http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/10034103.cms

 

NEW DELHI: At the Major Economies Forum meeting currently underway in Washington, India and other developing countries reiterated that an agreement on a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol must precede discussions on a "legally binding agreement" which includes all countries.

This position restated by environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan at the recent informal ministerial consultation in Pretoria put to rest rumours rife since the BASIC meeting in Brazil, that India was not keen on preserving the Kyoto Protocol.
India's prioritising the continuation of emission reduction targets for developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol at the meeting of the 17 major economies, which account for the bulk of global emissions, is significant. In the past, the MEF has provided the informal forum for working out negotiating compromises and sought to resolve tricky issues in the global climate change negotiations.
With low-hanging fruits of global climate deal already picked at the Cancun conference, attention at this weekend's US State Department-sponsored meeting is on the contentious issue of the fate of the Kyoto Protocol and discussions on the legal form.
India has consistently maintained that a decision on the legal form can't be taken till the contents of the outcome have been agreed to. New Delhi has stressed the importance of a "step-by-step approach" and cautioned against "rushing into a straight-jacketed internationally legally-binding agreement." Natarajan reiterated this position at Pretoria, "substance is much more important. At this stage, we do not have to discuss the nature of a legally binding agreement."
In the present circumstance, it is difficult for India to show flexibility on this issue. Post Cancun, a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol has been countered with a legally-binding agreement in the Convention or Bali track of the negotiations that brings all emitters within its fold. Given India's national interests, the suggested tradeoff is an uneven bargain.
The Cabinet-approved position is that India will not enter into a legally-binding agreement at this point.