 "'Historical debt has to be paid for climate justice'")
Gurdial Singh Nijar, chief spokesperson for the Like Minded Developing Countries and lead negotiators for Malaysia, tells Nitin Sethi that developed countries are trying to change the fundamentals of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change mid-course to Paris agreement. He shares his personal views ahead of the Paris talks starting November 30, 2015.
What is like-minded in the Like-Minded Developing Countries?
What is like-minded in the Like-Minded Developing Countries?
They are a subset of G77+China, which is a wider developing country groupings. But there are countries within that who do not share completely our views. In fact some of them have aligned themselves with the views of the developed countries.
So the only way to move cohesively as an effective negotiating group was to organise ourselves as developing countries with clear like-minded views. You can’t call it a breakaway but it’s a very focused group within G77+China which is at same level on all issues.
There are suggestions from influential countries that the financial commitments of developed countries be put in a separate political accord and not the core legally-binding Paris agreement.
So the only way to move cohesively as an effective negotiating group was to organise ourselves as developing countries with clear like-minded views. You can’t call it a breakaway but it’s a very focused group within G77+China which is at same level on all issues.
There are suggestions from influential countries that the financial commitments of developed countries be put in a separate political accord and not the core legally-binding Paris agreement.
That is completely unacceptable. As we discussed also with the Indian PM, we cannot let the fundamentals basis on which the Paris agreement is being built get subverted. We are here to enhance the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) not detract from it. This is about climate justice – about working the Paris agreement in a justice framework which is based on the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and the extent to which we fulfil these obligations.
You cannot now change the whole structure that has been agreed upon, such as differentiation between developed and developing countries. They say oh you know there has been a change of circumstances in your state of affairs so therefore I am going to amend the structure.
They call it evolving circumstances. Evolving is to build upon and not detract from the original. That is antithetical to the definition of word evolving. It’s an urgent situation. Why we are in such a predicament is primarily if not wholly because of historical conditions. That is why the ground rules were laid down in the UNFCCC the way they were. You cannot do away with historical debt and solve the problem of climate change while keeping justice in mind.
Explain that please
Can you imagine that in normal commercial world a debtor, who has agreed to the debt, says I found out that through your enterprise you the lender have succeeded in alleviating the condition of your people from X level of income per capita to Y level so I shall be excused from my agreed debt! That is completely nonsensical.
Can one suggest to the World Bank that now that the bank has more funds in their accounts so our debts should be excused? Will they accept it? If they accept it then let us redraw the lines across the board and not just in climate change. Let us do it on all debts.
So you see you cannot midstream change the rules in your favour unilaterally or by using coercion or by duress or by using shenanigans such as setting up parallel processes and goading in heads of states. This is very clearly a matter for negotiation.
Some observers say US President Obama can agree only to an implementation agreement at Paris but not one where the achievement of commitments are also legally binding.
Firstly, the Paris agreement must be binding. US domestic processes are different so the point is they are trying to conclude an agreement and have it accepted at an early stage knowing the US processes and the stand-off between the democrats and the republicans. They anticipate some problems. To overcome that they are working out various legal formulations.
So if they say they are implementing within the framework of an existing legal structure then the US doesn’t have to go through the ratification through its houses. These are legal devices to get to the same place. The point to remember is that howsoever it is done within a country and US is a big power, others accommodate it. If democratic republic of Congo had that problem no one would bother and would say that’s your problem and you sort it out. But here everyone is accommodating.
It seems likely now that US be accommodated
Time and again countries have bent backwards to accommodate the US and people have diluted provisions to bring US on board. US engages either directly or through its groups in these negotiations only for the world to be told later that it will not ratify the agreement. I could give you examples of this – they say they shall join and then they don’t. Convention on Biodiversity is one of them. Cartagena protocol on biosafety is another clear one. They have no intention to do so in the latter case.
This is very acrimonious because the developing countries gave up so much to accommodate them. The international criminal court is another example. Lot of concessions were made to get them on board but till date they haven’t ratified it and have no intention of doing so. A time has come for developing countries to begin to reassert a new order. We have countries in Latin America which have begun to stand up very clearly. There are alternative fulcrums of power built around the BRICS. Developing countries cannot afford to be reactive all the time and accommodating only to be snubbed.
It’s demeaning. For example in the climate negotiations LMDC represents at least half of humankind. Yet when we put forward our views we expect that they are taken up for other countries to respond. My expectation at a personal level is that we will send a very clear message that where we have red lines and you cross our red lines we shall not accept it. It is not a matter of accommodation because it will have impact for generations on our countries and the future of the world.
Can you imagine that in normal commercial world a debtor, who has agreed to the debt, says I found out that through your enterprise you the lender have succeeded in alleviating the condition of your people from X level of income per capita to Y level so I shall be excused from my agreed debt! That is completely nonsensical.
Can one suggest to the World Bank that now that the bank has more funds in their accounts so our debts should be excused? Will they accept it? If they accept it then let us redraw the lines across the board and not just in climate change. Let us do it on all debts.
So you see you cannot midstream change the rules in your favour unilaterally or by using coercion or by duress or by using shenanigans such as setting up parallel processes and goading in heads of states. This is very clearly a matter for negotiation.
Some observers say US President Obama can agree only to an implementation agreement at Paris but not one where the achievement of commitments are also legally binding.
Firstly, the Paris agreement must be binding. US domestic processes are different so the point is they are trying to conclude an agreement and have it accepted at an early stage knowing the US processes and the stand-off between the democrats and the republicans. They anticipate some problems. To overcome that they are working out various legal formulations.
So if they say they are implementing within the framework of an existing legal structure then the US doesn’t have to go through the ratification through its houses. These are legal devices to get to the same place. The point to remember is that howsoever it is done within a country and US is a big power, others accommodate it. If democratic republic of Congo had that problem no one would bother and would say that’s your problem and you sort it out. But here everyone is accommodating.
It seems likely now that US be accommodated
Time and again countries have bent backwards to accommodate the US and people have diluted provisions to bring US on board. US engages either directly or through its groups in these negotiations only for the world to be told later that it will not ratify the agreement. I could give you examples of this – they say they shall join and then they don’t. Convention on Biodiversity is one of them. Cartagena protocol on biosafety is another clear one. They have no intention to do so in the latter case.
This is very acrimonious because the developing countries gave up so much to accommodate them. The international criminal court is another example. Lot of concessions were made to get them on board but till date they haven’t ratified it and have no intention of doing so. A time has come for developing countries to begin to reassert a new order. We have countries in Latin America which have begun to stand up very clearly. There are alternative fulcrums of power built around the BRICS. Developing countries cannot afford to be reactive all the time and accommodating only to be snubbed.
It’s demeaning. For example in the climate negotiations LMDC represents at least half of humankind. Yet when we put forward our views we expect that they are taken up for other countries to respond. My expectation at a personal level is that we will send a very clear message that where we have red lines and you cross our red lines we shall not accept it. It is not a matter of accommodation because it will have impact for generations on our countries and the future of the world.
There is a great likelihood of a low ambition agreement. What are the chances of the Paris meeting turning into a blame game being played out in public domain?
We have to find our own ways to put forth the need for climate justice on the terms the other side has agreed. Sooner or later the truth has to come out. People have to give a fair view of who is really to blame. They took on the obligations to lead in reducing emissions and they committed to enhance their obligations for providing means of implementation.
They have not kept their part of the bargain, so who is to blame? For the developing world, the UNFCCC states that as these (developing) countries will grow their emissions will grow. So if then you recede from the fundamental basis on which something is constructed and blame someone else, then it’s not a game based on rules and international law, it is a game of deceit and manipulation and this we cannot accept.
They have not kept their part of the bargain, so who is to blame? For the developing world, the UNFCCC states that as these (developing) countries will grow their emissions will grow. So if then you recede from the fundamental basis on which something is constructed and blame someone else, then it’s not a game based on rules and international law, it is a game of deceit and manipulation and this we cannot accept.
What do you make of EU’s weak position on means of implementation coupled with demand for a strong mitigation-centric agreement?
Some parties are indulging in sophistry saying it’s a mitigation-centric agreement and other pillars of the convention can be parked somewhere else outside the core agreement. But these other pillars or means of implementation – finance, technology, capacity building are the support for the purpose of mitigation and adaptation activity, both of which are provided for in the Convention. So, how do you explain that this means of implementation for purpose of mitigation and adaptation are to be separated when the UNFCCC itself spells them as integral components to the achievement of emission reductions and adaptation?