Experience
from the Summit meetings held at Kyoto in 1997 and
Buenos Aires during 1998 has been especially productive,
although the progress that has been achieved has opened
up new questions and areas of dissent among the different
players. There are now quantifiable commitments for
reducing emissions from the countries having the highest
relative level of development, along with the approval
of flexibility mechanisms to enable greater efficiency
in achieving climatic objectives which will at the
same time encourage new alliances among international
economic players, and investments and export opportunities
for developing nations.
Despite
this, differences involving controversial issues having
to do with differentiated responsibilities for different
groups of countries, along with operating conditions
for flexibility instruments (markets, Joint Implementation
and Clean Development Mechanisms) and rules for eligibility
and participation are still great. This is hindering
progress toward achieving the objectives of the Framework
Convention, and inasmuch as it is holding back the
application of preventive and corrective actions,
it is presenting risks of growing significance to
the climatic stability of the planet.
In
this context, it is fundamental for the Business Council
for the Sustainable Development of Latin America (CEDESAL)
and the Center for Private Sector Studies for Sustainable
Development (CESPEDES) to contribute to a process
of bringing together and reconciling the interests
of the different international players around the
principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
There is a need for exploring alternatives to enable
efficient compliance by Annex B countries (industrialized
countries having absolute emissions reduction obligations
between the years 2010 and 2012), which can also provide
incentives to developing countries such as Mexico,
for them become more actively involved in a process
that is of the highest global priority, while at the
same time strengthening linkages for economic cooperation
between both groups of nations.
For
this there is a need to very carefully analyze the
results of Kyoto and Buenos Aires, as well as the
positions and interests of the most important international
players. A systematic analysis should be made of the
operating potential of the Clean Development Mechanism
and the global market for emissions reduction certificates
which is to be built up in the next few years. There
is also a need to come to a perspective on probable
conditions and scenarios for the development of this
market using recent estimates of the structure of
marginal costs for reducing emissions which will be
faced by industrialized countries. Once this is done,
then the most important channels of influence that
the Kyoto commitments and flexibility mechanisms will
have on the Mexican economy can be identified.
Another
fundamental imperative is to explore the implications
that the possible acceptance of voluntary commitments
and their connection with potential opportunities
for environmental service exports through Emissions
Reduction Certificates would have on a national
economy level.
It
is clear that Mexico needs to consolidate positions,
expectations and programs in the area of climatic
action. All of this must be done in a way consistent
with well defined principles and directions. Issues
of vulnerability to climate change; sector inventories
and analyses; energy and carbon intensity indicators
on a national and sector level; potentials for exporting
Emissions Reduction Certificates; internal policy
instruments; foreign trade prospects and elements
for a solid negotiating position by our country in
the international arena should all be considered.
On this last point, it is very important to assess
compliance scenarios for Annex B countries, the size
of the market and eligibility for participation by
developing countries, limits to extraterritorial compliance
by Annex B countries, operation of the Clean Development
Mechanism, certification, private sector involvement
and forestry projects and carbon sinks.
The
need to create proper institutions for enabling productive
involvement by our country within the processes that
have come out of Kyoto should be emphasized. It would
be especially significant to solidly establish the
foundations for a National Entity for Climatic Action
for handling organization, objectives, strategies,
structure and funding.
The
contribution that can be made by CEDSAL and CESPEDES
can be significant as an element of judgment for the
players who have the response of the international
community to the challenges of climate change in their
hands, both nationally and in a global context. To
the extent that our institutions are able to contribute
to a solid, informed debate and help bring positions
closer together and reconcile interests, their expectations
will be satisfied.
