Jan Egeland says better climate information will strengthen aid work, defending the poor against disasters
LONDON (AlertNet) - The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) agreed earlier this month to set up a global system for climate information services, which aims to fill existing gaps in provision in the least-developed countries.
In a message to the congress that endorsed the plan, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described the Global Framework for Climate Services as vital to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change.
Former U.N. aid chief Jan Egeland, who chaired the high-level taskforce that crafted the framework, spoke to AlertNet about where and why better climate predictions are needed, and his concerns about finding the resources to fund improved climate services.
WHAT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN PROVIDING BETTER CLIMATE INFORMATION TO HELP THE WORLD’S POOREST DEAL WITH WEATHER DISASTERS AND CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS?
It’s not true that nothing is happening in the climate area. There are a number of organisations, civil society movements and academic institutions that have started to act, often in the absence of intergovernmental programmes and agreements.
The problem we’ve had is that the experts on climate variability and climate change do not really know what information the grassroots need in the short- and medium-term. And the people working with vulnerable communities do not know what science is available. The provision of climate services has started on a pilot basis. And what we want with a global approach is to make them available to everyone.
It’s neither the United States nor China that is the problem in terms of climate services – they have thousands of scientists and satellites, plus well-organised governmental institutions and civil society movements. In most developed countries, a lot of action happens to make societies more resilient and robust.
But in Haiti, for example, there haven’t been any defences at all. Time and again, communities are devastated and there’s a huge death toll. People have to get their livelihoods back after an extreme hazard hits.
THE TASK-FORCE YOU CO-CHAIRED PROPOSED SETTING UP A GLOBAL CLIMATE SERVICES SYSTEM. HOW MUCH WILL IT COST AND WHAT WILL BE THE BENEFITS?
It’s only between $50 million and $75 million per year that’s the estimated investment worldwide over a 10-year period to end up with a system of climate services in all countries. In places like Congo and Somalia – which have nothing – it will offer the ability for humanitarian organisations, local governments and agriculture, health and water managers to know the best-available predictions for a season.
Humanitarian and development work will become much more efficient and informed. Pastoralists will get advice on whether to increase or decrease their herds ahead of predicted droughts. Now that doesn’t happen. And climate change means that age-old predictions and knowledge are being destroyed.
Everyone agrees that this (global system) is highly needed and important. Given the investment of billions of dollars in satellites and computers worldwide (for observing weather and climate), this data should be made freely available to all. Now we’re saying let’s spend $50 million a year so that it becomes a benefit to humankind.
WHAT HAPPENS NOW THE WORLD METEOROLOGICAL CONGRESS HAS ENDORSED YOUR PROPOSAL?
My only worry is that something that everyone agrees on can easily lose momentum... There is a risk that they will not even find the minimum investment required. Only two countries pledged money at the recent congress - Norway and India.
(Funding) is a problem in the sense that many countries see (climate services) as an issue to be dealt with and funded by existing environmental and meteorological activities. But those same budgets are being reduced in many countries because of deficit economies. So we end up competing with many others within reduced budgets.
If we can get six-monthly and multi-year climate predictions, it will help us a lot in planning things like dams and windmills. But from where do you take that money? That’s the problem.
AS CLIMATE CHANGE WORSENS, HOW FAR IS IT GOING TO BE POSSIBLE TO PROTECT THE RISING NUMBERS OF PEOPLE VULNERABLE TO DISASTERS?
For more than two thirds, or even three quarters, of nations and their people, we are making progress. If you look at Bangladesh, China or India – countries where there are a lot of people – the situation is undisputedly better than before. The amount of people dying in floods was ten-fold a few decades ago.
But at the same time, we are losing enormous amounts of livelihoods in those countries that are not part of this progress. We (the taskforce) identified six countries that have nothing (in terms of climate services) at the moment, and another 60 or so that need to be severely upgraded – these parts of the world need to be helped.
Africa is the least well-covered continent, but there are also countries in the Americas and the Caribbean like Haiti, and smaller places in Asia; they are often conflict-ridden or fragile states.
The great injustice of our generation is that those who did nothing to cause climate change are the first and worst hit. Whereas we (in rich countries), who have done the most, are the least and last hit. So we are trying to do something about that.
Jan Egeland has also written a foreword for a publication from the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI), out this week, which looks at how to better integrate climate information into disaster risk management. AlertNet has the story.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
