THE BONN NEGOTIATIONS: NEW GLOBAL CLIMATE POLICY
As all countries take actions to reduce emissions the unresolved question is to what extent fairness will be the basis for international cooperation
Mukul Sanwal[*]
International cooperation for a global approach to climate change continues to tweak a failing system arrived at in 1992 rather than seeking a new framework and developing a vision for 2032.The unresolved issue is not agreement on a definition of equity, or even whether negotiations should start now for a new Protocol, but whether political decisions on equitably sharing the global commons (a new paradigm) are a precondition for agreement on a global rule-based system, or, incremental steps to develop a rule based system on the basis of the climate treaty (the old paradigm) will lead to equitable outcomes.
According to a recent report, the most important aspect of the Durban Platform was to terminate the current negotiating process (the AWG-LCA), which had been launched under the Bali Action Plan, by the end of 2012. The Bali Action Plan mandate had notably maintained the “firewall” between developed and developing countries with regard to mitigation. It also contained a “linking clause” that had made mitigation by developing countries contingent on the level of technological and financial support that they received from developed countries. The 2009 Copenhagen Accord and the 2010 Cancun Agreements were both negotiated under this mandate. Even though they diluted the Bali “firewall”, they nevertheless reaffirmed the core UNFCCC provisions that nations would need to combat climate change on the basis of “equity” and in accordance with the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”, respecting the various provisions of the Convention. The Durban Platform instead calls for the “widest possible cooperation by all countries.”
The report goes onto argue that the term in the Durban Platform, “applicable to all”, in particular in the absence of the usual markers for differentiation — equity and common but differentiated responsibilities —makes it clear that Parties are heading into a new era. Arguing for differentiation remains an option, and some developing countries most certainly will. The mandate calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, that the outcome of the negotiations will be applicable to all Parties, with “a view to ensuring the highest possible mitigation efforts by all Parties.” For issues of equity, it will be up to governments to determine how differentiation will be captured, if at all. Indeed, any new climate change agreement will need—if it is to have any chance of entry into force—to
address the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities.
Developing countries need to re-visit their insistence on the CBDR (common but differentiated responsibilities) principle as the policy driver, because it does not exist in this form. This was the last principle reluctantly agreed in the negotiations on the Rio Declaration in 1992 only because it was reproduced from a communique of Ministers of Environment of the OECD, and the United States recorded a reservation. A compromise was arrived at in the Climate Treaty in 1992, and developing countries agreed to the addition of the words “and respective capabilities”. The result is that international environmental law continues to struggle with the on-going debates over whether developing countries should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and, if so, how much financial support developed countries should provide for such efforts.
Developing countries, In light of their growing economic weight and their emissions are now in a position to set the agenda, and should do so at the Bonn meeting.
The new global regime
There are two widely different ways of considering the way climate negotiations review the challenges ahead around the use of natural resources. The environmental case is based on impact of climate change on the natural ecosystems, and the assertion that the stabilization level and timeframe for peaking of emissions is the most important global policy issue. The sustainable development case is based on the global commons as an economic resource requires that stabilization of concentrations of greenhouse gases to ensure that developed countries do not use up all the carbon space at the cost of developing countries.
Both views of the climate challenge are legitimate. The scientific basis for climate change can be made either in terms of reducing emissions and environmental damage (natural science) or sharing the global environmental resource for sustainable development (social science), but with very different implications for countries, because damage is measured in terms of additional ‘flows’ and points the finger at developing countries, while limits on ecosystem services is measured in terms of sharing total ‘stocks’ of greenhouse gases and requires developed countries to take substantial measures. Global climate policy is a zero-sum game, if technology is not factored into the equation.
Humans have always altered their local environment; with industrialization, urbanization, motorization and increase in incomes they have begun to alter the Planet. According to recent analyses, in this context, what really matters is the total greenhouse gas budget we allow ourselves, because of the scientific uncertainty associated with emission rates and concentration targets[*], which cannot be accurately inferred from quantities we can observe. For example, differentiation should be based on stages of development rather than historical responsibility for environmental damage and would meet one of the key concerns of industrialized countries that commitments should be symmetrical.
Consequently, instead of reliance on the CBDR developing countries should pose the moral question – if sustainability cannot be achieved through technological efficiency, how much of the world’s resources does any one nation or individual have a right to for their well-being?
Differentiation, based on stages of development rather than historical responsibility for environmental damage, is important because akey role will need to be played by all governments as the transformation cannot be left to market forces. Global ecosystem services are both a global good and are not priced by the market, and policy is responsible for the creation of markets for new technologies like wind and solar energy. Governments also play a major role in initiating research on new technologies, because they serve a wider good and the benefits accrue to society. In responding to a problem that is global in nature and scale, ways have to be found to deal with the distributional challenge, as the costs will fall more heavily on developing countries because of their low levels of income, for example, intellectual property rights also have a “global goods” dimension.
International cooperation to achieve human wellbeing of all by 2050 should be based around a new principle of ‘shared prosperity and responsibility’. The global rule based system would annually review progress in three areas - reaching multilaterally agreed national carbon budgets, development and sharing of innovative renewable energy and agricultural biotechnologies, and bringing energy services and adequate food to those in developing countries who do not have adequate access to them at present.
1
[*] Mukul Sanwal has served in policy positions in the Government of India (1971-1993) when he represented India at the Rio Conference, and as Policy Adviser in the United Nations Environment Programme and in the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat (1993-2007) he was involved with the World Summit on Sustainable Development. He is currently associated with think tanks in India and China.
[*]