ENVIRONMENT:
Prepare for the Worst, Says Next Host of Climate Change Meet

Marcela Valente


BUENOS AIRES, (IPS) - In the past five international conferences on climate change, hopes have focused on attempts to get the United States and Russia to agree to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. But the wait has been in vain, and the global meetings flopped, one after another.

The strategy at the next conference, to be hosted by Argentina in December, will be to change the central focus of the debate, on the premise that climate change is inevitable even if emissions are drastically cut, and that developing countries must start getting ready to deal with the damages.

Instead of preparing for yet another meeting concentrated on bringing the Kyoto Protocol -- in which industrialised nations agree to meet binding targets for reducing emissions of the gases that cause global warming -- into effect, Argentina proposes discussing the creation of funds and mechanisms for ''adapting'' to the increasingly accelerated phenomenon of global warming.

The Argentine government's initiative, which has the backing of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), will focus on the question of drumming up funds that would enable developing countries to create the infrastructure -- like irrigation or canal systems -- needed to deal with the changes provoked by global warming.

The Tenth Conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10) will be held Dec. 6-17 in Buenos Aires.

The Argentine capital also hosted the Fourth Conference. But since no other Latin American country set forth a proposal, the Convention's executive secretariat accepted the offer from Buenos Aires.

The suggestion to discuss the creation of ''adaptation mechanisms'' came from the Argentine Foreign Ministry's director of environmental affairs, Raúl Estrada Oyuela, who took part in the negotiations that led to the implementation of the Convention on Climate Change in 1994, and to the desig n of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

Before the Protocol can go into effect, it must be ratified by nations whose total combined emissions of greenhouse gases account for 55 percent of global emissions.

The countries that had ratified the Protocol by late 2003 accounted for 44.3 percent of global emissions.

If Russia were to ratify the Protocol, the proportion would rise to 61 percent. And if the United States signed and ratified the treaty, the proportion would climb to 80 percent. Only one of them would have to ratify the treaty for it to enter into effect. But neither Washington nor Moscow are willing to do so.

COP-6, which took place in late 2000 in The Hague, was cut short to await the results of the hard-fought elections in the United States, which is responsible for 24 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Outgoing president Bill Clinton (1993-2001) had signed the Protocol towards the end of his term. But shortly after taking office, President George W. Bush revoked the U.S. government's signature.

The second half of COP-6 was held in 2001, and no progress was made towards expanding commitments to reduce emissions.

Since then, all eyes have turned towards Russia. After a few hints that it would ratify the Protocol, Moscow failed to do so at COP-8 in New Delhi, India in 2002 and at COP-9, held late last year in Milan, Italy.

The last few conferences were described as dull and ineffective by government delegates and activists alike.

Meanwhile, the process of global warming has not let up.

In the 10 years since the Convention on Climate Change went into effect, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, reflecting a ''collective failure'' on the part of the industrialised North, the U.S.-based Global Resources Institute (GRI) said this week.

GRI researchers estimate that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have increased 11 percent in the past decade, and they project another 50 percent rise by 2020.

A team of 25 scientists and activists who visited the glaciers of Patagonia, the region shared by Argentina and Chile at the extreme southern tip of South America, aboard the Greenpeace ship the Arctic Sunrise in late January and early February found evidence of severe glacial retreat caused by global warming.

Argentina will recommend that the goal of getting Russia and/or the United States to ratify the Protocol should not be put at the top of the agenda, even though it remains the key objective of the negotiations carried out since the Convention on Climate Change was adopted in 1992.

''If Russia ratifies the Protocol before COP-10, then we'll change our plans. But the most reasonable route is to prepare for the worst,'' Estrada Oyuela said at a Mar. 15 meeting of representatives of local NGOs, where he announced the position to be taken by Buenos Aires in its preparations for the conference.

The idea was accepted as ''realistic'' by many of the NGOs taking part in the meeting. ''It doesn't make sense to continue pushing for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol when it is clear that they don't intend to comply with it,'' Anna Petra, with the local EcoLaPaz Environmentalist Association, told IPS.

''We know that even if (the effect of the greenhouse gases) is mitigated, and emissions are drastically reduced, climate change is irreversible, so adaptation is one way to assess how much damage has already been done, and how the vulnerabilities of each country can be addressed,'' said Petra, whose organisation forms part of Friends of the Earth International.

Juan Carlos Villalonga, with Greenpeace-Argentina's energy campaign, agrees: ''The Kyoto Protocol is stuck in a dead-end alley, and I believe Estrada Oyuela's stance is one of good faith, because he recommends not losing any more time in waiting for emissions to be reduced, and suggests that we attempt to do something in terms of adapting to climate change.''

Villalonga noted, for example, that in the pampas of central Argentina, rainfall has increased nearly 40 percent in 30 years due to global warming, and investment is urgently needed to create new networks of canals, dikes, roads and bridges.

Estrada Oyuela's position ''is pragmatic, and we support it,'' said the Greenpeace activist, although he warned of certain risks. On one hand, he expressed the fear that the policies aimed at helping countries deal with climate change could begin to be seen as a solution to the underlying problem.

Villalonga also warned of the risk that the international community could end up facilitating things for countries that refuse to make progress towards eliminating the causes of global warming.

Greenhouse gases are basically the result of the burning of fossil fuels like oil, coal and gas.

''The adaptation mechanisms would be a palliative, but if emissions reduction is not required and the petroleum industry interests aren't touched, there will be no cure for this illness,'' said Villalonga.

Since the climate change conferences got underway in 1992, the emphasis has been on cutting emissions and mitigating their effects, said Estrada Oyuela.

However, it is increasingly important for developing countries to put an emphasis on their vulnerabilities and on measures to address them, he stressed.

The proposal that Argentina will send to the Climate Change Convention General Secretariat in June breaks up the agenda for the December ministerial meeting into four major areas of debate: adaptation; energy and climate change; land use; and the negotiating process itself.

Instead of the traditional series of speeches by environment ministers, Buenos Aires suggests setting up four panels comprised of six ministers and a moderator to discuss the four main areas of debate. All of the regions would be represented on each panel.

''We must bring the big issues that were sent to the parallel meetings back into the conferences,'' Estrada Oyuela told the representatives of civil society Monday.

He was referring to the forums in which NGOs, business chambers, and academics take part, and which have lately been joined by government officials.

These parallel meetings have become increasingly attractive, drawing more and more participants, in contrast to the conferences of government delegates, which have failed to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol impasse, and continue waiting for the ''rebellious'' countries to agree to do their bit in fighting climate change.