Jyoti Parikh: Resolving the impasse at Montreal

One way out is to create a third group of countries, and impose some commitments on these nations after they cross the global average

There is increasing pressure on India to take on some obligations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of coal, oil and gas, which cause climate change, or global warming. The 11th Annual meeting of the conference of parties (COP 11) that signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at Rio in the 1992 Earth Summit is to meet in Montreal this month, where again, India may be pressured to reduce GHG emissions. But substituting coal with oil, gas, renewable (hydro, wind, solar), or nuclear energy is an expensive proposition for India which has vast coal resources with meagre oil and gas.

It was observed that 75 per cent of the global GHG emissions were emitted by 25 per cent of the world population in the developed countries listed in the Annex 1 (hence, Annex 1 countries), and so, the UNFCCC required that the developed countries would lead in GHG emission reduction. The developing countries were exempt from commitment to reduce but had to do their best. India's annual per person emissions in 2002 were 1.1 tonnes against the global average of 4.11 tonnes, Brazil's 1.8 tonnes, China's 2.8 tonnes, the US' 20 tonnes and the Annex 1 average of 12.4 tonnes. While India is the fifth-largest emitter, what matters most is the cumulative emission over many decades. Therefore, the debate has to be kept focused on cumulated emissions.

Despite this, the US has refused to sign the Kyoto accord. The US says that it is too expensive for them to reduce emissions or difficult to change lifestyles and that they will not join unless large developing countries such as China, Brazil and India accept commitments to reduce GHG emissions.

What is the way out of this impasse? Well, India needs to continue to explain that as long as 300 million people do not have electricity and 650 million do not have access to modern cooking fuels, it cannot promise to reduce fossil fuel use. We need to emphasise that the multilateral process, that is, involving all countries, that began 13 years ago,which has created consensus among more than 100 countries is not a mean achievement. This approach should continue and should not be bypassed by putting political pressure on a few countries.

Among the non-Annex 1 countries, there are 50 countries with per capita levels above global average (AGA) including OPEC countries, newly-industrialised countries, South Africa and so on "" the AGA group average is 8.46 tonnes. On the other hand, there are 110 countries with per capita average below global average (BGA) of 4.1 tonnes. These include India, China, Brazil and many other poor countries of Africa and Latin America. Moreover, AGA countries are growing at twice the rate than the BGA countries. The per capita emission principle, although not explicitly mentioned, is implicitly recognised in the UNFCCC. Otherwise, why would India and China be out of Annex 1 and Netherlands and Belgium be in? Even within the EU, Portugal and Spain have different obligations in comparison with the UK and Germany.

Thus, a systematic approach would be to create a third group of countries, that is, AGA for any specified year, say, 2000 or 2005. They could be required to take on some commitment to contain their emissions in the not too distant future, say, within 10 years after crossing the global average. China and Brazil, although currently in the BGA group, will also reach the global average in a few years. Such a three-tier system, based on the per capita global average, will provide incentives to all countries to stay below the global average as long as they can and indirectly follow what is expected of them "" reduce emissions as much as possible.

However, simultaneously, we need other approaches that see the problems beyond the country boundaries and stipulate sectoral global standards and make it possible for countries to attain their standards in critical sectors such as power, cement, transport and so on to bring non-Annex 1 countries of all tiers on board. There can be a separate carbon trading mechanism for these reductions so that the AGA and BGA (up to next 10 or 15 years) can raise the needed finance.

The power sector is the most suitable sector that often has the largest GHG emissions, where much can be done to improve efficiency standards to use as little coal as possible. Currently, while average coal based power plant efficiency in the developed world is 45 per cent, in India it is 30 per cent.

An approach with technical goals can succeed better than agreements that seem to have implications on lifestyles or development goals. Some of the cost can be shared by the multinationals of the power sector that can claim carbon credits as well as expand their markets. Moreover, technology transfer where Annex 1 countries would share GHG-saving technology with non-annex 1 countries, is a provision in the UNFCCC convention which has not pressed by the developing countries so far. The Annex 1 governments get out of this commitment each time saying technology is with the private sector. They would have to find some way to fulfill their obligations through public-private partnership within their countries. Thus, at COP 11 there is a choice to either discuss the process that involves all parties and go for sectoral approaches or take political shortcuts pressuring a few countries. The latter can be dangerously ineffective.

The writer is Executive Director at Integrated Research and action for Development (IRADe)