|
Operationalising Article 2 of the UNFCCC
Ulka Kelkar
ulkak@teri.res.in
The
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is
the cornerstone of international efforts to address climate change.
Its ultimate objective, as stated in Article 2, is “stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system.” Although such a level is not defined directly in the
UNFCCC, it is characterized as being achieved “within a time-frame
sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change,
to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable
economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner”.
How much of a
change in climate is dangerous? How much of a change is safe?
“Dangerous climate change” has become a topical issue for scientific
analysis and policy debate. Media coverage of erratic weather
patterns and extreme events has helped make climate change a concern
for the general public. This issue is also important for the second
round of negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol, beginning in 2005.
However, defining an acceptable or unacceptable concentration of
greenhouse gases involves value judgements. It requires informed
dialogue among scientists, policy-makers, and stakeholders from
different parts of the world.
This
was the goal behind HOT (Helping Operationalize Article 2 of the
UNFCCC), a science-based policy dialogue initiated by IVM (Institute
for Environmental Studies, The Netherlands) with support from the
Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment.
TERI participated in the first phase of the HOT initiative, which
was a collaborative effort of seven research institutes from Europe,
Asia, Africa, and Latin America. As a step towards helping elicit
the views of various stakeholders, TERI undertook a regional survey
of representatives from the government, research institutes, NGOs,
business, and media on their understanding of how we should define a
dangerous climate change. This was followed by an international
workshop titled “HOT: Asian regional dialogue”, organized by TERI in
New Delhi during 30 July-1 August 2003. Parallel dialogues on the
same subject were organized in Africa, Latin America and Europe by
TERI’s partner research institutes—ENDA (Environment and Development
Action in the Third World), Senegal; COPPE/Climate Centre at the
University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; IVM (Institute for
Environmental Studies), The Netherlands; RIVM (National Institute
for Public Health and the Environment), The Netherlands; and Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, UK.
The
workshop focussed on the subject of interpretation of the Article 2
conditions, and assessing these conditions at global, regional, and
local scales. Participants discussed the process of
operationalizing Article 2 by involving relevant stakeholders –
particularly the most vulnerable communities – and by influencing
decision-makers. They also highlighted the importance of integrating
climate change policies with the development framework of a nation,
and debated issues of fairness between developed and developing
countries with regard to the distribution of greenhouse gas
mitigation, and adaptation costs.
One way
of interpreting Article 2 is by developing physical indicators that
are proxies for the desired level of GHG concentrations, e.g.
stabilization of temperature or rate of change of temperature,
balancing emissions and sinks, etc. However, defining “dangerous
interference” is easier in terms of, for example, disrupted water
cycle and food production or adaptation of natural ecosystems.
Clearly, climate-induced indicators, like the break-up of the West
Antarctic ice sheet, are more credible for policy-makers and the
general public.
But, physical
indicators cannot adequately capture the fact that poor and affluent
countries are affected differently by the same level of climate
change and therefore will not share the same meaning of
“dangerous”. Neither can purely physical indicators focus attention
on the impacts on the most vulnerable communities. Socio-economic or
“human” indicators of Article 2 conditions can be defined in terms
of reduced development capacity, decrease in human welfare, impacts
on health, etc.
Indicators can also be designed in terms of vulnerability rather
than impacts per se by focusing on the poorest and most vulnerable
communities. Rather than using expert opinion to generate
indicators, we need to talk to people who will be most affected, and
gather information from them to determine thresholds (e.g. food
production, mangrove ecosystems, glacier retreat, etc).
In
fact, the process of defining indicators of Article 2
conditions is as important as the indicators themselves. What are
our development priorities? Should only one of the Article 2
conditions be used, or should there be a balance among them, thereby
reflecting the three aspects of sustainable development? The
process of operationalizing Article 2 should involve all relevant
stakeholders, particularly the most vulnerable communities. To
ensure informed debate, however, there is a need to generate
awareness among stakeholders about potential impacts and their
roles. This is also the route to influence decision makers, since
they are guided by public perception. In linking science and policy,
however, we should realize that economic development is the top
priority in real life, while climate change remains a remote
concern. Integrating climate change policy with the development
framework is the key, and any society will define Article 2 in the
context of its own sustainable development priorities.
q
The author is a Research Associate, with The Energy
and Resources Institute (TERI), New Delhi.
Back to Contents
|