Tackling climate change: First mitigation, then adaptation

Amsterdam, 17 March 2008 - Jan Pronk, prominent former Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation and the Environment, and now professor at the ISS in The Hague, filled the lecture hall in the Free University of Amsterdam.

Looking back to the Kyoto negotiations, Pronk highlighted the uniqueness of the agreement. The participating parties for the first time accepted an integrated and differentiated approach, concrete targets, sanctions (though not very hard ones), and realized the importance of mitigation and adaptation, capacity building and the potential of greenhouse gas absorption. The result was positive, because it was equitable, concrete, binding, flexible and innovative.

How is our situation today different from 10 years ago?

• There is much higher economic growth than we expected (India, China, Brazil, South Africa)
• Greenhouse gas emissions are higher than we expected.
• The mechanism of climate change is more complex than we knew.
  
• The physical consequences are more extreme than we suspected.
  
• The economic consequences of these physical changes are greater than we anticipated.
• There are more climate-related environmental disasters than we imagined 10 years ago.
• Climate change is an unpredicted additional factor to more inequality.
• The conflict potential of climate change is greater than we feared.
  
• The shortage of fossil fuels came earlier than we forecasted. Also uranium for nuclear power is already becoming scarce.
• The problem of energy security is greater than we expected.
• We have more scientific knowledge and certainties on climate change.
• There is a greater awareness on globalisation and global environmental change.
• There is more technology research in private business.
• The EU package to tackle climate change suggests a leading role.
  

For the Bali negotiations, Jan Pronk was quite critical. The countries are still blaming each other instead of implementing the decisions taken in Kyoto, although compliance is politically highly important. Pronk admitted that he "was ashamed" of the weak outcome of the implementation negotiations in the Netherlands, in which he participated. The biggest blockers of effective implementation were private business lobbies.

Above all, Pronk regretted that the focus of attention is so much on deforestation and adaptation, and shifts away from mitigation. Mitigation should be at the core of every climate change strategy, and adaptation the second priority. Adaptation through compensation payments, such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is not enough. Instead, it is a "lip service" and means that "you do not have to do anything at home". "We first, then the others", Pronk appealed, "we have to mitigate in order to be credible in the eyes of others to follow". Continuing our Western lifestyle means heading for disaster. Not population growth, nor the rise of global income is the problem ... our material consumption is.

For the future, Jan Pronk appeared to be quite pessimistic. Although there are good policies and institutions, consumption patterns and values have not change fundamentally. The big problem lies in "the capitalist system which tells us to keep on consuming, consuming, consuming". The growing resistance and curiosity amongst the youth, nevertheless, to something different, offers some hope.

Since October 2007, SID Netherlands and partners have organized monthly lectures around the theme 'Emerging Global Scarcities and Power Shifts.' The January and February lectures discussed biofuels and political ways to address climate change. The The SID lecture series 2007/2008 continues until June 2008.

Story by Birthe Paul

Climate change and agriculture was the topic of recent discussions in Brussels and Lisbon.

See also Euforic newsfeed on climate change.

Political ways and means to address climate change

Amsterdam, 18 February 2008 – Since climate change is the hot topic on European political agendas, SID Netherlands invited two high-profile speakers to shed some light on ways to tackle global warming.

Gurmit Singh, Executive Director of the Centre for Environment, Technology and Development (CETDEM) in Malaysia provided a passionate and critical 'Southern' perspective. Pier Vellinga, Professor in climate change and environmental science at Wageningen University and the VU Amsterdam, gave a 'Northern' viewpoint, emphasizing the recent political achievements.

Singh started by arguing that climate change is deeply submerged in politics. The post-Kyoto regime negotiations are obscured by vested interests, and characterized by a divide between North and South, between the largest greenhouse gas emitters and the most affected countries. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is just one example of the North-South domination. While the South gets "peanuts", the North makes money trading certificates at the stock markets. The CDM is a very unequal mechanism, because Africa is left out and does benefit at all. For Singh, the Kyoto and Bali agreements are "a lot of hot air, but almost nothing is done/"

The fight against climate change is just like "going to war", argued Singh, because it is "a greater threat than any war before." We have to mobilize resources and shorten the timeframe to achieve the 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that is needed to avoid more than a 2C rise in the world temperature. However, the context must be sustainable development, because the fight against climate change has to be accompanied by the fight against global poverty.

The EU disappointed hopes of strong leadership in Bali. Internal divisions, uneven commitment of its Member States, inconsistency and an incapability of creating alliances foreclosed strong leadership. Singh called on the EU to stop being subservient to the USA and giving way to the business lobby. Further, he lamented that “you have to de-carbonize yourself before asking Brazil, China and India to reduce emissions.” The EU should concentrate on actions instead of words, which lso applies to January's climate change action proposals of the European Commission. In the end, it is not the Commission who decides on commitments, but the Member States.

For Singh, the solution consists of sacrifices and toning down aspirations. On the one hand, people of all countries, and especially in wasteful areas, have to make sacrifices, while still having a good life. Developing countries, on the other hand, have to tone down their aspirations for an energy and resource intensive path of development, while still having a better quality of life. “Nothing comes easy”, Singh appealed, “we have to really change our lifestyles”.

While Vellinga agreed with Singh’s main points, he stressed recent political achievements. “During the last months, more has changed than in the 15 years before”, he reasoned, which is why we can be “slightly optimistic”. Climate change is the ultimate test for international cooperation. Without the EU, the USA and Russia, there cannot be an effective start, because they have the biggest power to reduce. And without China, India and Brazil participating within a decade, the initiative will be ineffective. The “polluter pays principle” will be the major fundamental for future commitments, and Vellinga estimated transfers of 50 billion Euro a year to be necessary.

Vellinga underlined that “we don’t have the wrong regime, but the wrong overtones”. The USA was simply not ready to join an international climate agreement. Also the CDM was in principle a very good and useful initiative, but it was in practice that it became an inequitable mechanism. However, it should still continue to stimulate money flows from North to South.

Concluding, Vellinga reminded that before stepping to action, we need thorough analysis of what climate change will do to different countries. The Netherlands, for example, will spend 50 million Euro for a strategy to firstly understand what adaptation means for the country, before even touching possible adaptation strategies.

Since October 2007, SID Netherlands and partners have organized monthly lectures around the theme 'Emerging Global Scarcities and Power Shifts.' The January lecture discussed biofuels. The The SID lecture series 2007/2008 continues until June 2008.

Story by Birthe Paul

Climate change and agriculture was the topic of recent discussions in Brussels and Lisbon.

See also Euforic newsfeed on climate change.

Biofuels versus Food Production

Amsterdam, 21 January 2008 - On a rainy Monday evening in Amsterdam, the topic “Biofuels versus Food Production – Challenges and Threats for Developing Countries” - part of the SID lecture series, could not correspond better to current political developments. The world looked hopefully to Brussels where the European Commission was expected to propose a new package of actions to fight climate change. Biofuels could play a prominent role in these future EU climate action plans, but concerns about the impact of this on global food security are mounting.

In Amsterdam, Rudy Rabbinge, Professor of Sustainable Development at the Wageningen University, provided a clear answer: Biodiesel cannot be the solution to the climate chaos, because it has unacceptable detrimental effects on poorer countries. According to him, world food security is possible, although the demand for food is increasing due to population growth and more wealth. The key to feed the world is a more productive agriculture, which has always been the precondition for industrialization and economic development. Fuel from biomass takes away fertile soil for local food production, and endangers the very existence of the poor.

Rabbinge posed biofuel as a simple confrontation: Fuel for the Rich versus Food for the Poor. The only harmless potential lies in energy production from the waste products of plants. Nevertheless, they should not nourish the great illusion that we can mitigate climate change without changing our energy wasting lifestyles. Saving energy and solar energy remain the most important pillars for a climate friendly future.

Kornelis Blok, Professor at Utrecht University and managing director of the energy consultancy Ecofys disagreed with Rabbinge’s pessimistic view on biofuels. He presented data and scenario analysis from one of his PhD students to prove that bioenergy is necessary for sustainable energy systems. Moreover, he claimed that bioenergy can contribute to local development. While acknowledging the environmental and social-economic problems of large-scale biomass production, Blok suggested that certification systems and enhanced monitoring of the impacts on food production were solutions to these problems.

As so often, there was little time for direct discussion. Still time enough to realize the deep disagreement on the role of biomass as a energy source, not only between the two speakers, but also in the wider academic community. Such fundamental academic conflict is striking and even alarming when we see that Europe already stands in the middle of the decision-making process on the future of biofuels.

Two days later, the European Commission unveiled the much awaited climate change package. According to the proposal, the EU will stick to its target to increase the use of biofuels. In 2020, these should make up 10 percent of fuels used for transport, a blow in the face of critics. It remains to be seen if these aspirations will be carved into law, or if the increasing criticism from the opponents is heard.

Since October 2007, SID Netherlands and partners have organized monthly lectures around the theme 'Emerging Global Scarcities and Power Shifts.' The SID lecture series 2007/2008 continues until June 2008.

Story by Birthe Paul

Climate change and agriculture was the topic of a CTA-Euforic side session at the EU Development Days - and will be debated again in Brussels on February 13, 2008. Earlier Brussels Briefings looked at 'Advancing African Agriculture' and Challenges to rural development in ACP countries.' See especially the interviews with Al Binger.

See also Euforic news on food security and the climate change.

Democracy and Development - Searching for a 'new us'

The Hague, 13 September: The SID Netherlands 2007 Lecture Series on Democracy and Development culminated today in a one-day conference hosted by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [related story]

A full house heard Minister of Development Cooperation Bert Koenders explore different dimensions of democracy development and the implications for his policies.

Thereafter, different speakers and a lively audience explored what former Dutch Foreign Minister Bot called the ‘three D’s’ – development, defense, and democracy, and the often complex relations among these.

One clear conclusion is that a ‘3D’ perspective is hardly sufficient to comprehend the richness and complexity of the topic. This is especially the case when you delve into different local and national situations and cultures – and even it seems when you delve into the international data often used to explain how democracy and development can be achieved. As keynote speaker Professor William Easterly argued: “we just don’t know!”

To generate the needed multi-dimensional perspectives, democracy and development communities are felt to need more ‘searchers’ – individuals with the freedom to “figure out” and learn from their own questions, answers, causalities and actions.

Where will we find these development/democracy searchers? Certainly not just in established networks and experts. Even in the most difficult places, panelist Bossuyt suggests, we “don’t know the rich tissue that exists in every fragile state”… a richness that can be set free to tackle local to global issues and dilemmas.

According to Bossuyt, moving in this direction requires a more effective dialogue that explores what democracy really means in different local situations and then a "reversal of the fundamentals of the way in which we work" to support democracy … [listen below]

Click To Play

Concluding that "nobody is too poor to be free", Easterly urged us to trust ordinary people and give them the freedom to search - to test, to fail, to try different courses - that is democracy.

This commitment to empowerment is perhaps where democracy promotion and development cooperation come together. As democracy provides freedom to search, debate and innovate, so development gives space and resources to take action.

The search for models and mechanisms was echoed by Minister Koenders. Drawing on the ideas and lessons generated through the lecture series he drew participants’ attention to the continuing search for effective democratic models in the Netherlands. He suggested that the search for “social cohesion and the integration of new citizens into a common identity – a new ‘us’ – is one of the biggest challenges in deepening Dutch democracy.” This search for a “new us” is an effort by citizens, state and political parties to re-discover their common interests, through inclusive processes that give voice – and freedom to question and search – to all.

In a way the challenge in developing countries is to make spaces where they too can search for and build their own versions of this ‘new us’ – creating democratic assets instead of looking to overcome democratic deficits. Koenders emphasized that these processes in developing countries need to reflect the realities of the poorest and seek to include them in emerging new dialogues.

What does this mean for Dutch policies? The Minister summarized his major policy directions under four headings: "a more political conception of good governance; a democracy and development agenda; and more focus on fragile states and women’s rights."

Adriano Malache from NIMD Mozambique reacts to the day’s discussions:

Click To Play

The conference was organized by the Netherlands chapter of the Society for International Development (SID). It was co-organized with the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy.

Euforic web page on governance

by Peter Ballantyne

Democracy and Development – Giving ourselves the freedom to trust

The Hague, 13 September: In his key note address to the SID conference on democracy and development, four main points on “freedom and development” by former World Bank economist William Easterly triggered discussions throughout the day. [related story]

He first argued that democracy is generally a better long term bet for countries, in terms of economic growth and per capita income. It is no accident he argued that countries with low per capita income are non-democratic while countries with higher incomes are mostly democracies.

Second, he described democracy in terms of the freedoms of individuals – and a country - to reason, question, act, trade and choose their leadership and governance. While economic growth contributes to development, ‘growth of reasoning’ contributes to democracy. Both need to be unleashed. Emphasizing that “nobody is too poor to be free,” he argued that viewing poor people as unable to handle freedom/democracy is not part of a freedom agenda; nor is “telling the poor what to do” part of democracy.

Third, he concluded that experts – various kinds – do not have the reliable answers to guide countries towards sustainable development and democracy. In the absence of expert answers, he called for “ordinary people” to be given the freedom to “figure out” what they want to do.

Finally, the way these citizens and their countries are supported – though development cooperation or democracy building - is itself an exercise in democracy. Freedom includes freedom from foreign control. Too many conditions and advice from the supporters, even well-intentioned, precisely reduces the freedoms of the beneficiaries. According to Easterly: “If a government is democratically accountable to it citizens, then it should get aid with no strings.” Governments comprising warlords or aspiring gangsters, should be treated very differently.

Echoing participant Njeri Kabeberi who urged that we “give ourselves the freedom to trust,” Easterly described such freedom as a kind of education, he called on participants to promote and support initiatives that let others take charge of their destinies. Support means trusting others and letting them learn, and giving them space to make mistakes. As soon as you interfere to make ‘corrections’, they lose their freedom.

This debate will doubtless continue as the development community unites around aid effectiveness agendas - where donors work in harmony and with governments towards agreed joint assistance strategies - that some might see restricting the freedoms proposed by Easterly.

NIMD partners Njeri Kabeberi (Kenya) and Augustine Magolowondo (Malawi) react on the day’s discussions:

Click To Play

Click To Play

The conference was organized by the Netherlands chapter of the Society for International Development (SID). It was co-organized with the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy.

Read more views by Professor Easterly on his web site

Euforic web page on governance

by Peter Ballantyne

Jos van Gennip reflects on the outcomes of the SID Conference

The Hague, 7 July. An in depth discussion on MDGs; a realistic perception of Europe entering a new outward looking phase on the global scene; demands for a new vision in international relations: According to SID Vice President Jos van Gennip, these are some significant results of discussions at the recent SID International Conference.

In particular, van Gennip underlines the need for a new holistic approach to the global problems we face. This vision can best be described as convivencia, which is more than merely 'living together', but entails a quest for mutual comprehension, understanding and solidarity among different countries and different civilisations.

Click to Play

Read also Jos van Gennip opening speech.

See more Euforic stories from the SID conference.

story by Pier Andrea Pirani

Questioning the Paris Agenda and the 'new' aid modalities

The Hague, 6 July. At the recent SID World Congress we asked Gita Sen of the Indian Institute of Management to share some thoughts on aid effectiveness and the Paris Agenda.

Click to Play

For Sen, the key question is to understand what aid effectiveness will or will not do in terms of development effectiveness, because "aid effectiveness in itself has no particular value or meaning unless it actually leads to more effective development." Considering the MDGs as indicators for development effectiveness, "sadly the movement on the Paris agenda and the movement on the MDGs still are not well integrated, in fact they are quite distant from each other."

In addition, the so-called cross cutting themes of the Paris declaration (gender equality, human rights and environmental sustainability), have practically disappeared in mainstream discussions on 'new' aid modalities, while they are "absolutely required to have effective development in today's world."

Lastly, the issue of monitoring and evaluation needs to be addressed: "how and who monitors Paris?" In Sen's view, "a good part of the monitoring techniques of the Paris agenda comes from the World Bank's country assessment and monitor indicators", but it's not clear what these indicators could tell us in terms of social and human development. Further, these same indicators have been criticized for being not transparent and not well owned by the recipient countries. Therefore using them to determine if a country is eligible for the 'new' aid modalities opens "questions that must be dealt with and answered."

Read other views on this issue: Michel Petit, Françoise Moreau and other Europeans; Denise Auclair ...

The Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness

More on aid effectiveness

story by Pier Andrea Pirani

European development cooperation: starting to make a difference?

The Hague, 4 July. How does the picture of European development cooperation look like today? What results have been achieved and what challenges are still to be addressed? And how do different actors perceive these?

These were some of the question addressed in the EADI-facilatated SID pre-conference event on European development cooperation.

Françoise Moreau of the European Commission highlighted the crucial steps that the EC/EU has taken to live up to its role as a global development player. In particular, the European Consensus on development represents a major improvement, because it has been endorsed by all the different official actors, and it clearly defines the principles of EU development cooperation and the role of the Commission in facilitating coherence and coordination. Further, the recently agreed 'Code of Conduct' will assure complementarity between the different actors, reducing transitional costs and promoting ownership [See Bernard Petit and other panelists discussing the same issues, at the same time, in Brussels].

From a Member State perspective, Stefan van Wersch of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs agreed: “It’s true, things are changing in Brussels: there is a new dynamic, and this is a real change, we can see it and recognize it”. In particular, concrete examples of this change can be seen in the Consensus on development, a major mind shift for some Member States, and in the lead taken by the Commission to bring forward the Paris Agenda. Nevertheless, some critical points still need to be addressed: “what will be the role of the Commission in the new division of labour? And what about the peace and security issue, where Europe has potentially a lot to offer?”

Paul Engel of ECDPM concurred: “the glass is not half-full yet, but I see in Europe a good dynamic to face the challenges deriving from a shared development policy”. In his view, Europe has so far failed when it comes to the implementation of development policy. The main reason is the complexity of its aid architecture. In this sense, “moving towards a more integrated approach needs more than just one step" by the Commission. While policy coherence is top of the European agenda, there is still not a systematic approach to it. Ownership and agenda setting are still unresolved issues. It is still not clear how additional money (‘more aid’) will be spent, and if there will be ownership of these funds by developing countries. IN the past this has been elusive simply because EU agendas move at a faster speeds compared to those of recipient countries. But again, things are moving, as demonstrated also by the undergoing EU-AU dialogue, where for the first time there is recognition of the African Union as an equal partner.

Last to speak, Alex Wilks offered an NGO perspective . He shared the results of the latest CONCORD research on European Member States aid figures. “It is not so much a matter of more and better aid, but instead a matter of how this aid is counted and how it is delivered by European governments.” The report demonstrates that ‘genuine aid’ is much lower than promised and that development issues are shadowed by other policies. Only four countries (Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden and Denmark) have matched the ODA target of 0,7%, while all the others are much behind, with Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain missing the individual minimum 2006 target. Looking at this picture, European NGOs demand that “governments just deliver on what they have promised.”

More on EU aid and aid effectiveness

story by Pier Andrea Pirani

Setting new priorities for Dutch development cooperation

The Hague, 5 July. In an inspiring and forward looking speech to the SID Conference starting today, Bert Koenders, the new Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation outlined the new priorities of his Ministry.

First, his work will focus on equal opportunities for women, who are the sector of population least likely to be reached by development assistance.

Second, he will address the issue of fragile states. If it's true that these countries account for only one third of the world poor, it's also clear that they recieve a very small percentage of aid. The Dutch goal is to think and develop a new approach focussing on the ‘3 Ds’ - linking development, diplomacy and defense in a coherent way. This is not only in the interests of the poor. It is in the “self interest of western countries to secure fragile and failing states and avoid the spread of trans-national conflicts and terrorism.”

Recognising that growth by itself is not enough for poverty eradication, another priority is the wider distribution of this growth. Again, this requires coherence among different policies, in this case closer cooperation with the External Trade Ministry to assure market access for third world countries.

Last but not least is to address the effects of climate change. Unless this is addressed, all efforts to meet the MDGs will be “either washed away or dried up. Action in this area is needed right now”; the outcome of the recent G8 summit can be seen as a first positive step in this direction. Again, a more coherent approach is needed, and cooperation with Environment and the Transportation ministries will be improved, to promote sustainable energy plans for developing countries.

More on Dutch development cooperation and in Dutch

story by Pier Andrea Pirani

SID International Conference: Reconciling the Dichotomies of Development

The Society for International Development has recently celebrated its 50th anniversary with an international congress in the Hague (4-7 July).

Taking place exactly half way to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Congress looked at how to put into practice a human development that recognizes and respects diversities while sustaining social, gender and economic justice.

In particular, the pre-conference event focussing on 'Europe and Development', saw Françoise Moreau, Stefan van Wersch, Paul Engel and Alex Wilks discussing and debate the role and responsibilities of Europe in a multilateral world.

Read all Euforic stories from the SID conference.