Bang it on the table, Gordon!

The Guardian has it that the EU is once again stalling on adaptation finance being additional to aid (see previous Climatico posts on this issue here and here). Someone has forwarded them “confidential papers” where key lines of negotiating text have been removed. Apparently it says, “Cannot accept reference to ‘additional to’, and ‘separate from’ ODA [official development assistance] targets.”

This has of course brought howls of complaint from the development NGOs, who argue, rightly in my opinion, that adaptation finance is a justice issue. Climate change was mostly caused by rich countries, the argument goes, and so any costs that poor countries incur in adapting to it should be financed by rich countries. Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia’s PM) puts it best, saying,

“[Climate change] has created a more hostile environment for development. No amount of money will undo the damage done. But adequate investment in mitigating the damage could partly resolve the problem. … Developed countries are thus morally obliged to pay partial compensation to poor and vulnerable countries and regions to cover part of the cost of the investments needed to adapt to climate change.”

Aid has completely different objectives (as well as different political economy questions around it), and should be protected from mission creep. Developing countries have consistently argued that a fair deal on finance is necessary for them to accept anything on the table at Copenhagen. If they are to get no additional funds, they might walk, and rightly so.

International Development is one of the few areas in which Gordon Brown still claims moral authority. He has banged his “big clunking fist” on the table before, to prevent rich country backsliding on development assistance – let’s hope he does it again. What he proposed last year is the least worst option – it acknowleges that adaptation and development do cross over to an extent, and therefore promises that 90% of adaptation finance from the UK will be additional to ODA. Along with the £10bn global fund he annoucned on Friday, this provides a useful framework for the EU.

A woman builds a fuel-efficient stove in DRC (credit: worldvision.org.uk)

There was a meeting on climate technology transfer in Delhi a few weeks ago, and the G77+China made their feelings known that an agreement on technology transfer is crucial to a fair global deal.

At issue is the fact that rich countries are demanding that poorer countries like India and China reduce their emissions, even while their per capita emissions are far, far lower than theirs. Part of rich countries’ side of the bargain, therefore, has to be to help provide these low-carbon technologies to poor countries. By low-carbon technologies, I’m talking about CCS, fuel-efficient stoves, solar water heating – anything that is a tool in the journey towards low carbon economies across the world.

Whilst India’s emissions are rising fast, and the highest-profile climate disputes have been between the US and India, we should remember that 400 million Indians still live without electricity, some 25% (!) of world’s total. Technology, and sometimes technology transfer, will need to be part of the solution.

It sounds easy, but actually it is quite hard for poor countries to even assess their needs. Foreign technologies do not necessarily fit different contexts (this has been a long and hard lesson learnt in the water supply sector)

NGOs often trumpet the superiority of “indigenous technologies”, and usually rightly so. But they also always face the perennial problem of scaling up, and scaling up fast. “Upward” dissemination of successful technology options is often fragmented. Furthermore, it must be remembered that this isn’t simply the case of funding a few research institutes to come up with gizmos and then the money running out, but also training the next generation of local technicians.

So, perhaps it’s wrong to talk about technology “transfer”. Collaboration is probably a better way to put it, especially since much of the best new “cleantech” is coming out of the global south. India has suggested a network of climate or technology innovation centres in developing countries (the kind of south-south technology collaboration I wrote about here). These centres could identify locally relevant technologies, deploy them faster, and build capacity.

Furthermore, this isn’t only about the poorest countries and relatively simple technologies. Recent research carried out in China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand found that there wasn’t enough R+D going on in the fields of clean coal, biofuels and solar power. This was due to a number of reasons, but particularly due to skills, high capital costs, intellectual property rights, and cost. Copenhagen needs to address the latter, at least to a degree.

In the end, it doesn’t matter where the technology comes from (transferred, collaborated upon, or indigenous) as long as it is appropriate and the price is right!

expect more photos like this...

“Unless we see an advance on ambitious industrialised country targets and significant finance on the table, it is very difficult for negotiators in this process to continue their work in good faith” – that’s how Yvo de Boer summarised the current situation today.

But what’s frustrating de Boer (and I’m inclined to agree) is that most rich countries are letting negotiations go to the wire. They’re holding back their final positions, for fear of losing an advantage in the negotiations. And that’s despite poorer countries, most notably the BRICS+, putting lots of constructive stuff on the table. Here’s just a few:

• Brazil – 80% percent reduction in deforestation by 2020
• Indonesia – 26% percent by 2020 from “business as usual” levels
• China – carbon intensity reduced “by a notable margin” by 2020 on 2005 levels.

It’s fine to keep your cards close to your chest during the fun and games a year before the summit, but now there’s only the Barcelona meeting to go before Copenhagen. That’s really not very much negotiating time left… and there’s still no consensus on emissions cuts or a serious commitment on finance on the table.

Admittedly Gordon Brown got the ball rolling a few months ago by putting a figure on it, but there is still no agreement on the size of climate funds or how to manage them.

And there’s no sign of things changing any time soon, especially with Waxman-Markey unlikely to pass through the senate before Copenhagen. So, I’m sure we’ll be seeing many more photos like above one over the next few months. But with initiatives like this currently rumbling back in the House of Representatives, perhaps that’s a good thing?

Rich countries, led by the US, have opposed discussing proposals from various poor countries around the reform of intellectual property rights (IPR). These discussions are crucial to technology transfer efforts. This document is quite useful as a primer on IPR and climate change.Technology transfer (as I’ve written before) will be crucial for helping poor countries develop clean technologies. However, current IPR regimes are quite restrictive, and much IP is owned by private companies who don’t want to give it away for free.

This isn’t the first time these issues have come up in a global social justice context. A few years ago there was uproar when big pharma tried to stop generic drugs companies copying their HIV/AIDS treatments and selling them at prices which poor people in developing countries could afford.

G77+ China have been arguing that rich nations should buy cleantech IPR from private companies in their countries and make it available to all, in the name of climate justice. This move would also prevent those companies from making huge profits out of the necessity of the world moving towards less carbon-intensive growth.

It is essentially another row about market-based mechanisms – countries like India are arguing that the market can’t be trusted to provide a consistent flow of technologies, which is fair enough. Of course, there is another side to the argument. It would be very difficult to change the IP regime to accommodate free transfer of clan technologies – the whole thing could need to be rewritten.

Furthermore, it would remove the profit motive for companies to develop the technology in the first place. Therefore, rich countries are sceptical because if the idea was put in place it would essentially involve them massively subsidising green industry, distorting markets, and generally holding back the “invisible hand” that is supposedly going to solve all our climate problems.

In any case, there has to be a way around this issue that lets technology transfer happen in both a fast and fair way. Just don’t expect rich countries to budget on IPR reform…

Manmohan Singh (source:wikimedia.org)

Manmohan Singh recently argued that annex 1 countries should provide 0.5% of GDP to help developing countries reduce emissions, and that India would not collaborate with inspection of their emissions unless this rose to 0.8%. It seems that conditional bargaining chips are all the rage these days in climate negotiations, after the EU’s offer of “a 20% reduction, or 30% if everyone plays nicely”.

Dr Singh’s plan is quite ambitious – Obama’s climate change envoy Todd Stern has already dismissed it out of hand. India’s climate change gurus have been taking an ear-bashing from Hillary Clinton this week, marking another rise in tensions between the US and India over emissions reductions.

Stern argues that India should fix a year for peak emissions and make sure that its emissions reductions are “MRV-able”, but as mentioned above, India demands increased amounts of cash if that is to happen. This does seem a little bit unreasonable. 0.5% of GDP seems like a fair deal given the various estimates of the costs of mitigation and adaptation for developing countries that have been flying around.

Something has to give somewhere, and you can bet that the horse trading will carry on right until the COP. It will be interesting to see how this pans out over the next few weeks, with only a few months until Copenhagen, and countries leaving themselves ever less wiggle room.

Bangladesh Floods (source: oneworld.net)

Last year the UK pledged £75 million to Bangladesh, often cited as one of the countries that will be hit very hard by climate change. Even modest sea level rises could flood 20% of land. The cash will be used for things like raising homes in high-risk flood areas, provide flood-resilient crops, and a national early warning system for cyclones.

Gordon Brown made a widely praised speech a few weeks ago promising that the $100bn needed every year for adaptation would come “separately from and additional to our promises on aid”. He did leave a small loophole in there though, saying that 10% could come from existing budgets.

It turns out however that the £75m for Bangladesh was announced previously under existing DFID budgets, so has already been accounted for and doesn’t therefore qualify under the additionality principle, which I suppose is fair enough. A little confusing though…

This additionality principle is something which NGOs have been calling for ever since financing for adaptation was set to become a reality. The argument runs as follows: since rich countries bear the bulk or responsibility for causing climate change, adaptation finance for poor countries should be over and above what has already been promised to them in terms of aid that is not related to climate.

Meanwhile, the Tories have not explicitly committed to Brown’s pledge that adaptation financing will be additional to ODA. It is perhaps telling that in their Green Paper on development (launched last week), they say they will “mainstream” adaptation, but makes no mention of a cap, like the 10% proposed by Brown.

Copenhagen's famous mermaid (source: about.com)

The leading think-tank Chatham House held a conference on Monday and Tuesday this week, entitled “The Politics of Climate Change Agreement”.  There were some high-level speakers, including Joan Ruddock (DECC minister), the head of UNEP, and the chief negotiator of Papua New Guinea (he who told the USA to “show some leadership or get out of the way” at Bali).There was a vein of optimism running through the discussions – after all, who would have thought three years ago that the US would (almost) have a cap-and-trade bill, that India and China would have mitigation plans, and in 2008 investment in renewable energy would exceed investment in both nuclear and fossil fuels.

The main focus of the conference was what needed to happen politically to get a good deal at Copenhagen. The position of most developing countries is that annex 1 countries must provide binding targets for emissions reductions by 2020, consistent with keeping us on a 450ppm pathway or below. Secondly, there will be no deal without clear commitments by rich countries on adaptation financing. There was general agreement that Gordon Brown has broken the logjam on this with his speech last week finally putting a price tag of $100bn a year.

These are both likely to be forthcoming, but the extent of rich country cuts are still unclear – the Waxman-Markey bill in the US is unambitious, and recent figures put out by Russia and Japan were also disappointing. An aggregation of commitments so far gives a 16-26% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020. This is not good enough, as the IPCC says we need 25-40% cuts by 2020 to stay on the 450ppm pathway.

On the rich country side, the US in particular wants developing countries to commit to binding emissions cuts (cf. previous stand-offs with India), which many of them see as unjustifiable. This will probably be the major sticking point at Copenhagen. The piece of UNFCCC jargon for developing country emissions cuts is “Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions” (NAMA) by poor countries, which implicitly mean a move away from business as usual. This move is critical, because even if OECD emissions were zero, developing country emissions would still need to fall in order to meet 450ppm.

It is clear that we need a political deal at Copenhagen, even if the technical aspects take another year to hammer out. Regional or national negotiations targets around CCS and industry will be important, but a global political agreement is needed to hold it all together. The worst outcome would be a deal with vague or insufficient emissions reductions, including lots of greenwash around REDD. In conclusion, four essential elements for a good deal probably include (i) emissions targets for rich countries consistent with staying below 2 degrees warming, (ii) NAMAs for developing countries, (iii) a decent institutional framework, (iv) financing for adaptation.

Like most EU talks seem to be nowadays, those today on climate change were rather fractious, specifically the debates around adaptation financing.The current EU position for Copenhagen estimates that “net global incremental investment” for tackling climate change needs to be 175 billion euros by 2020, with 100 billion euros of that spent in developing countries.

But guess who is stalling on exact figures? Italy of course, she of the rapidly decreasing aid budgets…

Unless the EU has a joint position soon, we could see the same wrangling over numbers in Copenhagen as we saw in Poznan. The EU environment ministers are looking at two options: a market based mechanism that fundraises by auctioning pollution permits on the carbon markets, or a mechanism that fundraises according to GDP and emissions

The latter is certain to be opposed by Poland et al. so we can expect some kind of market-based solution, but everyone is still waiting to see what Obama does anyway – ho hum.