'I'm not there to change the world. I can only change its level of knowledge'

Rajendra K Pachauri?s election to the chairmanship of the United Nations? Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on April 19 has made news for both the right and wrong reasons. There has been excitement over the fact that the panel ? which assesses the impact of global warming ? will be headed, for the first time ever, by a representative from a developing country. But his election has also generated controversy. With the US supporting his candidature and the Europeans voting for the then incumbent, has Dr Pachauri further weakened the IPCC, an organisation already divided on North-South lines? Questions are asked about his personal credibility and some also doubt the economist-engineer?s qualification for the top job. In a talk with Parul Malhotra of The Financial Express, the Indian government?s official nominee sets the record straight, outlines his agenda for the IPCC and his vision for tackling climate change. Excerpts: Congratulations on your election. What does the chairmanship of the IPCC mean to you personally? It just means that I have to change everything that I?m doing because it?s a major commitment. I?m looking forward to it with some degree of optimism but I also have some trepidation because it?s a huge task and I have to ensure that it?s performed up to everybody?s expectations. And for India and other developing countries? I hope it means a little more than merely a sentimental satisfaction that we have a developing country person over there. As it happens, a number of developing countries are not very vocal when it comes to participating at conferences and meetings and so on. As a result, some of their concerns and sensitivities remain unrepresented. With me in that position, I would at least be able to redress that particular problem. But I also believe that now that I?m in this position, I shouldn?t have any bias towards one group of countries or the other. Therefore, I?ll remain as balanced as I can and ensure that as chairman of the IPCC I?m answerable to everyone that?s part of the membership of the organisation. Also, the IPCC is not supposed to do policy prescriptive research, only policy relevant research. Or rather, carry out assessments based on research which exists on various aspects of climate change. I?ll be conscious of this expectation, which, perhaps in the past, hasn?t been given the importance it deserves. I believe if one goes into the economic aspects of climate change, then you?re making your assessment much more policy relevant, of greater interest to the policy-maker. In concrete terms, how will developing country sensibilities be reflected? Perhaps in the 4th Assessment Report to be released under your chairmanship? Absolutely. I hope so. That?s one of the things that will automatically get addressed through much greater focus on regional and local variables, particularly in terms of impacts of climate change. Unless you?re able to articulate this in a manner that?s relevant to people in a particular region, you?re not bringing home the import of your findings to a level where people feel that they should be do something about it. To some extent, that will get reflected in this greater emphasis on regional and local issues. But if one has to go beyond that, to give you an example, if a poor island state has to erect a dyke to keep the sea out and it doesn?t have the means to do it, then you have to be sensitive to that reality. Issues of that nature will have to be reflected, and I hope to articulate them. Could you have made it without American backing? Absolutely. The US is just one country and I appreciate their voting for me. But as you know, in the current context, the bulk of my support came from the developing countries. The US asking any developing country to vote for some one who?s already from a developing country isn?t really a requirement of any kind. I don?t even know if it would have helped in any way. But you secured votes of the LatAm (Latin American) countries. An American effort aimed at securing them for you is highly probable. No, not all of them did (vote for me). In fact, some of them came and told me that they didn?t vote for me and I know which ones didn?t. I think they were split and the ones that went for me had told me ages ago that they were for me. So I stood for the election fully confident that I had the solid backing of a large majority of countries and they didn?t change at all. How hard will it be for you to function in an IPCC divided on North-South lines and on US-Europe lines? The very fact that there were divisions led to my being elected. The developing countries were all with me. As for the developed world, the US, Mexico and Japan are with me, the Canadians are on the fence but I have excellent supporters in Canada. So, all I really have to worry about are the countries of Europe. But the Europeans took a collective decision (to vote against me) because of political reasons. It wasn?t a vote against me. After the elections, several of them told me even that though they hadn?t voted for me, they would support me. So, I see no reason at all to worry about a divide. But I shall make every effort to remove even the semblance of a divide. And perhaps there was an existing divide whereby developing countries didn?t feel totally a part of the process so, to that extent, we?ve corrected an imbalance. Given your predecessor?s (Robert Watson) open criticism of US policy on climate change, the US vote must have been more against him than in your favour? (Laughs) I would like to believe that it?s in my favour but you must be right. It must probably be a vote against him. Obviously they didn?t want to support him because of his statements. As a result, I?m much wiser because I?m certainly not going to make any controversial statements, not against the US, not against any other national government. But that?s exactly what your critics worry about. Despite being the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the US hasn?t ratified the Kyoto Protocol (which mandates specific levels of emission cuts), the only political instrument to have emerged from the IPCC. Why this reticence on the part of the chief of a panel formed to assess aspects of man-created climate change? There has to be a very clear separation between IPCC which is a knowledge-creating body and the Framework Convention on Climate Change which is responsible for the negotiations. The IPCC provides a scientific basis for action to be taken but is no way responsible for actions to be taken. To maintain its credibility, the IPCC must maintain a distance from everything related to the FCCC. I?m only correcting an aberration which has occurred in the past. I?m not shying away from my responsibility at all. My responsibility is to see we maintain our impartiality, objectivity and don?t get embroiled in issues related to the FCCC, tempting as it might be. I?m not here to play to the gallery. So, will reports coming out of the IPCC continue to sound the alarm on global warming? The IPCC has done that very well in the past and will continue to do so. It?ll continue the tradition and maintain standards of scientific integrity and credibility. But it?s not enough to produce good reports of the right standard. If we want to be effective, we have to spend more time, effort and resources on disseminating our information. The outreach part is going to be vitally important now and I?ll see that that will happen. In fact, we?ve already made a small beginning, putting aside resources for outreach in the new budget. This wasn?t the case earlier. You talk about the significance of outreach. But is that likely to be a successful approach? How can merely providing information on climate change sensitise a nation that rejects an emissions control treaty because it?s not in its economic interest? In a democracy, ultimately what will happen will be decided by civil society. No administration can survive if the people want something different from what it (the government) does. That?s why the focus on sending the message out to civil society, whether research organisations, academic institutions, or non-governmental organisations. It?s up to them then to do what they want. The IPCC is not in the business of changing governments and I?m not there to change the world. I can only change the level of knowledge that the world has. Will not your lack of grounding in basic science impede your functioning? Look, any single individual can?t be an expert at everything. Climate change has not only to do with atmospheric science but also with impacts on agriculture, on water, on sea level rise etc. Mitigation options require knowledge of technology and economics which are my strengths, strengths that my predecessors didn?t have. We also have two excellent co-chairs who will spearhead the working group dealing with atmospheric science. So, why should I feel handicapped? There?s talk of you being elected because of your close ties to the US oil and energy industry and, therefore, to the present administration. Others wonder why you garnered US support since you have, in the past, called for a boycott of US goods and such like. That means both camps doubt your credibility. Isn?t this bizarre? Why is it so? What?s bizarre is their thinking. What do they mean when they say I?m close to the US? I?m close to everybody. I have very good friends in the Arab world, in Africa, Russia and central Asia. As for the US, I don?t know anybody in the current administration, I?ve had no contact with them at anything other than at a fairly junior level. It?s actually Al Gore who?s a personal friend of mine... ...and this personal friend of yours has called you the ?let?s drag our feet? candidate... (Laughs)...well yeah, from complimenting my vision, commitment and dedication to this! But that?s politics. The man is finding it convenient to say all this for certain reasons. But I?m not going to lose my sleep over this. What?s your vision for the Kyoto Protocol? How vital is it for tackling climate change? Has it lost its bite with the US not being on board? Will you attempt to facilitate an amendment to it, to both developed and developing country satisfaction? It?s important but not the last word. We need global action (on global warming). If any part of the globe is left out of it, it?s obviously not going to be as effective. And Kyoto?s already been diluted. I don?t know what further dilution is possible. If we really want to implement it, we should go ahead and ratify it quickly. Kyoto was arrived at in November 97 and we?re now in the fifth year. The question that, remains however, is ? is the Protocol the only way to tackle the problem or are there other means by which it can be achieved? Are there? And would you be in favour of an amendment to get the US on board? I?m not going to answer that. These issues have to be discussed by the FCCC and the Conference of Parties. Is there a case for giving nations flexibility in terms of mitigation options? Some can go down a different path than others, but toward the same goal of a cleaner environment. My hunch is that the next regime will turn out to be something similar. It may not have the Kyoto-type of fixed targets, it might allow much greater latitude or choice in terms of what needs to be done. If sinks are included, then you may be allowed to grow trees rather than cut down emissions. And certainly, as you say, if India wants to use more of solar and wind energy, that would be a cheaper option for us than to go in for some other form of energy use. This, of course, will not be the case for countries with cloud cover all the year round. So, flexibility of this nature will probably be a much greater part of solutions that will emerge. If Kyoto?s not all important, what else is needed to combat global warming? If you look at the trajectory of emissions in the future, we have to take some urgent steps to reduce them. Kyoto is a blip on the horizon. What is needed is a total change in the way we do business. Over a period of time, our transport sector, the way we use energy, the type of energy we use ? all this has to change. We have to allow technology to take up space which currently is totally vacant. This means some efforts on the part of governments to promote certain types of technologies, but that?s really a question of what measures are adopted. The end result should be a major shift in technology which brings about a change in fuel use and an improvement in the efficiency of fuel use. How do you view the role of the free market vis-a-vis technology? We need a combination of both. If market instruments can be used in a fair and equitable manner and result in efficiency gains, why not? But we have to weigh every measure carefully and see whether it?s effective, efficient and equitable. At the end of the day, the countries of the world have to decide politically what is acceptable, and up to what extent, and what is not acceptable. So, will you now be exercising greater pressure on your own government to take climate change seriously? I won?t exercise pressure but I?ll certainly bring this to their doorstep. India has to be concerned about climate change. We have to start understanding the impacts of climate change because we?ll probably have to take steps to adapt to changes that are going to take place. Let?s at least start assessing them, carry out research, and debate on some of these things. We are far from satisfactory in our response in that regard.