Română
English
NEW DELHI: The 17 major emitters are making a last ditch attempt to resolve the impasse over the fate of the Kyoto Protocol and the shape of a future global legal deal to tackle climate change. With a fortnight to the UN-sponsored climate meet at Durban, the Major Economies Forum is meeting in New York this week to hammer out a working compromise.
In the past, the US State Department-sponsored Major Economies Forum has served as an informal platform to work out negotiating and resolving tricky issues.
Led by the Brazil, India, China and South Africa quartet, developing countries have made it clear they, and particularly the BASIC countries, have "pledged ambitious actions to reduce emissions at substantial cost to their economies."
Turning the tables, they say it is time that the industrialised countries "rise up to their historical responsibilities" and undertake "ambitious and robust mitigation commitments".
With industrialised countries unwilling to sign on to a second commitment period without a legal agreement that includes the developing countries, China has suggested a way out. Beijing has reportedly indicated that if the industrialised countries agree to emission reduction targets for a second commitment period, then the emerging economies could bring forward plans that demonstrate their willingness to curb emission growth. Going a step beyond internationalising of their domestic efforts, which was done at Copenhagen and Cancun, China has suggested that their national plans could be listed in a new version of the Protocol. These plans would not have the same legal status or compliance mechanism as commitments by the industrialised countries.
Beijing appears to be taking forward New Delhi's idea. At the informal Petersberg Dialogue held in June, India is understood to have explored the possibility of quantified and absolute emission cuts for developed countries and "relative cuts" that is reduction in emission intensity of GDP, for developing countries. The environment ministry's internal assessment on the Petersberg Dialogue suggests that a legally binding agreement need not necessarily be created anew at the international level. There could be flexibility allowing countries to recognise their domestically legally binding commitments internationalised, of course, according to agreed rules and procedures.
Taking off on China's suggestion, experts suggest an eight-year second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol. This would require that the Protocol be amended to include the voluntary actions of the advanced developing countries like India and China, which would come under a separate compliance mechanism. This would give a six-year window following the publication of Inter-governmental Panel for Climate Change' Assessment Review 5 in 2013-14 to negotiate a global deal.
This is seen as an acceptable compromise. It would ensure for the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, and bring in the developing countries into the fold without pushing them to commit to more than they already did voluntarily at Copenhagen and Cancun. In this scenario, the IPCC's fifth assessment report and the review would be a stocktaking exercise, which would affect the global climate action after 2020. This formulation seems to take on board the objections raised by Japan and Russia to the Australia-Norway proposal for a four-year deadline to put in place a new climate deal.
These countries see a six to eight years period before a new global deal or the future of the Kyoto Protocol can be settled.
At the informal ministerial just concluded in Madrid, the European Union is understood to have made a counter offer. It suggested breaking up this eight year period into a three-year second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol, followed by immediately by a five-year third commitment period.
