2010 12 15JairamRamesh
2010 12 15JairamRamesh
2010 12 15JairamRamesh
As I have mentioned to you in the past, our accountability is to Parliament and I intend to
keep Parliament fully informed on our climate change policies and negotiating positions.
Hence I want to take this opportunity to brief you on the major developments at Cancun and
their implications for India.
I. MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE CANCUN AGREEMENTS
All Parties agreed on a set of decisions, known as the ‘Cancun Agreements’, for further
discussion, on the two tracks of the negotiation, namely the Long-term Cooperative Action
(LCA) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto
Protocol (KP). The texts of the agreements are available on the homepage of the UNFCCC –
www.unfccc.int. The broad highlights of the agreed texts are as follows:
1. Shared Vision for Long-term Cooperative Action: This was a matter of
intense debate, with the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Association of Small
Island States (AOSIS) countries pushing for much more ambitious targets. In the end, a
goal of restricting temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius, with a provision for
review at a subsequent date was agreed upon. Significantly, the agreed final text makes
no mention of either quantitative targets for emission reduction by 2050 or global
peaking year, thus protecting the interests of developing countries. Largely due to
India’s efforts, references to “equity” and “equitable access to sustainable
development” were included in this section as the basis of working towards this goal.
4. Kyoto Protocol: At the same time, the parties to Kyoto Protocol have agreed
to continue to work towards finalizing their targets for the second commitment period
(post-2012 period) with the aim to ensure that there is no gap between the first and
second commitment periods of the Protocol.
India made 5 specific contributions to the final agreed text, in addition to its contribution to
the process over the entire period of the Conference.
1. India ensured that for the first time the phrase “equitable access to
sustainable development” found mention in the shared vision text (para 6). This is
critical as climate change is largely a problem caused by historical emissions, and late
developers like India need this equitable access to address their development priorities
and to eradicate poverty. The phrase “equitable access to sustainable development” is
superior to the phrase “equitable access to carbon space” which connotes a
fundamental “right to pollute” that is seen today as negative and insensitive to the
global challenge of climate change.
2. India ensured that the mention of 2015 as a peaking year (para 5) and the
mention of a quantitative target of emissions reduction by 2050 (para 6) did
not find mention in the final text. This is important as such conditionalities could have
imposed emission reduction commitments on developing countries like India too early
and could compromise their development prospects.
Page | 3
4. It was India that ensured that for the first time, developed country mitigation
actions will be subject to “international assessment and review”, which means
that experts, including those from developing countries, will have the right to review
whether developed countries are living up to their commitments (paras 44 and 46 (d)).
In addition to making major contributions to the text, India was visibly and constructively
engaged in the entire process at Cancun, ensuring that we spoke up for our developing country
partners, showcased our proactive voluntary actions, pushed the envelope on the intellectual
debate, and bridged the gaps between parties. Some significant highlights of India’s outreach
efforts at Cancun included the following:
Page | 4
3. India acted as the coordinator of the “BASIC” group comprising Brazil,
South Africa, India and China throughout the Conference, and will host the next
meeting of BASIC Ministers in early 2011. Although the BASIC countries had different
approaches on some issues, the group stayed united until the very end, and jointly
welcomed the final agreements.
5. India conducted bilateral meetings with various countries and groups where
it discussed negotiating positions, tried to bridge gaps and identified areas for broader
bilateral cooperation. These included meetings with Japan, Germany, USA, UK,
Australia, France, Qatar, Mexico and groups like EU, Africa, Association of Small
Island States (AOSIS) and LDCs.
6. India also served as an informal ally and facilitator for the host Mexico
in reaching out to countries to promote understanding of positions and reach an
agreement.
Page | 5
IV. THE ISSUE OF LEGALLY-BINDING COMMITMENTS
At the High-level segment, I made a detailed statement which highlighted India’s efforts on
addressing climate change. In this statement I also said that “all countries must take on
binding commitments in an appropriate legal form”. This statement has formed the
basis for much discussion at home. So I feel that I must clarify what I intended to convey and
the context in which this statement was made.
The immediate context of this statement was that there appeared to be a view being pushed by
a majority of developing and developed countries at Cancun that all countries must agree to a
legally-binding agreement. Most countries, including our BASIC partners Brazil and South
Africa, our developing country partners in AOSIS, LDCs, Africa, and four of our SAARC
partners (Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal and Bhutan) shared this view. The only countries
opposing this were USA, China, India, Philippines, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia and
some others. It was therefore important for India to demonstrate that it was not completely
oblivious and insensitive to the views and opinions of a large section of the global community.
First, I have called for commitments in an “appropriate legal form” and not a
legally-binding commitment. This is an important distinction. My statement leaves
open the need for differentiation between Annex I (developed) countries and non Annex I
(developing) countries. Annex I commitments could be legally binding with penalties. Non
Annex I actions could be purely voluntary and without penalties. Moreover, the reference to
an “appropriate legal form” is a very broad one. Indeed even decisions of the Conference of
Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC are of an appropriate legal form. Similarly, commitments that
our government makes to our Parliament are also, in our view, of an appropriate legal form.
In fact, if you recall I had written to you way back on October 5th, 2009 where I had
mentioned the idea of introducing domestic legislation that will not contain explicit emission
reduction targets but will have implicit performance targets for mitigation and adaptation
(such as mandatory fuel efficiency standards by 2011, mandatory energy conservation-
compliant building codes by 2012, 20% contribution of renewables to India’s energy mix by
2030 etc.). Many countries like Brazil and Mexico already have such laws and others like
China and South Africa are also considering such legislation.
Page | 6
Second, contrary to some misquoted references in the domestic media, I did not make any
commitment on India undertaking absolute emission cuts. India has made it very
clear that while it will undertake voluntary mitigation actions, including reducing the
emissions intensity of its GDP by 20-25% by 2020 on a 2005 reference year, India will not
take on any emission cuts or agree to any peaking year for its emissions. There is no change
in this position.
As I have stated, due to India’s efforts, the phrase “legally-binding agreement” did not find
mention in the text. Instead, a loose reference to “continue discussing legal options” was
included.
My effort was to walk the thin line between safeguarding our position while showing a level of
sensitivity to the view shared by the majority of countries at Cancun, including many of our
developing country partners. I believe we have been able to walk this thin line effectively with
this stand. This nuancing of our position will expand negotiating options for us
and give us an all-round advantageous standing.
V. CONCLUSION
My constant effort has been to ensure that our negotiating stance on climate change is guided
by three principles: (i) the need to protect our economic growth, inclusive development and
poverty eradication agenda; (ii) the pursuit of our domestic environmental policies; and (iii)
the achievement of our foreign policy objectives, in particular that India be seen as a
constructive, solution-oriented player in global negotiations. I believe we have managed to
accomplish these three objectives at Cancun.
As you are aware, I have never shied away from a debate in Parliament and I look forward to a
detailed discussion on the Cancun Agreements and India’s role in the Budget Session of
Parliament. We have nothing to hide, and I remain committed to keeping Parliament fully
informed of all our actions and to listening carefully to the views expressed by the Honourable
Members.
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
Page | 7
(Jairam Ramesh)
17th December 2010
Page | 8