Stymied by dichotomies

The fourth COP at Buenos Aires in 1998 was attended by 180 countries and numerous NGOs with the objective of discussing various issues that spilled over from the Kyoto COP. It was not lost on the participants that COP-4 was being held in the backdrop of Hurricane Mitch having devastated many Central American nations in late October 1998, prompting France to write off the debt of Honduras and Nicaragua during the Conference, which bore the main brunt of the hurricane. Climate change was real, with experts saying that hurricanes were more intense and brought more rainfall, faster than usual.

How the discussions unfolded?

There were four main players in COP-4: the EU; the JUSCANZ group comprising Japan, USA, Canada, Australia, Iceland, Norway and New Zealand; the G77 plus China; and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). The EU comprising 15 European countries was proactive in the negotiations and willing to take ambitious emission cut targets. The US, along with a few developed countries, however, wanted developing countries to participate more meaningfully and take voluntary commitments. The US position was defined by the US Senate’s conditions for signing the Kyoto Protocol: that the US economy would not be harmed and that developing countries had to start taking more responsibility in view of the overall objective of UNFCCC as outlined in Article 2, that the ultimate objective of the convention was to stabilise the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a manageable and safe level. The G77 plus China opposed this insistence on the participation of developing countries. The OPEC countries also opposed the process but for very different reasons and the AOSIS wanted quick action so that the low-lying countries could be protected against the deleterious effects of rising greenhouse gases.

In addition to working on the issues undecided in the Kyoto COP, the fourth COP was supposed to review the progress of Annex I or developed countries in respect of emission reduction plans. However, developing countries were in for a shock when the conference opened with Argentina inviting developing countries to take voluntary emission reduction commitments under the UNFCCC. This was done with the active support of the US, even though such discussions had taken place in COP-3 and developing countries had opposed the proposal. In COP-4, developing countries again pushed back strongly and Argentina was forced to withdraw the proposal.

During COP-4, the ninth sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI-9) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA-9) were also held, where issues related to the Kyoto Protocol were considered in joint SBI/SBSTA sessions. Another important issue discussed in the SBSTA was how to measure the contribution of forests towards the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Even though COP-4 started on a wrong footing, there was much work to be done, which was mostly left over after the Kyoto conference. The agenda for COP-4 included the following issues:

* Flexible Mechanisms

* Activities Implemented Jointly

* Treatment of sinks and weaving them into the greenhouse gases measurement

* Financial Issues

* Transfer of Technology

* Timetable for the Implementation of various decisions

Differing views

The discussions in COP-4 were very difficult because of the complexity of issues involved and lack of consensus, not only between developed and developing countries, but within developed and developing countries also. Among developed countries, the EU was in favor of going ahead with ambitious emission cuts, while the US was not even willing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol unless developing countries also made some commitments. Developed countries would first target those emissions which would not slow down their growth or not involve any major behavioral changes at the individual level (change in transportation preferences or consumption patterns). This low-hanging fruit would obviously not be enough and additional measures would be necessary, which would however entail additional costs. Moreover, the burden of these additional costs would differ vastly among developed countries, leading to collective action dilemmas among these countries.

Among developing countries, India, Brazil and China argued that developing countries were not ready to take commitments yet, because of their ambitious development plans in the future, which would raise greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, they argued that developed country emissions would be 5 per cent higher than 1990 levels in 2000, and 13 per cent higher than 1990 levels in 2010, and were primarily to sustain their rising consumer demand and energy-intensive processes. This, in itself, made a mockery of the Kyoto targets of limiting developed country emissions to 5 per cent below the levels in 1990 by 2008-2012. Developing country emissions, on the other hand, were mainly ‘survival’ emissions or those needed to meet development needs of the poor. Latin Americans and the Africans took a different line of argument saying that they needed financial compensation and transfer of technology to deal with rising emissions. African countries such as South Africa and Tanzania also wanted the Clean Development Mechanism to kick in as soon as possible.

The discussions in the plenary were going nowhere, which led the chairman to form small negotiating groups headed by ministers. After days of discussions, a Buenos Aires Action Plan was prepared, which was placed before the Closing Plenary.

The Buenos Aires Action Plan

Apart from mitigation and adaptation measures, this plan also laid out the steps required for developing a financial mechanism and transfer of technologies to help developing countries, especially vulnerable countries like the AOSIS. The Action Plan also pledged to take forward the activities implemented jointly as a pilot and the flexible mechanisms of Kyoto Protocol (the Joint Implementation of projects, emissions trading schemes and the Clean Development Mechanism).

The Action Plan also had a review and assessment mechanism to take stock of the progress under UNFCCC at regular intervals. The overall purpose of the plan was to keep the Kyoto spirit alive and move towards finding more concrete solutions by 2000, when COP-6 would be held.

Two more issues were part of the Action Plan: that policies and measures would be implemented in a coordinated manner by developed countries, and there would be a compliance mechanism; both these issues were pushed by the EU, with a view to work towards an implementation plan to be presented in COP-6.

Even with the Buenos Aires Action Plan, the COP-4 couldn’t be counted as a success, because there were no concrete outcomes in terms of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. The deadlock between developed and developing countries on emission targets continued and many of the technical decisions were pushed to COP-6.

Conclusion

The fourth COP ended without much success in terms of concrete targets and there was also an unease among the UNFCCC officials over the continuing deadlock between developed and developing countries. There was a real danger that the gains of Kyoto would be frittered away unless both sides were willing to set aside differences and begin talks on implementation. The Buenos Aires Action Plan did however manage to keep political interest alive, but also underlined the urgency to take concrete action in the coming COPs.

The writer is Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mass Education Extension and Library Services and Department of Cooperation, Government of West Bengal