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.”

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.