I would describe the Durban accord as one big “Greenwash”. Parties (countries) have agreed to hold negotiations for a new protocol which will be implemented in 2020, but the need of the hour is to act now. An attempt has been made to create an illusion that a great deal of work has been done whereas action has only been postponed.

We have the Kyoto Protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which are based on equity and the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR). These have become taboo. The Durban platform does not mention either. Obviously, an antipathy has developed around the principle of equity. What should underlie any international agreement on climate has been done away with in Durban.

The developed countries have replaced the principles of equity and CBDR and are demanding that developing nations, including India, agree to make legally binding commitments (to cut carbon dioxide emissions). They are doing this because they want to protect their own economic interests.

Are you suggesting that the very basis of climate negotiations has changed?

The situation has changed since 1992 when the International Framework Treaty on Climate Change was agreed upon. Today India, South Africa, China, Brazil and other countries have emerged as potential competitors (of the industrialised nations). In fact, China is seen as a major competitor while India is perceived to be a potential rival. The developed world wants to create a climate regime which will impose a break on the development of the poorer countries.

By way of background I would like to highlight that most developed countries are doing very little by way of climate mitigation. The Stockholm Environmental Institute, which analysed pledges made by developing and developed nations under the Copenhagen Action Plan, found that the pledges made by the latter amounted to much less than the voluntary actions which developing countries have offered to make.

Moreover, developed countries’ commitments are so ambiguously framed that they can be implemented with little or no action on the ground. The US has agreed to make reductions but its climate bill has not been passed by the Congress and remains on the backburner. The Canadian commitments are subject to the passing of the American (climate) legislation. Countries which are blessed with hydrocarbon reserves such as Russia, Canada, Australia and the US are not interested in adhering to the Kyoto Protocol. Russia has refused to make commitments, and the new government in

Australia has made some hopelessly inadequate pledges.

How do you view India’s performance at Durban?

The Indian Minister (Jayanthi Natarajan) articulated our vital interests in Durban. She was not mealy mouthed about them and received a standing ovation. We did not see this at the Cancun conference. At Copenhagen, we saw this at the level of the Prime Minister. During his meeting with US President Barack Obama, the PM said that India was willing to undertake voluntary cuts (of greenhouse gas emissions) but this would not be an obligation imposed upon us by a treaty. Mr. Obama said in reply, “I have great respect for Dr. Singh. We must listen carefully to what he has said.”

The European Union succeeded in driving a wedge between the developing nations at Durban.

Developing nations have been badly split. Aid given under Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) was used as a bludgeon to beat smaller developing countries with to endorse the position of the developed countries.

Negotiations at the Conference of Parties (the 195 assembled countries) meet at Durban left everything to the last two or three days. Was this by design? What do you think?

During the first few days, there was an attempt to inject substance into the talks. Towards the end, words were used in a sufficiently ambiguous way to allow for divergent interpretations. It is for this reason that nations with divergent positions, including the US, EU and China, have all hailed Durban as a success. You can read the accord any way you want. It can mean everything and it can mean nothing.

Will anything major come out of the Durban conference?

Very little will get delivered. I’m afraid the scale of action is totally inadequate if you want to restrain global warming from going beyond two degrees Celsius (above pre-industrialised levels).

Would you blame the developed nations for Durban not being able to deliver a successful outcome?

I would put the blame squarely on them. Their primary concern is economics. Fear of recession and unemployment, disguised protectionism, border taxes on carbon imports are all attempts to use the climate change regime as a pretext to place obstacles in the path of poverty alleviation programmes.

Such an outlook is a total contradiction of Article 4.7 of the Framework Convention which states that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing nations.

There have been comments that the Indian delegation at Durban should have fought harder to put its point of view across.

The delegation was under tremendous pressure. The EU had been able to divide the developing countries, effectively using its ODA leverage. The Indian delegation made a spirited effort to articulate our nation’s concerns, which is a welcome change from Cancun.

They (ministry of environment and forests) will have to move quickly because the new process will be launched by February end, in about two months from now. We will have to elaborate our position on what we want to see under the Durban plan, and these proposals will have to be sent to the UNFCCC Secretariat.

Earlier, there used to be a consultative committee which helped the ministry flesh out all its ideas. (Former Environment Minister) Jairam Ramesh ensured that this be put into cold storage. The committee should be reconstituted. The numbers in the ministry are small. While EU’s team runs into more than 100 people, here all they have are three to four people.

What’s up with the green climate fund (meant to facilitate transfer of environment-friendly technologies to the developing countries)?

Very little is happening on the ground as far as that fund is concerned.

Will technology transfer take place at all?

Transfer of technology will take place purely on commercial lines. The West will see this as a market opportunity and nothing else.