II What should our position be?
We are not arguing under any circumstances that given the impasse between the Northern countries, India should go to Kyoto as a mere spectator. It is very clear that this global problem, caused by the overuse of some, affects us all. We must insist that the world has to take concerted action to deal with this challenge. We must be proactive in our own proposals to demand a just, fair and equitous framework for the governance of this global resource. The framework for action has to be built not on aid and charity or even the capability of the North, but on entitlements of all people of the world to a common resource. In other words, the framework for cooperation between industrialised countries and developing countries has to be built on principles of governance and not on petty business transactions.  

We must keep in mind that South Asians are very vulnerable to changes in climate. If many of the current predictions come true, the regions which has over one-sixth of the world’s populations will greatly suffer, maybe more than any other part of the world. It is, therefore, vital we seize the opportunity today.

We are outlining the position that we strongly feel the Government of India should take:

1. We are, therefore, not at all advocating that the India should take a very reactive -- or negative position -- at Kyoto. We believe that it is possible to participate in a meaningful exercise and to define the framework for international cooperation in the interests of the same "one world". During the negotiations for the framework convention --1991 -- we had raised some of these issues. It was our current President, Shri K.R. Narayanan who had presided over the release of our publication, Global Warming in an Unequal World which had strongly argued that since the atmosphere is a global common property resource its benefit must be shared equitably by all human beings in the world.

There cannot be, under any circumstances, the acceptance of a position that a global common property resource like the atmosphere can provide more benefits to an American or an Englishmen more than an Indian or an African. In other words, this means that the entitlements to the use of the atmosphere have to be built on per capita emissions. This approach then provides each country with a quota of the permissible emissions it can emit. Scientists should define what the total sustainable limit of such emissions would be for the world. And this entire global quota, as defined by scientists, should then be equitably shared by all the nations of the world.

2. The world will have to accept a maximum per capita emission in order to deal with global warming. We cannot allow a world in which some countries have to freeze their carbon dioxide emissions at one levels and other countries at another level. This would mean freezing global inequality. A convergence principle towards a just and sustainable norm has to be the other rational principle in such a situation.
3. However, once the quotas are assigned we will find that there are few countries which are using far more than their quotas -- namely the North -- and there are other countries, in Africa, in Asia and other parts of the developing world which are using far less than their quota. As early as 1991, CSE proposed an emissions trading system which is now being proposed by the US but with a very different concept.

Under our proposal, it is vital that property rights, or entitlements, are established before any trading is allowed. Trading of these entitlements will provide the right incentive and disincentive for countries to deal with global warming. For instance, the US may find it cheaper to buy emission rights from a country like India than instal energy saving equipment. Similarly, India would want to protect the financial incentive of the sale of its quota and would also like to invest in energy saving devices. The World Bank had estimated that the annual value of climate quota sales would be US$ 70 billion -- equal to the entire annual aid to the South. Once such a quota is established then you would also be able to deal with the concerns of the trade unions in the US because then Indian would have no interest in developing or inviting polluting industries which threaten the world’s atmosphere to India. Therefore, India must very clearly say to the US that the problem really lies in the fact that we do not have an appropriate economic and property rights framework for managing the global commons.  

Most of the African countries accept the entitlements and per capita emissions framework. And, furthermore, the entire strategy of the European Union is built on this concept. The Union has proposed a joint target for all its nations but different countries within the Union will be allowed to have different targets, based on their common but differentiated responsibilities. Therefore, based on per capita emission, the poorer nations within the Union would be allowed to increase their emissions; nations like France which have invested in "cleaner" nuclear energy will be given a target to stabilise while other countries would take a larger cut -- larger than the Union’s combined 15 per cent -- to meet the common target. We believe this is a just way of managing a common resource and would like to see it extended to the rest of the world. India must argue in Kyoto for all North-South cooperation in the area of climate change to be built on this principle.

 III
In all this what should be our response to joint implementation -- which is a measure being promoted by the industrialised countries as a way of bringing developing countries on board? It is argued that as cutting future carbon dioxide emissions in industrialised countries will be more expensive than cutting future carbon dioxide emissions in developing countries, an industrialised country should financially assist, say India, to acquire more efficient power stations but the credit for the saving that would thus result in carbon dioxide emissions would go to the industrialised country paying for the power station. It is similarly argued that developing countries can be given money to plant trees on a big scale to remove some carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because it would be cheaper to plant trees in developing countries instead of developed countries. Some call this the win-win option. The industrialised world thus does not make "expensive" adjustments to its economy which would render its industries uncompetitive in the global marketplace and the developing world gets some money for reducing its emission.

We have been strongly opposed to this proposal in the absence of any global property right system over the global commons and our reasons are as follows:

Firstly, this arrangement is a short term arrangement where industrialised countries are looking for short term gains. Accepting this scheme would mean that the developing countries would use up their cheap options for reducing emissions and not even get the credit for it in the global balance sheet of emissions. But once they have reached high levels of energy efficiency, industrialised countries would have no economic incentive to invest in developing countries. They would rather invest in their own countries. And if global warming is still a threat -- as it would be because industrialised countries have not taken any action at home -- then there will be pressure on developing countries to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions on their own. And then the costs of cutting back on carbon dioxide emissions will be very high. And at that stage, in the absence of any agreed framework, industrialised countries would not provide any support to the developing countries. Therefore, joint implementation, can only be permitted if there is a long term agreement on the principle of per capita emissions rights of all people in the world.

Secondly, the joint implementation strategy raises several technical issues. How will we know that a new technology is being sold to us because it is coming to us as an effort to reduce global warming or simply because it is coming to us as a matter of common practice in international trade which brings us newer and more efficient technologies? There is also the fear that companies could use the garb of Joint Implementation to dump experimental technologies onto developing countries which within normal economic calculations would be unviable in these countries. Furthermore, even if some of these problems can be sorted out, they will, nonetheless, demand an extraordinary level of governance so that interference in the economic processes of a country will increase. Every such project will have to be screened to ensure that technological dumping is not taking place and India is becoming a "technological guinea pig."

We, therefore, strongly urge you to take serious consideration of this letter. It is very important that India go to Kyoto with a clear frame of mind -- to set out proposals which protect the future economic and environmental rights of the world’s poor by proposing a fair and just framework for international cooperation in the area of climate change. We must not lose our chance in Kyoto. 

With our very best wishes, 

Yours cordially, 

ANIL AGARWAL
Director

SUNITA NARAIN
Deputy Director