Hoe kan China het globale verwarmen, ontwikkeling ongelijkheid verhinderen bevorderen en bestrijden? In een rapport, behandelen Chinese en internationale NGOs deze kwesties en vragen de werkingen van het Mechanisme van de Ontwikkeling van de V.N. Schone.
De internationale klimaatbesprekingen concentreren zich over het algemeen op de variërende - en soms strijdig zijnd - belangen van verschillende landen. Maar wanneer het over de kwestie van het globale verwarmen komt, moeten wij ook de belangen van verschillende gebieden en groepen mensen binnen één enkel land overwegen. Wij moeten hun billijke ontwikkeling en variërende capaciteiten onderzoeken om aan verandering aan te passen.
De actoren in huidige internationale onderhandelingen zijn allen politieke entiteiten: of landen of groepen landen. Voor het internationale stadium, worden de overeenkomsten uitgehamerd tussen landen, met elke nationale overheid die als enige vertegenwoordiger van zijn eigen diverse maatschappij handelt. Wanneer een hiaat tussen het openbare belang en het nationale beleid te voorschijn komt, heeft het gemiddelde lid van de maatschappij niet meer hun veiliggestelde belangen. De ware betekenis van gelijkheid zou moeten zijn dat iedereen - vooral die van kwetsbare groepen - hun beschermde rechten heeft. Dit zou ook het geval met de kwesties van de klimaatverandering moeten zijn.
De kwesties van klimaatverandering en gelijkheid snijden in China. Bijvoorbeeld, is er lang een ongelijkheid tussen energieverbruik op landelijke en stedelijke gebieden geweest. In 1990, was het gemiddelde energieverbruik per persoon op plattelandsgebieden slechts 27.9% van het gemiddelde voor stedelijke gebieden (83 kilogram standaardsteenkool op plattelandsgebieden in vergelijking met 298 kg op stedelijke gebieden). Zelfs toestaand voor verhogingen in de loop van de jaren, tegen 2004, was het landelijke energieverbruik per persoon slechts 44.9% van dat op stedelijke gebieden (109 kg in vergelijking met 243 kg). Met andere woorden, was de landelijke consumptie nog minder dan de helft van stedelijke consumptie.
When we talk about the effects of climate change on development, the key issue is whose development? Over the past few decades, marked social inequalities have emerged. A minority of people, in a minority of areas, have attained high levels of development. But the environmental cost is being paid by the majority. Disadvantaged groups, whose lives were hard enough to begin with, now face pollution, shortages of resources and even the total destruction of their means of survival. When taking steps to mitigate and adapt to climate change, we need to learn the lessons of the past and take note of the potential social problems that may arise. The arguments put forward by China at the international negotiating table – that per capita energy consumption remains low, and that China needs to develop – should also be put to use in the domestic policy-making arena. The idea of unequal development is relevant within the country; the benefits of development need to be more evenly distributed. China may win support for its development on the international stage, but development has to be implemented evenly and fairly. Otherwise the arguments that support the government’s position at negotiations will lose their moral foundation.
The government needs to give careful consideration to the positive and negative consequences across society of carbon emissions trading, mitigation and adaptation measures. For example, adapting to climate change requires a restructuring of energy resources. This means that large hydropower projects with heavy social and environmental impacts become a more reasonable option. But strict social and environmental assessments must be carried out, legal loopholes must be closed and laws must be enforced. Otherwise, negative environmental effects and clashes with people living in reservoir areas are inevitable – and the people’s interests will be harmed.
Environmental and social assessments should take into account the impacts of hydropower projects on biodiversity and local communities. Public participation should be expanded to increase communities’ ability to tackle climate change. Less-developed regions surrounding the upper reaches of major rivers should also receive compensation for water and soil conservation, which should be funded by the industrialised coastal regions that produce the most emissions.
The evidence shows that markets alone cannot address problems of inequality. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is one example. The CDM means developed countries provide financial and technical assistance to developing countries, which they can use to develop domestic environmental and sustainable development projects. In return, developed nations earn permits to emit more greenhouse gases. China is home to more CDM projects than any other country, but most of the beneficiaries are in urban areas or the industrial sector. Rural regions, which have the least ability to adapt to climate change, find it hard to benefit from the scheme. How can renewable energy projects in rural areas – such as methane energy projects – be brought into the CDM and directly benefit local communities? Reforestation projects could also be brought into the mechanism, with the prerequisite that the effects on local communities and biodiversity are taken into consideration.
China is not alone in the problems it faces. In August 2007, at the UN General Assembly thematic debate on “Climate Change as a Global Challenge”, Makhdoom Faisal Saleh Hayat, environment minister of Pakistan, said that the CDM seemed to favour large commercial projects that generate a lot of carbon credits, but have less impact on a country’s sustainable development. He called for more CDM projects to be established at the community level.
Large, commercial CDM projects do contribute to cutting emissions in developing countries, but they do not necessarily solve the problem of unequal development. It needs to be considered that CDM projects can actually exacerbate problems of uneven development inside developing countries. China’s western regions and rural areas contribute little to its overall emissions, but bear the brunt of environmental degradation. They are also less able to adapt. National policies should require different regions to abide by the same principles as different countries in international negotiations: the more developed should take on more of the cost of emissions reduction and mitigation and help the less developed to improve their ability to cope. Climate change should no longer be a question of countries, but of regions. The participation of all interest groups, including NGOs and communities affected by changes, is needed. Only with such participation will we be able to mobilise all the resources of society and maximise the effects of government action.
These ideas were being taken into consideration as early as 2005, during the first meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in Montreal. Since then, there has been some development in the application of the CDM to small-scale projects. The CDM Executive Board passed a motion in June 2007 allowing smaller projects to apply, and in July it made some revisions that mean applicants can register as promoters of emissions reduction projects. Small-scale projects using methane and energy conservation projects in public buildings or transport can now brought into the CDM.
The misunderstanding of the CDM by Chinese companies is raising concerns – and risks. One Chinese expert says: “Many companies engaged in CDM projects are in it purely for the large financial benefits. Very few are genuinely concerned about climate change, energy conservation and the environment. The uncertainty brought about by the post-Kyoto era could easily destroy the enthusiasm of many companies – and with it the entire market.” The interests of businesses are affected by climate change; incorporating business incentives into the agenda for tackling climate change fits with the way companies work. Corporate participation is critically important in reducing emissions. It is therefore vital that companies understand and support the CDM. The government and NGOs can help to promote the CDM. As carbon emissions are a public issue, there should be public participation in decisions on how to tackle these questions.
The shortcomings of the CDM highlight a much wider issue: the principle of fairness, which is at the heart of any measures that tackle climate change. The development of biofuels, for instance, is causing increasing food and commodity prices in developing countries. China’s current carbon trading system is focused largely on cities and the agricultural communities worst affected by climate change do not benefit. These are problems worth addressing in China. The government needs to consider not only the issue of equality between nations, but also equality within the nation. This is vital to ensure that responses to climate change do not harm the most vulnerable.
This is an edited version of the Feasibility Study on Chinese Civil Society Responses to Climate Change, a report coordinated by eight non-governmental organisations in China: Friends of Nature, Oxfam, Greenpeace, ActionAid, Global Village, the WWF, Green Earth Volunteers and the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs. It is the first report of its kind to put forward Chinese civil society's position on climate change and guidance for Chinese citizens to take action on dealing with the issue.
