While the question of funding for developing countries remains a big question mark, Sir David King, special representative on climate change UK, has ruled out a separate allocation of funds in addition to development aid for climate actions.
In an interview to The Hindu on Tuesday he said that, “In the UK, our aid budget at 0.7 per cent of the GDP is higher than any other country. We are not going to be able, especially under our austerity measures in the government, to create new funds. That’s not going to happen. Democratically I think we have to be realistic about expectations here. There is another problem. If you refer to adaptation or loss and damage –that hurricane in the Philippines that produced the tearful speech [in UN climate talks in Warsaw], if you asked me as a climate scientist – would that hurricane have happened without climate change- I would not be able to answer that question.
Coming to loss and damage, is it pure climate aid or development aid and we in the British government are prepared to treat it in that shaded way but cannot see how you could possibly differentiate between the two things.”
He said Britain likes to proceed by example. “We were the nation that first announced a cut of 80 per cent emissions by 2050. We already reduced it by 29 per cent and we will be more than 50 per cent by 2030. We are setting ourselves a target that we believe other countries should be doing as well,” he pointed out. On the finance front, he said Britain put together an International Climate Fund- where British money is 3.89 billion pounds or 6 billion USD – that is the British contribution to adaptation and mitigation in developing countries and if every country followed that, the sum of money in the Green Climate Fund (GCF) would be very different. The British are setting an example, he added.
The GCF has crossed the 10 billion mark last month but it is way short of what developing countries would need to fund mitigation and adaptation actions. The move is to also ask developing countries to scale up action. Sri David also gives new meaning to the issue of historical responsibilities. He says the European Union (EU) has had feed- in tariffs for 12 years and it costs the European tax payer 0.1 to 0.2 per cent of GDP each year. The result is that the cost of renewables’ installation has come down from 50 US dollars to .5 US dollars a watt. ”We have created a production process through subsidies that has pulled the price down- through the learning curve which means countries like India can install photo voltaics on prices that are comparable with coal fired plants.The benefits are coming because the EU has paid a cost,” he said. “When we talk of historical responsibilities we have to take into account what Europe has been doing – we wish the US had been working with us over that period of time. Within the EU, our record is not bad through the aid programme in terms of mitigation and adaptation and through such process we are taking our responsibility very seriously,” he pointed out.
The British government has got a track record on development aid- 0.7 of GDP is going to development aid programmes for the benefit of developing countries that are receiving it- that’s 17 billion USD a year, larger than GCF. “We have a good track record we don’t want any programme of action that is going to be against what we are doing on development aid. We want to see every country raising its standard of living and that’s our overriding concern within the negotiations – we want to see that matching upto certain standards and achieve their growth, while also moving towards dealing with climate change,” he explained.
“We look at India’s new role in South South collaboration- I believe India’s role in Africa is already emerging and will strengthen over time and there is much to be done at the South South levels of work. The same is true of Brazil –we are moving into a world where the emerging economies are playing a bigger role in that process- but it is still a very small role compared with what we are spending -17 billion USD in aid. I wouldn’t want to suggest that we are giving up on our responsibilities as developed countries,” he added.
Sir David is visiting India to ascertain its position on climate change negotiations with the government. The announcement on 100 GW solar power is a very positive statement in the year of Paris, he felt. “The first thing is it should be obvious that India is a critically important player in the climate negotiations and we are following up on a programme of action on renewable energy storage and smart grids,” he said.
He is hoping India would play a positive role not only in terms of its own position but also bringing other governments into a strong position as well. It is interesting to see where India stands and how it can position countries where it can have influence, he added.
The climate summit in New York last September and the European Union (EU) announcing its nationally determined action to cut 40 per cent emissions were significant, he said. The US China joint statement on climate change and the G 20 communiqué which were positive, didn’t indicate sufficient ambition in terms of managing the whole problem, he said. “But what they do indicate is that those two nations are keen that an agreement is signed and we are not going to see another Copenhagen,” he added.
The Lima outcome in some senses was a good step forward but Sir David was not to happy about the fact that the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions(INDC)s don’t have to be announced till later on in the year. This leaves virtually no time for review. “On the whole Lima made negotiating progress which indicates that we are likely to get an agreement in Paris,” he felt.
On the other hand, the good thing about INDCs was that they can be integrated and in Britain there is a computer programme that can calculate within minutes what each country is doing.” We can tell the world where we stand on that basis. The UNEP is going to do that as well. Based on this I will be visiting countries doing bilateral discussions and asking them- really couldn’t you do more?” he said.
"Also there is room for bilateral pressure in the international negotiations which is critically important. Countries may do that with Europe-- that’s the meaning of the at least 40 per cent target– it leaves room to put pressure on us too," he added.
