Nations attending the 12th Conference of Parties on Climate Change (COP12) seemed to be angry at the lop-sided award of Clean Development Projects (CDP) part of the Kyoto Protocol to India, China, and Brazil.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change included three mechanisms allowing industrial nations to buy reduced GHG emissions in units called Certified Emission Units (CERs) from developing nations. As one of the three mechanisms, the CDM allows industrialized nations to count these “credits” towards GHG enabling them to meet the Kyoto Protocol requirements. Additionally, it would also allow the transfer of environmental benefits to poorer nations.
With over 300 CDM projects, India is only of those leading in the sale of “carbon credits.” The Executive Board regulating the CDM projects had predicted a 100% growth of registrants in the coming year. Because of the increased load, the Executive Board wants practical know-how and expertise on CDM in developing nations applying for credits.
Asian, African, and small island nations complain that they are unable to take advantage of the “carbon credit” mechanism due to lack of expertise and financial capability. This they say has resulted in an unequal regional distribution of an important mechanism aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Taking a dig at India , Pakistan , one who ratified Kyoto at a later stage, complained that it lacked capacity building and accused those who ratified earlier of continuing to take advantage of these credits at the expense of late comers.
India and China emit the most GHG and are second only to industrialized nations. Although developing rapidly, India and China are not considered developed and hence are technically qualified to benefit from the credit mechanism. On the other hand, smaller nations such as Tanzania emit the least GHG but suffer most from global climate change.
To resolve the inequality, the EU has promised increased financial aid and expertise transfer for Africa . India appreciates the role of the Executive Board but wants more methodologies for small-scale biomass projects.