Where are we after Doha Round of Climate Talks?

In the Doha round of climate negotiations, the choice was in front of everybody, whether we have 20C rise of temperature and keep the global warming in check or face 50C rise and see the disasters. We already know that the Annex I countries have reached nowhere near the set targets of the Kyoto Protocol. Yet, the countries could not come to any semblance of agreement. On the penultimate day of the two weeks hectic negotiations, which was heading nowhere, all were worried. Some countries came out with some positive move, taking a soft decision of deferring negotiations till 2015, extending Kyoto till then. That is how the talks were salvaged at least for the time being. Those countries looking at the stark reality of their countries being doomed like the island nations, poor countries, the environmentalists were all deeply concerned. I could not help thinking whether it is ominous to have this round of climate talks at Doha while the Doha Round of trade negotiations has taken twelve years without any goal in sight. On the top of that, the developed countries like US, EU countries are in the grip of recession which makes the conference untimely. The countries like Russia, Japan and Canada have already withdrawn from Kyoto II. Will the climate negotiation also run into trouble ? Possible, as the syndrome of rich poor divide is common to both the talks, trade talks and climate talks. What is not common is that the trade talks can wait, but climate talks cannot. One cannot miss the urgency in the panic and tears of the island nations, riparian nations and poor nations in Doha. Can anyone miss the signs visible already in form of super storms, sandstorms, droughts, higher sea levels etc.

The Divide:

There had been a lot of apprehensions of this round of talks (Pl see The Sangai Express issue dated June 5, 2012). The vested interest and non accommodativeness of the bigger economies were clearly manifested in their deliberations. The Kyoto Protocol itself put the forested countries in disadvantage and their existing carbon pool was having no value or market. Everybody thinks that by stalling the process of climate talks, they are protecting their interests. They won’t see the tears of the other sister countries who are really looking down the barrel, facing the stark reality of getting wiped out from the face of the earth. But in the war with climate, it is not the nation or a block of nations which is fighting; it is war of mankind versus the Frankenstein that man has created. Together, we win, divided we all perish; no country or individuals shall escape. The climate issues such as global warming knows no boundaries and geographical limits. One cannot be content that he is all right and don’t care for the neighbours. It is ridiculous to think that one can plunder others forests and cool his home with air conditioners.

But then, why there should be so much of polarisation and disagreement? The carbon injected in to the environment by each and every countries including developing ones can be fairly accurately estimated. The current emission levels are all known. The carbon cleansed by their sequestration and locking processes can also be estimated. We now know that there shall be an increase of 2.6% in the growth of carbon emission. The reality has to be realized by all. Most of the carbon emission this year shall be from developing countries such as India and China. So the question of emission cuts, creating or buying CERs, doling out funds for the adaptation and mitigation measures could cost carbon surplus countries quite a lot. It is quite natural that they also form a block and do the hard bargains.

It is true that pollution is product of poverty, which is again a product of socio economic conditions. We can recall the famous talk delivered by Mrs. Indira Gandhi in the World Environment Conference in Stockholm in the year 1972 that poverty is the worst polluter. But question now is that the developing nations should not try to too broadbase the negotiations to bring in too much of social issues and need for economic support for such issues. We have many fora and institutions to address these issues. Now we need to seriously address the climate issue and climate issue only under the aegis of UNFCCC. The developed countries also should not bear too much grudge against the poorer countries. Allowing Kyoto Protocol to expire without any viable alternative will pronounce doom for the planet. How can the poorer countries survive in changed climate condition?

Differentiated responsibilities:

The term differentiated responsibility is an agreed and accepted term under Kyoto I. In the Durban COP, it was also agreed that the Kyoto needs a second phase after the 1st commitment period is over. So, there could be less problem in using the term if responsibilities are determined more pragmatically. The determination process can cover the following criteria:

Criteria Indicators

A. Liability 1. GHGs so far pumped in to the atmosphere by each country

2. The Sequestered Carbon including locked carbon in forests, other carbon pools such as soil carbon, furniture & construction woods etc.

3. Present level of emission vis-à-vis geographical extent

B. Capability 4. Development and Economic Index of the countries

5. Social Indices

C. Present efforts 6. Environmental Performances of the countries as per standard EPI (latest one developed by the Yale University is good one)

Why we had one conference to signify Rio +20 at Rio de Janeiro in Brazil creating a dilution of climate talks? We now just had COP 18 serving as MOP 11 to the Kyoto Protocol at Doha. Question now is should we have so many conferences and meetings without keeping proper goals, too many to dilute the targets. Now the Kyoto is on live support system, till 2014 and a new deal may be negotiated by 2015 so that it come in to force by 2020. If through, the Kyoto may be in the scene for eight years more as Kyoto II till replaced by a new regime. For the time being, the western block had the call, now the developing countries and developed countries have to cut down the emission, forcing poorer ones also bear the brunt. All member countries now have to break the shells and come out and have meaningful dialogues.

The Kyoto had the principle of “Common but differentiated responsibilities with respective capabilities”. But, main grudge of the developed nations is that the developing nations are doing too little and asking too much. Again the developing countries are having a raw memory of their forests plundered by developed countries in the recent past and pumping in of huge quantity of carbon in the atmosphere. So now the question is of thrashing out a justified mechanism, unless this is worked out, we can expect a lot resistance from advance developing countries and countries with emerging economies.
—to be contd

14-Dec-2012 / 12:40 AM / Akham Bonbirdhwaja Singh / 0 Comments