[South Bulletin 63  Article]

A highlight of the Bonn UNFCCC climate talks in May was a workshop on Equity in the context of climate change. Equity has emerged as a key issue in the negotiations. Below is a report on the views expressed by several developing countries at the workshop.

By Hilary Chiew

Equity is not an impediment but is an enabler of environmentally ambitious actions. Equity should even be seen as a gateway to environmental ambition.

This was one of the key messages emerging from several presenters and participants at the Equity Workshop held under the AWG-LCA of the UNFCCC in Bonn on 16 May.

While many participants from developing countries placed crucial importance on operationalizing the equity principle, including in using a “carbon budget” approach, others said a single approach would not work because of differing interpretations of equity and of national circumstances.

There seemed to be broad agreement that equity is an important principle and component in the Convention, and that it should be applied or operationalised not only in the mitigation but also adaptation, finance, technology and the “shared vision” issue.

Many presenters and delegates also proposed that because of the importance of the issue, the workshop should not be a one-off event, but should lead to a work programme on equity that would serve the various UNFCCC bodies and negotiations.

The workshop, entitled “Equitable access to sustainable development” (EASD), was the highlight of the UNFCCC set of talks that took place on 16 May. It was highly anticipated by many because the equity issue has emerged in the forefront of the climate talks, especially since it was central to the intense negotiations at the Durban conference of parties session in December 2011, particularly on the last night when it figured prominently before the decisions (including on launching the Durban Platform) were adopted.

The Chair of the AWG-LCA, Aysar Tayeb, made brief opening remarks. This was followed by UNFCCC’s executive secretary Christina Figueres whose brief address introduced the theme that equity should be the enabler and not impediment of ambition. She said equity is central to the Convention but difficult to define in such a way that it will be acceptable to all yet it is the heart and soul of the Convention. She urged Parties to try to reach a common understanding that makes equity an enabler rather than impediment of ambition in climate actions.

Dr Sivan Kartha, senior scientist of the Stockholm Environment Institute said that according to the Cancun decision, EASD in the context of peaking must be seen from a country’s sustainable development prospect and that work is needed to identify a timeframe based on science and EASD. He outlined three key requirements for EASD not to be compromised by peaking:

1. The global emission peaks (and subsequent rate of decline) must be consistent with keeping climate change below the agreed maximum level.

2. Each country must have a sufficient share of the limited remaining GHG budget, as this determines how soon its national emissions must peak and how quickly they must decline.

3. Each country must also have adequate financial and technological means to keep within the available GHG budget, without compromising poverty eradication and development needs.

Pointing to possible pathways to meet a 2 degree goal, and the implications for Annex I and non Annex I countries, Dr Kartha said most of the carbon budget was already used up. Given the global budget constraint, and if the present Annex I pledges are taken into account, then non Annex I countries are implicitly being required to peak within a year or two following global peaking, if 2015 is chosen as the global peaking year. Even if Annex I Parties do deeper emission cuts, NAI could delay its peaking, but by only a further two years. In the scenarios, most developing countries are being required to peak soon, well before 2025.

This, said Dr Kartha, shows the importance of the equity issues, such as CBDR and historical responsibilities (of developed countries). In particular, the availability of finance and technology is crucial to enable peaking by developing countries.

He referred to a chart, with estimates of per capita incomes (by PPP) of various countries at the year in which they peak (or are required to peak, under a scenario), ranging from $2,000 for LDCs, Indonesia and India at $5,000, China at $11,000, EU at $29,000 and US at $42,000. Comparing the income level of India and Indonesia with that of the US at the estimated year of peaking, he pointed out that their incomes would be one-eighth or one-ninth of the US income. If incomes are valued at market rates (instead of PPP), the incomes would be two thirds less for India and LDCs.

The $5,000 income level of India and Indonesia when peaking would be similar to the US income level in 1890s when it recognised that fossil fuels use and industrialisation was its route out of poverty. But at this time India and Indonesia would have to do the opposite, to decouple their emissions from economic growth.

Fossil fuel-driven industrialisation is a path that climate science said is no longer available. Alternative paths based on different energy and so on are not proven. Yet developing countries are being asked to take these paths, without compromising other goals including adaptation. This underscores the importance of the developing countries’ need for finance and technology.

Dr Kartha said there are two broad approaches on equitable burden-sharing: resource-sharing where Parties share the available carbon budget in accordance with equity principles and effort sharing where Parties share the necessary effort (tonnes of reduction and costs) in accordance with equity principles.

He concluded with further questions for burdensharing: against what notions of equity do you propose your Party’s actions should be assessed and what indicators of comparability would demonstrate your Party is doing its fair share to ensure equitable access?

Dr Prodipto Ghosh of the The Energy and Resources Institute of India said equity is about fairness or ethical conduct, and included obligations regarding mitigation and adaptation, finance and technology transfers, while the loss of livelihoods due to mitigation action by others is an ethical issue.

He said climate change obligations need to be realized on the basis of equity if the arrangements are to have wide political acceptability and hence sustainability in practice. Unless these obligations are based on equity, they won’t last long because there was no political acceptability for them.

Ghosh proposed several equity norms, including that all contribute to the Convention’s ultimate objective; high-capability persons should provide resources and technology to persons of low capability to deal with damage from climate change impacts and to enable them to remain within their entitlements; when actions to address climate change lead to livelihood loss of the poor, they should be given assistance; and all humans have equal entitlements to global resources.

Nauru, representing the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), represented by Amb. Sai Navoti, outlined science, sustainable development and survival as three elements of equity.

It said equity requires fairness in all aspects of negotiation – mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation. On mitigation, developed countries must take the lead with rapid GHG reduction of 45% below the 1990 level by 2020. Finance and technology transfer must be scaled up for developing countries to do their mitigation, and for adaptation which must be grant-based. It called for an international mechanism to address loss and damages from climate change impacts. This has three components -- risk management, insurance for extreme weather, and a solidarity fund for rehabilitation. If those responsible and with ability to pay do not pay for adaptation or for loss and damage, then the victims have to pay, and this obviously is not an equitable outcome.

Bolivia, represented by Diego Pacheco, said equity as a principle is key to solving the climate crisis by linking rights and obligations. It said the UNFCCC had many equity related principles, citing them. However, it said, while rich countries enjoy a relatively plentiful and wasteful use of energy, most developing countries struggle for their very basic needs. Equity in mitigation obligations means that developed countries should have drastic cuts while developing countries are supported in their efforts. Also, the historical cumulative emissions debt of developed countries should be repaid through finance and technology transfers to developing countries. It also proposed a carbon budget approach to limiting global emissions while enabling an equitable allocation of rights and responsibilities.

Bolivia also suggested that the equity principle must be operationalized in the negotiations and outcomes in all aspects. It proposed that a work programme on equity with a concrete road map be established. The work programme must be long-term and not just a series of workshops, and it must permeate into all the negotiations and bodies of UNFCCC, including the Durban Platform process. It wanted this proposal in the workshop summary.

India, represented by Mr. R.R. Rashmi, recalled that the need for equity was one of the central messages in Durban. He said one misconception is that equity is an impediment to (environmental) ambition. India’s call for equity is misunderstood by some as a hesitation to act. This should be dispelled because for India, equity is not an impediment but a key enabler for all Parties to act.

He also dispelled the notion that equity is opposed to sustainable development. He said equity is not equated with a right to pollute but is linked to the right for survival for millions in developing countries, as well as representing the right to development and poverty eradication.

Equity is not only linked to mitigation but that it permeates all aspects of the negotiation like finance and technology transfer and adaptation and all these issues need to be infused with equity. There remained contextual issues not discussed yet in the shared vision issues of global peaking and long term emission goal, thus serious discussion involving equity is required to come to a conclusion.

India also commented on a view that one of the decisions in Durban is that rules for the post 2020 arrangements would no longer have equity. It pointed out that as Parties are not creating a new Convention, therefore, equity should be central in the Durban Platform negotiations and apply to entitlements and actions.

The South Centre, represented by Martin Khor, said equity is not the enemy but the gateway to environmental ambition. A global climate deal requires recognition of the environmental imperative, development imperative and equity imperative, and equity is the cement bringing environment and development together. (The full statement is in another article of this Bulletin).

Bangladesh, represented by Quamrul Chowdrury, and representing the LDCs, said equity in sustainable development first and foremost means equitable opportunity to development. It must also mean development need not be at the cost of environment. Equity in opportunity to SD therefore means access by developing countries and LDCs to technology transfer and finance. The EASD paradigm should be in light of raising ambition monumentally to avoid climate catastrophe. It should also be seen through the lens of CBDR&RC to overcome past inequalities and ensure the right to development.

LDCs are worst hit by climate change impacts. Sustainable development should be a global approach to economic planning that fosters growth while preserving the environment, and promote development in LDCs with new and additional finance and technology over and above ODA. Sustainable development is not the sole duty of developing countries along a low carbon pathway as developed countries that developed unsustainably in the past have a primary responsibility to develop a global low carbon economy and society.

Prof He Jian Kun of Tsinghua University, China asserted that the principle of equity and development was the core that should guide long term cooperation. Developed countries had emitted too much which seriously jeopardise the ability of developing countries to access sustainable development. Therefore developed countries should drastically reduce their emissions. They account for 20% of global population but 75% of cumulative emissions, thus creating a serious inequality in terms of usage of the atmospheric space. Although developing countries’ emissions have increased, this does not change the basic facts of the historical responsibilities of developed countries.

He said the per capita emissions remain high in developed countries but the ambition and action now and commitment for future is incredibly low and disproportionate to their historical responsibilities, which amounted to transferring the responsibilities to developing countries and increasing the inequality, thus reducing the ability of developing countries to develop while reducing emissions.

He said developed countries completed their industrialisation in early 1970s but their emissions continued to grow in the last 40 years, while developing countries lag several decades behind; it is only a natural law of development that energy consumption continues to grow in developing countries. Hence, as the present per capita emissions of developing countries are far lower than developed countries, their peaking would be accordingly later for some reasonable time.

He cautioned that evading historical responsibilities without substantial emission reduction and adequate transfer of technologies, while imposing on developing countries to peak and decline drastically is neither feasible nor plausible. This would create opposite effects because it would mean losing the support and trust of people in developing countries.

He said current and future negotiation should take the equity principle as guidance with regards to CBDR and be reflected in results of negotiation to create opportunities and equitable regime for all and not to create new inequalities that work against developing countries. He urged that a work programme be set up to further define equitable access to sustainable development.

Singapore, represented by Ambassador Burhan Gafoor, said it recognises equity as one of the key principles including CBDR and appreciation for national circumstances. The real challenge lies in operationalising it in a fair manner for all countries as equity cannot be defined to benefit a group of countries while resulting in inequalities to others. Equity cannot be given a simplistic definition or reduced to a single criterion; a holistic approach which takes into account national circumstances is needed. It said there are different national circumstances, endowments and emission potentials.

It highlighted two key considerations in equity and EASD. The first was historical responsibility. Developed countries are responsible for the largest share (of historical emissions) and could not wish that fact away. Developing countries began their industrialisation only recently. Thus, developed countries must take the lead in combatting climate change. The second was national circumstances, in line with Art. 4.1. It is the national circumstances that determine what is equitable to a country, and we need multiple definitions of equity.

Brazil, represented by Andre Odenbreit Carvalho, said the UNFCCC principles mean that equity can be implemented through the CBDR principle. Equity is a general principle, while CBDR operationalises it. This is expressed by the developed countries doing more in mitigation and giving assistance to developing countries, and this must be reflected in obligations. The Convention shows how this is done.

The term “under the Convention” refers to equity, as equity is served in the present regime. Equity favours ambition. It is wrong to think that developing countries use equity to do less or later. Developing countries want to be very ambitious in all they do but are finding an equitable way to help them to do it. Ambitious means of implementation is serving equity and enables developing countries to do more.

Another link between equity and ambition is that a sense of equity by all favours an ambitious participation of all.

Brazil said that historical responsibility is essential. It said the idea is in the Convention while the expression of it is in the Cancun outcome. The Convention has recognised the expression and the idea. Historical responsibility is useful, as it goes to the heart of CBDR. All countries through emissions from past to the present has contributed to global warming and should contribute to the solution in accordance to the polluter pays principle and not the “polluter who-knew-what-he-was-doing pay principle.” Burden sharing should be on the basis of historical responsibility.

Brazil added that equity is crucial in all issues. On shared vision, the pending issues of global goal and peaking should not be defined in a way that restricts economic growth and social progress. Thus the EASD concept is to apply to peaking and contextual consideration should also be given to the global goal. The contextual consideration is important as the shared vision will not be fair if it is absent.

On finance, Brazil asked if the US$100 bil goal is met, what amount of mitigation is generated? What about the mitigation-adaptation balance? Will more finance be needed? On technology, will the required technologies be transferred?

These contextual uncertainties mean that the goals in shared vision are only indicative. They affect the dynamics of future emissions. For example, if there is more social development, what is the emissions impact? There are potential emissions impacts of global development.

The idea of an emission reduction goal in 2050 is thus tremendously difficult. It is important to capture the need for reduction and the context, the challenge and the difficulty. Otherwise the number is just a restriction.

Brazil said the 2013-15 review also demands equity. It is a review of the adequacy of the 2 degree goal and of progress. It is not a review of the Convention. The adequacy of the 2 degree goal (or a more stringent goal) must also review how it affects development, what is the implication on development. The overall progress must be seen in contextual consideration. Has the support been offered? Is the technology available? If not, how then to proceed?

Egypt, represented by Amb. Ahmed Ihab Gamaleldin, described recent political events in his country, highlighting the demands of the public for jobs, economic growth and social development. It is representative of many developing countries that have development imperatives yet suffer from climate change impacts caused mainly by developed countries’ cumulative emissions.

Resources to be allocated to climate actions have an opportunity cost. Developing countries face a severe budget constraint and many competing demands on scarce national financial resources. What we would allocate to climate actions is diverted from much needed expenditures on health, education, socioeconomic growth, infrastructure, and poverty   eradication efforts.

The equity concept is very important in this context. Countries responsible for 80% of cumulative emissions while representing only about a fifth of world population have to assume their historic responsibility. Equity dictates that they bear most of the global climate solutions including the costs involved.

Equity should be infused into all pillars of the Bali Action Plan and be a fundamental principle that permeates the work of the new Durban Platform. What is needed is to operationalise the concept of equity.

On finance, there is need for adequate and predictable flows of resources to do mitigation and adaptation in developing countries without sacrificing socioeconomic development and poverty eradication. Recognising that developed countries face budgetary challenges due to the financial crisis; however the climate crisis is permanent and urgent, while the economic crisis may hopefully be temporary. If trillions of dollars of public funds are available to bail out funds and the economy, then adequate funds must be made available for climate change. Moreover if hundreds of billions of dollars worth of IMF special drawing rights could be issued in 2009 to fight the economic crisis, then SDRs can also be issued to finance climate actions in developing countries.

Co-chair of the workshop, Prof Zou Ji of China, at the end of the workshop, said there had been many contributions and the discussion had been very helpful. There was a willingness to move forward to find common understanding, to reach agreement in future. He added we cannot finish all the discussions on such a complicated issue in one day. Thus we should continue the communication and thus make it more easy for the negotiation process.

Hilary Chiew is a researcher for the Third World Network, who attended the equity workshop.