Dear Editor,
In 1994 the UNDP produced what must be the most consequential report by a UN agency in the post-1945 multilateral universe. The report introduced a paradigmatic shift in security and development through the overarching concept of human security. The gist of the new paradigm is sustainable human development.
I suggest that human security as the anchoring concept in sustainable human development is most apposite to Guyana. Wherever one might stand in politics, ideology, or party affiliation, I recommend we consider the substantive points related to a human-security driven paradigm, underpinned as it were by our LCDS.
Readers should know that the two leading thinkers behind the human security paradigm were from the Third World, namely Mahbub ul Haq and Amartya Sen, both economists. Professor Sen won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1998, and Dr. Haq served as the Minister of Finance in Pakistan and was a world-renowned development economist.
Two key components in the human security paradigm, freedom from fear and freedom from want, have origins in a State of the Union Speech to the US Congress by President Franklin D Roosevelt on January 6, 1942.
The restructuring of world order after the fall of the Soviet Union partly precipitated the emergence of human security as a central articulating idea. During the Cold War, economic underdevelopment, and global human welfare especially in the poorer parts of the world, were secondary to the high politics of interstate competition expressed first in the balance of power, and then the balance of terror which came with the advent of nuclear weapons and their strategic deployment.
The 1994 UNDP Report turned the problematic of security up-side-down. Three major shifts occurred. Firstly, human beings instead of states should be the ‘referent object’ of security. The new referent object in this case means that individuals and their communities should be the primary targets of physical protection and socio-economic advancement. Gender inclusion and empowerment are key components in this pillar of human security.
Secondly, rather than conceiving threats as coming from external sources only, internal threats to human welfare should also be taken into consideration. The sources of threat here could be from undemocratic, authoritarian states, and/or groups within a country that cultivate fear, instability, and violence.
Thirdly, while military threats are significant at the inter-state level, there are other sources of threats to communities and individuals. These include endangerment from global phenomena such as climate change and global economic inequality, to small arms and light weapons proliferation, or the trafficking of women and girls in the global sex industry. Critics of neoliberalism usually include corporate globalization that is exploitative.
In order to improve human security, and in order to jettison the privileges given to ‘national security’, narrowly defined, the UNDP envisaged investing in human development rather than arms. Empowering multilateral institutions to “promote and sustain development”, and expansion of the forms of capital inflow with less stress on aid, was also emphasized.
It is noteworthy that previous reports had emphasized the relationships among development and environmental sustainability. The Brundtland Report (1987) of the World Commission of Environment and Development, for instance, observed that “[t]he downward spiral of poverty and environmental degradation is a waste of opportunities and of resources.” The report appropriately titled “Our Common Future” stated that “[w]hat is needed … is a new era of economic growth – growth that is forceful and at the same time socially and environmentally sustainable.”
Robust multilateral agendas including the Millennium Development Goals (2000) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (established in 2015) have emphasized the linkages among economic well-being and environmental sustainability. The former registered only partial success, and the latter is in serious trouble due to the pandemic, war, geographical and sectorial imbalances in development financing, and predictable crises in the world economy.
It is important to note that “[s]o far, only five countries have met or exceeded the target set by the UN General Assembly in 1970 for developed countries to give 0.7% of their GNI in ODA.”
Guyana is and has been well ahead of the development-sustainability curve, due to our LCDS approach to development, and its associated economic models. Our carbon sink credit model is based on a complex of factors comprising of the urgent need for carbon sequestration, and the equally urgent need for development financing to address the clear and present danger emanating from climate change. The model has elements of national (economic) interests, multilateral efforts at climate change mitigation and adaptations, and the need for innovative ways in balancing energy production while reducing or ‘offsetting’ carbon emissions.
The IPCC has noted that while the rate of GHG emissions slowed down between 2010-2019, “[w]ithout immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, limiting global warming to 1.5°C is beyond reach”. At the same time Vida Carbon, a leading carbon investment company has determined that “[e]conomic models predict that voluntary carbon markets are expected to increase 15x by 2030 and 100x by 2050, with growth projections of up to US$180 billion annually by 2030. https://vidacarbon.com/carbon-markets/.
Our carbon credit economics is based on the convergence of factors outlined above. The crux of our model is to enhance national development while simultaneously contributing to global efforts in dealing with climate change.
Sincerely
Dr. Randolph B. Persaud
