sustainable development 20 years on from the ... - José Eli da Veiga

sustainable development 20 years on from the ... - José Eli da Veiga sustainable development 20 years on from the ... - José Eli da Veiga

25.04.2015 Views

101 In recent ong>yearsong> there have been some successful experiences with policy coordination through committees and other means of grouping institutions, which bring together a number of government entities to address specific issues. Examples include the Inter-ministerial Commission on Climate Change (CICC) in Mexico (see chapter VI) and the National Sustainable Development Commission in Barbados. There have also been some noteworthy experiences in the region relating to coordination of actions among different political units. In Brazil, the Constitution provides that states may group together to form metropolitan regions, urban agglomerations and microregions to carry out public functions of common interest. In addition, the law defining the national policy on water resources stipulates that the river basin —as opposed to the municipality— is the territorial unit responsible for implementing this policy and creates river basin committees to that end. A ong>20ong>05 law also provides for the possibility of establishing inter-municipal consortiums for the management of certain matters. These include the inter-municipal consortium for the ong>sustainableong> ong>developmentong> of the trans-Amazonian and Xingu regions (IPAM, ong>20ong>11). Another noteworthy initiative is the municipal partnerships in Colombia (see chapter III). 2. Experience with the use of economic instruments for environmental management Since the 1990s, several countries in the region have introduced economic instruments to complement the direct regulation strategies that characterize the environmental legal framework. These instruments include taxes, charges for the use of natural resources and on emissions, subsidies, tax credits, fiscal incentives and special financial facilities for activities with positive environmental externalities, tradable permits and certification. However, an analysis of these experiences has shown that environmental authorities have encountered a number of barriers in implementing these instruments, including unfavourable institutional environments and public policy coordination problems (Acquatella, ong>20ong>01; Acquatella and Bárcena, ong>20ong>05). A high percentage of the economic instruments developed were implemented for only a short time or not at all (Acquatella, ong>20ong>09). Two of the factors that may have influenced these outcomes are: (i) limited cooperation from fiscal authorities and (ii) the high transaction costs involved in coordinating the implementation of economic instruments across bureaucratic sectors (tax and environmental authorities) and levels of government (central environmental authorities and municipal, provincial or other authorities) (Acquatella, ong>20ong>09). Two patterns are in evidence: the emergence of resistance within the tax system to the introduction of environmental goals and the existence of incentives that undermine the effectiveness of environmental incentives. It is difficult, in practice, to implement economic instruments aligned with environmental goals and to integrate them into existing fiscal structures and sectoral policy incentives (such as energy, transport or agriculture). The economic incentives that environmental regulators can manipulate directly are relatively modest signals. If the underlying fiscal structure determining end-user costs is stacked in the opposite direction, there is little possibility of installing a net marginal effect that can function as an effective environmental incentive.

102 The same applies to the incentive structure implicit in certain trade policies (such as the importation of used cars or low-efficiency refrigeration equipment) and in policies for promoting investment in environmentally sensitive sectors (such as mining) when they fail to internalize the environmental costs of trade and investment decisions. There is an obvious need for greater overall policy coherence across fiscal, trade, investment and environmental arenas. All the more so as the region’s current pattern of insertion in the global economy depends on the ong>sustainableong> management of their natural resource endowments. The result of not incorporating environmental costs fully is that activities that pollute or degrade the environment and damage health become more profitable than they would be if their costs were paid in full. The failure to do so means that these costs are actually being paid by those affected (in the form of poor health and health-care costs or production losses) and therefore price signals are incorrect for ong>sustainableong> ong>developmentong>. Apart from price signals, there are shortcomings in methodologies for evaluating public and private investments, which exclude environmental and health costs. B. PROGRESS WITH SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 1. Climate change Climate change is a key item on Latin American and Caribbean public agendas because of the impact that it is expected to have and due to the region’s contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. (a) The impact of climate change in the region By ong>20ong>50 climate change is expected to have a significant impact on fragile ecosystems (such as mangroves, glaciers and coral reefs) and the production sectors (especially agriculture) in association with extreme weather events. It is also expected to take a heavy socioeconomic toll, especially in Central America and the Caribbean (see map II.1). The estimated costs of damage caused by extreme weather events in Latin America and the Caribbean over the past 10 ong>yearsong> are in excess of US$ 40 billion (see figure II.1). Climate change therefore represents a new challenge to the region’s ong>developmentong>. According to the special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation (IPCC, ong>20ong>11), exposure and vulnerability are key determinants of disaster risk and climate impacts. Exposure and vulnerability are dynamic, differing in timing and location, and they depend on cultural, economic, social, geographic, demographic, institutional, governance and environmental factors.

102<br />

The same applies to <strong>the</strong> incentive structure implicit in certain trade policies (such as <strong>the</strong><br />

importati<strong>on</strong> of used cars or low-efficiency refrigerati<strong>on</strong> equipment) and in policies for promoting<br />

investment in envir<strong>on</strong>mentally sensitive sectors (such as mining) when <strong>the</strong>y fail to internalize <strong>the</strong><br />

envir<strong>on</strong>mental costs of trade and investment decisi<strong>on</strong>s. There is an obvious need for greater overall policy<br />

coherence across fiscal, trade, investment and envir<strong>on</strong>mental arenas. All <strong>the</strong> more so as <strong>the</strong> regi<strong>on</strong>’s<br />

current pattern of inserti<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> global ec<strong>on</strong>omy depends <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>sustainable</str<strong>on</strong>g> management of <strong>the</strong>ir natural<br />

resource endowments.<br />

The result of not incorporating envir<strong>on</strong>mental costs fully is that activities that pollute or<br />

degrade <strong>the</strong> envir<strong>on</strong>ment and <strong>da</strong>mage health become more profitable than <strong>the</strong>y would be if <strong>the</strong>ir costs<br />

were paid in full. The failure to do so means that <strong>the</strong>se costs are actually being paid by those affected<br />

(in <strong>the</strong> form of poor health and health-care costs or producti<strong>on</strong> losses) and <strong>the</strong>refore price signals are<br />

incorrect for <str<strong>on</strong>g>sustainable</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>development</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Apart <strong>from</strong> price signals, <strong>the</strong>re are shortcomings in<br />

methodologies for evaluating public and private investments, which exclude envir<strong>on</strong>mental and<br />

health costs.<br />

B. PROGRESS WITH SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES<br />

1. Climate change<br />

Climate change is a key item <strong>on</strong> Latin American and Caribbean public agen<strong>da</strong>s because of <strong>the</strong> impact that<br />

it is expected to have and due to <strong>the</strong> regi<strong>on</strong>’s c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissi<strong>on</strong>s.<br />

(a)<br />

The impact of climate change in <strong>the</strong> regi<strong>on</strong><br />

By <str<strong>on</strong>g>20</str<strong>on</strong>g>50 climate change is expected to have a significant impact <strong>on</strong> fragile ecosystems (such as<br />

mangroves, glaciers and coral reefs) and <strong>the</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> sectors (especially agriculture) in associati<strong>on</strong> with<br />

extreme wea<strong>the</strong>r events. It is also expected to take a heavy socioec<strong>on</strong>omic toll, especially in Central<br />

America and <strong>the</strong> Caribbean (see map II.1). The estimated costs of <strong>da</strong>mage caused by extreme wea<strong>the</strong>r<br />

events in Latin America and <strong>the</strong> Caribbean over <strong>the</strong> past 10 <str<strong>on</strong>g>years</str<strong>on</strong>g> are in excess of US$ 40 billi<strong>on</strong> (see<br />

figure II.1). Climate change <strong>the</strong>refore represents a new challenge to <strong>the</strong> regi<strong>on</strong>’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>development</str<strong>on</strong>g>.<br />

According to <strong>the</strong> special report of <strong>the</strong> Intergovernmental Panel <strong>on</strong> Climate Change (IPCC) <strong>on</strong><br />

managing <strong>the</strong> risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change a<strong>da</strong>ptati<strong>on</strong> (IPCC, <str<strong>on</strong>g>20</str<strong>on</strong>g>11),<br />

exposure and vulnerability are key determinants of disaster risk and climate impacts. Exposure and<br />

vulnerability are dynamic, differing in timing and locati<strong>on</strong>, and <strong>the</strong>y depend <strong>on</strong> cultural, ec<strong>on</strong>omic, social,<br />

geographic, demographic, instituti<strong>on</strong>al, governance and envir<strong>on</strong>mental factors.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!