 |
 |
WORKING PAPER NR. 16
March 1999
(minor amendments made in October
1999)
The equity concept is regarded as essential for a fair global climate regime. However, it is defined in a variety of different ways. Equal entitlements of humanity to use up resources is mentioned, as well as the impossibility of totally equal per-capita-emissions. Also, equity refers to the basis of different emissions (either historic or actual) between the countries in some statements, as well as to differences in emissions within the countries in others.
On the Clean Development Mechanism, there is an even wider range of opinions, from the approval of this mechanism to the vehement refusal. Unclarity regarding the implementation of the CDM and the need for further discussion is emphasized.
A crucial point is the participation of developing countries in the climate regime. There is overwhelming agreement that new commitments cannot be expected from developing countries unless the Annex I countries prove that they will implement their own domestical commitments first. However, there are some voices promoting participation of developing countries for a time beyond the 1st commitment period.
The range of suggestions for future
action towards socio-economic development while protecting the climate
is broad. It encompasses the emphasis on the implementation of certain
articles of the Convention / the Protocol and thus working within the process
on the one hand, as well as the call for getting out of the process on
the other.
Within the climate negotiation process,
Articles 4.2, 4.8 and 4.9 of the Convention and Article 12.8 of the Kyoto-Protocol
are mentioned as important bases for implementation. Outside this process
the empowerment of civil society, the change in consumption patterns and
the discussion with industry are seen as means of progressing. The role
of NGOs is hereby seen as crucial, because there is a great potential in
networking between the Southern and the Northern NGOs, educating civil
society and business and combining local community activities with international
climate and development politics. NGOs are thus called to change their
position from reactive to proactive, which - in the extremest opinion -
would lead to the NGOs leaving the climate negotiation process, entirely.
For Germanwatch as North-South initiative the climate change topic is a main working field. We are also stimulating dialogue processes with other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on the topic:
For these national as well as international dialogue processes (and of course for everyone interested) this working paper can serve as a background paper to get an insight into some of the opinions of representatives from the South.Andrea Rück, Bonn, March 1999
We sent out questionnaires to representatives of Southern NGOs or Northern organizations working on developing countries´ climate issues, and we held interviews with Southern representatives during the UN-climate negotiation sessions in Bonn in June 1998. The answers are presented either in quotation marks (if they were given orally) or summarized (if written material was evaluated) under the following headings:
Marcelo Mautone Di Napoli (AAC Uruguay):
Summary Report of the international
workshops on "A new initiative for North-South dialog on climate change":
This report summarizes good practices
in climate protection also promote sustainable development:
Agus Sari (Energy and Resources
Group, University of California, Berkeley):
"Climate protection can promote
socio-economic development everywhere, not only in developing countries.
We can have a look at the different sectors in Indonesia:
- Energy sector: oil is a source
of greenhouse gases and oil exploitation disrupts socio-economic structure.
Thus, less use of oil would lower greenhouse gas emissions and benefit
the socio-economic structures.
- Electricity: it is difficult to
electrify small islands - decentralized sources of energy would be feasible
on small islands because the amount of fuel needed for transport might
be higher than the fuel to be used on the islands; there is already some
solar, wind and geothermal energy.
- Transportation: Jakarta is one
of the most polluted cities in the world; reducing carbon dioxide through
less use of cars would reduce the local air pollutants which is an extra
benefit for the people and the local air quality.
- Forestry: deforestation and land-use
change was responsible for two thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions in
1988; it also ruined local social economic structures (indigenous peoples).
Thus, reducing deforestation would benefit local people and promote the
socio-economic well-being."
Grace Akumu (Climate Network Africa):
"Climate protection and socio-economic
development are one and the same thing and the African countries have been
doing it for a long time. There are lots of projects which are promoting
both. However, it is very important that the developing countries are allowed
to design their projects themselves! It is included in the climate regime
(esp. the financial mechanism documents) that the projects should be country-driven,
but the industrialized countries do not respect that. This problem concerns
all the GEF-projects and it is the reason why they get stuck. It is important
that the industrialized countries respect the principle of country-drivenness
of the projects! The delegates of the North have to take up positive attitudes
towards this principle and implement it in their countries/governments/ministries,
as the developing country delegates alone can only push it to a certain
extent."
Gurmit Singh (CAN-South East Asia):
"Climate protection in developing
countries is happening for the sake of the people and not necessarily for
the implementation of the Convention. Results of local activities regarding
more energy efficiency, higher quality of life and social development automatically
have positive effects on the global environment and the climate. So climate
protection can be seen as an effect resulting from development.
But the development model has to
be reviewed to prevent the developing countries from making the same mistakes
the industrialized countries have made. The industrialized countries have
to review their energy policies and the developing countries have to review
their own."
Eduardo Sanhueza (CAN-Latin America):
"The economic and technological
order in the North and the South differ widely.
Thus, climate protection is not
an end in itself for developing countries, but can be used as a means for
closing the technological gap between the North and the South. This can
happen through technology transfer and the Clean Development Mechanism.
And, as the main source of emissions
in Latin America is the change of land-use, CDM-projects should also include
these aspects."
William Moomaw, Kilaparti Ramakrishna,
Kevin Gallagher, Tobin Freid (Conference report of the TUFTS University
Conference "Where do we go from Kyoto?", 27 February 1998):
- Technologies have to be utilized
and policies implemented which significantly alter current patterns of
energy consumption.
- The developing countries will
need assistance through channeling of public funds and private investment.
- In newly industrialized countries
there exists enourmous potential for constructing new, highly efficient
electric power stations and industrial facilities.
- The old, inefficient capital stock
in redeveloping transitional economies of Eastern Europe has to be replaced.
With the introduction of new, efficient
energy supply and energy using equipment the economies will become competitive
with already industrialized nations and the carbon dioxide emissions will
be lowered.
Eduardo Sanhueza (CAN-Latin America):
"The emissions should be reduced
according to the 'Contraction and Convergence' model.
To achieve this we have to define
a path from the grandfathering approach towards equal per-capita-emissions.
However, the per-capita-emissions
will not be totally equal, as the environmental space is not equal throughout
the world. There are so many different zones with different conditions,
the earth is not homogenous. Also, in an unjust and inequal world it is
very unlikely that just and equal emission rights can be realised. But,
let us be idealistic anyways!
Inequity within the countries is
also a big problem when dealing with this approach, as parallel to the
North-South divide there is also a divide within the countries: only a
certain percentage of the population (of developing countries) is responsible
for emissions.
The time frame for achieving the
convergence is difficult to assess because it is difficult to look further
ahead than 25 years as things are very dynamic and might change."
Gurmit Singh (CAN-South East Asia):
"Equity should be one of the basic
principles in the climate debate.
We now have a system of inequity
between the countries and within them. And this gap has to be reduced."
Agus Sari (Energy and Resources
Group, University of California, Berkeley):
"The emissions should be allocated
on the basis of equity, which means that the developing countries should
be given the same time lag period as the industrialized countries for acting
towards reducing their emissions after having reached their equal share
of emissions (see chapter 5 - Do you see commitments...).
As emissions are generated by the
activities of rich people in the countries, the fight is not only between
rich and poor countries, but between rich and poor people. Rich Indonesians
should commit as well as rich Germans.
To reach this goal we have to increase
the role of civil society and form a global network of civil society. Within
the climate negotiation process all we can expect is to reach equitable
national allocation."
Centre for Science and Environment,
India:
In the trading regime we need property
rights of buyers and sellers, especially for the developing countries as
they are being asked to "assist" the industrialized countries in meeting
carbon reduction targets, but have no framework of rights themselves.
The atmosphere is the common property
of humankind, so we need a framework that is built on the concept of equal
per capita entitlements.
The developing countries must insist
that this commodification of the atmosphere - without an appropriate framework
of rights - is like the Western colonial appropriation. This is clearly
immoral and unacceptable.
Grace Akumu (Climate Network Africa):
"Yes, but
Centre for Science and Environment,
India:
The CDM is as unclear as it is possibly
unclean.
The purpose of CDM is to "assist"
industrialized countries to meet their emissions reduction commitment.
Therefore it is designed to help the rich and not to assist the poor to
achieve sustainable development.
The CDM is a clear market-based
instrument. So the key issue is price, and the interest of the North is
to buy the emissions as cheaply as possible. There is no additional aid
or technology transfer promised. The US, for example, plan to buy as much
as 93% of its emission units at the cheapest cost in the market place (US-$
14-23 per ton of carbon equivalent when trading with developing countries
compared to US-$ 125 per ton for domestic action!). Thus, it is important
to realize that the CDM is a way for the industrialized countries to meet
their targets by investing in projects in developing countries without
changing anything domestically!
It is also important for the South
to realize that the cheap option that it is offering the North today will
cause heavy costs in the future. Developing countries will use up their
cheap options for reducing emissions and not even get credits for it in
the global balance sheet. And when the South reaches high levels of energy
efficiency and the cost of curtailing emissions becomes high domestically,
the North will have no economic incentive any more to invest in these countries.
And the developing countries themselves, once they are taking on commitments,
will have to take the tough, expensive, route.
The biggest problem with this trading
system is the absence of a property rights framework which is essential
for market based systems. It is vital that a clear system of entitlements
is set up so that the market can function with property rights clearly
defined.
Gurmit Singh (CAN-South East Asia):
"South-East Asian countries are
not interested in the CDM; Malaysia is not interested and especially my
organisation is not interested. Working on the details of this and other
mechanisms means agreeing and adapting to the whole negotiation process."
Gurmit Singh (CAN-South East Asia):
"We cannot deal with this question
until the industrialized countries show proof that they are reducing their
emissions domestically. They have to show that they are serious about reducing,
which means that the cuts have to be actual domestic cuts - and are not
reached by trading or hot air.
The developing countries should
be careful not to make the mistakes of the industrialized countries, therefore
they should examine their energy policies and technologies, and for example
not go into coal but instead use gas."
Grace Akumu (Climate Network Africa):
"Developing countries are already
responsible through the Convention.
First the North has to show progress!
The USA are crazy - how can someone have the guts to tell others to take
on commitments if they themselves don't take their commitments seriously?
They have only done inventories so far.
Those who pollute and emit now should
act according to their commitments now. The developing countries are potential
emitters in the future - so let us talk about their commitments then, we
cannot discuss this now.
And all the developing countries
are net sinks anyways."
Mitsubishi Hayakawa (CASA, Japan):
You need to consider climate change
issues from the viewpoint of historical emissions to get a clear picture
of who has how much responsibility. From this, we can conclude that developed
countries have to have a significant overall reduction before we ask developing
countries to reduce their emissions. The future commitment for developing
countries should, of course, be relevant to their historical emissions
as well. Further commitment of developed countries should include financial
aid and technology transfer for the developing countries.
Agus Sari (Energy and Resources
Group, University of California, Berkeley):
"In the long term, there should
be commitments for the developing countries and therefore there will be
commitments. However, we have to talk about it on the basis of equity.
This means that the developing countries should be given their equitable
allocation of allowance and also they should be given the same lag period
as the industrialized countries for acting towards reducing their emissions
after reaching their equal share of emissions.
We can take the US as an example.
By the 1940s they had already used up their fair share of emissions allowance
(if allocated equitably) and should have started to limit them. Now, after
50 years, they commited to reduce by 7%. Thus, to establish a fair and
equitable climate regime, the developing countries should be asked for
commitments also 50 years after reaching their equal share. Ideally, the
end of the 21st century or the beginning of the 22nd century would be fair
as starting point for their commitments. Thus, there should be no commitments
now, not in 2010, not for the 2nd commitment period, but maybe in 2050
as earliest date for developing country commitments."
Eduardo Sanhueza (CAN-Latin America):
"There should be participation of
developing countries for the 2nd commitment period.
And the overall aim should be the
Contraction and Convergence approach."
Mirna Marin (delegate of Honduras)
and Julio Curruchiche (delegate of Guatemala):
"The main emphasis for developing
countries, or specifically for Central America, in the climate regime is
on receiving funds for the mitigation of the climate change effects on
their countries.
Once the national communications
are analysed we will start to negotiate and bring the bill!
As Central America is a region with
high natural variability and biodiversity and therefore has a great value
as a genetic bank for species, the effects of climate change are tremendous
and disastrous. The problem is that people at the negotiation tables only
see the short-term effects of climate change, they do not see the long-term
effects like species loss. The destruction is already taking place in the
developing countries and the actors are the developed countries.
The key should be additionality
to address the cost to adapt to the climate change that is taking place.
The region is already losing agricultural land."
Centre for Science and Environment,
India:
The threat of some countries taking
on voluntary commitments is another innovative method of tightening the
noose around the necks of the developing countries. This divide and rule
would break the rank and force a "ratchet" effect into place. The model
set out by the World Trade Organisation and its protracted haggling about
membership to China is being cited as the way ahead.
In fact, the developing countries
must start emitting more to get a good share of their assigned amount of
the atmosphere. This refers to statements made by officials from UNCTAD
who are suggesting that the target set on the baseline can be viewed as
a country's entitlement share of the atmosphere and that the developing
countries should use this opportunity to increase their projected emission
targets. This means that if they emit more, they can have higher reduction
targets which gives them higher "assigned amounts" which can be interpreted
(according to the UNCTAD officials) as assignments for entitlements over
the atmosphere.
Gurmit Singh (CAN-South East Asia):
"First there has to be meaningful
reduction for the developed countries, they have to set the example first,
- then there can be meaningful participation for the developing countries,
they can follow the example only then.
No participation of the developing
countries unless the Annex I parties move! The Annex I parties do not necessarily
have to reach all their targets, but they have to show actual cuts and
especially actual domestic cuts. Results reached by trading hot air cannot
be acknowledged."
Grace Akumu (Climate Network Africa):
"This question is an insult to the
developing countries!
We can play with this idea for intellectual
exercise, but it is not the most immediate problem. The most immediate
problem is the implementation for Annex I parties. If the developed countries
are implementing the convention and the protocol there will be room for
discussion in the developing countries to prepare for doing something in
the future."
''The EU doesn't know how to stand
the pressure of the USA regarding the commitments of developing countries."
Centre for Science and Environment,
India:
The US asked for something vague
and undefined as "meaningful participation from developing countries" to
make the developing countries define what they can do, so that the US could
easily dismiss it as "not meaningful enough". If the US had proposed something,
most likely, everyone would have opposed. Therefore, it was best to leave
it undefined, but threatening. Now the pressure is on the developing countries,
and their non-participation will be seen as holding up ratification by
the US. And, as everyone knows that without the US the Kyoto-Protocol is
meaningless, every effort will be made to bind the "reluctant" developing
countries in the interest of "all of us".
Mitsubishi Hayakawa (CASA, Japan):
Developed countries have to have
a significant overall reduction before developing countries are asked to
reduce their emissions. However, not only developed countries', but also
developing countries' participation is crucial to prevent climate change.
The earlier developing countries start, the more effective in both measure
and cost will the prevention of climate change be. If you only look at
the need of an urgent action to deal with this issue, developing countries'
participation in an early timing should be taken into consideration. However,
it is not possible to do this under the current situation as the Annex
I's reduction commitments in the Kyoto protocol are not enough to convince
the developing countries.
Agus Sari (Energy and Resources
Group, University of California, Berkeley):
"As the problem is one between
rich and poor people within the countries, we have to increase the role
of civil society and form a network of civil society. (v.3- What role should
the equity argument play?) For NGOs this means capacity building, raising
public awareness and exposing people to other people in the world."
Misubishi Hayakawa (CASA, Japan):
Environmental NGOs in developing
countries have to be strengthened and they have to be provided with information
through NGO-networking between Northern and Southern NGOs. (For this reason
they established an "Atmosphere Action Network in East Asia").
Also, the difference in values and
opinions between North and South NGOs should be discussed to create understanding.
This would be the most effective way to reach solutions.
Gurmit Singh (CAN-South East Asia):
"The only useful act is to get out
of the process!
The Kyoto-Protocol will not stop
the increase in emissions. Emissions will still exceed the ecological limits
even if the Kyoto-Protocol is implemented correctly. Thus, the Kyoto-Protocol
- and the Convention - are failed attempts in the climate debate.
The US dictates the whole process
and the Convention and the Protocol can be seen as US multilateral agreements.
The US Senate is trying to run the Convention - we should call their bluff!
A suggestion for strategy is to
isolate the US and not adapt to their politics. Japan and the EU should
push more for their interests as they together would be stronger. The Convention
and the Protocol can work without the US, so does the Basel Convention.
We have to prevent a US-dominated
agreement, even if it means writing off the Protocol!
Many NGOs seem to have become bureaucrats,
they act like the delegates and the policy makers and have lost their goal
(didn't we want to save the environment?). NGOs have to act again like
real NGOs, that is why they should leave the process!"
| Akumu, Grace | Climate Network Africa |
| Curruchiche, Julio | Delegate of Guatemala |
| Hayakawa, Mitsubishi | CASA, Japan |
| Marin, Mirna | Delegate of Honduras |
| Mautone Di Napoli, Marcelo | AAC Uruguay |
| Rahman, Atiq | Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies; former coordinator of CAN-South Asia |
| Sanhueza, Eduardo | CAN-Latin America |
| Sari, Agus | Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley; former coordinator of CAN-South East Asia |
| Singh, Gurmit | CAN-South East Asia |
Organizations:
Centre for Science and Environment, India: