Article by Guest Contributor: Adalberto Maluf

The fourth meeting of the BASIC country ministers (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) on climate change took place in Rio de Janeiro on the 25th and 26th of July 2010 to further discuss their common positions regarding the Copenhagen Accord.

The BASIC countries were part of the final agreement reached in Copenhagen, although, officially, they left the conference “frustrated” with the final results. The joint statement after these two days of meeting in Rio “reiterated the importance of the two pronged approach – Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments by Annex I Parties” as crucial for an “equitable and balanced outcome in Cancun”.

The joint statement also shares concerns about those sensitive issues for the developing countries regarding differential (historical) responsibility between developing and developed countries, which is related to “equitable burden sharing” of past emissions within an context of sustainable development and also “demands the implementation of ambitious financing, technological support and capacity building.”

Despite the fact that the official joint statement didn’t differ much from what these countries have formally agreed in Copenhagen, there were some advances in Rio which can’t be underestimated. Overcoming Brazilian initial opposition, they all agree to develop a common methodology to assess their total emissions. The group, led by China’s chief climate negotiator, also agreed to have a “panel of experts” which would be responsible to establish a common baseline that could be equally measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV methodology). Brazil opposed it but didn’t block the initiative.

It could be the starting point for the development of a common methodology to assess and measure the real implications of their pledges for the economic and social development of these key countries. It’s a direct response of the Chinese government to the agreement made in the last hours of the Copenhagen conference between President Obama and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, with the intermediation of India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Brazilian President Lula da Silva.

There is a common feeling inside the BASIC countries that the Kyoto protocol won’t prevail in the near future, which could mean that they would have to change their positions for future negotiations. India insisted that it is rather clear that the Kyoto protocol is no longer a feasible route. With that in mind, they should all work together towards a single, inclusive climate change agreement.

The BASIC countries are still awaiting further developments around the world before moving forward with their pledges, however, there was a common understanding that developing countries with advanced economies, like Brazil and China, would have to abandon their rhetorical demand and start discussing ways to push concrete proposals in the table. The decision on a common methodology for MRV could be the beginning of that change.

The clock is ticking. The UNFCCC’s Copenhagen summit is just 7 days away, and recent reports have been encouraging. Shortly after China and the US made announcements on commitments to reduce their GHGS, Commonwealth leaders backed a $10bn Climate Change fund. Proposed by UK PM Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the fund seeks to provide immediate financial support to those States most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

UK PM Gordon Brown said on Friday that half of the fund should be aimed at helping the most vulnerable states to adapt to climate change, whilst the other half should be targeted at measures to reduce GHGs in the least developed countries.

The first funding would be made available early next year, before any international agreement could take effect, whilst there are suggestions that funds for the most vulnerable small island states would be fast-tracked and made available immediately.

This agreement by the Commonwealth demonstrates how climate change can unite different countries – small/large, rich or poor to find a resolution; and delivers some promise for next week’s summit.

The Commonwealth leaders also agreed to seek a legally binding international agreement, though it is widely believed that “a full legally binding outcome” might have to wait to 2010.

The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, added that any commitments they would announce would be “ambitious”, though it is highly likely that will be subject to significant commitments by other influential nations too.  This prisoner’s dilemma characterises the negotiations, and also represents the biggest threat to a global deal.  However, the recent flurry of announcements for GHG reduction commitments from many of the key players has sparked hope that all is not lost yet.

The countdown begins. I will attend the final week of negotiations with a focus on proposals from the developed nations.

Rich countries, led by the US, have opposed discussing proposals from various poor countries around the reform of intellectual property rights (IPR). These discussions are crucial to technology transfer efforts. This document is quite useful as a primer on IPR and climate change.Technology transfer (as I’ve written before) will be crucial for helping poor countries develop clean technologies. However, current IPR regimes are quite restrictive, and much IP is owned by private companies who don’t want to give it away for free.

This isn’t the first time these issues have come up in a global social justice context. A few years ago there was uproar when big pharma tried to stop generic drugs companies copying their HIV/AIDS treatments and selling them at prices which poor people in developing countries could afford.

G77+ China have been arguing that rich nations should buy cleantech IPR from private companies in their countries and make it available to all, in the name of climate justice. This move would also prevent those companies from making huge profits out of the necessity of the world moving towards less carbon-intensive growth.

It is essentially another row about market-based mechanisms – countries like India are arguing that the market can’t be trusted to provide a consistent flow of technologies, which is fair enough. Of course, there is another side to the argument. It would be very difficult to change the IP regime to accommodate free transfer of clan technologies – the whole thing could need to be rewritten.

Furthermore, it would remove the profit motive for companies to develop the technology in the first place. Therefore, rich countries are sceptical because if the idea was put in place it would essentially involve them massively subsidising green industry, distorting markets, and generally holding back the “invisible hand” that is supposedly going to solve all our climate problems.

In any case, there has to be a way around this issue that lets technology transfer happen in both a fast and fair way. Just don’t expect rich countries to budget on IPR reform…

Manmohan Singh (source:wikimedia.org)

Manmohan Singh recently argued that annex 1 countries should provide 0.5% of GDP to help developing countries reduce emissions, and that India would not collaborate with inspection of their emissions unless this rose to 0.8%. It seems that conditional bargaining chips are all the rage these days in climate negotiations, after the EU’s offer of “a 20% reduction, or 30% if everyone plays nicely”.

Dr Singh’s plan is quite ambitious – Obama’s climate change envoy Todd Stern has already dismissed it out of hand. India’s climate change gurus have been taking an ear-bashing from Hillary Clinton this week, marking another rise in tensions between the US and India over emissions reductions.

Stern argues that India should fix a year for peak emissions and make sure that its emissions reductions are “MRV-able”, but as mentioned above, India demands increased amounts of cash if that is to happen. This does seem a little bit unreasonable. 0.5% of GDP seems like a fair deal given the various estimates of the costs of mitigation and adaptation for developing countries that have been flying around.

Something has to give somewhere, and you can bet that the horse trading will carry on right until the COP. It will be interesting to see how this pans out over the next few weeks, with only a few months until Copenhagen, and countries leaving themselves ever less wiggle room.

Copenhagen's famous mermaid (source: about.com)

The leading think-tank Chatham House held a conference on Monday and Tuesday this week, entitled “The Politics of Climate Change Agreement”.  There were some high-level speakers, including Joan Ruddock (DECC minister), the head of UNEP, and the chief negotiator of Papua New Guinea (he who told the USA to “show some leadership or get out of the way” at Bali).There was a vein of optimism running through the discussions – after all, who would have thought three years ago that the US would (almost) have a cap-and-trade bill, that India and China would have mitigation plans, and in 2008 investment in renewable energy would exceed investment in both nuclear and fossil fuels.

The main focus of the conference was what needed to happen politically to get a good deal at Copenhagen. The position of most developing countries is that annex 1 countries must provide binding targets for emissions reductions by 2020, consistent with keeping us on a 450ppm pathway or below. Secondly, there will be no deal without clear commitments by rich countries on adaptation financing. There was general agreement that Gordon Brown has broken the logjam on this with his speech last week finally putting a price tag of $100bn a year.

These are both likely to be forthcoming, but the extent of rich country cuts are still unclear – the Waxman-Markey bill in the US is unambitious, and recent figures put out by Russia and Japan were also disappointing. An aggregation of commitments so far gives a 16-26% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020. This is not good enough, as the IPCC says we need 25-40% cuts by 2020 to stay on the 450ppm pathway.

On the rich country side, the US in particular wants developing countries to commit to binding emissions cuts (cf. previous stand-offs with India), which many of them see as unjustifiable. This will probably be the major sticking point at Copenhagen. The piece of UNFCCC jargon for developing country emissions cuts is “Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions” (NAMA) by poor countries, which implicitly mean a move away from business as usual. This move is critical, because even if OECD emissions were zero, developing country emissions would still need to fall in order to meet 450ppm.

It is clear that we need a political deal at Copenhagen, even if the technical aspects take another year to hammer out. Regional or national negotiations targets around CCS and industry will be important, but a global political agreement is needed to hold it all together. The worst outcome would be a deal with vague or insufficient emissions reductions, including lots of greenwash around REDD. In conclusion, four essential elements for a good deal probably include (i) emissions targets for rich countries consistent with staying below 2 degrees warming, (ii) NAMAs for developing countries, (iii) a decent institutional framework, (iv) financing for adaptation.

Environmental issues are central to the new government’s plan. Refusing to sign up to “any legal commitments or binding, mandatory targets on climate change”, Jairam Ramesh, the new Environment and Forests Minister reiterated that India will stick to its own climate change initiative: the eight national missions announced in the NAPCC last year. Perhaps reacting to the much repeated criticism of the climate change action plan, the government has stressed the need for more “action” and less “talk” this time around.

To start, the self certification clause that would have allowed industries to simply “self certify “ the environmental impact of any expansion will be dropped. BT Brinjal will not be hitting the supermarket shelves anytime soon either as the government has indicated that a comprehensive study on genetically modified foods is needed before clearance for any new foods will be given.

While the finance ministry may be keen on doing away with these “anti-market” environmental obstacles, Jairam Ramesh has declared that he will focus his energies on strengthening the regulatory system and ensuring stricter environmental norms. Environmental laws have long been seen in India as obstacles to development and growth. Arguing that a more accountable and transparent system will integrate environmentalism into the country’s economic model creating a more sustainable growth plan, Jairam Ramesh hopes to set up new overseeing authorities as well. The new government has announced that the current Central Pollution Control Board will be converted into a new environmental protection authority. Biodiversty and wildlife protection authorities and a new public environmental research institute will also be set up.

This new pro environment stance taken by the government is a good start. Till now, the environmental ministry has generally maintained a low profile and a strong environmental ministry that is ready to a take a stand is a welcome change.  India really needs to start putting in place the promised missions and enforcing environmental standards. But there also is pressure on the government to maintain economic growth rates during the economic slowdown and in order to do so it appears they have realised that India will have to match economic growth with environmental protection and adaptation.

According to a UNEP report, investment towards renewable energy in India increased by 12 percent this past year, with a 17 percent rise in investment in the wind energy sector and India has been lobbying at the international level for more technology transfer. At the domestic level, the new Minister has set the right tone. But for India to come out on top, the government has to follow through these next five years.

The Context of Bonn

On Monday the interim meetings of the UNFCCC began in Bonn, Germany. The negotiations, which are scheduled to last for the next two weeks, are both a legal and political forerunner to now infamous ‘Copenhagen Meeting’ in December this year.

Legally, the parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change were slightly caught unawares back in March when it emerged that, under the details of the Kyoto Protocol, any new negotiating texts and amendments must be agreed six months prior to their intended signature and final agreement.  Far from giving a full twelve months of negotiations between Poznan in late 2008 and Copenhagen, then, negotiators now find themselves in something of a scramble to agree to at least a skeleton document by the end of the next week.

Politically, there is such pressure on parties for Copenhagen that there is little scope for delaying agreement, thus making Bonn an unavoidable cram.  While much of this pressure is coming from NGOs and outside observers, a significant portion is also from the parties themselves.  Since the G8 Summit in Hokkaido, Japan, in July 2008, the major developed countries have constantly deflected difficult questions about meeting agreement to Copenhagen.  Indeed, in his press conference at the G20 in April 2009, UK Climate Change Minister Ed Miliband redirected almost all questions to the UNFCCC process.  As a result, then, the importance of Copenhagen has grown significantly, and so, because of the legal issues above, has that of Bonn.

Opening Days

Signs, at present at least, look positive.  The UNFCCC released draft texts in mid-May into which targets, mechanisms, and implementation details can now be slotted.  Moreover, Monday and Tuesday appear to be ‘off to a good start’, according to one UK negotiator speaking with me yesterday.

Of most interest are the two Bali Action Plan working groups–one (the KP) working out what can be taken forward from Kyoto and the second (the LCA) drafting a new text on ‘long-term, cooperative action’.  In practice this division breaks down to a discussion of targets and mechanisms under the KP and discussion of who should take on commitments and ‘new’ issues like adaptation under the LCA.  So far, both groups have hosted their opening sessions in Bonn.

Post-Kyoto Discussions

The LCA–traditionally the more contentious forum–has opened with a frank discussion on the plethora of proposals submitted by parties over the past few months.  The African Group, for example, expressed concern about a number of the more ‘radical’ proposals–especially the suggestion of a more fluid boundary between developed and developing countries in terms of emissions targets.  Indeed, the classic divisions that tend to emerge at UNFCCC meetings, such as the African Group’s position, do not appear to have been put aside completely in the effort to reach a deal.  Indeed, some of the major middle income countries, including China, India, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines, all expressed concern about the suggestion of developing country targets–an issue for which there are many many options outlined in developed party submissions.

A particular problem here is the structure of the UNFCCC treaty under which the Kyoto Protocol falls.  The treaty document clearly preserves the common but differentiated responsibility and right to develop of developing countries.  While clearly important provisions, these principles hold the UNFCCC in something of a permanent tension between extending global mitigation action as the economic situation in middle income countries changes and abiding by the treaty text.  Indeed, during Tuesday open session of the LCA group, both China and India suggested that possibilities for compulsory developing country action–either with targets or not–were not in line with the Framework Convention itself, and so could not be included.  This continues to grate with the USA’s on-going position (see the Luagr-Biden Resolution) that such countries should take on some commitments.  Japan has also added to the chorus, suggesting that a simply continuation of Kyoto divisions is not acceptable.

Reform and Reuse of Current Kyoto Provisions

Within the KP group of the Bali Action Plan discussion is largely focussed around the level of targets in an amended protocol.  Regardless of who takes these commitments on (something discussed by the LCA, above), the actual numbers are always a point of contention.  As per the usual for an opening meeting, non-Annex I countries were highly critical of ballpark figures for Annex I in 2020; the Assoc. of Small Island States (AOSIS) argued that major Annex I cuts were need immediately, suggesting that the UNFCCC was on the verge of missing the 2 C target.

The Weeks Ahead

It is my expectation that the focus on these two groups will shift as the Bonn talks progress.  While the LCA currently seems to be where most of the action is taking place, it is the KP that brings the fireworks when it comes to agreeing numbers.

What is clear from the opening two days is that party lines remain firmly inscribed in the process.  This gives all the more importance to the various adjunct issues that are also to be finalised during Bonn: REDD+, CDM, No-lose targets (if not in the CDM), technology transfer, and so on.  I think it is likely that these issues will not only grow in importance in their own right but will become the major system of bartering and ‘horse trading’ by which the larger disagreements are overcome.  Thinking back to 1997 and the Kyoto Negotiations, it was the inclusion of the CDM in the closing hours that sealed the deal rather than a substantial shift in existing policy.  Watch these newer issues, then, as they are the currency in which old, stock UNFCCC disputes are traded off.

An Indian voter with his voter id. Courtesy Flickr/KKalyan

‘We will protect India’s natural environment and take steps to rejuvenate it.’  (Congress party election manifesto).

 ’One earth, green earth: Creating the right environment.’  (BJP party election manifesto)

Consensus in election manifestos is the last thing one would expect during the national elections in India. But as it turns out, India’s leading political parties – from the far right all the way to the left seem to have very similar views on the environment and climate change this election season. 

Three political party election manifestos are examined in this post: the ruling coalition leader, the Indian National Congress; the leading opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP); the Communist Party of India (Marxist). A few common general areas of focus emerge from the manifestos.

Firstly, climate change: building upon last year’s work, the Congress party emphasizes the national action plan as their strong point. Their manifesto reads “It is an acknowledgment of our responsibility to take credible actions within the overall framework of meeting the development aspirations of our people for higher economic growth and a higher standard of living. This action plan will be implemented in letter and spirit.”

Let’s not forget that the missions announced in the action plan highlight the importance of technology transfer and sustainable technology as key drivers of climate change action in India.  The BJP’s manifesto follows on a similar vein but is a little more specific. Arguing that “mitigating the threat by building a low carbon economy is the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century,” BJP candidates “look at ‘Climate Change’ in the context of the promises made by the international community for technology transfer and additional financing since Rio, which have remained unfulfilled.” The CPI-M too, endorses sustainable technology by calling for “steps to control emission of greenhouse gases through energy efficient technologies and effective regulation; Promoting solar and other non-conventional energy sources”. The CPI-M’s manifesto differs from the rest in that in addition to the common themes, it calls for transparency in the EIA process as well.

The similarities don’t end there. On the subject of water management, the policies are effectively unanimous: strengthening the nation’s water management capacities, cleaning up rivers (the Congress has named the Ganges as a ‘national river’ in order to prioritise it’s sustainable usage, the BJP has pledged to clean all rivers and the CPI-M promises to regulate riverine pollution) and protecting the coastal areas emerge as priorities for all three parties. Biodiversity management and conservation are also common preoccupations that find mention in the manifestos.

 So why is it that these three parties that have such disparate policies on other issues can come together on questions of climate change? Perhaps one reason is that there is very little awareness at the political helm on the subject that would otherwise push these parties to take differing views. This week, the Times of India produced a series of polls on the environment as part of their election coverage. Their statistics note that 81% blame political ignorance and interference for the state of the environment; 46% feeling that politicos are “clueless about the extent of the damage or significance of the problem” and 35% feel that our leaders have “colluded with timber mafia, poachers; added to the problem”. Moreover, neither the Congress-led UPA incumbent coalition nor the BJP led NDA coalition addressed the problem very well; 36% thought the BJP was better than the Congress in this regard, while 26% though the opposite. A little over a third of those asked felt neither party fared well.

Secondly, climate change policy tends to get frequently coupled with other policies (as is the case in the BJP manifesto, where environmental concerns are coupled with national security and development) such as national and energy security, self-sufficiency, investment and development that may require different priorities. As such political parties lack a long term sustainable vision in this regard. It is easier to lie low on environmental issues as they aren’t really hot election topics. 

As I’ve mentioned before, beyond issues of pollution, wildlife conservation and ecology, environmental awareness in India has been fairly limited. Forget about the politicos – beyond specific fora, there is very little debate or awareness on the subject in the public domain. Nevertheless, lest there be too much negativity in this post, environmental issues, whether in the garb of rapid developmental externalities or as cost saving concerns, are creeping into the political mainstream. The national action plan drawn out by the Congress stood apart from previous environmental action as it came at a time when there was a lot of international pressure on India to take a stand on the issue, and awareness on climate change was slowly filtering into the minds of young urban Indians (Indeed, the inclusion of the environment in this election’s manifestos has been seen by many as a way of attracting India’s youth). Perhaps there was also a desire to cash in on the investment potential. 

So where next? According to the poll, 63% of the people questioned call for better administration on environmental issues. One hopes this burgeoning public and political awareness will bring increasing scrutiny on the environmental performance of which ever government wins at the polls. The Congress’ action plan came out a year ago and we are yet to see any remarkable action. If they win, will their environmental policies develop or will they remain platitudes? Will a BJP led government stick to its promises? At the very least, hopefully an inclusive debate on the subject with a long term national perspective will ensue.