By Rear Admiral (Rtd.) Gary A. R. Best Presidential Advisor on the Environment
UNDER the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the two responses to climate change identified are: mitigation of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), and enhancing sinks and adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
In fact, GHGs from most developing states are relatively low, and consequently they are required to adapt to climate change; while developed nations are required to mitigate climate change due to high emission rates. Further, under the UNFCCC, developed countries agreed to transfer technology to, and fund, the cost of adaptation for developing countries.
At the regional level, Caricom Heads of Government expressed concern about the global impact of climate change, and advanced a global solution which required the reorganization of all climate change funding to incorporate a vulnerability index, in order to enable small island developing states (SIDS) and small developing states (SDS) to access international financial resources. The Heads established the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC) as the region’s implementation agency, and recognized the Guyana Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) as a tool for harmonizing climate change mitigation and economic development (Liliendaal Declaration, 2009).
It should be noted at the outset that Guyana’s blueprint to adapt to climate change was through a mitigation instrument, the LCDS, which is a payment for ecosystems services (PES) plan to raise revenue to finance its adaptation to climate change. However, at the regional level, vulnerability became the small nations’ anthem at successive annual and special climate change conferences, to attract international attention of the special nature of SIDS and SDS.
A WIDER RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Two recent developments are worth noting in the context of Guyana’s wider response to climate change. Firstly, the Paris Agreement to the UNFCCC provides for all countries to be legally bound to voluntary reductions of GHGs (Article 2:1(a); Article 4:2; Article 6:4). Secondly, Guyana’s decision to adopt a green economy pathway as it development model represents a multi-sectorial approach to climate change solutions, widening its blueprint to adapt to climate change. The LCDS and vulnerability concerns are now subsumed within the green economy, and are expressed under two of its pillars — sustainable harvesting of natural capital, and economic prosperity and social cohesion.
Let’s look at this wider response to climate change in the context of adaptation and sustainable development. According to a recent report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the key challenge now is how to respond to climate change. In the minds of those panellists, two benchmarks should be met in order to mitigate climate change – stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases, and maintenance of economic growth.
Towards this end, Beinhocker et al. suggested that there should be no doubt that economic growth must go hand in hand with climate change mitigation efforts.
According to Patterson, there is also a real fear that, because the main response to global warming has been through mitigation characterised by carbon sequestration, renewable energies and energy efficiency, biodiversity conservation may become a casualty. This is a possibility that Guyana’s green economy pathway must avoid.
However, Gurney and Raymond doubt that the current system of limiting deforestation through reduced fossil and industrial emissions and percentage reduction targets is the appropriate model. Instead, countries are urged to consider a national target relative to the amount of untouched forest identified for preservation, and the required changes in deforestation rates necessary to get there.
Consequently, within the wider climate change solutions via Guyana’s green economy pathway, emissions’ reductions capture, measurement and necessary by-laws become prime activities for our national agencies, particularly the Guyana Energy Agency.
There are also issues with adaptation. In this context, Jones et al (2009) points out that while adaptation costs are high, costing sea level adaptation, for example, shows that it will range between 5% and 10% of GDP, whereas if no adaptation is undertaken, the cost can be as high as 14%. According to Agerup et al, ‘Sustainable development can only come through the adoption of institutions that enable people to engage in economic activities that create wealth and lead to technological progress’.
Writers such as Jones et al are more forthright; they posit that sustainable development and climate change are inextricably linked through the requirements of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.
Perhaps, the greatest challenge to sustainable development is the inability to generate wealth due to poverty. Guyana’s goal must be to reduce poverty and avoid any type of environmental crisis. Contrastingly, Matthew et anor, submits that the environmental effect of the unsustainable consumption practices of the world’s rich is displaced amongst the world’s poor despite all the hype and money being spent on mitigating climate change, preserving biodiversity, and promoting ecosystems services. If this is true, then greening Guyana’s economy must be balanced, and result in reducing inequalities and creating an equitable space for wealth generation for all citizens. The green economy must therefore generate wealth through jobs and industries.
Even though this is the case, Jones argues that climate change efforts at the international level are dominated by negotiations for mitigation through emissions’ reduction, leaving climate change adaptation on a very narrow front and the wider goal of sustainable development inadequately addressed.
Contrastingly, Agerup et al suggested that ‘Policies intended to mitigate climate change through restrictions on atmospheric carbon are almost certainly unsustainable; they are costly, would have little impact on the climate, and will most likely perpetuate poverty, making it more difficult for the poor to adapt to change’.
They also argue that sustainable governance by developing states is plagued by the absence of open trade and good governance. To this initiative, Jones et anor (2009) adds that the areas of emphasis in the context of adaptation identified to enable sustainable development adaptation include strategies to effect and enhance agriculture and forestry production and services; understanding that water resources management is critical to maintaining wetlands which mitigate climate change; development of coastal zone management and protection plans; and identifying health issues as derivatives of climate change.
There is a lot of learning here for us in Guyana, as these adaptation measures reflect the multi-sector approach that the green economy presents. If we agree that climate change and sustainable development are inextricably bound up, then we can also agree that the green economy pathway is a sustainable development initiative within the sustainable development paradigm. And in that context, greening Guyana’s economy should be seen as a climate change solution grounded in innovative actions, nationally developed plans and investment packages, ultimately leading to the good life.
(Comments can be sent to towardsagoodlife@gmail.com)
[box type=”shadow” align=”aligncenter” ]Mr. Gary A. R. Best is a retired Rear Admiral and former Chief of Staff of the Guyana Defence Force. He is an Attorney at Law, and is the Presidential Advisor on the Environment. He is a PhD. candidate at the University of the West Indies. He holds a BSc in Nautical Science (Brazil) and Masters’ Degrees from the University of the West Indies and the University of London. He is also an alumnus of the National Defence University and Harvard Kennedy School. His research areas include climate change governance, climate change finance, international relations and environmental law. [/box]
