Bangladesh's role at Copenhagen climate convention

AS the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at Copenhagen draws closer, it is worthwhile to review once again what is at stake for us and to clearly articulate the position that Bangladesh needs to take in the various phases of negotiations. The prime minister will attend the Convention, which may well define the fate of our country in the near future, and is expected to present the case of Bangladesh and similar countries that will be affected in various ways by climate change.

One reason the citizens of Bangladesh consider this Convention so important for our future is that it might set the tone for the development strategy we will pursue for transition to a low carbon economy, and the support we can expect to receive from the global community to adopt low-carbon technologies and to combat the deleterious effects of global warming.

At a recent conference at Harvard University on Bangladesh, I proposed the following measures to form the cornerstone of Bangladesh's efforts to combat climate change:

-Invest in renewable energy,

-Initiate quantitative targets for carbon reduction,

-Improve energy efficiency,

-Reward conservation, innovation, and mitigation efforts,

-Develop domestic and non-fossil energy sources,

-Research and promote an alternative low-carbon development strategy,

-Institute cost-benefit approach for mitigation and abatement projects,

-Impose a carbon tax on imported fuel,

-Raise our voice in international climate forums and participate in sequestration projects, and

-Appoint a "climate change czar" to advise the PM and coordinate policy.

It was gratifying to note that in her recent speeches the prime minister, particularly at the tele-conference on November 10 with leaders of other nations including Prime Minister Brown of UK, has strongly voiced her concern about the need for developed countries to be more forthcoming in providing financial support to countries such as Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Maldives and other victim countries.

I hope that our PM will keep up this pressure on rich countries to own up to their responsibility to clean up the environmental and ecological problems unleashed by their unbridled consumption and emission over the last two hundred years, and the moral responsibility of these developed countries to dedicate resources to assist the countries that are just starting to develop their own infrastructure and standard of living, and in adopting a pattern of growth that will avoid the mistakes of richer countries. Our twin slogans should be "Help the victims of global warming" and "It's our turn, now."

It is my sincere hope that the PM, the leader of the largest victim nation, will also play a vital role in steering the Annex I countries to a place where they are not only paying lip service to their commitment to finance the technology transfer fund, but also feel a moral obligation to keep up with their obligation. As they say in the Western countries, they need to "walk the walk as well as talk the talk."

Conventions will come and go, and so will "treaties" and "protocols," but what we need is a firm deadline and matching allocation for the technology transfer. In the mid-1960's, the Pearson Commission recommended that richer countries transfer 1% of their GDP to assist the LDC's to move along to a path of economic development.

Unfortunately, the history of the last 50 years has witnessed a sharp decline in support for Third World countries. It can be said that most developed countries probably allocated no more than .5% of their GDP.

Highest estimates from recent years put total US overseas aid at 0.32% of national income, according to the Center for Global Development's Steven Radelet. Therefore, if, during the negotiations in Copenhagen, polluter countries offer to pay, our team might need to keep an eye on the fine print and the transfer mechanism to allow the victim countries to hold the polluter countries accountable.

I would like to remind the delegation from Bangladesh of the reasons why we are demanding a large-scale transfer of resources to the victim countries. There are three reasons to ask for compensation: adaptation, reparation, and motivation.

First, Bangladesh and other severely affected countries have to adapt to climate change. To fend off the onslaught of global warming, all countries have to work for years to build up infrastructure, and to initiate measures to combat its worst effects. For example, Bangladesh's Adaptation Plan recommends that investments be made in anticipation of the rise in water levels, the rise in average temperature, and the likely effect on our ecology.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proposed various other measures. In order to study the feasibility and the impact of these various measures, plus, to implement the projects selected, Bangladesh will need between $500 million to $800 million over the next five years. After that, the cost will jump to $1-3 billion every year.

We need resources for these initiatives, and there are additional expenses that have to be separately funded and managed. We have to make the point, to the global community, that these need to be offered to us in the form of grants, and not loans, as the foreign minister has recently suggested. The rich and polluting countries are solely responsible for the warming and the collateral damages caused by it. And, they need to own up.

The reparation argument, or the "climate debt" that the rich countries owe to the poor countries, is based on the well-established fact that common resources were overused by industrialised countries for over two hundred years. The amount of pollution created by each country is well documented, and the amount currently created is also well documented.

Starting every year from now, the emitting countries need to buy a permit to emit more than a certain threshold limit agreed upon by all. In other words, the owners of the world's air, water and atmosphere must agree to each country's emission level, and the price that they will pay. The compensation for each country can be decided on the basis of a formula that will weighted by population size, stage of development (or per capita income) and the anticipated damage caused by the warming.

Finally, in order to provide a financial incentive for developing countries to curtail their emissions of greenhouse gas and switch to a low-carbon economy, they will need massive technology transfer and the resources to invest in these technologies. Since they are agreeing to skip the development path followed by the developed countries in order to promote a common goal, but also in many instances, being asked to adopt a more expensive technology that many of the developing countries have not yet adopted, emerging countries like Bangladesh must be subsidised by the Annex I countries.

As an example, if a poor country such as Bangladesh has to build and operate electricity generation plants that use more expensive low-carbon fuel, we can ask for financial assistance to make these technologies favourable to our cost-benefit calculus. If we have to practice greener forestry, then we can ask for aid from global agencies and bilateral donors to make these actions viable for us.

Bangladesh is small country, but the task of convincing its population to consider the environmental impact of its lifestyle is an enormous one. The small farmers have to be convinced to adopt certain practices to cut down on methane emission. Similarly, each household has to be shown how to take advantage of solar energy to cook and use their electrical devices.

It will require considerable effort on the part of government to mount a program to demonstrate the advantage of these measures. Our universities and research centers must be brought into the efforts to find alternative sources of energy, to use energy and all resources efficiently, and to find alternative and indigenous fabrication techniques. Instead of burning up surplus gas from our gas and oil fields, we need to find alternative uses for the surplus.

I will finally urge our delegation to bear in mind that it is very important that we work relentlessly to make our voice heard, our concerns articulated and our vital needs placed before the group. We need to also form solidarity with other Annex II countries to remain vigilant against three minefield areas: failure to curb carbon emissions and adherence to the agreed upon targets, procrastination and delaying tactics to avoid the financial commitments, and legal maneuverings to dilute and delay the principles agreed upon at Copenhagen.

Dr, Abdullah Shibli is an economist working in the IT industry in the US.