High-level Seminar : Responsible Management of Natural Resources in Latin America and the Caribbean Best Science for Informed Policy Making

(1)

High-level Seminar :

Responsible Management of Natural Resources in Latin America and the Caribbean Best

Science for Informed Policy Making Santiago, May 24 – 25

Joseluis Samaniego Head

Sustainable Development and Human Settlements Division

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)

(2)

Unavoidable 1: Percent of urban population in

countries in Latin America and the Caribbean 1950-2100

2070 2100

2040

1950 1980 2010

(3)

Unavoidable 2: Reduction in fertility rates generates a

favourable period for development as the proportion of people of working age grows

PROPORCIÓN DE LA POBLACIÓN DE 15 A 59 AÑOS, AMÉRICA LATINA, 1950-2011 (En porcentajes)

(4)

Unavoidable 3: Total flooded coastal area up to 10 m over sea level in countries in Latin America and the

Caribbean

(5)

Unavoidable 4: Expenditure in public and private transport by household in Santiago and Chile (% of

monthly expenditures)

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

I II III IV V

Gasto por hogar por tipo de transporte en Gran Santiago (%).

transporte privado 1997 transporte privado 2007 transporte público 1997 transporte público 2007

Fuente: Encuestas de ingreso y gasto de los hogares. Elaboración propia

(6)

Unavoidable 5: Global production structure

Less developed countries Developed countries

M a te ri a l in te n si ty o f p ro d u ct io n

More intensive Less intensive

Value added

Less value added More value added

(7)

Challenges

1. We are not on the right track for sustainable development. (intergovernmental)

• Consumption patterns and energy consumption

• Quality of water resources.

• Forest cover

• Biodiversity

• Air Quality

• Congestion

• Human health

• Persistent Inequality and poverty.

• Exclusion and discrimination.

• Prices and incentives.

• Segmented urbanization and deficient quality

2. There is a problem of coordination (governance) and community of interest (desired metric).

Usual answers:

• Can not make it (is the term of office, the budget, the management are the powers).

• If I developed countries do not transfer more resources nothing can be done (NAMAs, ODA, MDGs), there is a problem of environmental justice, RCPD (priority), etc..

• What I do is enough.

• First poverty then welfare.

• What I do can change its name to the "new paradigm".

• Integrate policies

(8)

A narrative for development

• The main damage to the environment and health are externalities generated by the economic system ( distorted prices and inadequate standards) and its symptoms are sectoral .

• The structural change needed for sustainable development is profound and to be feasible and not to be resisted by changes in employment that could generate

requires a high level of universal non-contributory social protection and to avoid the

" biographical accidents" (50 % of the population is below 1.8 times the poverty line, very vulnerable) .

• Developing funding in LAC can be partially done based on a tax reform with an environmental base that includes externalities and access to natural resources . It must be supplemented by other orthodox fiscal efforts . This requires a fiscal pact that links the reform to the universal social protection.

• Another part of the structural change is internalized introducing external costs in the investments.

• Change of direction must be accounted in the national economic accounts.

• The change towards sustainable development is based on measurable indicators such as those listed below.

(9)

Indicators

1. Use of the green GDP 2. Prices on externalities

3. Relative prices of energy (non-renewable vs. renewable)

4. Percentage of countries with a universal social security system 5. Income equality before the tax reform (gini)

6. Income from environmental related taxes (% of GDP) 7. Environmental expenditure (% of public expenses) 8. Fossil fuel and electricity subsidies (% of GDP) 9. Discount rate of public investments

10. Public expenditure following environmental standards (% of total public expenditure)

11. FDI in environmentally friendly sectors (% of total FDI) 12. Growth in green GDP (Green GDP as percentage of GDP)

13. Decoupling in: CO2/GDP, CO2/Energy, Land use change/total,

Extraction of NNRR/Supply

(10)

Space for improvement, 3

Motorization rate and GDP per capita:

LAC and developed countries, 2003- 2010

Brasil

Chile

Colombia Ecuador

Guatemala Honduras

México

Nicaragua

Panamá Perú

Rep. Dominicana

Uruguay

Austria Australia

Canadá

Estados Unidos

Francia Italia

Japón

Noruega Reino Unido Países Bajos

Alemania

Dinamarca

Irlanda España

Suecia

Suiza

Corea

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

Tasa de motorización (Vehículos a motor/1000 personas)

PIB per cápita (PPP, dólares constantes de 2005)

Bra sil Chile Colom bia Ecua dor Gua tem a la Hondura s

México Nica ra gua Pa na m á Perú Rep. Dominica na Urugua y

Austria Austra lia Ca na dá Esta dos Unidos Fra ncia Ita lia

Ja pón Noruega Reino Unido Pa íses Ba jos Alem a nia Dina m a rca

Irla nda Espa ña Suecia Suiza Corea

América Latina

Nota: El límite superior corresponde a países como Estados Unidos, Australia, España e Italia. El límite inferior corresponde a Noruega, Países Bajos, Dinamarca. Las líneas punteadas no indican proyección, sino potenciales sendas de acuerdo a los estilos de crecimiento que adopte la región.

Fuente: Elaborado por la Unidad de Cambio Climático de la DDSAH, con base en datos del World Development Indicators.

(11)

Bus rapid transit (BRT) systems in selected cities in Latin America

Ciudad o área metropolitana Nombre del BRT

Población (Millones)

Fecha de inicio del BRT

Extensión (Km)

Pasajeros por día

Curitiba (Brasil) URBS 1.8 1972 81 505,000

Quito (Ecuador) Metrobús 1.6 1990 56 491,000

Bogotá (Colombia) Transmilenio 7.2 2000 87 1,650,000

León (México) Optibús 1.2 2003 30 236,619

Ciudad de México (México) Metrobús 8.9 2005 95 800,000

Guayaquil (Ecuador) Metrovía 2.7 2006 33 310,000

Pereira (Colombia) Megabús 0.4 2006 88 115,000

Santiago de Chile (Chile) Transantiago 6.0 2007 94 4,500,000

Ciudad de Guatemala (Guatemala) Transmetro 1.1 2007 39 210,000

Bucaramanga (Colombia) Metrolínea 0.5 2009 50 200,000

Guadalajara (México) Macrobús 4.2 2009 16 200,000

Cali (Colombia) MIO 2.0 2009 35 405,000

Barranquilla (Colombia) Transmetro 1.6 2010 14 177,000

Lima (Perú) Protransporte 7.6 2010 26 460,000

Fuente: CEPAL, con base en información de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Sistemas Integrados y BRT

Space for improvement, 2

(12)

Space for improvement, 1

Expenditure on fuel for transport (gasoline, diesel, biodiesel), circa 2005 (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Venezuela Ecuador El Salvador Argentina México Colombia Perú

Nota:Los quintiles se construyen a partir del gasto corriente monetario.

Fuente:Elaboración propia con base en la encuesta de ingresos y gastos.

Fuente: Elaboración propia con base IEA(2012), World Energy Outlook Subsidy rate, 2011

(% with respect to production cost)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0 2 4 6 8 10

I II III IV V I II III IV V I II III IV V I II III IV V I II III IV V I II III IV V I II III IV V I II III IV V I II III IV V

Argentina Brasil Chile Colombia Costa Rica El Salvador México Nicaragua Uruguay

Participación del gasto en energía para transporte en el gasto total (eje izquierdo) Participación de cada quintil en el gasto total en energía para transporte (eje derecho)

(13)

Space for improvement, 4

Fuente:Unidad de Cambio Climático, DDSAH.

Elasticidades ingreso de gasolinas: Ɛ = 0.60 Elasticidades precio de gasolinas: Ɛ = -0.43

0 1.5

0.5 1.0

Densidad

1.2

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Elasticidad

Histograma Densidad de Kernel

0 1.5

0.5 1.0

Densidad

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0

Elasticidad

Histograma Densidad de Kernel

(14)

S p a ce fo r im p ro ve m e n t, 5

Environmentallyrelatedtaxes, OCDE and LA(% del PIB)

Fuente: OECD/EEA (EuropeanEnvironmentAgency).. Nota: * Indica que los datos de estos países corresponden al año 2009 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Australia Austria Bélgica Canadá*

Chile Rep. Checa Dinamarca Estonia Finlandia Francia Alemania Grecia*

Hungría Islandia Irlanda Israel Italia Japón Corea Luxemburgo México Países Bajos Nueva Zelanda Noruega Polonia Portugal Rep. Eslovaca*

Eslovenia España Suecia Suiza Turquía Reino Unido Estados Unidos

Argentina*

Brasil Colombia*

Costa Rica*

Rep. Dominicana*

Guatemala*

Perú*

Uruguay*

Porcentaje del PIB

20102000

-0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0

México Estados Unidos Chile Canadá*

N. Zelanda Japón España Australia Francia Polonia Hungría Rep. Eslovaca*

Suiza Bélgica Grecia*

Islandia Alemania Luxemburgo Noruega Austria Irlanda Portugal Reino Unido Italia Suecia Corea Rep.Checa Finlandia Estonia Eslovenia Israel Países Bajos Turquía Dinamarca

Porcentaje del PIB

EnergíaVehículo a motorOtros Environmentallyrelatedtaxes, OCDE, 2010(% del PIB)

(15)