Company Name : Generic Source : India Today

Jairam Ramesh wants MPs to believe that his statement at the Cancun climate change meet was merely a nuanced position aimed at expanding India's negotiating options. The environment minister's explanation comes after he came under fire for a "sellout" on India's position on emission cuts.

 

Ramesh, in a statement at Cancun on December 9, had said: "All countries must take on binding commitments in an appropriate legal form to check emissions." According to the opposition parties and green groups, this was a sharp departure from India's stated position that it would not accept any legallybinding cuts that could cap its growth. Opposition parties said Ramesh was trying to cozy up to the developed countries, especially the US.

But in a recent letter to the MPs, Ramesh claims he walked "a thin line between safeguarding our position while showing a level of sensitivity to the view shared by the majority of countries at Cancun".

He added that the context of the statement was prompted by a majority view at Cancun, in which "most of developing and developed countries, including our BASIC partners Brazil and South Africa, our developing country partners in AOSIS...

Africa, and four of our SAARC partners (Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan) agreed that all countries must agree to a legally-binding agreement".

The countries opposing this were the US, China, India, the Philippines, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia and some others. It was therefore important for India to demonstrate that it was not completely oblivious and insensitive to the views and opinions of a large section of the global community, Ramesh wrote.

Hoping that his nuanced position was not lost on the MPs, whom he will face during the Budget session, Ramesh said he had nothing to hide and was prepared for a discussion.

He added that his commitment for "an appropriate legal form" was different from a "legally-binding commitment". Ramesh reasoned that his statement left the ground for commitments by the developed countries, which would involve penalties, while it could be purely voluntary and without penalties for the developing countries, such as India. Moreover, the reference to an "appropriate legal form" is a very broad one, he said.

Interestingly, Ramesh's role at Cancun, for "bridging the gap between the developed nations and developing countries", earned praise from the foreign media and leaders.

In his letter, the minister said he had been misquoted by the media in India. "I did not make any commitment on India undertaking absolute emission cuts and there was no change in that position," he wrote.

Moreover, a legally-binding agreement was not acceptable to India at this stage. "I made it clear that unless we have clarity on the substance of such an agreement, penalties for noncompliance and monitoring, we won't consider a legally-binding agreement," he said.

Ramesh even took credit for including the sentence "equitable access to sustainable development" in the vision text instead of "equitable access to carbon space", which was considered more negative and insensitive.

WHAT HE SAID

RAMESH'S STATEMENT AT CANCUN

" All countries must take on binding commitments in an appropriate legal form to check emissions"

HIS EXPLANATION LETTER TO MPs

I walked " a thin line between safeguarding our position while showing a level of sensitivity to the view shared by the majority of countries at Cancun" " Commitment for an appropriate legal form is different from a legally- binding commitment. This is an important distinction.

Moreover, the reference to an appropriate legal form is a broad one" " I did not make any commitment on India undertaking absolute emission cuts. There was no change in that position"