Subject: Kyoto: Next Steps
The Nation
Sat, Dec 6, 1997

James Fahn

Kyoto, Japan

Developing countries reacted angrily yesterday to a new proposal that
they agree to binding limits on their greenhouse gas emissions by the
year 2014.

        Thailand was one of the first countries to denounce the
so-called "next steps" proposal, which was presented to the climate change summit by New Zealand and supported by the United States.

        "My delegation would like to express our strong objection to your
inclusion of [this] issue on the agenda," said Suphavit Piamphongsant, a
Thai delegate to the third conference of parties (COP-3) to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change. "It is premature to discuss this
issue at this conference."

        Suphavit noted that according to the Berlin Mandate, which is
supposed to guide climate change negotiations up to the end of COP-3, there are
not supposed to be any new commitments for developing countries.

        "This mandate was borne out of the recognition that the
implementation of existing commitments by [developed countries] was inadequate," said Suphavit. "It is generally accepted that the developed countries have
produced the largest share of historic and current global emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHGs). The have been emitting GHGs for more than 150
years."
 
        The adoption of GHG emission reductions by developed countries is
expected to be the central issue of COP-3, but so far negotiations have
focused on "peripheral issues", Thai officials noted. They suggested
that the "next steps" proposal and other issues have been raised as a
ploy by developed countries to avoid talking about their own commitments.

        The EU has proposed that developed countries limit GHG emissions to
1990 levels by the year 2010, Japan proposed limits of five per cent
below 1990 levels, Canada three per cent below, and the US proposed
limits equal to 1990 levels.

        In the conference yesterday, Thailand called on developed countries
to adopt "targets with an earlier time frame than 2010". This followed a
meeting earlier in the day between Asean and leading environmental
groups in which the latter urged Southeast Asian delegates to push for
quicker action from developed countries.

        In a press conference following the plenary session, US officials
dubbed the angry response of developing countries as "predictable" and
noted that the conference will be a long one.

        The US also unveiled its Joint Implementation (JI) programme, by which
it helps developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The US
and other developed countries hope to receive credits for these projects
once the pilot phase for JI ends in the year 2000.

        US officials claimed there are no conditions attached to its JI
projects, and that it is "an aspect of the meaningful participation"
which it has called upon developing countries to contribute.

        Among the projects which the US has supported as part of its JI
programme is hydropower, but programme chief Robert Dixon said so far it
has only sponsored micro-hydropower projects.

        Asked whether the US would rule out supporting nuclear power
plants as part of Joint Implementation, US delegate Dirk Forrester said he wasn't
sure.
 
        "Thus far, we have followed a free market approach to JI projects in
response to suggestions from the private sector," he explained. There
have been no proposals to support nuclear power "so we haven't had to
reach an answer to that question," he added.

        In a separate conference going on simultaneously to COP-3 in Kyoto,
Kasem Snidvongs, the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Science,
Technology and Environment, was also asked about Thailand's view
regarding nuclear power, in light of the fact that it did not emit
greenhouse gases.

        Kasem noted that the previous (Chavalit) government planned to carry
out a study in order "to ready" Thailand for nuclear power but the
current (Chuan) government has not brought the issue up.

        "To me, there are three questions regarding nuclear power that still
need answers," he said. "The first is waste disposal, because so far
every country with nuclear power plants still only has temporary
solutions. The second is costs, because while nuclear advocates say it
is feasible, non-nuclear advocates say it isn't. And the third is the
safety factor."

        Kasem also noted it would take 8-10 years to prepare the infrastructure
for nuclear power. "For us, the issue is too far away to make any
decision yet," he concluded.

        The European Union, meanwhile, says that it has not adopted any
position regarding nuclear power in regard to climate change. But EU
officials noted that the plan it has drawn up to reduce its GHGs by 15
per cent below 1990 levels does not include building more nuclear power
plants. 1