Kyoto Protocol - a view.

One can only look at the outcome of the Third Conference of the Parties to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Kyoto from 1 to 10 December 1997, with a certain amount of pessimism since several scientific factors were not seriously considered and the utterly divergent views of the developing and developed world could not be breached.

The key scientific points centre around the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction scenario, the carbon dioxide-equivalent concept vs. individual gases, and the issue of sinks - the processes, activities or mechanisms which remove a GHG or aerosol or a precursor of a GHG from the atmosphere.

In addition, there was a question as to whether or not there should be "commitments" from the developing countries on the matter of transfer of technology and the currently used 'Activities Implemented Jointly", as well as the relevant principles, modalities, rules and guidelines for "emissions' trading".

The question that was most seriously debated was that of the level of reduction, the time frame of reduction, and the gases to be included. Annex I countries (the industrialized countries listed in this Annex to the Convention must adopt measures aimed at returning their GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000) were in favour of including six gases: C[O.sub.2] (carbon dioxide), C[H.sub.4] (methane), [N.sub.2]0 (nitrous oxide), HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons), PFCs (perfluorocarbons) and [SF.sub.6] (sulphur hexaflouride).

The Group of 77 countries and China were opposed to a C[O.sub.2]-equivalent concept where all these gases would be lumped together by multiplying emissions from each gas by its global warming potential (GWP). There is some scientific concern in an approach of this kind, arising from the fact that: the lifetimes of these gases are widely different, ranging from about 10 years for methane to more than 100 years for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide; with the proposed time horizon of 100 years, there will be ten lifetimes of methane; and GWPs have gone through substantial changes with that of methane having been changed from 24 to 21 in just one year.

There is also another concern: Annex I countries might concentrate on gases with high GWPs and leave the energy sector untouched. On the other hand, given the present state of knowledge, it is also difficult to scientifically judge the level of reduction necessary for each one of these gases separately.

The reduction question is tied to the stabilization scenario. For a stabilization value of 550 ppm for carbon dioxide (by 2100), a substantial global reduction from the 1990 value becomes necessary Among the different stabilization scenarios suggested (15 per cent, by the European Union; 5 per cent, by Japan; and no change till 2008 to 2012, by the United States), the Kyoto recommendation of a reduction "by at least 5 per cent below 1990 level" appears to be a very weak compromise. The time period - 2008 to 2012 - is also long.

On the question of whether or not all the six gases are to be included, the widely divergent views between the Annex I parties (which require inclusion of all six) and that of the Group of 77 and China was not resolved in Kyoto: Annex A of the Protocol retains all six gases.

A major concern on which even scientific views differ involves the issue of sinks. For carbon dioxide, the oceans are considered a "global common". In the case of methane, the major sink is the atmosphere by way of a chemical reaction, with a minor uptake by soil. There were widely divergent views on the question of how sinks, in relation to forestry and land-use changes and agricultural soil, are to be included.

Clearly, one has to devise a methodology for identifying human-induced changes. Here, the Kyoto recommendation that each party included in Annex I provide data to establish its level of carbon stock in 1990 is appropriate, for only then can one make an estimate of changes in carbon stock in subsequent years through human-induced activities.

This area continues to be a grey area. For New Zealand, for example, the uptake estimated and reported in the initial communications to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is a substantial fraction of its own total emission. Furthermore, even for a single country, estimates in different years are substantially different.

There has been considerable concern about the inability of the United States to reduce emissions appropriately and within a suitable time period. To many, particularly in the developing countries, it seems strange that a country having only 5 per cent of the world's population, but emitting 23 per cent of all global emissions, and one with a wide variety of technology at its command, would continue to delay any decisive action.

The concern about the level of commitments from the developing countries also seems somewhat exaggerated. In one of the satellite sessions, the results of estimates of 12 Asian countries under the Asian Least-Cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement (ALGAS) programme were presented: it became clear that for this region, with 51 per cent of the world's population, the equivalent carbon dioxide emission was only 13 per cent of the total global emission in 1990. Yet, a considerable amount of thought had been given in divising mitigation and abatement efforts, some of which had already been put into place.

While "no new commitments" were introduced for Parties not included in Annex I, the Protocol did reaffirm existing commitments for the Convention, which are applicable also for developing countries. In this area, one important element is cooperation in scientific and technical research promoting the maintenance and development of systematic observation systems. These systems are particularly inadequate in developing countries, and a systematic and planned strategy in this direction could be a major step forward. Another matter of interest for the developing countries is the provision of additional new financial resources to meet the agreed full cost incurred in the implementation of existing commitments.

An interesting new scheme is the introduction of a "Clearance Development Mechanism", aimed at providing assistance in the reduction of greenhouse gases and in achieving sustainable development to Parties not included in Annex I. A controversial element in this plan is the provision that Parties included in Annex I may use certified emissions' reductions resulting from such projects as credit to their own commitments. One of the principal concerns is the matter of verification, reporting and accountability for emissions trading undertaken for the purposes of meeting quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol. That has been left to the Conference of the Parties to work out.

'Bubble' Concept

An increasing idea discussed at the Conference was the "bubble" concept, introduced by the European Union. The Kyoto, Protocol concurs with that concept by allowing Parties to jointly fulfil their commitments, provided that their total combined aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the GHG's do not exceed their assigned amounts. This concept has several advantages and is one that could usefully be pursued in other parts of the world.

Dr. Ashesh Prosad Mitra received his D. Phil. in 1955 from the University of Calcutta, India. A specialist in radio and space physics, upper atmosphere and global environment, he is presently Chairman of SASCOM - the South Asian regional research centre of the Global Change System for Analysis, Research and Training (START), which is dedicated to a concerted international effort to reduce the scientific uncertainties regarding global environmental change. Over the last decade, he has concentrated his efforts on the scientific aspects of global environmental hazards of human activities.