Africa Action: Activism for Africa Since 1953
Cultivating Peace and Sustainability: Africa Action Talking Points on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Mechanisms
The causes of climate change are obvious, and the effects are overwhelming. While Africa is only responsible for four percent of the world’s carbon emissions, the continent is disproportionately affected and suffering from recurrent droughts, shrunken lakes, deforestation, and eroded coastlines. A UN report states that a two degree Celsius rise in temperature would endanger the water supply of up to 600 million Africans.
An unregulated, and out of control western industry, permitted by a complicit government, is predominately responsible for the global climate changes the world witnesses today. Adaptation and mitigation mechanisms need to be employed to ensure that economic development does not come at the expense of environmental degradation.
Mainstream discourse on climate change needs to adopt a more holistic approach to development, as opposed to a definition of development that only takes growth into account and excludes environmental costs. Climate change mitigation and adaptation cannot be divorced from each other.
The solutions proposed for the food and climate crises by the International Financial Institutions, the G8 governments and supported by other Northern economic and corporate interests, including new loans and additional trade and investment concessions, are in essence simply more of the same old policies that have contributed so greatly to the creation of the present global climate crisis.
Africa Action advocates that grants, not loans, should be directly given to developing countries to address the climate crisis. Poor countries should not have to pay for managing a problem that has been caused by the world’s wealthiest countries. Grants need to be designed with local participation channeled through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The causes of climate change are obvious, and the effects are overwhelming. While Africa is only responsible for four percent of the world’s carbon emissions, the continent is disproportionately affected and suffering from recurrent droughts, shrunken lakes, deforestation, and eroded coastlines. A UN report states that a two degree Celsius rise in temperature would endanger the water supply of up to 600 million Africans.
An unregulated, and out of control western industry, permitted by a complicit government, is predominately responsible for the global climate changes the world witnesses today. Adaptation and mitigation mechanisms need to be employed to ensure that economic development does not come at the expense of environmental degradation.
Mainstream discourse on climate change needs to adopt a more holistic approach to development, as opposed to a definition of development that only takes growth into account and excludes environmental costs. Climate change mitigation and adaptation cannot be divorced from each other.
The solutions proposed for the food and climate crises by the International Financial Institutions, the G8 governments and supported by other Northern economic and corporate interests, including new loans and additional trade and investment concessions, are in essence simply more of the same old policies that have contributed so greatly to the creation of the present global climate crisis.
Two Ways to Tackle Climate Change:
Mitigation is taking actions to hinder the progress of global warming. This includes, but is not limited to, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, using renewable energies, and reforesting. Mitigation addresses the causes of climate change and pose the question how can individuals and industries change their practices to hinder the process of global warming.
Adaptation is making societies more resilient to global warming. This, for example, would include developing drought-resistant crop varieties, and improving the availability of drinking water. Adaptation addresses the consequences of climate change. The question is now that global warming is happening, how can we make societies better able to cope with an uncertain future?
Adaptation is making societies more resilient to global warming. This, for example, would include developing drought-resistant crop varieties, and improving the availability of drinking water. Adaptation addresses the consequences of climate change. The question is now that global warming is happening, how can we make societies better able to cope with an uncertain future?
Grassroots Driven
There are not a large number of independent environmental movements on the African continent; social and economic justice groups are articulating most of these concerns. One key reason for this is that civil society formations in Africa tend to be concentrated in urban areas. U.S. policy needs to include a concerted effort to incorporate those who are most affected by climate change in both rural and urban areas.
The G77 and China propose that - common but differentiated responsibility should be the guiding principal in climate adaptation and mitigation. All parties have a stake in this process, not just donors. Mechanisms to tackle climate change must be country-driven, and not project-driven. It must mandate independent stakeholder consultation with civil society organizations.
Grants, not loans, should not be solely issued to governments, but also to local civil society groups who could do a better job of implementing development projects.
Grants or Loans? Financing Climate Change
History has shown that loans constrain poor countries from investing in crucial health infrastructure, education, and other crucial services. It causes countries to be trapped in a vicious cycle of economic stagnation. Debt also puts poor countries into illegitimate debt for a problem caused by rich countries. Loans also come with conditions that may contradict the fight against global warming, such as giving tax breaks to polluting businesses. Grants acknowledge the obligation of developed countries to solve the crisis.
UNFCCC and Loans
Articles 3 and 4 of the UNFCCC state that, as long time polluters and due to their higher technological and economic capabilities, developed countries should shoulder the main burden for resolving the crisis. This is the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”.
On the Board of the Adaptation Fund (the UNFCCC’s funding mechanism), there is a majority of developing country members and designated representation from least developed countries and small island states, whereas the World Bank’s Trust Fund Committees for the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) have an equal representation of donor and recipient countries. This is not democratic given that there are less rich countries than poor countries in the world and that the poorer countries are the most vulnerable to climate change.
The provisions of financial resources to developing countries, as well as transfer of technology, are commitments of developed countries party to the Convention, so there is no donor to beneficiary relationship within the Convention. The funds are under the authority, and not just guidance, of the Conference of the Parties. Under the UNFCCC, financial resources are obligations of developed countries and not considered as development aid whereas this distinction is unclear under the CIFs.
World Bank and Climate Investment Funds
World Bank Climate Investment Funds were launched in 2008. They seek to finance adaptation and mitigation programs worldwide, but it puts Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) in charge of allocating financial resources to developing countries.
The CIFs will be providing loans as well as grants to eligible developing countries. This means that developing countries will have to pay for dealing with a problem that has been caused by developed countries, while at the same time facing other major developmental challenges.
The World Bank has a negative track record on social and environmental issues. It is a big investor in polluting industries and is notorious for pushing loans for industrial and agricultural policies that have increased poverty, indebtedness, unemployment and environmental damage. Between 2007 and 2008, the Bank increased its support for renewable energy and energy efficiency, but it also increased, and in much bigger proportions, its fossil fuel financing.
The governance structure of the World Bank is not sufficiently inclusive of developing country governments. It is “an institution that is both undemocratic and lacks transparency ,” according to a Global Civil Society statement. Fundamental issues of trust with the very constituencies that it professes to serve burden the World Bank. Therefore, any initiative administered by the Bank will at best have to work very hard to overcome legitimate skepticism, and at worst be undermined and rendered ineffective by the reputation of its parent.
The World Bank initiative is diverting attention and financing away from the UNFCCC.
Two trust funds are being created under the CIFs:
Donor CIF Contributions ($US million)
Australia 127
France 300
Germany 813
Japan 1,200
Netherlands 50
Sweden 92
Switzerland 20
United Kingdom 1,488
United States 2,000
Other 50
Total Pledges 6,141
Additional Co-Financing (bi-lateral funding)
France 200
Germany 74
The CIF design provides that donor and potential recipient countries should hold an equal number of seats, to be selected through a process of consultation among the countries themselves.
World Bank CIFs and Debt
“Global hunger and the growing impact of climate change are dramatic symptoms of the persistent problem of debt domination. Large debt service payments on both external and domestic debt claims mean that scarce resources are diverted from needed investments to insure food sovereignty and climate change protection …”
The present food and climate crises must also be traced to policies that have been imposed on the countries of the South for decades, through the use of debt and aid, access to credit and even debt relief as instruments of coercion. These lender-driven debts and policies have benefited Northern based economic and corporate interests, reinforced the concentration of wealth, and fueled a rise in casino-style food and resource price speculation. This has significantly contributed to the present food and climate crises and weakens the ability of Southern peoples and governments to respond adequately. They have also added to the forced migration of millions of people: victims of hunger and climate change, people seeking to defend human and environmental rights and to escape the militarization and war that often accompany economic and climate crisis.
Climate Change is a Disaster for Human Development
Climate change is a growing source of conflict in Africa, as more people become desperate and eligible for manipulation. In Darfur, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) found that unpredictable climate, insufficient access to clean water, degradation of fertile land caused from displaced people in conflict-affected areas, overgrazing and deforestation are just some of the ways global warming is intricately linked to existing human development challenges . The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that Sudan has become “ground zero” for climate change . Public health problems are at risk to increase due to climate change as well. Further, malnutrition due to food shortages will adversely affect people’s health and impede on the effectiveness of treatment regimes for diseases like HIV/AIDS.
Climate Change also has a disproportionate impact on the vulnerable populations, for instance in Africa where women represent 70-80% of the agriculturalists. A new international focus must be aimed at women in particular. They are the primary beneficiaries of adaptation/mitigation funding because women are often the providers of firewood, food and water.
Recent Developments
During the United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen in December of 2009, African countries and China disagreed over the new Climate Change proposal, the “Danish Text”. With Sudan leading the walkout, Algerian Environmental ministers stated, "African group would not be tolerating the killing of Kyoto protocol with out having any new deal." This new agreement if passed, would limit developing countries to emitting up to 1,44 tons of carbon per person by 2050, however richer and more developed countries will be limited to 2,67 tons of carbon per person. This will make it harder for developing countries to build their economy; with the Kyoto Protocol, developing countries received money for money for clean energy project investments. In addition the “Danish Text” would terminate the Kyoto Protocol, which has a more balanced responsibility for both developing and developed countries. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, it is a single-track text.
There are not a large number of independent environmental movements on the African continent; social and economic justice groups are articulating most of these concerns. One key reason for this is that civil society formations in Africa tend to be concentrated in urban areas. U.S. policy needs to include a concerted effort to incorporate those who are most affected by climate change in both rural and urban areas.
The G77 and China propose that - common but differentiated responsibility should be the guiding principal in climate adaptation and mitigation. All parties have a stake in this process, not just donors. Mechanisms to tackle climate change must be country-driven, and not project-driven. It must mandate independent stakeholder consultation with civil society organizations.
Grants, not loans, should not be solely issued to governments, but also to local civil society groups who could do a better job of implementing development projects.
Grants or Loans? Financing Climate Change
History has shown that loans constrain poor countries from investing in crucial health infrastructure, education, and other crucial services. It causes countries to be trapped in a vicious cycle of economic stagnation. Debt also puts poor countries into illegitimate debt for a problem caused by rich countries. Loans also come with conditions that may contradict the fight against global warming, such as giving tax breaks to polluting businesses. Grants acknowledge the obligation of developed countries to solve the crisis.
UNFCCC and Loans
Articles 3 and 4 of the UNFCCC state that, as long time polluters and due to their higher technological and economic capabilities, developed countries should shoulder the main burden for resolving the crisis. This is the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”.
On the Board of the Adaptation Fund (the UNFCCC’s funding mechanism), there is a majority of developing country members and designated representation from least developed countries and small island states, whereas the World Bank’s Trust Fund Committees for the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) have an equal representation of donor and recipient countries. This is not democratic given that there are less rich countries than poor countries in the world and that the poorer countries are the most vulnerable to climate change.
The provisions of financial resources to developing countries, as well as transfer of technology, are commitments of developed countries party to the Convention, so there is no donor to beneficiary relationship within the Convention. The funds are under the authority, and not just guidance, of the Conference of the Parties. Under the UNFCCC, financial resources are obligations of developed countries and not considered as development aid whereas this distinction is unclear under the CIFs.
World Bank and Climate Investment Funds
World Bank Climate Investment Funds were launched in 2008. They seek to finance adaptation and mitigation programs worldwide, but it puts Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) in charge of allocating financial resources to developing countries.
The CIFs will be providing loans as well as grants to eligible developing countries. This means that developing countries will have to pay for dealing with a problem that has been caused by developed countries, while at the same time facing other major developmental challenges.
The World Bank has a negative track record on social and environmental issues. It is a big investor in polluting industries and is notorious for pushing loans for industrial and agricultural policies that have increased poverty, indebtedness, unemployment and environmental damage. Between 2007 and 2008, the Bank increased its support for renewable energy and energy efficiency, but it also increased, and in much bigger proportions, its fossil fuel financing.
The governance structure of the World Bank is not sufficiently inclusive of developing country governments. It is “an institution that is both undemocratic and lacks transparency ,” according to a Global Civil Society statement. Fundamental issues of trust with the very constituencies that it professes to serve burden the World Bank. Therefore, any initiative administered by the Bank will at best have to work very hard to overcome legitimate skepticism, and at worst be undermined and rendered ineffective by the reputation of its parent.
The World Bank initiative is diverting attention and financing away from the UNFCCC.
Two trust funds are being created under the CIFs:
- The Clean Technology Fund will invest in projects and programs in developing countries that contribute to the demonstration, deployment, and transfer of low-carbon technologies. The projects/programs must have a significant potential for long-term greenhouse gas savings.
- The Strategic Climate Fund will serve as an overarching fund for various programs to test innovative approaches to climate change. The first program under this fund is the Pilot Program on Climate Resilience (PPCR) aimed at increasing climate resilience in developing countries.
Donor CIF Contributions ($US million)
Australia 127
France 300
Germany 813
Japan 1,200
Netherlands 50
Sweden 92
Switzerland 20
United Kingdom 1,488
United States 2,000
Other 50
Total Pledges 6,141
Additional Co-Financing (bi-lateral funding)
France 200
Germany 74
The CIF design provides that donor and potential recipient countries should hold an equal number of seats, to be selected through a process of consultation among the countries themselves.
- Clean Technology Fund Trust Fund Committee: 7 donor countries (Australia, France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, UK, US) and 7 potential recipient countries (Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey)
- Strategic Climate Fund Trust Fund Committee: 7 donors (Australia, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, UK) and 7 potential recipient countries (Algeria, Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Kenya, Thailand, and Yemen)
World Bank CIFs and Debt
“Global hunger and the growing impact of climate change are dramatic symptoms of the persistent problem of debt domination. Large debt service payments on both external and domestic debt claims mean that scarce resources are diverted from needed investments to insure food sovereignty and climate change protection …”
The present food and climate crises must also be traced to policies that have been imposed on the countries of the South for decades, through the use of debt and aid, access to credit and even debt relief as instruments of coercion. These lender-driven debts and policies have benefited Northern based economic and corporate interests, reinforced the concentration of wealth, and fueled a rise in casino-style food and resource price speculation. This has significantly contributed to the present food and climate crises and weakens the ability of Southern peoples and governments to respond adequately. They have also added to the forced migration of millions of people: victims of hunger and climate change, people seeking to defend human and environmental rights and to escape the militarization and war that often accompany economic and climate crisis.
Climate Change is a Disaster for Human Development
Climate change is a growing source of conflict in Africa, as more people become desperate and eligible for manipulation. In Darfur, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) found that unpredictable climate, insufficient access to clean water, degradation of fertile land caused from displaced people in conflict-affected areas, overgrazing and deforestation are just some of the ways global warming is intricately linked to existing human development challenges . The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that Sudan has become “ground zero” for climate change . Public health problems are at risk to increase due to climate change as well. Further, malnutrition due to food shortages will adversely affect people’s health and impede on the effectiveness of treatment regimes for diseases like HIV/AIDS.
Climate Change also has a disproportionate impact on the vulnerable populations, for instance in Africa where women represent 70-80% of the agriculturalists. A new international focus must be aimed at women in particular. They are the primary beneficiaries of adaptation/mitigation funding because women are often the providers of firewood, food and water.
Recent Developments
During the United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen in December of 2009, African countries and China disagreed over the new Climate Change proposal, the “Danish Text”. With Sudan leading the walkout, Algerian Environmental ministers stated, "African group would not be tolerating the killing of Kyoto protocol with out having any new deal." This new agreement if passed, would limit developing countries to emitting up to 1,44 tons of carbon per person by 2050, however richer and more developed countries will be limited to 2,67 tons of carbon per person. This will make it harder for developing countries to build their economy; with the Kyoto Protocol, developing countries received money for money for clean energy project investments. In addition the “Danish Text” would terminate the Kyoto Protocol, which has a more balanced responsibility for both developing and developed countries. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, it is a single-track text.
