Our Evangelical Voice in Copenhagen IMPORTANT UPDATE
December 17, 2009
Sent 3:00 pm EST Thursday December 17, 2009 from Copenhagen
Important Update from Copenhagen:
It’s Thursday afternoon and Secretary Clinton just announced what many are describing as a major breakthrough that could break the deadlock in the talks. The “blockbuster” announcement, as it has already been described by some in the environmental community, has to do with our key concerns: appropriate funding to help the poor adapt to climate impacts and achieve climate-friendly, sustainable economic progress.
Only hours earlier it was being reported that China was saying that an agreement on major elements of a comprehensive deal wouldn’t be possible. (My interpretation: China isn’t comfortable with where the so-called “MRV” discussions with the US are going and wanted to have everyone join in a weak statement in order to have the blame shared, rather than have most of it fall on them.)
With this announcement from Secretary Clinton, the US is clearly putting pressure on China to come to an agreement on the MRV issues, namely that efforts on emissions must be measurable, reported on, and be verifiable. The US wants such verification to be transparent to the international community, but China is very sensitive to the idea of outside observers verifying their efforts.
Such verification is absolutely essential. There is no way we can ever pass comprehensive climate legislation in the US unless this issue is adequately dealt with.
So to provide a much needed boost to the stalled talks Secretary Clinton announced (see relevant excerpts below) that “the United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries.”
Sounds good. But …
1. There’s a big condition: this $100 billion a year offer is only good if a deal can be struck in Copenhagen on verification. As Secretary Clinton said, it must be “in the context of a strong accord in which all major economies stand behind meaningful mitigation actions and provide full transparency as to their implementation …” So if China (and other major emerging economies) don’t agree to a deal on verification, this $100 billion a year aid package for poorest countries won’t be forthcoming. (Politically, this is an attempt to split the developing countries, which normally operate as a block called the G77.)
2. It is very unclear where this funding will come from, both in terms of how much the US is prepared to contribute and how much will be from public sources and how much from private.
3. It is also very unclear how much will go towards the three areas needing funding: (1) adaptation; (2) forestry; (3) and mitigation/tech transfer.
4. Though $100 billion is a substantial sum, the American people must be assured that we are making a wise investment. This is especially true with something as controversial as climate change, we must hear from our relief and development agencies and others on exactly what is needed. A strong commitment is important but must be wisely spent with oversight and accountability.
EEN has been jointly focused on securing adequate funding for adaptation that meets the Bali Action Plan criteria of being “adequate, predictable and sustainable” and “new and additional.” We have worked with other religious communities in the US through the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE) on such adaptation funding within comprehensive climate change legislation.
Let me make three points on EEN’s position:
1. Adaptation funding needs to be separate from the other funding. While on the ground there can be helpful overlap between adaptation and mitigation (which includes both forestry and clean development/tech transfer), there are many, many needs that are primarily if not exclusively adaptation needs. This includes such things as drought resistant crops, or dealing with health impacts, or creating robust disaster preparedness programs that can deal with the climate-intensified natural disasters, or helping with climate refugees.
2. The adaptation funding of this package should be public funding, and the US should contribute 25% of the public adaptation funding in keeping with our history of generosity in the areas of AIDS funding and past help with major international disasters. We shouldn’t be less generous with adaptation than we have been with these other international humanitarian concerns.
3. A major portion of the $100 billion a year should go towards public financing of a balance of both bi-lateral and multi-lateral adaptation funding. (As a reminder of the need: a recent World Bank study puts adaptation needs at $75-100 billion a year.) The bi-lateral funding from the US should be handled by USAID and be available as grants to non-profit relief and development organizations such as World Vision, Food for the Hungry, etc. These organizations have long-term relationships with poor communities in poor countries, and will ensure both accountability of the funds spent as well as that local communities are strong participants in the development and implementation of adaptation projects. Further, such bi-lateral funding will help with a key sticking point in the talks — whether such funding should go to most vulnerable developing nations or most vulnerable developing communities/individuals. The multi-lateral funding should go to the former, but the bi-lateral funding should be allowed to go to most vulnerable developing communities/individuals who may live in developing countries other than the least developed countries.
I am encouraged by this major announcement by Secretary Clinton on aid to developing countries. It’s great that it may help to un-stall the talks here. But, to play off of the old saying that the devil is in the details, righteousness is also in the details. We need to know more of the details before we can fully celebrate this $100 billion-a-year offer.
Excerpts From Secretary Clinton’s Remarks:
There is a way forward based on a number of core elements: decisive national actions, an operational accord that internationalizes those actions, assistance for nations that are the most vulnerable and least prepared to meet the effects of climate change, and standards of transparency that provide credibility to the entire process. The world community should accept no less.
And the United States is ready to embrace this path.
First, we have announced our intention to cut our emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final climate and energy legislation. In light of the President’s goals, the expected pathway in pending legislation would extend those cuts to 30 percent by 2025, 42 percent by 2030, and more than 80 percent by 2050.
Second, we also recognize that an agreement must provide generous financial and technological support for developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, to help them reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. That’s why we joined an effort to mobilize fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012 to support the adaptation and mitigation efforts of countries in need.
And today I’d like to announce that, in the context of a strong accord in which all major economies stand behind meaningful mitigation actions and provide full transparency as to their implementation, the United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries. We expect this funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. This will include a significant focus on forestry and adaptation, particularly, again I repeat, for the poorest and most vulnerable among us.
So there should be no doubt about the commitment of the United States to reaching a successful agreement here in Copenhagen and meeting this great global challenge together.
This next part of the statement made clear that the US is wanting to pressure China to agree to transparency and verification of measurable efforts on emissions — and if they don’t, then the poorest countries will lose out of the financing being offered here in Copenhagen by the developed countries:
I am deeply concerned about the consequences for developing countries – from Bangladesh to the Maldives, from the Caribbean to West Africa and the Pacific Islands – if we cannot secure the kind of strong operational accord I’ve described today. We know what the consequences will be for the farmer in Bangladesh or the herder in Africa or the family being battered by hurricanes in Central America. Without that accord, there won’t be the kind of joint global action from all of the major economies we all want to see, and the effects in the developing world could be catastrophic. We know what will happen. Rising seas, lost farmland, drought and so much else. Without the accord, the opportunity to mobilize significant resources to assist developing countries with mitigation and adaptation will be lost.
Rev. Jim Ball
Writing from Copenhagen
Comments
2 Responses to “Our Evangelical Voice in Copenhagen IMPORTANT UPDATE”
Got something to say?
http://bit.ly/4uzf05
Faith Voices from Copenhagen…
Today is the final day of the UN Climate Change Conference, and there are many lessons to be learned from the event – the difficulty of international negotiations, the complexity of the climate challenge, and the deep engagement of young……