Dear Editor,
In another few months, leaders will attend yet another conference on climate change, this time in Cancun. But is it going to yield any better results than the one in Copenhagen, held last December 2009, or is it the road to nowhere? It is not that I am pessimistic, but these conferences are beginning to develop a pattern of plenty rhetoric and heavy public relations, but little commitment.
The real world is now faced with very serious natural disasters – an earthquake in New Zealand, floods and mudslides in Pakistan and China, fires in Russia, drought and serious food shortages in Niger. The massive scale of climate change in Northern Darfur is unprecedented; the reduction in rainfall has turned vast amount of land into desert. This environmental degradation is displacing people and creating refugees. There is also the rapid melting of the Arctic sea ice and increased land and sea temperatures, and the emerging global security problem. It is not that these disasters are new, but what is frightening is the phenomenal scale and the rapidity of such negative environmental incidents all over the world.
The global ecosystem is under increasing stress. Concerns are intensifying about the earth’s carrying capacity. This is manifestly evident in the earth’s forest, coral reefs and fresh water supplies in many regions.
There are those who believe that nature is having its way. Others say that our human activities have been contributing to it. Whatever the cause, people seem to agree that something about our natural environment is changing and that it is influencing our beliefs, the development of technologies, the way we structure our communities and cities, and interact with the natural environment.
Yet there are many who appear to be more preoccupied with development. How else could anyone account for the dilly-dallying of nations, particularly the rich ones, in coming up with the appropriate assistance necessary to encourage developing and poor countries to remain green in their quest for much-needed development.
Last year, in Copenhagen a non-binding political accord was hurriedly tacked up and accepted by one hundred and thirty countries. In reality, the people of poor nations got nothing and rich countries went away happy that they did not have to yield much and could get on with their business as usual. Sometimes one gets the impression that these conferences are about passing the buck around.
The talk of 10 billion a year for the next three years and 100 billion a year starting in 2020 is a drop in the ocean to treat with the problem in poor countries. Even so, monies promised in aid to combat climate change could very well be a subtle redirection of funds already committed by rich countries, to assist with other aspects of development in poor countries. This could unravel modest gains made against environmental degradation in those countries, which contributes to climate change.
In any case they did not specify how the money will be distributed. This could facilitate tensions among developing countries as individual countries would, no doubt, want funding for projects beneficial to their individual countries. This could affect cooperation among poor countries to fight against climate change. It can also make developing and poor countries more susceptible to compromise in negotiating an accord to get assistance for the development of their economies.
There are also questions on monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure that the money is being spent on environmental and related projects with clear, specific, and measurable objectives, and that those projects are not inherently harmful to the environment.
Also, there is the view that these promises and funds from industrialized countries to help nations keep their forests standing, could retard their push for more efficient energy use and decrease their zeal for exploration for alternative energy sources.
Still, money is important because climate change is a serious failure of the market on the one hand, and is an economic problem on the other. Therefore, it is crucial that rich countries financially support poor countries to ease their transition to low carbon economies, avoid deforestation and prevent further damage to the natural environment.
Recognizing the dilemma many developing countries have been forced to re-think and reorganize themselves to explore the possibilities for real change in climate change. But there seem to be a few challenges:
First, there appears to be the issue of trust or the lack of it. Poor countries seem to be suspicious of the motives and intentions of rich ones. History is replete with incidents of industrialized nations pushing ahead along their paths of development at the expense of the poor. For example, over the past decades, poor African nations have been used as the dumping grounds for hazardous toxic waste from developed countries. This reduces the cost of disposing of or even recycling the by-products of industries. The poverty of many African nations and the potential benefits encourage them to engage in such improper disposal. As a result, the industries realize savings, making more money available for them to upgrade their businesses; but it spells environmental degradation for nations in Africa, poor health and poor economies.
Second, there is the situation of national reputation. This is the way a country presents itself on the world’s mental map. Sometimes, the state brand is intrinsically linked to a particular corporate brand. For example, Microsoft and McDonald are among the corporations that present a certain brand of the USA as much as Nokia gives the world an image of Finland. In today’s world strong brands are necessary to attract direct investment, wielding political influence and having the ability to negotiate accords and agreements.
Having a bad reputation or none at all is a serious handicap for a state seeking to compete for international assistance or to have strong political influence in the international arena. Therefore, a country’s reputation can be a strategic negotiating tool or it can cast a long shadow over what its leaders are saying in international negotiations and conferences, and what it gets from those talks. Embedded in a state’s reputation are the principles which guide it and define its people. It could be a good drawing card and commands the respect of international partners.
Many poor and vulnerable countries have bad reputations or none at all. In fact, quite a few of them are struggling with issues such as corruption, human rights violations, and generally bad governance. In some countries, there is the absence of clear and legally binding regulations; limited institutional capacity; lack of appropriate equipment and trained personnel; and inadequate information on emissions. These countries attract less than reasonable treatment by wealthy nations, as well as multinational corporations with poor track records of environmental sensitivity and care.
My point is that unless many of the developing and vulnerable nations begin to build good national reputations, engage in consultations with stakeholders including environmental non- governmental organizations, and start national projects to save the environment then they will continue to come away with very little or nothing from international climate change conferences like the one that is fixed for December in Cancun. For if the rich are not prepared to negotiate and really commit to an agreement that could adequately respond to the global environmental situation, then nothing will happen and Cancun will be the road to nowhere.
Yours faithfully,
Royston King
Executive Director
Environmental Community
Health Organization
