By Suvendrini Kakuchi
KYOTO, Dec 1 1997 (IPS)

“Flexibility” emerged as a key word here as a world conference to fight global warming opened on Monday, with governments bitterly divided over commitments they must make in the coming days to slash emissions of greenhouse gases.

Opening the Dec 1-10 negotiations, conference president Hiroshi Oki of Japan appealed to participants for “flexibility” in this difficult round of talks. Likewise, he promised developing countries a “fair and equitable” solution.

Officially, the positions of opposing blocs, including the European Union, United States and developing countries, remain far apart. Underlining the debate is a sharp divide between the developed and developing countries on obligations they expect from each other.

The U.S. is showing no indication of budging from its stance that some form of commitment by developing countries to cut greenhouse emissions, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuel, must be achieved at Kyoto.

But developing nations say there is no shirking the fact that industralised countries are responsible for fouling up the atmosphere. The U.S. alone produces more than 20 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, and should lead in making cuts, they argue.

“It is unfair that we must be forced to undertake a commitment when there is no indication of leadership from the top polluters,” said Espen Ronneberg of the Republic of Marshall Islands, one of many islands that would bear the brunt of rising sea levels to be caused by global warming.

Like the U.S., industrialised nations are falling behind 1992 commitments to try to cut back emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. The Kyoto talks hope to address this failure by setting legally binding targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Given conflicting positions, hopes for agreeing on commitments depend on the level of flexibility that can be achieved in the next few days, before governments’ senior ministers arrive at the end of the week.

“Everything is now based on negotiation,” said a Finnish delegate who asked not to be named. “Talks will focus on a compromise, which will then be put forward for final approval from the ministers.”

Officials already see some signs of compromise.

The U.S. delegation, which wants no cuts in greenhouse emissions for at least 10 years, is now indicating a slide toward accepting Japan’s proposal of an average 5 percent reduction by 2008 to 2012 — on condition that developing countries like China and India also make a commitment.

European Union delegates, who arrived with the most ambitious proposal of a 15 percent reduction below 1990 levels by the year 2010, are also signaling a softening to 10 percent as a base for further discussions, conference sources said.

The haggling over targets, timetables and terms of legally binding commitments under the third meeting of parties to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change now rests with host Japan.

But in a press conference Monday, the flexibility that has emerged as the focus of negotiations here — and is being mentioned as the best hope for a climate change accord — was criticised by green activists.

“We equate ‘flexibility’ with loopholes that will prevent a viable solution to global warming,” said Lars Georg Jensen of the World Wildlife Fund Denmark. “The proposals that are being put forward are ways and means for industrialised countries to escape clear targets.”

Some proposals on the table in Kyoto include trading in emissions, which would allow countries to ‘sell’ their credits to those that may continue produce greenhouse gases.

There are also proposals to widen the coverage of greenhouse gases covered by reduction targets from the three main ones, which are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. The U.S. is batting for stabilisation measures to include three other greenhouse gases — hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. The Japanese and European formulas cover only the first three gases.

Discussions are also being held on a “net approach” method for measuring emissions, which would allow countries to calculate total greenhouse emissions after subtracting carbon absorbed in forests and other sinks.

But critics say this is just another way to allow governments to shirk meaningful commitments, not least because of the difficulties of measuring carbon dioxide absorbed by forests.

For their part, developing countries are calling for better technological advances, training and funding to be extended by industrialised countries to help them cut down on dirty technology used in industry and power.

But while they accept they have to tread an environmentally cleaner path, officials from some developing countries maintain they are being forced to take on a double burden. “We face a financial and technical threat,” said a delegate from Zimbabwe.

What is happening is that “advanced countries are proposing that developing countries agree to a commitment, before any aid is extended,” he argued.

A Finnish official said talk of aid may not always be realistic given economic recession and the decline in aid funds. Funds for developing countries will not be easy to come by, even as donors demand better results for their money.

“There is a reluctance to extend financial assistance unless the money is for specific projects that will record clear targets,” he explained. “The situation is quite different from Rio (the 1992 Earth Summit) when the mood was enthusiastic and countries had large financial reserves to put forward as solutions.”

Likewise, many delegations are grappling with domestic agendas, which tend to cloud efforts at a solution at Kyoto. The Kyoto talks are coming amid strong business lobbies in countries like United States, Japan and Australia against major cuts in greenhouse emissions, not to mention the fossil fuel industry.

Even the Japanese government’s attention is now focused on an economic downturn and the currency slide in Asia, which some say may well garner more attention than the Kyoto conference.

Thus, a European official said, governments’ priorities are cleaning up economic problems at home. For many, he added, “global warming is not such a pressing concern because the public is not feeling the negative aspects as much as their economic problems”.

Excerpt: