Can low carbon development be pro-poor? This article explores several policy responses to the Low Carbon Development (LCD) debate and analyses how pro-poor they are. It argues that poverty reduction must be linked to LCD as part of a post-2015 Millennium Development Goal agenda. There is no explicit pro-poor concern or consideration of equity in the current LCD debate.
Climate change adaptation and mitigation needs to cut across all poverty reduction efforts, including post-2015 architecture. LCD debates have to date been mainly about high and middle-income countries. However, they are important to poor countries because the impacts of climate change are directly related to the poverty concerns of the MDGs.
There is no internationally agreed definition of LCD. Definitions that do exist focus mainly on mitigation and tend to be growth-centred. There are four contrasting interpretations of LCD:
- Green Economy focuses on the production side of the economy, and increasing growth while decreasing carbon emissions. It emphasises technological and sectoral change.
- Green Lifestyle focuses on the consumption side of the economy, and assumes that behavioural changes in consumption can also increase growth while decreasing carbon emissions.
- Equilibrium Economy focuses on production but aims at social development rather than growth. It is not necessary to decouple growth from carbon emissions as growth is neutral.
- Coexistence with Nature focuses on consumption but aims at social development rather than growth. It also emphasises behavioural change.
These interpretations neglect the importance of LCD for low-income countries and adaptation. In addition, the existing United Nations Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) LCD mechanisms (Clean Development Mechanism, Emission Trading, Joint Implementation, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions) focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The main issue for poor countries is how to achieve development in times of climate change. However, there is no explicit pro-poor concern or consideration of equity in the current LCD debate. In addition, there has been a tendency to a ‘pollute first, clean up later’ approach to growth and development. One criticism of MDG implementation is that despite a goal dedicated to environmental sustainability there has been a lack of attention to tackling climate change.
LCD can benefit poor countries and populations as it can provide: an alternative to costly fossil fuels; increased energy security; sustainable use of forests and land; improved environmental quality; increased local participation; green jobs; and capacity building. Linking the current LCD and pro-poor growth debates will enable the development of pro-poor LCD policies. Government revenues will need to be redistributed from green industry to pro-poor sectors. Specific recommendations include:
- Support for sectors crucial to the poor, such as agriculture and forestry.
- Social protection for adaptation and linking mitigation and adaptation. This should include local level activities such as profit sharing from LCD.
- Improving the capacity of legislative, economic, and technical frameworks to achieve LCD.
- Increasing the rate of ‘green’ job creation. This requires investment, development of the finance sector, and development of small-scale infrastructure.
- Pro-poor biofuel policies to create local employment opportunities and enable investments to go to low-income countries.
- Pro-poor forest and land use policies, specifically agreement on the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) and Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) mechanisms.
