Who is to blame for failure in Copenhagen?
It was the sustained divide between the positions of developed and developing countries which prevented the conclusion of negotiations on the twin tracks as mandated by the Bali Roadmap.
The failure of developed countries to come up with ambitious emission reduction targets for the post-2012 commitment phase of the Kyoto Protocol, and their push for developing countries to undertake binding commitments against the principles and provisions of the UN Framework Convention, were among the critical factors.
Do you think the Copenhagen Accord prepares the ground for a successful international legally-binding agreement in Mexico?
Please allow me to clarify. We are not negotiating a new climate change treaty to supersede or over-ride the UN Framework Convention and its Kyoto protocol.
The mandate given by the Bali Roadmap and COP-15 is to enhance the implementation of the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC and to inscribe legally-binding emission reduction commitments by the so-called Annex I countries, or developed nations, in the second commitment phase of the Kyoto Protocol (and comparable commitments for those developed countries which are not party to the Kyoto Protocol, notably the US).
What will it take to secure a deal by the end of the year?
An ambitious emission cut target by developed countries is critical for a meaningful and credible agreed outcome at COP-16 in Mexico.
Why is India so obsessed with maintaining the Kyoto Protocol? Can't we have another instrument where every country agrees to binding targets while respecting the 'common but differentiated responsibilities' principle?
I do not think 'obsession' is the right word to reflect our position vis-à-vis the Kyoto Protocol. For India, and other developing countries, the Kyoto Protocol represents an international commitment on the part of developed countries to fulfil their historical responsibility. It is a well thought out internationally legally-binding instrument which most effectively epitomises the core principle of 'common but differentiated responsibility'.
Its elaborate compliance mechanism is difficult to replicate. Casually setting aside the Kyoto Protocol or replacing it with another instrument would not only lend credence to the suspicion that the developed countries wish to get away from their legally-binding commitments, it would also put a question mark on the credibility of any new legal obligation they might take under a new instrument.
The Copenhagen Accord was laid down by the group of so-called BASIC countries, including India, and the United States. That sidelined the UN process altogether. Does India think climate negotiations need a different institutional framework, like the G20 for example?
We believe that mechanisms such as the G20, MEF, etc. have a certain role in giving impetus to the multilateral negotiations under the UNFCCC through a strong political message, but these are not negotiating forums themselves and cannot substitute for the processes already established under the UNFCCC insofar as climate change issues are concerned.
I think it would be inaccurate to suggest that the BASIC countries were among the drivers of the Copenhagen Accord. In fact, we consistently advised for a more inclusive and transparent process. The Copenhagen Accord did not emerge as a decision of the COP, and therefore cannot replace the larger multilateral process under the UNFCCC. We should try and bring the significant points of convergence, reflected in the Accord, into the UNFCCC negotiations.
India's pledge would cut 'carbon intensity' by between 20-25% by 2020 from 2005. Are you proud of this submission?
Certainly. We look upon our proposed mitigation actions as an important contribution to the global efforts to deal with climate change. As a responsible member of the international community, despite our huge developmental burdens, we are doing everything possible within the limitations of our own resources, to make these contributions.
We have already declared the commitment to keep our per capita emissions lower than the average per capita emissions of developed countries. Our recent announcement for taking on a voluntary target of reducing the emissions intensity of India's GDP by 20-25% by 2020 in comparison to the 2005 level follows our assessment that our emissions intensity has declined by over 17% during 1990-2005. This certainly is a further manifestation of the seriousness with which India wants to contribute to global action on climate change.
How does that fit with India's domestic action plan to convert into a greener economy and redraw the map of India’s energy mix?
As part of our efforts to deal with climate change, we have adopted an ambitious National Action Plan. The Action Plan is not merely oriented towards mitigation and adaptation, but is located within the larger perspective of sustainable development. It simultaneously advances India's development and climate change goals, with dedicated missions, among other things, to promote energy efficiency and a greater share of renewables in our energy mix.
The Action Plan will enable our country to bring a strategic shift from its current reliance on carbon-based fossil fuels to renewable and clean sources of energy. Over the years, we have achieved effective delinking of our energy sector growth from our economic growth and the energy intensity of our GDP is now comparable with the best in the world.
According to the 2010 Environmental Performance Index (EPI), India and China rank 123rd and 121st on pollution control respectively, reflecting the strain that rapid economic growth imposes on the environment. Other newly industrialised countries like Brazil and Russia rank 62nd and 69th. That suggests that level of development is only one factor. Are your policies fit to change the course of this trend?
Our then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi had observed at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 that "poverty is the worst polluter". In terms of that vision, we have been constantly addressing the relationship between poverty alleviation, economic growth and environmental conservation through an organised structure of policies, regulations, programmes and institutions for realising sustainable development. Our National Action Plan is an important step in that direction.
India's civil nuclear energy initiative is seen by your government as a major milestone for ensuring a sustainable and clean development path for an emerging economy such as India. Wouldn't that help India to be a bit more ambitious in raising the target of reducing its carbon intensity?
For a country like India, with one of the smallest carbon footprints in the world, the first and overriding priority is to pursue economic development, to eradicate poverty and to address our energy poverty. There are still over half a billion people in India who do not have access to commercial energy. Moreover, we are also among the worst affected by the impacts of climate change.
Despite such enormous demands on our resources for large-scale adaptation actions and huge developmental challenges confronting us, we have announced our target of reduction in emissions intensity of GDP by 20-25% by 2020 over 2005.
This, as I mentioned, is in addition to the commitment to keep our per capita emissions lower than the average per capita emissions of developed countries. I believe the need of the hour is for the developed countries to come forward and show a greater level of ambition in their commitments for emission reduction, which is unfortunately not visible so far.
