The negotiations at COP 8, have highlighted the role of development in facilitating adaptation strategies in dealing with climatic uncertainties.

There was a unanimity among delegates at COP 8, that poor are most vulnerable. But that vulnerability is due poverty, which is characterised by inefficient utilisation of resources. Unfortunately, this consensus did not lead to a major rethink of the development paradigm, instead old wines were placed in new bottles. Much of the discussions at COP 8, were on issues of external assistance and funding, and enabling transfer of technologies to the poor countries. The same policies that in an earlier garb had completely failed to alleviate poverty and consequent stress on environmental resources. From the nature of the discussions it was often felt that an adaptation strategy could help the poor deal with climatic uncertainties, even as they continued to remain poor. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The Poor have always been vulnerable to natural vagaries. Therefore the best way to help the poor is to enable an environment that would provide the poor an opportunity to climb out of poverty. This would also help the people afford a whole range of adaptation strategies to protect and insure themselves against climatic uncertainties. This is the reason why any discussion, for instance, on possible increase in sea level, focuses attention on poor countries like Bangladesh or other small and least developed island nations. Such discussions rarely look at rich countries like Netherlands, large parts of which are under the sea level protected by the sea walls and elaborate drainage systems.

Development is the best insurance against Environmental Vulnerability:

• Free trade in an open market environment, with recognition for property rights and respect for rule of law, induces competition
  
• Competition provides the necessary condition for innovation and efficiency gains
  
• Improved efficiency reduces emission, because no one emits for the sake of polluting
  
• Economic development has steadily led to decarbonisation of the economy, and at higher levels of development even a decoupling of the economy from energy and emission
  
• The best adaptation strategy is to sustain the institutional framework that would allow the poor the freedom to grow out of poverty and reduce vulnerability to vagaries of nature

The focus on greenhouse gases is misguided:

• EU and some others focused on mitigation strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
  
• Focus on mitigation inevitably brought the spotlight on "equitable" access to the "global common environmental space"
  
• With the divergence in energy consumption and emission levels between richer and poorer countries the question of equity in this framework cannot be resolved
  
• Difficulties on the issue of mitigation of GHG emission, also highlighted the uncertainties in climate science, and the enormous data gaps as well as weak predictability
  
• Low per capita energy consumption and emission has not made the poor countries less vulnerable. Their inefficiency is reflected in low GDP output for every unit of energy or GHGs.
  
• High per capita GHG in richer countries, is offset by the higher GDP output for every unit of energy consumed and GHG emitted. It is a reflection of the higher efficiency that has helped insulate the rich countries to the same natural vagaries

Development cannot come through Aid:

• Developing countries questioned the commitment of richer countries to fulfill their own obligations under the Kyoto Protocol
  
• The focus was on issues of funding and technology transfer in order to enhance the capacities of poor countries to deal with climatic variations. This made the COP 8 seem like yet another conference on external aid
  
• With the failure of foreign aid in promoting economic development in the past half a century, it is surprising that even today anyone could look at aid as a way to dealing with energy, emission and environmental issues
  
• This was reflected in the way virtually everything under the sun was sought to be put under the umbrella of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
  
• Inevitable politicisation of the CDM, and it may have to be renamed as the Corrupt Dependency Mechanism

COP 8 also holds a lot of promise - Trade not Aid:

• A recognition that the Kyoto Protocol with its overt emphasis on mitigation of GHG is self defeating
  
• Incentive to improve efficiency comes only in a competitive economy and open market where efficiency gains are a necessary condition for economic survival
  
• Domestic economic, energy and natural resource polices, such as misdirected taxation and trade tariffs, subsidising the inefficient, weak rule of law and property rights, have all contributed to low utilisation of resources, perpetuating poverty and pollution
  
• Poor countries need to stop using the argument of adaptation against climate change as a new vehicle for external aid and assistance.
  
• Rich countries need to look beyond mitigation of GHGs, and look at their own policies that have restricted market access, and prevented the poor from harnessing the benefits of the marketplace.

Declaration at COP 8, is a grudging consensus that has sought to paper over all round dissatisfaction. Without the political will and mutual trust, there is little hope that the pious sentiments will be implemented. However, the voluntary exchange in a free market creates winners on all side. Argentina was one of the very few countries that from the floor of the plenary sought to show the linkage between market, trade, competition, and innovation leading to energy efficiency and reduction of emission. This is an important pointer to the possible reorientation of UNFCCC and recognition of the role of the market. This win-win dimension of the market could bring all countries together and reconcile energy efficiency with emission reduction, a desirable goal in itself quite independent of climatic variations.