most developing countries are neither prepared to address nor interested in climate change (2000)

7/30/2019 Most developing countries are neither prepared to address nor interested in climate change (2000)

1/11

309-

Most developing countries are neither preparedto address nor interested in climate change

Luis Gmez-Echeverri

United Nations Development Programme

Abstract

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (unfccc) has thepotential to become one the most important instruments to-date for addressing

urgent global and local environmental and developmental priorities. It is also one of

the most inclusive in that it incorporates important actors from government as well

as private sector and civil society. Because of the importance of their full participa-

tion, the success of the Framework Convention rests greatly on the effectiveness of

the instruments established for international cooperation by its signatories. Also cru-

cial to the success of the Framework Convention will be the engagement of all coun-

tries,both rich as well as poor.But the engagement of developing countries will only

come through programs and actions that also address urgent development and

poverty eradication priorities. Thus, while it is obvious that the mechanisms of the

unfccc and Protocol will be essential in mitigating and adapting to climate change,

they will not be sufficient in-and-of-themselves. Other mechanisms such as a

strengthened and well-replenished Global Environmental Facility and Official Devel-

opment Assistance (oda) will be needed to reinforce the Convention and its objec-

tives.Without them,many developing countries will not have capacities required to

make the Framework Convention a success.

Introduction

Climate change is one of the most serious environmental problems that human-

ity faces today. Unfortunately, most countries are lacking the basic tools, the insti-tutions and the capacities needed to cope with and mitigate its effects. Further-

more, the dismal condition of poverty and deprivation under which a largeportion of the worlds population lives provides a poor platform on which to

embark on a major attack on climate change. Millions of people in the developing

world live in extreme poverty. Some two billion do not have access to the mostbasic energy services. In the last few decades of the 20th century, and mostly due

to the precarious living that is often associated with poverty, a growing vulnera-bility to extreme weather events has resulted in a dramatic increase in death and

physical destruction. This combination of increasing levels of poverty, lack ofbasic services, and increasing threat of weather events is what occupies the atten-


2/11

310

tion of most policymakers around the world today. It is against this background,therefore, that negotiators of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change

(), and more specifically its Kyoto Protocol, need to frame their debatesand agreements in order to engage the attention and the participation of themajority of the worlds population.

Significant resources are needed to strengthen institutions and capacities indeveloping countries. Without these assets these countries will not be able to

adopt, adapt, and develop the technologies needed to eradicate poverty andaddress the challenges of climate change. Some of the mechanisms emerging from

the negotiations of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change and itsKyoto Protocol will be helpful, but not sufficient. Other mechanisms such as theGlobal Environmental Facility () need to be revisited and retooled. Further,

Official Development Assistance (), which is currently undergoing one itsworst crises to date,needs to be revived so that it can become a real force of change

and support in the effort of many countries to escape marginalization while simul-taneously contributing effectively to the climate change agenda. However,building

institutions and capacities, particularly in developing countries, is a task thatrequires time in addition to resources,while the dual threats of climate change and

poverty continue to grow.Both need to be addressed urgently and with equal force.The good news is that,more often than not,projects to adapt to climate change

or to mitigate greenhouse gas () emissions1 can also be instrumental in

enhancing good governance and in addressing poverty reduction and the sustain-able development priorities of developing countries. Within the energy sector, for

example, climate change mitigation projects could stimulate the introduction ofnew, cleaner, and in many cases less expensive technologies to cater to the energy

demands of developing countries and of the two billion people who are currentlywithout energy services. Alternatively, the same two billion people could continueto rely on fuel wood, resulting in continued deforestation (as well as acute health

risks), or they could come to depend on energy produced with current fossil fueltechnologies, which are harmful to the atmosphere. Another, adaptation-ori-

ented, example of the enhancement of good governance is in the area of land useand watershed management. Improvements in natural resource management can

lower risks, reduce loss of human life, and thus facilitate adaptation to the heavyrains, floods, and severe storms that are associated with climate change, whilesimultaneously enabling populations to use their resources with minimal or no

impact.The bad news is that countries have not been as effective in promoting sus-

tainable development or supporting the development of the clean and benigntechnologies needed for the reduction of emissions. Worse, as revealed in a

recent study commissioned by the Earth Council, around the world subsidiesamounting to some $700 billion per year actually encourage ecologically destruc-tive and socially inequitable practices.2 Further, research and development in

renewable energy is rarely prioritized as it should be.Finally,there is an overall lack

of information regarding the linkages that exist between economic and environ-mental concerns. Specifically, there has been little effort to disseminate informa-tion regarding the probable impacts of climate change on human wellbeing in

developing countries, including issues of health, food security, and sustainabledevelopment in general.

1 Greenhouse gases are thosethat absorb infrared radiationin the Earths atmosphere,while allowing solar radiationto pass through it.This process,known as the greenhouseeffect, maintains the Earthsatmosphere ata much warmertemperature than it would oth-erwise have - the Earth couldnot sustain life without it. How-ever, since industrialization theamount of greenhouse gases inthe atmosphere has been

steadily increasing.The green-house gases include watervapor, carbon dioxide (CO2),methane (CH4), nitrous oxide(N2O), halogenated fluorocar-bons (hcfcs ),ozone (O3),per-fluorinated carbons (pfcs),andhydrofluorocarbons (hfcs).

2 De Moor and Calami,Per-verse Incentives Subsidies andSustainable Development:Key

Issues and Reform Strategies.San Jos,Costa Rica:EarthCouncil: 1997.http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/subsi-dies/index.htm


3/11

311-

Theunfccc, its Protocol, and the involvement of developing countries

The is the most far-reaching environmental global treaty to date and,given the actors involved, the one that most directly mirrors the dynamic processes

of todays globalization. The significance of these two characteristics is that theConvention, through its Kyoto Protocol, has the potential either to become the

most important instrument to date for meditation between global and local sus-tainable development and environment priorities,or to irreparably exacerbate thedivide between these concerns. The primary reasons this treaty is so uniquely

powerful are:

It is the first time that countries have agreed to such a far-reaching environ-

mental treaty.

It is the first time that major investors and the business sector will be largely

responsible for the success or the failure of an environmental treaty.

It is the first time that the worlds big players from the private sector, financial

sector, governments, and non-governmental organizations are all participat-ing, which implies that each sector recognizes the imperative nature of the issue

and the significance of the decisions that are likely to result.

It is the first time that the future of a Convention rests on the ability of countriesto address climate change problems through major technology and financial

resource transfers in a combination of institutionalized and free market regimes.

This new context demands a major capacity building effort for developing

countries. Globalization and the liberalization of trade have drastically changed

the rules of global governance.One of the most significant developments of recenttimes, for example, has been the growing role of the private sector. From the per-spective of many developing countries, the increased participation of the private

sector has considerable implications for global governance: Where developingcountry governments previously had some leverage to dictate the rules of engage-ment in the global economy, the rules are now often dictated by geographically

distant players and based on issues such as a countrys level of competitiveness,political risk, and economic stability. Because of this, the key role to be played by

the private sector in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol needs to be assessedwithin the context of its contributionnegative or positiveto global governance

and the governance of the climate change regime. Furthermore, developing coun-tries need to strengthen their capacities so that they can influence the decisionsbeing made in and for their countries, pushing them in truly beneficial directions.

The group of countries that are considered developing is far too politically,economically, culturally, and geographically diverse to unanimously ascribe to a

specific set of concerns. However, it is reasonably safe to say that all developingcountries share the following broad concerns:

The Ethical Concern: One of the primary aspects of equity is what is sometimesreferred to as ecological space. Most developing countries maintain that they

[The] Kyoto Protocol has the potential either to become the most importantinstrument to date for meditation between global and local sustainable devel-

opment and environment priorities or to irreparably exacerbate the dividebetween these concerns.


4/11

312

need space to grow and develop, meaning that they do not consider it reason-able to sacrifice domestic growth for the global good,especially in light of their

minimal contribution to the climate change problem to date. Thus, at thispoint, most developing countries will logically prioritize local environmentand development concerns over global ones. In order to strike a balance that

allows for sustainable economic advancement in developing countries whileenabling emissions mitigation, industrialized countries will have to com-

pensate at the global level by becoming less wasteful and restricting pollutionfurther. This is cited as a matter of equity, as industrialized countries have

already attained high levels of development, with significant costs to the globalenvironment.

The Economic Concern: Another primary concern to be addressed has to do

with the different ways to measure the costs and benefits of abatement.

abatement may be evaluated either in terms of the cost to achieve some

global effect or in terms of the cost that it has at the local level. In the contextof the global effect of the reduction, there is a marginal cost associated with

abatement.. In the context of the costs of local needs and effects, which isthe perspective that developing countries require, abatement is charac-

terized in terms of opportunity costs and benefits. It would be ideal to findsolutions that are equitable to both.

The Financial Concern: Through the approval of mechanisms for emissions

trading, both among developed countries and between developed and devel-oping countries, the Kyoto Protocol is creating a new commoditycarbon off-

sets. The current rules of finance that govern the trade of privately and publiclyproduced goods are not adequate,as this new commodity will be a public good

that is produced privately. New rules will need to be created. How this newproduct is marketed touches on the ethical, the political, and the economic.How it will ultimately be traded will have a major effect on the ability of devel-

oping countries to participate. In turn, how they are able to participate willinfluence both future emissions mitigation and current development

strategies for many developing countries.When the negotiations began, many developing countries argued that climate

change was the problem and the responsibility of industrialized countries. How-ever, recent data and information have demonstrated that developing countries

will be the hardest hit by the impacts of climate change, and that economic andsocial costs will be immense.According to a report of a working group of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (), a doubling of carbon dioxide in

the atmosphere may cost developing countries between 2% and 9 % of their grossdomestic products ().3 Further, as a recent World Bank World Development

Report points out, these estimates are based solely on those costs that are readilyquantifiable. They do not account for non-monetary resources such as life preser-

vation, cultural stability, and sustainable livelihoods.4

Surprisingly, the potential costs and negative implications do not match the

frequent lack of interest or urgency given to climate change. Here again, capacitybuilding efforts are urgently required to clearly demonstrate the close linkages thatexist between climate change, poverty reduction, and development. Efforts are

also needed to resist the natural tendency to avoid addressing problems thatrequire solutions that have high immediate costs and uncertain benefits in the

seemingly distant future.

3 ipcc, R.T. Watson, M.C.Ziny-owera,R.H. Moss (Eds),TheRegional Impacts of ClimateChange: An Assessment of Vul-nerability: A Special Report ofipcc Working group II. Cam-bridge, U.K, Cambridge Univer-

sity Press: 1997.(http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sr97.htm)

4 World Bank,Entering the 21stCentury:World DevelopmentReport 1999/2000.Washington,D.C.:World Bank Group: 2000.


5/11

313-

Is climate change really a serious problem?

Climate change is a natural process that has been occurring for thousands of years.Species have been adapting by shifting to places where they can thrive despite

changing climate conditions. With the advent of the industrial revolution, theanthropogenic emissions of increased dramatically and, over the course of

the 20th century, exponentially. Emissions from human activities have also beenaccumulating over the decades, and it is expected that as a result climate changewill happen faster in the coming decades than it has in the last ten thousand years.

Changes in land-use practices, mostly to accommodate increasing human popu-lations, have also fragmented ecosystems so drastically that the ability of species

to adapt is being impeded.Ecosystem resilience has further been compromised bypollution and other stresses caused by present production processes as well as

heavy demands on natural resources.This degradation of natural systems is fairlyubiquitous in industrialized countries, and to some degree, it is the foundation ofthe economic success of these countries. However, it is becoming painfully appar-

ent that the damage done by ignorant or irresponsible development will be egre-giously detrimental in the long-term, both globally and locally.

According to assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(), developing countries will suffer greatly as a result of climate change. Shifts

in regional temperatures due to climate change will have impacts on health,as theranges for disease vectors expand, bringing the threat of illnesses such as malaria,dengue fever, and yellow fever to larger populations than ever before. Agriculture

around the world,especially in developing countries,will be threatened by floods,droughts,and inordinately heavy rains.Close to 70% of the global population lives

in coastal areas, and will therefore feel the threat of even a slight rise in sea leveldue to altered hydrological cycles and melting ice caps.Finally, natural water reser-

voirs in mountainous regions stand to be depleted, and freshwater supplies onislands are already threatened by salinization.

However, despite evidence pointing to the severe social, economic, and envi-

ronmental costs of climate change, most people do not take the threat of climate

change seriously. Given that the benefits of mitigation will not be apparent foryears to come, it is understandable that paying for mitigating it is unappealing. Inaddition, the science of climate change is relatively new and imperfect, rendering

assessments of the impacts today and projections for the consequences tomorrowcontrovertible. These two factors have given players on both sides of the climatechange debate the opportunity to manipulate data to push agendas that either

support or oppose serious climate change abatement measures.Unfortunately,theambiguity and ambivalence caused by these two factors have also given policy-

makers reasons to hesitate on attacking the biggest problem of the climate changeregimethe global dependence on fossil fuels, which contributes about 80% of

the carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere every year.Despite the lack of consensus as to how it should be addressed, there has at

least been a remarkable increase of awareness and concern for climate change on

the part of policymakers since the mid-1990s. Particularly in the months prior tothe third meeting of the Committee of the Parties ( 3) in Kyoto in December

of 1997, the media focused the worlds attention, not on the complexities or thetenuous nature of the science, but on a few important issues that would appeal to

the global population. The attention centered on the main causes of emis-sions, a few of the most significant impacts, and some important measures that


6/11

314

needed to be taken if the international community was serious about addressingthe problem.

The much-publicized Kyoto Protocol to the Convention that emerged from

3 was a modest but important step for the climate change regime. It was aprecedent-setting legal document in that, for the first time since the advent of the

climate change discussion, a group of countries agreed to legally binding emis-sions reduction commitments.While the Parties to the were able to hash

out the fundamental agreement at that time, it was also understood that there wasstill much work to be done in future meetings. However, the advancement of the

Kyoto Protocol means different things to different people and countries.For some,it means finalizing negotiations on the implementation and compliance mecha-nisms. For others it means obtaining commitments from developing countries.

For developing countries, it means negotiating a package that will enable them toaddress poverty reduction and their urgent development priorities while helping

to address climate change.Importantly,many players are not waiting for ultimate mandates to take action.

Some private corporations, such as BP Amoco, have taken bold and progressivesteps to reduce their emissions voluntarily and to develop new technologies in

anticipation of future regulations. Several countries and companies have partici-pated in Activities Implemented Jointly, of which there are now over 150 ongoingor being planned.5 More importantly,many countries are considering policies that

are good-for-the-environment-anyway, which are those that are aimed at eradi-cating poverty and advancing sustainable development, but may simultaneously

address climate change mitigation, natural resource management, pollutionabatement, improvement of environmental quality, or basic development needs

such as adaptation to climate change. Approaches such as these promise to besome of the most effective defenses against climate change.Unfortunately,they arenot necessarily the ones receiving the most attention or support from donor coun-

tries. Instead, Official Development Assistance ( ) and other funding mecha-

nisms that support developing country activities to promote clean and sustainabledevelopment and the eradication of poverty are decreasing at a rapid pace.

Several countries have also adopted policies that promote better naturalresource management, increased energy efficiency, adoption of technologies thatuse renewable sources of energy,and cleaner technologies for conventional energy

sources, independently of the negotiations. A recent study6 presents some inter-

esting evidence that demonstrates that there have been some significant reductions in several developing countries including China,India, Mexico, Brazil,and South Africa, primarily due to the introduction of these measures. Many

countries have been adopting such regulations,not so much out of concern for cli-mate change, but because they are interested in promoting sustainable develop-ment,poverty reduction,and more sound national development practices. In gen-

6 Reid,W.W. and Jose Golden-

berg, Developing Countries areCombating Climate Change:Actions in Developing Coun-tries that Slow Growth inCarbon Emissions,EnergyPolicy,1997,26 (3):pp. 233 -237.

the primary challenge for negotiators is overcoming the uncertainty of the

information produced by the relatively young science of climate change. Byfocusing less on the science and more on the positive impacts that climate changeactivities will have on the quality of life, negotiators may be able neutralize those

who are fighting against aggressive mitigation measures.

5 Joint Implementation Quar-terly, July 2000:Volume 6,no. 2:p.14.


7/11

315-

eral, these activities have been based on the principle that the best way to ensure abetter quality of life for future generations is by improving the current quality of

life. Evidence of these successes coupled with a campaign to explain and promotethe linkages between climate change and development could provide the best basisfor future information dissemination and progress on the implementation of the

Kyoto Protocol.Having witnessed and experienced unprecedented weather-related catastro-

phes such as Hurricane Mitch in Central America and the Caribbean in 1998, many

countries are also beginning to introduce measures to adapt to sudden and violentchanges in the weather. It is doubtful that these actions are based on the science of

climate change, or on a concern about whether the atmosphere is influenced byhuman activities.Rather, these decisions are based on a more basic understanding

that better land use practices,reforestation,improved watershed and coastal man-agement, and better infrastructure will protect their lives, livelihoods, and prop-erty.The success of these countries in lowering and managing risk will provide the

best foundation for future endeavors on the adaptation side of the .

Is climate change a priority for most people around the world?

Globally, most people do not seem too anxious about climate change, and there is

a great deal of skepticism as to whether it actually warrants concern. Thus, it mightseem that the biggest challenge facing those charged with doing something aboutclimate change would be to convince this majority of the global population to

believe in the reality of climate change and its consequences. If this were the case,if a global consensus on the urgency of the issue were a prerequisite to the success

of the implementation of the

, negotiators would stop wasting their time.Many in developing countries will not, at least not in the foreseeable future, pay

any attention to an issue that may cause a problem for the sustenance of life in thedistant future when their principal concern is the preservation of life today. Itwould therefore be fruitless to spend resources simply trying to convince the

global population of the need for unity and action. Instead, the primary challengefor negotiators is overcoming the uncertainty of the information produced by the

relatively young science of climate change. By focusing less on the science andmore on the positive impacts that climate change activities will have on the qual-

ity of life, negotiators may be able neutralize those who are fighting against aggres-sive mitigation measures. This tactic will also probably have the additional bene-fit of effectively gaining the attention of developing country policymakers.

The revolutionary principles that were established at the United Nations Con-

ference on Environment and Development () in 1992 made the Frame-work Convention on Climate Change possible. The most important principle ofthis landmark event was the confirmation of the inextricable link between envi-

ronment and development. At the time, created an unparalleled fervor,and set the stage for environmental-political evolutions around the globe. How-ever, over time this enthusiasm has dwindled and been dampened. The review

A true irony of the climate change negotiations is that those countries that aremost vulnerable to the impacts of climate change are also those with the weak-

est, least consistent negotiating teams.


8/11

316

conference scheduled to take place in 2002, the + 10, will provide an excel-lent opportunity not only to revive these commitments,but also to strengthen the

relationship between the and poverty reduction and sustainable devel-opment. To reinforce the point, + 10 should perhaps be called +10: A World without Poverty, with Natures Help.

It is fortunate that + 10 will most likely coincide with the beginning ofthe implementation of the Clean Development Mechanism (), which is one

of the Kyoto Protocol instruments designed to link climate change and develop-ment. This is an excellent opportunity to highlight climate change mitigation

measures that provide considerable development opportunities. A more power-ful, more equitable Kyoto Protocol and a more comprehensive Clean Develop-ment Mechanism will emerge from this stronger link. As the evolves and

becomes a tool that can be adapted to the needs of developing countries regard-less of size or wealth, it will inevitably gain momentum while promoting capacity

building, technology transfer, and development. With the fortification of the

, developing country Parties will strengthen their commitments to the Con-

vention, as the link between the climate change and development activitiesbecomes more apparent. However, this stronger link will, by definition, also

require a readiness on the part of wealthier countries to do their part in address-ing the climate change problem, for which they are primarily culpable. It alsorequires a readiness to transfer vast resources and the necessary technologies for

addressing and reducing emissions in developing countries.

How are developing countries participating in the negotiations?

The fact that the majority of their populations either dont understand or dont

care about climate change has fortunately not hindered developing country gov-ernments from actively participating in the negotiations. However, developingcountries are doing so with different motivations than industrialized and transi-

tion economies, and, by no fault of their own, with different capacities to influ-ence events.

Small island populations are among those most vulnerable to the impacts ofclimate change. Impacts such as sea level rise, increased frequency and strength of

extreme weather events, and saltwater encroachment on limited island freshwatersupplies are already being felt by many island populations. However, most of thedeveloping countries comprised of small islands are not individually politically

powerful. In recognition of this, a group of these countries organized themselvesinto the Association of Small Island States (). With 43 member states, is now a fairly effective political force and has been one of the strongest influencesthroughout the climate change negotiations. Through , the leaders of these

island countries have been more consistent in their negotiating tenacity than anyother developing-country group. Their negotiating team and its bold proposalshave set examples of how even the smallest developing countries can influence the

events of such complex global negotiations (see Slade and Werksman, this

volume).At the other end of the spectrum, large developing countries such as Brazil,

India, and China,with a cumulative population of over two billion, have also had

a major influence on the negotiating process. Through strong, well-prepared del-egations, these countries have developed some of the most important proposalsand platforms to be introduced into the negotiations. Brazils original proposal,


9/11

317-

for example, led to the formulation of the Clean Development Mechanism.

As a unit, the Group of 77 and China have been extremely useful and effectivein providing analysis, synthesis, and political advice to a large group of develop-

ing countries which,because of small and/or weak delegations,have had difficultykeeping pace with the negotiations,and interpreting the implications. The Group

of 77 and China have been less effective, however, in uniting its developing coun-try members into an organized movement to counter the well-rehearsed and orga-nized positions often presented by wealthier Parties. Instead, Group of 77 coun-

tries have formed subgroups independently, based on common interests. For

example, those that would like to see land use change and carbon sequestration

issues reflected and made possible through the have pulled together to influ-ence the negotiations on this issue. However, these same countries are not neces-sarily willing to work together for any other cause. Other groups have formed

based on regional affiliations, usually when there is a limited set of issues uponwhich they can agree. Thus, in general, the most effective element of the Group of

77 subgroups seems to be information exchange and preparation for COPs,ratherthan actual negotiation.

A true irony of the climate change negotiations is that those countries that aremost vulnerable to the impacts of climate change are also those with the weakest,least consistent negotiating teams. Because of their lack of strength in the negoti-

ating forum, this rather large group, which is mostly comprised of the pooreststates, has had little chance of influencing the negotiations, and as a result, does

not stand to benefit much from the process. Often overlooked because of their

minimal contribution to current

emissions, these countries could truly ben-efit from the new, cleaner technologies that are being discussed as methods ofemissions mitigation and from capacity building programs.

Should we leave it all to governments?

One of the most interesting features of the and its Kyoto Protocol is

inclusiveness. Never before,with the exception perhaps of the World Trade Orga-nization negotiations, have global negotiations included so many sets of actors.

This is both good and bad. Good in that this all-encompassing approach hasundoubtedly led to a greater awareness of global environmental problems. It is

also good that there are more resources, both intellectual and financial, con-tributing to the complex solutions required. At the same time, it is not good thatthe variety of actors has introduced such a diverse set of motivations and interests.

Overall, however, one can hope that any process that is this comprehensive willresult in a treaty that has more sense of ownership and commitment.

The role of the private sectorboth local and internationalis another uniquecomponent of the Kyoto Protocol. Given the large proportion of investments

comprised by private capital throughout the developing world, it is only naturaland positive to have the private sector fully engaged in the negotiations and imple-

Between the provision of sound policies and regulatory frameworks on the partof the governments, and the financial and managerial efficiency of private sector

players, public-private partnerships could potentially provide a crucial formulafor the successful implementation of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol.


10/11

318

mentation of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. Around the world, privatecompanies are currently making investment decisions on production systems that

will need to be amortized over several years or decades. Each of these decisions,therefore, is a potential vote for or against the environment, and has the promiseof pushing the production and consumption patterns in directions that could

either assist or damage the chances for emission mitigation and povertyreduction. In many countries, these decisions are currently being made with little

regard as to whether they support poverty reduction, emissions reductions,or sustainable development. Additionally, while many of the larger, more eco-

nomically stable developing countries have policies and measures in place to reg-ulate private investment, the majority have weak or non-existent rules of engage-ment for orienting private activity. In the absence of regulation, investors will tend

to opt for projects that provide short-term benefits, rather than those with long-term sustainability. As such, while it would be unthinkable to formulate a treaty of

this scope and magnitude without the full inclusion of the private sector, the KyotoProtocol will need to prioritize developing-country capacity building in this area

in order to improve the chances for successful relationships.The design of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol are such that the public and

private sectors will be reliant on each other for success.This interdependence has thepotential to foster powerful relationships between the two sectors.Between the pro-vision of sound policies and regulatory frameworks on the part of the governments,

and the financial and managerial efficiency of private sector players,public-privatepartnerships could potentially provide a crucial formula for the successful imple-

mentation of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. These relationships will nothappen automatically or come easily, and capacity building and technology transfer

initiatives will need to be built into the Kyoto Protocol and play a major role.

Why is international cooperation so important in the Convention?

There are an increasing number of problems in todays interdependent world thatcan only be solved through the cooperation of groups of countries or with the

unity of the international community as a whole.Few examples of this are as obvi-ous as climate change, poverty eradication, and sustainable development. In the

area of climate change,global collaboration has been targeted as crucial to the suc-cess of the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Clean Development Mecha-nism. In recognition of this, much of the and Kyoto Protocol negotia-

tions,particularly in the most recent ,have been largely dedicated to securinginternational cooperation.

In this context, it is unfortunate that Official Development Assistance (),one of the most important instruments for promoting international cooperation,

is going through an extreme crisis. levels are at an all-time low exactly whenthere is the most need for it. Ironically, developed countries are wealthier andbetter able to afford than ever before. There are several theories as to the rea-

sons behind the decrease in resources and the decreased donor country inter-

est. However, whatever the pretext, it is unjust and irresponsible to believe that theworld can progress without and other mechanisms that facilitate the trans-fer of wealth between rich and poor countries. In fact,unless this trend is reversed,

it will seriously compromise the success of many international treaties includingthe and the Kyoto Protocol. Without assistance that reaches past climatechange concerns, the majority of developing countries will not have the capacity


11/11

319-

to innovate, to establish the proper infrastructures, or to adopt the new technolo-gies required for emissions mitigation. Given the inextricable link between

climate change and sustainable development, the lack of capacity, institutions,instruments, and measures to promote development that will result from insuffi-cient will eventually place insurmountable obstacles in the path of climate

change mitigation activities.On the same token, it is also not reasonable to expect the private sector to

assume the financial responsibility for developing countries.While it is undeniablethat private sector investment in developing countries has increased dramatically

in recent years, the bulk of this investment has been going to a select few sectors ina select few countriesthose with large, secure markets and highly developedfinancial systems. This automatically discounts the participation of the poorer

countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America, meaning that most ofthese countries must continue to rely on or concessionary lending in order to

attend to their most urgent development priorities. Further, in the private capitalflow structure, there is no mechanism to mediate among and between govern-

ments, civil society organizations,and the private sector on issues of development.

Conclusion

Meeting the challenge of climate change will provide one of the best opportuni-ties for renewed, stronger international cooperation and for a revived system of

. If designed properly, the , one of the principal instruments of the KyotoProtocol,could contribute intensely to a revitalization of and vice-versa. The

will be a means by which developed country private sector industries can ful-fill their Kyoto Protocol commitments with sound investments that simultane-

ously build capacities in and transfer technologies to developing countries. Theprerequisite of developing countries for these ventures should be that theyadvance the agenda of poverty reduction and sustainable development priorities.

In this scenario,even with the structure of the Kyoto Protocol fortifying it,privatecapital will only go so far. Without the added capacity-building support that can

be provided by

and other mechanisms such as the

,

projects may beseverely handicapped, and a large majority of countriesthose that are techno-

logically excludedwill never be able to contribute or benefit.Finally, the new era of revitalized international cooperation for climate change

and sustainable development initiatives will need to take into account the great

technological divide that currently exists between developing and developedcountries. If the Convention is truly to act as a global treaty, then there must be

serious efforts to build capacities and transfer technology with the concrete objec-tive of narrowing this divide.

Luis Gmez-Echeverri is a senior official at the United Nations Development Pro-

gramme. He was formerly the director of the undp Environment Programs, and is

currently a doctoral candidate at Yale University.

e-mail: [email protected]

most developing countries are neither prepared to address nor interested in climate change (2000)

Documents