1.3.3 How Has Global Climate Policy Treated Equity?
Indeed, some elements of the equity agendaprimarily at the international
levelhave been incorporated into the emerging global climate policy regime.
In particular:
- initial mitigation efforts have been concentrated in Annex I countries,
resulting in a search for the most cost-effective solutions as detailed in
Section 1.2;
- currently, non-Annex I countries are exempt from specific mitigation obligations;14
- there are agreements to provide financial resources to non-Annex I countries
to cover the full cost of preliminary climate obligations (e.g., monitoring,
reporting, and planning), and the incremental cost of voluntary mitigation
actions;
- there are agreements and some programs to provide technical assistance and
training to identify potential winwin opportunities;
- various voluntary mechanisms are being designed to induce early mitigation
action in non-Annex I countries, most notably including the CDM of the Kyoto
Protocol.
While the details of the CDM are still to be worked out, in broad terms it
allows entities in Annex I countries to fulfil their mitigation obligations
through co-operative investment in non-Annex I countries, presumably at a lower
cost. It has been hailed by some analysts as an ingenious device to reconcile
the goals of GHG abatement and sustainable development (see Goldemberg, 1998b;
Haites and Aslam, 2000). On the other hand, it has also generated a degree of
criticism. Critics fear that:
- CDM will channel investment into projects of marginal social utility (Agarwal
and Narain, 1999);
- gains will not be shared fairly (Parikh et al., 1991, 1997a; Parikh, 1994,
1995);
- technology transfer will not be satisfactory (Parikh, 2000);
- poorer countries (especially African countries) and vulnerable groups will
be excluded (Sokona et al., 1998, 1999; Goldemberg, 1998b);
- only resources for cheap mitigation options will be attracted (the so-called
low-hanging fruit), leaving developing countries to undertake
the more expensive options themselves (Agarwal et al., 1999);15
- CDM will lead to an effective relaxation of the emission caps (Begg et al.,
2000; Parkinson et al., 1999), and
- paradoxically, it may compromise the capacity of developing countries to
pursue sustainable development (Banuri and Gupta, 2000).
Going beyond the current options, such as CDM, and to a longer
time horizon raises the need to integrate mitigation goals within the broader
(sustainable) development agendas of developing countries (Najam, 2000). An emerging
literature has begun to explore this redefined problem (see Munasinghe, 2000).
Some issues that are relevant to this discussion include:
- Scale. The scale of the mitigation challenge in non-Annex I countries is
projected to be much broader in the long term than the short term. Instead
of an exclusive reliance on financial and technological assistance, which
ordinarily indicates increases in assistance levels significantly above historical
trends, there is a need to invest in indigenous capacity to undertake mitigation
without compromising the development agenda.
- Timing. To sustain the interest of both developed and developing countries
in co-operative solutions, the goal must be to lower the cost of mitigation
over time rather than to concentrate simply on exhausting the cheap mitigation
options (the so-called low-hanging fruit).
- Relevance to economic growth and sustainable development. Recent studies
of the impact of foreign resource inflows demonstrate that these flows alone
do not suffice to promote economic growth or sustainable development without
appropriate policy and institutional environments (World Bank, 1998). It is
not clear whether financial resources alone will lead to climate mitigation
and economic growth.
- Equity and trust. Despite consistent and repeated references to equity
in climate agreements, sceptics remain wary that equity will eventually be
subverted in some way and involuntary obligations imposed on non-Annex I countries
(without financial compenzation) to force them to bear a disproportionate
burden of mitigation (Agarwal and Narain, 1991a; Hyder, 1992; Parikh, 1992;
Dasgupta, 1994; Parikh, 1995; Parikh and Parikh, 1998; Agarwal et al., 1999).16
Some scholars propose remedies to reconcile these longer-term concerns with
the more immediate goals of the existing agenda. The simplest is a proposal
to restrict all co-operative measuresand thus all early and voluntary
action in non-Annex I countriesto non-carbon projects (Agarwal
and Narain, 1999). While this would exclude some legitimate mitigation options
from the purview, it could channel research and entrepreneurial resources into
a new market, bring down unit costs, create and strengthen technical and managerial
capacities, and thus enable both developed and developing countries to engineer
a transition to a carbon-free future. Renewable energy projects have been implemented
at smaller scales, which make them appropriate for poor rural communities. Other
proposals similarly address the potential co-benefits of the protection of primary
forests (see Kremen et al., 2000).