Climate Change Task Force

From India’s point of view, how does one assess the Copenhagen Conference?

For us, most importantly, the Conference decided, by consensus, to continue multilateral negotiations on both the Bali track as well as the Kyoto Protocol track with no change in their mandates. This means that the UNFCCC continues to be the basis for the negotiations and the mandates are derived from the Bali Action Plan and the Kyoto Protocol respectively. Therefore, we can take satisfaction from the fact that we have successfully forestalled the relentless effort on the part of certain developed countries to renegotiate the UNFCCC and to abandon its Kyoto Protocol. Now it will be up to us, together with other like-minded countries, to ensure that we are able to hold the line during the post-Copenhagen process.

Despite enormous pressures generated by developed countries, particularly the US, we managed to uphold the clear distinction between the responsibilities of the developed countries on the one hand and developing countries on the other. We were able to obtain a categorical reaffirmation of the important principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”. There is also an unambiguous endorsement of the right to development of developing countries, including the recognition that our developmental goals and poverty eradication are “first and overriding priorities”. This is important. Our Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that Climate Change action cannot be sustained through the perpetuation of poverty.

The results on the financial side are disappointing and on technology transfer they are sketchy. These are the two areas, where we will need to focus our attention in subsequent negotiations.

On the mitigation side, we will need to clarify our own thoughts on what precisely the concept of MRV will mean in actual practice. The exact procedures will be the subject of further negotiations. Similarly, we will need to be careful that the “agreed guidelines” for consultation and analysis of our voluntary and unsupported mitigation actions, do not become unduly intrusive or onerous. This will require close consultation and coordination with other developing countries in particular, China, Brazil and South Africa, when we get down to negotiating the details.

But the significance of Copenhagen goes beyond the issue of Climate Change. This was the first recent international conference where heads of State or Government of over 100 countries gathered in one place. This reflected the importance attached to the issues under negotiation. While Climate Change may have been the theme but the issues involved went much beyond it. There were the inextricably related challenges of energy access and security, of trade and economic competitiveness and of sharing the costs of transitioning from a global economy based on fossil fuels to one based on renewables and clean sources of energy such as nuclear energy. The large number of leaders were at Copenhagen precisely because critical economic interests were at stake. These were, in substance, economic negotiations and only incidentally about climate change. Copenhagen has forced a degree of honesty on the process. There can no longer be the pretense, through lofty-sounding rhetoric that we are seeking a collaborative response to a compelling global challenge. It must now be acknowledged that, in reality, the competitive defence of economic interests has to be reconciled with the requirements of tackling global climate change.

Copenhagen was also the stage where new and emerging geopolitical realities were on display. The BASIC countries, Brazil, South Africa, India and China, met for the first time together at the Summit level and their impact on the proceedings was visible throughout the day on December 18. The leaders agreed to keep in close touch and act in accordance with a coordinated strategy. They were able to withstand mounting pressure from the leaders of the developed world to concede on several key issues. If they showed flexibility in certain areas, this, too, was done through prior agreement. It was no accident that closure on the few remaining formulations in the Copenhagen Accord was accomplished in a late evening meeting between President Obama and the BASIC leaders. It was an acknowledgement of the influence that the group exercised, not only in their own behalf, but also as countries that helped shape positions of the larger group of G77 plus China.

Copenhagen also marked a turning point in India’s relations with China, though it remains to be seen how enduring this proves to be. The early morning meeting between Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, on December 18, was undoubtedly a significant event. It was unusually friendly and cordial with China acknowledging that without India at its side, it would be difficult to fend off the mounting pressures from the developed countries at the negotiations. It was India and China that agreed at the meeting to initiate the BASIC Summit later that morning. It was India and China which were able to ensure that the red lines for developing countries did not get erased. What is important to note is that the India-China Summit at Copenhagen provided an opportunity to halt the recent slide towards mutual distrust and resentment and pick up the more positive strands in our relations. The Chinese Premier went out of his way to assure our PM of China’s friendly intentions and said that China had no intention of interfering in India-Pakistan relations or in South Asia in general. Our PM responded by recalling Sino-Indian strategic and cooperative partnership established in April 2005. He emphasized the need for the two countries to maintain peace and tranquility on our borders. The strategic significance of India-China relations was fully apparent at Copenhagen and it is hoped that this will also impact favourably on how the two countries handle the more contentious issues in our relations.

As we head towards Mexico City for the 16th Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC, it is these geopolitical realities that will no doubt influence the outcome of our continuing negotiations.