D+C Development and Cooperation (No. 6, November/December 2001, p. 29)

The climate ‘caravan’ can go forward. That was the most important result of the UN climate conference in Bonn in July. At times it appeared that the entire Kyoto process was doomed following the failure of the negotiations in Bonn in 1999 and in the Hague in November 2000. But while what came out of Bonn this year is rated as a small step forward for the global climate, it is seen as a big one for the international community. The breakthrough came when after marathon night sessions the delegates at the sixth conference of the UN climate convention signatory states agreed on a compromise which cleared the way for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

The 180 countries represented in Bonn adopted a proposal by conference president Jan Pronk which eased markedly the industrialised nations’ obligations to reduce greenhouse gases. A generous allowance of forest areas as CO2 ‘sinks’ helped win the agreement of Japan, Canada and Russia. The USA still rejects the Kyoto Protocol. But the US delegation head, Paula Dobriansky, told the assembly the USA would nevertheless comply with its climate protection obligations.

The negotiations in Kyoto in 1997 ended in agreement that the industrialised nations would by 2012 reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent compared with their levels of 1990. The Bonn conference this year was about concretising this target to make the Kyoto Protocol ratifiable. Its result enabled the ratification process to begin now. But how long this will take and what objections could delay its completion is an open question. For the Kyoto Protocol to come into force, at least 55 countries must have ratified it, and these must represent a total of at least 55 per cent of the industrialised nations’ emissions. German Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin told the conference he hoped the protocol could take effect as early as 2002.

Since the USA alone is responsible for one-third of the North’s greenhouse gases, tying in Japan and Russia will be decisive for effective ratification. The European Union countries have made many concessions towards that end. For instance, they have made a much greater allowance for biological ‘sinks’ such as forests and fields as CO2 storage areas than they originally intended. Some countries can also have the construction of environment-friendly power plants in developing countries credited to their efforts to attain their climate protection target. The only specific EU concern pushed through at the conference was that the building and export of nuclear power plants would not earn credit points.

Protest by indigenous peoples

Afforestation projects in developing countries can also count on the credit side. But the international community will have to be vigilant that, for example, palm oil plantations in Kalimantan which have displaced a rainforest rich in animal and plant life are not regarded as ‘sinks’. Representatives of indigenous peoples alerted the conference to such problems. “We live in these areas, which are suffering most from the effects of climate change,” said Sebastiao Manchineri, from Brazil’s Amazon Basin. At the Hague conference, the indigenous peoples published their own declaration on climate protection which pointed out the importance of their traditional knowledge in dealing with nature and ecological systems. In Bonn, they demanded that their peoples should be admitted as delegates to future climate conferences and that their forests should be seen as their habitats and not only as “sinks for the CO2 garbage of the industrialised nations”. But their calls fell on deaf official ears. Asked if the indigenous peoples could present their concerns in Bonn as a formal position, Pronk replied: “No way.”

Environmental groups rate the Bonn compromise as a heavily watered-down version of Kyoto’s original goals. They say the actual reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will not be 5.2 per cent, but only 1.8 per cent compared to 1990. But the delegates in Bonn also agreed on sanction mechanisms for countries which fail to reach their reduction targets. In the subsequent target period they are to cut their emissions by an extra 1.3 per cent. An idea of a system of fines, included initially in Pronk’s proposal, was dropped.

What does the compromise do for the developing countries? Although the results as a whole were modest, they were also a success. During the final night-long negotiations on the last day of the conference, the developing countries, represented by the Group of 77, wanted to untie Pronk’s compromise package once again. For instance, they said the rich nations’ promises of aid for measures to adjust to climate change and for technology transfer and the introduction of energy-saving technology in their countries were insufficient. The EU, Canada and Australia then came up with a joint declaration promising “fresh money” for building dykes and for technology. Inputs are to total about DM 880 million ( 450 million) per year. German Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul spoke of a “huge opportunity for technology transfer”. To be sure, helping developing and threshold countries to align their industrialisation processes on efficient use of energy and preventing harmful emissions is in the long run a particularly important instrument of climate protection.

The representatives of 43 island states, which are threatened directly by a rise in the sea level, also expressed relief over the compromise. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) welcomed above all a promise by the EU and Canada to support the poorer countries in coping with the impacts of climate change. But they criticised sharply some industrialised nations’ successful assertion of a demand to be able to offset CO2 ‘sinks’ against their greenhouse gas reduction obligations. UN Environment Programme director Klaus Töpfer praised the constructive role the developing countries had played in the negotiations. He said the result of the Bonn conference was a positive signal to the poorest countries. Climate change was a problem for Africa in particular, although the continent had the smallest degree of responsibility for it.