* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
The current sequence of events is problematic, but can we still make 2015 a landmark year for development?
Whether by design or by accident, the Addis Ababa conference on financing for development should not be taking place this week. Instead – in an ideal world – we would see the Paris talks on climate change happening first, then the New York summit on SDGs, and then the Addis conference on financing. In reality, the sequence is reversed.
Why? Because getting the sequencing of events right and ensuring that all three meetings are aligned correctly with one another will make sustainable development that much more likely to be achieved in our lifetime.
Let us be clear. It is impossible for sustainable development to take place without tackling climate change. The sustainable development goals (SDGs) – all of its 17 goals and 169 targets – will ultimately fail if the global community does not adequately address the realities of a rapidly warming world.
Chaotic cyclones are already hitting countries like the Marshall Islands hard, and unseasonably, during this time of the year. Extreme rainfall events are becoming more frequent in parts of Southeast Asia, while, at the same time, megacities like Bangkok are facing freshwater shortages as Thailand confronts worsening drought and seawater creep. And in British Columbia, Canada, intense wildfires are burning across the province as a result of hotter, drier summers.
Climate change is here and in everyone’s backyard. So what are we going to do about it, while considering the massive unmet development needs of poorer countries that will require trillions of dollars in new investments?
We must recognise that climate change and sustainable development are inextricably linked. By the same token, acknowledge that financing for climate change and development both need to be discussed at the same table. This, however, can be a little tricky.
With the current sequencing of events, rich and poor countries are in fact avoiding, or postponing, the north-south dilemma of “common but differentiated responsibilities” until the very end, asserting quite oddly that excluding discussions on climate finance at Addis Ababa necessarily means giving the issue greater attention in Paris, which could undermine any effective agreement.
Yes, climate finance can be “new and additional” to official development aid (ODA) – and not included in the package to be delivered at Addis Ababa, if at all. And no, that doesn’t mean climate finance should be put aside until later, given that it will be one of the main, and most contentious, agenda items in December’s climate negotiations in Paris.
Such a perverse arrangement doesn’t quite make sense. Climate change must be integrated into, and not isolated from, the SDGs. But for that to happen, the global community must bite the bullet and engage in tough talks on climate change starting this July.
In an ideal world, the Paris outcomes – containing very clear and ambitious targets, timelines and actions – could be readily reflected in the SDGs. And once the SDGs have been agreed upon, along with the means of implementation, financing for development discussions – especially on the ways and means to implement the new goals – can then logically transpire.
Instead what we see now is a set of proposed climate change goal and targets under the SDGs that is far too weak, both on substance and ambition. Integrating climate change into the SDGs really means establishing binding targets and urgent timelines to meet the costs of mitigation and adaptation to climate change – and not just paying lip service.
With the current, somewhat ill-fated, sequencing of events, is it already too late to make 2015 a landmark year for development and for climate change?
We can still try. The negotiations are now hardly linked; they must be better connected and there must be policy coherence among the three meetings. July’s Addis conference must be aligned with the SDGs’ means of implementation debate in September’s New York summit. Similarly, the outcomes from the Addis conference must contribute meaningfully to December’s Paris climate financing requirements. Is the notion of "one UN" strong enough to make sure that this happens?
Stronger connection and coherence is paramount for success. And that success hinges on the ability to make good on the promises of devoting 0.7% of GDP to aid and mobilising US$100 billion annually by 2020 for climate change.
While the Addis outcomes will likely look beyond those promises and towards more innovative financing mechanisms, such as raising domestic resources, promoting freer, more equitable trade, and encouraging tax reforms, formally linking the outcomes of the three key meetings will not only help get more money to the most vulnerable populations, but also help governments make the right policy connections, despite the unfortunate sequencing of events.
Dr. Peter King is senior policy advisor and Augustine Kwan is programme manager at the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. They implement parts of the USAID Adapt Asia-Pacific climate financing project.
