Last month when I took my flight from Mumbai to Europe, I wondered if I was paying a higher price for my ticket because of the EU-ETS aviation law. The Europe Union (EU) decided to bring (aviation sector) every commercial flight that lands on European soil would need to comply with the Emission trading (ET) scheme by buying carbon permits to offset their emissions from January 1. The measurement and review would take up to April next year, after which the set up would be fully operational. But, so as to not put increasing pressure on the airline, the first 85% was free allocation and 12% was to be auctioned and 3% was reserved for new airlines. Equity and historical responsibility was at the heart of the aviation scheme, as India would have said! A good point of view is giving by our EU tracker, Seb, here.

But, but, but India is vehemently opposing the scheme for the same reasons, that of equity. All airlines except 6 airlines from China and two from India have refused to be a part of it. That is quite an irony considering, India and China host up to 68% of the clean development mechanism, a flexibility mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol. The EU ETS has recently shown SOME promise in reducing emission and which latest reports put at a 2%. But, that could be well be because of the economic slowdown. In order that airlines offset the emission due to airline emissions they would have to invest in a clean development mechanism which is a flexible offset mechanism. Moreover, this tax could be used to fill the green Climate fund that would ultimately be used to finance technology and adaptation in the non Annex I nations.

Will the Indian airlines give in?

India has two airlines which are international carriers, Jet airways and the national carrier, Air India. Air India has operational problems of its own and the aviation world is not losing much by not having Air India in it. In fact, in the past few years, I have hardly ever met a family, friend or acquaintance who has taken an Air India flight to Europe. That leaves Jet Airways to plunge headfirst into the aviation scheme. Basic instinct would say that no airline would jeopardize its market in the international sphere because of a country’s whim to react. So, my money is that India would give in!

How would India retaliate?

A little birdie says that India and China are infuriated for not sticking to common but differentiated responsibility and of trampling over their sovereign rights. Also, India could stop the European airlines from flying into the country or in turn putting heavy taxes! This could also start a trade war between India and Europe, but that would heavily harm Indian economy, more than complying with the aviation scheme would. And, biggest threat might be that India and China would not buy their aircraft carriers from Europe and search other shores.

Between a sinking national carrier and confirming to the aviation scheme of the EU, every time the EU wants to go green, India has been seeing red. India’s defensive attitude has become a habit to an extent that it is becoming difficult for them to accept that there exists a middle ground. If EU’s current adamancy is only a preview of what is to come ahead in the climate deal, then we are going to see a bumpy ride on air and ground. Hope, EU does not bring this ride under the EU-ETS!

P.S : My trip was prolly part of the 85% free allowance :)

The ad hoc working group on Durban platform (ADP) has begun at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Bonn, Germany. The agenda of the ADP is to form a protocol (according to the least developing countries), outcome (India), legally binding instrument (European Union). This is a post 2020 climate regime much like the Kyoto protocol. But, with increased mitigation or reduction of future emissions from Annex I (developed) and start of legally binding mitigation cuts by Non Annex I countries (developing) and finance and technologs support for non Annex I countries to achieve not just to take a low carbon growth but also help to adapt to problems being caused to the vulnerable due to ongoing climate change effects.

Understandably, Durban platform could be our future and will play a very important part in future generation burden sharing issue and that of common ambition of saving the planet as well as that of differential capabilities. With minutes left to the election of officers, I give you a brief look into who are the nominees and let you decide what that could mean for the ADP political dynamics.

Mr Jayant Moreshwar Mauskar (India)

He is the Special Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Govt. of India. He is a lead negotiator in India’s bilateral and multilateral climate negotiation team. Prior to this he was the Chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). He was the director of the oil and natural Gas Corporation limited. In his career, spanning more than three decades, he has experience in Trade and Investment, Industrial Promotion and in the Energy/Hydro Carbon sectors.

Mr Harald Dovland (Norway)

He was the lead negotiator for Norway for 12 years and headed the ad hoc working group on further commitments for annex I parties under the Kyoto protocol (AWG). He is also a consultant for the engineering firm Poyry plc which publishes the Global Carbon report which helps market observers, analysts, policy makers and carbon market professionals in finance, energy and carbon intensive industries understand and exploit carbon markets.

Mr Kishan Kumar Singh (Trinidad and Tobago)

He is the head of the Multilateral Environment agreements at Ministry of Housing and the environment of Trinidad and Tobago. He has been in the capacity for 3 years and is a supporter of direct access to Green Environment facility by individual countries. He was also the Chair of the 24^th session of the Subsidiary body for scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA).

A chair is quite an important catalyst in moving the negotiations forward to a position where there is consensus between different parties. A good dose of humor, patience is a definite plus. And as chairs there is a possibility that the negotiators might feel closer to the national positions. And, that delicate balance of what the platform calls for action and national priority should be maintained.

The man on the chair has a huge task in front of him. This might well be one of the greatest breakthroughs in climate negotiations after Kyoto!

On the first day of climate talks in Bonn, Germany which is an inter-sessional or a negotiation session that happens between the conference of parties, two agendas ( subsidiary body of implementation and subsidiary body for scientific and technological advice) was formally and successfully adopted. India made its opening remarks and to no one’s surprise mentioned equity as soon as it could, just in case people had forgotten it amongst the burden sharing discussion of the durban platform. Up until now there were speculations on how the different parties saw equity. But, India is expected to lead on the issue since it has used equity as a defensive strategy for a long time.

Equity in the Durban package

At the platform in Durban, parties decided that there was an increase need of effort sharing to cut the green house gas emissions that could arrest human induced climate change. Sharing effort is a complex association of mitigation (legally binding or voluntary emission cuts), technology transfer (to achieve this emission cuts) and finance (adapting to already created climate change induced problems) and political will. While everyone agrees on the three former issues in principle, the political will that is again a complex association of economic and social situation of the country is the deterrent. This would ultimately decide what the Durban package would look like, what countries are ready to give and what countries are ready to take. With respect to India, it agreed to an agreed outcome with legal force. While, least developing nations have called for another protocol, India is still yet to commit on the kind of outcome. If India is any close to show commitment it rather be legal than something voluntary. The question however is if it would conditionally move to a higher mitigation commitment in exchange for finance and technology? That is an interesting EU and Indian dynamics.

Why India is at fault with equity

Another consideration in India’s climate change policy is the issue of development and pulling out 40 percent of its population out of poverty. This should essentially mean that the emissions should be used for activities like a better standard of living and not just GDP growth which is hardly suggestive of equitable growth within the country. According to the UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI) Report, 2011, Gujarat’s GDP is growing at an annual rate of 12%, and its per capita growth is more than three times the all India average. Despite this glowing state of the economy, the state fares poorly in overall hunger and nutrition levels. Conversely, Kerala’s economy has been in the doldrums for years, and yet its HDI is among the highest in the country. These simple numbers are enough maths to defeat India’s stance for an equitable rights to development. The international group would consider this as a right to pollute, nothing else!

International Equity and Right to Survival

The global target to which India subscribes in Interim Report of the Expert Group on Low Carbon Strategies for Inclusive Growth, Planning Commission Government of India, 2011 of Bringing down the level of emissions by 50 percent if we are to restrict global warming to 2 degrees Celsius is against the mandate of law as such a modest target will wipe out Bangladesh, Madives, Andaman Islands, the Sundarbans, Mumbai and many more coastal areas.

Cost benefit analysis of the argument on equity

In the 12th National plan “In the longer term, we must move beyond fossil fuels to non-conventional energy. However, these new energy sources are significantly more expensive at present than fossil fuels and increased dependence on these fuels will mean higher per unit energy costs.” The top 3% of Indians are benefitting from the present system to get fossil fuels and pay taxes. The shifting to renewable energy should, in fact, be considered opposite of a “cost.” An opportunity, perhaps?

The picture is clear, more than anybody else, the least developed countries, Alliance of small Island states require an Ambitious, Fair and Binding deal in that order to survive with the same urgency as a drowning economy requiring stimulus.

It been a little more than a month since I left Durban with some disappointment. After the festive season, I come back wit a lot of hope, patience and holiday fat. Between then and now, I have read a lot of Durban analysis and what we look forward to between one D to the other D. There have been analysis of winner’s and loser’s at the COP. I would like to begin by nominating my own winners and losers and try and make sense of what we are going with to the Bonn talks.

The European Union, has always been a leader in the arena. It had come with a clear mandate that it would not commit to a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol until the emerging economies agree on deciding an architecture that would include them in a binding agreement. One thing we need to remember is , most European countries had their legal domestic reduction targets. With or without being a party to the Kyoto they would reduce their emissions. In spite this knowledge, Brazil, China and South Africa agreed to discuss a new framework that would expect them to reduce emissions from 2020. But, by this strategy, EU clearly got the Alliance Of Small Island States and Least Developed Countries on their side. The vulnerable nations have often been vocal about the need for the emerging economies to act and not just voluntarily. Hence, EU and AOSIS,LDC were clear winners.

United States was trumped a couple of times during the negotiations. While people feel, it had got its way again, I beg to differ slightly in this regards. A young activist intervened Mr. Stern’s, the Special Envoy for Climate Change , speech. People applauded. The audience (non-negotiators) of the COP 17 passively showed their disdain with the United States. There was a massive protest by the environmental groups and youth groups demanding “Action Now!”. The activists , actively echoed the sentiment inside the hall to the outside world. Of course, this has been happening COP after COP. Nobody supports the United States but the action has to go beyond protests and showing non agreement. Everybody knows the US has been a traditional blocker. Give or take, US has or will never agree to do what we want from it. The only option is to not let it get what it wants us to do and that is it postpone progressive climate talks towards a deal that would keep the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees or less.

In its present form, the Ad Hoc Working Group- Long Term Co-operative Action (AWG-LCA) document leads us to a 4-4.5 degrees Celsius rise in temperature. This could and will be catastrophic. Everybody knows it, but the EU, AOSIS, LDC, BASIC countries accept it. The United States has been pushing that the work of this working group was over and it needed to close down. The talks looked towards a complete disintegration especially during the equity-emerging commitment debate. But, it was eventually resolved and the LCA managed to live for another year. The United States definitely lost here. Was it an EU strategy or a mere co-incidence, that is hard to tell.

The media claims, India lost the plot. India has always used its internal social status and developing card to resist being included in any kind of legal domestic cuts. This COP was no different. What happened was, India being portrayed as the bad guy - the blocker of the talks. As pressure build on, miraculously India gave in to agreeing to a decision that would launch talks on a new legal instrument with a legal force under the convention. But, the vital question was did India lose out on equity, which it called the blank cheque for 1.2 billion of its citizen? The clue maybe in the extension of AWG-LCA which continues its work and reach the agreed outcome pursuant to 1/CP.13 OR the Bali Action Plan, in whose heart lies Equity. Was India really the loser?

While we discuss, it would be interesting to see what the AWG-DPEA (Durban Platform for Enhanced Action) and AWG-LCA has in store for us at Bonn. Will Equity and legal reduction for all run parallel or Will Legal reduction run over Equity. All eyes are on this as the plot thickens.

Japan And Russia which had refused to be party to the second commitment period because large enough emissions weren’t being covered under it will ave to either come up with a new reason for inactivity or welcome the positive movement DPEA has made on an all-inclusive climate deal.

On 28 February, 2012 when UNFCCC holds a in-session workshop where countries can propose ways of increasing ambition and further ambition, these issues are bound to come up. And, things might be a little clearer. I hope to retain the hope and patience but not the holiday weight till now and Bonn.

5.18am, International Convention Center, Durban

The verdict is out. What was accomplished at Durban.

1) Something called the Durban railtrack or trackroad ..oh, wait…platform.
2) Empty second commitment period
3) Empty green climate fund
4) Sleepy people most of whom had left by the time the final verdict was given.
5) How manipulative, apparently transparent democratic , multilateral process works.
6) People are looking for CBDR and Bali. If someone finds it, please return it.
7) Unclear mitigation target.
8) Massive failure of a peaceful kind.

Over and Out.