Glacial melt in the Himalayas (source: treehugger.com)

This week saw a double whammy of bad news for water resources, as research in South Asia and South America gave dire warnings for the future if better water resource management (WRM) was not practised. This is an adaptation issue, particular where melting glaciers are involved, as generally such trends are irreversible.

A UNEP study found that three of South Asia’s largest river basins (Ganges, Indus and Helmand) are highly vulnerable. This could leave millions at risk of increasing water scarcity, as all three basins cover multiple countries. Factors behind the increased scarcity include climate change (Himalayan glaciers receding), overexploitation (aquifers being pumped quicker than they are recharged), and inadequate distribution.

 
The latter two could be addressed to some extent by better WRM at the national and local levels, but the fact that Himalayan glaciers are melting is a rather more difficult one to solve. A recent Climatico article highlighted the politicization of water currently going on in India in particular, which will not make any WRM negotiations easy.

Another study found it is a similar story in South America, with the tropical Andes facing serious water shortages by the end of this century. Again, the insoluble culprit is receding glaciers, which normally supply the area with meltwater on a seasonal basis. It seems that areas of Peru will be the worst affected in the dry season.

Such predictions have become more common in recent years, as the full impacts of climate change on water resources become apparent. It will be difficult to avoid glacial melting, so countries that will be affected need to come up with comprehensive WRM plans at the earliest opportunity. More adaptation financing may become available for water resources at some point, but for the moment such money is more often available for agriculture and similar sectors.

Last year, rich countries pledged some $6 billion for the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds (CIFs), to which the UK is a significant contributor. It has recently been announced that some 8 countries are allowed to submit proposals for the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR). These are Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Tajikistan and Zambia.

The PPCR aims to provide about $500 million for integrating climate resilience in national development planning, an issue on which I have written before. The cash will be spent through the regional development banks (ADB, AfDB, IDB) as well as the EBRD and the World Bank itself. Apparently, the pilot programs will be “country-led” and build on NAPAs, amongst other things. It is also promised that they will be aligned with the Adaptation Fund under Kyoto.

It is good that such a large dollop of adaptation financing is finally being handed out. However, many NGOs are critical of the Bank’s leadership on the CIFs, given its poor environmental record, and its history (and continuing large portifolio) of fossil fuel investments.

Nevertheless, the Bank is fairly efficient machine as far as multilaterals go, and works in virtually all developing countries. It is difficult to see many other agencies (particularly within the UN system, as favoured by NGOs) that could do as quick, and good, a job given the huge amounts of money involved. Nevertheless, the Bank’s role is likely to remain controversial in some circles.

Brazil's biofuel industry in full swing

It was announced last week that two universities, one in Brazil and one in China, are to partner on developing climate change technologies. The result is the creation of the “Brazil-China Center for Innovative Technologies, Climate Change and Energy”.

Such collaborations are more than symbolic, and are needed if new technologies are to be shared quickly around the globe. It is significant that the countries in partnership are two of the so-called “BRICS”. I have written before about the needs of technology transfer to allow developing countries to adapt to climate change quickly enough.

One project will look at different ways of estimating GHG emissions, to feed into mitigation policies. Less welcome is that biofuels will be one of the centre’s initial research areas, mapping sources in Brazil and China, and developing common approaches to their exploitation.

It is well-documented that biofuels do not always reduce emissions when their entire production cycle is considered, and it is generally agreed that their exploitation played no small role in the global food price spike of 2008. However, if this collaboration results in the agenda moving towards more sustainable types of biofuels (if such a thing is possible), then is it to be welcomed.

In any case, such collaboration between research institutions is welcome if new technologies are to be shared quickly, and hopefully this new centre will bring fresh thinking.

Parched earth in Ethiopia (credit: usaid.gov)

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) recently published some research which found that, in poor countries such as Ethiopia, poverty is a seriously barrier to adaptation.

Apparently, more than a third of rural Ethiopian households have not made any adjustments to their farming practices in the face of global warming. This is despite the fact that water is becoming ever more scarce, and enhanced irrigation systems are crucial if subsistence farmers are to survive. African farmers are overwhelmingly dependent on rain-fed agriculture, and in rural areas there is very poor infrastructure.

The Prime Minister of Ethiopia said at a climate change conference this week: “However unjust it might be we have to adapt or die. We can only succeed to adapt to climate change if we fight poverty effectively and generate the resources needed for the purpose.”

Clearly, adaptation and development must go hand in hand, as he recognises. Nevertheless, the governments of poor countries must be tactical, and give more emphasis to agriculture (and in particular, the sustainability of water supplies to feed their crops) if their populations are to adequately adapt to the forecast temperature increases.

In the study, Ethiopian farmers identified shortages of land as the single biggest constraint to adapting to climate change. This was followed by lack of information and credit as well as lack of labour, inputs, water and poor soils.

The government can help directly in many of these areas, and rich country donors need to do more to support this process, with both financing and know-how. Indeed, as the prime minister went on “The injustice of the whole issue of global warming and climate change lies in the fact that those who have contributed nothing to its genesis will suffer the most from its consequences because they have the least capacity to adapt to these changes.”

An interesting study from CERNA came out recently. Researchers from the team working on Technology Transfer and Climate Change (linked to the OECD) were looking at climate-related technology innovations over 25 years.

They found that Kyoto has accelerated their development, but that there is little evidence of the transfer of these clean technologies from the developed to the developing world. Based on patents taken out between the late 70s and 2003, they look at renewable energy technologies, as well as various other “cleantech” innovations, such as energy conservation in buildings, energy-efficient lighting and CCS.

The Kyoto link is that whilst innovation in all technologies (climate-related and otherwise) was growing at the same pace until the mid-nineties, climate change technologies are now apparently developing much faster. Furthermore, in Annex 1 nations, innovation in climate mitigation technologies has been growing at 9% per year on average between 1998 and 2003. However, no growth rate was observed in the US and Australia.

They measured tech transfer by looking at the share of inventions that are patented in other countries beyond the country of origin. Only 18% of clean-tech patents were extended beyond developed countries to developing countries. Indeed, three-quarters of the innovation transfers from one country to another were among developed countries.

Clearly this is not good news for adaptation. For developing countries, mitigation and adaptation will go hand in hand in the long term. If tech transfer is not happening fast enough, they will not be able to benefit from the technologies that will help them achieve low-carbon growth. There needs to be more effort from developed countries to ensure that advances in technology are shared globally, on a greater scale, and faster.

Irrigation in Africa (source: fao.org)

Last week, ministers from 53 African countries gathered at a FAO summit in Libya, entitled “Water for Energy and Agriculture in Africa: the Challenges of Climate Change”. It was timely. Irrigated land forms 38% of all land in Asia, but only 7% in Africa, and Africa’s food needs will triple by 2050 if population growth continues at current levels.

Many parts of Africa are already seeing diminishing water resources (as a result of both over-abstraction and climate change), and IPCC predictions suggest this will worsen in many areas, particularly the Sahel.

As is the case with many summits, a main outcome was the call for another summit, this time a bigger one, with all world heads of State and government. FAO suggested this could help find the $30 billion a year that is needed for investment in Africa’s water and rural infrastructure.

More investment is indeed urgent. Agriculture and water have fallen down the development agenda in recent years, as health and education have risen to the fore. This has been reflected in aid levels.

However, the issue of water, particularly as climate change starts to bite harder, must always be tackled holistically. There are numerous users competing for scarce resources: farmers, industry, and most importantly, people drinking the stuff. Only 58% of Sub-Saharan Africans have access to a safe drinking water supply.

Whilst it is crucial to increase water access for agricultural purposes, the poor must not be cut off for the benefit of agribusiness. Mechanisms must be developed for water resource management at a local level which take into account the voice of all users. Without this, the rich and powerful will prevail.

As Africa adapts to climate change, the mantra “some for all, not all for some” must be followed with regard to water, if resources are to be shared equitably and sustainably.

IIED matrix (source: iied.org)

The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) produced a policy brief earlier this month concerning the integration adaptation into development planning.

This is an issue which has formed much of the adaptation discourse of late. Should we make adaptation a separate box to be ticked in every initiative? The pro argument is “Yes, because it will ensure that adaptation is not forgotten or ignored”. The anti argument however follows these lines: “No, because it will do precisely the opposite – adaptation will become everything and nothing. We need initiatives that focus specifically on adaptation.”

This is not a new argument. The issue of “mainstreaming” in development discourse has been focused on issues like gender and HIV/AIDS in recent years. The evidence is not conclusive, but it can generally be seen to have had a positive effect. These issues have become more than buzzwords. The “mainstreaming agenda” does at least force the project designer to take such issues into account.

The IIED report falls on the pro side of the argument, and I am inclined to agree with it. The World Bank has estimated nearly half of all donor-funded development projects are sensitive to climate risk. It therefore seems ludicrous not to force planners to take adaptation into account at every step. Furthermore, this is of course about more than just donor-funded projects – this is about all development efforts.

The IIED tries to get behind the rhetoric on mainstreaming, and proposes a 4-step agenda for making it a reality – awareness raising, targeted information, pilot activities, and only then, full mainstreaming. This ensures that adequate information and understanding are present at all levels, so “adaptation” becomes more than just another box to tick.

The Prime Minister of Tuvalu (source: apwf.org)

At the beginning of the negotiations at Poznan, it was suggested that the Adaptation Fund (AF) was one of the few areas on which significant progress would be made (see my previous post). In the end, negotiations even on this issue went right to the wire, after there was failure to reach an agreement by the theoretical deadline on Wednesday.

A key sticking point was the legal capacity of the AF board, specifically whether countries should be able access the funds directly. The EU wanted direct access to be delayed, mainly because of worries that without proper controls in place, funds might be used for purposes not related to adaptation. This attracted the ire of the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, who accused “some key industrialised countries” of trying to make the AF inaccessible to those most in need, by blocking their way with red tape.

However, this impasse was overcome today, the final day of negotiations. Now the AF board has the right to sign contracts, and could be releasing funds within months. Despite a generous Swedish donation of $500 million over the next three years, it is severely under-funded. As mentioned in my previous post, Oxfam has estimated that adaptation needs of developing countries will be $50 billion a year by 2015.

Despite this financing gap, it is good news that the AF has finally been operationalised. This will allow some of the poorest and most vulnerable countries to get vital adaptation projects underway as soon as possible, and should set the scene for an equitable deal at Copenhagen next year.

==

Note – A synthesis of various countries’ suggestions for action on adaptation can be found on p.64-83 of the ideas and proposals document agreed by the AWG-LCA on Wednesday. The subsidiary bodies also made specific conclusions on the Nairobi Work Programme and the LDCF.

Deforestation (credit: energyportal.eu)

Discussions at Poznan on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) managed to come to some sort of conclusion this morning. UN estimates suggest that investments of $17-30bn annually could halve deforestation levels, reducing GHG emissions by 10%, but how should these investments be allocated, and where should the financing come from?

During negotiations, there was finally agreement on the thorny issue of how countries should be rewarded. Previously, Brazil had argued that countries should only be rewarded for simply stopping further deforestation, but now they have agreed to calls from China/India and others that there should be rewards for planting new forests and rehabilitating degraded land as well.

The Brazilians have generally been progressive on many REDD issues at Poznan, setting an ambitious target of reducing their deforestation rate by 70% over the next 10 years earlier this week.

However, there are still sticking points on REDD, mostly relating to social issues and forest monocultures. Several countries (USA, Canada, Aus, NZ) deleted any specific reference to the “rights” of indigenous people from the text, but their “full and effective participation” is still mentioned. This is an issue because historically, “forestry management” has often resulted in indigenous groups being expelled from their lands.

Also, some environmental activists are worried that the draft doesn’t mention biodiversity. This could potentially mean that further deforestation could be allowed as long as the forests are replanted, potentially with biofuel monoculture crops such as palm oil, which have been shown to increase emissions.

Despite these issues, it is certainly welcome that there has been some sort of agreement on REDD, and hopefully the text will survive any last-minute attempts at changes.

Floods in Bangladesh (credit: dfid.gov.uk)

Some commentators think that one of the few things we me see progress on at Poznan is the “Adaptation Fund” (AF). Unlike the LDCF (see my previous post), it was established to finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries. It is operated by the Adaptation Fund Board, but the GEF runs the secretariat and the World Bank is the trustee.

Current arrangements suggest it will mainly be financed with a share of proceeds from CDM project activities (2% of CERs). This means its replenishment is heavily dependent on the success of the CDM.

The UNFCCC reckons that this process could yield anything between $250 million and $3 billion a year by 2030. However, this is a fraction of most assessments of developing countries needs for adaptation financing. Oxfam, for example, has estimated this to be $50 billion a year by 2015, and the UN has estimated $86 billion. WWF estimates that there is less than $1 billion currently earmarked for adaptation. Whichever way you look at it, there is a big financing gap.

Therefore, the AF clearly needs sources of financing above and beyond the CDM. One source is pledges from rich countries, but so far these have amounted to less than $300 million. Aid agencies and many developing countries have been making the case for more serious pledges by rich countries, given their historical contribution to carbon emissions. For example, China and India have suggested the rich countries commit to donating a percentage of GDP for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. Whatever the figure agreed on, this is a sensible and equitable suggestion.

To make up some more of the shortfall, Oxfam has suggested that instead of 2% of CERs going to the AF, this figure should rather be 7.5%. Furthermore, as Simon noted the other day, Yvo de Boer has suggested another source of financing for the AF could be Joint Implementation (JI) projects, potentially adding an extra billion dollars or so by 2020.

Sorting out the AF is a matter of urgency. The chair of its board announced yesterday
that the AF is even short of the cash needed to just keep it running. There are many suggestions on the table for financing adaptation, and a key outcome of Poznan should be some clarity on which ones are likely to be taken up in a post-Kyoto deal. This is crucial as it will allow more research to flesh out proposals before Copenhagen next year.