mentioned in a single instrument together with the ‘actions’ taken by India. In other terms, it implies that the emission control duties of the developed nations under the Kyoto Protocol should not be linked with what the growing nations decide to perform on their own. The Australian Proposal does not accept this.
According to the Bangkok brief, Kyoto Protocol and steep emission cuts of the industrialized countries are very critical and cannot be compromised. It also suggests the negotiators, as against the views of the environment minister, that they should not accept any international scrutiny of its unilateral and unbacked national action under any deal.
The UN Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol differentiate between the developed nations that are primarily responsible for the accumulation of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Protocol, supported by maximum number of nations excluding US, enforces strict emission control targets, duties and disobedience penalties on only the developed countries. It is also based on the "polluters pay" method which does not force the growing nations like India to reduce emissions and must be made up for completely for any actions it might adopt on its own to cut emissions.
The Australian Proposal, which is supported by the US, has different arrangements from that of the Kyoto Protocol. EU is also in favor of this proposal. It urges that all the nations, comprising India, be enrolled under one list and that all nations, excluding only the least developed ones, take similar steps though of varying degrees without any guarantee of funds or technology in exchange.
There is another proposal that has gained the support of the US and says that India rather should lend monetary help to climate change actions for the rest of the world. The EU has not gone to this extent, but has suggested that India should cut its emissions considerably below `business as usual' mainly at its own cost.
According to the environment minister, India will not face any problem if the Australian Proposal does not soften the difference between Annex 1 nations and others, and realizes the difference in responsibilities. Interestingly, the Australian Proposal does not include any such arrangement.
The proposal, for which India has been persistently approached by US in two-sided forums and in multilateral meets, demands all nations irrespective of present status to take responsibilities. When studied with other suggestions, the proposal attempts to limit India’s emissions by the year 2020 and impose other cuts later on. A limit on emissions usually transforms into a limit of how much energy can be used by India.
The US has asked all the nations to adopt domestic legislation, the idea which is now supported by Ramesh too, and include that as part of the obligations mentioned under the Australian Proposal. The US is pressing for this as it is not a part of the Kyoto Protocol and does not want to follow stringent multilateral plans that enforce clear cut penalties and targets to be accomplished. US has been asking that Brazil, South Africa, India and China should also adopt similar responsibilities before it introduces any fresh international agreement.
In Bangkok, the key US negotiator had asked the Indian delegation to relent on its stand, as the environment minister of India had supported flexibility in meets during his US tour.
According to observers, the proposal of the environment minister of India will work well with the stand of the US in spite of the difference in the levels of energy consumption of both the nations.
At present, the rate of greenhouse gas emissions in India is 1.2 tonnes per capita whereas the US emits 20 tonnes per capita of greenhouse gas. Agreement in any regime that does not make a difference between the major polluters such as the US, on one side, and different levels of growing nations, on the other, would get the nation into a provision where its development options would be curtailed.
The proposal of the minister does not sit well with the internal arrangement that the government had decided to make in July this year while scrutinizing how the India’s economy would suffer if the mitigation policy is not compensated.
In a report that was sent across the government and to few members of Parliament, it was pointed out that mitigation action (as suggested by Australia Proposal) would pave for increase in the rates of power and a dip in the production, affect the railways expansion plans and badly impact the prices of fertilizer items in near future. It would pave way for rise in the prices of all products, especially food articles; the government evaluated that it would also lead to a rise in the numbers of unemployment mainly in rural agricultural segment. It had also cautioned that even if the nation takes such actions, it would not affect the expenses of climate change adaptation that India would have to pay.
Significantly, Ramesh has shown his concern over India being perceived as the leader of G77 only when India is about to address a meet of different nations on October 22-23 to gain consensus among all the nations on what demands should be put forth at the UN talks on technology. On October 21, India would also conduct a meeting with China and sign a MoU on climate change.
Next month, the Indian prime minister will visit US to discuss about various issues including climate change. In the letter, the environment minister has proposed that the way he has sealed MoUs with other nations, "India should sign an agreement on climate change cooperation (during the PM's visit to US) and show willingness to engage." The Times of India
October 19, 2009
|
