Adapting to a warmer climate could cost almost three times as much as thought, says UN report
Rich countries need to give more to plug huge funding gap and help developing nations adapt to drought, flooding and heatwaves caused by climate change, says UN report
Residents look over the banks of the Padma River as they erode, in Dhaka, Bangladesh. A UN report says cost of helping countries adapt to the effects of climate change will be hundreds of billions of dollars. Photograph: Reazsumon/Corbis
Adapting to a warmer world will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and up to three times as much as previous estimates, even if global climate talks manage to keep temperature rises below dangerous levels, warns a report by the UN.
The first United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) ‘Adaptation Gap Report’shows a significant funding gap after 2020 unless more funds from rich countries are pumped in to helping developing nations adapt to the droughts, flooding and heatwaves expected to accompany climate change.
“The report provides a powerful reminder that the potential cost of inaction carries a real price tag. Debating the economics of our response to climate change must become more honest,” said Achim Steiner, Unep’s executive director, as ministers from nearly 200 countries prepare to join the high level segment of UN climate talks in Lima, Peru, next week.
“We owe it to ourselves but also to the next generation, as it is they who will have to foot the bill.”
Without further action on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the report warns, the cost of adaptation will soar even further as wider and more expensive action is needed to protect communities from the extreme weather brought about by climate change.
“We’re keen to see the implementation of the Green Climate Fund - we’re still waiting,” Netatua Pelesikoti, director of the climate change office at the Secretariat of the Pacific Environment Programme, referring to a fund set up to hope poorer countries cope with global warming.
Advertisement
“The trickle down to each government in the Pacific is very slow but we can’t abandon the process at this stage,” said the Tongan delegate.
Rich countries have pledged $9.7bn to the Green Climate Fund but the figure is well short of the minimum target of $100bn each year by 2020.
The Adaptation Gap Report said adaptation costs could climb to $150bn by 2025/2030 and $250-500bn per year by 2050, even based on the assumption that emissions are cut to keep temperature rises below rises of 2C above pre-industrial levels, as governments have previously agreed.
However, if emissions continue rising at their current rate – which would lead to temperature rises well above 2C – adaptation costs could hit double the worst-case figures, the report warned.
“This startling report opens up a window on to a nightmarish future, where the global economy is crippled and the most vulnerable countries are even further disadvantaged,” said Sandeep Chamling Rai, WWF’s senior global adaptation policy advisor. “This is not a gap, it’s an abyss. We can avoid falling into it, but we’re running out of time.”
“The report leaves no doubt, adaptation must be at the heart of a long-term agreement developed here in Lima. Communities around the world are drastically unprepared for the costly impacts of climate change, which is already destroying lives and livelihoods every day,” said Jan Kowalzig, policy advisor for Oxfam, urging negotiators to scale up funding to meet the $100bn annual commitment.
David Waskow, director of the International Climate Initiative at the World Resources Institute, said the $9.7bn raised by the Green Climate Fund was a “key threshold” but added that developed nations’ funding should extend beyond the fund, engaging “large international companies and even small and medium-sized companies.”
“On adaptation there hasn’t been enough funding and most estimates show that less than 20% of climate finance has gone to help countries adapt to climate change,” he added.
Su Wei, the head of China’s climate delegation, said the Green Climate Fund pledges were far from adequate and told Reuters that he was critical of Australia’s refusal to contribute to the fund, saying contributing should be a “legal obligation for all developed country parties”.
Kenyan farmers must adapt to altered conditions brought on by climate change. Photo credit: P. Casier, CGIAR
Parties to the UNFCCC established the Adaptation Fund in 20081 to help developing countries adapt to the impacts of climate change. The Fund has gradually evolved since then, and it’s about to embark on its newest development: a safeguard policy to ensure that its investments do not have unintended negative consequences for people or the environment.
The move represents potential progress in the effort to promote climate justice and adaptation. The Adaptation Fund holds a small but important share of global climate finance, distributingmore than US$ 180 million to adaptation activities spanning 28 countries. An Environmental and Social Policy—which the Board recently released a draft of—can help ensure that that these funds do not support projects that generate unintended environmental or social impacts. For example, the policy could ensure that a dam aimed at limiting flooding in one area doesn’t cause flooding in another, or that protection of a forest does not negatively impact the impoverished communities who rely on it.
But this Policy can only succeed if it’s drafted and implemented effectively. To that end, the Adaptation Fund’s leaders should consider two strategies to improve its draft plan: clarifying its investment requirements and defining how the various climate finance donors and recipients can work together to implement the newEnvironmental and Social Policy.
Clarifying Requirements
One of the main questions that the Adaptation Fund must grapple with in creating this new policy is how to design it in a way that supports effective implementation. One important step will be to decide on the degree of detail to include. The policy could simply state, for example, that anyone who is negatively affected by the project should be treated fairly, or it could provide details on what type of treatment the Adaptation Fund considers fair.
The Adaptation Fund’s draft policy currently errs on the side of flexibility. While it admirably covers many of the key areas of global concern – like the investment’s potential impact on climate change, human rights, and natural habitats – it fails to provide many details. For example, the draft states that projects should “avoid significant reductions” in public health or biodiversity, but does not explain what a significant reduction would look like. For example, would a 2 percent reduction in biodiversity be considered significant? What about 12 percent? Would the size of the area, or the types of species involved matter?
The Adaptation Fund will benefit from at least providing thorough guidance documents to accompany the policy in order to help people understand what specific requirements apply to its recipient projects.
Defining Roles and Responsibilities
Second, the Adaptation Fund can support effective implementation by further clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the actors involved in both delivering and benefiting from adaptation finance. This includes the Adaptation Fund Board and Secretariat, national governments, affected stakeholders, and the so-called “implementing entities” responsible for overseeing project implementation. The current draft policy makes clear that the Adaptation Fund Board is responsible for reviewing the systems of the implementing entities to ensure that they adequately protect people and the environment. The implementing agency, in turn, is responsible for assessing risks associated with the project, making plans to reduce those risks, and monitoring implementation of those plans. The draft policy is also clear in calling for public disclosure and consultations with affected communities.
Yet some ambiguity still remains regarding what influence the Environmental and Social Policy will have over those involved. For example, under the Adaptation Fund’s current rules, implementing entities must be accredited before they can receive money from the Fund. The draft policy indicates that in the future, the accreditation process may need to reflect “the capacity and commitment to address environmental and social risks.” Further clarity on what effect the Environmental and Social Policy will have on the accreditation process will help implementing entities understand requirements and assist the Board in making decisions. Questions on the role of the policy also arise in the draft‘s section on grievance mechanisms. The draft policy allows people to contact the Adaptation Fund Secretariat with complaints. No details are provided, however, on when such complaints can be submitted to the Fund, who can submit them, and how the Secretariat should respond. Additional clarity on how policy violations will be identified and dealt with will help ensure that the policy is effective.
By creating the new Environmental and Social Policy, the Adaptation Fund is recognizing that even funding aimed at protecting the environment and vulnerable people can have negative consequences. This is a critical step forward in ensuring that climate adaptation activities not only receive the funding they need, but that these projects are carried out in ways that are fair, equitable, and effective.
Parties originally agreed to establish the Fund at COP7 in 2001, but didn’t provide it legal status until 2008. The Board approved the first projects in 2010. ↩
