LOCKING HORNS WITH DRAFT AGREEMENTS

LOCKING HORNS WITH DRAFT AGREEMENTS
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
_____________________________________________________

The Copenhagen climate change summit to leading to end with two rival texts because none of them could not agree on the key issue of sharing the burden of cutting emissions to a safe level.
The disagreement became more visible when two more draft agreements were released wherein no mention was there on clear parameters, commitments, obligations or stipulations on any of the most contentious issues, despite two years of negotiations before the summit.

The US refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol has forced negotiators to work on two separate texts and there is now little chance of the twin-track process producing a single document. The negotiators from 193 countries are hoping that the early arrival at the summit of several leaders by December 16 or 17 may break the stalemate. Fortunately the commitment on a three-year climate fund for the developing world to Adapt to global warming, is getting close to agreement which will prompt to pledge for limiting the global temperature increase to 2C though no clear plan is arrived at for delivering it.

Gordon Brown raised Britain’s contribution to the fund yesterday by 50 per cent to £1.2 billion, with another £300 million if other countries made comparable efforts, although the Government later admitted that it was re-allocating money previously pledged for overseas aid. The main difference between the rival texts at the end of the summit will be in how to regulate emissions cuts from developing countries. Many rich countries, including the US, want the bigger developing countries, especially China and India, to make commitments to reduce the rate of growth of their emissions.

Developing countries insist that under the Kyoto Protocol only the rich countries, responsible for most of the greenhouse gases, should be forced to cut their emissions. Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary of U.K admitted that significant obstacles remained to agreeing a single text. He said: “This remains tough. This is absolutely not a done deal. I don’t want to hide the scale of the challenge that remains. It is very complicated and difficult.”

Miliband said that his key objective in Copenhagen was to secure agreement on emissions peaking in 2020. However, the draft text from the working group that includes the US failed to mention any date and merely said that emissions should peak as soon as possible. The text contained a very broad range of possible targets on global emissions cuts. At one extreme they would fall by 50 per cent by 2050 and at the other by 95 per cent.

On the issue of long-term funding for poor countries to cope with climate change, the text mentioned no amounts but said simply that the sum provided would be adequate, predictable and sustainable. He said that he wanted the summit to set a six-month deadline for agreeing a single, legally binding treaty. Some negotiators, however, are privately expressing doubt that this will even be possible by the next climate change summit in Mexico in a year’s time.

Miliband declined to say what proportion of Britain’s contribution to the long-term fund would be additional to existing aid commitments. He agreed with the US that none of the short-term fund should go to China.

This issue has been one of the most divisive this week, with He Yafei, China’s Vice-Foreign Minister, criticising Todd Stern, the US chief negotiator, yesterday over his comments that no US money should go to China. He yafei said: “I think he lacks commonsense or is extremely irresponsible.”

Kemal Djemouai, the Algerian chairman of the African group, said: “The developed countries found $1.4 trillion to combat the financial crisis. Now they are offering just $10 billion to fight climate change.

Small and tiny island nations floated their own group and released a Draft. India took note of this as an attempt to bracket as an attempt to bracket developed and developing nations together by junking the Kyoto Protocol under which rich nations have to undertake legally-binding emission cuts. Led by Tuvalu, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) circulated a draft — ‘Copenhagen Protocol’ and called for amendments to the Kyoto Protocol. The groups contention is that they can secure the twin objects of old survival of Kyoto to strengthen the UNFCCC with a new ‘Copenhagen Protocol’ that can be adopted now. Tuvalu wanted India and China to take emission cuts like other developed countries

The new draft follows the Danish proposal and BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) document.India cannot agree with AOSIS and will not accept any changes or extension to the Kyoto Protocol, which is the only legally-binding document that imposes emission reduction targets on industrialized nations except U.S.

India’s Environment Secretary Vijay Sharma rightly pointed out that by bracketing both developed and growing nations together will the weaken legal obligations of developed nations under Kyoto protocol.

India views the small nations’ move as a strategy of the European Union to weaken the Kyoto Protocol and get out of the commitments made in the document. “We want the standing of the Kyoto Protocol to be maintained,” Sharma told reporters here. “We are looking to making the roots of the Kyoto Protocol stronger and go deeper into emission cuts for the developed countries.”“Many of these proposals are bracketing the Annex 1 (countries mentioned under the Protocol that should take cuts) and non-Annex 1 countries and may be allowing Annex 1 to abandon Kyoto,”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~