Corporate'Accord appears to be complete betrayal of poor, weaker nations'
Business Standard / December 27, 2009, 0:21 IST
OPPOSITION MP ARUN JAITLEY:
Oil up in Asian trade
Spice Communications zooms 13% amid heavy volumes
In this detailed statement, the minister has patted himself and the government on the back for, what he calls, protecting the national interest. I do not know whether the government and the negotiators consciously agreed to the language, as has been framed, or they have been completely outwitted in the drafting of this language.
Reports coming from across the world refer to this accord as a global disappointment. It appears to be a complete betrayal of the poor and the weaker nations, the developing nations; and the more powerful nations have almost been left off the hook. And, what we find is a continuous campaign and spin-doctoring as a substitute for truth. We almost find that facts are being stated and represented, which are not even consistent with the very language of the accord.
Therefore, instead of referring to the statement while seeking clarifications, I shall refer to the original document, the accord itself and the language therein.
There are several questions that arise on the very language. The first: If this plurilateral accord becomes a multilateral accord, which it is likely to, can it ever be reasonably argued that the Kyoto Protocol continues to subsist? The Kyoto Protocol had a specific, defined route and obligations. Annexure-I parties, the developed countries, had to, within the first specified period, bring down their 1990 emission levels by 5 per cent. This was subsequently increased and the developed countries felt the reductions would have to be increased by 25 to 40 per cent.
Now, what do we find in the present document? It says the promised reduction and the subsequent declarations is now substituted. Now, the Annexure-I parties that are left off the hook by January 31, 2010, would file a fresh declaration with the Secretariat and the fresh declaration would be that they would now indicate what their rate of emission standards is going to be. It is when they file these declarations that the only reference to the Kyoto Protocol comes. And it does not say they will be bound by what the protocol says and that they will be moving a little ahead of what it says.
ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS MINISTER JAIRAM RAMESH:
Sir, if the Member can yield for half a minute, I just want to clarify. Since he is using the Copenhagen accord as the basis of his questioning or seeking clarifications, I just draw his attention to the fourth line at the very top of the Copenhagen accord, which recognises that there is a continuing mandate for negotiations under the existing tack of Kyoto Protocol.
ARUN JAITLEY
Sir, I am placing a very simple question today. If fresh set of less onerous obligations are to be cast under the Copenhagen accord, you will continue giving lip-sympathy to the Kyoto Protocol, which are the obligations that will be applicable in future. It is the onerous obligations under the protocol or it is the fresh set of obligations that have been cast under the Copenhagen accord ?
Please read the Preamble. “Line four of the Preamble” the minister said. The words are used ‘in pursuit of the ultimate objective of the Convention as stated in the Article’. Now, ‘in pursuit of the objective’, diluted from the Bali Action Plan language to achieve what is mentioned. So, ‘achieve’ is now read down to mean ‘pursuit’. See the next line. Bali Action Plan said, “for sustained implementation”, which is now substituted by the words “being guided by”. Word by word, phrase by phrase, the language of all other obligations stands diluted.
(Excerpt from the debate on the statement on deliberation and results of COP-15 UNFCCC by Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh in the Rajya Sabha, December 22, 2009)