CEE Jan-Mar 2012

conjecture why it has done so. Was it the fact that it has been the hub and target of the fight between generic drug producers and innovator pharma firms in the past decade and a half? Perhaps. Here's how it posits the debate: climate justice in India's view means "a fair, equitable and transparent global regime for technology transfers". But it is careful to strike a reasonable stance. Noting that most of the technologies that would help developing countries achieve a lower carbon growth are out of reach due to IPRs and prohibitive costs, it says "India firmly supports a facilitative IPRs regime that balances rewards for the innovators with the common good of humankind ... In the absence of such a facilitative IPRs regime the objective of advancing nationally appropriate mitigation and adaptation actions at the scale and speed warranted by the Convention will not be achievabl e." What it suggests is a facilitative IPRs regime that must form the cornerstone of a programme to advance global action on climate change. If the negotiations on the Bali roadmap "remain immature or unbalanced across the two tracks, emerging understandings on a facilitative IPRs must be reflected in the operational provisions of intervening CoP decision texts". In other words, parties should identify another forum and process to address these issues to ensure that they remain on the agenda . Among the options it suggests are: launching a process under the CoP or AWG– LCA, clearly tasking it with crafting a facilitative IPRs regime relating to critical mitigation and adaptation technologies, and identifying desired inputs, outcome and a time frame to reach it. AWG-LCA stands for Ad Hoc Working Group on Long– term Cooperative Action. It is a subsidiary body under the Bali Plan. It conducts a comprehensive process in order to reach an agreed outcome. India submitted its paper well in advance of Durban and it was circulated by UNFCC on October 7. There was no discussion. The impasse continues. Courtesy: Down to Earth, January 1-15, 2012, P55 EQUITY: THE NEXT FRONTIER IN CLIMATE TALKS In 1992, when the world met to discuss an agreement on climate change, equity was a simple concept: sharing the global commons-the atmosphere in this case– equally among all. It did not provoke much anxiety, for there were no real claimants. However, this does not mean the concept was readily accepted . A small group of industrialised countries had burnt fossil fuels for 100 years and built up enormous wealth. This club had to decide what to do to cut emissions, and it claimed all countries were equally responsi ble for the problem. In 1991, just as the climate convention was being finalised, a report, released by an influential Washington think tank, broke the news that its analysis showed India, China and other developing countries were equally responsible for greenhouse gases. Anil Agarwal and I rebutted this and brought in the issue of equitable access to the global commons. We also showed, beyond doubt, that the industrialised countries were singularly responsible for the increased greenhouse gases. In 1992, it was accepted that the occupied atmospheric space would need to be vacated to make room for the emerging world to grow because emissions are an outcome of economic growth. Thi s acceptance recognised the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in reducing emissions. A firewall was built to separate those countries that had to reduce emissions to make space for the rest of the world to grow. That year in Rio de Janeiro, the world was talking about drastic cuts of 20 per cent below the 1990 levels to provide for growth as well as climate security. Even in that age of innocence, the negotiations were difficult and nasty. The US argued its lifestyle was non-negotiable and refused to accept any agreement specifying deep reductions. In 1998, the Kyoto Protocol set the first legal target for these countries much below what the world knew it needed to do. Two decades later, the idea of equity has become an even more inconvenient truth. By now there are more claimants for atmospheric space. Emerging countries have emerged. China, which in 1990, with over a quarter of the world's population, was responsible for only 10 per cent of annual emiSSions, contributed 27 per cent by 2010. So, the fight over atmospheric space is now real. While the ri ch countries have not reduced emiSSions, the new growth countries have started emitting more. In 1990, the industrialised countries accounted for 70 per cent of the global annual emissions. In 2010, they 28