|
India's Role in
the Post-Kyoto Regime
Ellen Shaw and Kalipada Chatterjee
A Curtain
Raiser to the Climate Change Conference in Buenos Aires during
November 1998
Last
December in Kyoto, delegates from more than 150 countries assembled
for one purpose: to forge a global climate change regime that would
limit anthropogenically produced greenhouse gases (GHGs), to protect
the world’s most vital asset — the atmosphere — for future
generations. In 1992, this same group of countries wrote and agreed
upon the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC),
which laid the groundwork for control of emissions; the Kyoto
Protocol was built upon this framework to begin in earnest a global
climate change regime. The primary objective of the delegates at
the Kyoto meeting was to agree upon legally binding commitments for
Annex I countries to reduce their GHG emissions by targeted
percentages, and a timeframe in which these reductions would occur.
(See Chatterjee, Kalipada, “COP 3: In the Land of the Rising Sun,”
Development Alternatives Newsletter, vol. 8 no. 1, January
1998 and “In the Land of the Rising Sun, Part II,” Development
Alternatives Newsletter, vol. 8 no. 3, March 1998, for an
account of the Kyoto conference.)
In November, the Conference of Parties
are meeting once again to clarify, refine and build upon the Kyoto
Protocol. Several issues under discussion now, are of significant
importance to India; two of the most important ones are the Clean
Development Mechanism and the question of developing country
commitments to emission reductions.
Cooperative Mechanisms
To assist Annex I countries in their
efforts to reduce their GHG emissions, three cooperative mechanisms
emerged from the Kyoto conference: the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM),
Joint Implementation (JI), and Emission Trading (ET). Of these
three, the CDM is most important to developing countries like
India; the others pertain to projects between Annex I countries
only.
The CDM, known as the “Kyoto Surprise,”
emerged in Kyoto as a way to provide for transfer of improved
technology from Annex I countries to non-annex I countries. In
return, the Annex I country partner would earn emission “credits”
for any emissions saved through the imported technology.
The CDM is quite controversial, because
many people in developing countries see it as a loophole for Annex I
countries to escape decisive domestic action. Overuse and abuse of
the CDM, it is feared, could remove incentives for industrialised
countries to develop a new and better technology, as well as
discourage sincere domestic efforts at emission reduction among
Annex I countries. Some also fear that such a mechanism in the
private sector, without proper government control and monitoring,
could be misused to import inappropriate technology and saddle
developing countries with technology they can not use or adapt to
their own needs.
The CDM , however, does present several
advantages for developing countries like India. It is an
opportunity for developing countries to acquire a new technology,
secure CDM funds and develop their economies more efficiently than
was previously expected. More important, the new technology would
be accompanied by foreign loans and equity capital, management,
marketing, and technological capability — “capacity building,” in
protocol parlance. India’s first goal is development; climate
change mitigation is a secondary concern. But the CDM is intended
to profit both environment and development — a “win-win”
situation for all parties involved.
The CDM is not an entirely new idea; an
existing cooperative mechanism, Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ),
is already in operation in several countries around the world. AIJ
was the original “flexibility” mechanism of the climate change
discussions, and was intended to be a temporary, experimental phase
of joint implementation. The idea behind AIJ was for countries with
energy efficient technologies to begin transferring these
technologies to other countries whose technological resources were
limited or outdated.
The AIJ pilot phase is to end in the
year 2000; the advantage would be early establishment of working
relationships, and knowledge gained as to how technology transfers
may realistically work. After 2000, AIJ projects will segue into
the CDM. It is hoped that the lessons learned in AIJ will
facilitate the design of CDM projects; AIJ facilitation centres are
an important part of AIJ, acting as communication channels for
existing pilot projects and providing information about starting new
ones.
Though the CDM will not begin until
2000, there is immense interest in it because it offers something
AIJ doesn’t: it will allow industrialised countries to claim carbon
credits for the difference in emissions between their technology and
the partner country’s baseline emissions. The developing country
would, in turn, be able to accelerate its development, but do so
more cleanly.
There are currently five AIJ pilot
projects approved in India; it is hoped that these five projects and
more can be used to learn how cooperative mechanisms work. The AIJ
projects are supposed to ease the transition into the CDM, helping
India to fulfil its hopes for sustainable development.
GHG Reduction Commitments
The Annex I countries — industrialised
and former Eastern Bloc countries — agreed in the Framework
Convention on Climate Change that the problem of global climate
change is primarily their responsibility, and that they alone, for
the time being, should take steps to address it. Article 4,
Paragraph 7 of the FCCC states:
“The extent to which developing country
Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the
Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed
country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to
financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully
into account that economic and social development and poverty
eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the
developing country Parties.”
Both the FCCC and the Kyoto Protocol are
less strict toward developing countries, recognising that they have
not historically been the primary producers of greenhouse gases, and
that they do not have the financial resources at present to address
the problem in earnest. Instead, Annex I countries are obliged to
contribute financial and technological resources to assist poor
countries in their general commitment toward clean development.
At Kyoto, however, some Annex I
countries with the highest emission levels threatened not to ratify
the Protocol without commitments from some developing countries,
namely India, China, Brazil and Mexico. During the Kyoto
negotiations, India maintained — as a poor country with a per capita
GDP of around US$300 and relatively low per capita GHG emissions —
that climate change should not be its priority, and that the country
has more immediate, pressing issues to address first. Delegates
pointed out that they were not to face commitments at present, as
specified in the FCCC.
Despite these arguments, the conflict
over whether certain developing countries should make commitments is
likely to play an important role in the November climate change
meeting in Buenos Aires. This issue is crucial, because the Kyoto
Protocol cannot go into effect as a legally binding international
agreement without ratification by at least 55 per cent of the
countries involved in these discussions, representing at least 55
per cent of global GHG emissions. In other words, without
ratification by key Annex-I countries that are now pressurising
developing countries for a commitment, the Protocol will not go into
effect.
India has a significant role to play in
the discussion of climate change — from the impact it will have on
vulnerable developing countries, to learning more about how
countries can work toward mitigation. But the Indian delegation
must prepare its answer to the question of developing country
commitments, to persuade others that a) developing countries have
more pressing priorities for the use of their limited funds; b) the
Annex I countries have already made a commitment and agreed not to
require commitments from developing countries initially; c) if Annex
I countries expect developing countries to participate, they must
contribute both appropriate funds and technology to assist in the
process.
In addition, India can provide proof
that it has already invested considerably in sustainable development
and energy efficiency. Its legal and institutional framework, as
well as its cultural heritage, emphasise the importance of
environmental protection. Since 1990, for example, India has become
one of the world’s top five countries in wind energy ; biogas is
already promoted heavily in rural areas ; and solar energy research
is on the rise. These facts show that India is working in earnest
toward clean development, even without binding commitments to lower
emissions.
But regardless of India’s actions, the
fact remains that Annex I countries agreed in both the FCCC and the
Kyoto Protocol that they recognised the special circumstances of
developing countries, and that they would take the first official
steps toward climate change mitigation. Direct, unified action and
lobbying by developing countries will be a key element to persuade
Annex I countries to take all necessary steps to reduce their
domestic GHG emissions. India’s delegation should take a leading
role among developing countries to emphasise this, and to design a
compliance mechanism that will ensure Annex I countries adhere to
their commitments.
q
This article is excerpted from Shaw,
Ellen and Kalipada Chatterjee's document titled,
“India’s Role in the Development of Global Climate Change Policy”,
Development Alternatives, New Delhi, 1998.
Back to Contents
|