background image
65
Second Quarter 2010
is
t
ockpho
t
o
sions based on predictions alone. And, in
light of the degree of uncertainty about the
pace and consequences of global warming,
this approach would almost certainly lead to
a lot of funding choices that look bad in
hindsight.
is adaptation aid different than
development aid?
There is a presumption that funding for ad-
aptation is something different than economic
development aid ­ the core work of agencies
like the World Bank and the Asian Develop-
ment Bank. And in some ways, the presump-
tion makes sense: some of the demands of ad-
aptation ­ in particular, the very tangible need
for protective infrastructure like sea walls ­ are
different. But most adaptation is not com-
pletely distinct from development; indeed, it
may be quite similar.
Some 50 of the poorest countries prepared
what are called National Adaptation Pro-
grams of Action under the UN's Framework
Convention on Climate Change. These pro-
grams contain lists of what each country sees
as its highest priorities for adaptation invest-
ments. I reviewed about two dozen of them,
and found that at least three-fifths of the re-
quested priority funding was for projects that
are ostensibly for climate change adaptation,
but are in fact for basic economic develop-
ment. That is, these projects would be consid-
ered worthy investments even if the climate
were not changing.
If the highest priority in adaptation proj-
ects does, indeed, amount to economic devel-
opment, one has to wonder why adaptation is
being financed from a separate pot of money.
By the same token, one must wonder whether
mainstream development aid is currently
supporting projects that are at cross-pur-
poses with adaptation ­ by, for example,
encouraging overuse of aquifers in
drought-prone places or financing urbaniza-
tion in areas vulnerable to sea-level rise. Per-
haps it would make economic sense ­ if not
always political sense ­ to integrate climate
change into mainstream development efforts.
This line of reasoning raises some trou-
bling questions. Whether development assis-
tance has actually resulted in raising the stan-
dard of living in developing countries is a
controversial matter. Moreover, even if adap-
tation projects are well designed and executed,
will the most vulnerable countries have polit-
ical and legal institutions adequate to the task
of maintaining them over the long haul? How
will donors ensure that funds are delivered to
those who need them when they need them ­
and not siphoned off for other (perhaps less
altruistic) purposes?
The Copenhagen Accord does not specify
how the adaptation funds will be adminis-
tered. It mentions a "Copenhagen Green Cli-
mate Fund," but does not assign authority to
a specific agency. Hopefully, whichever agency
or agencies inherit the task will be up to the
task of incorporating climate change into
development.
The difficulties in financing and imple-
menting adaptation in less-developed coun-
tries offer no excuse for ducking the issue.
The challenges will be formidable in the best
of possible worlds. Without an aggressive ef-
fort ­ and a tolerance for error as adaptation
projects get up to speed ­ those challenges
could become unmanageable. There could be
widespread suffering from drought, storms
and inundation of coastal areas. And what
happens in developing countries could indi-
rectly affect the developed world by increas-
ing political instability and driving mass mi-
gration. In the final analysis, there is a moral
imperative for the developed
world to aid the developing one in
coping with climate change.
m