Meeting Summary
Simon Maxwell introduced the second meeting in this
IDS, IIED and ODI joint series,
stating that it represented a great opportunity for the three
institutions to learn from each other.
Camilla Toulmin, in the chair, opened the meeting
and introduced first speaker, Saleemul Huq, Group Head of
Climate Change at IIED.
Saleemul Huq
1. Saleemul Huq gave an overview of the climate change
debate, both past and present, with particular reference to:
(i) The nature and history of debate, from the first Inter-Governmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which increased awareness
of the issues relating to climate change, to the second report
calling for specific targets for reducing emissions and leading
to the Kyoto Protocol. The third report at the turn of the
century stated that some climate change is unavoidable, even
if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were to cease tomorrow.
This requires a twin strategy - adaptation to changed climates
and mitigation of further climate change through action now.
(ii) The impact the adaptation and mitigation agendas will
have on developing countries. The adaptation agenda is particularly
important for poor, as they are the most climate sensitive
(even in developed countries, as evidenced by the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina).
(iii) The growing importance of climate change to the development
agenda. Research institutes were among the first to take on
board CC issues in their work, but now a much wider spectrum
of development stakeholders are engaging with the issue -
DfID had a whole section on Climate Change in the 2006 White
Paper, NGOs were very well represented at United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) Conference of the Parties
(CoP) in Nairobi (November 2006) for the first time.
(iv) The pace at which developing countries themselves have
taken on the CC agenda. Developing countries had previously
viewed CC as a global, long-term issue. This perception is
changing. The CoP being held in sub-Saharan Africa was very
significant, with lots of African ministers attending and
much media coverage.
2. Huq continued by outlining some of the challenges to be
faced:
(i) How to meet the financial cost of adaptation to a changed
climate.
(ii) How to reduce GHG emissions while meeting the aspirations
for development of developing countries, in particular China,
India and Brazil.
(iii) Kyoto Protocol currently covers period to 2012 and
sets targets only for developed nations. Post 2012 target
discussions are already underway, will be difficult to agree
on what targets are for developing countries.
Farhana Yamin
3. Farhana Yamin from the Institute of Development
Studies (IDS), presented some important background to the
background Nairobi CoP, summarised discussions and issues
arising and some areas of future developments:
(i) The G77 group of developing countries is the largest
political grouping, encompassing diverse countries, political
situations and strategies. This creates tensions - e.g. countries
which are major fossil fuel producers have previously been
obstructive to discussions. Holding the CoP in Africa is an
achievement as it makes developing nations more central to
the debate.
(ii) There is a growing realisation that CC is not a long-term,
gradual problem - for example, papers being assessed for the
next IPCC report are arguing that the window of opportunity
for mitigation is 10 years or so.
(iii) There is an increased resolve from Kyoto Protocol signatories
to carry on the efforts to meet targets and there is a recognition
that the adaptation agenda was under-developed in the protocol.
(iv) Provision was made as part of the Kyoto Protocol for
a review of its activities, which was to be carried out at
the CoP. Despite tension as to how the review would be carried
out, it was completed - another review will be held in 2008
and in the meantime countries will be able to make submissions
on the scope and activities this should cover.
(v) Many countries are looking for re-engagement in climate
change debates from 'laggard' nations (in particular, the
US), before developing a framework for post-2012 activities
and targets.
(vi) It was not expected that the CoP would set out a framework
for future efforts to tackle CC. It was focused more on overcoming
previous divisions between nations, both developed and developing
(for example, US refusal to engage with Kyoto Protocol agenda,
lack of attention from developed countries to desire of developing
countries for adaptation assistance).
(vii) The pattern of negotiations on CC will be different
in future: they won't have the same levels of timeframes and
deadlines associated with previous climate change regimes.
This is partly due to the interest in seeing what the position
of the US becomes. This could be useful as it means that countries
don't have to take formal positions but background discussions
can continue to explore options for regimes that could be
agreeable to all parties, including US and developing countries.
These could form the basis for future discussions.
(viii) The press has discussed the 'glacial' pace of progress
in CC at the CoP. It is important not to underestimate the
amount of effort it has taken to not go backwards under the
pressure of divisions. There was a lot more progress than
appeared on the face of it.
Cecilia Luttrell
4. Cecilia Luttrell from the Overseas Development
Institute (ODI), presented (see
Powerpoint presentation) ODI research that could provide
lessons relevant to the CC debate, and thoughts on future
research areas and challenges:
(i) Work in South Africa on the changing nature of risk and
vulnerability for the poor has identified increasingly risk
averse behaviour by farmers in reaction to increasing drought
frequency (changing cropping patterns and investing less in
inputs).
(ii) Work on the impacts of risk and shocks on international
and regional prices, economic production and trade is raising
questions on whether more protectionist trade policies in
developed countries result from environmental issues and have
trade-offs with raising growth and reducing poverty in developing
countries in the short-, medium- or long term.
(iii) Governance issues concerned with water supply and management
particularly where there are pronounced variations in the
rainfall and major problems of access to water for the poor
and marginalised.
(iv) Work on a 'rights-based approach' to flood management
and climate change that examines commitments which are being
made by governments to accept accountability to those who
are increasingly at risk from flooding.
5. She continued by offering some views on links between
the development and climate change agenda:
(i) CC is characterized by huge risks and uncertainties of
impact, due to the global and long term effects. This is different
to other pressures researched in development, such as market
failure, political upheaval or other environmental stresses
and may require a different response.
(ii) The physical impacts and implications of CC tend to
lead to a technical starting point, which has resulted in
a particularly limited frame to the development response.
The initial dominance of a technical approach defining CC
as a scientific problem is giving way to an increased focus
on development.
(iii) Saleem's work has raised the need for the incorporation
of 'climate proofing' into development planning. This concept
is increasingly being mainstreamed into the debate, as shown
by discussions at the CoP. On the other side, are development
principles being mainstreamed enough into the debate surrounding
climate change and the resulting policy and financing mechanism?
6. It is interesting, she noted, to consider whether the
design and financing of responses to CC could draw on the
new architecture of aid and principles for development financing
(i.e. The Paris Declaration in 2005, which reflected agreement
between more than 100 donors and developing countries).
7. She went on to question whether climate change mitigation
efforts can ensure wider development benefits, despite this
not being their primary objective. As an example, she cited
the capital flows from the voluntary carbon forestry market
(i.e. those outside of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)).
These could benefit the developing world and provide new opportunities
for growth and poverty reduction, but are they merely satisfying
global concerns and commercial interests elsewhere?
8. She raised some further questions about what is institutionally
realistic in addressing the CC issue:
(i) Bio-fuels and carbon forestry require land and raise
questions concerning tenure, with increasing risks for the
poor in absence of effective land administration (particularly
the case in areas subject to customary claims).
(ii) How can opportunities for value addition to the 'raw
material' at the developing country level be increased? The
locations of service providers, (such as carbon investment
funds, insurance brokers, legal and advisory services) are
located almost exclusively in the north.
(iii) What form of international oversight (if any) should
exist over standards (for example in 'self-regulated' voluntary
carbon offset projects)? How can oversight be firmly rooted
in legitimate national structures, respond to national needs
and avoid manipulation of the debate away from a clear evidence
basis?
(iv) Proposed solutions to CC that provide development benefits
rely on strong national policies and procedures. For many
countries such systems are not in place. How can mechanisms
work effectively in countries which are known for severe governance
problems?
9. In conclusion, she wondered whether solving the 'development'
problem is a fundamental pre-requisite to addressing the 'climate
change' problem, or can trends to address adaptation (increasing
links being made between environment and security, moves to
integrate trade and environment institutions) be used to solve
wider development problems?
Discussion
10. Points covered in the discussion included:
(i) The links between development and whether people at the
meeting see themselves as primarily development or CC-focused.
Most were development-focused.
(ii) The importance of getting agreement on the price of
carbon to incorporating CC into development research. The
CDM and other mechanisms do offer approximations of costs
of carbon (or the cost of not using units of carbon).
(iii) The strength and innovation in the CC regime with targets,
regular assessment and holds people to account - all of which
could be used more in the development community.
(iv) How to resolve the challenge that climate change offers
to approaches to development (e.g. attitudes to growth). This
is being worked upon, as shown by China, which has one of
the most ambitious renewable energy programmes in the world,
and Brazil's use of ethanol. Any response to climate change
through an international framework must be responsive to individual
country needs. It will have to be a complicated and flexible
system.
(v) The opportunity that responding to climate change offers
the developing world in using technology, transport and spatial
planning better suited to the modern world without locking
it into technologies so prevalent in the developed and difficult
to wean people off.
|
