'There Has Been A Shift'

1. I rise to make a Suo Moto Statement on the 15th Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change that was held in Copenhagen, Denmark between December 7-18th, 2009.

2. Before I get into the statement, Sir, let me say that this is the fourth time that I am speaking in some detail on the issue of climate change in recent weeks reflecting our Government’s transparency and keenness to keep the Parliament fully informed at every step. It also reflects, of course, the great interest Honourable MPs themselves have in this important subject. There was a Calling Attention Motion in the Rajya Sabha on November 24th and a Zero hour discussion on December 7th. The Lok Sabha had a five-hour debate on December 3rd. Let me reiterate that I am more than prepared to discuss this issue in Parliament at any time, in any form that the House desires and the Chairman directs.

3. To return to the Copenhagen Conference, there were two segments to it. The first was between December 7th -15th that involved negotiations at the official level. The second was between December 16th -18th that involved a High- Level Segment at the Ministerial level. In addition, the Danish Presidency of the Conference of Parties had invited Ministers from all countries for informal consultations from December 12th -17th , 2009. Heads of State/Government had also been invited to the High-Level Segment of the Conference during December 17th -18th 2009. Over a hundred Heads of State/Government attended. Our Prime Minister addressed the Conference on December 18th and I had the privilege of speaking on behalf of the Government of India on December 16th. Copies of these two speeches are attached to this Statement.

4. There were two specific outcomes of the Copenhagen Conference. In Bali, in December 2007, the Conference of Parties had decided to have negotiations on two parallel tracks, both of which were expected to be concluded at Copenhagen. The first track relates to the outcome of the Bali Action Plan and the other track pertains to the commitment of the Annex I Parties for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in the period extending beyond 2012. These negotiations could not be concluded and the Copenhagen Conference decided to continue these negotiations to be completed at the end of 2010 at the 16th Conference of Parties to be held in Mexico City in December 2010. In this respect, India, South Africa, Brazil, China and other developing countries were entirely successful in ensuring that there was no violation of the mandate for the Bali Action Plan negotiations on the enhanced implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Despite relentless attempts made by the Annex I Parties, the Conference succeeded in continuing the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol to establish the commitments of the Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol for the post-2012 period. Undoubtedly, many developed countries want to see an end to the Kyoto Protocol but we have been able to thwart these attempts for the time being. The major outcome of the Conference is, therefore, the fact that the negotiations under the UNFCCC will continue to proceed in two tracks as set out in the Bali Road Map-- one relating to the long-term cooperative action for enhancing the implementation of the Convention and the second relating to the second commitment period of Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol.

5. Another decision taken by the Conference relates to the Copenhagen Accord. India, along with over twenty five other countries that included Bangladesh, Maldives, Indonesia, China, Japan, South Korea, Papua New Guinea, Australia, Russia, Mexico, USA, Brazil, Colombia,Granada, South Africa, Algeria, Sudan, Gabon, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain and European Union, was invited by the host country to assist the President of the Conference in forging a consensus on several outstanding issues. The results of such informal consultations held on December 17th and 18th 2009, were brought by the COP President, on his own responsibility, to the Plenary of the Conference for consideration on December 18th, 2009. Some countries that included Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Bolivia did not join the consensus on the draft Copenhagen Accord presented by the COP President. Since the Conference works on the principle of consensus, the Copenhagen Accord was not adopted as an outcome of the Conference. It was, however, taken note of. The contents of the Accord are not legally binding nor do they constitute a mandate for a new negotiating process under the UNFCCC.

6 The Copenhagen Accord deals with the various elements of the Bali Action Plan relating to the issues of mitigation, adaptation, financing and technology in the context of climate change. Let me present to you the highlights of the Accord.

7. The Accord recognizes the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities of the Parties in combating climate change. The Accord recognizes the need to limit the global temperature rise by 2050 to below 2 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels. While doing so, the Accord clearly sets out the goal in the context of equity and sustainable development. This ensures that in achieving this goal, the right of the developing countries to have an equitable share in access to global atmospheric resources cannot be ignored and is ensured. I might add here that this was a point repeatedly made by the Prime Minister in all his interactions.

8. The Copenhagen Accord does speak of “cooperation in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible”. However, the Accord explicitly recognises that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries. It also bears in mind that “social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries”. The Accord therefore, does not speak of a specific year for peaking for developing countries which has always been on the agenda of the developed countries. This is another area of success for us at Copenhagen. This is also consistent with the position of India was outlined by our Prime Minister over two years ago that our per capita emissions will never exceed the average per capita emissions of the developed countries.

9. There has been insistence from the developed countries to adopt quantified emission reduction targets in the long-term by the global community. A global goal of 50% emissions reduction by 2050 with reference to current levels of emissions has been generally emphasized by the Annex I countries. Reference to such a specific numerical target in terms of emission reduction has been avoided in the Accord because of the insistence of the developing countries, particularly India that a global goal should be expressed only in terms of limit in increase of temperature and not in terms of a quantified emission reduction target. This is because such a target would result in a binding commitment for the developing countries who do not have such obligations under the UNFCCC. We can be satisfied that we were able to get our way on this issue as well.

10. The Accord obliges the Annex I countries to indicate their mid-term emissions reduction target for 2020 by January 31, 2010 to the Secretariat. Their actions in respect of emission reduction and financing support given to developing countries for mitigation actions in developing countries will be subject to measurement, reporting and verification as per the guidelines adopted by the Conference of Parties.

11. The mitigation actions of the developing countries are to be supported by the developed countries in Accordance with Article 4.7 of the UNFCCC. Mitigation actions of developing countries will be subject to domestic measurement, reporting and verification as per its internal procedures. Report of such mitigation actions, supported or unsupported will be made to the Secretariat through the National Communications which will be made every two years. There is a provision for international consultations and analysis for implementation of the actions reported through National Communications. The guidelines for such consultation and analysis will be devised and defined in due course. We have been able to incorporate a specific provision that these “clearly defined guidelines will ensure that the national sovereignty is respected”. This is another accomplishment for us at Copenhagen. Of course, as I have stated on earlier occasions, the supported mitigation actions will be open to international measurement, report and verification as per guidelines adopted by the Conference of Parties.

12. Under the Accord, the developed country Parties have agreed to set up a Climate Fund named “Copenhagen Green Climate Fund” to provide resources approaching US$ 30 billon during the period 2010-2012 to support the adaptation and mitigation actions of the developing country Parties. The funding for adaptation will be focused on the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. They have also undertaken a commitment to mobilize US $ 100 billion a year by 2020 for such purposes and a high level panel will be set up under the guidance of Conference of Parties to review the progress of these commitments.

13. A Technology Mechanism is also proposed to be established to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of adaptation and mitigation actions in the developing countries. Negotiations on the precise architecture of this Mechanism are underway in the UNFCCC and I am pleased to mention that many of the proposals made by India in this regard have found acceptance. A network of technology innovation centres has been proposed by India as a part of this mechanism.

14. The objectives and the implementation of the Accord will be assessed and the process of assessment will be completed by 2015 in order to consider the possibility of further strengthening the long term goal of limiting the temperature rise to below 1.5 degree Celsius. This was in response to a demand made by 43 small island developing states that includes Maldives. Bangladesh and Nepal have also supported this idea.

15. Sir, a notable feature of this Conference that has been widely commented on is the manner in which the BASIC group of countries coordinated their positions. Ministers of the BASIC group comprising Brazil, South Africa, India and China has met in Beijing on November 27th and 28th, 2009 to prepare for Copenhagen in a joint manner. Honourable Members may recall that I had briefed them in my earlier interventions on the results of that meeting. The BASIC Group Ministers met virtually on an hourly basis right through the Copenhagen Conference. Within BASIC, India and China worked very, very closely together. I believe that the BASIC group has emerged as a powerful force in climate change negotiations and India should have every reason to be satisfied it has played in catalyzing the emergence of this new quartet. Their unity was instrumental in ensuring that the Accord was finalized in Accordance with the negotiating framework as laid out in the UNFCCC, Bali Action Plan and the Kyoto Protocol. We will continue to work together with these countries as well as other countries of the G-77 to ensure that the interests of the developing countries and India in particular are protected in course of negotiations in 2010 and beyond. I should also mention here that President Obama interacted with the two Prime Ministers and two Presidents of the BASIC Group and it was at this meeting that the Copenhagen Accord was clinched to the satisfaction of all present. It was at this crucial meeting that the BASIC group was able to get agreement on its proposals on global goals and on monitoring and verification. It was also able to ensure that the Copenhagen Accord was not legally binding and that there was no mention of a new legally binding instrument in the Accord.

Sir, I have been somewhat detailed in this suo moto statement. I have never hidden anything from this Parliament and have been very upfront about how our thinking on climate change has to evolve and not remain frozen in time. I have repeatedly sought flexibility within a framework of certain non-negotiables. Earlier, I spoke to both Houses on the basis of my intentions and had said that ultimately actions will speak louder than words. I had assured both Houses that we will negotiate in a manner that the national interest is not only protected but also enhanced. Copenhagen is not a destination but the beginning of a long process. There are indeed many risks, many hazards, many threats. We have to be extraordinarily vigilant and watchful, negotiating tough but always from a position of strength. For the moment I believe that India has come out quite well at Copenhagen and we have been recognized for our constructive approach. We will continue to play such a role. We have to deepen our capacity to pursue proactive climate diplomacy internationally. We have to get down to implementing a comprehensive domestic agenda of both adaptation and mitigation and of moving on the road to cutting our emissions intensity of GDP by 20-25% by 2020 on 2005 levels which is not only eminently feasible but which can also be improved upon to the benefit of our own people. We must soon unveil a detailed roadmap for a low-carbon growth strategy. We must also strengthen our own scientific capacity to measure, monitor and model the impacts of climate change on different sectors of our economy and in different regions of our country.

Mr. Chairman, Sir I will now be more than glad and willing to clarify any doubts and answer any questions that Honourable Members may wish to raise. I see this statement as part of a continuing dialogue between our government and Honourable MPs, as a reflection of our determination to ensure accountability to Parliament.

***

The following is the minister's response to various remarks made after his suo moto statement

 
I will respond to some of the specific queries of individual Members in writing. Mr. Bagrodia has asked me 8 or 9 questions which I will respond to in writing. A number of other Members have raised specific questions which I will respond to individually. But, there are some common concerns that have been expressed. Firstly, by the Leader of the Opposition and then by my colleague, Shri Yechury and many others. So, I would rather address these common issues very, very pointedly.

Sir, the first issue that has been raised is, have we agreed to the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol. Sir, with the greatest of respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I would reiterate the point I made in my speech and when I interrupted him that the Copenhagen Accord in no way spells the demise of the Kyoto Protocol. It accepts that the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol will continue in 2010; but, I cannot disagree with him, that it provides an alternative alignment as well. But, we are committed, I want to reassure the House, to taking the negotiations forward in 2012 and which will culminate in Mexico.

But, the fact is, Sir, there are attempts to thwart the Kyoto Protocol. That is what I meant that there are attempts being made. The U.S. has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The entire problem on the Kyoto Protocol has been caused by the fact that there is a common and differentiated responsibility within the developed countries. The Europeans do not want to say, 'we want to take obligations different than the Americans.' So, we have to bring the U.S. into the mainstream of international environmental negotiations because they are the world's number two emitter, accounting for almost 22 per cent of the Greenhouse gases and emissions. Many countries want to leave the Kyoto Protocol. It is no secret that the country in which Kyoto is situated itself wants to leave the Kyoto Protocol, namely Japan. But, we are committed; the developing world is committed, the basic countries are committed. India is committed to completing these negotiations on this track and we are going to do our utmost to ensure that the emission reduction targets for the second commitment period, which is post-2012 period, will be negotiated with as much force as we can muster individually as well as collectively. This much I want to reassure the House. And, I want to reassure the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Yechury that, as I have repeatedly said, the troika for us---the UNFCCC, the Bali Action Plan, and the Kyoto Protocol are sacrosanct. And, we are not moving away from it in any manner.

Sir, the second issue which is perhaps the most contentious issue today relates to the world international consultations and analyses. Sir, may I just spend a couple of minutes on this because I want to assuage the concerns and fears of the Leader of the Opposition and many other Members. Sir, before we went to Copenhagen, I did say that we will accept international information reporting as far as our unsupported actions are concerned. But, Sir, the fact of the matter is that when the negotiations on the Copenhagen Accord started, the issue was that it was not anything to do with India. Sir, I have to be very careful because I am now talking about decisions and statements made by heads of states and of countries with whom we have excellent relations. 

We want to continue with these relations. But the fact of the matter is, Sir, this issue was not directed on India. This issue was really directed on China because today China has 23 per cent of the world greenhouse gas emissions and the world wants to bring China into the mainstream and they want to have confidence that the Chinese numbers, Chinese systems have some credibility. I can reassure this House, Sir, at no point of time, has any Government raised any doubt on our data, no Government; no head of State negotiator has raised doubts on our transparency. Never. Nobody has said that we are non-transparent. In fact, Sir, we should be showing the world the direction on transparency. There is no system as transparent as ours and I have said before in many statements that as far as MRV is concerned, the best domestic MRV in the world is in India. Between the Parliament, between the media, between civil society groups there can be no better MRV.

Sir, the fact of the matter is that when it came to the crunch, it looked as if the entire negotiations involving 28 heads of State would break down on the issue that the United States wanted to use the world, 'scrutiny'. They wanted to use the word, 'review'. They wanted to use the word, 'verification'. Sir, we resisted that. We resisted it for almost 36 hours. China, India, Brazil and South Africa collectively resisted it. We said under no circumstances will we accept the words, 'review', 'scrutiny' or 'verification'. Then, we said, why not 'dialogue', why not 'discussion'? That was rejected. Then an alternative was posed to us. How about 'assessment'? We rejected it. We did not want 'assessment' and after this process of dialogues which took a lot of time, the four countries arrived at a common phraseology which said, 'international consultations and analysis but with clearly defined guidelines that will respect national sovereignty'. Sir, this formulation was accepted by the United States of America.

Sir may I say that the word 'consultations' is not new in international diplomacy. We have under the article four of the International Monetary Fund consultations that are held between the IMF and the Indian Government every year. It has been going on for decades. No sovereignty has been eroded as a result of those consultations. Sir, the Leader of the Opposition has been a distinguished Commerce Minister. He knows that consultations take place between the WTO and the Indian Government on trade policy. No sovereignty has been eroded. In fact, unilaterally in trade policy we have been more aggressive liberalisers than we have been under the WTO framework. So, we should not fear the word, 'consultations'. It is there in the IMF, it is there in the WTO and if it is there as far as climate change is concerned, I see no great sell out as far as India is concerned. We have protected ourselves by saying, 'it is within clearly defined guidelines'. Those guidelines will be defined by us. It will be defined by 194 countries who are party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the most important paragraph there which China, India, Brazil and South Africa insisted on is that the clearly defined guidelines should be within the framework of respecting national sovereignty.

Sir, I can understand not having consultations on nuclear power plants. There is sovereignty involved. But all the information on our emissions is already in the public domain. Sir, 40 per cent of our carbon dioxide emissions is from our power stations. Now, I have here, Sir, a document that was brought out last year by the Ministry of Power which gives you information on the carbon dioxide emissions from every single power plant in India. This is in the public domain. This is in the website. This project was funded by the German Government. We are having consultations on this. There are no foreign inspectors running around our power plants. All this information is in the public domain. We are having consultations. People are analysing our data. In fact, we have got encomiums for the data that we have presented. So, I think, Sir, that we should be careful. I agree.

We should ensure that these guidelines do not lead to a proliferation of inspectors coming and seeing what we are doing and what we are not doing. But, the fact of the matter is, 'consultations' and 'analysis' does not mean review, scrutiny, verification or assessment. Let me give you one more example, because this is a very important issue that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised and I want to address this directly. Sir, eighteen years ago, in 1990, the USA -- I had mentioned this example in Lok Sabha and I want to mention this here as well since this is an important point -- put out a Report which said that Methane emissions from wet paddy cultivation in India is 38 million tonnes per year and it said that wet paddy cultivation in India is a major contributor to global Methane emissions. There were some Indian scientists who challenged this data. Unfortunately, the person is no more. He was a very distinguished scientist and a Fellow of the Royal Society of London, Dr. A.P. Mitra. He was the Director General of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. He put together a team of scientists. They, actually, measured the Methane emission from wet paddy cultivation. And, their conclusion was that the annual level of Methane emissions from wet paddy cultivation in India was between 2 to 6 million tonnes per year, with a median value of 4 million tonnes per year. Sir, do you know that, today, the accepted international figure, including the USA, is not 38 million tonnes per year for Methane emission from wet paddy cultivation, but it is 4 million tonnes from wet paddy cultivation. So, I don't see why we should be defensive. We have the capacity to challenge the best scientists in the world. We have the capacity to do our own analysis. We have the capacity to do our own measurement and, as I have given you this example, our own example can become an international standard. Today, the numbers that we are quoting has become the internationally accepted norm as far as emissions from wet paddy cultivation are concerned.

So, Sir, I agree that there is a difference between 'information' which I had committed to in this House and 'consultations' and 'analysis.' So, I plead guilty. Yes, I have moved from the word 'information' to 'consultations' and 'analysis.' I am not going to argue on that. I am not going to get into an argument on that. There has been a shift. But, Sir, that is what I meant by flexibility. When you are negotiating with these countries, when you are faced with conflicting poles and counter poles and the thing that I can assure the House that this was not a unilateral decision of India, this was a decision taken collectively by China, Brazil, South Africa and India. We decided that we will not be held responsible for the failure of Copenhagen. We decided that we will not be made the blame boys as far as the failure is concerned.

A number of comments have been made on the USA. Let me also say that there was a statement made by the USA delegation during the negotiations. It said, 'we will not give money to countries like Bangladesh and Maldives if the issue of transparency is not settled.' The Bangladeshi delegates asked, 'why are you not settling the issue of transparency?' The Maldives delegation asked me, 'why are you not setting the issue of transparency?' So, the issue of transparency had become a big stumbling block and, Sir, frankly, of all the countries in the world, India should not feel defensive of transparency. We should be, on the other hand, in the forefront of demanding transparency from all parties, including the basic parties, if I may add.

So, I assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition, Shri Yechury and all other hon. Members that 'consultations' and 'analysis' means precisely consultations and analysis. We have years of experience on consultations and analysis with the IMF and the WTO. We have nothing to fear. Our sovereignty has not been eroded. On the other hand, those organisation have gained, we have also gained in the process and I want to reassure the House that when we frame these guidelines that will respect our national sovereignty. We will take the House into confidence. After all, this is going to be an exercise that is going to involve 194 countries which are members of the UNFCCC. It will take sometime. But, I want to reassure the House that it will not be an intrusive consultations, it will not be an intrusive analysis. This much assurance I can give you on behalf of the Government of India.
 
Sir, the hon. Leader of the Opposition and many hon. Members have referred to a statement made by Mr. Axelrod, who is President Obama's close adviser. If I may be permitted, Sir, a small light-hearted comment, Mr. Axelrod is the Arun Jaitley of the Obama Administration. He is their topspin doctor. He has tried to give a spin to this Agreement. He has tried to say that in this Agreement we will hold China and India accountable. I don't want to get into Mr. Axelrod's statement. I will quote Mr. Axelrod's boss, Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama had said in a Press Conference, "It will not be legally binding, but what it will do is to allow each country to show to the world what they are doing, and there will be a sense in the part of each country that we are, in this, together; and who will know who is meeting and who is not meeting the mutual obligations that have been set forth." He gave this statement in Copenhagen after the Accord had been finalised. He just, then, was on to say, "These commitments will be subject to international consultations and analysis similar to that, for example, what takes place at WTO, etc., etc., etc. Mr. Axelrod's statement was meant for domestic consumption. He has to convince the Congress that China and India have been brought in. He has to convince the trade unions that China and India have been controlled. I don't want to get into the statement of Mr. Axelrod that has been made for purely domestic consumption. I go by what President Obama has himself said. And, nowhere has President Obama said that this record is meant to control or strangulate China and India.

[SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: I hope you are not saying this for domestic consumption]

No; no. I am saying this for parliamentary consumption. I don't make any distinction, Mr. Yechury, unlike many other distinguished Members of this House, in what I say in this House and what I say outside the House. It is always same. I don't make any changes.

I am sorry, Sir, I am taking a little bit more time because it is a very important issue. I will conclude very shortly. I was criticised for violating a commitment that I made on the floor of the House that we will not accept peaking year. On 16th November, the prospect was for an international agreement that would mention 2020-2025 as the peaking year for Developing Countries, like, India. This Accord does not mention a single year for peaking. That is a major accomplishment for us. It talks of global peaking, agreed. But it also talks of longer timeframe for Developing Countries, as the Leader of the Opposition read out. It also talks about the peaking in the context of the first and overriding priority being given to poverty eradication and livelihood security. This is not a new language. This was there in the L'aquila Declaration. This is a language that is repeated from the L'aquila Declaration. What I want to convey to the hon. Members is that the concept of peaking, when the hon. Prime Minister made his commitment two years ago that all of you had applauded, which all of Indian media had applauded, which all of Indian NGOs had applauded, is that India's per capita emission will never exceed the per capita emission of the Developed World. We are implicitly accepting peaking. What we are saying is that we will peak once you peak. We are not giving a specific year for peaking. What we are saying is if you reach at a certain level of average per capita emission, we will ensure that we will never exceed that per capita emission. That, Sir, is an implicit peaking. What we have not done in this document is to mention a specific year for peaking. So, I do not plead guilty to this charge. I have not violated any commitment that I had made. I have not accepted, the Government of India has not accepted any peaking year for Developing Countries. We are not going to accept it as a part of the negotiations. We will continue to insist on the longer time frame. But, I am sure, and hon. Members will agree with me, that we should peak in the 21st century. Now, in which year in the 21st century, time alone will tell. But it should not be anybody's case that we should peak only in the 22nd century. We should peak sometime in the 21st century. If we don't peak in the 21st century, I think, then, we are having a very serious problem for us.

There may not be a 22nd Century as the hon. Home Minister reminds us. Sir, many other issues have been raised on climate fund and many other issues have been raised on technology. Sir, I also want to say one point on funding. Sir, a country like India, I believe, this is my belief, this is the belief of many people, does not need any international aid. We do not want international aid. We can stand on our own feet. Green technology is an area where India can emerge as a world leader. Ten years from now, Sir, India should be selling Green Technology to the world. Let us not always keep talking of technology transfer, technology transfer, technology transfer. Nobody is going to transfer technology to you. Technology has to be negotiated, technology has to be bought, technology has to be bought on commercial terms. I want to say that many Indian companies have already seen business opportunities in this. China has moved ahead. Today, of the top 10 solar companies in the world, four are Chinese. Let us see this as a business opportunity. This is an opportunity for Indian technology to move ahead and I am sure that in the next couple of years, we will, actually, be selling technology rather than keep repeating the stale mantra of technology transfer all the time.

Yes, we require international financial assistance. I am not for one who is suggesting we do not require international financial assistance. But, Sir, we are not in the same category as Bangladesh or Maldives or Ethiopia or Saint Lucia or Granada. There are countries in Africa, countries in small island States, countries in Asia which require more urgently than us for adaptation and mitigation. A country like India should be able to stand on its own feet and say we will do what we have to do on our own. Why are we getting into this syndrome of always looking for international finance and international technology? This is something that we should be autonomously engaged in. Sir, I know that we are running out of time, but I want to summarise by thanking the Leader of the opposition and all other hon. Members for raising what I think are very legitimate and valid queries. I think what I will do is, I will address each of them in a written form, a frequently asked questions form, I will circulate it to all the Members of Parliament and I hope in the next Session of Parliament, we will have another debate on this issue because these negotiations will continue all of 2010. I will not hesitate from any discussion of any kind at any point of time simply because we have nothing to hide as far as our negotiating strategy is concerned.