Published: June 30, 2014
Jairam Ramesh
Photo: APLEADING THE WAY: India played a key role in rescuing and reviving the multilateral negotiating process. But this did not get adequate appreciation at home. File picture of a demonstration by Greenpeace during the conference. — PHOTO: AP
Negotiating positions can never be frozen, but must actually evolve over time
“All nations must take on binding commitments in an appropriate legal form.” I added this sentence to my prepared text at the very last minute after much cogitation while addressing the U.N. Climate Change Conference at Cancún, Mexico on December 8, 2010. The conference came after the much-heralded Copenhagen meet. Bouquets from all over the world and brickbats from India followed immediately. The Mexican President and Foreign Minister were all praise for India’s pragmatism. President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives said that for the first time he felt confident that India was serious about addressing the special concerns of countries like his, while Chancellor Angela Merkel publicly lauded India’s constructive contributions. But at home, I was pilloried by influential non-governmental organisations, by large sections of the media, and by the present Finance Minister in Parliament.
Explanation for the addition
On December 17, 2010, I addressed a detailed eight-page letter to all Members of Parliament explaining the immediate context in which the impromptu addition was made. A majority of developing and developed countries were pushing for a legally binding agreement. Most countries including our BASIC quartet partners Brazil and South Africa, our developing country partners in the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), Least Developed Countries, Africa and four of our SAARC colleagues shared this view. The opposition came mainly from the U.S., China, India, the Philippines, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Saudi Arabia. I felt it was important for India to demonstrate that it was not completely oblivious to the views and opinions of very large sections of the global community, especially those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
In my letter, I explained to the MPs that (i) commitments in an “appropriate legal form” are not a “legally-binding commitment” and that commitments made by the government to our own Parliament in the form of domestic legislation that contain performance targets for mitigation are also “an appropriate legal form”; and (ii) the commitments did in no way imply that India was taking on absolute emission cuts or agreeing to any peaking year for its emissions. I went on to add that this deliberate nuancing of our traditional hard line position would actually expand negotiating options for us and give us an all-round advantageous standing. The MPs appreciated the detailed explanation and I was naturally more than happy when I got a written reply on December 24, 2010 from Mr. Jaswant Singh saying: “I would not bother overmuch about the ersatz generated on account of our rather feeble understanding of the difference between ‘legally binding’ and an ‘appropriate legal form.’”
Actually, India played a crucial role in rescuing and reviving the multilateral negotiating process in Cancún. But this did not get adequate appreciation at home because of the furore over the impromptu addition. There were at least four distinctive contributions. First, it was India that ensured for the first time that 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. Second, it was India that ensured the inclusion of the phrase “equitable access to sustainable development.” This was superior to the phrase “equitable access to carbon space,” which somehow connotes a fundamental “right to pollute.” Third, India’s detailed formulation on “international consultation and analysis” of developing country mitigation actions in a manner that is non-intrusive, non-punitive and respectful of national sovereignty was the key intervention that broke an acrimonious deadlock and helped take Cancún forward. Fourth, India’s formulations formed the basis of the consensus reached on technology development and sharing in both mitigation and adaptation.
Substance and style
In a meeting convened on the sidelines by the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderón, on public-private partnerships, I called for the establishment of a Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)-type network of technology development and dissemination institutions in the area of climate change. I specifically mentioned how India’s high-yielding wheat varieties in the 1960s came from a CGIAR institution in Mexico. I recall this suggestion being endorsed enthusiastically by President Calderon and also by Professor Mario Molina, the 1995 Nobel Laureate.
Our negotiating stance on climate change must not be guided by dogma or inflexibility. It should be anchored in three principles: (i) the need to protect our economic growth and poverty eradication agenda; (ii) the pursuit of our domestic environmental policies; and (iii) the achievement of our foreign policy objectives. At all times, India must be seen as a constructive, a willing-to-engage and a solution-oriented player in global negotiations. Substance is as important as style in all such global meets. We may have a strong case but often lose out because of the polemical manner in which we put across our point of view, our eagerness to score debating points, our pride in the use of the English language and the fact that we are frequently seen as not being patient listeners. We earn disrepute by being needlessly argumentative and unyielding. To make our multilateral diplomacy effective, we must keep all channels of communication, even with those with differing perspectives, open and official and build up bilateral camaraderie. Bilateral meetings do take place on the sidelines of multilateral get-togethers but this is no substitute for substantive year-round engagement.
It is true that at times what may appear as obstructionism internationally gets applauded domestically. And political leaders in noisy and sharply competitive democracies like ours cannot afford to neglect reactions back home. But true leadership lies in walking this fine line between safeguarding what we believe is in the national interest while showing courage to take new positions that could well enhance that interest. Negotiating positions can never be frozen, but must actually evolve over time. And our negotiation position gets immeasurably strengthened when we speak from a position of strength. You can star negatively or positively; India accomplished the latter both at Copenhagen and Cancún.
Low-carbon high GDP growth is not only essential but also eminently feasible through appropriate investment and technology choices and through proper pricing policies. And having faced criticism in Parliament from sections of the present ruling establishment on my arguing for India to take on mitigation responsibilities, I was more than gratified that the President, in his address to Parliament on June 9, 2014, said: “The government will earnestly take up mitigation works to meet the challenges posed by climate change and will closely work with the global community in this regard.” This is yet another demonstration of a fundamental maxim of parliamentary democracy — that where you stand depends on where you sit.
(Jairam Ramesh was Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) Environment and Forests, 2009-2011).
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/indias-call-at-cancn-conclave/article6160461.ece
No comments:
Post a Comment