Download Climate Change and Sustainable Development

Climate Change and Sustainable Development*
C.Dasgupta,
Distinguished Fellow, TERI
I am grateful to Dr. Yap Kok Seng, Director General of the Malaysian
Meteorological Department, for inviting me to deliver a keynote address on Climate
Change and Sunshine Development. As developing countries, Malaysia and India have
many common perspectives on climate change and I feel privileged to have this
opportunity of interacting with Malaysia researchers.
I was in Switzerland last month for a UN meeting. Switzerland, as you know, is
renowned for its snow-clad Alpine slopes and a thriving winter sports industry. Many
scientists believe that in another twenty years, the snow cover will have disappeared from
the Alps because of climate change. This will spell the doom of the winter sports
industry. Yet the Swiss economy will survive the blow and continue to thrive. Famous
winter resorts may well convert themselves into summer resorts, where European tourists
will seek refuge from the heat of the plains! In any case, Switzerland will adapt more or
less successfully to climate change and continue to prosper.
What about Malaysia, India, or other developing countries? In most developing
countries a large proportion of the population are engaged in the traditional farming, an
occupation that is particularly vulnerable to changes in temperature and rainfall patterns
and extreme weather events. By contrast, in most developed countries, a large majority of
the population is engaged in the industrial or services sectors, which are less directly
dependent on climate stability. Moreover, farmers in economically advanced countries
will be able to adapt more successfully to climate change by switching over to new seeds
* Keyote Lecture delivered at the National seminar on Socio-Ecinomic Impacts of Extreme Weather and
Climate Change, Kuala Lumpur, 22 June 2007
1
or plan varieties, new agricultural practices, new crops or even new occupations. They
will not lack the financial or knowledge resource needed for investing in, say, patented
seeds, drip irrigation and other water conservation measures, or coastal protection. As a
general rule, in agriculture as well as other sectors of the economy, developing countries
will find it much more difficult to adapt to climate because they lack the requisite
resources in terms of capital, technologies and knowledge-based skills. They are severely
handicapped on account of these factors.
It follows that, for developing countries, the key to a successful response to
climate change is accelerated development. Unless they achieve rapid development, these
countries will remain woefully lacking in the financial, technological and human
resources required for adapting to climate change in coming decades. Accelerated
development is essential to ensure that future generations in these countries are able to
cope successfully with climate change.
While the long-term requirement for adaptation is sustained and accelerated
development, what are the immediate measures that we must implement as soon as
possible? In the first place, we must take climate change impacts into account in
infrastructure planning. For example, sea-level rise should be taken into account in site
selection and construction of infrastructure in coastal areas. Expected changes in rainfall
patterns and glacier melt may have to be taken into account in planning hydroelectricity
plants, and so on. In short, we should try climate-proof development to the extent
possible. It goes without saying, of course, that this can at best provided a partial solution
by moderating the impacts of climate change to certain extent. Therefore, a second set
of measures is required in the form strengthening our capacity for coping with disasters
associated with extreme weather events - floods, cyclones, etc. Early warning systems
2
have to be improved, as also our capacities for evacuation and provision of emergency
relief and rehabilitation assistance.
If we had been living in a fair world, developing countries would have received
massive financial flows from the industrialized countries to assist their adaptation
efforts since the latter are responsible for causing climate change. As well all know,
climate change is caused not by emissions of greenhouse gases as such but by excessively
high levels of such emissions. Human activities have resulted in greenhouse gas
emissions since the dawn of history but it only in the Industrial Age, with the everexpanding consumption of hydrocarbon fuels, that greenhouse gas concentrations have
reached a level that has resulted in climate change. All inhabitants of our planet have an
equal right to the atmosphere but the industrialized countries have greatly exceeded their
fair per capita share of the
planet’s
atmospheric resources, thereby inducing climate
change. Generally speaking developing countries have not exceeded their fair share. If all
countries had the same per capita emissions as India, for example, humanity climate
change clearly lies with the industrialized countries; and in a just world they have
compensated the developing countries on a massive scale.
However, we do not live in an ideal world and it would be unrealistic for the
developing countries to expect anything more than token assistance in adapting to the
adverse impacts of climate change. We will have to rely on our own scarce resources to
adjust as best as we can.
To sum up, it is essential for developing countries to build up their adaptive
capacity as quickly as possible. The
requires
sustained and accelerated developing,
together with climate- proofing development to the extent possible. These requirements
have to be factored into our development plans.
3
II
Let us now turn to climate mitigation. What role should developing countries play
in the international response to mitigate climate change? What can
developing
countries be reasonably expected to do in regard to mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions and should these countries place the primary emphasis on mitigation or on
adaptation?
Where does climate change figure in the environmental priorities of
developing countries and in what manner should poorer countries integrate
climate
change into development plans? These are question that we shall now address.
As already noted, climate change is the result of excessive emissions
originating
from the industrialized countries. Equity requires that they should sharply
reduce their emissions so as to allow other countries access to their fair share of
atmospheric resources, while arresting climate change. Moreover, the industrialized
countries also possess the financial and technological resources required for an adequate
international response to climate change. Their role should fully reflect their
responsibility for
causing climate change as well as their greater capability foe
addressing the challenge.
On the basis of “common but differentiated responsibilities and [their] respective
capabilities”, the Framework Convention and Kyoto Protocol require industrialized
countries to stabilize and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. These countries, with
the exception of the former Soviet bloc “economic in transition” are also required to
transfer financial resources and technology resources and technology to developing
countries for mitigation and adapting purpose. Developing countries are exempted from
these requirements.
4
This does not mean that developing countries have no commitments at all. All
countries, including developing countries have certain common commitments, including
a commitment to “formulate and implement …. Programmes containing measures to
mitigate climate change”. However, it is clearly recognized that developing countries are
not expected to divert scare financial resources from their development priorities. They
are only expected to implement measures involving no additional costs. Projects
involving incremental costs are required to be taken up only if the industrialized countries
meet these additional costs. Thus the Framework Convention expressly recognizes: “The
extent to which developing country Parties will effective implementation by developed
country Parties of their commitments and will fully under the Convention related to
financial resources and transfer of technology and will full take into account that
economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding
priorities of the developing country Parties”.
Industrial countries are now pressing for a revision of this basic compact. Skirting
around the question of equity and responsibility, they
are calling upon developing
countries to accept new commitments; indeed, it is frequently asserted that at present
developing countries have “no commitments” under the convention or the Kyoto
Protocol. Powerful voices are being raised to press developing countries to strikes some
sort of a balance between development and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. The
argument runs that industrialized
countries will not be able on their own to effect
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions on the scale required to restrict climate change to
acceptable limits and it is, therefore, necessary for developing countries to curb their
rising greenhouse gas emissions, even if this entails some diversion of scare resources
from their development priorities. We are being warned that if developing countries do
5
not accept this prescription, future generations will suffer the adverse consequences of
extreme climate change. In this view, sustainable development implies a balance between
development and climate change mitigation, which is treated as synonymous with
protection of the environment.
In one from or another, these propositions are being advanced with increasing
insistence in ongoing climate change negotiations. They have profound implications for
development, poverty eradication, environmental protection and future welfare of a
majority of the world’s population. For this reason, they deserve careful examination.
In the first place, as already noted, it is incorrect to state that developing countries
currently have no commitments under the Framework Convention or Kyoto Protocol.
Article 4.1 of the convention and Article 10 of the protocol commit all Parties to
“formulate and implement …programmes containing measures to mitigate climate
change”. While developing countries are not required to implement measures involving
uncompensated incremental costs, they are implementing a wide range of measures that
involve no additional costs in the sense that they are primarily intended to promote such
development priorities
as energy efficiency, energy security, local environmental
concerns or forestry development. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions is a co-benefit
in such cases and there is no diversion of resources from development priorities. The
National Communications of many developing countries provided extensive accounts of
such measures. A Pew Center study on “Climate change mitigation in developing
countries” (October 2002) found that actions taken by six countries – Brazil, China,
India, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey – “reduced the of their combined annual
greenhouse gas emissions over the past three decades by nearly 300 million tons a year.”
6
Second, there is logical confusion in the argument that since emission reductions
in industrialized countries will not be sufficient to arrest climate change, it follows that
developing countries should also accept
emissions. No one questions the need to
a
commitment
to moderate their growing
moderate to the extent feasible the growing
emissions originating in the developing countries. The real questions is, who pays for
it? Under the Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol all incremental costs are to
be met by industrialized countries through the GEF or the Clean Development Fund,
Developing countries have been cooperating, on this financial basis, in international
initiatives that moderate their growing emissions. What they oppose are attempts to shift
the financial burden on to their shoulders by making these measures mandatory without
corresponding financial offsets. This is the real issue. It is clearly inequitable to require
developing countries to meet any part of the costs of mitigation a phenomenon caused by
wealthy industrialized countries. Even
if we leave aside the question of equity, it
must be pointed out hat diversion of scarce resources from their development imperatives
will inevitably cripple the long-term adaptive capacitive of these countries.
proposals
being
made
by
The
industrialized countries are, therefore, a highly
inappropriate to climate change, not to speak of equity, development or poverty
eradication.
Finally, it is necessary to consider the environmental priorities of developing
countries. Climate change undoubtedly poses a very serious environmental threat. Yet, in
most developing countries, water and air pollution and lack of adequate sanitation pose
environmental challenges that are just as serious as climate change – and much more
immediate. These local environmental problem take a heavy toll in human lives today.
While climate change is largely a middle –and long - threat, these local pollution
7
problems constitute a critical present threat, crying out for an urgent solution. Not
surprising, they
are accorded correspondingly high priority in development plans of
poorer countries. Diversion of the scare resources of a developing country to limiting
greenhouse gas emissions might distort its proper environmental priorities.
To sum up these observations on mitigation, developing countries can and should
continue to implement no-cost measures with mitigation co-benefits, as well as measures
involving incremental costs provided that industrialized countries meet these costs. It
would be inequitable as well as being counter-productive, in terms of economic growth,
adaptive capacity
and local environmental priorities to reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions.
III
Having looked at both aspects of the response to climate change – adaptations and
mitigation – we are now in a position to consider the overall relationship of climate
change to sustainable development.
Like most concept that gain universal acceptance, the term “ sustainable
development” is not notable for it is rigorous definition. The most commonly cited
definition, taken from the Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development (1978) entitled Our Common Future is as follows: “Sustainable
development is development that meet their own needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” On a superficial
reading this definition deals only the question of inter-generational equity but, in fact. It
expressly covers also intra-generational equity. Thus, the Report goes on to elucidate the
“concept of “ needs ”, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which
8
overriding priority should be given”. Thus, “ sustainable development addresses the
question of a balance between economic growth and protection o scare environmental
resources as also the questions of equity between, and within, present and future
generations.
I now come to the conclusion. The argument develop in this lecture may be
summed in the form of three propositions concerning the relationship between
development and climate change:
(1)
In the context of climate change, rapid development is sustainable
development. Unless they develop rapidly, developing countries will be unable to adapt
to climate change with any degree of success. Future generations will have to pay a heavy
price for tardy development.
(2)
In order to make their fair contribution to mitigating climate change,
developing countries should implement all feasible no-cost measures delivering
mitigation co-benefits. They should also seek opportunities for implementing additional
measures if industrialized countries meet the incremental costs involved.
(3)
It would be counter-productive for developing countries in terms of
economic and social progress as well health –related local environmental goals, to divert
scarce resources from these priorities to mitigation measures involving uncompensated
incremental costs.
9