Avilash Roul
In the absence of an official explanation on India’s quiet withdrawal from hosting the earlier wished UN climate summit in 2028, it’s anybody’s guess now. Not the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MOEFCC) of India, the focal point for the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC), but the spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) responded during a media briefing that, ‘after taking several issues into account, India has withdrawn its bid to host 33rd Conference of Parties (COP33)’ to the UNFCCC. The question remains: what are those ‘several issues’ that triggered India’s U-turn from a previously claimed prestigious bid by the Prime Minister? It’s neither indecorous nor unreasoned to decipher those triggers, even though they are speculatively reasonable. While many partisan arguments are rounding the corner to support the government’s withdrawal as a ‘wise choice’, ‘focus on domestic green growth’, a big-ticket Commonwealth summit in 2030, or ‘missed opportunity’, and so on, without a tinge of intelligibility, the real reasons may be buried in the annals.
Earlier this month, the MOEFCC informed the chair of Asia-Pacific states, one of the five regional groups under the UN, that India’s offer to host was being withdrawn following a ‘review of India’s commitments for 2028’.
Hosting COP typically goes to the COP presidency that rotates among the five regional group members. Riding high on the success of leading the G20 Summit in Delhi in 2023, on the very second day of COP 28 at Dubai, UAE, PM Modi, in his speech at the high-level segment, offered to host COP 33 in India. An offer to host a COP is accepted by the Parties via a COP decision. But it seems that when the Secretariat of the UNFCCC is about to activate its appraisal process, India has expressed its unwillingness to serve as a host. Is it the structure, process, and outcomes of hosting a UN climate COP that begets the reluctance? Hosting a COP carries a definite political nuance. When hosting a COP, the country must enter into a legal agreement with the UNFCCC Secretariat, which must be publicly released before the COP commences. The devil is in the details of the agreement. Would the government tolerate the most severe criticisms or protests of its climate or environmental policies from observers of the UNFCCC during the COP and at the mandated COP premises?
Meanwhile, India’s new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), approved by the Cabinet last month, drew criticism from international climate experts. Several international environmental NGOs, who earlier termed India obstructionist during previous COPs, are highly visible in their strategy and style during the COP, focusing on climate mitigation and adaptation. Widespread worldwide media coverage would be a tightrope for the government in its image-building. From issuing visas to such critics to providing complete immunity in respect of words spoken or written and any act performed by participants during COP would be a herculean task for the present dispensation. These aspects fall under ‘privileges and immunities’ of the legal agreement between the host country and the UNFCCC. Neither the G20, a Commonwealth Summit, nor a BRICS Summit provides such immunity.
After all, the UN promotes meaningful participation by civil society and non-governmental organisations in global efforts to combat climate change. During 12 years of the Prime Minister’s leadership, no major UN conferences have been held in India, such as a high-profile climate summit, except for one on combating desertification. However, under NDA-1, India had the opportunity to hold the first climate summit (COP8) in New Delhi, when PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee was at the helm.
Prior to that, in 1981, India hosted COP 3 to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) under the environmental stewardship of PM Indira Gandhi. Similarly, the COP 11 to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was held in Hyderabad in early October 2012. Lastly, New Delhi hosted the COP14 to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) in early September 2019. Arguably, India’s leadership in environmental governance is not limited to hosting a summit.
Hosting a UN-sponsored climate summit is undoubtedly a prestigious issue for any member country. However, it may not define the leadership role in climate actions, but it does provide an opportunity to accelerate them. It is being contested that the UNFCCC has significantly weakened after the US repeatedly leaving under a President who termed climate change a ‘hoax’. The major concern remains that President Trump would remain in power till the end of 2028. As we have already witnessed the dilly-dallying of the US President on India, if India had continued to host the summit, the direct and indirect wrath of a whimsical US President would have been detrimental to the Indian government. The other challenge is the timing and selection of the venue in India. The notoriously infamous Delhi gas chamber during November and December, the usual dates for the COP, must have been considered.
Even the ‘summit capital’ of India for the last decade, Ahmedabad, would not be able to rescue India from severe criticism in the global media over air pollution and emissions during the COP. Whether the second global stocktaking of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change during COP 33 may exert pressure on India’s presidency, or whether India lost an opportunity to showcase its climate leadership, we are witnessing a gradual erosion of climate responsibility from the leading countries.
The writer is international advisor on climate change risk and transboundary rivers. Views are personal.
Orissa POST – Odisha’s No.1 English Daily
