Memorandum by the High Commission of India
INTERVENTION BY PRIME MINISTER DR MANMOHAN
SINGH AT MAJOR ECONOMICS MEETING ON CLIMATE CHANGE
9 JULY 2008 HOKKAIDO, JAPAN
I welcome the fact that we are all engaged in
serious negotiations for enhanced implementation of the UNFCCC
through long term cooperative action.
It is very important that the provisions and
principles of the Convention, especially common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities, are respected in
these negotiations and their outcomes in letter and spirit.
The first and overriding priority of all developing
countries is poverty eradication.
More than 600 million people in India are still
without access to modern energy sources and a quarter of our population
lives on less than a dollar a day.
The imperative for accelerated growth is even
more urgent when we consider the disproportionate impact of climate
change on us as a developing country with little choice but to
devote even more and huge resources to adaptation in critical
areas of food security, public health and management of scarce
water resources.
And, this comes at a time when we are faced
with an ever increasing energy bill putting our energy security
at extreme risk.
Sustained and accelerated economic growth is,
therefore, critical for all developing countries and we cannot
for the present even consider quantitative restrictions on our
emissions.
Moreover, there should be no detraction of public
and private development transfers and flows. Rather there must
be new and additional resources made available to developing countries.
We have not seen demonstrable progress on even
the low levels of agreed GHG reduction from developed countries
and, indeed, the prognosis is that their emissions as a whole
will continue to rise even in the years to come.
This must change and you (the G8) must all show
the leadership that you have always promised by taking and then
delivering truly significant GHG reductions.
Let me assure you that as a responsible nation
that is particularly mindful of its international obligations,
India is committed to a path of sustainable development. Though
India's per-capita emissions are among the lowest in the world
and we are certainly not free riders or major emitters, we have
recently adopted a strong National Action Plan on Climate Change.
Our efforts, of course, would be greatly enhanced
with global support, especially in terms of financial flows and
technology access.
India is determined that even as we pursue our
economic growth and development, our per-capita emissions will
not go beyond those of the developed countries.
But, this convergence idea is also a challenge
to the developed countries. The quicker you reduce your emissions,
the greater the incentive for us to follow.
I am grateful to Chancellor Merkel, President
Sarkozy and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who have welcomed this
approach.
If we are to honestly address the climate change
challenge, it is important that we recognize the right to equal
sustainable development and historical responsibility.
An equitable burden and carbon space sharing
paradigm is also the key to realizing the ultimate objective of
the Convention.
And, for real success, we have to eschew unsustainable
consumption patterns and lifestyles worldwide.
I also believe that technology is a critical
transformation agent for both mitigation and adaptation.
Collaborative R&D between developing and
developed country institutions for affordable advanced clean technologies
as well as their transfer, deployment and diffusion in developing
countries needs to be expedited.
There is also a need for a fairer IPR regime
for advanced clean technologies so that rewards for innovators
are sufficiently remunerative and at the same time they are made
available to developing countries at affordable cost. Indeed there
is a strong case that critical technologies be treated as global
public goods.
It is also important that standards and norms
are reflective of the developmental context to which they apply.
Climate Change is a certainly huge challenge
for all of us.
But it should not be used to add conditionalities
to the already complex development challenges that we face in
developing countries or maintaining economic status quo or attempting
to introduce protectionism by another means.
We should look at it as a challenge and as an
opportunity and work together for cooperative action on an issue
of great importance to the future of mankind.
Thank You
PM'S INTERVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AT HEILIGENDAMM
MEETING OF G8 PLUS 5
8 JUNE 2007 HEILIGENDAMM, GERMANY
Madam Chancellor,
Dear Colleagues,
I must thank you for raising this issue, of
such significance for us and our future generations. We all have
a vested interest in making our planet secure for our children
and grandchildren.
India's GHG emissions are among the lowest in
per-capita terms. Moreover, being only around 4% of the world's
emissions, action by us will have a marginal effect on overall
emissions.
Nonetheless we recognize wholeheartedly our
responsibilities as a developing country. We wish to engage constructively
and productively with the international community and to add our
weight to global efforts to preserve and protect the environment.
We are determined that India's per-capita GHG
emissions are not going to exceed those of developed countries
even while pursuing policies of development and economic growth.
We must work together to find pragmatic, practical
solutions, which are for the benefit of entire humankind.
These should include mitigation and adaptation
strategies with fair burden sharing and measures to realize sustainable
patterns of consumption and production.
The process of burden sharing must be fair.
It should take into account where the primary responsibility for
the present levels of GHG concentration rests and not perpetuate
poverty among the developing countries. No strategy should foreclose
for them the possibilities of accelerated social and economic
development.
The principle of common but differentiated responsibility
and respective capability is very important.
The time is not ripe for developing countries
to take quantitative targets as these would be counter-productive
on their development processes.
Adaptation is the key for developing countries.
It needs to be adequately resourced without detracting funds meant
for development, which, in any case, is the best form of adaptation.
The determination of any particular stabilization
goal and the time-frame in which it should be achieved needs to
be made at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change.
This should be preceded by a scientific consensus
on impacts at different levels of GHG going beyond the current
IPCC findings, which still document many uncertainties.
It is important that critical and promising
clean technologies are made affordable for developing countries,
where there is large reliance on fossil fuels.
The IPR regime should balance rewards for innovators
with the common good of humankind.
We also believe that the carbon market has a
significant role to play in tackling climate change and that we
should spur private sector involvement in climate related technologies
and investment.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has worked
well and needs to be expanded to include approvals for programmatic
approaches. Enhanced level of GHG abatement commitments by the
developed countries would significantly stimulate CDM projects.
Let us leave Heiligendamm determined to continue
our exchanges and to invigorate the existing for a where these
issues are being negotiated. In the meantime, our representatives
could continue informal discussions way to carry forward our dialogue
and build on what we believe in common.
Thank you.
TALK BY SPECIAL ENVOY OF PRIME MINISTER,
SHRI SHYAM SARAN IN MUMBAI ON CLIMATE CHANGE
21 APRIL 2008
CLIMATE CHANGE—FROM
BACK ROOM
TO BOARD
ROOM—WHAT
INDIAN BUSINESS
NEEDS TO
KNOW ABOUT
INDIA'S
APPROACH TO
MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS
ON CLIMATE
CHANGE
I wish to thank the Ministry of External Affairs
and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) for inviting me
to address this distinguished gathering of business and industry
leaders on the subject of Climate Change. Of course, CII itself
has done an excellent job by bringing out an extremely informative
publication recently, entitled "Building a Low-Carbon Economy."
I wish to pay special tribute to Shri Jamsyd Godrej, Chairman
of the CII Mission for Sustainable Growth and Climate Change,
for taking the initiative in alerting Indian business and industry
to the issues that are on the table and more important, both the
challenges and opportunities likely to emerge in the coming years
as the world comes to term with this new and existential threat
to its very survival. For there is not doubt any more that the
risks emanating from climate change, caused by anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emissions, are real and serious and unless addressed expeditiously
could have catastrophic consequences, perhaps even in our own
lifetime, and that the worst suffering would be visited upon precisely
those least able to cope, that is, the poor and disadvantaged
across the globe, but particularly those residing in the developing
countries.
How does India respond to this threat, despite
the knowledge that its own contribution would probably make only
a modest difference? Our total emissions are only a fraction of
the global figure—just 4% compared to 20% for the US and
16% for China. If you take per capita figures, then the differences
are even more stark. India emits about 1.1 tonnes of CO2 per capita
while the corresponding figure for the US is more than 20 tonnes.
Furthermore, the energy intensity of India's economy has been
consistently declining and today, we are able to deliver 8% plus
annual growth with only 4% increase in energy consumption. This
trend is likely to continue and could even accelerate if government
and industry were able to work together on improving industry
standards in a host of energy intensive sectors.
For India, the most important argument in favour
of adopting climate friendly technologies and embracing an environmentally
sustainable strategy of growth stems from a very compelling and
practical reality ie unless we are able to develop economically
viable and new sources of energy, energy will become a major constraint
on our growth. If we continue to rely on fossil fuels to underpin
our growth, and fossil fuels become increasingly more scarce and
expensive, as oil has already become, there is little doubt that
our ability to sustain high levels of growth of our economy over
the medium and medium to long-term, could face severe constraints.
Therefore, even if there were no climate change argument, we would
still need to evolve an energy strategy that, over time, would
involve a shift from fossil fuels to non-fossil fuels, non-renewable
sources of energy to renewables, and conventional to non-conventional
sources of energy. Such a strategy would, by definition, also
be climate friendly.
There is no escape from the reality that as
India develops, is consumption of commercial energy is bound to
increase. Therefore, realistically speaking, even with continuing
decline in the energy intensity of GDP growth, carbon emissions
will rise in the years to come, before they flatten and decline
as new and hopefully renewable sources of energy kick in. It is
to our advantage to build a low-carbon Indian economy and to be
even ambitious in this regard. But this is a national effort dictated
by our own growth choices. When it comes to multilateral negotiations
on dealing with climate change, the dynamics are different.
India's stand in international negotiations,
as also that of most developing countries, is based on the simple
principle—"The polluter pays". If we consider
the period between 1850-2000, cumulative CO2 emissions will show
how the available carbon space is currently occupied. The US leads
with 30%, the EU-25 with 27.2%, China with 7.3% and India with
only 2%. It is for this reason of historical responsibility that
in the UNFCCC, negotiated in 1992, it was agreed by consensus
that emission reductions would only be required of the developed
countries. The ensuing Kyoto Protocol formalized this understanding
by setting targets for emission reductions would only be required
of the developed countries. The ensuing Kyoto Protocol formalized
this understanding by setting targets for emission reductions
by so-called Annex I countries, or developed countries during
the first commitment period lasting up to 2012, with the promise
of even deeper cuts in the subsequent commitment period post-2012.
The explicit understanding has all along been that developing
countries would not be required to undertake legally binding mitigation
targets. Their mitigation efforts, according to UNFCCC, will have
to be fully compensated through transfer of financial resources
and technical know-how from developed countries.
Therefore whatever action we take domestically
to pursue sustainable development, let it be clearly understood
that there is no legal obligation on the part of India, under
existing international instruments, to take on binding emissions
reduction obligations, now or in the post 2012 period.
I say this, because considerable and sometimes
deliberate confusion has been sown in the minds of our civil society
and business and industry through the use of terms such as "post-Kyoto
regime" or negotiation of a "new international framework
for climate change" or a "post-2012 climate treaty."
What we are currently engaged in are multilateral negotiations
within the existing UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol. The principles
underlying these agreements have been reaffirmed most recently
at Bali in November 2007. What is currently being negotiated is
(i) fresh emission targets that the developed countries must adopt—post
2012 in the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol;
and (ii) an Action Plan that would enable the more effective implementation
of the objectives of the UNFCCC, including through measurable
reportable and verifiable action on the transfer of financial
resources and technology from developed to developing countries.
There is a persistent attempt on the part of
the several developed countries to avoid their legal obligations
under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, by advancing a wholly
fresh set of arguments. We will need to be particularly alert
in this respect. Let me deal with some of the major arguments
one by one:
(i) Countries like the US, Japan and some EU
countries have begun using the argument that so long as so-called
"major emitters" like China and India, remain outside
the emissions reduction regime, their own efforts will make little
difference to the global goal of reducing and stabilizing anthropogenic
CO2 emissions. China can speak for itself but India certainly
does not consider itself to be a major emitter though it is a
major economy. Neither the total volume of our CO2 emissions nor
our per capita emissions today, would qualify us in that category.
Nor is it justifiable to simple extrapolate current emissions
trend to arrive at conclusions for 30 or 40 years hence. The major
emitters today, as also those historically most responsible for
cumulative emission levels, continue to be the developed countries.
(ii) The US President has recently been reported
as saying that the US cannot be expected to agree to emissions
reductions unless India and China undertake similar obligations.
He also argued that doing so will result in the US industries
and jobs moving out to countries that do not have emission reduction
commitments and would in any case not lead to global mitigation.
We reject this argument.
First, it ignores what we call the "legacy"
aspect ie the historical responsibility for cumulative emissions.
Second, it brings in extraneous considerations
of industrial competitiveness and employment that is completely
contrary to the principle of equity that underlies the historic
Rio compact which is enshrined in the UNFCCC. To accept the US
argument is to accept what I call the NPT Approach to Climate
Change—that is, I get to keep what I have because I got
here first. You have to stay where you are because you are a latecomer.
This is precisely what has been done in the nuclear domain.
(iii) There is another important distinction
we must maintain when discussing carbon emissions. This is a distinction
between what I would call "lifestyle emissions" and
"survival emissions". Reducing emissions that require
an adjustment in affluent lifestyles and reduction of waste, for
example, cannot be equated with reducing emissions which may impact
on the already low levels of livelihood of people in developing
countries. Capping or reducing emission levels in India may mean
that 600 million Indians who do not have access to electricity
today, must be permanently denied this very basic energy service.
Should this be put on the same level as putting a speed limit
on Germany's autobahns, which could result in major energy savings,
or a gasoline tax in the U.S., which will have a minimal impact
on the already high standards of living in those countries?
(iv) In recent months, countries like Japan,
supported by the US, have advocated a "sectoral approach"
to reducing carbon emissions. The idea is to identify high energy
intensity industries like power, steel, cement transportation
and building and construction and to set uniform global efficiency
norms and lower carbon emission standards for each sector. It
is argued that this bottoms-up approach would be more logical
and practical than setting of top-down national targets for each
country. Now, as developing countries, we do not have any problem
with our developed country partners adopting a range of measures,
including sectoral measures, to set and to reach their overall
national targets. We would also welcome any collaboration with
advanced countries to improve our own efficiency standards, exchange
best practices and bring about technological upgadation in our
own industries. This can be done bilaterally or multilaterally.
Unfortunately, the sub-text is that internationally binding norms
for specific sectors must also cover major economies or so-called
"major emitters" like India. The justification given
is that if major developing economies were to be excluded then
there would be a competitive disadvantage to industry in the developed
world. Their costs will go up as they upgrade and retool their
existing units. The developing countries, not having to meet these
norms, will have lower costs in addition to lower wages.
(v) This argument, deceptively reasonable, again
violates the very basis of the UNFCCC. The UNFCCC did not qualify
the responsibilities of the developed and developing countries
with extraneous considerations such as maintaining inter-se competitiveness.
Nor is there any reference to maintaining a so-called level playing
field, already stacked heavily against the developing countries.
Now there is a barely disguised attempt to overturn this very
basis equity principle through so-called sectoral approaches.
(vi) There is a very real danger that in adopting
sectoral standards among themselves, the developed countries would
use the competitiveness argument to put up protectionist tariffs
against products from developing countries. This must be resisted
at all costs.
Let me now turn to issues relating to the transfer
of financial and technological resources from developed to developing
countries to enable the latter to pursue environmentally sustainable
strategies of growth. This, again, is a fundamental principle
underlying the UNFCCC and has been reiterated in the recent Bali
Action Plan. The transfer of such financial and technological
resources are not conditioned by any mitigation actions to be
taken by recipient countries. In actual fact, the record on this
score has been dismal, and with an economic down-turn looming
large on the horizon, the prospects are not very encouraging.
India has argued for additionality of funds for climate change
related activities in developing countries. For technology transfer,
we have argued that since climate-friendly technologies are in
the nature of public goods, addressing an urgent global challenge,
the IPR regime in respect to such technologies must be adjusted
to enable them to be adopted by developing countries at affordable
prices. A global Climate Change Venture Capital Fund could be
set up, which could purchase patents on such technologies and
enable their transfer to developing countries. We have also suggested
an international collaborative effort among major developed and
developing countries to promote new climate friendly technologies.
This could be called CLEAN-NET. Unfortunately, none of these proposals
have received a serious response from the developed countries.
At a recent meeting, an argument was made that
developing countries should institute a zero-tariff regime for
a designated list of "green goods" and also create an
investment-friendly regime to enable companies possessing green
technologies to invest in such countries. Again, one has to be
careful in dealing with such propositions. They can distort trading
patterns, detract from the legal obligations which developed countries
have in respect of transfer of finance and technology and introduce
considerations of trade competitiveness which do not belong to
the domain of climate change.
Let me summarize India's negotiating position
on Climate Change:
(i) The UNFCCC remains the multilateral, legally
binding instrument available to the international community to
deal with the challenge of Climate Change. Its principles and
objectives continue to be fully valid and must govern all our
future activities on this subject. The Bali Action Plan has removed
any ambiguity on this count.
(ii) The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC will remain
in force post-2012. What is under negotiation is the setting of
emission reduction targets by developed country parties in the
second commitment period which commences in 2012. The Kyoto Protocol
does not expire in 2012, nor are developing countries expected
to take on reduction commitments in post-2012 period.
(iii) The responsibility to support sustainable
development strategies in developing countries, through the transfer
of financial resources and technology from developed countries,
is not linked to any conditionalities.
(iv) While developed countries are free to adopt
sectoral approaches as a means to achieve their national emission
reduction targets, there cannot be an imposition of industry-wide
norms on a global basis, nor recourse to arguments about maintaining
trade competitiveness or a level playing field.
Does this mean that India is not prepared to
make its own contribution to meeting the challenge of Climate
Change, as responsible player in the international community?
While we insist that all parties to the UNFCCC
and its Kyoto Protocol fulfil their legal obligations under these
instruments, we have made a number of positive and forward looking
proposals:
(i) In the G8+G5 Summit at Heilengendamm, Germany,
last year, Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh made an extremely
important proposal. He gave a public assurance that while India's
carbon emissions will inevitably rise in the short and medium
term as we pursue accelerated growth, we would ensure that at
no time would our per capita carbon emissions exceed the average
of the developed countries' per capita emissions. The Prime Minister
was thus responding to two related complaints frequently voiced
by our developed country partners—first, that India is not
prepared to accept any current or future limitation on its carbon
emissions, and second, that its efforts are not commensurate with
what it expects the industrialized countries to do. By giving
an assurance that our per capita emissions would never exceed
the average per capita emissions of the developed world, we have
responded to the first complaint; we have accepted a limit on
our emissions. We have, however, linked this limitation to the
scale of effort that the developed countries are themselves prepared
to put in. The more ambitious they are, the lower the limit that
India would be prepared to accept. Thus, there is an inbuilt mutuality
of incentive. Further, by insisting on the per capita standard,
we maintain the equity principle. In the long-term there would
have to be convergence of per capita emissions globally.
(ii) We have agreed to play an active role in
the CDM market, which can and is playing an important role in
enabling the developed countries to meet their emission reduction
targets under the Kyoto Protocol, even while transferring, though
as yet in a limited manner, climate-friendly technologies to developing
countries. India has the largest portfolio of CDM projects to
date, and this is a major opportunity for Indian industry. Our
effort in multilateral negotiations is to ensure that the CDM
mechanism continues beyond 2012 and in a more expanded form.
Irrespective of what happens in international
negotiations on Climate Change, it is important that we evolve
and pursue a strategy of environmentally sustainable development,
for reasons of our own vital national interests. An India which
is heavily dependent on fossil fuel imports to sustain its high
level of growth, is an India which will be increasingly vulnerable.
In the short to medium-term there may be few alternatives to fossil
fuels and our strategy must, therefore, be to secure such supplies
from a diversity of sources to ensure predictability as well as
affordability. We can also increase supplies of energy by further
improving energy efficiency standards, through technological upgradation,
improved management and adoption of best international practices.
A Vice-President of Dow Chemicals recently said—"...improving
energy efficiency is the cheapest and most renewable fuel of all."
We will need to accelerate the development of renewable and non-conventional
sources of energy including nuclear energy, wind energy, bio-mass
and solar energy.
We are in the process of formulating India's
National Action Plan on Climate Change. It is likely to be released
in June this year. In a very real sense, this Action Plan really
constitutes a Strategy for Sustainable development. It will include
major national level missions, such as a Solar Mission, a National
Solid Waste Management Plan, a nation-wide effort to create a
huge carbon sink of afforested land of an additional six million
hectares, a Water Conservation mission and the adoption of international
best practices and efficiency norms for a range of key industries.
All these are seen as public-private partnerships, where government
action must be supported and supplemented by private sector, by
civil society and the country's citizenry at large. Climate Change
is everyone's business and can only be tackled by mobilizing all
our available and organizational energies.
India's business and industry is, I am glad
to say, ahead of the curve in recognizing the challenge and gearing
itself to deal with it effectively. The CII publication on Building
a Low Carbon Economy contains many useful recommendations.
Several are very much in line with Government's own thinking on
the subject. The idea of a domestic market which could catalyse
higher efficiencies industry-wide is something worth exploring.
The provisions of the Energy Conservation Act would certainly
lend themselves to a possible market-based approach in achieving
efficiency norms that are being formulated by the Bureau of Energy
Efficiency in consultation with business and industry. We need
to discuss this further.
I would like to conclude this presentation on
a note of optimism. India can play a leadership role on the subject
of Climate Change, because it has its own particularities. It
is heir to a civilizational legacy which places high value on
the preservation of the environment and the maintenance of ecological
balance. We look upon Nature, instinctively, as a source of nurture,
not as a force to be subdued. This is a very powerful asset. India
also has a wider spectrum of choice precisely because we are not
already locked into a specific pattern of development. We can
chart our own course, if we so choose. In making our choices,
we must always observe Gandhiji's wise dictum: The earth has enough
to meet our needs, but will never have enough to satisfy our greed.
18 September 2008
|
