(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
_____________________________________________________
At Copenhagen U.S is drawing a red line by hinting that mere trust is not enough and need scrutiny of all actions.
The leaked un-cooked Danish draft with its sweeping set of tough conditions for countries like India and China underlined the gulf that needs to be navigated for negotiations at Copenhagen aiming for agreement. That gulf is getting wide while U.S suggested that major developing countries like India and China would have to put their domestic, voluntary action under some sort of international scrutiny.
India has rejected United States advice that it put its voluntary offer to reduce carbon intensity on the table with commitments before the global community. Again repeatedly rejected any sort of commitment and international scrutiny.
Todd Stern, the US Special Envoy on climate change, said that the actions been announced by India and China “would have to be put in an international agreement” to ensure that there was unambiguousness in their efforts. According to him putting such commitments in a legally binding agreement was essential for "transparency" in the international community, which could then gauge how the crisis was being resolved.
In the Basic Draft prepared by India, China, Brazil and South Africa, countries taking nationally voluntary measures are obligated to report on how these are going through national communications to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the implementation of these targets are up for internal domestic review only.
Whether U.S is now insisting on emerging economies to "wrap up" their national emission reduction commitments into a global pact, because of the on-going opposition by Republican move against the Copengahen? It should not be the only reason, may be one of the reasons.
India made it clear that it would not accept any internationally binding agreement and that its climate change targets were not up for review.
"We already have an agreement... we are quite prepared through our national communications to report what we are doing, but that is for the purpose of information only," Chandrashekar Dasgupta, senior Indian negotiator at the climate change meet remarked this. Dasgupta, who has also served as the Indian ambassador to China and European Union was critical while stating that it is not subject to review, to verification, to re-negotiation, to dialogue or any such thing. It is a nationally determined voluntary target ... nothing less, nothing more. India had set a goal of 20 to 25 per cent reduction in carbon intensity by 2020, compared to the 2005 levels.
The U.S contention is that l domestic efforts have to be part of an international agreement and global treaties cannot be built merely on the basis of trust. This is a direct statement that India and China cannot expect other just to hear and trust them. U.S wanted these actions subject to international monitoring and review.
Still, this is likely to become a major contentious issue with India when we have been resisting any attempt to open its domestic actions that are not supported by finance and technology from the developed countries and international scrutiny.
Stern accused India and China and developing nations as a whole contributing for growth in emissions and thus these countries would have to take significant actions to supplement efforts of the rich countries in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Though he complimented India , China and Brazil for the initiatives, he made it clear that these countries should not expect any money from the governments of the rich countries to support their mitigation and adaptation efforts.
He urged Beijing to make "a real commitment," highlighting that while the US emissions were flattening out and then going down, China's emissions were steadily rising.
The US announced carbon emission cuts in the range of 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 per cent by 2050.
China is aiming to reduce carbon intensity by 40 to 45 per cent by 2020, compared to 2005 levels.
India’s Secretary for the ministry of finance, Mr Vijai Sharma, said that there was “no possibility” India would put its voluntary commitments before the international community. We are a democracy and our commitments before parliament are binding, but there can be no question of offering this to the international community or internationalising it.
Mr Sharma said that India would be informing the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) under the national communication or Natcom project about the targets which it had voluntary undertaken in the national action plan and its commitment before Parliament on reduction of carbon intensity of 20 to 25 per cent by 2020 from the 2005 level. This will not entail India to offer this for negotiations at Copenhagen.
Sharma said India would also not lend itself to verification of its targets, and that the country was transparent enough in its dealing with the world to know that it’s monitoring process domestically would be reliable enough too. The setting up a new mechanism under Copenhagen instead of extending the Kyoto Protocol which was legally binding on states, Sharma said India was in favour of extending the protocol after it expires in 2012.
Stern had said the US would not accept the protocol or something similar, but a whole new structure needed to be put in place so that it could be legally binding on all parties.
The executive secretary of the UNFCCC, Mr Yvo de Boer, said that it would be very challenging to set up a new legally binding mechanism under the convention, since Kyoto Protocol itself took eight years to be ratified.It will be very time consuming lengthy process.
Stern did not spell a word on India when he said “I don’t envision public funds, certainly not from the US, going to a country like China. We intend to direct the public funds to countries which are the most vulnerable to climate change and the most in need for resources. I don’t think a country like China would be the first candidate for that.” Though he emphasized that the United States would continue to push for a legally binding agreement to come out of Copenhagen, but ruled out U.S becoming a part of Kyoto Protocol.
India have to note that if the US was assessing the "adequacy" of China's commitment, India could be up next for this assessment, which negated the basic fact that these announced targets were "voluntary" and could not be subjected to an inspections or adequacy checks. Dasgupta too said that as in the case of China, our domestic voluntary target of reducing carbon intensity by 20 to 25 per cent by 2020 may also subjected to considerations of their so-called ‘adequacy’ and attempts will be made to force us to renegotiate upwards.
No comments:
Post a Comment