The Kyoto Protocol: a first step
By JAN PRONK
© Earth Times News Service
LONDON -- Skepticism about global climate change, whether it
exists and to which extent it is manmade has diminished in recent
years. Now it is clear that natural climate change does take
place; it is boosted also by the way people use energy and handle
their economy, and all this has quite an impact on our habitat:
global warming, sea level rise, threatened coastal areas,
widening of extremes in weather conditions, rainfall, temperature
and storms. So, skepticism has been replaced by the wisdom of
precaution. At the Rio de Janeiro Conference on Environment and
Development in 1992, participants agreed to deal with climate
change with the help of a World Climate Convention. In 1997, the
Kyoto Protocol was added to the Climate Convention.
The Kyoto Protocol marks a turning point in efforts to protect
the climate. For the first time, industrialized countries have
committed themselves to quantitative targets for limiting
greenhouse gas emissions. This is an important step forward. Is
it a substantive step? The answer is yes and no.
Yes, because it is the first time industrialized countries have
agreed on a specific overall reduction figure: the industrialized
countries have agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
slightly more than minus five percent of the levels they produced
in 1990 - and to do so by 2012, if possible. In fact, in a
business-as-usual scenario based on economic growth since 1990,
reducing emissions by five percent of their 1990 levels means a
decrease of about twenty-five percent compared to the levels we
would otherwise expect. That is quite substantial. No, because
the commitment to five percent reduction must be compared to the
70 percent that climate experts consider necessary.
Meeting the target
Whether this target can be met depends on negotiating skills. At
the Buenos Aires CoP-4 delegates drafted a Plan of Action - a
balanced package based on both the Climate Convention and the
Kyoto Protocol. Quite a few details of the Kyoto Protocol still
have to be finalized. Some of the key articles have to be worked
out and clarified before it can become a viable legal instrument.
Until now, the industrialized countries have focused on issues in
the Kyoto Protocol. And, it is easy to understand why since the
rules of play that still have to be drawn up will have a profound
impact on the commitments they took on at Kyoto.
Yet, there are vital issues in the Climate Convention that still
have to be regulated. We still need to deal with adaptation to
the adverse effects of climate change and the impacts of climate
policy, with capacity building and technology transfer. We have
to make sure they get all the attention they need if CoP-6 is to
be a success and more developing countries are to participate in
climate policy so that soon these countries would also be able to
take upon them concrete targets with regard to greenhouse gas
emission limitations.
These outstanding issues must be addressed at the sixth World
Conference. Negotiations must be finalized in The Hague so that
the Protocol can be ratified and implementation can begin. And,
The Hague should be a milestone on the road towards a second
commitment period. Five percent is substantial provided that it
is a first step. Five percent would be futile if we would return
to business as usual thereafter. So, one period is not enough. If
one budget period only is maintained, efforts-to date would not
make sense. Rather, participating countries must extend
commitments to greater reductions and broader participation. That
should be confirmed in The Hague.
How can this task best be accomplished? Participants should stick
firmly to targets and reiterate their commitments. Re-negotiating
Kyoto is out of the question. And not only that: commitments must
be met. A binding compliance regime would certainly not be out of
place. At the same time, we should allow a certain degree of
flexibility as to which instruments individual countries wish to
use: the Kyoto mechanisms, sinks, or domestic action, for
instance. This will help all countries meet their commitments. In
the end, it is in everyone's common interest to meet the Kyoto
targets. We could be stricter about the choice of instruments in
future commitment periods -- learning by doing, rather than
hiding behind insufficient knowledge as a pretext for postponing
action.
Assisting developing countries
Meeting the target means first and foremost that the countries
that produce the most carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions must act
first since they bear the historical responsibility.
But, industrialized countries are responsible for more than
merely reducing emissions. If a better balance is to be achieved
between the issues presented in the Climate Convention and the
Kyoto Protocol, industrialized countries will have to make a
greater effort to solve the problems facing developing countries.
Parties to the climate convention have common but differentiated
responsibilities. Industrialized countries must assist developing
countries to fulfill their different responsibilities with
measures such as technology transfer, capacity building, energy
policies that pave the way for sustainable development and
adaptation to sea level rise, floods, hurricanes and extremely
unstable weather conditions.
Many countries have supplied information on their capacity
building needs. This should serve as the basis for a sound
framework. There can be no delay. Capacity building plays a vital
role in enabling developing countries to participate still
further in the climate process.
They need the capacity to draw up national reports, develop
policies that meet their priorities, adapt to the effects of
climate change, and enable technology transfer.
Governments should play a more important part in capacity
building and in creating an enabling environment for private and
public technology transfer activities. Additionally,
industrialized countries should also be more willing to help when
it comes to adapting to climate change. The funds now allocated
from the Global Environment Facility are still not available for
adaptation measures. They should be made available soon, because
the adverse effects of climate change do not wait until we have
concluded our negotiations.
And the funds to help poor and vulnerable societies to cope with
climate change have to increase substantially and become
available in a systemic way.
If CoP-6 is to be truly successful, more has to be done.
Developing countries also need assistance beyond coping with the
effects of climate change. They can be helped in their own
restructuring towards a more sustainable economy, using less
fossil fuels. Of course, we can come up with a range of
solutions. Some Parties proposed a levy on international
emissions trading and on Joint Implementation, comparable to the
levy on the Clean Development Mechanism. This is an option that
deserves serious consideration despite resistance to a levy. The
levy on CDM is intended for adaptation. A levy on emissions and
Joint Implementation could pay for assisting developing countries
in developing and implementing climate and energy policies that
they perceive as central to sustainable economic development.
Then the mechanisms are a means for meeting Annex 1 Party
commitments as well as supporting sustainable economic
development in non Annex I Parties through capacity building and
technology transfer. By applying a levy to the other mechanisms,
we could be leveling the playing field for all mechanisms and
paving the way for climate policy in developing countries. The
funds could be managed within a new window under the GEF.
This kind of an approach could complement how use of the Clean
Development Mechanism is viewed. The CDM should not only be seen
as a project based mechanism for industrialized countries to earn
credits, but above all as a mechanism for developing countries to
seek energy efficient, sustainable growth, avoiding excessive
carbon dioxide emissions which are not needed to improve living
standards. Several examples of flexibility come to mind. For
instance, there are proponents for including sinks in the CDM.
Two main considerations must be kept in mind. First, will sinks,
in one way or another, help reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
sooner or later, directly or indirectly? Second, will they help
countries that have not yet subscribed to a reduction target -
developing countries in particular - to do so at a later stage?
This is a very relevant consideration.
When it comes to mitigation policies, the industrialized
countries must take the lead. They alone will not be able to
prevent dangerous impacts on the climate. All countries -- and
this includes developing countries -- will have to undertake
further commitments. But, a perspective must be kept. It is
fortunate that the economies of developing countries are growing.
They should be able to continue their growth, which is crucial in
the fight against poverty, hunger and despair. However, while it
is only fair that industrialized countries act first, it is also
fair that the developing countries follow in subsequent periods,
i.e. after 2012.
And, varying levels of development must be considered. We cannot
treat the least developed countries in the same way as the
tigers. It would ineffective to put a country in Africa on the
same footing as newly industrialized economies in Latin America
and South East Asia.
The debate about broadening participation of developing countries
in the global effort to stabilize greenhouse concentrations in
the atmosphere at sustainable levels has the tendency to focus
first on the most advanced developing countries. Suggestions have
been made for commitments for those developing countries in the
period after 2012 in terms of increased energy or greenhouse gas
efficiency. In other words: not an absolute cap, but a relative
efficiency improvement in the production structure of developing
countries. This strategy would imply that developing countries
gradually start participating, as they achieve a certain level of
economic development. That is a reasonable and realistic option.
However, it can be argued that such gradual participation would
only lead to a slow decline of global emissions, even if current
industrialized countries would drastically decrease their
emissions.
As a result global average temperature increase would
significantly exceed the 2 degrees centigrade limit that could be
seen as the maximum tolerable for our planet.
There are alternatives for this scenario. Some developing
countries have argued for an allowance of equal emissions per
capita. This would be the most equitable way to determine the
contribution of countries to the global effort. If we agree to
equal per capita emissions allowances for all countries by 2030
in such a way that global emissions allow us to stay below the 2
degrees global temperature increase (equivalent to about 450 ppm
CO2), then the assigned amounts for Annex B countries would be
drastically reduced.
However, due to the fact that all countries would have assigned
amounts, maximum use of global emissions trading would strongly
reduce the cost of compliance. So, in such a scenario,
industrialized countries would have to do more, but it would be
cheaper and easier.
..continued...
SOURCE: Earth Times
****************************************************************
To post a submission by email at climate-newswire@sidsnet.org
To unsubscribe, email to majordomo@sidsnet.org with the message:
unsubscribe climate-newswire
To receive updates via email, send an email to majordomo@sidsnet.org with the message:
subscribe climate-newswire
No SUBJECTS required either case.
Brought to you on the SMALL Island Developing States Network: http://www.sidsnet.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 25 2000 - 15:11:42 EDT