Year 28 Nº 109 First quarter 2008SEGURIDAD

Occupational safety and corporate social responsibilityl Freelance workers and risk prevention l Social perception of the climate change

l Bali and the long road to Kyoto

y Medio Ambiente

SEGURIDAD Y MEDIO AMBIENTEA journal published by

FUNDACIÓN MAPFRE

Previously called MAPFRE SEGURIDAD

Management, editorial and

advertising office:

FUNDACIÓN MAPFRE

Instituto de Prevención, Salud y

Medio Ambiente

Monte del Pilar, s/n.

28023 El Plantío (Madrid)

Tel.: 915 812 025. Fax: 915 816 070

e-mail: syma.fundacion@mapfre.com

www.fundacionmapfre.com/prevencion

Editor in chief:

Antonio Guzmán Córdoba

Coordinating editor:

Óscar Picazo Ruiz

Advisory board:

Antonio Alfonso López,

Fernando Camarero Rodríguez,

Luz García Cajete,

Antonio García Infanzón,

Eduardo García Mozos,

Ignacio Juárez Pérez,

Julián Labrador San Romualdo,

Roberto López Ruiz,

Paz Llopis Mingo,

Guillermo Llorente Ballesteros,

Raquel Manjón Cembellín,

Yolanda Mingueza Sebastián,

Miguel Pérez Arroyo,

César Quevedo Seises,

Marisol Revilla Guzmán.

Design and production:

Consultores de Comunicación

y Marketing del Siglo XXI S.L. COMARK XXI

direccion@comarkxxi.com

Manufacturing:

Blue Press

Photomechanics

Lumimar

Quarterly publication: 4 issues per year

Legal deposit: TO-0163-2008

ISSN: 1888-5438

Año 28 Nº 109 Primer trimestre 2008SEGURIDAD

Seguridad laboral y responsabilidad social corporatival Autónomos y prevención de riesgos l Percepción social del cambio climático

l Bali y el largo camino del Protocolo de Kyoto

y Medio Ambiente

FIPPPrint run: 19.200 copies19.179 issues distributed between july2006 and june 2007.

MEMBER OF

FUNDACION MAPFRE declines any responsibility for

the contents of any articles published in SEGURIDAD Y

MEDIO AMBIENTE. Permission to reproduce articles

and news is hereby granted provided previous

notification to FUNDACIÓN MAPFRE and

acknowledgment of the source.

Spanish section of the InternationalFederation of Periodical Press

Cov

er im

age:

Illu

stra

tion

Stoc

k

SEGURIDAD Y MEDIO AMBIENTE Nº 109 First quarter 20082

Summary

Occupational safety and health management in thecontext of corporate social responsibility

3

SAFETY MANAGEMENT

The prevention of occupational risks in freelance work6

LEGISLATION

Spanish society’s representation of the climate change:from awareness to action

8

Bali and the long road to Kyoto10

ENVIRONMENT

CINTILLOSAFETY MANAGEMENT

One of the basic aspects of Cor-

porate Social Responsibility

is the occupational safety

and health policy, which is

in turn one of the parameters most used

by companies to gauge their progress in

this matter.

In the field of the prevention of occu-

pational risks «socially responsible» com-

panies are those that introduce an aut-

hentic preventive culture into their orga-

nisation across the board, taking into

account the opinions of all stakeholders

in this matter.

Corporate Social Responsibility, looking

inwards from the firm, should be largely

worker centred. Occupational safety and

health, as one of the questions most af-

fecting it, should be seen not as an in-

vestment in human resources but rather

as one of the employer’s duties in the in-

terests of improving the quality of life in

the company.

Many are the institutions and bodies in

recent years that have held up corporate

responsibility as one of the keystones of

the new business culture, while many com-

panies are putting this theory into practi-

ce. Criteria and codes of conduct have co-

me hot off the press to guide companies

in the implementation of socially res-

ponsible policies, including the aspects of

occupational safety and health to be ta-

ken on board.

Back in 2001 the European Commission

Green Paper «Promoting a European Fra-

mework for Corporate Social Responsibi-

lity» told us that the traditional health and

safety procedure, based on legislation and

enforcement measures, had to change in

line with the current trend of outsourcing

work to contractors and suppliers. It also

pointed to the need of «measuring», »do-

cumenting» and «communicating» the ef-

forts being made in this field.

Social Accountability International’s

SA8000: 2001 standard provides a frame-

work for measuring a firm’s compliance

with social responsibility/accountability

requisites. It is a perfectly auditable and

certifiable standard that can take in and

embrace all known schemes already set

up under ISO and OHSAS standards. But

the SA8000 goes even further, certifying

that social responsibility is being properly

stewarded by the management and thus

ensuring that all international rules on hu-

man rights are being complied with as well

3Nº 109 First quarter 2008 SEGURIDAD Y MEDIO AMBIENTE

Occupational safety and health management inthe context of corporate social responsibility

Author: RAFAEL SALINAS GARRIDO.

Occupational Safety Technician. FREMAP.

Illus

trat

ion

Stoc

k

SAFETY MANAGEMENT

SEGURIDAD Y MEDIO AMBIENTE Nº 109 First quarter 20084

as the standards on quality, the environ-

ment and occupational health and safety.

The Spanish Ethical Management Sys-

tem standard SGE 21:2005 is broader in

scope than SA8000, taking an ethical ap-

proach to all company management as-

pects, not only those bound up with wor-

king conditions. It takes in all stakehol-

ders, including nine areas: senior

management, clients, suppliers, human

resources, environment, investors, com-

petition and competent authorities.

As regards the prevention of occupa-

tional risks the standard makes an expli-

cit reference to occupational safety in se-

veral of its areas, for example the assess-

ment and selection of suppliers and

subcontractors. In the area of human re-

sources it stipulates that «the company

will pursue a suitable policy to guarantee

the health and safety of its workers and al-

so compliance with provisions on the pre-

vention of occupational risks».

Lastly, we should point out that the

SGE 21:2005 standard ensures compa-

tibility with the certifications of other

management systems such as ISO 9000,

ISO 14000 and OHSAS 18001, enabling

it to be grafted onto the business mana-

gement system.

As well as these standards, mention

should also be made of initiatives such as

the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative), al-

so called the triple bottom line report sin-

ce it evaluates economic, social and envi-

ronmental performance. This is fast be-

coming one of the most important CSR

initiatives at worldwide level, especially

for CSR reporting purposes.

A model for the management of occu-

pational safety and health should go furt-

her than mere legal compliance and help

to improve the CSR-based management

system. It would then be based on the fo-

llowing criteria:

z Legal system. Prevention Act and the

regulations developing it.

z ILO Guidelines on Occupational Safety

and Health Management Systems. ILO-

OSH 2001.

z British Standard Institute and colla-

y Policy has to include continual improvement and legislative compliance,in a document of the public domain addressed to the organisation.

y Prevention procedure for identification, assessment and registration ofpreventive aspects, including the preventive activities that might affectall staff and the personnel of subcontractors and visitors.

y Procedure for identifying and meeting legal requisites and others thatmight be applicable, communicating them to interested parties.

y The organisation is bound to establish and keep to documented andquantified occupational risk prevention objectives for each important le-vel and function within the organisation.

y When the organisation establishes and reviews its objectives, it shallconsider the legal requisites and others, the risks and hazards in occupa-tional risk prevention, its technological possibilities, its operational finan-cial requisites as well as the points of view of interested parties.

y The organisation has to define, document and communicate the functio-nal responsibilities and authority of the personnel that manage, performand check the activities that affect the risks to be prevented, relatingthem to the organisation’s activities, facilities and processes, with thepurpose of managing occupational risk prevention.

y Designate a member of the management with the defined responsibilityfor guaranteeing that the occupational risk prevention management sys-tem is properly set up.

y Management shall furnish minimum and essential resources (human,technological and financial), for implementation, control and improve-ment of the occupational risk prevention management system.

y Organisation-wide policy (or policies) that define the organisation’s ove-rall commitment related to the labour aspects, or state where this can befound in the public domain, indicating their linkage to internationally re-cognised standards.

y Procedure for monitoring and measuring corrective and preventive ac-tion, both of the reporting organisation and upstream along the supplychain.

y Universal Declaration on Human Rights.y International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.y International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.y ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterpri-

ses and Social Policy.y Vienna Declaration.

y Organisation–wide goals regarding performance relevant to the labouraspects, indicating their linkage to the internationally recognized univer-sal standards.

y Identification of the highest post with operational responsibility on labouraspects and the distribution of operational responsibility at senior mana-gement level.

1. Policy

OHSAS 18001 GRI SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING GUIDELINES

3. Legal requisites and others

4. Objectives and programmes

5. Structure and Responsibilities

2. Planning for hazard identification and risk-control assessment

5Nº 109 First quarter 2008 SEGURIDAD Y MEDIO AMBIENTE

2. The OHSAS 18001:2007 standard en-

sures continual improvement in ma-

nagerial performance by integrating

prevention across the board throug-

hout the whole organisation and using

improvement methodologies, tools and

activities.

3. It helps organisations to abide by oc-

cupational risk prevention legislation.

Implementation of an occupational risk

prevention management system does

not of itself ensure law abidance. No-

netheless, it does provide mechanisms

for identifying the legal provisions af-

fecting the firm and keeping continually

abreast of their changes.

4. External promotion of the company. It

promotes the company’s image among

its clients, society, the government, de-

monstrating the organisation’s com-

mitment to the health and safety of its

workers, in those cases in which the

company opts for certification of its sys-

tem. An occupational risk prevention

borating bodies. OHSAS 18001:2007

standard.

z The GRI Sustainability Reporting Gui-

delines.

z Standard UNE 66177:2005 Manage-

ment systems: Guide for integration of

management systems.

A useful comparison might be made bet-

ween the OHSAS 18001:2007 standard and

the requirements of the GRI Sustainabi-

lity Reporting Guidelines, mostly taken

from the social performance indicators.

(See scheme above).

Final conclusions 1. The implementation of an occupatio-

nal risk prevention management sys-

tem should be a voluntary commitment

by the organisation on the grounds that

the control of occupational risks by set-

ting up such a system has been amply

proven to have positive economic knock-

on effects and also notable legal and et-

hical benefits.

management system projects to inte-

rested parties an image of control over

the production activity.

5. Improvement of the internal image. It

reinforces worker motivation by crea-

ting a safer, more orderly and worker-

friendly working environment and on

the strength of their involvement and

participation in prevention-related the-

mes, favouring a preventive culture.

6. Improvement of the production pro-

cess. Improvement of the processes in-

creases the quality of the marketed pro-

duct or service. It also avoids loss of re-

sources and cuts down the outlay in

equipment replacement.

7. It improves assistance and provision

of suppliers, subcontractors, clients

and the public at large. An occupa-

tional risk prevention management

system transmits an image of confi-

dence and responsibility to insuran-

ce companies or the general govern-

ment itself. u

y The organisation has to set up the necessary procedures for ensuring thatthe pertinent occupational risk prevention information is duly exchangedand communicated between employees and other interested parties.

y Employees have to be involved in the development of risk managementprocedures and policies and also have to be consulted on any change af-fecting risk prevention in the work station.

y The organisation has to establish and keep to procedures that guaranteethat all employees in every function and at all levels have received occu-pational risk prevention training.

y The organisation has to establish and keep to procedures for regular mo-nitoring and measuring of occupational risk prevention performance,doing so by using active and reactive, quantitative and qualitative mea-sures and data recording.

y The organisation has to establish and keep to procedures for defining theresponsibility and authority for dealing with and investigating accidents,incidents and non-conformities; and also to take actions to mitigate anyconsequence arising therefrom.

y The organisation has to establish and keep to a programme of audits andprocedures for carrying out periodic audits of the occupational risk preven-tion management system, with the aim of determining whether said systemis compatible with the OHSAS standard, with the firm’s policy and objectivesand of furnishing management with information on the audit results.

y Point 4.4 of the Guide runs as follows: «Informing and consulting emplo-yees about the working relationships with formal representation bodiessuch as organization level work councils». (Indicators LA6 and LA9).

y Specify the training and awareness-raising procedures in relation to la-bour aspects. (Indicators LA8, LA10, LA11 and LA12).

y Procedure for monitoring and measuring corrective and preventive ac-tions both of the reporting organisation and upstream in the supplychain.

y Indicator LA7 calls for records to be kept of occupational diseases, lostdays and absenteeism, etc.

y The organisation has to account for certifications for prevention mana-gement systems, or other approaches to auditing/verification procedu-res used by the reporting organization and its supply chain.

6. Consultation and communication

8. Performance measurement and supervision

9. Accidents, incidents, non-conformities and corrective and preventive action

10. Audit

7. Training, awareness-raising and competence

OHSAS 18001 GRI SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING GUIDELINES

LEGISLATION

SEGURIDAD Y MEDIO AMBIENTE Nº 109 First quarter 20086

Legislation on the prevention of

occupational risks, like labour

law in general, rests essentially

on the protection of the em-

ployed salaried worker, i.e., he/she who

works within a bilateral legal relations-

hip established between worker and em-

ployer, individual or firm, working un-

der the latter’s dependency and recei-

ving a wage or salary in return for his/her

labour power.

The Spanish Occupational Risks Pre-

vention Act 31/1995 of 8 November (Ley

de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales:

LPRL) is the core of preventive legisla-

tion. It is also part and parcel of «labour

legislation» at state level under article

149.1.7 of the Spanish Constitution, whe-

re the attributive noun «labour» takes in

constitutionally only «the set of legal ins-

titutions referring to employed work»,

according to the Spanish Constitutional

Court (Tribunal Constitucional) in judg-

ments 39/1982, 7/1985 and 360/1993.

This basic law and its many development

regulations passed to date are applica-

ble, as the law itself unequivocally sta-

tes, «not only to the labour relations re-

gulated in the reformed text of the Wor-

kers’ Statute Law (Ley del Estatuto de los

Trabajadores) but also to the relations

of an administrative or statutory cha-

racter of the civil personnel working for

The prevention of occupational risks in freelance work

Author: MANUEL CARLOS PALOMEQUE LÓPEZ. Professor of Labour Law. Universidad de Salamanca.

7Nº 109 First quarter 2008 SEGURIDAD Y MEDIO AMBIENTE

entrepreneur» (Article 1.1 LET). The

«work carried out on a self-employed

basis», therefore, by the so-called free-

lance or self-employed workers «will not

be submitted to labour legislation, un-

less otherwise stipulated by legal pre-

cept» (final provision 1 LET). Freelance

work is thus considered to be only par-

tially or discretionally incorporated in-

to the labour legislation system, in such

cases as the legislator may decide ad hoc

in each case.

It will therefore be the Freelance Wor-

ker Statute Law 20/2007 of 11 July (Ley

del Estatuto del Trabajo Autónomo: LE-

TA)] that brings in for the first time ever

in Spain and even in Europe a unified

and systematic regulation of freelance

workers, establishing in general the right

of freelance workers (i.e., «the natural

persons who carry out an economic or

professional activity on a gainful basis,

doing so on a habitual, personal, direct

and self-employed basis under no hig-

her direction or organisation, whether

or not they give occupations to emplo-

yed workers», Article 1.1 LETA) in exer-

cising their professional activity to as-

surance of «their physical integrity and

suitable protection of the occupational

safety and health» [Article 4.3 e) LETA].

Among the basic professional duties it

makes incumbent upon them, it char-

ges them to «meet such health-and-sa-

fety obligations as may be imposed upon

the general government», notwithstan-

ding the particular terms laid down for

this case (Article 3.1 LPRL). To put it anot-

her way, the prevention of occupational

risks legislation regulates the protection

of occupational safety and health of sa-

laried workers, whether working under

an employment contract (workers in the

strict legal sense) or under an adminis-

trative service-rendering arrangement

(tenured public officials).

The Workers’ Statute Law (Reformed

text approved by Legislative Royal De-

cree 1/1995 of 24 March, LET in Spanish

initials), for its part will be applicable to

«workers who voluntarily render their

remunerated services on an employed

basis under the direction of another le-

gal or natural person called employer or

them by the law or such contracts as they

may enter into and also to abide by the

rules of a collective character deriving

from the site where the work is carried

out» [Article 5 b) LETA].

The right of freelance workers to a sui-

table protection of their occupational

safety and health under this law begs the

thorny question of how to determine the

content thereof. At the end of the day,

what does this right consist of and what

is its material scope? What are the legal

powers attributed to the holders of the-

se rights, now to be brought into the fold

of those protected by the legal system?

In the case of salaried workers their right

to protection [to «effective protection»

in terms of occupational safety and he-

alth, Articles 19.1 LET and 14.1 LPRL] is

legislatively ensured by the legal impo-

sition on the corresponding employer of

the correlative duty of protecting its wor-

kers from the risks deriving from their

work (Article 14.1 LPRL). In the case of

freelance workers, however, there is no

contractual (labour) link of any sort and

hence no institutional figure upon whom

to pin the legal duty of ensuring their sa-

fety. There is in fact no doubt that the

particular features of this case affect both

the determinations and scope of the right.

Can any real equivalent be drawn, in

the last analysis, between the «effective

protection» [legally guaranteed for sa-

laried workers] and the «suitable pro-

tection» [mentioned in the case of free-

lance workers] from the risks deriving

from their own work? So marked in fact

is the change of adjective qualifying the

noun «protection» here that it would

hardly seem to be a legal oversight. Qui-

te on the contrary, the very semantic

choices, of questionable efficacy by the

way, would seem to denote legal awa-

reness of the different health-and-sa-

fety protection schemes that both wor-

king arrangements necessarily call for

from a technical point of view. u

The right of freelance workers

to a suitable protection

of their occupational safety

and health under this

law begs the thorny question

of how to determine the

content thereof

Illus

trat

ion

Stoc

k

ENVIRONMENT

ging it but we also need to come up with

ordered responses and considered al-

ternatives to the problem. Here lies the

rub, for these responses are bound to

pinch sensitive nerve centres of our con-

temporary world, ranging from the energy-

production model to existing produc-

tion and consumption habits, increa-

singly exacerbated and generalised to

practically all human societies by the

Opinion studies conducted in

the last two years show that

the immense majority of

Spain’s population concei-

ves the climate change as an environ-

mental problem, believes that human

action is its main cause and also sees it

as a threat. «Awareness» can safely be

said to have reached almost saturation

point. Less clear, however, is the degree

of imminence or importance granted to

this threat and the personal responsibi-

lity accepted in relation thereto. An even

murkier aspect is how much we are or

would be prepared to do to fight against

it. In the following lines we aim to delve,

studies permitting, into the Spanish po-

pulation’s representation and percep-

tion of climate change and their attitu-

de towards it.

Any approach to this question has to

work from the understood premise that

the study of climate change is an extre-

mely complex challenge, not only from

the scientific point of view but also in

terms of its social, economic and cultu-

ral implications. In fact climate change

could be defined as a hybrid problem,

given that all these aspects interact and

interfere with each other, sparking off

fierce controversy and concomitant un-

certainty. Small wonder, for we not only

need to be scientifically aware of the cli-

mate and the human being’s role in chan-

phenomenon of economic and cultural

globalisation.

If we accept the conclusion of the last

IPCC assessment report (2007)1 that the

climate change is now irreversible and

that the main cause is the anthropoge-

SEGURIDAD Y MEDIO AMBIENTE Nº 109 First quarter 20088

Spanish society’s representation of the climatechange: from awareness to action

Authors: PABLO ÁNGEL MEIRA CARTEA and MÓNICA

ARTO BLANCO. SEPA (Research into Social Pedagogy

and Environmental Education). Universidad de

Santiago de Compostela.

(1) The last report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC) is available for reference

at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm.

Illus

trat

ion

Stoc

k

nic emission of greenhouse gases, the

responses have to concentrate on miti-

gating its impact. This would mean two

things: firstly, reducing greenhouse ga-

ses as far as possible to forestall the most

pessimistic predictions, favouring natu-

ral carbon sinks and stores, and secondly,

reducing the vulnerability of our society

in particular and mankind as a whole to

those impacts already underway or con-

sidered to be inevitable in the future.

In view of all the above, the fight against

climate change is going to have to rely

more and more heavily on communica-

tion, education and information. In this

endeavour it might be useful to analyse

the social and cultural processes that are

forging the representation of climate

change in our society; i.e., to investigate

how this phenomenon is being integra-

ted into the «common culture» of Spa-

nish society, remembering that it is not

only scientific information that is being

assimilated to shape this «object» that we

call «climate change». A cross-over analy-

sis of the results of various opinion stu-

dies carried out among the Spanish po-

pulation will serve as our basis for buil-

ding up a picture of the social representation

of climate change. Before doing so, ho-

wever, we need to make three caveats.

Firstly, opinion studies in general ha-

ve a limited capacity of explaining in

any depth the public perception of en-

vironmental risks and threats. This is

due to the inherent complexity of the-

se problems, and nowhere is this truer

than in the case of climate change. But

this limitation also stems from the very

methodological limitations of the stu-

dies themselves, given that the pro-

blem’s myriad psychosocial factors ne-

cessarily have to be pared down in the

questions (Moser and Dilling, 2007: 47)

and the whole research process suffers

from a strong social desirability bias.

Secondly, the survey designs usually ta-

ke little account of personal experien-

ce and the emotional and affective com-

ponents of the representations, and the-

se are crucial factors in evaluating how

such a problem as climate change is

conceived in society.

The third caveat, especially important

in our case, is bound up with the dearth

of studies exploring systematically the

state and evolution of public opinion in

Spain towards climate change. In fact

the only opinion study dealing solely

with this theme was recently brought

out by the Fundación BBVA (2008); this

study gives us valuable insights into the

social representation of climate change

in Spain. Hitherto, the Spanish popula-

tion’s perceptions of climate change and

attitudes towards it could be inferred

only from items and questions making

up part of general opinion studies on the

environment, such as those carried out

by the CIS (Sociological Research cen-

tre) at national level – which we will tap

into regularly in this essay – or by some

regional authorities within their res-

pective territories. In contrast to this de-

arth in Spain, other comparable coun-

tries like France, the UK, Sweden and

Germany have been carrying out syste-

matic social research, either by public

or private initiative, since the nineties of

last century into how citizens conceive

and assess climate change and the po-

licies related thereto.

Another important point should be no-

ted here. There is in general a dichotomy

between the essentially scientific natu-

re of climate change and the essentially

non-scientific nature of the way it filters

through to the general population. The

«social representation» of climate chan-

ge –as in any other science-related en-

vironmental or social problem– obviously

contains scientific information or comes

from scientific sources. Nonetheless the

immense majority of citizens come by

their information through a host of in-

tervening media, mediators and contexts

that are moved by quite another type of

considerations. The upshot is that the

information tends to become simplified,

reduced or distorted. These media and

mediators interpret, modulate and sha-

pe the idea of climate change in accor-

dance with their own vested interests,

not always strictly bound up with the lo-

gic lying behind the scientific knowled-

ge, even though this logic may be vehe-

mently invoked to defend certain stan-

ces (those that deny climate change, for

example).

In the interests of a systematic appro-

ach, we will break down the problem in-

to the following four fundamental di-

mensions or aspects:

a. identification of climate change as a

problem;

b. the social evaluation of its potential

threat;

c. the depth and scientific validity of the

climate-change information received

by Spanish society and its knowledge

of the problem;

d. and the readiness to act and daily prac-

tices related to the reduction of gre-

enhouse gases.

Space fails us here for adopting any

exhaustive approach. Our aim is simply

to help readers understand the com-

plexity of climate change over and be-

yond its study as a scientific discipline,

to show that there is also a psychosocial

perspective that is often overlooked in

the scientific programmes dealing with

the climate. u

9Nº 109 First quarter 2008 SEGURIDAD Y MEDIO AMBIENTE

The fact that people possess

information on a given

problem does not in itself

guarantee that they will act

in favour of the

environment

ENVIRONMENT

conviction that the main cause of cli-

mate warming is anthropogenic GHG

emissions (IPCC, 2007).

According to the secretary of the Uni-

ted Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change, the mean temperature

of the earth’s surface has risen by more

than 0.6 ºC since the end of the ninete-

enth century and is expected to continue

to rise; by 2100 temperatures will have ri-

sen by between 1.4 and 5.8 ºC. Even if it

turns out to be the lowest of these two fi-

gures, this would still be more than the

estimated rise in any century of the last

10,000 years, making it very difficult for

many ecosystems to adapt and survive.

In response to this scenario 10,000 pe-

ople from 192 different states came toget-

her from 3 to 14 December on the island

of Bali (Indonesia) to hold the 13th United

Nations Framework Convention on Cli-

According to the findings of the

Fourth Assessment Report of

the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change (IPCC) of

the United Nations (chaired by the In-

dian Rajendra Pachauri and comprising

nearly 3000 scientists) the climate chan-

ge is «unequivocal», and it therefore be-

hoves the various national governments

to put tangible solutions into effect as

soon as possible. This panel, joint win-

ner of the 2007 Nobel Prize for Peace, lo-

oks into scientific research and provides

governments with syntheses and advi-

ce on climate problems. After its recent

Valencia meeting, the IPCC has once

again reaffirmed its scientifically based

mate Change (COP XIII). The aim was to

reach a consensus on a binding agreement

to deal with climate change post 2012, when

the Kyoto Protocol runs its term.

The new Bali agreement aims to go

further than the Kyoto agreement, which

concentrated almost solely on the re-

duction of GHGs. A broader (and ipso

facto more complex) commitment is now

sought, capable of addressing questions

of adaptation, technological coopera-

tion and funding the methods geared to-

wards solving the climate change. To un-

derstand the scope and content of the

Bali agreement, however, we first need

to go back and look at the Kyoto proto-

col and its effects.

In December 1997 representatives of

125 countries met up in the Japanese city

of Kyoto for the Third Congress of Par-

ties of the Framework Agreement on Cli-

SEGURIDAD Y MEDIO AMBIENTE Nº 109 First quarter 200810

Bali and the long road to KyotoAuthor: FERNANDO CAMARERO RODRIGUEZ.

Prevention, Health and Environment Institute.

FUNDACIÓN MAPFRE.

Reut

ers/

Cor

don

Pres

s

mate Change (COP3). The resulting do-

cument was the Kyoto Protocol, a legally

binding agreement that obliged ratifying

countries to reduce emissions of the six

GHGs by 5.2% averaged over the period

2008-2012 (compared to the levels of

1990, though the base year of 1995 may

be used for HFCs, PFCs and SF6). These

six gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), met-

hane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), per-

fluorocarbons (PFC), hydroflurocarbons

(HFC) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6),

measured in terms of their CO2 equiva-

lent. The Protocol also establishes diffe-

rent quotas for countries depending on

the past and present pollution levels:

z EU, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Czech Re-

public, Rumania, Bulgaria, Slovenia,

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: 8% re-

duction.

z USA: 7% reduction.

z Japan, Canada, Hungary and Poland:

6% reduction.

z Croatia: 5% reduction.

z Russia, Ukraine and New Zealand: sa-

me level as the base year.

z Norway, Australia and Iceland: in-

creases of 1%, 8% and 10%, respecti-

vely.

To help the parties reduce emissions,

the Protocol establishes three «mecha-

nisms»: the Clean Development Me-

chanisms (CDM), Joint Implementation

(JI) and Emissions Trading. These me-

chanisms are instruments of a clearly

complementary character to the inter-

nal emission reduction policies that ser-

ve as the fundamental base for meeting

the country’s commitments under the

Kyoto Protocol.

The objective sought with the intro-

duction of these Kyoto Protocol mecha-

nisms is twofold: on the one hand to help

Annex 1 countries in general to meet their

emission-limitation and -reduction com-

mitments, and on the other to support

sustainable development in developing

countries (non-Annex 1 countries) th-

rough the transfer of clean technologies.

With the aim of curbing and reversing

the upward GHG trend, the Protocol un-

dertakes to shepherd the international

community towards the last objective of

the convention, namely to «prevent dan-

gerous anthropogenic interference with

the climate system». The reduction of

emissions can be effected in a wide ran-

ge of sectors of the economy. The Proto-

col therefore encourages governments to

cooperate among themselves, improving

energy efficiency, promoting the forms

and use of renewable energy sources, etc.

For the Protocol to come into force, ho-

wever, it needed to be ratified by at least

55 countries representing between them

55% of worldwide emissions. Attempts

have been underway since 1997 to achie-

ve these Protocol enforceability limits and

this has proven to be no easy task, mainly

because of the refusal of the United Sta-

tes and other countries like Australia to

ratify it (though the prime minister of Aus-

tralia, Kevin Michael Rudd, recently an-

nounced his country’s commitment to

ratify the treaty at COP13 held on the is-

land of Bali). For some time Russia’s shilly-

shallying threatened to undermine the

whole endeavour. Finally, however, Rus-

sia ratified the Protocol, giving the green

light for it to come into force.

In truth, however, the story of the Kyo-

to Protocol began before 1997, with the

first warnings from scientists about the

danger of climate change.

Ratification of the Protocol then kic-

ked off an international debate (initia-

ted in December 2005 in COP11, Mon-

treal, Canada) about what would hap-

pen when it ran its term in 2012. This

debate rumbled on in the 13th UN Cli-

mate Change Conference held on the is-

land of Bali (Indonesia) from 3-14 De-

cember 2007. Its main objectives inclu-

ded reaching an agreement on a

«roadmap» (Bali Roadmap).

A two year timetable has been esta-

blished in which all parties will work on

the four building blocks for constructing

the post-2012 climate system (after ex-

piry of the first commitment period of

the Kyoto Protocol). These building blocks

are: mitigation, adaptation, technology

transfer and financing.

In conclusion, the negotiators of COP

13 have declared themselves to be satis-

fied with the results, though more than

7 hours of last-ditch negotiations were

needed to decide whether developing

countries should «act» rather than «con-

tribute», while the term «reduction» did

not even come into consideration. Whi-

le developing countries accepted the

word «action», therefore, Europe left out

any reference to a specific figure (as re-

quested by the USA).

The next Conference of the Parties of

the Convention and meeting of the Kyo-

to Protocol Parties will be held in De-

cember in 2008 in Poznan (Poland) du-

ring the French presidency of the EU. As

already pointed out the cycle of nego-

tiations begun in Bali will involve four

meetings a year, two extraordinary me-

etings and two to coincide with the ses-

sions of the subsidiary bodies and the

sessions of the COPL. The conclusions

are due to come out in late 2009 and the

management of the whole process un-

til then is by no means likely to be a ca-

ke walk. u

11Nº 109 First quarter 2008 SEGURIDAD Y MEDIO AMBIENTE

The next Conference of the Parties of the Convention and

meeting of the Kyoto Protocol Parties will be held in

December in 2008 in Poznan (Poland) during the French

presidency of the EU

www.fundacionmapfre.com