This document summarizes and critiques current global efforts to address climate change through mitigation and adaptation policies and financing. It finds that approaches have focused more on large-scale actions and economic transfers between countries than micro-level impacts and social dimensions of climate change. Efforts have also prioritized mitigation over adaptation and favored large projects over small-scale and community-based approaches. As a result, the most vulnerable populations have had limited inclusion in policy frameworks and access to climate financing. The document calls for a more socially inclusive and people-centered conceptual framework to achieve a reasonable balance of equity in the global response to climate change.

1. Mitigation of What and by What? Adaptation by Whom and for Whom? Balancing the Scales in Global Climate Change Policy by Leisa Perch IPC-IG/UNDP DevNet Conference: Nature, Poverty and Power November 26th, 2010

2. Focus of the Paper Current efforts to address climate change seem more focused on “big” actions and “large-scale” than on micro level impact. 3 key questions: What do efforts to-date to integrate the social dimensions in the global policy agenda tell us about equity and sustainability in the global response to climate change? Does the current structure of climate finance represent more than an economic transfer between polluters and non-polluters? Is the inclusion of indigenous peoples in the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD), REDD+ and REDD++ frameworks a proxy for inclusion?

3. Methodology Review of literature (research, assessments and critiques) Policy Guidance Documents: National Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPA) guidelines UNFCCC negotiated text Nairobi Work programme Governance : Operational frameworks for Climate finance Funds and Instruments: Adaptation Fund, SCCF, LDCF, CDM, REDD standards Application: NAPAs, Adaptation Fund Projects, CDM, REDD+ Implementation records of World Bank and GEF

4. Equity Issues in Climate Change © AFP: Thiago Sampaio Heavy rains and resulting flood waters from the Jacuipe River impacting on the Brazilian town of Jacuipe in mid-2010 Largely politically driven: Unequal access to the global commons (Tragedy of the Commons) Balance of Private actions and public policy (consumption and production) Unequal burden of impact (SIDS, LDCs, coastal areas) Inequities of capacity to cope Unequal power relations in the political process(poorer countries and poor individuals Equity of burden to take action

5. Policy and Politics Key Issues for Policy Politics of Taking Action Equity itself as a development goal (Ul Haq, 1990) Is sustainability enough in the face of risk and uncertainty? (Cascio, 2009) What kinds of actions? Adapt or mitigate? Both? Long-term or short-term? Achieving collective and simultaneous action – cumulative impact (Harrison and Sundstrom, 2007) Other environmental issues can be worsened by climate change Varying perceptions of risk (O’Brien and Wolf, 2010; Aldy, 2003) Multilateralism challenged to cope with transnational issues (Held and Hervey, 2010; Newman et al, 2006) Consensus or leadership: Copenhagen? Prefer to wait and see (Gidden’s paradox) Low-carbon? Resilient? What is the right mix? Whose science: UNFCCC says 2 degrees, SIDS say 1.5?

7. Climate-compatible development (CDKN)

8. Adaptation and mitigation +

10. The Politics of the Social: We still do not yet have a policy framework or language that is inclusive: environmental issue economic [social issues?] Economic focus (engage private sector); (fails to capture socio-ecological nature of change. Inclusion of the social still hotly debated: Lind (2010) - social change is not needed; economics will save the day: Soley (2010:2) – negative polices impinging on individual choice and quality of life counter-productive and politically problematic Hale (2010): the role of political economy on the initial discussions on climate change including fossil fuel substitution O’Brien and Wolf (2010): a values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation recognizes that economic assessments of impacts and responses, cannot capture the full significance of climate change”.

12. 60 % of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people are women (UN, 2008).

13. Losses from the impact of climate change on key crops in African agriculture could be in the range of US$16-36 billion (Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn, 2008).Rain-fed subsistence farming will be significantly affected and dependent HH much more vulnerable Lack of title and supportive legislation lead to exclusion of many small farmers from the carbon credit markets Community-based customary rights also a limitation.

14. Whose vulnerability and whose opportunity? Two main concepts in climate change: (i) change as inevitable and unpreventable (adaptation) – socially defined if limited (ii)the worst can be avoided and hence the fallout lessened (mitigation) – instrumentally defined with little social analysis or framing

15. Whose vulnerability and whose opportunity (2) Making sense of vulnerability and resilience: Scope: Levels: Exposure, Susceptibility, Sensitivity, and Resilience. Capacity to resile: resource availability, entitlement to call on these resources Scale: Location: classifications within sensitive biophysical systems ignore varying levels of vulnerability Countries/People or both: Vulnerabilities of poor countries are not necessarily those of poor people (Kates, 2000 – poor countries/poor people)

16. Why only so far? Limited focus on social and behavioural research in the science and politics of climate change Aggregated analysis: (limited micro-analysis/differentiated impacts) The politics of science - hierarchy and separations between disciplines Normatively: No automatic co-benefits between poverty reduction and conservation: “………development usually goes hand in hand with greater consumption of natural resources." (Bill Adams in Gilbert, 2010).

17. Does the current structure of climate finance represent more than an economic transfer between polluters and non-polluters?

18. The Politics of Public Financing of Climate Change Response Structural inequalities (pace, scope, scale of development) Structure of climate finance: UNFCCC, IPCC and National authorities (Ministries of Environment. All are politically defined. Science is largely driven by the North with inputs from emerging countries (Membership of IPCC; GEO 5 Experts list) Focus on mitigation could make it easier to avoid political difficulties of transformation

20. Who needs the funds and knowledge? LDCs and SIDS.

21. Dependency exposes poorer countries to good and bads of current politics

23. Funds channelled: mitigation (86%); 8% (adaptation); 63% of EU Fast Track funds for mitigation

24. Economies of scale make a lot of mitigation opportunities inapplicable for many (Lesotho - 1% forest).

25. Developed countries are largely focusing their actions at home on mitigation.

26. CDM favours large scale projects;

27. Agriculture largely absent from the CDM due to “scientific uncertainties”.

28. Global carbon market contributing little to protection of tropical rainforestsFigure 2. Analysis of focus of funding directly sourced from ClimateFundsUpdate.Org)

29. Disconnect in application: Adaptation Table 1. Analysis of inclusion by group or by vulnerability in NAPAs to-date * 10 NAPAs did not make it clear if they were participatory A few – Laos, Maldives, Cape Verde, and Vanuatu - have not prioritized the poor. And Mozambique: has low female literacy rates (40.1 for 2008 based on the last WDI figures (World Bank, 2010b) and over 20% female-headed households (FHH)

30. Extent of poverty/inequality integration GEF “has not prioritized the adaptation needs of the most vulnerable”. Disproportionately (accordingly to Mitchell, Anderson and Huq, 2008) have funded projects in countries with low rates of poverty 5% of disbursed resources so far targeted multi-focused actions Approaches to adaptation inconsistent Approaches to mitigation, social is mostly absent; particularly on complex interdependencies AFB unable to resolve “appropriate adaptation” or “define vulnerability normatively for allocating resources

31. ……with the implication that: Social risks will mount and multiply: Likelihood that the poor will have less access to land due to their inability to compete on a financial basis; Resource conflicts likely to increase Mitigation actions may reduce emissions but not necessarily stimulate a transformation of industrial policy; and Fossil-fuel demand reduction and new forms of energy may contribute little to the reduction of energy poverty.

32. Is the inclusion of indigenous peoples in the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD), REDD+ and REDD++ frameworks a proxy for inclusion?

34. initial focus has been on IPs as well as forest dependent communities, less on other users or other dynamics

35. who benefits? And how?

37. Policy Implications

38. Re-Framing Struggle (globally and nationally) in managing risk and uncertainty: consensus position on the nature of the risk (either nationally and or globally) and the level of urgency it represents. marketing of “risk avoidance” as a concrete and necessary policy action Proving that a problem has been avoided. Effective Management of climate as a global good seems still far off: the political structure has not led to consensus. Balance tends to lie between national sovereignty, collective responsibility, individual rights with those of the global “public” interest. global narrative influences the national and vice-versa Tends to inflate macro vs micro interests

40. People-centred development

41. AVM become linked and defined within a broader frameworks of Climate-Resilient Development (Adaptation); Low-Carbon Development (Mitigation) and Climate-Compatible Development (Transformation)Figure 3. Proposed conceptual framework for linking adaptation, mitigation and climate-compatible development

42. Process shifts – Enhance the micro Addressing the social must be done normatively Resolve structural distinctions between the policy guidance on A and M Integrate Social Risk Management Incentivizing action on transnational public goods Resilience of both people and systems; Co-benefits between LCD and sustainable development’ “Convergence between including “no-regrets” and the right to development; and Risk sharing through “insurance”

44. Adaptation is more an act of mollification and appeasement of the concerns of those likely to be most negatively affected

46. Thank You!!!!!