Download Climate Justice beyond 2012

Members of the VOICE DRR
working group:
CARE International
Christian Aid
Cordaid
EU-CORD
Islamic Relief Worldwide
Plan International
Tearfund
World Vision
ISSUES PAPER
Climate Justice beyond 2012
This issues paper provides background to two parallel events held by CAN, CONCORD and the VOICE
DRR Working Group during the European Development Days in Lisbon, November 2007. It highlights
some of the main issues relevant to the climate change debate in the build up to the Conference of the
Parties (COP 13) in Bali in December 2007 and beyond to a new post-2012 climate agreement. In
particular, the paper focuses on the role of EU development policy in achieving progress on mitigation
and adaptation agreements within the global discussions. Its contents are not exhaustive, nor are they
meant to be taken as defined or shared positions by either of the organisations above.
Climate Action Network Europe (CAN-E) is recognised as Europe's leading network working on climate and
energy issues. With over 109 members in 25 european countries, CAN-E unites to work to prevent dangerous
climate change and promote sustainable energy and environment policy in Europe.
CONCORD is the European NGO Confederation for Relief and Development. Its 20 international networks and
22 national associations from the European Member States and the candidate countries represent more than
1600 European NGOs vis-à-vis the European Institutions.
VOICE (Voluntary Organisations in Cooperation in Emergencies) is a network representing some
90 European NGOs active in humanitarian aid worldwide. The VOICE Disaster Risk Reduction
Working Group involves agencies among the leading ECHO partners in the field of Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRR) from across the European Union.
1
Climate change is one of the most serious threats to current and future sustainable development, with adverse
impacts already observed on the environment, human health, food security, economic activity, natural resources
and physical infrastructure (IISD, 2007). The scientific picture is also grim with the impacts of climate change on
development presented by the IPCC in 2007, showing that impacts are most heavily felt in the poorest countries
of the world. Impacts which are already visible and apparent in some LDCs and SIDs.
Climate Science: the overriding imperative
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its Fourth Assessment Report earlier in 2007. While
it concluded that it is still possible to reduce emissions sufficiently to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, it
was also clear that if we continue to follow the current path of rapidly rising emissions, this could lead to
equilibrium global average temperature increases of ~5 to 6°C above preindustrial levels, bringing severe
impacts. Assessment of the impacts at different temperatures indicates that a temperature increase of 2ºC is the
maximum tolerable to avoid the worth impacts. However, impacts even at this limit include water shortages for
many people in developing countries, falling crop yields in many regions, changes to ecosystem composition that
may impact their functions, increases in extreme weather events, loss of small mountain glaciers with the
concomitant impacts on water supplies, and extensive damage to coral reefs. Impacts above 2ºC would be
intolerable.
1. Climate Justice: an underlying principle
In 2004, developed countries accounted for 20 percent of world population and 46 percent of global emissions.
Developing countries generated one-fourth the per capita emissions of developed countries. Industrialised
countries therefore are most responsible for climate change and have acknowledged their need to take the lead
in substantially reducing emissions by their ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC). Developing countries have contributed least to climate change, but emissions reductions are
not being achieved on the scale required and many already suffer from the negative impacts of the changing
climate. In addition, developing countries cannot afford the technologies and infrastructural improvements
needed to cope with climate change, whereas rich countries are buffered by being able to afford insurance and
enjoy greater governmental capacity to provide social support. The most vulnerable communities in the worstaffected countries will need support to adapt to climate change – even if meaningful action is taken to reduce
emissions now.
The next international climate change conference of the UNFCCC, the 13 th conference of Parties (COP 13),
marks a critical stage in the progress of the international climate change regime, both on mitigation and
adaptation. COP 13 comes at a point of increasing understanding of the scientific urgency, and at a time when
many Parties understand that in order for an agreement to follow on seamlessly from the Kyoto Protocol’s first
commitment period, a Mandate to begin negotiations must be agreed in Bali in December 2007 with the stated
aim of finalizing a new agreement in 2009. This agreement will need to deliver deep emission reductions for
developed countries, mechanisms to support sustainable development in developing countries, and the most
vulnerable to receive appropriate and adequate international support for their adaptation needs.
Those who are most responsible for climate change - the industrialised countries are expected to take the lead in
substantially reducing emissions, through the implementation of a range of measures. The European Union is the
2
second largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions as well as the largest provider of ODA. This places
particular responsibility on its policy makers.
2. What does development need from Bali COP 13?
Growing awareness of these issues amongst Parties to the UNFCCC is changing the terms of the debate over
response measures between developed and developing countries. It is becoming increasingly evident that in
order to reach a global agreement by 2009 developed countries are going to have convince developing countries
that they will show their promised leadership in both mitigation and adaptation.
Specifically:
1.
There must be parallel thinking along the lines of ‘mitigation’ and ‘adaptation’. A clear recognition is
needed therefore of mitigation as the best form of adaptation. The upward trend of increased climate
variability and extreme weather events combined with dynamic pressures of development such as population
growth, forced migration and economic inequity means that more people will become more vulnerable to
natural hazards such as droughts, floods and hurricanes. Mitigation of climate change and developing clean
growth mechanisms therefore has to go hand in hand with reducing the vulnerability of people to the impact
that climate change already has and will increasingly have on their lives and livelihoods. Furthermore,
affected communities are the first to respond and adapt to the negative impacts of climate change. Building
local resilience is the single most important step and requires a substantial investment in community-based,
climate sensitive disaster risk reduction and livelihoods work.
2.
The ‘adaptation’ debate must be based on far-reaching institutional and funding arrangements to help
the world’s poorest people prepare their societies, communities and natural environments to cope with
climate change impacts. Successful arrangements need to reflect the fact that adaptation cuts across
humanitarian and development action and cannot be the responsibility of individual bodies and ministries.
Moreover, governments need to address the key challenge of how to get resources to the local level and to
the people most affected.
3. Provision for adequate technology transfer to provide new sustainable development pathways in order to
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and allow societies to adapt to climate change.
4. Strong integration of adaptation action and disaster risk reduction is required in the areas of reducing
underlying risk factors, improved risk assessments, and knowledge and education for increased resilience.
For example as part of the Nairobi Work Programme and linked to the development of National Adaptation
Plans, the Hyogo Framework for Action needs to be recognised and utilised as a guiding framework for
adaptation planning.
4. Recommendations for the EU 1
- The EU should reaffirm its commitments from the Spring Council and propose even deeper cuts to
emissions. This, combined with clear and defined targets would send the right signal - that developed
countries must take a lead in cutting carbon dioxide emissions to support the larger developing countries to
also take on mitigation targets.
1
Also applicable to all developed countries
3
- Recognise adaptation and clean development pathways as critical social, economic and ecological
imperatives in discussions between developed and developing countries. Wealthy and highly industrialised
countries that are mainly responsible for climate change are better able to adapt while the most severe
consequences will be felt in poorer and more vulnerable countries. It is therefore a fundamental matter of
social justice that adaptation is recognised as a top-line issue in discussions between developed and
developing countries, particularly in EU discussions around the Global Climate Change Alliance and EU
Africa Strategy.
- Ensure that the level of adaptation financing meets the needs of vulnerable countries, sectors and
communities. All funding for adaptation should be new and additional to ODA. Funding adaptation from
‘charity’ or ‘aid’ funds is inadequate.
- As part of a genuine mainstreaming effort, allocate funding for community-based adaptation and risk
reduction through the geographic and thematic financial instruments as well as the European Development
Fund
-
The EU should provide support to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to attain full engagement in climate
change negotiations. It is essential that the needs of the most vulnerable developing countries are met at the
Bali COP13 and in a post-2012 agreement.
- Ensure policy coherence on adaptation across the EU’s decision-making bodies and services. Recognise
that climate change affects multiple policy areas and reflect this in planning, policy and allocation of
resources. Synergies between adaptation and sustainable development, including land use, biodiversity and
water management, as well as disaster risk reduction need to be actively promoted.
- To promote an effective Institutional Framework for adaptation to climate change in developing countries.
Local interests should feature as highest priority on the agenda. Therefore, North-South collaboration should
be reshaped to ensure that local communities and the needs, rights and possibilities of vulnerable groups in
developing countries are properly voiced and that any support to the process of adaptation to climate change
is devised and delivered such that their livelihoods become safe and resilient to climate-change.
- NGOs could bring their unique knowledge of development into the UNFCCC adaptation process.
Development is closely linked to adaptation, and NGOs are experienced in planning and implementing
interventions and capacity-building with often overlooked vulnerable communities. NGOs’ expertise can
provide valuable insights to help shape the adaptation debate and its implementation
- Developing countries need to assess their development needs and seek to ensure that they invest in
sustainable options and technologies, receiving funding for any incremental additional costs through
international funding mechanisms e.g. the GEF
4