SPECIAL ENVOY STERN ENGAGES INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND NGO

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 NEW DELHI 001637 SIPDIS STATE FOR OES/PCI, OES/EGC, AND SCA/INS STATE FOR SECC TODD STERN DEPT OF ENERGY FOR TCUTLER, CGILLESPIE, MGINZBERG E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: SENV ENRG ECON TSPL TRGY KSCA KGHG IN SUBJECT: SPECIAL ENVOY STERN ENGAGES INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND NGO REPRESENTATIVES ON CLIMATE CHANGE ¶1. SUMMARY AND COMMENT: Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern held a series of meetings July 20-21 in New Delhi with Government of India officials and NGO representatives to discuss the upcoming Copenhagen Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC as well as potential areas for U.S. - India bilateral cooperation in climate change and clean energy. In addition, S/E Stern gave three interviews to major Indian media outlets including CNN-IBN, the Times of India, and the Indian Express. The talks proved constructive on all levels and produced a strong interest on the part of the GOI to pursue further engagement including a formal request to conduct bilateral climate talks in Washington in September. END SUMMARY AND COMMENT. ¶2. Special Envoy Stern held separate meetings with the following GOI officials: Shyam Saran, Special Envoy for Climate Change Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Environment and Forests Sushil Kumar Shinde, Minister of Power Farooq Abdullah, Minister of New and Renewable Energy Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission Nirupama Rao, Foreign Secretary Designate S/E Stern's NGO engagement included the following participants: Ravi Singh, CEO and Secretary General, WWF-India Ashok Khosla, President, Development Alternatives Ritu Mathur, Associate Director, TERI Aditi Kapoor, Economic Justice Lead Specialist, Oxfam India ¶K. Srinivas, Policy Advisor, Greenpeace India Shirish Sinha, Head of Climate Change & Energy, WWF-India Sejal Worah, Program Director, WWF-India Pradeep Saha, Associate Director, Centre for Science and Environment -------------- TOWARDS COPENHAGEN: NARROWING THE GAP -------------- ¶3. In all of his meetings, S/E Stern outlined his vision for a potential Copenhagen agreement and emphasized the areas of convergence between the U.S. and Indian positions. He stated that the United States recognized India's need to develop and that any agreement in Copenhagen would not seek to limit India's overriding poverty alleviation goals. He stated developed countries must make robust absolute emissions reductions noting pending U.S. legislation called for cuts of approximately 20% each decade culminating in an 80% cut by 2050. S/E Stern clarified that the U.S. would not demand India make absolute reductions in emissions but would require a commitment from India to put in place nationally appropriate mitigation actions that would reduce India's emission growth from Business as Usual (BAU) projections. He stated that while India would not have to commit to specific emission reduction targets, it would have to commit to specific mitigation actions that were nationally binding, measurable, reportable, and verifiable, and could be reflected in an international agreement. He also noted the need for developed countries to create a significant financial package to assist developing countries in deploying clean energy technology. He also discussed the importance of adaptation and a workable policy regarding Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). In all aspects of his discussion of a potential Copenhagen agreement, Special Envoy Stern emphasized the need for a practical and pragmatic approach designed to not only achieve international consensus, but also the support of the U.S. Congress. ¶4. Indian Special Envoy Saran began his meeting with S/E Stern by stating he did not see a big gap in substance between the Indian and the U.S. position on climate change. He noted both countries agreed the issues of climate change and energy were inseparable and that the two needed to be worked on together. He was pleased to note Stern's statement that developing countries would not be required to restrict their efforts toward poverty alleviation. He also stated that developing countries were not only willing to take actions to mitigate emissions, but also recognized the pressing need to do so as they would be most impacted by climate change. Saran added a caveat saying the developing countries were prepared to accept a reduction from BAU emissions in a normative, but not quantitative, sense as long as the developed countries provided resources to do so and if the incremental costs of new technology were compensated. He emphasized that the extent of the reduction from BAU was directly NEW DELHI 00001637 002 OF 003 linked to the amount of resources made available by developed countries. He also stated all mitigation efforts supported by international funds would be subject to being measured, reported, and verified (MRV) internationally. Stern responded that he felt all developing country mitigation efforts, autonomous and supported, should be subject to MRV in order to give the process transparency noting purely voluntary measures would not be sufficient. Saran stated all mitigation efforts of the GOI were subject to public scrutiny and inquired as to what level of precision would be needed for an agreement, noting the importance of getting the language right. ¶5. Saran emphasized India's requirement that whatever shape a new agreement took, that it be in line with the UNFCCC and Bali Action Plan. S/E Stern stated that the UNFCCC and the Bali Action Plan should guide the process of developing a new agreement but should not be considered a straight jacket, drawing a comparison between the Berlin Mandate and the Kyoto Protocol. He stated simply because a concept such as an international registry was not discussed at Bali, didn't mean it shouldn't be raised at Copenhagen. Saran took the point stating discussion of new measures that enhanced the implementation of the UNFCCC was appropriate as long as key provisions of the convention or the Bali Action Plan were not set aside. ¶6. Minister of Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh discussed the domestic politics of a Copenhagen agreement noting that as a politician, he had to sell the agreement to his constituency. He stated that the Indian system will find it infinitely easier to accept something legislated domestically than imposed internationally. Ramesh said he would look at legislating various mitigation plans found in India's National Action Plan on Climate Change in order to give them the force of law. S/E Stern welcomed the proposal and asked whether it would be possible to use executive regulation as opposed to legislation. Ramesh affirmed that while it was possible, legislation was necessary in order to gain credibility, because "there is a sanctity to a law." Ramesh also raised the issue of REDD and India's plans to spend 3 billion dollars on reforestation. He asked for U.S. support for India's proposal on reforestation in the UNFCCC talks. S/E Stern suggested a technical meeting between the two countries experts to review the proposal. ¶7. Deputy Planning Commissioner Montek Singh Ahluwalia told S/E Stern that the developing countries rhetoric regarding historical responsibility was a negotiating tool and while India publically projected that it had no intention of reducing emissions, it was putting in place measures to deploy wind and solar energy that would reduce its emissions from business as usual. In addition, Ahluwalia said the GOI was actively seeking to create political awareness of the climate change issue among youth and NGOs and that it was very interested in adopting low carbon energy technology. ¶8. Minister of Power Shinde focused on accelerating the distribution of clean technology under an international agreement. He was joined by Ajay Mathur, the Director General of the Bureau of Energy Efficiency who noted the primary barrier to adopting clean tech in India was cost stating India would like to see the incremental costs of clean technology borne by developed countries. S/E Stern raised the possibility of utilizing an ESCO-type arrangement in the context of renewable energy investment, in which initial capital costs would be paid back from the savings of the new technology. In addition, an ESCO arrangement would protect intellectual property rights (IPR). Shinde and Mathur were familiar with the ESCO concept and noted it may have some potential though questioned whether the IPR issue could be resolved in the same fashion as IPR issues surrounding AIDS drugs. Stern responded that to Americans, the AIDS drugs analogy sounded like compulsory licensing for energy technology which was non-starter in the United States. -------------- NGO PERSPECTIVE -------------- ¶9. The NGO representatives all agreed there was a tremendous momentum building in India to address climate change, lead largely by the media, due to India's vulnerability. While they also agreed much more needed to be done to raise awareness, at the village level, they were largely appreciative of GOI efforts towards energy NEW DELHI 00001637 003 OF 003 efficiency and its focus on renewable energy. They noted an enthusiasm in the industrial sector to move away from business as usual energy investments and added that world class demonstration projects that showcase viable clean technologies would further encourage the private sector to adopt new technologies. In a deviation from the other NGO representatives, Development Alternatives President Ashok Khosla raised the issue of population reduction and noted the role demographic transitions can bring in lowering emissions. Khosla lamented the limited scope of UNFCCC negotiations as they do not allow for discussion of reduced emissions from population reduction. -------------- PRESS INTERACTION -------------- ¶10. S/E Stern conveyed the U.S. position in a television interview with CNN-IBN and in print interviews with the Times of India and the Indian Express. The reporting was reasonably balanced with a mix of statements noting the constructive engagement between the two countries but still highlighting the perceived areas of difference. The interview and articles are currently available at the following links: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/ obamas-man-talks-of-climate -change-deal-with -india/97751-2.html http://timesofindia.indiatimes. com/NEWS/India/Copenhagen -deal-Indias-demand-for-75bn- is-unrealistic/articleshow /4805262.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes. com/NEWS/India/US-Drop- dependence-on-coal/ articleshow/4805270.cms http://www.indianexpress. com/news/us-envoy- for-quantified-emission-cuts /492494/0 -------------- BILATERAL COOPERATION AND NEXT STEPS -------------- ¶11. In all of his meetings, S/E Stern asked his interlocutors to discuss potential areas for bilateral cooperation. Special Envoy Saran noted the importance of coal to India and suggested working together on clean coal. Minister Shinde suggested bilateral cooperation on co-generation technologies and an ultra-supercritical pilot coal power plant. Minister of New and Renewable Energy Farook Abdullah stated there was a great deal of room for bilateral cooperation in second generation biofuels, wind, and solar. Minister Ramesh reiterated the proposal he made to Secretary Clinton for joint research, development, demonstration and dissemination of solar energy, biomass, clean coal, high voltage power transmission, smart grids, and wastewater utilization projects under a potential Indo-US Foundation for Climate Change Technology. ¶12. S/E Saran and Minister Ramesh both recommended additional bilateral meetings with Ramesh suggesting India and the U.S. hold bilateral climate talks in September in Washington, DC. Ramesh noted his intention to attend UN Secretary General Ban, Ki-Moon's climate conference on September 22 and informed S/E Stern he would spend as much time in Washington as needed. Ramesh also raised the GOI's strong interest in having Secretary of Energy Chu speak on energy security and climate change at the Delhi High Level Conference on Climate Change: Technology Development and Transfer scheduled October 22-23, 2009 and asked S/E Stern to discuss the conference with Secretary Chu. Ramesh summed up the GOI position on bilateral engagement by stating that the bridges the U.S. built with China on climate change and clean energy could also be built with India. ¶13. This cable has been approved by Special Envoy Stern. ROEMER