COP15. Three objectives, in a nutshell. First it was mitigation, then the need for adaptation was more widely recognised as developing countries raised their voices and developed nations started seeing they would have to adapt too, particularly as it became apparent that emissions reductions are proving elusive. The third objective is less widely discussed but just as important: development.
South Africa and other less developed countries are emphasising the need for clean technology for mitigation and adaptation, and financial contributions to make technology transfer happen. Most commentators take this for granted, and debate how an agreement will be reached on financial transfer. But what of the developmental state that South Africa wishes to be?
Handouts will do little to advance the local development agenda. It might be argued that they are needed, but not so much for making a big difference to global emissions. Coming off a low emissions base, poor countries can do very little to mitigate climate change. In fact, 80% of global emissions come from the G20, leaving the other 180-odd countries responsible for only 20%. South Africa is a member of the G20, but is the only one from sub-Saharan Africa.
The BRICS countries (Brazil, India, China & South Africa) are all in the G20 and in the list of top-20 emitters. Together they account for about 23% of global emissions of CO2, but given their low rate per capita (under 3,000 tonnes per 1,000 people - with the exception of South Africa), and their strong growth trajectories, there might not be much scope for meaningful reductions based on technology handouts.
South Africa has just announced that it will reduce emissions by 34% from current business as usual (see update below) levels by 2020, and that financial aid is needed to achieve this target. India (also a member of the G20) has recently announced a 25% reduction in emission intensity, saying that it will strengthen their bargaining position in Copenhagen. Both countries seem to be saying that by tying at least some of their efforts to international aid, they will not suffer economically. Call it an investment in productive capacity.
So really, the developing world is asking for handouts because they hope it will help with economic development. And since economic growth in developing countries is in the interests of developed countries, the aid is likely to come in one form or another. But this raises the question: will the type of technology that eventually arrives on African soil, courtesy of transfer agreements, be the right stuff for creating appropriate forms of development?
Or maybe that's not quite the right question. We could also ask, what are the conditions that should be nurtured in developing countries in order to make the most of what's on offer? Things like good governance, skills development, and social upliftment. Without these enablers in place, technology can do very little for either emissions or economic development. And can agreements be reached that will support them, without the threat of political meddling?
Even if I am wrong about the scope for South Africa's contribution to global carbon reductions, the rest of sub-Saharan Africa (and 90% of the world's countries) have nothing to bring to the table. What they need is sustainable development; but even if we ignore the poor track record of aid programmes in this regard, their low emissions mean that there is also little scope for aid under a clean technology transfer agreement.
**** Update on 8 Dec 2009: Today's Business Report notes that South Africa's pledge is probably using the country's Long Term Mitigation Scenario forecasts as its base for 2020 emissions under business as usual. (And that this means canning one of three planned coal-fired power stations and replacing this with renewable energy.)
Comments