Report on Climate Change and Development - Summary
The Swedish Government decided to launch the international Commission on Climate Change and Development (CCCD) for several reasons.
For many years discussions and negotiations have focused on GHG emissions and how to reduce them; giving attention to the need for adaptation was seen as sending a signal that we have failed and are giving up.
However, climate change impacts are already here and happening faster than predicted. Arctic ice and tropical glaciers are melting, weather-related disasters are increasing, oceans are becoming more acidic, ecosystems are changing - we have no other option than to adapt.
Furthermore, the most vulnerable countries and communities are and will be those that are most seriously affected; the progress they have already made is under threat. Without adaptation we will not be able to achieve the MDGs.
A holistic approach
People live one life, not different lives in different sectors. Life is indivisible and affected simultaneously by multiple stressors. The many crises that we now experience are not isolated from each other. The financial crisis very quickly hit the poorest. Markets closed, migrants lost their jobs, remittances stopped. When the food crisis broke out we saw the small margins of the poor. Many small farmers are actually net buyers of food. The poorest are immediately affected when fuel prices go up. They also depend more on ecosystem services. When ecosystems degrade it is the poorest who suffer.
Ultimately, these crises are the result of a model for economic growth that does not value the natural resources and ecosystem services on which we all depend.
The different crises can therefore only be solved with a holistic perspective and by concerted action. This requires that we internalise the value of ecosystem services and the costs of their degradation. We must use the economic downturn to design green stimulus packages where promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency are at the centre.
We should also focus on measures that build the resilience of the poor. Resilience is a general feature; if you have the strength to deal with one crisis you can deal with all.
Given the fundamental uncertainty of our times, we must make managing risk the centre of our planning and development efforts.
Against this background, the CCCD decided to take a very specific approach. We wanted to turn the perspective "upside down" - from global climate scenarios, models and predictions to the situation of people in the most vulnerable countries. This is not to say that science is not important - it is to say that we have not heard the voice of the poor sufficiently in the climate debate and in negotiations.
The Commission therefore met in three vulnerable countries that differ in physical environment, in exposure to climate risks and in political and governance characteristics. Cambodia - in the Mekong delta; Mali - a semi-arid country; Bolivia - a high altitude country with a complex geography.
In this way, through meetings with governments and villagers, we wanted to make sure that our analysis would be informed by the current concerns of those affected, for whom the climate crisis may not be at the top of the agenda, to make sure that our proposals would work for them.
What is adaption?
The Commission concludes that climate adaptation is highly context-specific. Each country, community and household will shape their adaptation strategies according to their specific needs.
For the most vulnerable communities the priority is to build people's adaptive capacity and resilience, their ability to manage risks and shocks we will come back to what that means. When resilience is already high, the emphasis will be on specific technical measures that might not have been necessary without climate change (a list of examples will be provided). In practice, each country will require a mix of measures - the challenge will be to get the balance right. There is a risk that the needs of infrastructure will be given higher priority than the needs of the poor.
This means - again - that we need a new kind of development path. It is not enough to engage in "climate proofing", adjusting what we normally do - we must plan and prepare for a different future, one that is much more uncertain than what we are used to. Our ability to manage risks and enhance the resilience of both people and ecosystems will determine our progress.
All these measures require growth and a development process. That, ultimately, is why adaptation and development are inseparable.
Adaptive capacity
Assets protect us in crisis. They may come from material wealth, indirectly through insurance, or, for those without means, through a range of targeted social protection measures. The Commission has given special emphasis to the role that migration plays as an asset-building and adaptive strategy.
The most important asset of the poor person is the ability to work. If you are sick then your livelihood and the well-being of your family are threatened.
More climate information is needed - but if you cannot read or write and have no access to information, then it is useless.
Institutions are key - formal and informal. They mediate resources and services, through them needs are expressed and accountability exercised.
None of the above will materialise if the poor do not have a voice and influence, if they cannot exchange assets and services on markets that work for them. Accountable government from the local to the national level will be more important than ever in the era of climate change.
Institutions matter
In our sometimes very technical approach to climate change we tend to forget the critical role of institutions. They are now faced with new tasks - do we need new institutions? The Commission finds that we must use what we have - making sure that institutions work better and towards the same goals. This requires leadership.
With our focus on vulnerable households and communities we must make sure that all services, technical support and research are aimed at increasing local resilience. This means that functional interfaces and communication between levels of institutions become crucial.
There are countries, often in conflict, where formal institutions are weak or not found at all. They present us all with a special responsibility, a responsibility to protect.
We already note an increase in weather-related disasters. There is a worrying trend towards smaller scale emergencies, just under the radar. We must boost investments in disaster risk reduction and include the recovery phase to build safer communities.
Cut across sectors
We cannot continue to work in silos, with gaps between institutions that often prevent coordinated and coherent action. Climate change affects all sectors - we must consequently work across all of them.
In particular - climate change action, development planning and disaster risk reduction must come together. This requires that they are led from the highest political and organisational level.
To allow national governments to work in this coherent way, we as the international community must do our part. We have to coordinate and work together - as donors, UN institutions and civil society. This will make the life of governments a little easier in very trying times. It will also encourage a multi-sector and multi-disciplinary approach, which can only bring benefits for those on the frontline of climate change.
Financial support
There are a range of estimates on the costs of adaptation, showing that it is difficult both to calculate and define for different contexts. Most focus on infrastructure needs. But costs will be high and higher the longer we wait.
When discussing finances, it is helpful to distinguish between how we mobilise, manage and allocate resources. The Commission has addressed all aspects, but also found that it will take time for all these to be resolved. We therefore advocate a step-by-step approach, as described below.
We note that there are a number of promising proposals for mobilising funds, but we have not considered it our role to advocate one rather than the other.
Our primary concern, however, has been that whatever resources are mobilised, all countries have a joint responsibility to make sure that they really reach the communities in greatest need, which requires effective and accountable management.
A two-step approach
We have seen how communities already have increasing costs and investment needs. Some governments present comprehensive and integrated adaptation plans. They need immediate support and have no time to wait for the implementation of a new climate deal.
We propose the mobilisation of new and additional funds now, and not at the expense of ongoing development programmes. By additional, we mean additional to the commitment of paying 0.7 per cent of GDP in ODA. The concept of additionality applies to the raising of funds but does not prescribe how the extra funds must be spent.
Priority should be given to the most vulnerable countries - in Africa and small island states. We must support their NAPAs as entry points to long-term integrated plans and strategies. This is essentially what Sweden has done through its USD 500 million climate initiative for 200911. Sweden calls on others to do the same.
Because the creation of new mechanisms might delay essential action, the Commission recommends a two-step approach to mobilising new and additional funds for adaptation in developing countries.
As a first step, we urge donor countries to mobilise USD 1-2 billion to assist vulnerable, low-income countries that are already suffering from climate impacts.
As a second step, countries must agree on a mechanism with democratic and efficient governance, and the necessary flexibility to cater for the variety of needs. At the national level, countries must be able to receive and allocate funds from multiple sources with a minimum of transaction costs. Furthermore, local government and organisations must have access to the resources they need.
While more work is required to better estimate these needs, there are promising options proposed to raise funds. Some could bring in between USD 5 and USD 15 billion extra per year - which is in the lower range of estimated needs.
Conclusions
The ultimate measure of the usefulness of our proposals is whether they make sense for the most vulnerable communities - will their resilience and adaptive capacity be such that they can cope with the crises to come? With climate change, the costs of food, the economic downturn?
We must revive the development objectives of the environmental conventions - we must safeguard peoples right to development through healthy ecosystems, protection of the poorest and a pathway that leapfrogs over fossil fuels directly to renewable energy.
It is around these objectives that we should be able to find our common ground and bridge the gaps between us - our responsibility towards the most vulnerable among us, hearing their voice, safeguarding their rights and their security.
