Just Africa

Climate Debt

Opponents of the World Bank’s solution to climate change, the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs), recommend the UN Framework Convention on Climate Chance (UNFCCC) as a much better alternative. One of their key grievances is the Bank’s intention to issue loans as well as grants to help developing countries hinder and adapt to climate change.

Why would such loans be illegitimate? The UNFCCC makes it very clear: developed countries are primarily responsible for climate change. Therefore, “as historical polluters and due to their higher technological and economic capabilities, developed countries should shoulder the main burden for resolving the crisis” (Celine Tan, Third World Network). Issuing loans for climate financing will put poor countries into illegitimate debt for a problem caused by the industrialization and economic growth of richer nations. At a time when poor countries have to face their own development challenges, debt repayments will further entrap them in economic stagnation.

Can the developing world trust rich nations with tackling climate change?

That climate change is occurring globally with disastrous consequences, and that unsustainable economic policies are to blame, is no longer under question. The real issue now is not only how do we solve this crisis, but also who — who is most apt to take the lead in tackling climate change.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) seems like a sensible candidate. Last December, at the Climate Change Conference in Bali, Parties to the UNFCCC established a multilateral fund to provide technological assistance to developing countries. The G77 + China, as well as over a hundred civil society groups worldwide, are backing this initiative because it is grounded in the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” Essentially, it mandates developed countries, as historical polluters with higher technological and economic capabilities, to take on the largest share of responsibility and leadership in combating climate change.

Contestant #2 is the World Bank. This past week, Oct. 13-17, the World Bank held a series of meetings in Washington, DC to discuss the implementation of its new initiative against climate change, the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs). In the Bank’s own words, these funds “will enable a dynamic partnership between the MDBs (Multilateral Development Banks) and developing countries to undertake investments that achieve a country's development goals through a transition to a climate-resilient economy and a low carbon development path.”

This proposal is under harsh criticism by developing countries for putting the global fight against climate change under the Bank’s inequitable governance structure. The G77 + China condemned the Bank for diverting attention and financing away from the more democratic and transparent UNFCCC proposal. Ten of the world’s richest countries have already pledged over $6 billion to the CIFs; about a third of this number was pledged by the US. “There is clearly money for climate actions, which is the good news, but the bad news is it is in the hands of institutions that do not necessarily serve the objectives of the Convention [on Climate Change],” said Bernaditas Muller, chief negotiator for the G77 + China.

Prospects for Broadening the Narrow Vision of Aid to Africa

Today I attended a panel discussion entitled Leveraging International Frameworks to Fight Poverty at InterAction, the American Council for Voluntary International Action. The talk was part of InterAction's Progress Against Poverty Week. This week is “dedicated to celebrating how far the international development and humanitarian community has advanced in the fight to end global poverty.” The panelists spoke from experience with various humanitarian and development organizations from Oxfam to Bread for the World. Their focus was on the current international climate and interactions between NGOs, governments and international policy makers. The topics ranged from the need to modernize debt relief and the possibilities of an advancement of a coherent development agenda, as well as positive communication between the U.S. and European countries on the subject.