Institute for Environmental Studies

1. Institute for Environmental Studies Climate change and development cooperation: Changing paradigms and challenges for equity Joyeeta Gupta

2. Alternative framings: Preview Leadership Mainstream cc in Aid Human rights Liability

3. Climate cooperation: the changing NS deal change Leadership paradigm Conditional leadership US EU N CEITS N US JSCaNZ S S Inverted U curve may be a zig-zag curve EU S US Pollution N reduces emissions and helps S N reduces emissions partly via helping S - CDM Leadership sans US S Development Leadership competition N helps S via CDM N mainstreams cc help in development cooperation

4. Lessons from climate cooperation: LAME efforts • Leadership paradigm is failing • Aid levels are in millions; aid needed is in billions; • Markets: The CDM is problematic – it offsets Northern emissions thus reducing the need to reduce emissions in North; does not transfer technologies; is frequently not additional; and the sustainable development component is elusive. • Technology: General requests to promote technology transfer don’t work; Technologies cost money!! EU investment in China fell in 2008. FDI continues to market old technologies. • Should Tuvalu go to court and seek compensation, not aid? Is token aid being given to avoid law suits?

5. 1990s: leadership on climate change Abstract Global Future issue Economic and technical issue 2000s: Mainstreaming in development Real, interfering with daily activities and needs (MDGs) Multi-level Current issue Development issue: Climate change is the defining development issue of our generation (UNDP 2007) Problem: should climate change be mainstreamed into development and development cooperation? Paradigm Shift from Leadership to Mainstreaming

6. Development has a NS character • The Right to Development: • Accepted but under-emphasized • The 0.7 percent target: • Accepted, emphasized but not achieved • The link between the right to development and the 0.7 percent target: • Contested • The MDGs and development cooperation: • New emphasis on achieving MDGs; but resources have to double if these are to be achieved.

7. Climate change has a NS character • Formal divisions in Convention that both recognizes differences and fosters differences • Structural differences: • In emission levels between average Northern and average Southern country especially in the past – and this is the most serious determining factor for climate impacts until 2050. • If emission levels are to be kept within safe levels – the world budget for the 21st century is over by 2032. • Impacts more severe in the South – both location wise; and because vulnerability is the greatest. • Was seen initially as a sectoral issue, only now as a development issue; initially only mitigation, now adaptation.

8. CC and development have together an intensive NS character • The right to development not recognized; just a need to develop. (now discussions on human rights and cc.) • The resources promised remain elusive • Third, the market mechanism offsets Northern emissions.

9. Mainstreaming: Driving Converging Forces Aid agencies EU Devp. Banks DCs Mainstreaming CC In devp. coop Acade mics OECD UNDAF NGOs

10. Arguments in favour of mainstreaming in aid • Substantive arguments • Financial arguments: (a) not enough money for MDGs; (b) not enough money for CC; hence link. • Practical argument: (a) institutional synergy; (b) domestic support in donor countries.

11. Arguments against • Politically sensitive: 0.7% GNI promised since 1970s • Falls short of what is needed to compensate • Falls short of what is needed to reduce emissions • Beneficiaries are different • May become a conditionality and experience shows conditionalities fail

12. Resources needed

13. Diverging beneficiaries of assistance Rich Poor Development cooperation Climate Mitigation Climate Adaptation

14. Organizational framework • Global level – no organizing framework for FDI, aid, Bank investments, trade rules • UN level – not organized; UNDG exists but its messy; donor countries few, recipient countries many • OECD level – very structured; does not include recipients in decision making; does not include other donors (China, Middle East, etc.); no self-assessments. • EU level • EU MS level

15. Adaptation and mitigation Mitigation Adaptation

16. The Relationship Between the Funds: Mitigation Export credits • May increase emissions May increase emissions FCCC Special CC Fund Should decrease emissions FDI Developing Country Public & Private funds CDM Should decrease emissions ODA FCCC Art. 11 Should decrease emissions Only small % relevant to emissions

17. The Relationship Between the Funds: Adaptation FDI May aggravate adaptation efforts Adaptation Fund Developing Country Public & Private funds German Climate Change Fund LDC Fund Special CC Fund European Global Climate Change Alliance ODA Strategic Priority On Adaptation Disaster pooling Disaster preparedness • May aggravate adaptation efforts

18. The Relationship Between the Funds: Adaptation FDI Taxes and levies Adaptation Fund Developing Country Public & Private funds Off. Climate assistance LDC Fund Special CC Fund Non-Compliance Fund ODA Strategic Priority On Adaptation Bonds Insurance Disaster pooling Disaster preparedness SDR

19. Alternative framings: Conclusions Leadership Mainstream cc in Aid Human rights Liability

20. Climate Change: Adaptation and Mitigation

21. Litigation Export credit CO2 is pollutant Violation of human and environmental Rights Violation of WTO Notice to companies

22. Acknowledgements • ADAM P3B project financed by the European Commission; • Gupta and van der Grijp (eds.) Mainstreaming Climate Change in Development Cooperation, Cambridge University Press, in press. • TOCSIN project (Technology oriented cooperation and strategies in India and China, financed by European Commission).