Beyond Kyoto

The US-led six nation Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development launched last week needs a cautious welcome. It is a good initiative in that the major environment-polluting countries like the US and Australia, which had opted not to join the Kyoto protocol on climate change that came into force in February after its ratification by Russia, have entered into some kind of an international regime committed to reverse the climate change process.

The other participating nations include India, China, Japan and South Korea. Together, these six countries represent over half of the world's economy, population, energy use and also green house gas emissions. From the US view point, this fulfils its long-pending and repeatedly articulated desire to involve the fastest-growing countries like China and India, exempted from emission cuts under the Kyoto deal, in some sort of emission reduction effort.

If that is so, India needs to be watchful of further US moves under this initiative. For, unlike the US and Australia, who declined to accept the Kyoto targets to ward off any adverse effect on their economic growth, India and China need some liberties on energy use to accelerate their economic growth for combating poverty. As such, these countries can ill-afford to go on an energy diet at this stage.

However, so far as the broad objective of this partnership are concerned, there cannot be much dispute. It is avowedly aimed at helping each country meet nationally designed strategies for improving energy security, reducing pollution and addressing the long-term challenge of climate change. The areas delineated for cooperation within the group, too, are well conceived.

These include, among others, methane capture and use, rural energy systems, civilian nuclear power, bio-energy, and other alternative sources of clean energy like hydropower, wind power and solar power. The developing countries will be only too willing to take up viable technologies in these areas.

However, caution is needed on this front, too, because there is no indication of strings-free transfer of these technologies. As pointed out by US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick soon after the launch of the partnership, the technology transfer issue would be addressed partly through market mechanisms, depending on the pricing, and partly through exchange of knowledge through scientific and academic circles.

If that is so, countries like India can hope to get only cold comfort from this initiative. For, the carbon trading-based market mechanism for technology flow envisaged under the Kyoto convention is better suited to the developing countries than the one indicated under the Asia-Pacific initiative.

The carbon trading route allows the developing countries to raise some funds for development while going in for cleaner technology. It will be the other way round under the new initiative.

As such, it will also be against the spirit of the Delhi declaration on climate change and sustainable development adopted at the 8th conference of parties (COP-8) to the UN convention on climate change.

Thus, India will really have to adopt a guarded approach in making technology induction and dissemination commitments through the programmes evolved under the new energy initiative.

The international community, too, needs to be watchful enough to prevent the US and Australia from using this initiative as an escape route from the Kyoto agreement. The best course for the US and Australia would be to join the global effort under the Kyoto protocol even while continuing to pursue their selective cooperation agendas.