Environment Ministerâ€™s Intervention at the Closing Plenary Session of Pre-Cop 21 at Paris
Union Minister of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Shri Prakash Javadekar, has reiterated the need to keep Paris simple. Making an Intervention at the closing plenary session of pre-CoP 21 at Paris today, Shri Javadekar said that though Paris Agreement has to be ambitious, the ambition should not be unrealistic. He pointed out that that the crucial question of post-2020 finance is fundamental to the success of Paris.
The Minister said that pre-2020 actions are the key to build trust among parties. He also said that there can be no Action Holiday in the pre-2020 period. Shri Javadekar also stressed that the Paris decision on pre-2020 actions should incorporate elements of ambitious mitigation actions by developed countries and enhanced support to the developing countries to enable them to take affirmative climate action. He added that the commitment to provide finance by developed countries is based on their historical responsibilities and economic capacities.
The following is the text of the Environment Ministerâ€™s Intervention at the closing plenary session of pre-CoP 21 at Paris:
I join others in complementing Foreign Minister Fabius and his team in organizing the pre-CoP in a structured manner, focusing on some of the key issues, on which parties have to come to a common understanding.
We are all aware of the enormity of the task that is before us and time is clearly not on our side. We cannot, therefore, afford to complicate Paris and as I have said umpteen number of times, we should keep Paris simple.
To us, Paris will be a good beginning, for enhancing our actions under the convention, and there will be life after Paris. We should therefore not try to solve every issue, including technical details in Paris, but leave it for the following CoPs.
I found the discussions in the Working Groups useful, but we still seem to be a little away from convergences, which we should expect now. While we may all yearn for convergences, it may not be so easy.
To us, the more we structure our work and ideas around the framework convention, the more will be the chances to arrive at convergences. We still believe and would like to believe that the Paris agreement is to enhance the implementation of the convention and not to create a new distinct regime.
On the specific issues discussed yesterday; I agree with the summary of the discussions presented by the Moderators and would like to complement them for their efforts in guiding the discussions.
We are pleased to hear an unequivocal support for the Paris agreement to be based on equity and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR & RC); but how we operationalise it, is a matter on which we need to further work upon.
We were also happy to see a broad support for Differentiation to be reflected across all core elements; however how it is to be reflected is an issue on which we need to further discuss and negotiate in coming weeks.
On the issue of Ambition, I think we all agree that the Paris Agreement has to be ambitious and the contributions have to be progressively ambitious. But at the same time, ambition applies to all elements, and not to mitigation alone. While Ambition is the key to success of our efforts to combat Climate Change, I would as I have often cautioned, not to be unrealistic in our Ambition. We also need to see Ambition in the context of our developmental imperatives, which is so essential for developing countries.
Pre-2020 actions are key to building trust among parties and precursor to enhanced efforts in post-2020 period. We strongly believe that there can be no Action Holiday in the pre-2020 period and the Paris decision on the pre-2020 actions should incorporate elements of ambitious mitigation actions by developed countries and enhanced support to developing countries to enable them to take affirmative Climate action.
Lastly, I come to the crucial question of post-2020 Finance. This, to our understanding, is fundamental to the success of Paris and has been recognized so, even by President Hollande.
While post-2020 Finance has to be predictable and scaled up from USD 100 Billion onwards, we do not want to see a change in the very paradigm in which finance has been talked about in the Convention. The commitment to provide finance by developed countries is based on their historical responsibilities and not only on their economic capacities.
Any attempts, therefore, to enlarge the donor base by â€˜countries in a position to do soâ€™ or â€˜countries willing to do soâ€™, will not be appropriate from our perspective. To us, the enlarging of donor base and shrinking of recipient base will amount to tinkering with the basic rubric of the Convention and that is, clearly, not what we intend to do.
In conclusion, I feel that while we may not have been able to arrive at convergences on these key issues which we would have very much liked to, we do at least have much more clarity on the issues discussed which I am sure would help in our negotiations in the CoP.â€