The global economic crisis seems to have become the greatest challenge of the early 21st century, moving government, business and society in reconsidered pathways. A timely, adequate response to the crisis has become a top priority to many. Simultaneously, it is recognised by some to be the largest culprit in putting other pressing global issues requiring immediate attention, on the backburner.
It is arguable whether the perceived global economic crisis actually is a global one. There is an obvious financial crisis in the Euro zone and larger Europe. There has been, and still is, a financial crisis in the US and some other areas indeed, keeping financial ministers awake over night. However, many of their Asian counterparts, including those from China and India, see unprecedented growth. Even some African countries like Mozambique and Mali, not having been famous for their prosperity over the last decades, are growing steadily.
Simultaneously, climate and sustainability investment is steadily increasing in parts of the ‘developing’ world, spurring innovation, clean technology and renewable energy. Some countries have even set up ambitious economic recovery plans, grasping ever more present climate change and sustainability issues as an opportunity to make their economy clean, fair and competitive: call it ‘future-proof’.
The economic crisis is thus not globally encompassing and cannot by any means be used as an excuse to slow down global green growth. In fact, neither our children, nor the planet is waiting for us to solve a temporary financial crisis before we combat serious current global trends. We’re facing material scarcity and declining natural resources at unprecedented rates, energy security issues resulting in, amongst others, geopolitical crises and people facing poverty and declining access to water and food. These drivers are not going to become less pressing with an expected population growth of up to 10 billion people by the end of the century, especially not with a short-termist focus on financial recovery.
Climate change is one of the major drivers behind these trends. The urgency of reversing this problem is widely endorsed by the international community. Strikingly, the intergovernmental climate negotiations have not been able to forge a satisfactory intergovernmental climate regime to achieve this.
The Kyoto Protocol, still the mostly loved, hated and debated climate text to date, did not set emission reduction targets for developing countries. The protocol did however introduce the Clean Development Mechanism, allowing industrialised countries to compensate their domestic greenhouse gases by means of emission reduction projects in developing countries. Because of lower abatement costs, the economic rationale for including developing countries is obvious. Beyond climate change mitigation, this mechanism is set up to enhance additional sustainable growth to a host country, such as technology transfer and economic growth.
But has CDM lived up to its expectations since the Kyoto protocol entered into force in 2005? The carbon market of over 300 million tons of CO2 and investment of around 10 billion to date is not to be underestimated. But no one hears hurrahs from the forgotten continent of Africa, accounting for a mere two percent of the CDM feast. Obviously way insufficient to meet Africa’s needs for both climate adaptation and mitigation.
In Copenhagen, the African Group demanded from the international community not to throw old shoes away before having new ones, as well as two negotiation tracks: the Convention on the one hand and the Kyoto Protocol on the other, binding 37 industrialised countries and the EU to an average of five percent emission reduction on 1990 levels by 2012.
Since the first commitment period under the Kyoto protocol will end in 2012, the future of the latter is the most contentious issue under purview of current climate negotiations. So far, without support of the United States, Japan, Canada and some other industrialised countries, there is no light at the end of the negotiation tunnel to a second period.
Other hot potatoes are the financial nature and structure of the Green Climate Fund, on which was agreed in Cancun, intended to raise and disburse $100bn. a year by 2020 to protect poorer nations against climate change and assist with low-carbon development.
In the absence of a global climate agreement and in uncertainty over availability of finance and technology it is ever more imperative to approach the climate issue from a trade mode, instead of an aid mode.
In this context, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) offer an opportunity for green growth in Africa. In a NAMA, a developing country determines its national climate ambitions and plans, for which it can receive financial, technological and capacity building support from developed countries.
Whether this is successful depends on the ability to mobilise private investment in low carbon technologies. This can, for example, be done by channelling limited international public finance to improve the general business environment, lower investment risks and to provide guarantees on private sector investment.
On the public side, it is imperative for African governments to open dialogue with the business community to determine local emission reduction opportunities and investment needs for the transition to low carbon growth.
The expectations for a fair, binding and equitable climate agreement are not at their all-time high. Politically, Durban will become a difficult meeting, demanding clarity on a common goal within the intergovernmental climate framework, a structure for the future climate negotiation process and on the future of the Kyoto protocol.
Last but certainly not least, the world is waiting for a tangible reason to retain confidence in the intergovernmental climate negotiations process. At the end of the day, we are facing difficult financial times, but there are plenty of opportunities for both government and business for clean, fair and competitive growth that could and should be grasped. Anywhere.
Don Gerritsen
The outcome of the United Nations Climate Summit was below expectations for many. However, many member states have officially committed to the ‘Copenhagen Accord’, in which several countries have pledged in favour of limiting global warming to a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius. Nevertheless, with the current commitments (few quantitative reduction percentages, see 
