14th December 2011

To Bind or Not to Bind…That is the Question

Discuss this itemShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say

By Mahesh Sugathan

After countless late night hours over two weeks of intense wrangling on a set of contentious issues, negotiators at COP 17 in Durban finalised a package of agreements on the way forward to combat climate change. Given the hurdles negotiators faced heading into Durban, the result is indeed a remarkable achievement.

The agreements do not represent the most desirable, but rather the most realistic outcome possible under the prevailing political circumstances. In the words of South Africa’s COP president Maite Nkoana Mashabane, “I think we all realise they’re not perfect, but we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good and the possible.”

Reading about the key fault-line that hampered the last-minute deal one gets a strong sense of deja-vu. The tussle between India and the EU over the details of how legally binding future provisions of climate a change framework should be for non-Annex I parties - and the exact wording involved - echoes earlier debates that have taken place since the dawn of climate negotiations on equity and historical responsibility.

While understanding the need for developed countries to pioneer climate mitigation efforts, from an environmental perspective, the important question may be: what do internationally binding laws matter for actual climate-related mitigation measures on the ground?

The “tortoise” world of policy and negotiations appears to be often one, if not several steps behind the “hare” world of ground-level climate action initiatives - which admittedly is still far short of the scale needed to keep global warming within the 2°C threshold. One gets a strong sense of this while attending the various meetings of parties - including the plenary sessions - as compared with various side-events that highlighted private-sector as well as government and NGO-led initiatives on the ground.

In the former, progress on several contentious issues, such as the economic and social consequences of response measures, moved at snail’s - or tortoise - pace with talks stretching late into the night-making one wonder as delegates-seemed to draw upon seemingly infinite reserves - unlike fossil fuels - of human energy and patience debating what sentences or words to include or not in texts that would shape a final agreement.

On the other hand presentations and discussions made at several of the external side-events and symposiums taking place across the city of Durban reflect a very different landscape as far as momentum is concerned. At the Trade and Climate Change Symposium - organised by ICTSD, the World Trade Organization and South Africa’s Department of Trade and Industry - one of the sessions discussed the possibilities of harnessing trade for climate change mitigation including through a Sustainable Energy Trade Initiative or Agreement. Here, one speaker mentioned India’s high level of ambition on scaling up renewable energy - particularly the solar sector. The speaker also pointed to India’s innovative schemes of trading in renewable energy and energy efficiency certificates introduced or in the pipeline as part of the country’s National Action Plans on Climate Change. Similar far-reaching initiatives were also reportedly underway in China.

At the closing plenary of the symposium on 6 December as well as well as at an event launching the South Africa Renewables Initiative (SaRI), Minister of Trade and Industry Rob Davies underscored the importance of Africa not missing the “green” industrial revolution. He also highlighted ambitious plans to scale up renewable energy in South Africa, a country dependent on coal to provide the lion’s share - some 90 percent - of its energy needs by attracting a greater level of private sector investments.

Mind the (gigaton) gap: Bridging intention and implementation

Could strong domestic climate laws be a substitute for international obligations? Certainly it would provide a strong signal to the global community and the private sector about a country’s seriousness of intent to reduce greenhouse gases and perhaps also help expand the carbon market. So far as attracting climate-friendly investments from the private sector are concerned, strong, stable and legally enforceable domestic climate change laws, policies and incentives may also do the same. This is already happening in developing countries and will evolve further.

Durban paved the way for a future framework with “legal provisions that are enforceable.” Any legal provisions applicable to non-Annex I countries in such an agreement may very well reflect the current state of domestic climate law in these countries. While the deal marks a qualified victory for multilateralism, Durban may have little effect on private sector action. In the words of one private sector representative in Durban, “business will shrug its shoulders over Durban and wait for direction from national capitals.”

The dangers of failing to respond to the climate imperative are well known, particularly for developing countries. The UN estimates a six gigaton gap between how much the world has pledged to cut carbon and how much carbon emissions need to come down to stop global warming according to the science.

What matters is that even if the major GHG emitting countries - whether developed or developing - do make binding commitments internationally, is ultimately the willingness and capacity to implement them that will make the difference. Willingness matters as there are no penalties - unlike in the WTO-led trade system - for backtracking on climate-related commitments, even for Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol.

Capacity may be even more critical. With competing development-related priorities and relatively constrained public treasuries that may not be able to support renewables indefinitely - even China - they will need to focus on “win-win” opportunities: combining climate-change, jobs, and economic development. Even richer countries, with the best intentions, have been finding it difficult to scale up renewables and energy-efficiency of an order big enough to significantly reduce dependence on fossil-fuels. This will be even truer for countries that have several times the number of poor and unemployed than the most recession-hit prosperous countrys.

The shortfall of public financing efforts implies that it may need to be leveraged so as to best attract complementary private-sector investments. Despite a reluctance to turn to private-sector financing for the Green Climate Fund, many developing countries already recognise the importance of private sector involvement and are taking steps to attract such investments in climate-friendly sectors -another example of the discord between the world of climate negotiations and practise.

Brightening the future for climate and development

It is clear that both developed and developing countries will need to put in an effort to row against the tide of climate change - one that will affect the latter even more adversely. But as developing countries continue to build economic muscle, the developed world will need to man the bigger oars. As far as the future of climate-change negotiations are concerned, success - at least from mitigation perspective - may depend to some extent on changing the nature of emphasis from economic “burdens” to “opportunities.” A stronger focus on emission reduction initiatives and targets - both in the developed as well as developing world - that simultaneously resolve development-related needs and create development-related opportunities may provide a sounder basis for a future climate-related agreement.

A good example of this and a positive note on which to end comes from a 9 December newspaper article which states that South Africa would be the first country in Africa to phase out energy-guzzling incandescent bulbs by 2016. While the energy saving effects have not been quantified it is estimated that a switch from incandescent to CFLs and LEDs could save enough energy to light 4 million homes. The initiative was part of a partnership between UNEP and major light bulb manufacturers Osram and Philips that could provide a promising template for future UNFCCC-led initiatives as well. If such an initiative were to be scaled up to a global level, UNEP estimates it would save total electricity equivalent to all the electricity used in the UK and Denmark - more than half of India’s total consumption.

Such a lighting initiative - whether through appropriate national laws or an internationally binding agreement - could enable many more people to benefit from expanded electric power without increasing emissions-brightening prospects for both climate as well as development. So while roadmaps are essential, what may matter more is not the road to a certain destination-rather ability and willingness to drive there…hopefully in a sustainably-powered electric car.

One response to “To Bind or Not to Bind…That is the Question”

wallace 15th December 2011 at 10:39
a great article！ it’s true that political willingness and human/technical capability are at least as important as the roadmap itself. i like ictsd papers::-*