by Dr. Arvind Kumar
Climate change has seemingly emerged as one of the most significant global environmental challenges facing humanity. The ongoing changes in the global climate entail serious implications for food production, natural ecosystems, freshwater supply, health, etc. The latest scientific assessment reveals that the earth’s climate system has apparently undergone change on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era. It also becomes discernible that most of the warming (of 0.1C per decade) observed over the last 50 years, is attributable to human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections show that the global mean temperature may increase between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius (C) by 2100. This exceptional increase is likely to wield adverse impact on the global hydrological system, ecosystems, sea level, crop production and related processes. The impact would be specifically acute in the tropical areas, which mainly comprise developing countries, including India.
The issue of climate change is part of the larger challenge of sustainable development. Accordingly, efficacy of climate policies can be meaningful only when these policies operate within broader strategies designed to make national and regional development paths more sustainable. The impact of climate variability and change, climate policy responses, and associated socio-economic development are prone to impact on the ability of countries to achieve sustainable development goals.
Construed in historical perspective, the industrialized countries have been the principal contributors to emissions of CO2. According to one estimate, industrialized countries are responsible for about 83% of the rise in cumulative fossil fuel related CO2 emissions since 1800. In the 1990s, they accounted for about 53% of the 6.3 GtC/year, which was released as CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. These countries have contributed little to the release of CO2 from the burning of vegetation, which is largely due to tropical deforestation during this period. According to another estimate, developing countries accounted for only 37% of cumulative CO2 emissions from industrial sources and land-use change during the period 1900 to 1999, whereas industrialized countries accounted for 63%, but because of their higher population and economic growth rates, the fossil-fuel CO2 emissions from developing countries are likely to soon match or exceed those from the industrialized countries. Viewed in a broad perspective, the onus for emissions increase lies essentially with the industrialized world, though the developing countries are also fast emerging as the source of an increasing proportion of future increases.
International Negotiations
The scientific evidence linking GHG emissions from human activities with the risk of global climate change started to arouse public concern in the 1980s and consequently in 1988 the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess the gravity of the problem. The First Assessment Report of the IPCC, completed in 1990, highlighted the global threat of climate change.
The United Nations General Assembly responded in 1990 by establishing the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The negotiations commenced in February 1991 resulted in convening of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro led to FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change), which laid the framework for the eventual stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, recognizing the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and social and economic conditions. The Convention was adopted in May 1992, and opened for signature in Rio at the UN Conference on Environment and Development. It came into force in March, 1994 after being ratified by 50 countries.
The key goal of the UNFCCC is ‘stabilization of GHG concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development in a sustainable manner’. Acknowledging the global nature of climate change, the Climate Convention calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, in accordance with ‘their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions’.
Kyoto Protocol
The UN Conference of Parties held in Kyoto in 1997 adopted the Kyoto Protocol as the first step towards addressing climate change. The Protocol shares the Convention’s objective, principles and institutions, but significantly strengthens the Convention by committing Annex I Parties to individual, legally-binding targets to limit or reduce their GHG emissions. To achieve the goals of the Climate Convention, the Kyoto Protocol broke new ground by defining three innovative ‘flexibility mechanisms’ to lower the overall costs of achieving its emissions targets. These mechanisms enable Parties to access cost-effective opportunities to reduce emissions or to remove carbon from the atmosphere in other countries. While the cost of limiting emissions varies considerably from region to region, the benefit for the atmosphere is the same, wherever the action is taken. Much of the negotiations on the mechanisms have been concerned with ensuring their integrity. The three Kyoto mechanisms are as follows:
Joint Implementation (JI) under Article 6 provides for Annex I Parties to implement projects that reduce emissions, or remove carbon from the atmosphere, in other Annex I Parties, in return for emission reduction units (ERUs).
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) defined in Article 12 provides for Annex I Parties to implement projects that reduce emissions in non-Annex I Parties, or absorb carbon through afforestation or reforestation activities, in return for certified emission reductions (CERs) and assist the host Parties in achieving sustainable development and contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention.
Emissions Trading (ET), as set out in Article 17, provides for Annex I Parties to acquire certified emission reduction units from other Annex I Parties.
Among the above three mechanisms, only CDM is relevant to developing countries such as India.
Developing countries could view CDM as an opportunity not only to attract investment capital and Environmentally Sustainable Technologies (ESTs) but also to implement innovative technical, institutional and financial interventions to promote energy efficiency, renewable energy and forestry activities that contribute to sustainable development. Projects specially designed and implemented in developing countries under CDM, leading to carbon emission reduction or sequestration will receive payments from institutions and agencies in Annex B (Annex I countries with commitment to reduce GHG emissions) countries for every tonne of carbon emission avoided or sequestered.
CDM has been a contentious issue with diverse perceptions. According to one perception, it provides an opportunity for developing countries to access modern ESTs and receive financial incentives to overcome the barriers.
According to another perception, developing countries may lose the low cost mitigation options to industrialized countries, while leaving behind only more expensive ones to pursue, should they take on commitments in the future to limit their GHG emissions. Further, countries using CDM, to the extent of their dependence on this mechanism, need not reduce fossil fuel CO2 emissions domestically and their national GHG emissions, instead of declining, may remain stable or even increase.
Subsequently, the 1997 Kyoto protocol, which came into force in 2005, reasserted the importance of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and adhering to sustainable development principles. The Protocol laid out guidelines and rules regarding the extent to which a participating industrialized country should reduce its emissions of six greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbon, hydro-fluorocarbons and per-fluorocarbons. It requires industrialized countries (listed as Annex B countries in the Protocol) to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by a weighted average of 5.2%, based on the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions. The reduction is to be achieved by the end of the five-year period, 2008 to 2012. The Kyoto Protocol does not require the developing countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The Kyoto reduction, by itself, is inadequate to achieve a stabilization of climate change by 2100. A continual and larger reduction, similar to that stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol for the 2008–2012 period, will be needed in the future in order to begin to stabilize long-term greenhouse gas emissions. Even if stabilization of greenhouse gases is achieved, global warming will still continue for several decades and sea levels will continue to rise for several centuries. IPCC studies make it abundantly clear, however, that industrialized countries alone cannot achieve this reduction. Even if their emissions were reduced to zero in the near future, the current trends of growing emissions from developing countries alone could force the atmospheric concentration to exceed stabilization levels of 550 ppm. The participation of all countries, including the developing countries such as India, is essential for a successful worldwide effort to arrest the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.
What is the best method to justly and equitably distribute the burden of stabilizing climate change among the countries? This issue lies at the heart of much of the ongoing negotiations under the auspices of the UNFCCC. India, the fifth largest emitter of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel in the 1990s, has suggested that the ‘right’ to pollute the atmosphere be apportioned to all countries on the basis of their population. Using this gauge, China and India, the only countries with populations in excess of a billion each, could legitimately emit greenhouse gases to a greater extent, than other countries with lesser population, for some decades. But, as their greenhouse gas emissions today are less than this proposed allocation, they could ‘sell’ some of the ‘rights’ to the industrialized countries.
Countries usually propose burden-sharing formulae that favour their economies, and other countries have suggested schemes based on inherited and future emissions, a country’s contribution to temperature change, GDP, and land area and other resource endowments.
In the global climate change debate, the issue of largest importance to developing countries is reducing the vulnerability of their natural and socio-economic systems to projected climate change. Their concerns include increasing food security, reducing freshwater scarcity, protecting the livelihoods of forest dwellers, dry land farmers and coastal settlements and reducing health risks. Though there is a visible shift in the global discussions towards adaptation at the Climate Convention-related meetings, the focus continues to be on mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation can complement mitigation as a cost-effective strategy to reduce climate change risks.
The impact of climate change is projected to have different effects within and between countries. Developing countries have to carefully evaluate the need for, and the roles of global and national institutions in promoting both mitigation and adaptation programmes. Mitigation and adaptation actions can, if appropriately designed, advance sustainable development and equity both within and across countries and between generations. The pervasiveness of inertia and the possibility of irreversibility in the consequences of the interactions among climate, ecological and socio-economic systems are major reasons why anticipatory adaptation and mitigation actions are beneficial. Thus, the inertia and uncertainty imply that targets and timetables must be fixed for avoiding dangerous levels
of interference in the climate system. A number of opportunities to exercise adaptation and mitigation options may be lost if action is delayed1.
GHG Emissions
The global carbon cycle involves interaction among the atmosphere, oceans, soils and vegetation and fossil fuel deposits. The oceans contain 39,000 giga tonnes of carbon (GtC), fossil fuel deposits about 16,000 GtC, soils and vegetation about 2500 GtC, and the atmosphere about 760 GtC2. Since 1850, land-use change is estimated to have released about 136 GtC and fossil fuel combustion, about 270 GtC. Of this, 180 GtC has ended up in the atmosphere, while 110 GtC has been absorbed by growing vegetation and the remainder by the oceans. It is the increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2 that is the cause for concern about global climate change.
The combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reasons for increased concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Between 1990 and 1999, an estimated 6.3 GtC/year was released due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and another 1.6 GtC/year was released due to the burning of forest vegetation. This was offset by the absorption of 2.3 GtC/year each by growing vegetation and the oceans. This left a balance of 3.3 GtC/year in the atmosphere3. Controlling the release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion, land-use change and the burning of vegetation are therefore obvious opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions can lessen the projected rate and magnitude of warming and sea level rise. The greater the reductions in emissions and the earlier they are introduced, the smaller and slower the projected warming and the rise in sea levels. Future climate change is thus determined by historic, current and future emissions. Of the six aforementioned GHGs, CO2 accounted for 63%, methane 24%, nitrous oxide 10%, and the other gases the remaining 3% of the carbon equivalent emissions in 2000. Thus in addition to CO2, global mitigation efforts need to focus on the two largest and rapidly increasing GHGs.
Bali Roadmap
After the United Nations Climate Change Conference on the island Bali in Indonesia in December, 2007, the participating nations adopted the Bali roadmap as a two-year process toward finalizing a binding agreement in 2009 in Denmark, which will replace the Kyoto protocol when it expires in 2012. Work on the Bali roadmap will begin as soon as possible. Four major UNFCCC meetings to implement the Bali Roadmap are planned for 2008, with the first to be held in either March or April and the second in June, with the third in either August or September followed by a major meeting in Poznan, Poland in December 2008. The negotiations process is scheduled to conclude in 2009 at a major summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Agreement was reached after a U-turn from the US, which had wanted firmer commitments from developing countries. Environment groups said they were disappointed by the lack of firm targets for reducing emissions. The ‘Bali roadmap’ initiates a two-year process of negotiations designed to agree a new set of emissions targets to replace those in the Kyoto Protocol.
The EU had pressed for a commitment that industrialized nations should commit to cuts of 25-40% by 2020, a bid that was implacably opposed by a bloc containing the US, Canada and Japan. The final text does not mention specific emissions targets, but does acknowledge that “deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective” of avoiding dangerous climate change. It also says that a delay in reducing emissions will make severe climate impacts more likely.
The Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar, who served as conference president, said at the conclusion of the talks that it was a real breakthrough, a real opportunity for the international community to successfully fight climate change. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he appreciated ‘the spirit of flexibility’ shown by key delegations – and was aware that “there is divide of position between and among countries. But as this global warming is an issue which affects the whole humanity, whole planet earth, we must have co-ordinated and concerted efforts to address this issue.”
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared in London: “This agreement is a vital step forward for the whole world. The Bali roadmap agreed today is just the first step. Now begins the hardest work, as all nations work towards a deal in Copenhagen in 2009 to address the defining challenge of our time.” However, some environmental groups and some delegates have criticised the draft as being weak and a missed opportunity. Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth said: “This deal is very disappointing. We said we needed a roadmap, but this conference has failed to give us a clear destination.”
As talks overran their scheduled close by more than a day, delegates from the EU, US and G-77/China embarked with UN officials on a series of behind-the-scenes consultations aiming to break the remaining deadlock. The EU and US agreed to drop binding targets; then the EU and China agreed to soften language on commitments from developing countries.
With delegates anxious to make a deal and catch planes home, the US delegation announced it could not support the amended text. Shortly after, the US delegation announced it would support the revised text after all. There were a number of emotional moments in the conference hall – the UN’s top climate official Yvo de Boer in tears after being accused by China of procedural irregularities, and cheers and hugs when the US indicated its acceptance.
The document coming out of the meeting, the ‘Bali roadmap’, contained text on emissions cuts, the transfer of clean technology to developing countries, halting deforestation and helping poorer nations protect their economies and societies against impacts of climate change such as rising sea levels and falling crop yields. The roadmap sets the parameters and aims for a further set of negotiations to be finalised by the 2009 UN climate conference, to be held in Denmark. By that stage, parties should have agreed on a comprehensive plan for curbing global warming and adapting to its impacts.
This will include:
- emissions targets for industrialized countries, possibly but not necessarily binding
- some softer form of targets or ambitions for major developing countries
- mechanisms for leveraging funds from carbon trading to fund adaptation projects
Earlier, consensus was reached on the principle of rewarding poorer countries to protect their forests. This is widely acknowledged as the cheapest single way of curbing climate change, and brings benefits in other environmental areas such as biodiversity and fresh water conservation.
Delegates agreed on a framework that could allow richer nations and companies to earn “carbon credits” by paying for forest protection in developing countries. Andrew Mitchell, executive director of the Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of research institutions said: “We need to find a new mechanism that values standing forests. Ultimately, if this does its job, [deforestation] goes down to nothing.” Mitchell further stated that the only feasible source of sufficient funds was a global carbon market. But many economists believe mandatory emissions targets are needed to create a meaningful global market.
Steps Taken by India
India has consistently shown serious concern about the climate change and has played crucial role in cooperating with UN agencies and other international fora to contribute its share in making the climate clean. It signed the UNFCCC on 10 June 1992 and ratified it on 1 November 1993. Under the UNFCCC, developing countries such as India do not have binding GHG mitigation commitments in recognition of their small contribution to the greenhouse problem as well as low financial and technical capacities. India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests serves as the nodal agency for climate change issues in the country. It has constituted Working Groups on the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. Work is currently in progress on India’s initial National Communication (NATCOM) to the UNFCCC.
India acceded to the Kyoto Protocol on 26 August 2002. Current initiatives in India to improve understanding of climate change, and comply with the requirements of the UNFCCC include:
Preparation of the country’s initial National Communication to the UNFCCC by the Government of India. All Parties are required to communicate a national inventory of GHGs, and a general description of steps taken for the implementation of the Convention. The GHG inventory for the country is being prepared for the base year 1994, and will cover five sectors: energy, industrial processes, agriculture, forestry, and waste. This exercise involved detailed work on estimation of sectoral GHG emissions and identification of country-specific emission factors. Vulnerability and adaptation assessment is also part of the National Communication project.
Support of the Asian Least-cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy (ALGAS) study, by the Government of India. The study developed a national inventory of GHG sources and sinks, and identified potential mitigation options. Country-specific emission factors have been developed for methane emissions from paddy cultivation, carbon dioxide emissions from Indian coal, etc.
An extensive methane measurement campaign coordinated by the National Physical Laboratory in 1991. Measurements were undertaken in major paddy growing regions of the country under different rice environs for the whole cropping period. Emissions from paddy cultivation in India were estimated to be about 4 Tg/year (a tenth of United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates obtained by extrapolating European and American data to India).
- Several measures being undertaken in the country, which contribute to GHG mitigation.
- Establishment of the Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council under the Department of Science and Technology, which facilitates the transfer of environmentally sound technology.
- Extensive efforts in conservation of forests and biodiversity. The Participatory Forest Management Strategy of the Government of India secures rehabilitation of degraded areas, conservation of biodiversity, along with sharing of benefits with local people. In situ conservation is undertaken through a system of protected areas, including 75 national parks and 421 wildlife sanctuaries, covering 146,000 square km.
- Coastal zone management plans by all coastal states and Union Territories as per the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification of 1991 by all coastal states and Union Territories. The Government of India has set up Standing Committees for monitoring development in such fragile ecosystems as islands.
- Generation of much-needed information about the vulnerability to climate change under the ongoing Indo-UK Climate Change Impacts Programme supported by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. Several research organizations and academic institutions in the country are also engaged in research on climate change impacts. The Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, and the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi are engaged in developing climate change scenarios for India.
- Involvement of a number of governmental and independent agencies in climate change research in India. The India Meteorological Department (IMD) observes climatic parameters at surface and upper air observatories throughout the country. IMD’s network includes 559 surface observatories, more than 8000 rainfall monitoring stations, 100 satellite-based data collection platforms in remote areas, 203 voluntary observing ships, 10 cyclone detection radars, and 17 storm detection radars. Since 1983, IMD has maintained a meteorological observatory at the Indian Antarctic station. This data is scrutinized and archived at the National Data Centre, Pune, and used to study, predict, and determine the effects of climate change.
- Replacement of the existing cyclone detection radars with state-of-art Doppler Weather Radars in a phased manner. The cities of Calcutta and Chennai have been the first ones to witness their use. An indigenous Doppler weather radar is being developed under a collaborative programme of the IMD with the Indian Space Research Organisation (IMD, 2001).
- Using satellite data received from INSAT to provide cloud imageries in the visible and infrared channels, which in turn, are used to derive cloud motion vectors, sea surface temperatures, and outgoing long-wave radiation.
- Key role played by Indian scientists in national and international climate research efforts such as the IIOE (International Indian Ocean Expedition), MONEX (Monsoon Experiment), INDOEX (Indian Ocean Experiment), World Climate Research Programme, Global Observing System, and International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme.
The United Nations has supported India’s position on climate change and pulled up the United States for its failure to do enough to curb the green house gas (GHG) emissions.
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, told reporters recently in New Delhi: “No, I don’t think that the US is doing enough. In that manner, not a single industrialised country is doing sufficient to tackle the climate change.” He said that with only two years left for negotiations that will end in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 as decided by the recent Bali summit; there was a need for enhanced global cooperation particularly between developed and developing countries in tackling climate change. While favouring developing countries including India’s stand on the fight against climate change, De Boer said they could not be forced to compromise to set emission targets at the cost of their development.
The UN official further said that because this was a global issue, “we require global help and against this backdrop we can’t ignore the developing countries’ concern of economic growth and eradication of poverty.” Regarding the UN role in post-Bali conference in tackling climate change, he said, “We don’t’ want to see what the countries do not want but to see what the countries can do to tackle climate change.”
Explaining India’s stance vis-à-vis climate change at the US-sponsored international climate change in Honolulu in January 2008, R. Chidambaram, principal scientific advisor to the Indian government, said: “An absolutely clear imperative is that developed countries walk the talk on GHG (Green House Gas reductions). There has to be a clear understanding that developing countries have small individual carbon footprints and their overriding priority has to remain poverty eradication and addressing adaptation.
The Indian delegate made it explicitly clear that developing countries including India, were playing a part in the international action on mitigation especially through the flexibility mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol as also taking nationally appropriate action on mitigation. Expressing concern over suggestions on setting standard ‘benchmarks’ for various technology sectors, Chidambaram said: “Such benchmarking would be premature for developing countries – smaller players have to catch up. Moreover, we should not put the cart before the horse. If technologies are transferred properly, standards would automatically be achieved.”
Asking the participants to “sculpt our ideas and proposals on climate change within the provisions and principles of the Framework Convention,” Chidambaram made a strong plea for the “spirit of common but differentiated responsibilities” to pervade their deliberations. Expressing concern that the agenda did not emphasize the special need to support developing countries, he said: “The group of large economies representing both developed and developing countries should be able to discuss issues of relevance to both but within the clearly identified building blocks and other details negotiated at Bali.”
Noting the Bali Action Plan is about long term cooperative action to enable full, effective and sustained implementation of the Framework Convention, Chidambaram asked the participants to do “without suggestions for additions, including on competitiveness etc., which are the subject matter of discussions elsewhere.” The major economies process is well placed to contribute to the building block of technology with both its components; he said suggesting, “If knowledge is already available and technology is already developed, it should be transferred to the developing countries.”
India favours scientific and technological cooperation between the developed and developing countries. Keeping in view the fact that the prospect of rapid depletion of fossil fuels are now driving the global development of energy related technologies like renewables, efficiency and nuclear and development of each technology is complex, India feels that there is need for closing the nuclear fuel. In India’s view, the response to climate change needs to be technology based and discussion on technology was necessary.
Besides, the setting of standard ‘benchmarks’ goal needs to be realistic, apart from being based on a scientific consensus at a far higher spatial level than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It should also take into account, historical cumulative emissions, per-capita emissions and the sustainable development needs of developing countries and be guided by Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention in its entirety. As the issue of a long term goal is, however, linked to issues of equity, India believes that an equal per-capita entitlement to equal sustainable development is unassailable to ensure fairness and recognition that the earth’s atmosphere is our common heritage to which all of us have an equal claim.
Tasks for Copenhagen Summit
Issues involved in the climate change are serious enough and entail the pernicious consequences for the entire humanity if not addressed in time. Kyoto Protocol failed to attain its objectives mainly because of the apathy of the industrialized world led by the United States. Adverse impact of deterioration in climate is bound to transcend geographic contours and impact upon all. Thus, it is high time that both developed and developing countries stop ‘blame game’ and cooperate with each other to tackle the problem with diligence and sincerity. The forthcoming summit at Copenhagen affords ample opportunities to succeed in areas where Kyoto Protocol failed. For each country it is not the question of prestige but the question of very survival of humanity. The Copenhagen summit holds promise for a better tomorrow than a worse yesterday.
