At COP29 in Baku in November, the world will come together to agree a new target for climate finance. The stakes are huge given record temperatures and heatwaves, floods and droughts wreaking havoc globally.  

Tackling climate change and its consequences – and supporting wider human development – needs urgent investment. But the international financial system is struggling to respond. Is it time now to agree a new framework for international climate and development finance? Can the G20 under Brazil’s leadership, and international leaders meeting at the United Nations in New York in September, prepare the ground for COP29?  

Almost 54 years ago, in 1970, the world came together at the UN to set a target for rich countries to support poorer countries. They promised 0.7% of national income as “official development assistance” (ODA) to improve economic outcomes and reduce poverty. At the Copenhagen climate negotiations in 2009, world leaders again came together and promised to mobilise an annual $100bn to finance climate action by 2020. They said this would be “new and additional” to development finance.  

Hurricane Beryl shows why the new UK government must ramp up climate finance

Since then, with the exception of a few Europeans, rich nations have failed to meet the 0.7% target. In 2022, ODA peaked at $211bn, or 0.37% of combined OECD national income. Almost 15% of this was used to finance refugee-related costs in OECD countries themselves. The climate commitment was met in 2022, two years late. Without ODA levels rising, the 33% of ODA classified as climate-related cannot reasonably be claimed as “additional”.   

 In practice, maintaining this distinction between climate and development finance has proved difficult. For example, is planting trees in an urban landscape a climate investment because it absorbs emissions, a health investment because it reduces street-level temperatures, or a biodiversity investment as it creates habitats for wildlife? 

 The challenge of navigating these distinctions means it is difficult to track commitments or secure meaningful accountability against promises made. And it leaves many countries juggling a false trade-off between investments for the planet and for their people.  

Trillions needed

It is absolutely clear, however, that financing for poorer countries needs to increase dramatically. Despite progress over recent decades, development needs remain significant, with major setbacks through the pandemic. The Independent High Level Expert Group on Climate Finance estimates, presented to the G20, indicate that by 2030 $5.4 trillion a year will be needed for development, climate and nature. Of this, $1 trillion a year will be required in external financing for developing countries for climate and nature alone, of which roughly half will need to come from international public finance.  

International public finance – including new and additional aid finance from rich countries – is needed to provide concessional resources for the poorest and most indebted countries. It is needed to anchor capital increases for international financial institutions that can leverage this at least ten-fold, in part by borrowing from private capital markets. These institutions, together with other development finance institutions and strong policy environments, are key to bringing in private lenders and investors, whether by reducing risk or helping develop investment pipelines. 

The Loss and Damage Fund must not leave fragile states behind

As well as additional finance, poorer countries need money that better responds to their needs. In recent years, the relentless cycle of summits has spawned dozens of initiatives. The landscape is fragmented, with over 80 funds or instruments in the climate space alone. It has become increasingly difficult for poor countries to navigate this. There is an urgent need for a moratorium on new funds and to agree principles and coordination mechanisms for all external finance – building on the aid effectiveness principles agreed in the 2000s. 

Binding 0.7% commitment?

Taking these elements together, is it time now to drop the voluntary framework of ODA crafted in the last century to meet the problems of the last century? Can countries come together now to agree a new framework for official climate and development assistance, with a binding commitment for rich countries to finally meet the 0.7% national income promise by, say, 2030?  

Such a target, negotiated under a UN framework, would double the flow of aid finance. That funding would anchor multilateral, public and private investments that are needed to close the financing gap. A negotiated process could also bring in emerging countries like China that already provide significant finance. It could clarify definitions and shift arrangements for monitoring climate and other development spend from the OECD to the UN to improve accountability. And it could begin to consolidate the range of instruments and make them more responsive to the needs of poor countries. 

With public finances under strain around the world, many will say this is simply unaffordable. But international polling indicates that people are willing to contribute 1% of their income to fight climate change. Will politicians have the courage to engage their electorates? And at the G20, in the UN, in the lead up to Baku and beyond, will they have the vision to collaborate internationally to agree a new deal that delivers both development and climate justice? 

The post The world needs a new global deal on climate and development finance appeared first on Climate Home News.

In three vital and interrelated areas – climate, development and nature – the next UK government could play a significant role in driving progress at a critical time.

It needs to start office on day one with a plan that positions the UK ahead of key summits on those issues – summits that will have a critical bearing on people, planet, and future generations. The time to start preparing is now.

The NATO summit begins within days of the UK general election now planned for July 4. The year ends with G20 meetings in Brazil, a global biodiversity summit (COP16) in Colombia, and the COP29 climate conference in Azerbaijan. A new UK government could play an important role in rebuilding trust and make a positive contribution to the world by adopting far-sighted positions on climate, development and nature. 

On climate, the next government could immediately signal its intent by comprehensively stepping up its efforts to meet its own national climate commitments, after a period of drift and uncertainty. There is no more powerful message from the UK to the cause of global climate action than the country decisively implementing its own pledges, through concerted action on green energy, transport, infrastructure and land use.  

Progress at home needs to be matched in real time by leadership on the international stage in negotiating an appropriately ambitious and credible ‘new collective quantified goal’ on climate finance.

Rich nations meet $100bn climate finance goal – two years late

A strong finance outcome at COP29 would acknowledge the historic responsibility for climate change from some of the wealthiest nations, including the UK, while ensuring that all countries play their full part in mobilising the flows of public as well as private finance needed to transition to a 1.5 degree-aligned, resilient and nature-positive economy. Successful resolution of the finance negotiations this year in Baku would open up the possibility for a more ambitious round of climate action en route to COP30 in Belem, Brazil in November 2025. 

Development finance

On international development, the UK can move fast by upholding and restoring its development finance commitments, including to some of the world’s poorest people; by updating its toolkit to meet today’s interlinked development, climate and nature challenges; and by using all of the means at its disposal (including debt relief, multilateral development bank reform, and capital increases) to drive global financial architecture reform and a successful replenishment of the International Development Association 21 later this year.  

The UK can also lead the way in pressing for international support to be integrated and aligned behind countries’ own inclusive, green development plans; and by making the case for multilateral trade reform aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement.  

In addition, the UK has a particular responsibility to resume a global leadership role on debt relief, a role it last played in the early 2000s during the era of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It could take legal and other action to unstick debt cancellation processes for some of the most indebted countries, by bringing private creditors to the table and brokering concerted action on debt relief at the G20.  

Global billionaires tax to fight climate change, hunger rises up political agenda

The UK should lend its political support to the Brazilian government’s laudable G20 initiative on tax reform, as well as its important work on climate and hunger; and support other promising efforts to raise revenue for development, such as levies on shipping and aviation. The next finance minister should consider the UK’s global role on these issues as being as centrally important to their legacy as issues of national economics; and ensure that the UK drives global progress on new flows of finance for climate and development, at the scale set out by economists Nick Stern and Vera Songwe in their 2022 report.   

Protect and restore nature

On nature, the UK should redouble its actions to protect and restore nature and biodiversity at home, including through pursuing more sustainable farming and land management. At the same time, the UK should use its influence and finance to drive global progress on the nature agenda, both in terrestrial ecosystems as well as the ocean. The goal here is to protect at least 30% of the planet by 2030 and to mobilise major flows of public and private finance to support countries, local communities and Indigenous Peoples to protect their ecosystems.

At the UN biodiversity conference in Colombia in October, the UK could assume a critical role on the global stage by making the case for the protection and restoration of natural ecosystems as fundamental to human life, to addressing the climate crisis, and as one of the most effective forms of pro-poor development assistance.   

At a deeply troubling and fractured time in multilateral affairs, revitalised global leadership from the next UK government on climate, development and nature could make a very constructive contribution to securing the better, fairer, more sustainable and more peaceful world which is still within our grasp to secure.   

 Editor’s note: The latest BBC analysis of opinion polls ahead of the July 4 general election in the UK shows the opposition Labour Party with 45% of voter support, while the ruling Conservative Party trails with 24%.

The post Climate, development and nature: three urgent priorities for next UK government appeared first on Climate Home News.

This week in New York City, the 27 members of the high-level panel of eminent persons appointed by the UN Secretary General will deliver a report providing recommendations on the post-2015 development agenda.

This is a critical opportunity to address the inadequacies of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and to chart a new course for sustainable development.

The post-2015 “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) must break from failed convention by integrating environmental and social dimensions into the pursuit of economic development aims, acknowledging that our future economic health will critically depend on our planet’s ecological health.

Thirteen years ago in New York, the United Nations established the MDGs — eight global commitments to eradicate extreme poverty, promote gender equality, improve human health and achieve other ambitious objectives by 2015. Important progress has been made toward achieving the MDGs (learn more in the 2012 report).

The world met its poverty reduction target, with poverty rates declining in every developing region. Over 2 billion people gained access to improved drinking water sources between 1990 and 2010. The lives of some 200 million slum dwellers improved, exceeding the targeted level.

Yet as a whole, our accomplishments have fallen short of our ambitions — particularly on environmental concerns.

Boltz says environmental protection should not be viewed as a parallel process to development but as a pre-condition

The status of the world’s birds, mammals and amphibians is declining, and a substantial proportion of species in all taxonomic groups are threatened with extinction.

Since 1990, greenhouse emissions increased almost every year, with particularly high growth since 2002.

The resulting temperature rise has led to more frequent extreme weather events across the globe, making communities — many of them already poverty-stricken — increasingly vulnerable to devastating droughts, fires and storms.

Why have the MDGs fallen short of critical development aims? Several reasons may be given, of course, from issues of equity to governance challenges to the global economic downturn. But one certainty is that there is a critical flaw in our approach to sustainable development.

The health of our planet, which is fundamental to sustainability, is treated as a distinct and parallel goal rather than an underlying principle. Indeed, it may be argued that we have sacrificed sustainability for the sake of development.

The dangerous assumption that environmental concerns can be subordinated to economic goals disregards the fact that our society and economy are bound by a natural biophysical system. Natural resources and ecosystems are the bases not only of all material wealth, but a precondition for our very existence.

We draw on nature to fuel our economic growth — to power our homes, pollinate our crops and filter our wastewater. We depend on its proper functioning to provide vital resources and to maintain conditions suitable for our success — and indeed our survival.

RTCC Video: Fred Boltz on water, forests and climate change

Since the MDGs were established, more daunting and urgent environmental risks have arisen that threaten social and economic welfare.

According to The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) 2010 report, the loss of natural ecosystems that provide food, raw materials and livelihoods for billions of people is already costing billions to our global economy. The global fisheries industry alone is shrinking by $50bn every year thanks to current unsustainable catch rates.

Ecosystem degradation is a direct threat to our food, water, health and energy security. This realization should prompt a profound realignment of our sustainable development model, and environmental integrity must be at its core.

For example, the global fight to eradicate hunger cannot succeed without ensuring that productive natural ecosystems continue to provide water, pollination, pest regulation and other ecosystem services vital to agriculture.

Forty years in the making

The suggestion that sustainable development should fully integrate environmental concerns is not new.

The 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment focused global attention on this interdependency; twenty years later, the first Earth Summit in Rio brought the environment into the mainstream. Despite its prominence in popular rhetoric, however, in practice the environment has been pursued as a secondary concern to human economic growth.

Last year at the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), the community of nations committed to charting a course of post-2015 development commensurate with the challenges we face in the 21st century.

The high-level panel report and our collective efforts to achieve future SDGs must set expectations for a new and truly sustainable model, beyond current paradigms and business-as-usual that are putting humanity at ever-greater risk.

Key to succeeding in that new course of development will be fully integrating environmental sustainability in the entirety of our development agenda, not merely treating it as one of many goals.

Depending on how we pursue our development aspirations, we can either threaten or enhance natural resources and ecosystem services and similarly determine long-term potential for improving and sustaining human livelihoods.

Environmental integrity is not merely a dimension of development on par with economic and social concerns; it is a requisite condition.

Fred Boltz is senior vice president for international policy in Conservation International’s Center for Environment and Peace. This article first appeared on the CI Human Nature blog.

The post Comment: A healthy planet is a precondition for development appeared first on Climate Home News.

Even before Rio+20 began, Friends of the Earth launched a campaign against what it saw as the undue influence of business on the summit.

After the event, they described the much maligned outcome as “a gift to corporate polluters”.

With the private sector crying out for certainty and conviction from governments on green policies, did it really get what it wanted from the summit and walked away with “a gift” or are the waters as murky as ever for those eager to kick-start the green economy?

High-profile business leaders including Ted Turner and Richard Branson (above) attended the Rio+20 summit. (Source: UN/Rossana Fraga)

“By and large references [in the outcome document] to business wound up on the cutting room floor,” says Norine Kennedy, vice president for environment and energy with the United States Council for International Business (USCIB). “There is a single reference to the private sector and employers in the entire section on jobs and employment, which strikes us as a significant blind spot.”

Despite this, Kennedy says there were bonuses beyond the outcome itself that send positive signals as well as some impressive financial pledges.

“We should also look outside of that document, at the vast participation, pledges and funding brought to Rio by non-governmental, business and public sector players,” says Kennedy.

“The UN reckons those pledges by both governments and non-governmental entities amount to half a trillion dollars. Given the scale of global challenges, more might be needed, but this is a significant starting point.”

The largest single pledge came from a consortium of development banks that announced $175bn in finance for sustainable transport in the developing world.

An estimated 2700 business leaders attended Rio+20. The private sector’s representation in 1992 was in double digits.

Self interest?

So were business’s attending Rio acting entirely out of self-interest?

“Business cannot succeed in societies that fail, so from that standpoint, business’s long-time commitment to sustainable development is indeed in the self interest of companies, as well as that of the global community,” says Kennedy.

Speaking to RTCC, Arthur Lavieri, CEO of Indian wind turbine manufacturer Suzlon’s Brazil operations, said their attendance had two objectives.

“[Taking part at Rio+20] not only shows our commitment to the environment but also shows that we can combine being a green energy business with having a green approach to things.

“Suzlon realised very early on that wind projects in rural areas, not only in India, can create jobs in construction and leave behind a set of good green jobs for 20 years after,” he said.

“This creates lots of side benefits for the economy and stems the tide of urbanisation. So you bring access t energy plus all of these additional social benefits.”

Carlos Busquets, Deputy Director, Department of Policy and Business Practices, International Chamber of Commerce is not deterred by the Rio+20 outcome pointing out that these summits are far from straight forward.

“I would stress that when trying to solve complicated issues, like those addressed in the Rio process, we need to try to move forward in a collective and cooperative manner,” says Busquets. “It is only in this manner that we can find global solutions, across various international process such as the UN or at the G20, to global problems.”

He also reiterates that business’ role in the post-Rio landscape will be essential.

“The Rio outcome, while a work in progress, paves the way for increased engagement and collaboration among all stakeholders, including the private sector, toward achieving green and more inclusive economies,” he says.

“The private sector is fundamental to scaling up solutions but cannot do it alone and needs to work in collaboration with civil society and policy-makers.”

Regardless of how cynical you may be about the activities of the private sector in Rio and in similar processes, they are filling a funding gap left by cash-light governments and appear to be the quickest route to action on the ground.

With continued close monitoring from civil society groups like Friends of the Earth and improved policy, there’s no reason why the benefits of private sector investment can’t be shared beyond the boardroom.

Video: Jochen Zeitz, CEO of the Sport & Lifestyle division and CSO, PPR and Chairman of PUMA tells RTCC in Rio how to meld sustainability into a business

The post Was business the real winner at Rio+20? appeared first on Climate Home News.

The aim of the company is to create a community of businesses who will give free tap water re-fills to any person with a GiveMeTap bottle – encouraging more people to re-fill on the move rather than buying bottled water.

They then aim to invest in projects overseas where tap water – which many in the developing world take for granted – is not accessible.

Edwin Broni-Mensah spoke to RTCC about his aims to make a human chain and a collective movement to re-educate people about water.

The post Audio: Why bottled water is bad for you and the planet appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Indigo system will start using flexible plastic solar cells later this year instead of regular glass units.

One of the big opportunities climate action has presented the developing world is the chance to leapfrog a generation of energy technology straight into clean, green generation.

That aspiration is all good and well but in reality, exporting clean technology into some of the poorest parts of the world creates numerous logistical and financial challenges.

Now a British company thinks it has a potential solution.

Cambridge-based Eight19, named after the eight minutes and 19 seconds it takes light from the sun to reach earth, has developed the technology, and the business plan to tackle these challenges.

Customers pay an up-front fee of $10 for a 3W solar panel, battery, two LED lamps, a phone charging unit and a module that enables them to purchase electricity using their mobile phone.

“In Kenya for example we provide solar power for around $1 a week,” says Simon Bransfield-Garth, CEO, Eight19.

“They tell us they are saving about $2 a week on kerosene and a further $1-1.5 on the electricity that they would have to spend on putting electricity into their mobile phones.”

The company was spun out of Cambridge University and is built around the development of a new organic solar cell that can be printed onto flexible plastic sheets. These will begin to enter the market later this year.

“The plastic solar cells will reduce the overall cost of the installation. If you put solar cells on your roof in the UK probably half the cost is for the framing, wiring, the metalwork and everything else that goes around the solar panels,” claims Bransfield-Garth.

“You can’t put a 30kg solar panel onto the traditional thatched roof of a home in Malawi. With the plastic film, you can just literally stick it onto the roof.”

Killer Kerosene

Installing Indigo units in South Sudan.

There 1.4 billion people without electricity in the world according to Bransfield-Garth, 300 million of which are in sub-Saharan Africa.

And this is where Eight19 will concentrate its efforts. Since its first install in Kenya in September, 2011 the company’s IndiGo system is now in Malawi, Zambia and South Sudan as well.

As well saving huge volumes of carbon emissions and pollutants, Bransfield-Garth says their first customers have cited some other surprising fringe benefits.

“We thought avoiding Kerosene fumes would be a really big driver for these sorts of things. Kerosene fumes kill 1.5 million people a year, that’s more than malaria. But in reality, if you have been brought up with kerosene fumes for ever, you have a slightly different view on that sort of thing.”

In fact, the ability to charge mobile phones, is the biggest advantage, more so than the lighting, their customers have said.

“We also had a mother tell us that she feels able to leave her kids at home alone for half an hour without worrying that they are going to knock over a kerosene lamp and burn down the house,” says Bransfield-Garth.

Customers will on average take 18-24 months to pay for the full cost of their system.

“We’re running on commercial terms but it’s not our job to go and exploit some of the poorest people in the world. That’s why we have this upgrade initiative. We could charge a $1 a week indefinitely on the basis that that is half what they were paying for kerosene,” says Bransfield-Garth.

At this stage customers can either buy the 3W set-up outright or they can upgrade to a larger 10W system that supports an additional two lights and a radio.

The company’s “energy escalator” ends with a 80W system capable of running four lights, radio, TV, sewing machine plus the invaluable phone charging.

“If someone moves along this path they can go from being a rural farmer disconnected from the world, to having access to media and the internet.”

The post Solar revolution could bring power to 1.4 billion people appeared first on Climate Home News.

Defra chief scientist Bob Watson says the current system "is broken". (Source: Defra)

A group of senior academics will today call for major shifts in government policy to avoid poverty, climate and biodiversity crises.

The paper will be presented to the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) governing council meeting in Nairobi, by 20 former winners of the Blue Planet Prize, sometimes referred to as the Nobel Prize for the environment.

“Sustainable development is not a pipe dream,” said Dr Camilla Toulmin, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

“It is the destination the world’s accumulated knowledge points us towards, the fair future that will enable us to live with security, peace and opportunities for all. To get there we must transform the ways we manage, share and interact with the environment, and acknowledge that humanity is part of nature not apart from it.”

The Nairobi meeting marks the 40th anniversary of UNEP and will also serve as a forum for the Rio+20 summit in June this year.

“The current system is broken,” said Prof. Sir Bob Watson, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), who will present the paper.

“It is driving humanity to a future that is 3-5°C warmer than our species has ever known, and is eliminating the ecology that we depend on for our health, wealth and senses of self.”

The EU environment commissioner Janez Potočnik said the UNEP ministerial meeting would serve as a test-bed for the block’s Rio+20 proposals.

A leaked document detailing the proposed framework for Sustainable Development Goals for the Rio summit was criticised earlier this year.

Indian officials claimed that references the draft provided a “backdoor to emissions cuts”. The unnamed diplomat said the goals sidestepped the UN climate agency’s promise of “common but differentiated responsibility” for nations in different stages of development.

The post Sustainable development “no pipedream” appeared first on Climate Home News.

Two thirds of the rural population in developing countries are without electricity. This leaves limited options for lighting.

Many turn to kerosene or paraffin oil. It is estimated that 88 billion litres of kerosene are burned purely for light. One litre of kerosene is estimated to produce 3kg CO2 when burnt.

Research has shown that basic oil lamps typically produce just 1% of the light of a 100W light bulb.

As well as being more efficient, electricital lighting also removes the health risks associated with burning kerosene in a poorly ventilated space.

In the past, small solar panels could not generate sufficient power for incandescent and sodium-based bulbs. As the cost of LED lighting has dropped, this has become irrelevant.

Philips Lighting LEDs have been installed in the streets of Guiyang community in China

“We are at a tipping point in the LED revolution,” Harry Verhaar, senior director energy & climate change and head of strategic sustainability initiatives at Philips Lighting told RTCC.

“A global switch to energy efficient lighting can contribute a lot towards tackling climate change and saving money for families, governments and business.

“Lighting is very much at the base of development as it was in Europe and the US four or five generations ago,” he says.

The company is also working with The Climate Group and One Foundation to install solar driven LED street lighting in Guiyang, China.

Verhaar says that solar LED lighting is not just about replacing kerosene in rural communities, but can also have social and environmental benefits in urban areas.

“They can leapfrog to new technologies instead of spending on putting copper networks in the ground [for traditional lighting],” he says.

The Guiyang scheme has been chosen by the UNFCCC as a case study for its Momentum for Change program.

Part of the wider Solar LED Lighting 1000 Villages Programme− an initiative launched by The Climate Group and the One Foundation – its mission is to test policy measures and financial mechanisms in rural areas.  The five year project commenced in August 2009.

Verhaar also says that the brighter light of LEDs has been shown to improve traffic flows, reduce crime and leaves residents feeling safer.

“The initial investment is obviously higher but when you look at the performance throughout its lifespan, the technology is already cost effective.”

Philips helps interested parties get around the problem of the initial costs by offering tailored finance packages.

Loans are issued to pay for the initial cost with repayments based on the predicted energy savings. This means the buyer is never out of pocket.

So far the scheme has been a qualified success. There are currently 400 demonstration villages in China with another 600 projects planned for villages in China, India and Africa.

Feedback from villagers in the Guiyang project indicated they were especially happy the lights are offering protection against the area’s two main threats: thieves and snakes.

Other Momentum for Change week articles:

• UNFCCC chief Christiana Figueres: We need action not words

• 100 Solar power stations in two weeks: One London man’s dream

• Liter of Light: How 1 bottle = solar bulbs for millions of homes

• Arial 10 or 11? Change your font size and save a forest!

RTCC VIDEO: Head of Philips Lighting Harry Verhaar tells us how their LED lighting scheme has been implemented.

The post LED lighting could replace 88 billion litres of kerosene a year appeared first on Climate Home News.

The traditional two sided debate over private sector finance does little to progress development. (Source: Sumith Maher)

Hannah Ryder, is a senior economist with the UK’s Department for International Development and a former climate change negotiator. Writing for RTCC she explains why negotiators need to focus more on what the Green Climate Fund will do.

Over the past few weeks, and as I mentioned in a previous blog post, I’ve been continuing to help the DFID team in Ethiopia design an exciting new programme focused on supporting new small and medium enterprises and entrepreneurs, including green businesses.

So I’ve been surprised to hear that the private sector has started to become a “do-or-die” issue for the agreement of a new Green Climate Fund (GCF) in the ongoing climate negotiations in Durban. This fund has been in design by a 40-member committee – including a senior UK representative – for just under a year to date. Its “operationalisation” (or, in plain English, its “birth”) has been cited as a key outcome for the Durban negotiations.

But how could the private sector possibly become a do-or-die issue?

In the climate negotiations, the conventional view on the role of the private sector can often play out as a tug-of-war: It’s as if there is a pot of public finance in the middle, with a team of developed countries on one side pulling hard to recognise the role of the private sector in financing climate change action in developing countries, and a team of developing countries on the other side pulling hard not to recognise it – in the belief that by doing so they might extricate more public funds from developed countries.

It is more complex than this of course (this Brookings article provides a lot more detail) but the major problem with this tug-of-war scenario is that it detracts negotiators from the key question of how the fund will deliver impacts and results. Let me explain why.

First, as I’ve seen in Ethiopia, the private sector is not one entity. It can mean an entrepreneur, a small or medium enterprise or business, a project developer, a multinational company, a philanthropist, or an institutional investor such as a pension fund or a sovereign wealth fund. It’s a phrase that spans the full scale of one poor individual to the owners of trillions of pounds of assets. Yet negotiators on both sides of the tug-of-war tend to focus on a specific sub-set of the private sector.

This is because they tend to be focused on who contributes to the fund. They focus on institutional investors, and occasionally philanthropists and multinational companies, many of whom are based in developed countries. There is, actually, good reason to. These investors or companies do have the potential to effect change on a great scale. It is their decisions, their shareholders and boards that have the power to determine whether new investment in renewable energy will outrun investment in fossil-fuel energy. For the first time in history, according to a new report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, this very scenario has occurred this year. It’s a great start.

But investors are not the only private sector actors that can effect change. In fact, UN research published in 2007, which suggested that 83% of climate finance flows are dependent on the private sector, in fact covered the full set of private sector actors I listed earlier. In the end, it is people on the ground everywhere that will have to act on climate change – by being energy and resource efficient in their homes, workplaces or industries, paying a bus fare rather than driving to get to the market, or investing in fertiliser to grow and sell a new crop to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Neither Governments nor investors – particularly in the poorest and most fragile countries where both governance and investment is weak – can deliver action on climate change alone.

So is it right to have a tug-of-war over the private sector? My view is that the game needs to get more sophisticated. By focusing on the one sub-set of the private sector, and contributions to the fund, negotiators are not talking enough about what the fund does – what kinds of projects it finances, what kinds of financial structures work best to stimulate the growth of new green businesses, to stimulate energy efficiency, drive higher investment in renewable energy, or other green and climate-resilient activities, technologies and infrastructure.

What matters fundamentally is that the Green Climate Fund is not designed to shut down the option for governments, investors or philanthropists across the globe to directly contribute finance to it. The more finance the better, for everyone. But more crucially, the GCF also needs to be designed to allow action on climate change to take place through individuals, small businesses, large companies as well as investors. The more actors that can obtain finance from the fund, the more nimble the fund will be in disbursing what’s needed to make real change on the ground.

So in the next few days as the Durban negotiations proceed, and beyond, I’m hoping that negotiators will drop the conventional tug-of-war by focusing less on the private sector’s role, and focusing more on what the fund will do. That’s got to be the priority for the poorest and most fragile countries.

The post COMMENT: The tug-of-war over the private sector – time to stop? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Agriculture projects are a key focus for investment in vulnerable countries (Source: UN Photo_Lucien Rajaonina)

In the build-up to Durban the Green Climate Fund (GCF) was given top-billing alongside the potential second commitment period of Kyoto. While the latter dominated conversations in the initial stages of the talks, it is the GCF that was arguably the predominant talking point in the halls of the convention centre on Thursday morning. Having undergone intense debate on Wednesday evening without a resolution, the question now is what future does the GCF face?

“There are millions of people’s lives under threat. If we don’t get an agreement towards establishing the GCF quickly we believe that the numerous problems we face in Africa now will grow. The gap in funding will spread and lives will be lost,” says Mbarak Diop, Chief Safeguard Policy Officer, African Development Bank.

“Look at our coastal regions, agriculture, low-frequency high-magnitude events, floods, droughts, groundwater issues. This is a matter of survival. The world must conclude an agreement on the climate fund. This is the voice of Africa.”

With the economic crisis in Europe and North America limiting the availability of cash from many developed economies where the money for the fund will come from? Diop believes that struggling developed economies need to invest in Africa and Asia.

“This can be mutually beneficial. There are strong economic linkages. It would be a mistake not to invest because of the global economic crisis. That is an argument that should not be heard. The way forward is to look beyond the developed world’s funding and to diversify sources. Taxes, innovative financing, philanthropy,” says Diop.

With the source of funding for the GCF one of the many sticking points on Wednesday, coming to any agreement on the GCF could be a challenge.

“The operationalisation of the GCF is a key component of a successful outcome in Durban,” says Ilana Solomon, senior policy advisor with ActionAid. “The question now is whether the discussions will continue productively, or unravel.

One bone of contention in Wednesday’s talks was the role of the private sector in financing the fund.

“If projects are going to be funded by large corporations and multinationals the question is who owns and drives these projects? ActionAid wants to see the needs of developing countries addressed. Those needs don’t always comply with those of private companies.”

There are of course benefits to involving big business in filling up the coffers of the GCF.

“The most obvious is scale,” says Gareth Phillips of Sindicatum and board member of the Climate Markets and Investment Association (CMIA).

“There is a lack of finance on that scale from governments at the moment but the money that is sitting with institutional investors, pensions and insurance companies and so on, has to go somewhere. If we can provide the right kind of mechanisms, then as we have already seen with the CDM this money can be invested into suitable projects. For that to happen it would be helpful if there was a clear indication on a role for market based mechanisms and a clear set of rules. The CDM has shown us how effective the right rules can be.”

Those rules are also part of the discussions in Durban at present. Phillips says that with the right rules in place, the private sector could deploy this capital very efficiently.

“We can move very quickly. That’s what we do, we find the opportunities where we can invest the money and provide a range of benefits. Clearly profit is one of those key elements. But we can also respond to signals for sustainable development and the creation of other kinds of commodities and desirables,” claims Phillips.

“A third very important area is the ability of private sector to deploy new technologies. Issues around the protection of IP would need to be progressed first. But, if that can be achieved, the private sector can come forward and finance these technologies and help countries leapfrog into a cleaner development pathway.”

Discussions on the GCF will continue behind closed doors with all parties publicly stating their desire to secure a deal in Durban. There are millions outside of those doors that desperately need a positive result.

The post Green Climate Fund is “a matter of survival” for millions appeared first on Climate Home News.

Ms. Mashabane calls for special attention to be paid to climate change and gender issues at COP17. (Source: Devra Berkowitz/UN)

Writing exlusively for RTCC, Ms. Maite Nkoana Mashabane, South Africa Minister of International Relations and Cooperations and Incoming President of COP17 and CMP7, outlines her ambition for the summit.

As the incoming UNFCCC COP17/CMP7 President, we have a mammoth task of ensuring countries deliver an acceptable, fair, transparent and equitable deal in these climate change negotiations in Durban.

Inclusivity, wide participation and transparency are important priorities for South Africa, and we will make a particular effort to engage with countries that hold minority positions and other major groups.

The key issues and priorities for Durban are achieving a balance between the Bali Roadmap and operationalising the Cancun Agreements, as well as striking a balance between and within the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol negotiating tracks.

In an effort to narrow and overcome the divide between developed and developing countries on the expected outcomes of Durban, South Africa has been promoting the sharing of views and ideas around climate change in the build-up to the negotiations.

It is critical that governments and nations assess the range of risks and plan to reduce vulnerability accordingly. The impact of climate change on our country, our continent and our world cannot be underestimated.

Scientific evidence has shown it will have a lasting negative impact on the world as we know it and, indeed, the effects have already begun to be felt.

Impact on women

The number, frequency and intensity of weather- and climate-related hazards are significantly increasing worldwide and the environment and economies of the developing world – the African continent in particular – will be the hardest hit, but no country will be spared.

Climate change will negatively affect a sector of society already carrying the burdens of underdevelopment, poverty, lack of education and opportunities, namely women.

With all the destruction climate change brings, women are literally on the frontline of picking up the pieces and, as the carriers of development, ensuring the survival of our communities.

In both flood and drought-prone regions, women have to deal with the impacts and fend for their families.  The current famine in the Horn of Africa shows the devastation climate change can have.

In Somalia, the prolonged consequences of climate change are playing themselves out in a context of a country torn by civil strife. We have all seen images of women bearing emaciated children dying in their arms from hunger-related diseases caused by drought and famine.

We must work together, as a global community, to make sure the causes of climate change are urgently addressed before more lives are lost and irrevocable damage is done to our planet.

Alone we can never achieve the critical outcome we all aspire to. It is our hope this spirit will infuse the negotiations and ensure we consolidate the gains made, and address the big political issues as well as the future in good faith.

Yes, we all have our own national interests, but we need to rise above these and find innovative solutions.

The Parties need to lead and be bold. Working together we can save tomorrow today.

The post COP17 President: Parties must lead and be bold appeared first on Climate Home News.

Former UN secretary general Kofi Annan (Source: Kofi Annan Foundation)

By RTCC staff

Kofi Annan has slammed world leaders for their failure to act on climate change and has warned of dire consequences for the world’s poorest.

Speaking at California’s Stanford University, the former UN secretary general called for a ramping up of action from governments starting in Durban at the COP17 negotiations.

“Climate change is an all-encompassing threat to our health, security, and stability. Yet so far, our generation of leaders – including those here in the United States – have failed to find the vision or courage to tackle it,” said Annan.

“This lack of long-term collective vision and leadership is inexcusable. It has global repercussions, and it will be those least responsible for climate change- the poorest and most vulnerable, that will pay the highest price.”

The Nobel Peace Prize-winner said that increasingly difficult agricultural conditions will force farmers to leave their land, not just in Africa but around the world, triggering mass migration and food shortages.

“So we must hope that the Climate talks in Durban next month move us towards a universal and fair framework to tackle climate change. We need concerted action to reduce global emissions and protect citizens and countries against the impact of climate change,” he said.

“Key to such an agreement, of course, will be recapturing the sense of common purpose based on shared values – something we seem to have lost in recent years.”

Read the full speech here.

Two reports released this week have highlighted the urgent need for action.

The IEA predicts that the window to limit warming to two degrees will close by 2017. A study by the charity Christian Aid claimed that Africa requires $35 billion of investment per year to bring clean energy to the continent.

The post Kofi Annan slams world leaders for inaction on climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.

The village of Tomefa in Ghana benefits from solar electricity (PIC: Stephanie Dei)

Africa needs $35 billion investment per year in order to provide clean energy across the continent, according to a report by Christian Aid.

The charity currently estimates that 719 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa have limited access to energy, hampering efforts to meet the UN Millennium Development Goals.

The IMF recently predicted that sub-Saharan Africa’s GDP will grow by 5.3% this year and 5.8% in 2012, and with the continent heavily dependent on fossil fuels, this could come at the expense of huge increases in carbon emissions.

According to Greenpeace COP17 hosts South Africa already relies on coal for the majority of its electricity production, with today’s report noting that renewable makes up only 7.98% of that country’s primary energy supply.

But Dr Alison Doig, Christian Aid’s senior adviser on climate change and sustainable development, says economic growth in Africa need not have negative impacts on climate change.

“There is a huge potential for renewable energy across the continent, which is largely untapped,” she said.

“Our report demonstrates that geothermal, small-scale hydro, solar, wind, tidal and biomass fuels, including agricultural wastes, all offer significant potential for delivering both basic needs and for unlocking economic growth.”

“The funding must be reliable and substantial. It is estimated that about $20bn per year is needed to deliver basic energy to all by 2030, and $30-35bn a year to deliver a higher level of low-carbon development.”

Discussions over funding are expected to dominate the COP17 climate summit in Durban later this month, with the Technology Mechanism and Green Climate Fund requiring financial commitments from Annex-I states.

Read the full Christian Aid report here.

The post $35 billion per year needed to provide clean energy in Africa appeared first on Climate Home News.

Parched ground in the Chalbi Desert (Source: ©FAO/Giulio Napolitano)

By John Parnell

Climate change will threaten a number of crops including coffee, chocolate and rice, according to a number of agricultural research institutes.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that 925 million people are under nourished. Increased pressures on food supply and prices are only likely to exacerbate the situation.

Failures in food supply can often occur as a result of short-term drought but now longer term changes in climate are putting pressure on a range of crops. Recent work by a number of organisations, particularly the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) highlights several of these emerging and catastrophes. As well as creating issues of food security, several tropical regions whose economies rely on their cash crops look set for a challenging time.

Coffee

Ok, so it’s not as much a staple of anyone’s diet as it is an early morning crutch, but the effects of drought on coffee stocks are being felt heavily in Ethiopia. Coffee exports represent a significant portion of the country’s GDP at 1.1% creating implications not just for the farmers, but on a national scale.

Drought is not the only challenge. Rising temperatures in South America are also driving the optimum growing areas for coffee into higher altitudes, according to research. This significantly reduces the land available for coffee cultivation.

Chocolate

As if threats to coffee were not bad enough, cocoa is also under threat.

Half the world’s cocoa is from West African markets with Ghana and the Ivory Coast racking up in excess of $1.6bn in 2005.

Suitable areas will again increase in altitude and the potential output will decrease.

As well as driving prices up in the main chocolate markets, it will also deprive farmers of a key cash crop, a term that can be applied literally.

“Many of these farmers use their cocoa trees like ATM machines,” says Dr. Peter Laderach, lead author of a report by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). “They pick some pods and sell them to quickly raise cash for school fees or medical expenses. The trees play an absolutely critical role in rural life.”

Bananas

In Africa and Latin America changes in climate are raising the vulnerability of bananas and plantains to disease as well as reducing the typical yield. The banana is now the most popular fruit in the UK but in many parts of the world it is the staple of the diet. According to the CGIAR, one variety of banana, the East African Highland banana supports 80 million. The CGIAR’s Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) has developed a map highlighting the severity of the crisis.

Rice

Rice is regarded as the single most important crop for ensuring food security. It is estimated that 3 billion people eat rice every single day.

Rice production in South East Asia and Africa is predicted to increase and decrease by no more than 10% regionally, according to a report by the UK’s Department for International Development. However, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paints a more complex picture. The report looked at 227 rice farms in six different Asian countries. Warmer daytime temperatures increase yield while hotter night time temperatures have a negative effect. The study concludes that as temperatures continue to rise, increasing daytime maximum temperatures will also start to have a negative effect resulting in a decrease in yield in a part of the world that produces 90% of the world’s rice.

Potatoes

The humble potato supports millions but rising temperatures in marginally suitable areas for its cultivation are putting stress on the crop. After a certain threshold heat impairs growth. The potential for the development of blight is also increased. Northern India and other territories around the Himalayas are at the most risk. Some areas currently too cold to grow potatoes in a sustainable way at present will benefit, but as the stress map shows, the net result is overwhelmingly negative.

What next?

A network of agricultural monitoring has been proposed to keep tabs on soil properties, agricultural practices and even economic factors of the surrounding area. Similar pilot schemes are already underway but the journal Nature has reported that talks ongoing to develop an international version. Multiple philanthropic organisations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, have committed funding and there is hope that global food conglomerates, which could use the data commercially, will also contribute.

The post Off the menu: The climate change food crises appeared first on Climate Home News.