- Email: [email protected]
Climate change and development cooperation: trends and questions
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Climate change and development cooperation: trends and questions Joyeeta Gupta In recent years, the literature and politics in the traditionally distinct development and climate change cooperation fields are recommending a merger between these fields. The development cooperation literature and politics suggest incorporating climate change into development cooperation; and the climate change literature and politics suggest better links with development cooperation. Six arguments support this shift in perspective (logical, financial, practical, developing country, stakeholder, and reporting arguments), while six arguments justify delinking these discussions (different paths to development, political sensitivity, resources needed, changing target group, global effectiveness, and the conditionality arguments). This paper concludes that while development and climate change are closely linked, there are strong reasons to argue against mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation under current political circumstances. Address Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands Corresponding author: Gupta, Joyeeta ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213 This review comes from the inaugural issues Edited by Rik Leemans and Anand Patwardhan Available online 5th November 2009 1877-3435/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. DOI 10.1016/j.cosust.2009.10.004
Introduction The global community has experienced six decades of official development cooperation and two decades of climate change cooperation. In the last decade, there has been a major push in the policy arena to merge the two areas through mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation. There are many arguments driving the mainstreaming discourse and this discourse unites a number of different actors, although their reasoning is different. This paper reviews the literature to analyze this discourse. It addresses the question: What are the major trends in the literature, and do these justify that climate change should be mainstreamed into development cooperation? On the basis of the literature on mainstreaming, this paper defines ‘Mainstreaming of climate change into development as the process by which existing development www.sciencedirect.com
processes are (re)designed and (re)organized, and evaluated from the perspective of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Mainstreaming implies involving all social actors — governments, civil society, industry, and local communities into the process. Mainstreaming calls for changes in policy as far upstream as possible.’ This goes beyond the current way in which policymakers and researchers often use the term mainstreaming in the climate change debate. Research reveals that one can distinguish five stages through which climate change can be incorporated into the development cooperation process [1]. The first stage looks at ad hoc projects and makes changes in these projects, the second stage identifies win– win projects for both development cooperation and climate change, and in the third stage existing development cooperation projects are climate proofed to minimize new adaptation risks. The fourth stage integrates climate change into development cooperation projects and minimizes the impact of these projects on increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The final stage is mainstreaming which calls for redesigning the existing development cooperation portfolio from a climate change perspective. This essay discusses the recent literature that highlights this paradigm shift, and it then moves on to discuss the literature that questions this paradigm shift before drawing some conclusions. This paper looks not only at the scientific literature but also at documents produced by the relevant organizations working in the field and at the political statements made by leaders. It does not discuss whether it is the changing science that influences the politics or the other way around, but instead presents these trends as a symbiotic process.
Trends: the paradigm shift toward merging climate change and development cooperation The paradigm shift in climate change
In the early 1990s the climate change problem was seen as a single, abstract, complex, global, future, environmental, economic, and technological problem. The problem was seen in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks, and solutions were crafted in terms of reducing such emissions and enhancing such sinks. It was assumed that climate change could perhaps be addressed without making links to the complex issue of development. Although the potential impacts of climate change were seen as significant and several articles in the Climate Convention do refer to the role of the multilateral process in adaptation response, adaptation to these impacts was seen as primarily resulting in local benefits and requiring local action [2]. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213
208 Inaugural issues
Since the start of this decade, there has been a major shift in opinion [3] moving toward recognizing the two-way link between climate change and development [4–14]. The problem is being increasingly seen as integral to development issues in developed and developing countries. Development for the poor may imply increased greenhouse gas emissions and the poor may have limited opportunities to reduce the rate of growth of these emissions; however, it may also enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change [12]. Development for the rich may also imply increased greenhouse gas emissions, unless good and sustained policy choices are made with respect to energy sources as well as with respect to sectors that have not yet reached their maximum production level [8]. Some development activities may exacerbate the ability of societies to respond to the impacts of climate change, while adaptation measures may have additional benefits for development. The impacts of climate change are likely to have major distortionary effects on the developing world [15]. These links have led to discussions on the need to link climate change with development as well as development cooperation [16–18]. In particular, the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [8], the Special Issue on Development Policy as a Way to Manage Climate Change Risks [6,9,10], and the 2007–2008 Human Development Report of the United Nations Development Programme [14] provide the evidence and arguments for making these links. Initially, climate change was also seen as a problem that could be dealt with by nations only after they had passed a certain level of development, as predicted by the environment Kuznets curve. In other words, poorer countries would have to develop first before they would have the resources to invest in environmental technology; technology transfer could, however, provide a shortcut to sustainable development. However, recent research shows that the environment Kuznets curve does not hold for climate change [19], and this builds further on the existing research trends in the field [20,21]. CavigliaHarris et al. [19] show that economic growth alone cannot lead to sustainable development and that there is no clear inverted U curve relationship between environmental impacts and development. This indicates that the whole development paradigm will have to be changed if we wish to address the climate change problem within a time frame that ensures that we do not cross the ‘danger’ threshold. The danger threshold has been defined by the European Union as being around two degrees above preindustrial levels. Beyond this level, it is expected that climatic impacts will become very difficult to cope with. The paradigm shift in development cooperation
In the development cooperation world, there have been many paradigm shifts over the last half-century. These shifts have mainly been focused on who should be Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213
assisted, how should the assistance be delivered, and how can development be enhanced [22,23]. The meaning of development has evolved over time from increasing GDP in the 1950s, through increasing GDP and employment and promoting balance of payment equilibrium in the 1960s, to increasing per capita GDP in the 1970s, increasing macroeconomic stability and fiscal discipline in the 1980s, enhancing human development in the 1990s, to promoting sustainable development and human dignity in the first decade of this century. This was accompanied by changing ideas about the role of development cooperation. In the 1950s, development cooperation focused on technical assistance, diffusion of innovation and community development; in the 1960s it aimed at filling trade and investment gaps; in the 1970s the focus was on basic human needs and bridging the savings investment gap; in the 1980s on conditional aid, structural adjustment, and debt relief; and in the following two decades attention shifted to humanitarian assistance, the greening of aid, and good governance to country ownership of policies [22–27]. Aid programs resulted from the recognition of the need for assistance which led developed countries to adopt the commitment to provide 0.7% of national income as assistance to developing countries [27–30]. Although this is not a legally binding commitment, it has been repeated some 50 times in top political meetings [28] indicating a certain degree of authority. The offer of this assistance has occurred in parallel to the demands of the New International Economic Order and the Right to Development, although there are some controversies about linking this promise of assistance to the right to development [31,32]. The world of development cooperation now faces a number of challenges. The first is the continuing debate about the effectiveness of aid projects [22–24,26,32–43]. Part of this debate relates to the changing definitions of development and how best aid can contribute to development (see above). Part of this can be explained by the actual motive for providing assistance, which is only partly altruistic and enlightened self-interest, but is mostly motivated by political, strategic, security, economic, and environmental objectives [44]. While aid has often worked to save lives and improve social conditions, this may not be easily translated into macroeconomic indicators of development, and those seeking statistical correlations between aid and growth in specific developing countries often had contradictory results [23,44–46]. Instruments developed to enhance aid effectiveness such as conditional aid often had, in fact, counter-productive effects [26]. This has led to discussions about an intellectual vacuum on how best to design development cooperation projects [23,47,48]. These debates even lead some to question the usefulness of aid [49]. Hence, many are pushing for new reasons to revitalize aid, and climate change provides the new justification for it [50]. www.sciencedirect.com
Climate change and development cooperation Gupta 209
Some experts are much more positive about the impacts of aid on individuals and have tried to build on the consensus in the literature to focus aid resources on achieving the Millennium Development Goals. They argue that aid effectiveness should be seen more in terms of its direct impacts — education delivered, lives saved — rather than in terms of macroeconomic indicators [23]. Easterly [23] shows that the effectiveness of aid has often been measured through inappropriate indicators and that there is a case to support aid for its influence on individuals, rather than on societies as a whole. They argue that there are clear success stories, more resources are needed [51], that there are lessons learnt from the past (e.g. conditional and tied aid do not work as well as projects that are ‘owned’ by partner governments), and that different types of aid projects need to be designed for partner countries in different political and economic circumstances [23,25,43]. Finally, it has been argued that such aid lessons could also be unified as has been done in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness 2005 [52]. This Declaration has been adopted by over 100 developed and developing countries and international organizations and includes a statement of resolve, partnership commitments, and indicators of progress. What many authors also argue is that aid cannot be designed in advance. Instead, aid projects develop in active cooperation with civil societies, markets, and governments, where each helps to define and elaborate upon the schemes to be put in practice — such processes may be ‘clumsy’ in nature [53]. Continuous monitoring and assessing aid can help improve the quality of aid [54]. Many of those who wish to see the Millennium Declaration Goals achieved are afraid that that the impacts of climate change may potentially affect existing development aid projects and render existing efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals unsuccessful [14,55,56]. Thus, those who see the support for aid evaporate because of the debate on aid effectiveness and the press coverage it receives, and those who see aid effectiveness itself being affected by the impacts of climate change argue, for different reasons, that it is important to ‘mainstream’ climate change into development cooperation. Additional reasons include the fact that development cooperation projects may exacerbate climate change by increasing the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions, that development cooperation projects may inadvertently increase the vulnerability of the local people if climate change impacts are not adequately taken into account, and that well designed development aid may well enhance the resilience of people to cope with the impacts of climate change [14,55–58]. These reasons have led to a major paradigm shift in the world of development cooperation. Within that, there is definitely more support for linking climate change adaptation to development than for linking mitigation activities www.sciencedirect.com
to development [58–63]. This is because poverty abatement and adaptation are more synergetic goals than poverty abatement and mitigation activities — and the latter may also lead to trade-offs between the two goals [50]. Different motives: converging conclusions
Apart from the substantive arguments being made in both fields, practical circumstances are also driving different actors to conclude that climate change should be mainstreamed into development cooperation. Donor agencies, the EU Commission and Council, the G7, the World Bank, OECD, UNEP, UNDP as well as some researchers have a range of different arguments to justify mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation. Scientists are driven by the substantive links [9,10]. Banks are partly driven by the past environmental critique of their activities and the need to avoid a negative environmental legacy [64,65]. Aid agencies are driven by the lowering justification for development aid arising from the effectiveness debate [50]. The UN agencies are driven by the need to be more efficient and because they see climate change as undoing many of their efforts in the development field [14,66]. The governments of the leading economies are seeing the need to converge the two debates as a way to make their meager resources go a longer way [29,30].
The paradigm shift questioned Need to link climate change with development activities
Here it is wise to clarify any potential misunderstandings. First, the term ‘mainstreaming’ has in recent years been used very casually in the political, policy, and scientific literature, although mainstreaming has a very specific content, as can be seen from the historical literature on mainstreaming. The arguments in this paper are based on a more ‘pure’ definition of mainstreaming as given in the Introduction. Second, given the major substantive links between climate change and development, there is a clear justification for linking the two fields of climate change and development. This link implies that climate change processes and instruments should take development into account as well as that all international development processes including trade and investment processes should take climate change into account. The former is quite difficult. For example, integrating the sustainable development aspects into the Clean Development Mechanism projects has been quite difficult to achieve in practice [67–70]. Research shows that although in early phases of project approval parties indicate that they would like to make a contribution to sustainable development, once the projects are approved, actual contracts are drawn up between purchasers and sellers of emission credits. These legally binding contracts do not discuss the sustainable development aspects — and Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213
210 Inaugural issues
the search for cost-effective emission credits reduces the incentive to actually implement the more general and indirect sustainable development aspects of the initially approved project proposals. There is room for design improvements in the CDM to ensure that the sustainable development component becomes a reality. The latter implies that all national and international development processes should ‘mainstream climate change’ and use the climate lens to decide which development activities should continue and which should not. However, despite the rhetoric most developed and developing countries have not ‘mainstreamed climate change’ into their development process, or into the most significant international processes. For example, developed countries continue to provide export credits for nonsustainable fossil fuel investments in developing countries. NGOs such as The International NGO Campaign on Export Credit Agencies and the Environment Defense Fund in the US report that export credit agencies provide tens of billions of Euros/dollars annually in support of their own private sectors exports to developing and other countries. However, these agencies often do not take sustainability criteria adequately into account. Court cases in Germany and the US have recently brought this issue to light [71] and the OECD is preparing policy on this issue. This is just one indicator that the business-as-usual technology transfer to developing countries is most likely exporting cheaper and less sustainable technologies to the developing world. Short-term self-interest is a very strong driving force that makes integration of sustainable development into climate change cooperation a very difficult issue. It is against this context that the section below questions ‘mainstreaming climate change’ into development cooperation. It first presents six arguments that prima facie call for linking climate change with development cooperation. It then presents six arguments against making such a link. The problems with linking climate change to development cooperation
There are clear substantive arguments for linking development cooperation with climate change [50,72]. These include: first, logical arguments that climate change affects all sectors of society, and that development may aggravate the problem of climate change, may hamper adaptation but may also enhance the resilience of people; second, financial arguments, since the resources available for meeting the MDGs are inadequate and since resources for climate assistance are also limited and merging the meager resources may be cost-effective; third, practical arguments that development cooperation agencies already have the expertise of working in developing countries and can Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213
easily take on the new climate change related responsibilities, and besides given growing ‘aid fatigue’ in some developed countries, there may be greater motivation to provide assistance for climate change related activities; fourth, developing country perspectives — where linking climate change to development helps to prioritize climate change in these contexts; fifth, stakeholder perspectives — which would enable the development community and the climate change community to learn from each other and build on each others’ experience, and finally, reporting arguments — since both development and climate change policy processes call for developing countries to prepare specialized reports; integrating these reports may be more effective and efficient in the long run [73]. And yet, there are six reasons why this should not be done, based on the definition of mainstreaming provided in this paper. First, developing countries will probably have to navigate ‘through an unchartered and evolving landscape’ [8] to deal with climate change, and this is not something that can be easily integrated into development cooperation programs. For, developed countries, themselves, have yet to figure out how best to achieve sustainable development; and the starting point of developing countries is different from that of the developed countries. In other words, promoting transfers of existing technologies and practices in the West may be less beneficial than designing more appropriate technologies and practices that fit in better with the conditions of the developing world and are compatible with climate change policy. Second, there is considerable political sensitivity to the mainstreaming argument. The developed countries had promised 0.7% of their GNI as development cooperation resources. In addition, ‘new and additional’ resources (over and above the 0.7% commitment) for climate change assistance were offered for a problem that was primarily caused by the developed countries and because current and forthcoming impacts in the short-term can mostly be attributed to the past emissions of the developed countries [14]. However, most developed countries have failed to meet the 0.7% target and there is a fear that resources promised for development cooperation will be shifted to climate change. In fact many developed countries have promised to increase the resources for developing countries — but these increases are most likely to be focused on climate assistance although labeled as development assistance in order to look better against the 0.7% target. Third, such assistance is affected by the inadequacy of the resources to meet the challenges. Current development cooperation (2008, 2009) is in the order of USD 100–120 billion (about 3% of donor GNI). This falls short by USD 50–135 billion annually to meet the MDG targets [74–76]; falls short of the USD 125 billion that is needed annually for the more general UNCED development targets and an additional USD 270 billion is needed for climate assistance [11,78]. www.sciencedirect.com
Climate change and development cooperation Gupta 211
Although there is some amount of double counting, the aid resources fall short by about USD 430 billion annually. This is likely to affect the ability of aid in meeting the goals of both development and climate assistance [73]. Thus, these resources fall drastically short of both what was promised and what is seen as needed to meet these policy objectives and this is recognized by the heads of state of key developed countries in their summits [29,30]. Fourth, the beneficiaries of development and climate assistance are different. While those targeted by development cooperation are the poorest, those targeted by mitigation will most likely be high polluters (significantly richer) and those targeted by adaptation will be spread through the society. This will also imply a diversion of resources from one target group to another [3,50,77]. Michaelowa and Michaelowa [50] and Yamin [77] illustrate the potential for diversion and its political implications for development cooperation and for politics. Fifth, development cooperation is a very small part of the total international transfers and merely mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation without similarly mainstreaming climate change into all other national and international development flows is likely to be ineffective. Finally, mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation may, in practice, translate into a new conditionality. Experience shows that conditional aid tends to fail [79]. None of this implies that existing development cooperation projects should not be ‘climate proofed’ or checked against whether climate change impacts will negatively affect sponsored projects and processes, or checked in relation to their impacts on climate change.
Conclusions This paper draws on an analysis of the literature on both climate change and development cooperation, and has tested the results in a number of workshops and discussions with experts, to conclude that climate change cooperation can build extensively on lessons learnt from the history of development cooperation. It argues further that if we are to address climate change, climate change needs to be mainstreamed into development processes [7,8,66,80]. Such mainstreaming is not easy in the developing world [56,80] nor in the developed world where it challenges existing consumption and production processes and lifestyles; nor is it easy to integrate into existing global trade and investment processes. It argues that while existing development cooperation projects can benefit from taking climate change aspects into account, there are six serious arguments against mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation under the current political circumstances and that such mainstreaming will divert resources from development issues to climate change goals and will both negatively impact on the poorest of www.sciencedirect.com
the earth and alienate developing country partners in the process.
Acknowledgement The author has worked on this paper as part of the European Commission financed Adaptation and Mitigation (ADAM) Project (contract number: 98476).
References 1.
Gupta J: Mainstreaming climate change: a theoretical exploration. In Mainstreaming Climate Change in Development Cooperation: Theory, Practice and Implications for the European Union. Edited by Gupta J, van de Grijp N. Cambridge University Press; in press.
2.
Bodansky D: The United Nations framework convention on climate change: a commentary. Yale J Int Law 1993, 18:451-588.
3.
Gupta J: Climate change and development (Cooperation). In Sustainable Development: New Challenges for Poverty Reduction. Edited by Salih M. Edward Elgar; 2009:94-108.
4.
Agrawala S (Ed): Bridge over Troubled Waters: Linking Climate Change and Development. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2005.
5.
Arts K, Gupta J: Sustainable development in climate change and hazardous waste law: implications for the progressive development of international law. In The Law of Sustainable Development. Edited by Schrijver N, Weiss F. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 2004:519-551.
6.
Halsnaes K, Shukla PR, Garg A: Sustainable development and climate change: lessons from country studies. Clim Policy 2008, 8:202-219.
7.
IPCC-2: Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
8.
IPCC-3: Climate Change 2007: mitigation of climate change. Working Group III Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
9.
Kok M, Metz B, Verhagen J, van Rooijen S: Integrating development and climate policies: national and international benefits. Clim Policy 2008, 8:103-118.
10. Metz B, Kok M: Integrating development and climate policies. Clim Policy 2008, 8(1):99-102. 11. Opschoor H: Sustainable Development and a Dwindling Carbon Space. Institute of Social Studies; 2009. 12. Huq S, Reid H, Murray L: Climate Change and Development Links. International Institute for Environment and Development; 2006. 13. Zoelick R: Speech at the Conference of the Parties to the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali. December 2007. 14. UNDP: Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World. Human Development Report 2007–2008. Palgrave Macmillan; 2007. 15. Parry M, Canziani O, Palutikof J: Key IPCC conclusions on climate change impacts and adaptations. WMO Bull 2008, 57(1):1-8. 16. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; 2006 (http://www.h,-treasury.gov.uk). 17. Persson A˚: Different perspectives on EPI. In Environmental Policy Integration in Practice: Shaping Institutions for Learning.. Edited by Nilsson M, Eckerberg K. Earthscan; 2007:25-48. 18. Perssoon A˚, Klein RJT: Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change into official development assistance: challenges to foreign policy integration. In Climate Change and Foreign Policy: Case Studies from East to West. Edited by Harris P. London: Routledge; 2009:162-177. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213
212 Inaugural issues
19. Caviglia-Harris JL, Chambers D, Kahn JR: Taking the ‘‘U’’ out of Kuznets: a comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation. Ecol Econ 2009, 68(4):1149-1159. 20. Copeland BR, Taylor MS: Trade, growth, and the environment. J Econ Lit 2004, XLII:7-71.
44. Riddell R: Does Foreign Aid Really Work?Oxford University Press; 2007. 45. Gomanee K, Girma S, Morrissey O: Aid and growth in SubSaharan Africa: accounting for transmission mechanisms. J Int Dev 2005, 17:1055-1075.
21. Stern DI: The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 2004, 32(8):1419-1439.
46. Rajan RG, Subramanian A: Aid and Growth: What Does the CrossCountry Evidence Really Show? 2005 IMF Working Paper, WP/05/ 127. International Monetary Fund; 2005.
22. Thorbecke E: The Evolution of the Development Doctrine: 1950– 2005World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University; 2006.
47. Lindauer DL, Pritchett L: What’s the big idea? The third generation of policies for economic growth. Economia 2002, 3(1):1-39.
23. Easterly W: Was development assistance a mistake? Am Econ Rev 2007, 97(2):328-332.
48. Meier GM: Ideas for development. In In Frontiers of Development Economics: The Future in Perspective. Edited by Meier GM, Stiglitz JE. Oxford University Press and World Bank; 2001:1-12.
24. The´rien J-P: Debating foreign aid: right versus left. Third World Q 2002, 23(3):449-466. 25. Wuyts M: Aid, the employment relation and the deserving poor: regaining political economy. In Social Institutions and Economic Development: A Tribute to Kurt Martin. Edited by FitzGerald EVK. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002:169–86. 26. Paul E: A survey of the theoretical economic literature on foreign aid. Asian-Pacific Econ Lit 2006, 20(1):1-17. 27. Ca´rdenas EJ, Di Cerisano CS, Avalle O: The changing aid environment: perspectives on the official development assistance debate. ILSA J Int Comp Law 1995, 2:189-201. 28. Commission on Climate Change and Development: Closing the Gaps: Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change in Developing Countries. Commission on Climate Change and Development. Edita Sverige AB; 2009. 29. G20 London Summit: Global Plan for Recovery and Reform: The Communique´ from the London Summit. G20 Countries; 2009.
49. Verweij M, Gyawali D: Against more aid: why development assistance should not be tripled. Harvard Int Rev 2006, 27(4):26-30. 50. Michaelowa A, Michaelowa K: Climate or development: is ODA diverted from its original purpose? Clim Change 2008, 84(1):5-22. 51. Sachs W, McArthur JW, Schmidt-Traub G, Kruk M, Bahadur C, Faye M, McCord G: Ending Africa’s Poverty Trap. Brookings Institution; 2004:. 117–240. 52. OECD Paris Declaration: Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: Ownership, Harmonisation, Alignment, Results and Mutual Accountability; 2005 (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/ 34428351.pdf). 53. Verweij M, Thompson M (Eds): Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World: Governance, Politics and Plural Perceptions. Palgrave; 2006.
30. G7: The Gleneagles Communique´, Statement of the G8 at the Gleneagles Summit in 2005; 2005.
54. UNDG: Implementing the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: Action Plan of the UN Development GroupUnited Nations Development Group; 2005.
31. Piron L-H: The Right to Development: A Review of the Current State of the DebateLondon Department of International Development; 2002.
55. Agravala S, van Aalst M: Adapting development cooperation to adapt to climate change. Clim Policy 2008, 8(2):183-193.
32. Kirchmeier F: The right to development: where do we stand? Dialogue on Globalization. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung; 2006. 33. Bird N, Cabral L: Changing Aid Delivery and the Environment: Can General Budget Support be used to Meet Environmental Objectives?Overseas Development Institute; 2007. 34. Bourguignon F, Sundberg M: Aid effectiveness: opening the black box. Am Econ Rev 2007, 97(2):316-321. 35. Collier P, Dollar D: Development effectiveness: what have we learnt? Econ J 2004, 114(496):F244-F271. 36. Djankov S, Montalvo JG, Reynal-Querol M: Does foreign aid help? Cato J 2006, 26(1):1-28. 37. Doucouliagos H, Paldam M: Aid effectiveness on growth: a meta-study. Eur J Polit Econ 2008, 24(1):1-24. 38. Easterly W: The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done so Much Ill and So Little GoodOxford University Press; 2006. 39. Easterly W, Pfutze T: Where does the money go? Best and worst practices in foreign aid. J Econ Perspect 2008, 22(2):29-52. 40. IMF, World Bank: Global Monitoring Report 2006: Strengthening Mutual Accountability: Aid, Trade and GovernanceWorld Bank; 2006. 41. Joint European NGO report: EU Aid: Genuine Leadership or Misleading Figures? An Independent Analysis of European Governments’ Aid Levels. Concord; 2006. 42. Nunnenkamp P, Thiele R: Targeting aid to the needy and deserving: nothing but promises? World Econ 2006, 29(9):1177-1201. 43. OECD: 2005 Development Co-operation Report. OECD; 2006. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213
56. Tearfund: Overcoming the Barriers: Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation in Developing CountriesTearfund; 2006. 57. Mani M, Markandaya A, Ipe V: Climate Change: Adaptation and Mitigation in Development Programs — A Practical GuideWorld Bank; 2008. 58. US AID: Integrating Climate Change into Development. United States Agency for International Development; 2008. 59. US AID: Adapting to Climate Variability and Change: A Guidance Manual for Development PlanningUnited States Agency for International Development; 2007. 60. Schipper L, Pelling M: Disaster risk, climate change and international development: scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters 2006, 30(1):19-38. 61. McGray H, Hammill A, Bradley R: Weathering the Storm: Options for Framing Adaptation and DevelopmentWorld Resources Institute; 2007. 62. van Aalst M: Managing Climate Risk: Integrating Adaptation into World Bank Group OperationsWorld Bank; 2006. 63. Gigli S, Agrawala S: Stocktaking of Progress on Integrating Adaptation to Climate Change into Development Co-operation Activities. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2007. 64. Hicks RL, Parks BC, Roberts JT, Tierney MJ: Greening Aid? Understanding the Environmental Impact of Development Assistance.Oxford University Press; 2008. 65. Werksman JD: Greening Bretton Woods. In Greening International Law. Edited by Sands P. Earthscan; 1993:65-84. 66. UNEP-UNDP: Guidance Note on Mainstreaming Environment into National Development Planning. United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Development Programme; 2007. www.sciencedirect.com
Climate change and development cooperation Gupta 213
67. Barrera J, Schwarze R: Does the CDM contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from the AIJ pilot phase. Int J Sustain Dev 2004, 7:353-368.
74. Clemens MA, Kemp CJ, Moss TJ: The trouble with the MDGs: confronting expectations of aid and development success. World Dev 2007, 35(5):734-751.
68. Gupta J, van Beukering P, van Asselt H, Brander L, Hess S, van der Leeuw K: Flexibility mechanisms and sustainable development: lessons from five AIJ projects. Clim Policy 2008, 8(3):261-276.
75. Addison T, Mavrotas G, McGillivray M: Aid Debt Relief and New Sources of Finance for Meeting the Millennium Development Goals. UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research; 2005.
69. Sutter C, Parren˜o JC: Does the current clean Development Mechanism (CDM) deliver its sustainable development claim? An analysis of officially registered CDM projects. Clim Change 2007, 84:75-90.
76. Bouab AH: Financing for development, the Monterrey consensus: achievements and prospects. Michigan J Int Law 2004, 26:359-369.
70. van Asselt H, Gupta J: Stretching too far? Developing countries and the role of flexibility mechanisms beyond Kyoto. Stanford Environment Law Journal, 2009 (2):311-378. 71. Gupta J: Legal steps outside the climate convention: litigation as a tool to address climate change. Rev Eur Commun Int Environ Law 2007, 16(1):76-86. 72. Roberts JT, Starr K, Jones T, Abdel-Fattah D: The Reality of Official Climate Aid. Oxford Energy and Environment Comment, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies; 2008. 73. Gupta J, van der Grijp N: Mainstream climate change in development, not development cooperation. In Mainstreaming Climate Change in Development Cooperation: Theory, Practice and Implications for the European Union. Edited by Gupta J, van der Grijp N. Cambridge University Press; in press.
www.sciencedirect.com
77. Yamin F: The European Union and future climate policy: is mainstreaming adaptation a distraction or part of the solution? Clim Policy 2005, 5:349-361. 78. Behrens A: Financial impacts of climate change mitigation. Clim Change Law Rev 2009, 3(2):179-187. 79. Gupta J, Persson A, Olsson L, Bayer J, van der Grijp N, Jerneck A, Klein RJT, Thompson M, Patt A: Mainstreaming climate change in development cooperation: conditions for success. In Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate Change. Edited by Hulme M, Neufeldt H. Cambridge University Press; 2009. 80. Lasco RD, Pulhin FP, Jaranilla-Sanchez PA, Garcia KB, Gerpacio RV: Mainstreaming Climate Change in the Philippines. World Agroforestry Centre; 2008.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213
Climate change and development cooperation: trends and questions Joyeeta Gupta In recent years, the literature and politics in the traditionally distinct development and climate change cooperation fields are recommending a merger between these fields. The development cooperation literature and politics suggest incorporating climate change into development cooperation; and the climate change literature and politics suggest better links with development cooperation. Six arguments support this shift in perspective (logical, financial, practical, developing country, stakeholder, and reporting arguments), while six arguments justify delinking these discussions (different paths to development, political sensitivity, resources needed, changing target group, global effectiveness, and the conditionality arguments). This paper concludes that while development and climate change are closely linked, there are strong reasons to argue against mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation under current political circumstances. Address Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands Corresponding author: Gupta, Joyeeta ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213 This review comes from the inaugural issues Edited by Rik Leemans and Anand Patwardhan Available online 5th November 2009 1877-3435/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. DOI 10.1016/j.cosust.2009.10.004
Introduction The global community has experienced six decades of official development cooperation and two decades of climate change cooperation. In the last decade, there has been a major push in the policy arena to merge the two areas through mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation. There are many arguments driving the mainstreaming discourse and this discourse unites a number of different actors, although their reasoning is different. This paper reviews the literature to analyze this discourse. It addresses the question: What are the major trends in the literature, and do these justify that climate change should be mainstreamed into development cooperation? On the basis of the literature on mainstreaming, this paper defines ‘Mainstreaming of climate change into development as the process by which existing development www.sciencedirect.com
processes are (re)designed and (re)organized, and evaluated from the perspective of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Mainstreaming implies involving all social actors — governments, civil society, industry, and local communities into the process. Mainstreaming calls for changes in policy as far upstream as possible.’ This goes beyond the current way in which policymakers and researchers often use the term mainstreaming in the climate change debate. Research reveals that one can distinguish five stages through which climate change can be incorporated into the development cooperation process [1]. The first stage looks at ad hoc projects and makes changes in these projects, the second stage identifies win– win projects for both development cooperation and climate change, and in the third stage existing development cooperation projects are climate proofed to minimize new adaptation risks. The fourth stage integrates climate change into development cooperation projects and minimizes the impact of these projects on increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The final stage is mainstreaming which calls for redesigning the existing development cooperation portfolio from a climate change perspective. This essay discusses the recent literature that highlights this paradigm shift, and it then moves on to discuss the literature that questions this paradigm shift before drawing some conclusions. This paper looks not only at the scientific literature but also at documents produced by the relevant organizations working in the field and at the political statements made by leaders. It does not discuss whether it is the changing science that influences the politics or the other way around, but instead presents these trends as a symbiotic process.
Trends: the paradigm shift toward merging climate change and development cooperation The paradigm shift in climate change
In the early 1990s the climate change problem was seen as a single, abstract, complex, global, future, environmental, economic, and technological problem. The problem was seen in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks, and solutions were crafted in terms of reducing such emissions and enhancing such sinks. It was assumed that climate change could perhaps be addressed without making links to the complex issue of development. Although the potential impacts of climate change were seen as significant and several articles in the Climate Convention do refer to the role of the multilateral process in adaptation response, adaptation to these impacts was seen as primarily resulting in local benefits and requiring local action [2]. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213
208 Inaugural issues
Since the start of this decade, there has been a major shift in opinion [3] moving toward recognizing the two-way link between climate change and development [4–14]. The problem is being increasingly seen as integral to development issues in developed and developing countries. Development for the poor may imply increased greenhouse gas emissions and the poor may have limited opportunities to reduce the rate of growth of these emissions; however, it may also enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change [12]. Development for the rich may also imply increased greenhouse gas emissions, unless good and sustained policy choices are made with respect to energy sources as well as with respect to sectors that have not yet reached their maximum production level [8]. Some development activities may exacerbate the ability of societies to respond to the impacts of climate change, while adaptation measures may have additional benefits for development. The impacts of climate change are likely to have major distortionary effects on the developing world [15]. These links have led to discussions on the need to link climate change with development as well as development cooperation [16–18]. In particular, the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [8], the Special Issue on Development Policy as a Way to Manage Climate Change Risks [6,9,10], and the 2007–2008 Human Development Report of the United Nations Development Programme [14] provide the evidence and arguments for making these links. Initially, climate change was also seen as a problem that could be dealt with by nations only after they had passed a certain level of development, as predicted by the environment Kuznets curve. In other words, poorer countries would have to develop first before they would have the resources to invest in environmental technology; technology transfer could, however, provide a shortcut to sustainable development. However, recent research shows that the environment Kuznets curve does not hold for climate change [19], and this builds further on the existing research trends in the field [20,21]. CavigliaHarris et al. [19] show that economic growth alone cannot lead to sustainable development and that there is no clear inverted U curve relationship between environmental impacts and development. This indicates that the whole development paradigm will have to be changed if we wish to address the climate change problem within a time frame that ensures that we do not cross the ‘danger’ threshold. The danger threshold has been defined by the European Union as being around two degrees above preindustrial levels. Beyond this level, it is expected that climatic impacts will become very difficult to cope with. The paradigm shift in development cooperation
In the development cooperation world, there have been many paradigm shifts over the last half-century. These shifts have mainly been focused on who should be Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213
assisted, how should the assistance be delivered, and how can development be enhanced [22,23]. The meaning of development has evolved over time from increasing GDP in the 1950s, through increasing GDP and employment and promoting balance of payment equilibrium in the 1960s, to increasing per capita GDP in the 1970s, increasing macroeconomic stability and fiscal discipline in the 1980s, enhancing human development in the 1990s, to promoting sustainable development and human dignity in the first decade of this century. This was accompanied by changing ideas about the role of development cooperation. In the 1950s, development cooperation focused on technical assistance, diffusion of innovation and community development; in the 1960s it aimed at filling trade and investment gaps; in the 1970s the focus was on basic human needs and bridging the savings investment gap; in the 1980s on conditional aid, structural adjustment, and debt relief; and in the following two decades attention shifted to humanitarian assistance, the greening of aid, and good governance to country ownership of policies [22–27]. Aid programs resulted from the recognition of the need for assistance which led developed countries to adopt the commitment to provide 0.7% of national income as assistance to developing countries [27–30]. Although this is not a legally binding commitment, it has been repeated some 50 times in top political meetings [28] indicating a certain degree of authority. The offer of this assistance has occurred in parallel to the demands of the New International Economic Order and the Right to Development, although there are some controversies about linking this promise of assistance to the right to development [31,32]. The world of development cooperation now faces a number of challenges. The first is the continuing debate about the effectiveness of aid projects [22–24,26,32–43]. Part of this debate relates to the changing definitions of development and how best aid can contribute to development (see above). Part of this can be explained by the actual motive for providing assistance, which is only partly altruistic and enlightened self-interest, but is mostly motivated by political, strategic, security, economic, and environmental objectives [44]. While aid has often worked to save lives and improve social conditions, this may not be easily translated into macroeconomic indicators of development, and those seeking statistical correlations between aid and growth in specific developing countries often had contradictory results [23,44–46]. Instruments developed to enhance aid effectiveness such as conditional aid often had, in fact, counter-productive effects [26]. This has led to discussions about an intellectual vacuum on how best to design development cooperation projects [23,47,48]. These debates even lead some to question the usefulness of aid [49]. Hence, many are pushing for new reasons to revitalize aid, and climate change provides the new justification for it [50]. www.sciencedirect.com
Climate change and development cooperation Gupta 209
Some experts are much more positive about the impacts of aid on individuals and have tried to build on the consensus in the literature to focus aid resources on achieving the Millennium Development Goals. They argue that aid effectiveness should be seen more in terms of its direct impacts — education delivered, lives saved — rather than in terms of macroeconomic indicators [23]. Easterly [23] shows that the effectiveness of aid has often been measured through inappropriate indicators and that there is a case to support aid for its influence on individuals, rather than on societies as a whole. They argue that there are clear success stories, more resources are needed [51], that there are lessons learnt from the past (e.g. conditional and tied aid do not work as well as projects that are ‘owned’ by partner governments), and that different types of aid projects need to be designed for partner countries in different political and economic circumstances [23,25,43]. Finally, it has been argued that such aid lessons could also be unified as has been done in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness 2005 [52]. This Declaration has been adopted by over 100 developed and developing countries and international organizations and includes a statement of resolve, partnership commitments, and indicators of progress. What many authors also argue is that aid cannot be designed in advance. Instead, aid projects develop in active cooperation with civil societies, markets, and governments, where each helps to define and elaborate upon the schemes to be put in practice — such processes may be ‘clumsy’ in nature [53]. Continuous monitoring and assessing aid can help improve the quality of aid [54]. Many of those who wish to see the Millennium Declaration Goals achieved are afraid that that the impacts of climate change may potentially affect existing development aid projects and render existing efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals unsuccessful [14,55,56]. Thus, those who see the support for aid evaporate because of the debate on aid effectiveness and the press coverage it receives, and those who see aid effectiveness itself being affected by the impacts of climate change argue, for different reasons, that it is important to ‘mainstream’ climate change into development cooperation. Additional reasons include the fact that development cooperation projects may exacerbate climate change by increasing the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions, that development cooperation projects may inadvertently increase the vulnerability of the local people if climate change impacts are not adequately taken into account, and that well designed development aid may well enhance the resilience of people to cope with the impacts of climate change [14,55–58]. These reasons have led to a major paradigm shift in the world of development cooperation. Within that, there is definitely more support for linking climate change adaptation to development than for linking mitigation activities www.sciencedirect.com
to development [58–63]. This is because poverty abatement and adaptation are more synergetic goals than poverty abatement and mitigation activities — and the latter may also lead to trade-offs between the two goals [50]. Different motives: converging conclusions
Apart from the substantive arguments being made in both fields, practical circumstances are also driving different actors to conclude that climate change should be mainstreamed into development cooperation. Donor agencies, the EU Commission and Council, the G7, the World Bank, OECD, UNEP, UNDP as well as some researchers have a range of different arguments to justify mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation. Scientists are driven by the substantive links [9,10]. Banks are partly driven by the past environmental critique of their activities and the need to avoid a negative environmental legacy [64,65]. Aid agencies are driven by the lowering justification for development aid arising from the effectiveness debate [50]. The UN agencies are driven by the need to be more efficient and because they see climate change as undoing many of their efforts in the development field [14,66]. The governments of the leading economies are seeing the need to converge the two debates as a way to make their meager resources go a longer way [29,30].
The paradigm shift questioned Need to link climate change with development activities
Here it is wise to clarify any potential misunderstandings. First, the term ‘mainstreaming’ has in recent years been used very casually in the political, policy, and scientific literature, although mainstreaming has a very specific content, as can be seen from the historical literature on mainstreaming. The arguments in this paper are based on a more ‘pure’ definition of mainstreaming as given in the Introduction. Second, given the major substantive links between climate change and development, there is a clear justification for linking the two fields of climate change and development. This link implies that climate change processes and instruments should take development into account as well as that all international development processes including trade and investment processes should take climate change into account. The former is quite difficult. For example, integrating the sustainable development aspects into the Clean Development Mechanism projects has been quite difficult to achieve in practice [67–70]. Research shows that although in early phases of project approval parties indicate that they would like to make a contribution to sustainable development, once the projects are approved, actual contracts are drawn up between purchasers and sellers of emission credits. These legally binding contracts do not discuss the sustainable development aspects — and Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213
210 Inaugural issues
the search for cost-effective emission credits reduces the incentive to actually implement the more general and indirect sustainable development aspects of the initially approved project proposals. There is room for design improvements in the CDM to ensure that the sustainable development component becomes a reality. The latter implies that all national and international development processes should ‘mainstream climate change’ and use the climate lens to decide which development activities should continue and which should not. However, despite the rhetoric most developed and developing countries have not ‘mainstreamed climate change’ into their development process, or into the most significant international processes. For example, developed countries continue to provide export credits for nonsustainable fossil fuel investments in developing countries. NGOs such as The International NGO Campaign on Export Credit Agencies and the Environment Defense Fund in the US report that export credit agencies provide tens of billions of Euros/dollars annually in support of their own private sectors exports to developing and other countries. However, these agencies often do not take sustainability criteria adequately into account. Court cases in Germany and the US have recently brought this issue to light [71] and the OECD is preparing policy on this issue. This is just one indicator that the business-as-usual technology transfer to developing countries is most likely exporting cheaper and less sustainable technologies to the developing world. Short-term self-interest is a very strong driving force that makes integration of sustainable development into climate change cooperation a very difficult issue. It is against this context that the section below questions ‘mainstreaming climate change’ into development cooperation. It first presents six arguments that prima facie call for linking climate change with development cooperation. It then presents six arguments against making such a link. The problems with linking climate change to development cooperation
There are clear substantive arguments for linking development cooperation with climate change [50,72]. These include: first, logical arguments that climate change affects all sectors of society, and that development may aggravate the problem of climate change, may hamper adaptation but may also enhance the resilience of people; second, financial arguments, since the resources available for meeting the MDGs are inadequate and since resources for climate assistance are also limited and merging the meager resources may be cost-effective; third, practical arguments that development cooperation agencies already have the expertise of working in developing countries and can Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213
easily take on the new climate change related responsibilities, and besides given growing ‘aid fatigue’ in some developed countries, there may be greater motivation to provide assistance for climate change related activities; fourth, developing country perspectives — where linking climate change to development helps to prioritize climate change in these contexts; fifth, stakeholder perspectives — which would enable the development community and the climate change community to learn from each other and build on each others’ experience, and finally, reporting arguments — since both development and climate change policy processes call for developing countries to prepare specialized reports; integrating these reports may be more effective and efficient in the long run [73]. And yet, there are six reasons why this should not be done, based on the definition of mainstreaming provided in this paper. First, developing countries will probably have to navigate ‘through an unchartered and evolving landscape’ [8] to deal with climate change, and this is not something that can be easily integrated into development cooperation programs. For, developed countries, themselves, have yet to figure out how best to achieve sustainable development; and the starting point of developing countries is different from that of the developed countries. In other words, promoting transfers of existing technologies and practices in the West may be less beneficial than designing more appropriate technologies and practices that fit in better with the conditions of the developing world and are compatible with climate change policy. Second, there is considerable political sensitivity to the mainstreaming argument. The developed countries had promised 0.7% of their GNI as development cooperation resources. In addition, ‘new and additional’ resources (over and above the 0.7% commitment) for climate change assistance were offered for a problem that was primarily caused by the developed countries and because current and forthcoming impacts in the short-term can mostly be attributed to the past emissions of the developed countries [14]. However, most developed countries have failed to meet the 0.7% target and there is a fear that resources promised for development cooperation will be shifted to climate change. In fact many developed countries have promised to increase the resources for developing countries — but these increases are most likely to be focused on climate assistance although labeled as development assistance in order to look better against the 0.7% target. Third, such assistance is affected by the inadequacy of the resources to meet the challenges. Current development cooperation (2008, 2009) is in the order of USD 100–120 billion (about 3% of donor GNI). This falls short by USD 50–135 billion annually to meet the MDG targets [74–76]; falls short of the USD 125 billion that is needed annually for the more general UNCED development targets and an additional USD 270 billion is needed for climate assistance [11,78]. www.sciencedirect.com
Climate change and development cooperation Gupta 211
Although there is some amount of double counting, the aid resources fall short by about USD 430 billion annually. This is likely to affect the ability of aid in meeting the goals of both development and climate assistance [73]. Thus, these resources fall drastically short of both what was promised and what is seen as needed to meet these policy objectives and this is recognized by the heads of state of key developed countries in their summits [29,30]. Fourth, the beneficiaries of development and climate assistance are different. While those targeted by development cooperation are the poorest, those targeted by mitigation will most likely be high polluters (significantly richer) and those targeted by adaptation will be spread through the society. This will also imply a diversion of resources from one target group to another [3,50,77]. Michaelowa and Michaelowa [50] and Yamin [77] illustrate the potential for diversion and its political implications for development cooperation and for politics. Fifth, development cooperation is a very small part of the total international transfers and merely mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation without similarly mainstreaming climate change into all other national and international development flows is likely to be ineffective. Finally, mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation may, in practice, translate into a new conditionality. Experience shows that conditional aid tends to fail [79]. None of this implies that existing development cooperation projects should not be ‘climate proofed’ or checked against whether climate change impacts will negatively affect sponsored projects and processes, or checked in relation to their impacts on climate change.
Conclusions This paper draws on an analysis of the literature on both climate change and development cooperation, and has tested the results in a number of workshops and discussions with experts, to conclude that climate change cooperation can build extensively on lessons learnt from the history of development cooperation. It argues further that if we are to address climate change, climate change needs to be mainstreamed into development processes [7,8,66,80]. Such mainstreaming is not easy in the developing world [56,80] nor in the developed world where it challenges existing consumption and production processes and lifestyles; nor is it easy to integrate into existing global trade and investment processes. It argues that while existing development cooperation projects can benefit from taking climate change aspects into account, there are six serious arguments against mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation under the current political circumstances and that such mainstreaming will divert resources from development issues to climate change goals and will both negatively impact on the poorest of www.sciencedirect.com
the earth and alienate developing country partners in the process.
Acknowledgement The author has worked on this paper as part of the European Commission financed Adaptation and Mitigation (ADAM) Project (contract number: 98476).
References 1.
Gupta J: Mainstreaming climate change: a theoretical exploration. In Mainstreaming Climate Change in Development Cooperation: Theory, Practice and Implications for the European Union. Edited by Gupta J, van de Grijp N. Cambridge University Press; in press.
2.
Bodansky D: The United Nations framework convention on climate change: a commentary. Yale J Int Law 1993, 18:451-588.
3.
Gupta J: Climate change and development (Cooperation). In Sustainable Development: New Challenges for Poverty Reduction. Edited by Salih M. Edward Elgar; 2009:94-108.
4.
Agrawala S (Ed): Bridge over Troubled Waters: Linking Climate Change and Development. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2005.
5.
Arts K, Gupta J: Sustainable development in climate change and hazardous waste law: implications for the progressive development of international law. In The Law of Sustainable Development. Edited by Schrijver N, Weiss F. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 2004:519-551.
6.
Halsnaes K, Shukla PR, Garg A: Sustainable development and climate change: lessons from country studies. Clim Policy 2008, 8:202-219.
7.
IPCC-2: Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
8.
IPCC-3: Climate Change 2007: mitigation of climate change. Working Group III Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
9.
Kok M, Metz B, Verhagen J, van Rooijen S: Integrating development and climate policies: national and international benefits. Clim Policy 2008, 8:103-118.
10. Metz B, Kok M: Integrating development and climate policies. Clim Policy 2008, 8(1):99-102. 11. Opschoor H: Sustainable Development and a Dwindling Carbon Space. Institute of Social Studies; 2009. 12. Huq S, Reid H, Murray L: Climate Change and Development Links. International Institute for Environment and Development; 2006. 13. Zoelick R: Speech at the Conference of the Parties to the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali. December 2007. 14. UNDP: Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World. Human Development Report 2007–2008. Palgrave Macmillan; 2007. 15. Parry M, Canziani O, Palutikof J: Key IPCC conclusions on climate change impacts and adaptations. WMO Bull 2008, 57(1):1-8. 16. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; 2006 (http://www.h,-treasury.gov.uk). 17. Persson A˚: Different perspectives on EPI. In Environmental Policy Integration in Practice: Shaping Institutions for Learning.. Edited by Nilsson M, Eckerberg K. Earthscan; 2007:25-48. 18. Perssoon A˚, Klein RJT: Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change into official development assistance: challenges to foreign policy integration. In Climate Change and Foreign Policy: Case Studies from East to West. Edited by Harris P. London: Routledge; 2009:162-177. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213
212 Inaugural issues
19. Caviglia-Harris JL, Chambers D, Kahn JR: Taking the ‘‘U’’ out of Kuznets: a comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation. Ecol Econ 2009, 68(4):1149-1159. 20. Copeland BR, Taylor MS: Trade, growth, and the environment. J Econ Lit 2004, XLII:7-71.
44. Riddell R: Does Foreign Aid Really Work?Oxford University Press; 2007. 45. Gomanee K, Girma S, Morrissey O: Aid and growth in SubSaharan Africa: accounting for transmission mechanisms. J Int Dev 2005, 17:1055-1075.
21. Stern DI: The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 2004, 32(8):1419-1439.
46. Rajan RG, Subramanian A: Aid and Growth: What Does the CrossCountry Evidence Really Show? 2005 IMF Working Paper, WP/05/ 127. International Monetary Fund; 2005.
22. Thorbecke E: The Evolution of the Development Doctrine: 1950– 2005World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University; 2006.
47. Lindauer DL, Pritchett L: What’s the big idea? The third generation of policies for economic growth. Economia 2002, 3(1):1-39.
23. Easterly W: Was development assistance a mistake? Am Econ Rev 2007, 97(2):328-332.
48. Meier GM: Ideas for development. In In Frontiers of Development Economics: The Future in Perspective. Edited by Meier GM, Stiglitz JE. Oxford University Press and World Bank; 2001:1-12.
24. The´rien J-P: Debating foreign aid: right versus left. Third World Q 2002, 23(3):449-466. 25. Wuyts M: Aid, the employment relation and the deserving poor: regaining political economy. In Social Institutions and Economic Development: A Tribute to Kurt Martin. Edited by FitzGerald EVK. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002:169–86. 26. Paul E: A survey of the theoretical economic literature on foreign aid. Asian-Pacific Econ Lit 2006, 20(1):1-17. 27. Ca´rdenas EJ, Di Cerisano CS, Avalle O: The changing aid environment: perspectives on the official development assistance debate. ILSA J Int Comp Law 1995, 2:189-201. 28. Commission on Climate Change and Development: Closing the Gaps: Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change in Developing Countries. Commission on Climate Change and Development. Edita Sverige AB; 2009. 29. G20 London Summit: Global Plan for Recovery and Reform: The Communique´ from the London Summit. G20 Countries; 2009.
49. Verweij M, Gyawali D: Against more aid: why development assistance should not be tripled. Harvard Int Rev 2006, 27(4):26-30. 50. Michaelowa A, Michaelowa K: Climate or development: is ODA diverted from its original purpose? Clim Change 2008, 84(1):5-22. 51. Sachs W, McArthur JW, Schmidt-Traub G, Kruk M, Bahadur C, Faye M, McCord G: Ending Africa’s Poverty Trap. Brookings Institution; 2004:. 117–240. 52. OECD Paris Declaration: Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: Ownership, Harmonisation, Alignment, Results and Mutual Accountability; 2005 (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/ 34428351.pdf). 53. Verweij M, Thompson M (Eds): Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World: Governance, Politics and Plural Perceptions. Palgrave; 2006.
30. G7: The Gleneagles Communique´, Statement of the G8 at the Gleneagles Summit in 2005; 2005.
54. UNDG: Implementing the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: Action Plan of the UN Development GroupUnited Nations Development Group; 2005.
31. Piron L-H: The Right to Development: A Review of the Current State of the DebateLondon Department of International Development; 2002.
55. Agravala S, van Aalst M: Adapting development cooperation to adapt to climate change. Clim Policy 2008, 8(2):183-193.
32. Kirchmeier F: The right to development: where do we stand? Dialogue on Globalization. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung; 2006. 33. Bird N, Cabral L: Changing Aid Delivery and the Environment: Can General Budget Support be used to Meet Environmental Objectives?Overseas Development Institute; 2007. 34. Bourguignon F, Sundberg M: Aid effectiveness: opening the black box. Am Econ Rev 2007, 97(2):316-321. 35. Collier P, Dollar D: Development effectiveness: what have we learnt? Econ J 2004, 114(496):F244-F271. 36. Djankov S, Montalvo JG, Reynal-Querol M: Does foreign aid help? Cato J 2006, 26(1):1-28. 37. Doucouliagos H, Paldam M: Aid effectiveness on growth: a meta-study. Eur J Polit Econ 2008, 24(1):1-24. 38. Easterly W: The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done so Much Ill and So Little GoodOxford University Press; 2006. 39. Easterly W, Pfutze T: Where does the money go? Best and worst practices in foreign aid. J Econ Perspect 2008, 22(2):29-52. 40. IMF, World Bank: Global Monitoring Report 2006: Strengthening Mutual Accountability: Aid, Trade and GovernanceWorld Bank; 2006. 41. Joint European NGO report: EU Aid: Genuine Leadership or Misleading Figures? An Independent Analysis of European Governments’ Aid Levels. Concord; 2006. 42. Nunnenkamp P, Thiele R: Targeting aid to the needy and deserving: nothing but promises? World Econ 2006, 29(9):1177-1201. 43. OECD: 2005 Development Co-operation Report. OECD; 2006. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213
56. Tearfund: Overcoming the Barriers: Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation in Developing CountriesTearfund; 2006. 57. Mani M, Markandaya A, Ipe V: Climate Change: Adaptation and Mitigation in Development Programs — A Practical GuideWorld Bank; 2008. 58. US AID: Integrating Climate Change into Development. United States Agency for International Development; 2008. 59. US AID: Adapting to Climate Variability and Change: A Guidance Manual for Development PlanningUnited States Agency for International Development; 2007. 60. Schipper L, Pelling M: Disaster risk, climate change and international development: scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters 2006, 30(1):19-38. 61. McGray H, Hammill A, Bradley R: Weathering the Storm: Options for Framing Adaptation and DevelopmentWorld Resources Institute; 2007. 62. van Aalst M: Managing Climate Risk: Integrating Adaptation into World Bank Group OperationsWorld Bank; 2006. 63. Gigli S, Agrawala S: Stocktaking of Progress on Integrating Adaptation to Climate Change into Development Co-operation Activities. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2007. 64. Hicks RL, Parks BC, Roberts JT, Tierney MJ: Greening Aid? Understanding the Environmental Impact of Development Assistance.Oxford University Press; 2008. 65. Werksman JD: Greening Bretton Woods. In Greening International Law. Edited by Sands P. Earthscan; 1993:65-84. 66. UNEP-UNDP: Guidance Note on Mainstreaming Environment into National Development Planning. United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Development Programme; 2007. www.sciencedirect.com
Climate change and development cooperation Gupta 213
67. Barrera J, Schwarze R: Does the CDM contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from the AIJ pilot phase. Int J Sustain Dev 2004, 7:353-368.
74. Clemens MA, Kemp CJ, Moss TJ: The trouble with the MDGs: confronting expectations of aid and development success. World Dev 2007, 35(5):734-751.
68. Gupta J, van Beukering P, van Asselt H, Brander L, Hess S, van der Leeuw K: Flexibility mechanisms and sustainable development: lessons from five AIJ projects. Clim Policy 2008, 8(3):261-276.
75. Addison T, Mavrotas G, McGillivray M: Aid Debt Relief and New Sources of Finance for Meeting the Millennium Development Goals. UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research; 2005.
69. Sutter C, Parren˜o JC: Does the current clean Development Mechanism (CDM) deliver its sustainable development claim? An analysis of officially registered CDM projects. Clim Change 2007, 84:75-90.
76. Bouab AH: Financing for development, the Monterrey consensus: achievements and prospects. Michigan J Int Law 2004, 26:359-369.
70. van Asselt H, Gupta J: Stretching too far? Developing countries and the role of flexibility mechanisms beyond Kyoto. Stanford Environment Law Journal, 2009 (2):311-378. 71. Gupta J: Legal steps outside the climate convention: litigation as a tool to address climate change. Rev Eur Commun Int Environ Law 2007, 16(1):76-86. 72. Roberts JT, Starr K, Jones T, Abdel-Fattah D: The Reality of Official Climate Aid. Oxford Energy and Environment Comment, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies; 2008. 73. Gupta J, van der Grijp N: Mainstream climate change in development, not development cooperation. In Mainstreaming Climate Change in Development Cooperation: Theory, Practice and Implications for the European Union. Edited by Gupta J, van der Grijp N. Cambridge University Press; in press.
www.sciencedirect.com
77. Yamin F: The European Union and future climate policy: is mainstreaming adaptation a distraction or part of the solution? Clim Policy 2005, 5:349-361. 78. Behrens A: Financial impacts of climate change mitigation. Clim Change Law Rev 2009, 3(2):179-187. 79. Gupta J, Persson A, Olsson L, Bayer J, van der Grijp N, Jerneck A, Klein RJT, Thompson M, Patt A: Mainstreaming climate change in development cooperation: conditions for success. In Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate Change. Edited by Hulme M, Neufeldt H. Cambridge University Press; 2009. 80. Lasco RD, Pulhin FP, Jaranilla-Sanchez PA, Garcia KB, Gerpacio RV: Mainstreaming Climate Change in the Philippines. World Agroforestry Centre; 2008.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009, 1:207–213