Why climate finance negotiations do not move forward

During my week in Copenhagen I was asked to contribute to Opinio Juris, a forum of reputed international law and international relations scholars. I argue that negotiations are stuck because we are unable to break out of the moulds that have defined our positions for nearly two decades. The massive trust deficit that plagues the negotiations can only be broken if we take a more honest approach towards debunking seemingly dichotomous and exclusive positions: a choice of public over private finance; a trap of us versus them stemming out of a fear of competition; and a stalemate over what comes first, commitments or conditionality. Continue reading the article, Red herrings in debates over climate finance, here.

Lotteries and poker games in climate finance

Lotteries are games of pure chance. Poker is a game of part chance, part strategy. Climate negotiations hinge on, among other things, creating a pool of finance to share the burden of mitigating and adapting to climate change. The game is not one of a winner taking all by sheer luck, but of who contributes how much to the common pot. No country is willing to act first; doing so would be to fold. Countries are taking a chance on the level of aggregate effort needed to avoid dangerous climate change, but their strategy is to avoid revealing preferences.

The absence of internationally enforceable mitigation commitments means that the burden on climate finance will increase. Unilateral promises will depend on whether sufficient financing is available to achieve the scale of actions needed. So, who will pay, how much, and through which mechanisms? I explore some of the games being played in climate finance and the implications for the Copenhagen meetings in my latest op-ed in the Financial Express, Even climate is about money.

Climate finance - it's still the one

Climate finance is one of the four issues on which a future climate regime will rest (the others being mitigation, adaptation, and technology development and transfer). It will also prove to be the main stumbling block during the Copenhagen meeting on climate change this December.

This weekend came the news that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Trinidad had agreed to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown's and French President Nicolas Sarkozy's proposal to establish a $10 billion fund to help developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to a changing climate. The fund, expected to kick in by 2010, is an important step - one more push towards securing at least a political outcome in Copenhagen.

But several issues remain unresolved. The most important is the 'additionality' of funding. This is jargon for the demand from developing countries that funding made available for climate change should be over and above existing allocations for official development assistance. In other words, they do not want climate change finance to simply substitute money intended for education, health and other development aspirations. Today, The Guardian reports that it has evidence that the European Union is trying to delete references to additional funding from the Copenhagen text. The United Kingdom supports additional funding, but even its climate-related aid allocations have come from existing aid budgets, not as extra money. As a clarification, a Department for International Development spokesman said, 'Additional funding for climate change would be made available from 2013...'

At one level, the question of additionality is problematic because it is difficult to distinguish between assistance for general development programmes, say improving water management systems, and activities geared towards climate adaptation.

But the bigger problem is that the funds required are several multiples of what is currently spent (only $1 billion a year on adaptation). On mitigation, too, scholars suggest that at least $50 billion might be needed annually in the form of public financing support (see my paper with Kevin Watkins; Lord Nicholas Stern repeats the point in an op-ed today). But current levels of public financing are much lower (since 1991, the Global Environment Facility has cumulatively provided only $2.5 billion for climate financing and leveraged another $15 billion).

A further problem - and related problem - is the long history of unmet commitments on development assistance, which has resulted in an atmosphere of sheer mistrust and bad faith between rich and poor countries. Moreover, the richest country (the United States) has yet to table any offer regarding climate financing. President Obama admitted at the G8 summit in July this year that the United States had 'sometimes failed to meet its responsibilities so let me make it clear those days are over.' It doesn't look like those days are over yet.

So, why will climate finance prove to be the stumbling block? Because all other actions will be contingent on the available funding. Over the last few weeks, we have seen one country after another offering unilateral commitments to reduce emissions (Brazil; Russia; South Korea; United States) or carbon intensity (China; even India is considering an announcement). Fast growing developing countries are adopting measures that they believe to be in their interest anyway. But any additional actions will depend on additional funding. As one developing country delegate in climate negotiations earlier this year complained, asking poor countries to take on climate-related actions without promised financing was like selling lottery tickets without announcing the prize! Such tickets would not find many buyers, he noted.

Powering a change - cleaner coal technologies for India

Is it possible for India to make a significant contribution towards mitigating climate change without undermining its growth and poverty-reduction imperatives?

Indian policymakers view calls for reducing India’s greenhouse gas emissions as both illegitimate and a threat. They are illegitimate because rich countries are primarily responsible for the historic stock of emissions. The calls are a threat because curbing emissions could undermine growth, necessary to lift millions out of poverty.

But the fact remains that despite historically low per capita emissions, India will increasingly become a major source of emissions. Developing countries (led by China and India) will account for three quarters of the projected increase in emissions up to 2050. Unless developing countries’ emissions are also stabilized by 2020-25, any meaningful action by rich countries would be negated.

The transfer of cleaner coal technologies to India holds one of the keys to reconciling these competing concerns.

Continue reading my latest article, on the transfer of cleaner coal power technologies to India, which has been published in Indian business newspaper, Mint.

Climate cleavages

This week the G-20 leaders met in London to discuss the global financial crisis, which is set to dominate the international agenda for some time. A parallel debate has been under way here in Bonn on another financial question, which affects an even greater systemic crisis: the funding required to tackle global climate change.

Click here for my op-ed on the state of climate finance negotiations, published in The Indian Express today.

Bonn climate meetings 2 - Climate financing and four-letter words

I spent much of today attending plenary sessions and 'side-events' on financing and technology transfer. It is easy to get lost in the rhetoric that envelopes the debates. I have seen this happen so many times in trade negotiations, and am witnessing the same in climate talks. But the essential issue is this:

1. The climate change problem is real to which there could be two responses: either countries can try to mitigate the problem by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (the world needs at least a 50% cut in emissions by 2050 to restrict average temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius); or countries can adapt to an already changing climate, which means changing agricultural practices, building flood defences, preparing for sharp changes in water availability, etc. In practice, both mitigation and adaptation are necessary and sometimes the activities cannot be easily distinguished.

2. In order to do so, all countries need money and access to new technologies. Developing countries argue that since they played no part in creating this problem, they should receive funding from developed countries. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change recognises this obligation of developed countries, in principle.

The consensus ends there and the debates begin.

1. The first issue is the amount of funding required for techology research, development, deployment and diffusion (or RD3 in the jargon). Estimates vary wildly. For mitigation, the spending is anywhere between $70 billion and $165 billion a year; and additional funding of $262 billion to $670 billion is needed. Adaptation spending is about $1 billion a year when some estimates suggest $86 billion are needed. Thanks to such a wide range, one NGO representative told me that developing countries are hesitating to put any specific estimate in their proposals. Fair enough, but then how do you get a concrete commitment and, more importantly, by what standard would you measure compliance? Compliance has been one of the biggest problems with the climate regime so far, and there has been little progress so far to overcome it on the question of climate financing.

2. Where will the money come from? There is a major debate about private versus public financing. Developed countries argue that since much of the technology spending comes from private sources, that would also be the source of funding for developing countries. Developing countries are calling the bluff. They argue that private investment can flow into developing countries only when profits are expected, not when the higher capital, operational and intellectual property costs make a project commercially unviable. Hence, public funding has to cover the difference in costs. As the Indian delegate put it, "If the initial upfront capital investment and lifetime expenses [of a clean technology project] are positive, then developed countries must recompense developing ones. I'd love to see which are the commercial institutions that will invest in projects that have no return!"

3. Under what conditions will the funding be given? There is a fear that, even if commitments for funding mitigation and adaptation activities were secured, developing countries would be treated as aid recipients, subject to conditionalities imposed by rich donors. Developed countries are, of course, interested in ensuring that the money is spent in a verifiable manner. But poor countries argue that the process cannot be top-down, there has to be a sense of "ownership", as the Filipino delegate noted.

In the end, the debate boils down to the purpose of climate funding. Developing countries, like Uganda, insist that "funding climate change is a commitment, not a donation." For them it is a right, both from a legal point of view and from an ethical one. But the modalities of financial and technology transfer will not be resolved easily. The Indian delegate ended his intervention by asking for grants, not loans: "A 'grant' is a four-letter word in some dictionaries, so I will introduce a new phraseology: we want interest-free, non-repayable transfer of money." The current climate negotiations are meant to conclude in December this year. There will be many more four-letter words whispered under diplomatic breaths before then.