At the centre
of negotiations is a proposed Kyoto Protocol
which is expected
to include binding limits on the emission of
greenhouse gases
(GHGs) by developed countries, known
under the treaty
as Annex I states.
Despite varying
proposals from Japan, the US and the
European Union
on the extent of those limits, chances appear
good that an
agreement can be reached.
Nevertheless,
ratification of the protocol may yet be held up
due to conflict
over a side issue involving developing
countries, including
Thailand. Even more bizarrely, according to
some officials,
an ageing US senator from the remote state of
West Virginia
has become the key figure in deciding the
outcome of the
conference.
The basic outline
of the protocol is quickly emerging.
Developed countries
will have to limit their emissions of at
least three,
and possibly six, gases that are thought to
contribute to
global warming. Carbon dioxide, methane and
nitrous oxide
will all be regulated; and there are efforts to
include limits
on three man-made greenhouse gases --
hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride
-- if not this
year, then soon after.
There is still
a deadlock over what the emission targets for
Annex I states
should be, but there is some hope that US
Vice President
Al Gore, who is expected to make a
high-profile
visit to the COP-3 today (Monday), will bring along
some new proposals
with him. So far, he is still demanding
limits equal
to 1990 levels being met around 2010. That would
still represent
a 28-per cent reduction from the amount of
greenhouse gases
the US is expected to release if it
continues on
a business-as-usual path. The European Union,
meanwhile, has
called for cuts of 15 per cent below 1990
levels by 2010,
and Japan has called for cuts of 5 per cent below.
In fact, the
final targets may end up being different for various
Annex I states
in accordance with their varying
circumstances.
This concept, known as ''differentiation'', has
gained increasing
prominence here in Kyoto.
Reports claim
that conference chairman Raul Estrada of
Argentina has
produced a paper which presents five sets of
targets: 5 per
cent over 1990 levels for Australia; targets
equal to 1990
levels for Iceland, Norway, Russia and the
Ukraine; 2.5
per cent cuts for Japan; 5 per cent cuts for
Canada and the
US; and 10 per cent cuts for the EU, central
and eastern
European countries and Switzerland.
The EU, however,
is opposed to this arrangement, arguing that
it should have
the same targets as the US, in particular and
probably Japan,
too. In the end, a limited range of targets may
be set, or a
complicated formula could be drawn up to take
into account
the size and growth of a country's GDP and population.
It also appears
increasingly likely that an emissions trading
system will
be set up among Annex I states. This would allow
a country which
can reduce its emissions cheaply, or which
like Russia
has already seen its emissions decrease due to
de-industrialisation,
''sell'' its reductions to those states which
find it difficult
to cut greenhouse gas production.
The EU has opposed
general emissions trading, but its
objections are
difficult to understand since its member states
are planning
to do it among themselves. Under its ''bubble''
proposal, the
EU would be treated by the protocol as a single
entity rather
than 15 individual countries, allowing them to
carry out emissions
trading within the group.
Will the trading
system be extended to developing countries
even though
they will not be subject to emissions limits? The
G-77 still claims
that Joint Implementation (JI), by which
developed countries
could help developing countries reduce
their emissions
in exchange for credits, should not be carried
out until after
its pilot phase is complete in 2000. But Gore
has also demanded
that JI be included in the protocol, and
since many G-77
governments are eager for the investment
JI would bring,
they might just compromise on this point,
especially since
it will in any case take some time before the
guidelines for
handing out credits can be drawn up.
One issue which
has yet to be resolved is that of ''sinks'':
whether the
protocol should take into consideration the
presence of
forests in a country, since they help store carbon
and prevent
it from entering the atmosphere. The technical
issues involved
are formidable and not very well understood,
but the US wants
to include sinks in the agreement, as
planting forests
would then become an alternative to reducing
greenhouse gas
emissions.
The greatest
source of conflict, however, may end up being
the role of
developing countries. Among Gore's demands was
a repeat of
the assertion that non-Annex I states should
participate
in a ''meaningful'' way, even though the Berlin
Mandate (which
is supposed to guide negotiations until after
COP-3) rules
out any new commitments from developing
countries.
The US' demands
on this ''evolution'' issue remain vague, in
public at least.
Article 10 of the proposed protocol would allow
developing countries
to agree to voluntary emission targets,
but the G-77
and China say it should be deleted. Meanwhile,
New Zealand
(probably at the behest of the US) has proposed
that all but
the least developed countries should agree to
binding limits
by 2014. The proposal received an irate response
from developing
countries.
The US is looking
for some kind of concession from
developing countries
-- probably a promise that the richer
ones (including
China, India, Korea, Mexico and Brazil) -- that
will commit
them to binding emission limits within a specified
time frame.
But it is not Al Gore or even Bill Clinton who
developing countries
have to satisfy.
Ratification
of the protocol is actually under threat from the
US Senate, explain
US officials and other sources.
Earlier this
year, the Republican-controlled chamber
unanimously
passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution urging the
administration
not to move ahead on the treaty unless
developing countries
also commit to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, and
the Senate will have to ratify the protocol by a
two-thirds majority.
Senator Chuck
Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, is said to
be a right-winger
who simply doubts that climate change is for
real. However,
Senator Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West
Virginia, reportedly
agrees that climate change is a genuine
threat but also
believes developing countries should help solve
it. His vote
holds a lot of weight in the Senate, the sources
add, and will
therefore be key in deciding whether the protocol
is passed.
Thailand is of
course following the G-77 lead and rejecting
any new commitments
for any developing countries. But
behind the scenes,
Thai officials hold more intricate views.
In a speech at
the Eco Japan '97 conference being held
simultaneously
with COP-3, Kasem Snidvongs, the permanent
secretary of
the Science, Technology and Environment
Ministry, pointed
out that developed countries have been
emitting greenhouse
gases for 150 years, and they have the
financial resources
to help solve the problem. ''I firmly believe
advanced countries
should take the lead in preventing global
climate change,''
he said.
But he also noted
that there is a ''huge gap'' in income levels
among developing
countries themselves. He divided the South
into three tiers:
least developed countries, mid-level countries,
and richer developing
countries. ''After COP-3, we should
come up with
a plan,'' he said.
Although he did
not elaborate, his statements suggested that
following the
adoption of the Kyoto protocol, some of the
wealthier developing
countries should indeed begin looking at
binding limits
to greenhouse gas emissions. Thailand, by the
way, would presumably
be considered a mid-level country.
''Developing
countries will move toward limits if they are given
time, and the
right approach,'' Kasem concluded.