-
Most developing countries are neither prepared
to address nor interested in climate change
Luis Gómez-Echeverri
United Nations Development Programme
Abstract
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (unfccc) has the
potential to become one the most important instruments to-date for addressing
urgent global and local environmental and developmental priorities. It is also one of
the most inclusive in that it incorporates important actors from government as well
as private sector and civil society. Because of the importance of their full participation, the success of the Framework Convention rests greatly on the effectiveness of
the instruments established for international cooperation by its signatories.Also crucial to the success of the Framework Convention will be the engagement of all countries, both rich as well as poor. But the engagement of developing countries will only
come through programs and actions that also address urgent development and
poverty eradication priorities. Thus, while it is obvious that the mechanisms of the
unfccc and Protocol will be essential in mitigating and adapting to climate change,
they will not be sufficient in-and-of-themselves. Other mechanisms such as a
strengthened and well-replenished Global Environmental Facility and Official Development Assistance (oda) will be needed to reinforce the Convention and its objectives. Without them, many developing countries will not have capacities required to
make the Framework Convention a success.
Introduction
Climate change is one of the most serious environmental problems that humanity faces today. Unfortunately, most countries are lacking the basic tools, the institutions and the capacities needed to cope with and mitigate its effects. Furthermore, the dismal condition of poverty and deprivation under which a large
portion of the world’s population lives provides a poor platform on which to
embark on a major attack on climate change. Millions of people in the developing
world live in extreme poverty. Some two billion do not have access to the most
basic energy services. In the last few decades of the 20th century, and mostly due
to the precarious living that is often associated with poverty, a growing vulnerability to extreme weather events has resulted in a dramatic increase in death and
physical destruction. This combination of increasing levels of poverty, lack of
basic services, and increasing threat of weather events is what occupies the atten-
309
310
1 Greenhouse gases are those
that absorb infrared radiation
in the Earth’s atmosphere,
while allowing solar radiation
to pass through it. This process,
known as the greenhouse
effect, maintains the Earth’s
atmosphere at a much warmer
temperature than it would otherwise have - the Earth could
not sustain life without it. However, since industrialization the
amount of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere has been
steadily increasing. The greenhouse gases include water
vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), halogenated fluorocarbons (hcfcs), ozone (O3), perfluorinated carbons (pfcs), and
hydrofluorocarbons (hfcs).
2 De Moor and Calami, Perverse Incentives Subsidies and
Sustainable Development: Key
Issues and Reform Strategies.
San José, Costa Rica: Earth
Council: 1997.
http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/
focus/report/english/subsidies/index.htm
   
tion of most policymakers around the world today. It is against this background,
therefore, that negotiators of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change
(), and more specifically its Kyoto Protocol, need to frame their debates
and agreements in order to engage the attention and the participation of the
majority of the world’s population.
Significant resources are needed to strengthen institutions and capacities in
developing countries. Without these assets these countries will not be able to
adopt, adapt, and develop the technologies needed to eradicate poverty and
address the challenges of climate change. Some of the mechanisms emerging from
the negotiations of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change and its
Kyoto Protocol will be helpful, but not sufficient. Other mechanisms such as the
Global Environmental Facility () need to be revisited and retooled. Further,
Official Development Assistance (), which is currently undergoing one its
worst crises to date, needs to be revived so that it can become a real force of change
and support in the effort of many countries to escape marginalization while simultaneously contributing effectively to the climate change agenda. However, building
institutions and capacities, particularly in developing countries, is a task that
requires time in addition to resources, while the dual threats of climate change and
poverty continue to grow. Both need to be addressed urgently and with equal force.
The good news is that, more often than not, projects to adapt to climate change
or to mitigate greenhouse gas () emissions1 can also be instrumental in
enhancing good governance and in addressing poverty reduction and the sustainable development priorities of developing countries. Within the energy sector, for
example, climate change mitigation projects could stimulate the introduction of
new, cleaner, and in many cases less expensive technologies to cater to the energy
demands of developing countries and of the two billion people who are currently
without energy services. Alternatively, the same two billion people could continue
to rely on fuel wood, resulting in continued deforestation (as well as acute health
risks), or they could come to depend on energy produced with current fossil fuel
technologies, which are harmful to the atmosphere. Another, adaptation-oriented, example of the enhancement of good governance is in the area of land use
and watershed management. Improvements in natural resource management can
lower risks, reduce loss of human life, and thus facilitate adaptation to the heavy
rains, floods, and severe storms that are associated with climate change, while
simultaneously enabling populations to use their resources with minimal or no
impact.
The bad news is that countries have not been as effective in promoting sustainable development or supporting the development of the clean and benign
technologies needed for the reduction of  emissions. Worse, as revealed in a
recent study commissioned by the Earth Council, around the world subsidies
amounting to some $700 billion per year actually encourage ecologically destructive and socially inequitable practices.2 Further, research and development in
renewable energy is rarely prioritized as it should be. Finally, there is an overall lack
of information regarding the linkages that exist between economic and environmental concerns. Specifically, there has been little effort to disseminate information regarding the probable impacts of climate change on human wellbeing in
developing countries, including issues of health, food security, and sustainable
development in general.
-
The unfccc, its Protocol, and the involvement of developing countries
The  is the most far-reaching environmental global treaty to date and,
given the actors involved, the one that most directly mirrors the dynamic processes
of today’s globalization. The significance of these two characteristics is that the
Convention, through its Kyoto Protocol, has the potential either to become the
most important instrument to date for meditation between global and local sustainable development and environment priorities, or to irreparably exacerbate the
divide between these concerns. The primary reasons this treaty is so uniquely
powerful are:
• It is the first time that countries have agreed to such a far-reaching environmental treaty.
[The] Kyoto Protocol has the potential either to become the most important
instrument to date for meditation between global and local sustainable development and environment priorities or to irreparably exacerbate the divide
between these concerns.
• It is the first time that major investors and the business sector will be largely
responsible for the success or the failure of an environmental treaty.
• It is the first time that the world’s ‘big players’ from the private sector, financial
sector, governments, and non-governmental organizations are all participating, which implies that each sector recognizes the imperative nature of the issue
and the significance of the decisions that are likely to result.
• It is the first time that the future of a Convention rests on the ability of countries
to address climate change problems through major technology and financial
resource transfers in a combination of institutionalized and free market regimes.
This new context demands a major capacity building effort for developing
countries. Globalization and the liberalization of trade have drastically changed
the rules of global governance. One of the most significant developments of recent
times, for example, has been the growing role of the private sector. From the perspective of many developing countries, the increased participation of the private
sector has considerable implications for global governance: Where developing
country governments previously had some leverage to dictate the rules of engagement in the global economy, the rules are now often dictated by geographically
distant players and based on issues such as a country’s level of competitiveness,
political risk, and economic stability. Because of this, the key role to be played by
the private sector in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol needs to be assessed
within the context of its contribution—negative or positive—to global governance
and the governance of the climate change regime. Furthermore, developing countries need to strengthen their capacities so that they can influence the decisions
being made in and for their countries, pushing them in truly beneficial directions.
The group of countries that are considered ‘developing’ is far too politically,
economically, culturally, and geographically diverse to unanimously ascribe to a
specific set of concerns. However, it is reasonably safe to say that all developing
countries share the following broad concerns:
• The Ethical Concern: One of the primary aspects of equity is what is sometimes
referred to as ‘ecological space.’ Most developing countries maintain that they
311
312
   
need ‘space’ to grow and develop, meaning that they do not consider it reasonable to sacrifice domestic growth for the global good, especially in light of their
minimal contribution to the climate change problem to date. Thus, at this
point, most developing countries will logically prioritize local environment
and development concerns over global ones. In order to strike a balance that
allows for sustainable economic advancement in developing countries while
enabling  emissions mitigation, industrialized countries will have to compensate at the global level by becoming less wasteful and restricting pollution
further. This is cited as a matter of equity, as industrialized countries have
already attained high levels of development, with significant costs to the global
environment.
• The Economic Concern: Another primary concern to be addressed has to do
with the different ways to measure the costs and benefits of  abatement.
 abatement may be evaluated either in terms of the cost to achieve some
global effect or in terms of the cost that it has at the local level. In the context
of the global effect of the reduction, there is a marginal cost associated with
 abatement.. In the context of the costs of local needs and effects, which is
the perspective that developing countries require,  abatement is characterized in terms of opportunity costs and benefits. It would be ideal to find
solutions that are equitable to both.
• The Financial Concern: Through the approval of mechanisms for emissions
trading, both among developed countries and between developed and developing countries, the Kyoto Protocol is creating a new commodity—carbon offsets. The current rules of finance that govern the trade of privately and publicly
produced goods are not adequate, as this new commodity will be a public good
that is produced privately. New rules will need to be created. How this new
product is marketed touches on the ethical, the political, and the economic.
How it will ultimately be traded will have a major effect on the ability of developing countries to participate. In turn, how they are able to participate will
influence both future  emissions mitigation and current development
strategies for many developing countries.
3 ipcc, R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera, R.H. Moss (Eds), The
Regional Impacts of Climate
Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability: A Special Report of
ipcc Working group II. Cambridge, U.K, Cambridge University Press: 1997.
(http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sr97.h
tm)
4 World Bank, Entering the 21st
Century:World Development
Report 1999/2000. Washington,
D.C.:World Bank Group: 2000.
When the negotiations began, many developing countries argued that climate
change was the problem and the responsibility of industrialized countries. However, recent data and information have demonstrated that developing countries
will be the hardest hit by the impacts of climate change, and that economic and
social costs will be immense. According to a report of a working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (), a doubling of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere may cost developing countries between 2% and 9 % of their gross
domestic products ().3 Further, as a recent World Bank World Development
Report points out, these estimates are based solely on those costs that are readily
quantifiable. They do not account for non-monetary resources such as life preservation, cultural stability, and sustainable livelihoods.4
Surprisingly, the potential costs and negative implications do not match the
frequent lack of interest or urgency given to climate change. Here again, capacity
building efforts are urgently required to clearly demonstrate the close linkages that
exist between climate change, poverty reduction, and development. Efforts are
also needed to resist the natural tendency to avoid addressing problems that
require solutions that have high immediate costs and uncertain benefits in the
seemingly distant future.
-
Is climate change really a serious problem?
Climate change is a natural process that has been occurring for thousands of years.
Species have been ‘adapting’ by shifting to places where they can thrive despite
changing climate conditions. With the advent of the industrial revolution, the
anthropogenic emissions of  increased dramatically and, over the course of
the 20th century, exponentially. Emissions from human activities have also been
accumulating over the decades, and it is expected that as a result climate change
will happen faster in the coming decades than it has in the last ten thousand years.
Changes in land-use practices, mostly to accommodate increasing human populations, have also fragmented ecosystems so drastically that the ability of species
to adapt is being impeded. Ecosystem resilience has further been compromised by
pollution and other stresses caused by present production processes as well as
heavy demands on natural resources. This degradation of natural systems is fairly
ubiquitous in industrialized countries, and to some degree, it is the foundation of
the economic success of these countries. However, it is becoming painfully apparent that the damage done by ignorant or irresponsible development will be egregiously detrimental in the long-term, both globally and locally.
According to assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(), developing countries will suffer greatly as a result of climate change. Shifts
in regional temperatures due to climate change will have impacts on health, as the
ranges for disease vectors expand, bringing the threat of illnesses such as malaria,
dengue fever, and yellow fever to larger populations than ever before. Agriculture
around the world, especially in developing countries, will be threatened by floods,
droughts, and inordinately heavy rains. Close to 70% of the global population lives
in coastal areas, and will therefore feel the threat of even a slight rise in sea level
due to altered hydrological cycles and melting ice caps. Finally, natural water reservoirs in mountainous regions stand to be depleted, and freshwater supplies on
islands are already threatened by salinization.
However, despite evidence pointing to the severe social, economic, and environmental costs of climate change, most people do not take the threat of climate
change seriously. Given that the benefits of mitigation will not be apparent for
years to come, it is understandable that paying for mitigating it is unappealing. In
addition, the science of climate change is relatively new and imperfect, rendering
assessments of the impacts today and projections for the consequences tomorrow
controvertible. These two factors have given players on both sides of the climate
change debate the opportunity to manipulate data to push agendas that either
support or oppose serious climate change abatement measures. Unfortunately, the
ambiguity and ambivalence caused by these two factors have also given policymakers reasons to hesitate on attacking the biggest problem of the climate change
regime—the global dependence on fossil fuels, which contributes about 80% of
the carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere every year.
Despite the lack of consensus as to how it should be addressed, there has at
least been a remarkable increase of awareness and concern for climate change on
the part of policymakers since the mid-1990s. Particularly in the months prior to
the third meeting of the Committee of the Parties ( 3) in Kyoto in December
of 1997, the media focused the world’s attention, not on the complexities or the
tenuous nature of the science, but on a few important issues that would appeal to
the global population. The attention centered on the main causes of  emissions, a few of the most significant impacts, and some important measures that
313
314
5 Joint Implementation Quarterly, July 2000: Volume 6, no. 2:
p. 14.
   
needed to be taken if the international community was serious about addressing
the problem.
The much-publicized Kyoto Protocol to the Convention that emerged from
 3 was a modest but important step for the climate change regime. It was a
precedent-setting legal document in that, for the first time since the advent of the
climate change discussion, a group of countries agreed to legally binding emissions reduction commitments. While the Parties to the  were able to hash
out the fundamental agreement at that time, it was also understood that there was
still much work to be done in future meetings. However, the advancement of the
Kyoto Protocol means different things to different people and countries. For some,
it means finalizing negotiations on the implementation and compliance mechanisms. For others it means obtaining commitments from developing countries.
For developing countries, it means negotiating a package that will enable them to
address poverty reduction and their urgent development priorities while helping
to address climate change.
Importantly, many players are not waiting for ultimate mandates to take action.
Some private corporations, such as BP Amoco, have taken bold and progressive
steps to reduce their emissions voluntarily and to develop new technologies in
anticipation of future regulations. Several countries and companies have participated in ‘Activities Implemented Jointly,’ of which there are now over 150 ongoing
or being planned.5 More importantly, many countries are considering policies that
are ‘good-for-the-environment-anyway,’ which are those that are aimed at eradicating poverty and advancing sustainable development, but may simultaneously
address climate change mitigation, natural resource management, pollution
abatement, improvement of environmental quality, or basic development needs
such as adaptation to climate change. Approaches such as these promise to be
some of the most effective defenses against climate change. Unfortunately, they are
not necessarily the ones receiving the most attention or support from donor coun… the primary challenge for negotiators is overcoming the uncertainty of the
information produced by the relatively young science of climate change. By
focusing less on the science and more on the positive impacts that climate change
activities will have on the quality of life, negotiators may be able neutralize those
who are fighting against aggressive mitigation measures.
6 Reid, W.W. and Jose Goldenberg, “Developing Countries are
Combating Climate Change:
Actions in Developing Countries that Slow Growth in
Carbon Emissions,” Energy
Policy, 1997, 26 (3): pp. 233 -237.
tries. Instead, Official Development Assistance () and other funding mechanisms that support developing country activities to promote clean and sustainable
development and the eradication of poverty are decreasing at a rapid pace.
Several countries have also adopted policies that promote better natural
resource management, increased energy efficiency, adoption of technologies that
use renewable sources of energy, and cleaner technologies for conventional energy
sources, independently of the negotiations. A recent study6 presents some interesting evidence that demonstrates that there have been some significant 
reductions in several developing countries including China, India, Mexico, Brazil,
and South Africa, primarily due to the introduction of these measures. Many
countries have been adopting such regulations, not so much out of concern for climate change, but because they are interested in promoting sustainable development, poverty reduction, and more sound national development practices. In gen-
-
eral, these activities have been based on the principle that the best way to ensure a
better quality of life for future generations is by improving the current quality of
life. Evidence of these successes coupled with a campaign to explain and promote
the linkages between climate change and development could provide the best basis
for future information dissemination and progress on the implementation of the
Kyoto Protocol.
Having witnessed and experienced unprecedented weather-related catastrophes such as Hurricane Mitch in Central America and the Caribbean in 1998, many
A true irony of the climate change negotiations is that those countries that are
most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change are also those with the weakest, least consistent negotiating teams.
countries are also beginning to introduce measures to adapt to sudden and violent
changes in the weather. It is doubtful that these actions are based on the science of
climate change, or on a concern about whether the atmosphere is influenced by
human activities. Rather, these decisions are based on a more basic understanding
that better land use practices, reforestation, improved watershed and coastal management, and better infrastructure will protect their lives, livelihoods, and property. The success of these countries in lowering and managing risk will provide the
best foundation for future endeavors on the adaptation side of the .
Is climate change a priority for most people around the world?
Globally, most people do not seem too anxious about climate change, and there is
a great deal of skepticism as to whether it actually warrants concern. Thus, it might
seem that the biggest challenge facing those charged with doing something about
climate change would be to convince this majority of the global population to
believe in the reality of climate change and its consequences. If this were the case,
if a global consensus on the urgency of the issue were a prerequisite to the success
of the implementation of the , negotiators would stop wasting their time.
Many in developing countries will not, at least not in the foreseeable future, pay
any attention to an issue that may cause a problem for the sustenance of life in the
distant future when their principal concern is the preservation of life today. It
would therefore be fruitless to spend resources simply trying to convince the
global population of the need for unity and action. Instead, the primary challenge
for negotiators is overcoming the uncertainty of the information produced by the
relatively young science of climate change. By focusing less on the science and
more on the positive impacts that climate change activities will have on the quality of life, negotiators may be able neutralize those who are fighting against aggressive mitigation measures. This tactic will also probably have the additional benefit of effectively gaining the attention of developing country policymakers.
The revolutionary principles that were established at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development () in 1992 made the Framework Convention on Climate Change possible. The most important principle of
this landmark event was the confirmation of the inextricable link between environment and development. At the time,  created an unparalleled fervor,
and set the stage for environmental-political evolutions around the globe. However, over time this enthusiasm has dwindled and been dampened. The review
315
316
   
conference scheduled to take place in 2002, the  + 10, will provide an excellent opportunity not only to revive these commitments, but also to strengthen the
relationship between the  and poverty reduction and sustainable development. To reinforce the point,  + 10 should perhaps be called  +
10: A World without Poverty, with Nature’s Help.
It is fortunate that  + 10 will most likely coincide with the beginning of
the implementation of the Clean Development Mechanism (), which is one
of the Kyoto Protocol instruments designed to link climate change and development. This is an excellent opportunity to highlight climate change mitigation
measures that provide considerable development opportunities. A more powerful, more equitable Kyoto Protocol and a more comprehensive Clean Development Mechanism will emerge from this stronger link. As the  evolves and
becomes a tool that can be adapted to the needs of developing countries regardless of size or wealth, it will inevitably gain momentum while promoting capacity
building, technology transfer, and development. With the fortification of the
, developing country Parties will strengthen their commitments to the Convention, as the link between the climate change and development activities
becomes more apparent. However, this stronger link will, by definition, also
require a readiness on the part of wealthier countries to do their part in addressing the climate change problem, for which they are primarily culpable. It also
requires a readiness to transfer vast resources and the necessary technologies for
addressing and reducing  emissions in developing countries.
How are developing countries participating in the negotiations?
The fact that the majority of their populations either don’t understand or don’t
care about climate change has fortunately not hindered developing country governments from actively participating in the negotiations. However, developing
countries are doing so with different motivations than industrialized and transition economies, and, by no fault of their own, with different capacities to influence events.
Small island populations are among those most vulnerable to the impacts of
climate change. Impacts such as sea level rise, increased frequency and strength of
extreme weather events, and saltwater encroachment on limited island freshwater
supplies are already being felt by many island populations. However, most of the
developing countries comprised of small islands are not individually politically
powerful. In recognition of this, a group of these countries organized themselves
into the Association of Small Island States (). With 43 member states, 
is now a fairly effective political force and has been one of the strongest influences
throughout the climate change negotiations. Through , the leaders of these
island countries have been more consistent in their negotiating tenacity than any
other developing-country group. Their negotiating team and its bold proposals
have set examples of how even the smallest developing countries can influence the
events of such complex global negotiations (see Slade and Werksman, this
volume).
At the other end of the spectrum, large developing countries such as Brazil,
India, and China, with a cumulative population of over two billion, have also had
a major influence on the negotiating process. Through strong, well-prepared delegations, these countries have developed some of the most important proposals
and platforms to be introduced into the negotiations. Brazil’s original proposal,
-
for example, led to the formulation of the Clean Development Mechanism.
As a unit, the Group of 77 and China have been extremely useful and effective
in providing analysis, synthesis, and political advice to a large group of developing countries which, because of small and/or weak delegations, have had difficulty
keeping pace with the negotiations, and interpreting the implications. The Group
of 77 and China have been less effective, however, in uniting its developing country members into an organized movement to counter the well-rehearsed and organized positions often presented by wealthier Parties. Instead, Group of 77 countries have formed subgroups independently, based on common interests. For
Between the provision of sound policies and regulatory frameworks on the part
of the governments, and the financial and managerial efficiency of private sector
players, public-private partnerships could potentially provide a crucial formula
for the successful implementation of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol.
example, those that would like to see land use change and carbon sequestration
issues reflected and made possible through the  have pulled together to influence the negotiations on this issue. However, these same countries are not necessarily willing to work together for any other cause. Other groups have formed
based on regional affiliations, usually when there is a limited set of issues upon
which they can agree. Thus, in general, the most effective element of the Group of
77 subgroups seems to be information exchange and preparation for COPs, rather
than actual negotiation.
A true irony of the climate change negotiations is that those countries that are
most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change are also those with the weakest,
least consistent negotiating teams. Because of their lack of strength in the negotiating forum, this rather large group, which is mostly comprised of the poorest
states, has had little chance of influencing the negotiations, and as a result, does
not stand to benefit much from the process. Often overlooked because of their
minimal contribution to current  emissions, these countries could truly benefit from the new, cleaner technologies that are being discussed as methods of
emissions mitigation and from capacity building programs.
Should we leave it all to governments?
One of the most interesting features of the  and its Kyoto Protocol is
inclusiveness. Never before, with the exception perhaps of the World Trade Organization negotiations, have global negotiations included so many sets of actors.
This is both good and bad. Good in that this all-encompassing approach has
undoubtedly led to a greater awareness of global environmental problems. It is
also good that there are more resources, both intellectual and financial, contributing to the complex solutions required. At the same time, it is not good that
the variety of actors has introduced such a diverse set of motivations and interests.
Overall, however, one can hope that any process that is this comprehensive will
result in a treaty that has more sense of ownership and commitment.
The role of the private sector—both local and international—is another unique
component of the Kyoto Protocol. Given the large proportion of investments
comprised by private capital throughout the developing world, it is only natural
and positive to have the private sector fully engaged in the negotiations and imple-
317
318
   
mentation of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. Around the world, private
companies are currently making investment decisions on production systems that
will need to be amortized over several years or decades. Each of these decisions,
therefore, is a potential vote for or against the environment, and has the promise
of pushing the production and consumption patterns in directions that could
either assist or damage the chances for  emission mitigation and poverty
reduction. In many countries, these decisions are currently being made with little
regard as to whether they support poverty reduction,  emissions reductions,
or sustainable development. Additionally, while many of the larger, more economically stable developing countries have policies and measures in place to regulate private investment, the majority have weak or non-existent rules of engagement for orienting private activity. In the absence of regulation, investors will tend
to opt for projects that provide short-term benefits, rather than those with longterm sustainability. As such, while it would be unthinkable to formulate a treaty of
this scope and magnitude without the full inclusion of the private sector, the Kyoto
Protocol will need to prioritize developing-country capacity building in this area
in order to improve the chances for successful relationships.
The design of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol are such that the public and
private sectors will be reliant on each other for success. This interdependence has the
potential to foster powerful relationships between the two sectors. Between the provision of sound policies and regulatory frameworks on the part of the governments,
and the financial and managerial efficiency of private sector players, public-private
partnerships could potentially provide a crucial formula for the successful implementation of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. These relationships will not
happen automatically or come easily, and capacity building and technology transfer
initiatives will need to be built into the Kyoto Protocol and play a major role.
Why is international cooperation so important in the Convention?
There are an increasing number of problems in today’s interdependent world that
can only be solved through the cooperation of groups of countries or with the
unity of the international community as a whole. Few examples of this are as obvious as climate change, poverty eradication, and sustainable development. In the
area of climate change, global collaboration has been targeted as crucial to the success of the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Clean Development Mechanism. In recognition of this, much of the  and Kyoto Protocol negotiations, particularly in the most recent , have been largely dedicated to securing
international cooperation.
In this context, it is unfortunate that Official Development Assistance (),
one of the most important instruments for promoting international cooperation,
is going through an extreme crisis.  levels are at an all-time low exactly when
there is the most need for it. Ironically, developed countries are wealthier and
better able to afford  than ever before. There are several theories as to the reasons behind the decrease in  resources and the decreased donor country interest. However, whatever the pretext, it is unjust and irresponsible to believe that the
world can progress without  and other mechanisms that facilitate the transfer of wealth between rich and poor countries. In fact, unless this trend is reversed,
it will seriously compromise the success of many international treaties including
the  and the Kyoto Protocol. Without assistance that reaches past climate
change concerns, the majority of developing countries will not have the capacity
-
to innovate, to establish the proper infrastructures, or to adopt the new technologies required for  emissions mitigation. Given the inextricable link between
climate change and sustainable development, the lack of capacity, institutions,
instruments, and measures to promote development that will result from insufficient  will eventually place insurmountable obstacles in the path of climate
change mitigation activities.
On the same token, it is also not reasonable to expect the private sector to
assume the financial responsibility for developing countries. While it is undeniable
that private sector investment in developing countries has increased dramatically
in recent years, the bulk of this investment has been going to a select few sectors in
a select few countries—those with large, secure markets and highly developed
financial systems. This automatically discounts the participation of the poorer
countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America, meaning that most of
these countries must continue to rely on  or concessionary lending in order to
attend to their most urgent development priorities. Further, in the private capital
flow structure, there is no mechanism to mediate among and between governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector on issues of development.
Conclusion
Meeting the challenge of climate change will provide one of the best opportunities for renewed, stronger international cooperation and for a revived system of
. If designed properly, the , one of the principal instruments of the Kyoto
Protocol, could contribute intensely to a revitalization of  and vice-versa. The
 will be a means by which developed country private sector industries can fulfill their Kyoto Protocol commitments with sound investments that simultaneously build capacities in and transfer technologies to developing countries. The
prerequisite of developing countries for these ventures should be that they
advance the agenda of poverty reduction and sustainable development priorities.
In this scenario, even with the structure of the Kyoto Protocol fortifying it, private
capital will only go so far. Without the added capacity-building support that can
be provided by  and other mechanisms such as the ,  projects may be
severely handicapped, and a large majority of countries—those that are technologically excluded—will never be able to contribute or benefit.
Finally, the new era of revitalized international cooperation for climate change
and sustainable development initiatives will need to take into account the great
technological divide that currently exists between developing and developed
countries. If the Convention is truly to act as a global treaty, then there must be
serious efforts to build capacities and transfer technology with the concrete objective of narrowing this divide.
Luis Gómez-Echeverri is a senior official at the United Nations Development Programme. He was formerly the director of the undp Environment Programs, and is
currently a doctoral candidate at Yale University.
e-mail: luis.gomez.echeverri@undp.org
319