Published: Posted Date – 12:30 AM, Fri – 11/18/22
Money flows have become a thorny issue because no one accepts their role in wreaking havoc
By Dr. T Prabhakara Reddy
Shared Prosperity has been the underlying principle of many of our international initiatives as we try to address the problems faced by the poor and vulnerable, be it poverty or inclusive growth. But when it comes to climate change, we fail to agree on some key issues, more importantly mobilizing resources for climate finance.
Therefore, the crux of the problem is how to persuade the United States and Europe and other major countries not to make large-scale contributions to climate financing and shirk their responsibilities, so that vulnerable groups such as developing countries are discouraged.
triple crisis
In fact, developing countries face not only climate change, but also economic recession, Covid-19, biodiversity loss and conflict, etc. In addition, at the macro level, there is a triple environmental crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and biodiversity loss. Interrelated and intricate pollution. Therefore, a multi-pronged approach is required, for which financial resources are essential.
Indeed, the UN is convinced that COP27 builds on the outcome of the previous Conference of the Parties (COP26), which emphasized the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, build resilience, and adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. Climate change and delivering on promises to finance climate action in developing countries.
Climate change mitigation requires climate finance, as large-scale investments are mandatory for significant reductions in emissions. Likewise, climate finance is equally important for adaptation, as substantial financial resources are required to adapt to adverse impacts and reduce the impacts of climate change.
climate change contributor
The transformative imperative for climate finance is that, since 2009, developed countries have pledged to collectively mobilize more than $100 billion a year to support climate action in developing countries, which is central to the climate agreement and an important symbol of trust. Beyond that, developing countries see it precisely as necessary to ensure progress and achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Yet climate finance has become a thorny issue because no one sees it as a ‘responsibility’, denial rather than
Accept their role in contributing to climate change that is happening because of the industrialization they have followed so far.
On the other hand, challenges related to climate finance include: definition of what constitutes it, methodologies, objective reporting mechanisms, and the aggressive and affirmative commitment to climate change by developed countries such as the US and Europe over time.
In fact, the U.S. Department of Defense has some of the highest carbon emissions even today, but many people don’t realize this. Knowing the consequences, the developed countries have adopted massive industrialization strategies using all fossil fuels, polluting the earth while pursuing materialistic ways to earn money and resources.
According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, climate finance is defined as “local, national or transnational financing – from public, private and alternative sources of finance – designed to support mitigation and adaptation actions to address climate change.” During the process, we encountered questions about methodology, reporting and related challenges.
The second issue is the occurrence of loss and damage in vulnerable areas. Beyond financing energy, mitigation and adaptation with gender equality, the poor and vulnerable experience the impacts of climate change for no reason and without a voice to speak out as a reckoning power.
working paradigm
Another important aspect is that the definition of climate finance should exclude any loans to developing countries and designate them only as “climate aid”; whereas grants to address climate change are considered “climate finance”.
The methodology for calculating climate finance must be finalized at COP27 without further delay. Given India’s strategic position as the world’s emerging largest economy, it should influence stakeholders to work with the OECD and others to finalize definitions and methodologies for calculating financial flows.
India and other developing countries have done their best in recent discussions at COP27 to unleash private sector financing for the implementation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and processes.
However, not much seems to have been achieved due to the lack of flexibility in the private sector. But one thing is clear: African countries are actively voicing their concerns and demanding climate finance at a summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. More importantly, we should influence the timetable for developed countries to contribute to climate finance invoking the “principle of shared prosperity”.
If anyone denies it, the relevant committee established for this purpose should reach out to them at a diplomatic level and advocate their support for a carbon-free world. Indeed, financial flows should begin immediately, at least from January, as the effects of climate change are taking a toll on poor and vulnerable countries.
Multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD should take the lead in defining climate finance by avoiding duplication in the design of reporting mechanisms and by invoking the “polluter pays principle” to make developed countries obligated to contribute to climate finance. Furthermore, collective and concerted action can provide answers to the challenges we face today, especially in developing countries.
(The author has worked for DFID, UN Women, New Delhi and UNICEF, Gandhinagar, Patna and Indonesia. Currently, he is associated with the Satavahana Development Association in Hyderabad)
