"The countries of the developing South are the ones that have least contributed to global warming and the ones which most suffer its consequences. Should they now pay the cost of reducing gas emissions as part of the Kyoto Protocol, as the United States demands? Renowned Harvard University expert Theodore Panayotou takes up the matter in a conversation with Tierramérica."

Industrialised countries, via the Kyoto Protocol, have committed themselves to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the four-year period of 2008 to 2012. Now, they want the South to cut its emissions as well. At least that is the condition imposed by the United States for its ratification of the Protocol, and some nations of the South are already drawing up legislative bills to that effect. Are they on the right track?

Theodore Panayotou, director of environmental programmes at the Institute for International Development and the Centre for International Development at Harvard University, has dedicated the last few years to researching the relationship between climate change and development. He believes that the targets set in Kyoto fall short given the magnitude of the problem, and suggests that, in the search for answers, equality must take precedence.

-Tierramérica: Though many consider the North-South model to be outdated, do you think it is still valid for assessing the climate change issue?

-Panayotou: Yes, completely. Especially if by 'South' we mean tropical countries, and 'North' means temperate. There are four keys to understanding the current position of the countries of the South. First, they are the ones that least contributed to the global warming problem, because if we look historically at the emissions of the last 150 years, most came from the North. Second, the countries of the South have borne most of the damages, which we are already beginning to see in natural disasters, El Niño, etc. Third, they are the least prepared to defend themselves or adapt to the changes. And fourth, industrialised countries are today asking them to take on commitments to reduce their emissions at a time in their development in which they are moving from agriculture into the industrial era, so their emissions are growing. Meanwhile, in the North, the trend is the opposite, as they are making the transition from an industrial to a service society, a post-industrial society. Many are stabilising their emissions and some are even reducing them.

TA - Should the countries of the South adopt emissions reduction commitments, as the United States proposes?

P - I must say that what the developed countries did in Kyoto was not very impressive. They went to Kyoto and, after a great deal of protest, agreed to sign the inevitable. In other words, they committed to doing something that was already occurring, that has already happened, which is the reduction of emissions in the North. They already knew this, they went and signed, and said they had done a great thing. And now they expect developing countries to sign the impossible. They signed the inevitable and they want the South to sign the impossible.

TA - Is the international community wasting its time then by attempting to determine how to achieve ''significant participation'' by the South in the Protocol?

P- Under current conditions developing countries should not do anything. I don't think Kyoto will help control climate change, nor will it be achieved without the participation of developing countries.

TA- Is it a problem of time, to decide when developing countries can begin to assume the commitments?

P - No, it is a problem of equality. We propose that developed countries pay the countries of the South for the harm they have caused them during the one and a half centuries in which they released emissions into the atmosphere. An evaluation should be conducted on how much damage this concentration of gases has caused since the Industrial Revolution in Latin America, Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc., and propose compensation. This system would assess, country by country, contributions to global climate change, and, at the same time, the extent to which countries have been victims of the damages. If the contribution is larger than the harm suffered, then they pay. If it is the other way around, they receive payment.

TA- Through what concrete instruments would this be carried out?

P- There are several instruments. For example, you could grant developing countries larger carbon budgets. In other words, if a country grows five percent but, because of its state of development, it produces seven percent emissions, you allow it to continue with that seven percent. You don't force it to reduce them. It means giving leeway to the countries of the South so they continue growing and, at the same time, are able to come up with new technologies to begin reducing emissions.

TA- Would an idea like that be popular in the United States?

P- No, nobody wants to pay, but then the developing countries do nothing and that's the end of the story. But I have another idea, which is perhaps even better: we should estimate how much the industrialised world owes the developing world, and create a Global Fund for Climate Change and put all the money for compensation there, using it to create new technologies for the South. That would allow the South to grow rapidly, but with fewer emissions.

TA- Isn't it utopian to think about compensation mechanisms given the current international system?

P- Utopian? If you have a house and your neighbour comes and damages it, he should pay for it. If he causes harm, I call the police and resolve the matter. If there is an oil spill from a Japanese ship in US waters, Japan must pay compensation for the damages. It's the same thing.