By Suvendrini Kakuchi
KYOTO, Dec 2 1997 (IPS)

An American proposal to let industrialised countries adopt “differentiated” targets in cutting back greenhouse gas emissions offers the first glimpse of compromise in ongoing talks here on global warming.

The U.S. position marks a shift from the previous position of supporting a common, across-the-board target to be achieved by 34 industrialised countries under a global action plan on climate change being negotiated from Dec 1-10.

But while it may signal some headway in negotiations, it has been met with mixed reactions by different countries.

Some, like Japan, saw it as the start of real bargaining toward a global accord on climate change. Others ask how strong an accord would be if it indeed based on different targets for different countries.

Developing countries are wary that the U.S. approach may give industrialised nations, which are already falling behind best- efforts promises to reduce greenhouse gases, further loopholes to evade action.

“We believe in a limited differentiation policy as the best step in moving the stalled process forward,” Melinda Kimberly, U.S. assistant secretary of state, told reporters late Monday.

Japan, which itself favours reduction targets based on factors including population, viewed the American statement as a step forward. “We see the new (U.S.) position as a sign of compromise,” said the conference president Hiroshi Oki, who is chief of Japan’s Environment Agency.

Still, the U.S. position, which backtracks even on best-efforts commitments made by industrialised countries at the 1992 Rio Summit, has put it under criticism here.

Critics say the American position does not address a call, championed by the developing countries, for Washington to pledge a reduction — and not mere stabilisation — of its greenhouse emissions.

Unlike Japan and the European Union, which propose varying targets for reduction below 1990 levels, the U.S. had proposed reductions back only to those levels by the year 2012.

The U.S. position represents a backtracking from commitments made by industrialised countries at the 1992 Rio Summit — and one that developing nations say is a major problem with the U.S.

Despite pronouncements that the U.S. was now ready to consider “differentiated” targets for different countries — and the assessment by many that it was a positive development — critics said this may not address the real issue which is whether Washington would commit to cut its own emissions.

European Union officials greeted the U.S. statements cautiously, saying it showed the wrong kind of flexibility in the talks and could be yet another escape hatch from meaningful cuts.

The EU is seeking a flat reduction across the industrialised world of 15 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. Japan however had proposed using 5 percent as a base for calculating cuts.

EU environmental official Jorgen Henningsen said the U.S. government was undermining the Kyoto talks by not proposing an effective reduction target. “Nothing is clear because there is no target,” he said. “It is a bad omen.”

Without an explicit reduction target from the U.S., he says developing countries cannot be encouraged to make a commitment in Kyoto. “With the U.S. attitude, developing countries are not going to move towards a compromise,” he said.

Optimistic Japanese officials, however, maintained that under a formula for differentiated targets, the U.S. may then be persuaded to pledge for more than the zero-reduction target it has been pushing at Kyoto.

But developing countries see otherwise. They want to see proof of genuine U.S. commitment, before taking up calls that they make their own pledges, even if not legally binding like those to be made in Kyoto by industrialised nations.

“We are waiting to see the target set out by the U.S. and other industrialised countries before we decide on what we will do ourselves,” said a Tanzanian delegate.

An Indian official viewed reiterated “there cannot be new commitments for us in Kyoto” because the main responsibility for global warming, and thus corrective action, fell squarely on the developed world.

“The simple goal here as agreed under the Berlin Mandate, is for Annex 1 countries (industrialised economies) to come up with a more effective target,” he said. “The common but differentiated policy is a way for those responsible to not take up the commitments we have already talked about.”

At Monday’s and Tuesday’s sessions, Tanzania spoke out on behalf of developing countries in resisting the imposition of commitments without real targets from the industrialised world. Calls for discussions on their commitments, ahead of setting targets for rich countries, were rejected by delegates from Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Chinese, Malaysian and Brazilian delegates said the main point of the conference was setting targets for industrialised nations.

But the U.S. argues that something has to be done about greenhouse emissions, mostly from burning of fossil fuel like gas and coal, by countries like China, which is expected to take over from the U.S. as the top polluter by the year 2000.

That may be true, but it is not a complete picture. China does come in second to the U.S. in total carbon dioxide emissions, with 13.6 percent of the total in 1995. But on a per-capita basis, the U.S. still ranks first with 15 percent and China accounts for just 2.51 percent.

Developing countries continue to be under pressure to show their commitment to curb global warming. Some officials say they see signs that industrialised countries would accept non-binding commitments from developing nations in a Kyoto accord.

“We believe in a partnership, something like a joint effort between developing countries and industrialised countries which will aim at encouraging sustainable growth without pollution in those countries,” said Oki. Japan is leading the conference toward studying ways of implementing these partnership projects.

Washington is talking about ‘joint implementation’ projects in developing countries, working with private firms and government support on less pollutive technology.

“We believe in a level playing field,” Kimberly said, referring to concern at home that if left off the hook in Kyoto developing countries may compete unfairly agaisnt U.S. firms.

Brazil is also pushing a proposal, to be discussed later in the week, seeking the creation of a green fund to be supported through an environmental tax to be imposed on polluters in both developed and developing countries.

The U.S. says this is not workable. The Group of 77 developing countries favour it — but only after binding targets are set for developed countries.

Excerpt: