Lessons from the Durban Conference

Sandeep Sengupta

If India wants equity' back in the climate change debate, it must develop a grand
strategy and a strong negotiating team to see it through.
You know your negotiating strategy is in trouble when countries ranging as far as
Norway in the developed world to partners like South Africa and neighbours like
Bangladesh start quoting Gandhi and Nehru back to you.
Two onths ago! this was the unfortunate situation "nvironent #inister $ayanthi
Natara%an had to face at the &urban conference on cliate change. That she anaged!
through a passionate last'inute speech! to ensure that all was not lost for (ndia goes to
her credit. But the fact that (ndia found itself outwitted and cornered at the endgae of
these negotiations! with no option but to resort to an angry inisterial plea! is an
indication of how far New &elhi has lost its way on the issue.
As the dust fro the conference settles! and a new )nited Nations deadline
approaches for countries to subit their foral views on the sub%ect by the onth end! it
is tie to reappraise (ndia*s perforance at &urban! and see what lessons it can learn
fro it.
Three objectives
(ndia had gone to &urban with three predoinant ob%ectives. +irst! to secure the
continuance of the ,yoto -rotocol! whose .first coitent period* is scheduled to end
in /01/. Second! to ensure that its particular concerns on equity! intellectual property
rights and unilateral trade easures! neglected in previous negotiating rounds! were
substantively integrated in the future cliate agenda. And third! to preserve the notion
of .differentiation* between developed and developing countries! recognised through the
principle of .coon but differentiated responsibilities* 23B&45 in both the ).N.
+raework 3onvention on 3liate 3hange 2)N+3335 and the 166/ 4io &eclaration on
"nvironent and &evelopent.
Notwithstanding the euphoric declarations of victory in soe national newspapers that
uncritically peddled the governent line! the overall results of the conference do not
ake cofortable reading for (ndia. 7n the plus side! one ay point to the fact that
industrialised countries have now agreed to a .second coitent period* of the ,yoto
-rotocol! which requires the to reduce their eissions in a legally binding anner!
potentially up to /0/0. This is soething (ndia was an8ious to secure! not least given
its high investent in! and e8posure to! the 3lean &evelopent #echanis of the
-rotocol. The progress ade in operationalising the technology echanis that (ndia
chapioned ight perhaps also be counted as a success. But these apart! there is little
else fro &urban that it can cheer about.
The continuation of the ,yoto -rotocol! iportant as it ay be! offers little ore than an
epheeral gain. 9ith the )nited States refusing to ratify the treaty: 3anada blatantly
disregarding its previous ratification: and $apan! Australia and 4ussia equally
disinclined towards it! it is only the "uropean )nion*s coitent at &urban that has
still kept the -rotocol alive. But it is unlikely to survive in its current for beyond this
e8tended phase. And! going by past record! its ability to enforce serious eission
reductions in developed countries also reains equally di.
9hat (ndia gave up in return at &urban however holds far ore serious consequences.
The ost iportant decision that -arties took at &urban was to terinate the ongoing
negotiating process on .;ong'ter 3ooperative Action* 2;3A5 that had been launched
under the Bali Action -lan in /00<! by the end of /01/. Adopted following tough
negotiations! this had notably aintained the .firewall* between developed and
developing countries and also the .linking clause* that had ade itigation by the latter
contingent on the level of technological and financial support that they received fro the
forer.
Copenhagen & Cancun
The /006 3openhagen Accord and the /010 3ancun Agreeents were both negotiated
under this andate. "ven though they diluted the Bali .firewall*! they nevertheless
reaffired the core )N+333 nors! that nations would need to cobat cliate change
on the basis of .equity* and in accordance with the 3B&4 principle! respecting the
various provisions of the 3onvention.
The new decision at &urban that now replaces the ;3A negotiating track with the
.&urban -latfor for "nhanced Action* rearkably fails to ake even a passing
reference to these foundational principles. 3alling instead for the .widest possible
cooperation by all countries!* a preferred forulation of the 9est! it launches a new
process to develop a .protocol! another legal instruent or an agreed outcoe with
legal force* by /01=! which is to be .applicable to all -arties*! and enter into force fro
/0/0.
Given the uncertainties of what this new andate ight ultiately produce! (ndia did
well to .loosen up* its legally'binding character by insisting on the inclusion of the third
option. But the fact that a key decision was adopted for the first tie in the entire /0'
year history of international cliate talks without even a cursory ention of .equity* and
3B&4 should give policyakers in New &elhi serious pause. 9hat akes this oission
even ore striking is that it occurred! not through any oversight! but despite (ndia*s
persistent and voluble invocation of these nors throughout the two'week long
conference! and the onths preceding it.
Absence of bedrock principles
Soe have argued that since the new process is set to operate .under the 3onvention*!
all its principles and provisions will autoatically apply! and hence do not need
repetition. 9hile this ay hold soe force! the absence of these bedrock principles
fro the &urban -latfor te8t should be seen clearly for what it is> a successful attept
by the developed world to detach the future cliate negotiations fro their e8isting
norative oorings! and to revise the very basis on which their legal obligations! and
the legitiacy of the positions and arguents of countries like (ndia! have so far been
based.
(ndia also failed in its bid to gain substantive recognition for the issues of intellectual
property rights and unilateral trade easures. "ven on .equity*! the issue closest to its
heart! all that it anaged to secure in the end is a .workshop* on .equitable access to
sustainable developent*! itself an abiguous forulation! under a andate that is now
scheduled to e8pire. To what e8tent .equity* will find any foral operational recognition
beyond /01/ reains an open question.
The outcoe of the &urban conference ? and (ndia*s failure to attain ost of its stated
ob%ectives ? should now raise serious questions about the wisdo of its negotiating
strategy! and especially its alliance anageent. (t should also raise questions about
the capacity that it has brought to bear in these negotiations to date. At &urban! (ndia
fielded a delegation of @A ebers! as opposed to 6B fro the ).S.! 101 fro the ")!
//C fro BraDil! 1B< fro 3hina! and even 10/ fro Bangladesh. And insiders well
know what the teeth'to'tail ratio even within this sall group is.
Complexity of climate negotiations
Eowever capable our top negotiators are! the sheer weight and cople8ity of cliate
negotiations today will inevitably lead to ore slippages in the future unless this
capacity constraint is urgently! and eaningfully! addressed. This overstretch is partly
also the reason why key decision akers are left with little tie to think ore deeply
and open'indedly about the newer challenges that are confronting (ndia today! and to
develop effective and iaginative responses to the.
(n recent years! (ndia*s cliate foreign policy has undergone considerable oscillation! in
not always e8plicable ways. 9hile cliate change is a cople8 issue! and genuine
differences of opinion can e8ist aong our politicians and bureaucrats on how best to
approach it! it is far too iportant and strategic a concern for the country in the long run
to be weakened by either individual caprice or collective groupthink.
(f the interests of 1./ billion (ndians are to be adequately safeguarded in the coing
decade and beyond! it is iperative that (ndia develops both a coherent grand strategy
to address cliate change that en%oys broad cross'party parliaentary support! and a
strong negotiating tea to see it through.
et your act together
(n a few onths* tie! in $une /01/! the international counity will reconvene in BraDil
to coeorate the /0th anniversary of the historic 4io "arth Suit. The developed
world will then no doubt try to use the precedent set at &urban to press for a ore
general erasure of the principle of .differentiation* within international environental law
itself. (f this is an outcoe that (ndia wishes to avoid! it needs to rapidly get its act
together on this issue. &urban is a wake'up call that it ust not ignore.
2Sandeep Sengupta is a doctoral candidate in (nternational 4elations at 78ford
)niversity and has worked professionally on global environental issues.5
3ourtesy> The Eindu
&rea &are 9in
www.%eywin.co
FFFFFF