U.S. President George W. Bush (R) meets with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the G8 summit in Toyako, July 9, 2008. India told the major economies at the meeting that they had not done enough on climate change. REUTERS/Jim Young
Sven Harmeling is senior advisor on climate and development with the German development and environment organisation Germanwatch.The G8 has shown again that key countries - Japan, Canada and the United States - are not ready to take on the leadership that is urgently needed in mitigating climate change. They are lagging behind what climate science tells us must be done. Besides mitigation, G8 countries also need to play their part in supporting developing countries - in particular those hardest hit by climate change - to cope with the adverse consequences.
Costs for adapting to climate change are estimated to run into tens of billions of dollars in developing countries. The G8 countries, which have been responsible for a substantial part of historical greenhouse gas emissions, should cover a large share of these costs. If you cause damage to others, you compensate them. It&${esc.hash}39;s a logic everyone understands, and the same principle should hold for climate change.
But so far, G8 countries have contributed very limited funding to help developing countries deal with the emerging and future consequences of climate change, such as more frequent and extreme weather disasters and rising sea levels. The amounts on offer fall far short of even the most urgent adaptation needs.
The ${esc.dollar}160 million that has been pledged to two funds for adaptation under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is peanuts. What&${esc.hash}39;s more, only half of that has actually reached the funds.
The most urgent actions countries need to take to adapt to global warming are identified in plans called National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs), which are supported by the UNFCCC. Money available to implement them falls short of the estimated ${esc.dollar}1-2 billion needed for all 49 Least Developed Countries.
As with the mitigation discussion, there are good guys and bad guys among the G8. Japan and the United States have contributed virtually nothing to the U.N. funds, while Germany and Britain account for more than two thirds of the pledges.
There are some additional activities that fall under development aid. However, with major donors unlikely to fulfil their commitment to double aid to Africa, the continent&${esc.hash}39;s vulnerability to stresses like climate change could actually increase.
LACK OF AMBITIONWhat can we learn about adaptation from the G8 statement agreed on Tuesday? Mainly that there is a very low level of ambition. G8 countries committed "to support urgent actions to mainstream adaptation into broader development strategies and encourage developing countries themselves to integrate adaptation into their development policies".
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), of which all G8 countries except Russia are members, already adopted a declaration on mainstreaming adaptation into development in 2006. At last year&${esc.hash}39;s G8 summit, leaders declared their willingness to continue cooperating with developing countries on adaptation, to help identify the costs and benefits.
New funds set up under the World Bank for this purpose may have a positive outcome, but have lost a lot of their credibility before they have even got off the ground. Consultation with developing countries and coordination with the U.N. process were almost non-existent until civil society and some donors complained. And given rich countries&${esc.hash}39; performance on their other commitments, one has to question whether pledges will be fully met.
No one doubts the need to integrate climate change adaptation into development strategies, allowing for nationwide planning. But some donor countries are imposing it as a condition for adaptation funding. The problem is that national action plans were never designed for this purpose.
At the latest round of U.N. climate negotiations in Bonn in early June, some developing countries said drawing up the plans had been a helpful first step, but it was not clear how they would pay to put them into practice. Some fear they&${esc.hash}39;ll end up having to bear the cost of making their development policies take account of climate change, even though they&${esc.hash}39;ve contributed very little to the problem.
The G8 statement does not address the need for urgent action on priority projects. But immediate measures to deal with the threat of climate change should go hand in hand with longer-term planning processes.
Who would expect Dutch people living in coastal communities to wait to build dykes until all climate risks were mainstreamed into government policies? Even rich countries can&${esc.hash}39;t yet say they&${esc.hash}39;ve integrated climate change adaptation into their development work, although efforts are increasing.
The inadequate amount of money available for climate change adaptation suggests the need for a new funding architecture that can overcome the failure of voluntary commitments and deliver resources in addition to development aid.
This will be a key debate in U.N. climate negotiations, which only began gaining substance a couple of weeks ago in Bonn. Disappointingly, this year&${esc.hash}39;s G8 summit has contributed nothing. A very different kind of leadership is required to meet the challenge.
This article is based on a discussion paper on the G8&${esc.hash}39;s role in adaptation to climate change in developing countries.Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
