The 21st Century climate challenge

0.7 percent of Gross National Income (GNI)for rich countries. Commitments made by theEuropean Union and G8 in 2005 includeda pledge to double aid flows by 2010—aUS$50 billion increase, with around one-halfearmarked for Africa. These are resources thatcould help countries meet the challenge ofscaling up adaptation efforts.Early signs on delivery are not encouraging.International aid has been increasing since thelate 1990s. However, in 2006, developmentassistance fell by 5 percent—the first recordedfall since 1997. This figure partially exaggeratesthe decline because of exceptional debt reliefprovided for Iraq and Nigeria in 2005. Buteven excluding these operations, aid levels fellby 2 percent. 55 Headline numbers on aid alsoobscure some wider concerns. For example,much of the increase since 2004 can be tracedto debt relief and humanitarian aid. Debt reliefinflates the figure for real resource transfers forreasons of financial accounting: aid data recordreductions in debt stock as increased aid flows.Humanitarian aid is heavily concentrated and—by definition—geared towards disaster responserather than long-term development.Analysis by the OECD has raised importantquestions as to whether, on current trends, aiddonors can meet their own commitments.Discounting debt reduction and humanitarianaid, the rate of increase will have to triple overthe next four years if the 2005 commitment todouble aid by 2010 is to be met (figure 4.3). 56 Ofspecial concern is the stagnation since 2002 inaid flows for core development programmes insub-Saharan Africa (figure 4.4). These trends arenot compatible with the financing requirementsfor adaptation to climate change.Limited delivery through dedicatedadaptation mechanismsIn stark contrast to adaptation planning indeveloped countries, the multilateral aidresponse to adaptation financing in developingSpecial contributionNo choice is our choiceThe changing climate is changing our world for all times to comeand for the worse—much worse. This much we know.What we must now learn is how we can ‘cope’ with this changingclimate and how indeed we can (and must) avert catastrophe byreducing our emissions. The fact is that even with the changein global temperature we’ve seen so far—some 0.7°C from themid-1800s to now—we are beginning to see devastation all aroundus. We know that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weatherevents. We know that fl oods have ravaged millions across Asia;that cyclones and typhoons have destroyed entire settlements incoastal areas; that heatwaves have killed people even in the richworld. The list goes on.But what we must remember is that this is limited damage. Thatwe are living on borrowed time. If this is the level of devastation withjust that seemingly small rise in temperature, then think what willhappen when the world warms up another 0.7°C, which scientistsnow tell us is inevitable—the result of emissions we have alreadypumped into the atmosphere. Then think what happens if we areeven more climate-irresponsible and temperatures increase, aspredicted in all business-as-usual models, by 5°C. Just think: thisis the difference in temperature between the last ice age and theworld we know now. Think and act.It is now clear that coping with changing climate is not newrocket science. It is about doing development. The poor alreadylive on the margins of subsistence. Their ability to withstand thenext drought, the next fl ood or the next natural disaster is alreadystretched to the limits. Adaptation is about investment in everythingthat will make societies, particularly the poorest and most climatevulnerable,more resilient. Adaptation is about development for all.But it needs much more investment and much more speed.This is one part of what is needed. The other, more diffi cult,is to reduce our current emissions, and drastically. There is noother truth. We also know emissions are linked to growth and thatgrowth is linked to lifestyles. Because of this our efforts to reduceemissions have been high on rhetoric and low on action. This willhave to change.It will have to change even as we learn another truth: we liveon one planet Earth and to live together we will have to share itsresources. The fact is that even as the rich world must reduce itscarbon footprint, the poor world must get ecological space toincrease its wealth. It is about the right to development.The only question is can we learn new ways to build wealth andwell-being? The only answer is we have no choice.Sunita NarainDirector Centre for Science and Environment4Adapting to the inevitable: national action and international cooperationHUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2007/2008 187