Climate change: opportunity or barrier for development

By Carlos L. Muñoz B. and Mark Chandler

The future of the climate change agenda will be defined in Copenhagen this December at the UN Convention on Climate Change 15th Conference of the Parties. The climate change issue has gone from being more a matter of air pollution to becoming a development issue. What will be greed in Copenhagen (or not) will have immediate as well as long term impacts on everyone’s life on the planet. The agenda faces enormous reluctance given its economic and political implications but is also expected that great opportunities can be derive through an agreement.

It is well known that the main causes of global climate change are the capacity of the so called greenhouse gases (GHGs) to absorb and emit heat radiation and their atmospheric concentrations. While the greenhouse effect analogy is widely used, it is a phenomenon different than climate change. Also, it is generally accepted that the main sources of GHGs are the industrial sector, transport, agriculture, and deforestation among others. The level of CO₂ concentration increased from 280 ppm during pre-industrial times to the current estimated level of 387 ppm. The effect of current concentrations of GHGs is an increase close to 0.6°C above the average temperature at the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1750.

Complicated negotiation map. The global climate change agenda is atypical and requires a new dimension. Countries face great uncertainty in finding a strategic negotiations niche because key issues of climate change are intrinsically linked to development issues and vice versa. Many of the topics to be addressed like energy, technology innovation, investments, costs, forest, agriculture, and health do not fit neatly into the traditional negotiations alliances or divisions. Moreover, there is little consensus across sectors within countries.

However, the positions of some key actors are already known. The EU already has a unilateral commitment of 20% reduction of 1990 emissions by the year 2020 (and up to 30% if other industrialized countries agree to this target). On the other hand, the U.S. did not ratify the Kyoto agreement on claim from its Congress demanding serious emission reductions by India and China. Thus, the US is perceived more like an individual agent. Recent actions suggest the U.S. wishes to return in a global leading role for climate change and is aggressively preparing for that. The Waxman-Markey climate change bill, passed last June 26 in the House of Representative with 219 votes in favor against 212, has given rise to high expectations.

Beyond the U.S. and the E.U. new players are emerging with great power to influence the agendas. China, India, Mexico and Brazil are very important actors and have gained prominence under the new designation of "Large Developing Countries". Their significance is based on an enormous capacity for economic growth but more for their GHGs emissions potential; China for instance has already exceeded U.S. emissions and became the largest GHGs emitter in the world.

Another unusual grouping of countries that has emerged included those with extensive forestry resources or significant and long-lasting agricultural tradition. This grouping includes Canada, Brazil, and Russia among others. Global emissions from agriculture and forestry total a far from marginal figure of 30.9%. Countries in this group will also face challenges during the Copenhagen negotiations because of the explicit impacts on management of forestry and agriculture. For example, Brazil is opposed to a forest carbon market under the initiative for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) and advocates a more direct funding mechanism for conservation of forest. Moreover at the negotiations, agriculture producing countries will pose the concern of rising costs to producing food from a carbon tax that would increase prices for inputs (e.g. fertilizer, herbicides) or transportation.

Finally, the oil producing countries has emerged as an important group. They are threatened by the creation of markets and incentives, and tax systems that promote sources of energy that are not petrol-based.

The Natural Alliances for Negotiation. Reducing the greenhouse gases emissions problem will require getting the group of high- emitting countries to agree. For example, according to the World Resources Institute 70% of global emissions are generated by the EU, USA, Canada, Japan, China, Russia, India, Brazil and Mexico. The remaining 30% are contributed by Indonesia, Iran, South Korea, Australia, Ukraine, South Africa and 147 countries.

A major achievement in reducing emissions would be possible by getting a number of large emitting countries come to an agreement, In fact a subset of these countries are currently working out an agreement before Copenhagen with the spirit of achieving progress in the climate change agenda.

But such an agreement would not be sustainable over the long run. A sustainable agreement requires greater participation of stakeholders throughout the world, from both countries with high emissions in the present, those that are projected as major emitters in the future, and those who will be impacted by the effects of climate change in the future. The outcomes of the Copenhagen meetings must include their voice as well.

Small countries with abundant forest resources, with a tradition of producing coffee, bananas, pineapple and other food commodities must seek to contribute as effectively and constructively as possible. Their effectiveness will increase with adequate preparation, by clearly defining their development goals, by not giving in to the negotiation fatigue at the meeting, but even better, coming to the negotiation table with clear and practical solutions. Costa Rica is known worldwide as a leader in conservation, ecotourism, and human development. Costa Rica can also be a leader in the route to Copenhagen.

Carlos L. Muñoz B. (carlosglobal@gmail.com) is a Costa Rican studying at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Intern Research Associate at Earthwatch Institute, and former Executive Director of the Monteverde Conservation League in Costa Rica.

Mark Chandler (mchandler@earthwatch.org) is International Director of Research at Earthwatch Institute and Principal Investigator and Director of “Costa Rican Coffee from Community to the Cup” project in Tarrazú, Costa Rica.