Key Climate negotiator and distinguished fellow at Teri, Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, who along with Dr Pradipto Ghosh, had declined to go to Copenhagen, reversed the decision following a lengthy meeting with Union minister of environment Jairam Ramesh on Sunday. In an interview to Rashme Sehgal, Mr Dasgupta explained that his main concern had been that India had made unilateral concessions without obtaining reciprocity.
Q: Why have you delayed your departure to Copenhagen?
A: I delayed my departure for Copenhagen in order to consult with the environment minister. It has been incorrectly reported that I was concerned about our emission intensity forecast. In fact, my main concern is that we have been offering unilateral concessions without obtaining any reciprocity.
My other concern is whether there is an attempt to water down on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s per capita approach, his position on technology transfer and IPR, and our rejection of international verification or review of our domestically funded mitigation actions.
These had been recently reiterated in Parliament as a non-negotiable element that cannot be "modulated" except under two specific conditions. The last is important because, unlike many other international agreements, the climate change convention does not require reviews or any other type of consultations for domestic actions of developing countries.
Q: What was the specific nature of your reservations?
A: I do not have a problem with carbon intensity cuts. Nor do I want to quibble about technical questions about emission cuts and their relation with GDP or PPP. The idea of a target is in order. My main problem is that while negotiations have to be flexible, the flexibility cannot be one-sided. There must be reciprocity otherwise in the last lap, what are we (negotiators) left with.
We have to re-assert our traditional positions. The Bali Action Plan called for an enhanced implementation of the UN Convention on Climate Convention (UNFCC).
Instead of enhancing the implementation of the convention, developed countries are trying to replace the Kyoto Protocol with a new agreement which is in variance with the UNFCC. Instead of implementing their obligations, they are attempting to change the balance of obligation in their favour. We are opposed to that.
Q: Is this some kind of conspiracy?
A: I don’t know but instead of enhanced implementation by all countries, the industrialised countries are trying to come up with a new agreement.
They are trying to smuggle through a new agreement which will kill the Kyoto Protocol. By doing this, we are really moving several step backwards, not forward. Instead of reducing their emissions in accordance, they are pushing for new commitments on the shoulders of the developing countries.
Q: Will China agree to these changes?
A: China has made its stand clear. When the minister had gone to Beijing, they came up with a good formulation. We have to negotiate on that basis.
We must not forget that India is doing a great deal. Our own National Action Plan on Climate Change, our Solar Mission Plan and our National Action Plan on Energy Emissions is extremely forward-looking.
Q: Is this being done under United States pressure?
A: I have no idea. I don’t think anyone should negotiate under pressure.
