Environment: Voluntary and Meaningful!

Buenos Aires 11 Nov (ECO) -- Developing country participation is one of the most controversial issues at the meeting here of the Conference of Parties of the Climate Change Convention (FCCC).

This topic is not on the agenda, The Group of 77 and China have rejected any move towards involving developing countries in legally binding emission commitments. The FCCC and the Kyoto Protocol do not require them to commit to emissions limitation. Instead, they are allowed to increase emissions due to their development needs. This common knowledge did not stop the US delegation from insisting on developing countries' engagement in "voluntary" commitments yesterday, even though such commitments would not be "voluntary" at all.

And a handful of US Congressmen, all of whom have received heavy campaign contributions from the US energy industries, at a press conference Tuesday put on a display threatening the US Administration with harsh retributions if the US signs the Kyoto protocol.

The Parties to the FCCC recognized that industrial countries' current commitments under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol are insufficient to prevent dangerous climate change. Still, most of these countries are failing to meet those less than ambitious commitments.

With a fifth of the world population, industrialized countries are responsible for about 2/3rds of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. They are also responsible of the largest part of historic emissions and consequent buildup of greenhouse gas concentrations.  
But, since Kyoto, the United States has demanded "meaningful participation" from "key" developing countries as a prerequisite for US ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. The rapid increase of greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries is projected to equal and exceed those from Annex I Parties in a few decades (though even then, per capita Annex 1 emissions will continue to dramatically exceed those of developing countries). The US demand is based on the mistaken
assumption that under Kyoto, Annex I Parties disproportionately bear the burden of reducing emissions, while developing countries are "free-riders," that do nothing to curb their current and future emissions.

Actually, the great majority of developing countries have already done their part in global efforts that lead to achieving the ultimate objective of the Convention. These efforts reflect the principle of
equity and recognize the "common but differentiated responsibility" stipulated in the Climate Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. They raise key questions, however, such as: what is the global emissions budget needed to meet the objective of the Convention? How and according to which timeframe is that budget to be allocated?

The Convention expresses its objective -- the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations -- in qualitative terms. As long as the stabilization level and its associated allowed emission profile is not
quantified, there is a subjective element to the setting of emission limitation targets. Once concentration levels and time frames are specified, allowed global emissions consistent with this can be specified. These global objectives can then be fairly and equitably distributed amongst countries, taking into account, at least, their per-capita contribution to past greenhouse gas buildup, the population size of each country, and the structures of their economies.

Even before negotiation of such a global emissions control regime developing countries are already participating through voluntary actions (not commitments). In fact, developing countries have already contributed significantly to mitigating climate change, and continue to do so. Many of these countries relatively have done as much, if not more, in this regard than have most industrialized countries to date. These voluntary actions are not legally-binding, and are motivated by economic and public health as well as climate benefits.  
To mention a few, Thailand's appliance energy efficiency labelling project is an excellent case of voluntary action. The massive advertising campaign by the electric utility in Thailand (which makes
the utility the largest advertiser in the country, bigger than Coca Cola) has helped to more than double the average efficiency of new appliances. In Indonesia, all highways are tolled to alleviate
congestion and pollution, and the city centre of the capital, Jakarta, is restricted to cars with at least three passengers (as is Singapore). These transportation sector measures in Jakarta alone have reduced carbon emissions of the sector in Indonesia by at least five percent from what they would have been.

These kinds of voluntary actions, while not legally-binding, should be expanded and encouraged, and viewed as "meaningful participation." Now it's time for industrialized countries, notably the US, to demonstrate their true meaningful participation, by immediately ratifying and fully implementing the Kyoto Protocol.

Five Republicans and one Democrat (Reps. Dan Burton, James Sensenbrenner, Jo Ann Emerson, Joe Knollenberg, and Ken Calvert) and sole Democrat Ron Klink held a press conference threatening the Clinton Administration with harsh retribution if the US signs the Kyoto Protocol during the Buenos Aires meeting.

They alternately displayed ignorance of the science of climate change (professional "sceptic" Fred Singer even made a surprise appearance at the end of the press conference), and selfish, isolationist expressions of the US right to cheap fuel and electricity.

The six, part of the Congressional delegation,  called the treaty "fatally flawed," citing the lack of meaningful developing country participation and grossly overblown harm to the US economy.
Representative Klink went so far as to declare that the treaty would lead to the "de-industrialization" of the US.

Recent polling by WWF and others has shown overwhelming public support in America for climate protection and growing dissatisfaction with congressional stall tactics that hinder implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Clearly, these members of Congress are out of touch with the 79% of Americans who would support domestic action to prevent climate change. An alternate view, strongly supporting the treaty, was provided by Congressmen Kucinich of Ohio and DeFazio of Oregon, who were excluded from the anti-environmental Congressional press briefing.

When one takes a look at who is giving political donations to the six "just say no" members of Congress who held Tuesday's press event, it suddenly becomes clear why they have a blind spot on the science and why they oppose the Protocol.

In the 1997-98 US election cycle, these same members received over $486,290 in campaign contributions from fossil fuel and energy related industries. Overall, these industries contributed over $40 million to US federal elections in 1997-98, with nearly 75% going to the Republican Party.

Meanwhile, many have voices here, one group -- the indigenous peoples -- that will be particularly affected by climate change have no voice at all.

Climate change has particular adverse effects for indigenous peoples, in particular those living in tropical rainforests. To start with, there are the causes of climate change, particularly oil exploration.
Secondly, the impacts of climate change will lead, among other things, to changes in the composition of forests, an increased number of forest fires.

Additionally, the Kyoto Protocol itself could have negative effects on indigenous peoples, in particular if forestry projects become eligible under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Even if other problems associated with forestry projects, such as perverse incentives, could be resolved, local people would face increased competition over forest resources as others try to gain access to these financial flows.

Given the fact that, in most countries, indigenous peoples have not yet acquired enforceable rights to their traditional territories, it is somewhat unlikely that they would benefit from the CDM. Instead, it may add to current pressures.

Whereas indigenous peoples are recognised as a major group in Agenda 21 and have their own working group in the Biodiversity Convention, they have so far not been involved in the Climate Convention.

Whether forest projects become eligible under the CDM or not, indigenous peoples should be given the resources to participate in the Convention process, build up a position, and be heard. Furthermore, effective participation of local communities has to be a requirement for all CDM projects in order to meet the aim of sustainable development.

(ECO is the conference newsletter published by non governmental groups at the fourth convention of parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, currently taking place at Buenos Aires)