By Jean Baptiste Ndabananiye
In this story which addresses Rwanda’s ambitious climate and nature finance strategy, Life In Humanity has asked itself “What will be the global implications, if other nations do not follow suit?” This article then simply mentioned that if not all nations in the world do not act similarly, Rwanda’s contribution will seem to be a drop in an ocean.
We also promised that we would meticulously address this issue; on which this article focuses alongside specific actions that need to be implemented in this regard. So, this article is basically built on these points:
Implications, if other nations do not follow suit
The environment encompasses the natural world around us, including air, water, soil, plants, and animals, as well as the built surroundings we live in like cities and infrastructure. Environmental health focuses on how these elements affect human well-being, aiming to prevent harm caused by environmental factors while promoting a healthy relationship with nature.
When the environment is harmed, environmental health is harmed too. Any damage or degradation to the natural environment—like pollution, deforestation, or climate change—directly disrupts environmental health which refers to the quality and safety of air, water, soil, and ecosystems that support life. There exists profound interconnection between the condition of the environment and the well-being of both ecosystems and human populations.
If other nations did not follow Rwanda’s example in adopting ambitious climate strategies, the implications could be far-reaching. The cumulative effects of climate change would likely accelerate, worsening the environmental degradation already being experienced worldwide. This would not only threaten ecosystems and biodiversity but also exacerbate human suffering, especially in vulnerable regions.
Without global commitment, efforts like Rwanda’s would generate limited impact, akin to a single raindrop trying to fill an ocean. The burden of climate impacts would continue to fall disproportionately on countries in the Global South which own fewer resources to adapt, while the largest polluters escape the immediate consequences of inaction. Consequently, failing to take the same approach would increase global inequalities and undermine the very foundations of environmental health and sustainability.
Rwanda’s efforts, therefore, should not be seen in isolation. Instead, they represent a call to action for a worldwide movement toward sustainable practices. If other countries adopt similar strategies, there will certainly be a ripple effect, leading to substantial global progress in mitigating climate change and protecting natural ecosystems. It is not just about preventing worsening conditions; it also includes seizing an opportunity to reshape the global response to climate challenges, where even small contributions can result in significant change if embraced collectively.
World Resources Institute’s working paper published on September 16, 2024 reads “Developing countries in the Global South are the most vulnerable to climate impacts, despite having contributed least to the problem and possessing fewer resources to adapt.” The Global South generally consists of regions in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania that are characterized by lower-income economies, developing or emerging markets, and histories of colonialism. Rwanda, an East African country with a developing economy, falls within this classification.
These countries contribute least to the problem of climate change and environment destruction because they aren’t as highly industrialized as the developed world. Their greenhouse gas emissions are significantly lower, primarily because they possess fewer industrial activities and less reliance on fossil fuels. Economies in the Global South often rely more on agriculture, subsistence farming, and natural resource extraction rather than heavy industry. These sectors typically produce lower emissions compared to industrialized economies that rely on manufacturing and energy-intensive industries.
Although some countries in the Global South have large populations, their overall consumption patterns tend to be lower than those in developed nations. Higher consumption rates in industrialized countries cause greater environmental degradation and carbon emissions.
Many developing countries lack access to advanced technologies that contribute to high emissions in industrialized nations. The technologies they do have are often less efficient and more environmentally friendly, further limiting their contributions to climate change.
Because of their lower levels of industrialization, Global South countries enjoy the potential to leapfrog to more sustainable practices and technologies, avoiding some of the more polluting pathways taken by developed countries. While the lack of industrialization explains why these countries contribute less to climate change, it also renders them more vulnerable to its impacts, as said earlier. Their development needs must be balanced with efforts to alleviate climate change and protect the environment.
Social Europe in its 30th July 2024 article echoes the point, saying “Climate change is a human-rights as well as an ecological crisis. As highly polluting human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, critically overheat the planet and wreak havoc on natural ecosystems, human societies and economies, an enormous injustice is occurring. The impacts of the climate crisis are vastly unequal, widening the gap between the high-emitting economies and the world’s poorest. It is damaging the fundamental human rights of those least responsible.”
“Dry wells, unbearable heatwaves, barren soils, lost crops, killer typhoons, fewer fish, non-stop floods, food of the day harder to secure, vanishing communities and homes. These are the stories of people from regions highly exposed to climate disasters, whose adaptation capacity is low and dependence on natural ecosystems and resources particularly pronounced.”
In its 30th January 2023 story, Social Europe said “The $9 billion promised to Pakistan is only a sticking plaster until the west acknowledges the dire climate legacy in south Asia. This month the United Nations secretary-general, Antonio Guterres, affirmed that south Asians were 15 times as likely to die from the effects of climate change as elsewhere in the world. After all, nine of the ten worst cities for air pollution are in south Asia, where—as a result—two million die prematurely each year. Pakistan is still reeling from the catastrophic summer floods, which submerged an area the size of the United Kingdom in water, affecting over 33 million Pakistanis. Nearly 450 officials from around 40 countries—as well as international financial institutions and private donors—pledged over $9 billion in aid this month. Following the $9 billion pledge, global media were quick to claim that this paved the way for a new model of climate-emergency aid for poorer nations. Yet when the carbon emissions of the world’s richest 1 per cent are more than double those caused by the poorest half of humanity, the global south remains far away from climate justice.
For decades, western policies have disproportionately accelerated the climate crisis across south Asia. For example, illegal export of plastic rubbish from the world’s richest nations to the region has culminated in a waste crisis rooted in blatant colonial exploitation. This is not only responsible for polluting the seas and killing wildlife but is driving a rapidly escalating regional health emergency caused by hazardous air pollution.Ultimately, rich nations’ failure to reach a consensus on emission reductions is exposing the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries to unprecedented natural disasters. The west has a crucial role to play. Instead of offering billions as a sticking plaster in the aftermath of natural disasters, including wealthy European countries it must acccept accountability for its climate legacy in south Asia.”
António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres, UN’s Secretary General, had recently exhorted the world to be honest about “the brutal injustice of loss and damage suffered by developing countries because of climate change”.
Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) constitutes a regional body consisting of eight countries namely Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Uganda. In its 22 April 2024 article headlined “A Call to Collective Action for Global Environmental Conservation”, it states “To safeguard the well-being of our planet and future generations, we must collectively confront this menace with a sense of urgency, committing to reduce, reuse, and recycle our way to a cleaner and healthier world.
In response to the urgent challenges presented by the escalating triple-planetary crisis of climate change, nature loss, and pollution, by engaging local communities and fostering international cooperation, substantial progress can be made in protecting essential ecosystems and advancing a more sustainable future for all.”
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews (WIREs) publishes review articles that are invited, written, and peer-reviewed by experts to connect interdisciplinary and complementary fields. In its 14 February 2023 detailed article it states “Climate change is a truly global problem that is linked to a vast number of agents across different countries. The effects of anthropogenic or human-induced climate change, which are dispersed both geographically and over time, have been caused collectively and cannot be addressed by any one agent unilaterally.
Climate change can be construed as a question of collective responsibility from two different viewpoints: climate change being inherently a collective problem, or collective entities bearing responsibility for climate change. When discussing collective responsibility for climate change, ‘collective’ can thus refer to the problem of climate change itself, or to the entity causing the harm and/or bearing responsibility for it.”
According to WIREs, understanding climate change requires recognizing it as both a collective harm and a question of shared responsibility. This publishing institution underscores that this perspective emphasizes the necessity of collaborative action among individuals, states, corporations, and international organizations to effectively address the challenges posed by climate change. “The first viewpoint focuses on how climate change is a harm that has been caused collectively. Collective action problem refers to an aggregation of individual actions which together produce an outcome that is not intended at the level of an individual action. It cannot be solved by any one agent acting unilaterally.
Instead, climate change action must be enacted and supported by numerous agents. The second way to conceptualize climate change as a question of collective responsibility focuses on the collective entities that bear responsibility for climate change. As a global problem, climate change is linked to the realm of international politics, where states, governments, and intergovernmental organizations are the main collective entities. Other important agential collectives in terms of climate responsibility are corporations, including carbon majors who have produced the bulk of emissions. Climate change has also been theorized as a structural injustice, which combines elements from both the viewpoints on what is collective about responsibility for climate change.”
So, if not all nations in the world do not follow suit, Rwanda’s contribution will appear to be a drop in an ocean. This does not however mean the substance of this country’s strategy success. The latter one, covered in Life In Humanity‘s mentioned article, means so much to both Rwanda and even the entire globe, because the success can inspire other nations especially since humans are beings known to be swayed by positive and substantial things that others have achieved, particularly when they don’t possess them.
In conclusion, while Rwanda’s efforts to combat climate change through the strategy may seem like a small contribution in the grand scheme, their success could serve as a critical catalyst for broader global change. If other nations did not adopt the same approach, the cumulative impacts of climate change could worsen, affecting not just vulnerable countries like Rwanda, but the entire planet. But showcasing effective strategies and sustainable practices, Rwanda holds the potential to inspire collective action. Doing so, it will have proven that even small nations can lead the way in addressing one of the most pressing challenges of our time.
Specific actions and call to action
As explained, the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss requires a collective effort from all sectors of society, not in just one country but globally. Whether you’re a government official, business leader, academic, or concerned citizen, your engagement is crucial. Therefore, these are a few of actions that you can perform, to play your role:
- Stay Informed and engage with Stakeholders — collaborate with local and international partners, businesses, and civil society organizations. Your voice matters in advocating for innovative financing solutions that align with sustainable development goals.
- Support sustainable practices —embrace and promote environmentally friendly practices in your community and workplace. Whether it’s through sustainable investments, conservation initiatives, or responsible consumption, every action counts.
- Hold leaders accountable —demand transparency and accountability from decision-makers to ensure the implementation of environment-friendly strategies. Advocate for policies that support climate resilience and nature conservation.
- Share your ideas —contribute your insights and solutions for enhancing Rwanda’s approach to climate finance. Together, we can harness our collective knowledge and creativity to address these pressing challenges
Nature-based solutions and natural climate solutions
Adopting nature-based and natural climate solutions is crucial for mitigating climate change, enhancing biodiversity, building resilience, and achieving sustainable development while offering economic and social benefits.
- Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)-broader approaches that involve using natural processes and ecosystems to address a variety of environmental, social, and economic challenges. NBS can include actions for climate change mitigation and adaptation, disaster risk reduction, biodiversity conservation, water management, and human well-being. Examples include restoring wetlands for flood control or urban greening for cooling cities.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) forms a membership Union of government and civil society organizations. It says “Nature-based Solutions address societal challenges through actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems, benefiting people and nature at the same time. They target major challenges like climate change, disaster risk reduction, food and water security, biodiversity loss and human health, and are critical to sustainable development.”
- Natural Climate Solutions (NCS)- specifically refer to nature-based actions aimed at addressing climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing carbon sequestration. NCS focus on activities like reforestation, afforestation, improved forest management, and soil conservation to mitigate climate change.
The Nature Conservancy defines natural climate solutions as actions to protect, better manage and restore nature to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon. “Natural climate solutions include practices like reducing fertilizer use for fewer greenhouse gas emissions; restoring coastal wetlands to sequester carbon in submerged soil. What is the science behind natural climate solutions? In 2017, The Nature Conservancy led a landmark study that showed how natural climate solutions to protect, better manage, and restore forests, grasslands and wetlands could contribute a third of the emissions reductions we need to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
The authors developed a framework to distill the evidence into natural climate solutions pathways that demonstrate the full climate potential of nature. Our groundbreaking study found that natural climate solutions can provide one-third of the mitigation needed by 2030 to keep global temperatures livable. Since then, TNC scientists and partners have continued investigating how, when and where to invest in natural climate solutions to deliver on the world’s most urgent climate goals. Our experts have published more than 50 studies that demonstrate the power of natural climate solutions in the United States, Canada, Indonesia and around the world.”