'We met the Bali challenge successfully'

Q&A/ Union Minister for Science and Technology Kapil Sibal

The proof of the pudding lies in its eating. At the end of the Bali meeting, India did not have to give any commitment on reduction of greenhouse gases to the world. We have achieved our goals. That is important and not how we did it. The fact is that I had received papers from the (environment) ministry just two weeks before I was to leave for Bali. Thereafter, I got two official briefings. However, we met the challenges at Bali successfully.

Was it a win-win situation for India and other developing countries at the Bali conference?

In a multi-disciplinary diplomacy, no one comes out fully satisfied and so was the case at Bali. Surely, we would have been happier had the developed world made more commitments. Again, we would have been happier hearing words like "definite extent of emissions reduction" from the developed world. Also, had the developed countries quantified their emissions reductions, we would have been happier.

For that matter, the developed world and especially the US would have been happier getting commitments from India and China on emission reduction. The EU would have been happier to see America ratify the Kyoto protocol and fully commit itself to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

But our biggest achievement was that we continued to tread on the road map set out by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and did not start a new course of action on global warming. The Bali road map is consistent with Kyoto and that is our greatest achievement.

There is a view that India could have asserted itself much more than it has done at Bali.

This is not in our hands. America and the EU wanted commitments (on reducing greenhouse gases). We have succeeded to the extent that we made developed countries do so without India making any commitments.

Brazil made a case for being rewarded for maintaining the Amazon at the cost of its development. Where does India stand on the issue of forests in the climate change regime?

Brazil has been making a case for two years. At Bali, India succeeded in placing afforestation along with Brazil's case as part of the agenda for future discussions that would conclude in Copenhagen in 2009. This means while Brazil is asking the world to reward it for not cutting down the Amazon, which forms 20 per cent of world's forest cover, even when it means setback to its developmental plans, India is seeking rewards for a programme like social forestry and for its efficient forest management.

Looking at the Indian scene, it seems the transfer of technology to industry is important to cut down emissions. How do you plan to tackle the issues, related as they are to intellectual property rights (IPR) as well as to heavy economic costs?

Bali, as I said, was the beginning of a process that will lead us through two years of negotiations. The meet itself did not hold any answers to the problems we are facing in tackling the impact of global warming. For us, the issue of transfer of technology will remain a key point of negotiations in the next two years before the Bali meet concludes at Copenhagen in 2009 with finalising a framework for averting global warming. We surely have to work on evolving a global mechanism to make the technology, which developed Western countries have, available to developing countries like India at concessional rates. IPR is not important. Discussions on transfer of technology are going to be far more ticklish than Doha (multilateral trade negotiations).

Does the Bali road map increase the pressure on India to adapt or does it strengthen our bargaining capacity as the world sets out to save the earth?

After Bali, India has become a major player in setting out a climate change regime. Our voice is heard and we are respected in world forums. Now, we must give due weightage to documenting our facts and policies and marshalling our case.

What are the immediate challenges on climate change before India now?

The next two years are going to be crucial. First, it gives us the time to put our own national policy on climate change in place. More importantly, the Indian industry has full two years to adapt itself to greener technologies. With Bali, the message is out to India, as a country, as also to industry as a sector, that we have to work to give ourselves a low carbon economy.

We may have not given any commitments to the world. And the national priority of eradication of poverty and keeping our annual growth at 9 per cent cannot be tampered with. But that does not absolve us of our responsibilities in saving the planet.

What are the critical sectors of transfer of technology which India will try to bargain for in the run up to Copenhagen?

Our biggest challenge is clean energy. We desperately need clean coal technology, which is very expensive. India will need $1 trillion to get it. In power, we surely have the option of nuclear energy, which has no emissions. But then, we have domestic political compulsions on this. What is the substitute for coal? Even coal is not easy. It is no secret that we do open cast mining. Modernisation of coal mines is, again, a difficult proposition. Each time we touch it, political opposition to it increases. Politics is fine but we need practical solutions to these problems.

Transport is another area where India needs to work on solutions to reducing emissions. We have ethanol blended with gasoline. Again, there are political issues that do not permit us to grow more sugarcane for producing more ethanol. Sugar is a big political issue in India. But, at the end of it, we need technologies to get power.

Do you think there is a need to educate political leaders, maybe beginning with your Left allies who have been opposing the nuclear energy deal with the US, on climate change?

They (Left parties) are too enlightened not to know about this (nuclear energy being a cleaner option). However, we propose to place a report on the impact of climate change on India in Parliament. That is going to generate a lot of debate and awareness among leaders. Also, all sections of people have to make changes in their lifestyles and policies. Seemingly small things like garbage management, town planning and agricultural practices have to become more environmentally sustainable. The concept of teleconferencing has to be popularised to cut down on people travelling distances and adding to greenhouse gas emissions. Our cities have to be far more well-planned and public transport has to be encouraged.

China and India have been placed in the same bracket for high emission levels by the Western countries. Any plans for collaboration with China?

China is far ahead of us in per capita emissions. But I agree that India and China must collaborate in exchanging technologies. At Bali, we were together.