IN NEWS

US needs to stick to its end of climate bargain: Jairam Ramesh

TNN, Nov 5, 2010, 02.57am IST

The US's measly offer on dole could hobble the climate talks at Cancun in December since the BASIC (Brazil-South Africa-India-China bloc) will not give in further, Jairam Ramesh tells Nitin Sethi, summing up the deliberations in Tianjin, China. 

What were the key outcomes of the Basic meeting and the UN negotiations at Tianjin, China? 

Well, the negotiations are still deadlocked. If anything, at Tianjin, the differences increased. Also, the fact is that the fast-track finance...out of the $30 billion that was pledged for 2010-12, only about $6-7 billion is new additional resources. Most of it is old or recycled money. Out of this, $4 billion is pledged for forestry. 

The Copenhagen agreement was a grand bargain, that one side would provide the finance and the other side would come on board as far as the transparency issues are concerned. But that fast-track finance part of the bargain is not being fulfilled. 

Then, the US offer on emissions reductions remains a measly one. So it's going to hobble us if the world's pre-eminent economic power and the world's second largest emitter is not going to come up with something meaningful on the table. President (Barack) Obama and others told Bangaldesh and Maldives in Copenhagen that, look you won't get money till the Chinas and Indias and the Brazils agree to the transparency issue. We agreed to the transparency issue in the expectation that the money would start flowing to these countries. But clearly, the money has not. 

On international scrutiny... 

On International Consultation and Analysis (ICA) of (developing countries' actions) the Americans and Europeans still have an intrusive ICA in mind. What China, Brazil, India and South Africa agreed to at Copenhagen was an ICA that respects national sovereignty. 

At Tianjin, did the US ask for a level of parity with China and India on scrutiny of mitigation actions? 

What the Americans are saying is, once you have taken on a commitment domestically and voluntarily, you must inscribe it in an international agreement and 'stand by it'. What does stand by it mean? It is a binding commitment. Binding commitment to my mind means a commitment that is subject to international consultations and analysis. 

But they are asking for the same level of scrutiny for themselves as for China, India, Brazil and South Africa... 

Yes. They are saying they are under ICA and so are we. So it's not a legally binding agreement. The US is asking for a softer legally binding agreement. In other words, they want to get out of a Kyoto type of regime but we would like to them to be part of it. 

But if you are going to help Mexico with some face-saving, you shall need a decision... 

Decisions, not decision. I expect a substantive decision on REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) and REDD-plus. But all this is predicated on the decision that the second period of the Kyoto Protocol will continue. If the Kyoto Protocol falls then all this begins to fall. 

And, if the $30 billion fast-track money was to come through from the developed countries, including the US, what would the BASIC then be willing to give in? 

No, the BASIC countries have already given. BASIC have said that we are not claimants for the $30 billion. That is a huge thing. I was criticized for it by many, including you. 

So you are saying that at Cancun, there is nothing more that the BASIC can give but there is a certain part of the bargain that the US and rich countries have to meet. 

See, the Copenhagen accord was a bargain between the BASIC and the United States. BASIC gave the idea of ICA, the US gave the idea of finance – that bargain is now an unequal bargain. Our commitments in my view are far more substantive than the US commitments. 

What is the possibility of plurilateral agreements outside the UNFCCC if the Cancun results are not substantive? 

There is an example of the WTO agreement on government procurement of goods and services. India is not part of the WTO agreement but we are part of a plurilateral agreement. So there is a plurilateral window in a multilateral agreement. 

But you are not averse to plurilateral agreement on issues beyond forestry... 

No. To my mind, forestry is the only issue that admits to a plurilateral agreement. 

Read more:  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/US-needs-to-stick-to-its-end-of-climate-bargain-Jairam-Ramesh/articleshow/6874144.cms