From Cancun to Durban
By Najib Saab
1/2/2011
Cancun conference on climate change officially adopted what was informally ‘noted' in Copenhagen. Main highlights are reducing emissions to limit global average temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius, activating technology transfer, and formalizing the financial pledges announced in Copenhagen by setting the structure of the Green Fund, with management powers equally divided among developed and developing countries. Oil producers considered as a victory the conference's decision to place Carbon Storage and Capture (CCS) under the umbrella of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which means that CCS projects are now eligible for CDM funding, alongside renewable energy.
In spite of isolated attempts by some Arab negotiators to stall discussions and block binding decisions, Arab delegations generally played a positive role in Cancun, and skepticism about climate change facts, which used to be overwhelming among negotiators from some Gulf countries, subsided. All agree now that increases in global temperature should be stopped and carbon emissions should be reduced; negotiations now revolve around the crucial question: who pays the cost?
Until the next Climate Summit convenes in Durban at the end of 2011, hard negotiations will be needed to agree on terms of the second commitment period of Kyoto Protocol, whose first phase expires in 2012. Japan made it clear in Cancun that it would not commit to any binding reductions in CO2 emissions after 2012 unless China and other economies which became major CO2 emitters in the past decade, such as India, Malaysia and Brazil, also agree to binding commitments. Japan was openly supported by Russia and Canada, who argue that the situation today is entirely different than when the Kyoto protocol was devised in 1997. China has in 2009 surpassed the US in CO2 emissions, and India's emissions are higher than those of either Russia or Japan.
Under Kyoto, the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities' was devised, which recognizes the prime historical responsibility of developed industrialized countries for the accumulation of carbon emissions over the past 150 years. Under this principle, developing countries, including China, India, Brazil, Malaysia and other emerging economies, were given a grace period during which carbon reduction requirements are not applied on them, but can be practiced voluntarily. That's why China is trying to market voluntary carbon reduction measures, as emphasized in a newsletter its delegation distributed at the closing day of the Cancun meeting, which carried the headline: ‘While we are talking, China is acting'.
The USA has in the past consistently refused to grant the same concessions to China and other booming developing countries as those granted to other, poorer developing countries. In this standpoint it has now been joined by Japan, Russia and Canada. The USA resents joining any agreement from which China is exempted, while Japan, Russia, Canada and others threaten to walk out of Kyoto if China does not comply to binding reductions. It is not acceptable, many countries argue, to continue placing China in a similar category like that of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, and grant it concessions accordingly.
Successful conclusion of climate negotiations in Durban starts with a clear understanding on the meaning of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities'. This demands a new and committed approach, by which developing countries as a group will accept part of the responsibility for current and future emissions, provided that developed countries take full responsibility for past emissions. While developing countries have the right to a grace period before applying reductions required by a new treaty in Durban, developing countries with booming economies, like China, India and Brazil, should have a shorter one.
It is now an implicit reality that the second phase of Kyoto cannot be a copy of the first one. Concessions will be required from all parties, to meet somewhere in the middle, taking emerging realities into account. Following its success in negotiations leading to Cancun Agreements, Mexico has a crucial role to play in the negotiations leading to Durban summit, building on its reputation as fair broker. It might be high time to shift from the vague approach of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities' to a clearly defined principle of shared responsibility based on fairness.
