| The controversial Asia-Pacific Partnership ministerial level meeting that took place in Australia to discuss clean development and climate change is a six-nation partnership covers Australia, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea and USA (hence the name AP6). It plans to bring together private sector in eight task groups from six countries to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive emissions. Together the AP6 countries account for 45 per cent of the global population, 56 per cent of economic output, 50 per cent of GHG emissions, and 48 per cent of global energy use. Of these, Australia and the US are not signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. |
| As I left for Australia, I had qualms about going to a meeting that appeared to challenge the Kyoto Protocol to which India is an active party. India has taken advantage of carbon credit mechanism by submitting the largest number of projects (225). The new partnership (AP6) does not offer funds, expects voluntary contributions, does not even offer technology and considers patents sacrosanct. It offers, however, a platform to do business among the world's big business leaders. |
| The turn out of the private sector from Australia, Japan, the US and Korea for the first ministerial meeting was quite good. Participation of India and China may be considered somewhat subdued; although India did have representatives from steel, coal, power and fossil fuel sectors. While in the climate change convention meetings (UNFCCC) that resulted in the Kyoto Protocol, one saw governments at the table, at AP6 there were well-known industrialists, along with government representatives. After all, governments can deliver emission reductions only through private sector. Therefore, that change was welcome. However, currently, only voluntary action is foreseen. There are eight task forces "" cleaner fossil energy; renewable energy and distributed generation; power generation and transmission; steel; aluminum; cement; coal mining; and buildings and appliances. |
| Should Kyoto participants worry about AP6? Technically speaking, UNFCCC encourages partnerships among various groups of countries, and from being mere bystanders, the US and Australia have turned leaders of this voluntary action and the onus of following the workplan is on them. The US is the elected leader of the AP6 partnership for the first few years. Besides, participants should be happy that India, China and Korea are now working on not just one but two fronts "" among Kyoto Protocol signatories and AP6 partners. |
| Should India have participated in AP6? The pressure was mounting on India, despite the fact that our per person emissions of carbon dioxide are a lot lower (1 tonne) than global average (4 tonne). The pressure was finally having some effect. India joined AP6 by emphasising that it is doing so "without amending, enhancing or attenuating the respective commitments of different countries under the UNFCCC and without supplanting the Kyoto Protocol in any manner." India is also vulnerable to climate change and more commitment shown by others is in our direct interest. Voluntary action among business leaders may bring some results. |
| Will voluntary action work? The success rate is mixed and depends on the conditions met and the environment in which they function. Often, the mandatory or legal requirements get the ball rolling, after which behavioral transitions take place eventually going beyond mandatory requirements. From then on, pollution control becomes a way of life and requires inspection less frequently. Industries voluntarily adapt to global standards such as ISO 14000, which includes towards environmental management. When firms are seen to have their share prices drop, occasionally, green rating is seen as an image building exercise. This stricter environmental standards are especially effective if implemented prior to establishing new industries. This situation is especially relevant for India and China. |
| Yet another case is when manufacture of energy-efficient equipment is seen as a "way-to-do business" in future, because selling old technologies will be at a disadvantage, especially for those who manufacture appliances, vehicles, equipment and plants that use fossil fuels. Here, the customers pay premium for fuel-efficiency. Thus, relying on voluntary action is not entirely unreasonable but some pressure or incentives may be needed to get the process going. |
| The outputs of the ministerial level meetings were: the charter, work plan for eight sectoral task forces and a communique that summarised the basic understanding. Policy Implementation Committee was set up to follow the progress and for administration. Now that the easy part is over, the real test would be when the task forces would begin to work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while continuing the process of development and poverty alleviation. |
| Perhaps, this may not be as good a solution as to have USA and Australia as active signatories to Kyoto Protocol but a second best one, if one realises that they have been bystanders for too long. Whether voluntary actions work or not, we shall see in a few years. The burden to prove themselves right is now firmly on AP6 and in particular the US as the chair. |
| The writer is Executive Director, Integrated Research and Action for Development (IRADe). jyoti@irade.res.in |
Explore Business Standard