A binding deal at Cancun – why India must do the right thing

9 December, 2010

In December 2009, when environment minister Jairam Ramesh went to Copenhagen, he was seen off by a group of bright-eyed young Indian climate activists urging him to come back with a FAB (fair, ambitious and binding) deal. He promised to do so. Fast-forward to December 2010 and the Indian delegation is fighting tooth-and-nail to eviscerate any language on a binding deal at the UN’s climate talks in Cancun.
 
In resisting this, India is in shabby company – countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United States and Japan have been notoriously prevaricating or setting hurdles in the way of internationally binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
 
Leading the charge for a legally-binding instrument are the most vulnerable nations on earth – the small island developing states and African countries. United in political blocs such as AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) and the Africa Group, these nations are fighting for their very survival in the face of indifference by many major powers – developed and emerging alike.
 
Both AOSIS and the Africa group have managed to organise themselves into effective political forces with strong moral authority as unwitting victims of climate change. In so doing they have lifted the stranglehold of more powerful countries within the G-77 lobby group of developing countries, that had long prevented the concerns of the most vulnerable from surfacing.
 
In recent days, AOSIS and the Africa Group have managed to bring along a range of nations to their cause for a legally binding instrument under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change curbing greenhouse gas emissions. AOSIS has recommended specific language under the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action that has been supported by the European Union, Costa Rica and many others. All in all, support for this could run into more than 100 countries.
 
Only India and a small clutch of countries are resisting this move. In this, India has been virtually isolated from others in the BASIC grouping – South Africa, Brazil and China – with whom it has closely allied since last year. These nations are not blocking but are either supporting AOSIS or are open to further dialogue – but not India.
 
India has legitimate concerns in asking for clarity on issues such as the content of legally binding, the penalty of non-compliance and the system of monitoring. But so do others – yet, they are not blocking progress as India is doing because they recognise that some progress on the issue of ‘legal form’ of commitments is a deal-maker issue at this vital meeting.

There is also widespread commitment from most countries supporting the call for a decision to put in place a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol – the only internationally legally-binding mechanism we have for greenhouse gas reduction. A second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol is essential. As the Kyoto Protocol only covers 18% of global emissions, however, there is a stand-off between developed and emerging nations as to who should be covered by international emissions controls.

For the most vulnerable countries, this battle between the major emitters can seem academic and that is why they are looking at innovative strategies to close the divide between the main political players.

The environment minister has taken to describing India as ‘the most vulnerable’ country in the world. Yet his rhetoric will cut little ice with vulnerable neighbours such as Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal and Bhutan who have all called for a legally binding agreement at Cancun.
 
Jairam Ramesh has won a following in India amongst environmentalists for the courage he has shown in the face of vested interests in the mining sector and flown the flag for India’s environmental integrity. He has also made singularly imaginative efforts to advance a more pro-active domestic climate policy in India. For this we salute him.
 
But if India’s old guard of bureaucrats prevent a similarly courageous and imaginative approach being taken at the international policy level, they should know they will receive the opprobrium of young and old Indians alike.

Time is running out and the window of opportunity on climate action is closing. With every day and hour that passes without international agreement, we condemn our poorest and most vulnerable to an uncertain and insecure future.

As Indians, we call on the Minister and our government to do the right thing and join the ranks of those calling for a fair, ambitious and legally-binding agreement at Cancun. The UN cannot afford another failed climate summit and India has it in her power to make a difference. She must make the right choice.

Malini Mehra & Harish Hande
Malini Mehra is founder and chief executive, Centre for Social Markets, and H. Harish Hande, PhD is Managing Director, SELCO SOLAR Light (P) Ltd.