Liane Schalatek HBF North America April 21,2009 Preparation for ECOSOC Annual Ministerial Review EVENT Financing Climate Change: Gender Equality

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Liane Schalatek HBF North America April 21,2009 Preparation for ECOSOC Annual Ministerial Review EVENT Financing Climate Change: Gender Equality"

Meredith Gregory
5 years ago
Views:

1 Liane Schalatek HBF North America April 21,2009 Preparation for ECOSOC Annual Ministerial Review EVENT Financing Climate Change: Gender Equality

2 Large-scale mitigation and adaptation efforts necessary at the same time with massive development investments (MDGs) at a time of donor country recession and public indebtedness and large financial

2 2 Large-scale mitigation and adaptation efforts necessary at the same time with massive development investments (MDGs) at a time of donor country recession and public indebtedness and large financial sector bailouts (convergence of multiple crises) - will be very costly, but unavoidable Question of GLOBAL JUSTICE and POLITICAL WILL So far, environmental finance mechanisms with limited benefit for LDCs and poorest and most disadvantaged within countries Women as a group generally least considered by modern financing mechanisms Reasons: lack of capital, market access, knowledge, skills, decision-making powers RECENTLY: proliferation of over 60 new bilateral and multilateral instruments and funds for climate financing Shift from UNFCCC/GEF to WB and MDBs LONG-TERM: development of a new global climate finance architecture with new and existing funds (f.ex. Copenhagen Accord called for new Copenhagen Green Climate Fund ) CHALLENGE: to ensure that gender is an important consideration in ongoing climate finance negotiations and in fund operationalization and disbursement NEEDED: Double Mainstreaming of climate policy in sustainable development policy, which acknowledges the necessity for gender mainstreaming No Climate Justice without Gender Justice

3 3 UNFCCC (Bali Action Plan) CRITERIA: adequate, sustainable, predictable, based on polluter pays principle, additional (= on top of development assistance & recognized ODA goal of.7% of GDP) Needs to address linkages between development, poverty eradication, climate action Not climate aid but mandatory and compensatory transfer payments North to South (see discussions about climate debt) under a Global Compact (UNFCCC preamble: common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities... ;) Should be delivered as grants, not repayable (even if concessional) loans CURRENTLY: reliance on mostly voluntary payments with contributions and disbursements lagging far behind pledges Missing, but needed: gender policies and guidelines gender indicators, gender budgeting, gender audits for climate finance and stronger participation of gender advocates in planning and decision-making

4 4 RECENT COST ESTIMATES (vary widely, but agree on enormity of sums): Adaptation: $ billion per year in 2030 (World Bank WDR 2010) >$67 billion per year by 2020 (African Group, 2009) $28-59 billion per year by 2030 (UNFCCC, 2008) Mitigation: $ billion per year in 2030 (WDR 2010) IN COMPARISON: $200 billion per year by 2020 (African Group, 2009) > $65 billion per year by 2030 (UNFCCC, 2008) G20 at London Summit (Spring 2010) committed US$850 bn for the IMF to stabilize the global finance system The US alone, the biggest emitter of CO2, committed more than $US 5 trillion in bailout and stimulus efforts in less than two years Industrialized countries to this day subsidize the production of fossil fuels with yearly US$ 67 bn minimum FACT: generating funds for climate action is primarily a matter of lacking political will by industrialized countries, not lack of resources

5 5 Source: (joint project of Hbf and ODI)

6 6 Source: (joint project of Hbf and ODI)

7 7 The Copenhagen Accord makes a political commitment to provide $30 bn ($10 bn per year) for as short-term finance to be fast-tracked and made available promptly up to $100 bn per year by 2020 in long-term finance. Money is supposed to come from public and private sources, relying on existing climate financing channels (including bilateral funding initiatives and multilaterally the GEF-managed funds, the World Bank Climate Investment Funds and the Adaptation Fund) as well as a future Copenhagen Green Climate Fund or Global Climate Fund (still to be set-up). POSITIVE FEATURES: Puts an official price tag (worked out as a compromise) on the need for climate change financing and makes concrete commitments Money to be spent equally on adaptation and mitigation

8 8 NEGATIVE: Only a political declaration of intent, not a binding agreement with mandatory financing flows Politically important mid-level financing goal (for 2015; synergies to MDG fulfillment) is missing (Intentionally) vague regarding the proportion of public vs. private (carbon market and emissions-trading generated) funding and thus the obligation/necessary commitment of the polluting countries Early indications showing that fast-tracked short-term finance at least for 2010 is mostly re-assigned ODA, not additional and new money Panel of the High Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing committed to in Copenhagen and set up by SG in February 2010 as part of the Copenhagen Accord does not include a single women, nor well-known gender champions need to lobby for the inclusion of gender considerations in the Advisory Group s Mandate for example by bringing gender experts into the technical working groups of the High Level Panel

9 9 Three main focal areas: Mitigation/ Clean technologies GOAL: transformational change of energy sector in primarily emerging market countries Adaptation/ Climate Resilience Focus on the poorest, most affected developing countries REDD Reduction of emissions from deforestations and forest degradation ALL the programs in these financing areas need to be gender-mainstreamed REASON: gender-specific differences in adaptive and mitigative capacity CHANCE Women as agents of change, not just victims of climate change; gender perspective to IMPROVE effectiveness and efficiency of climate change finance!

10 Men an women through their actions and activities (largely defined by gender roles) have different emissions contribution (generally lower for women) and mitigative capacities Lack of data

10 10 Men an women through their actions and activities (largely defined by gender roles) have different emissions contribution (generally lower for women) and mitigative capacities Lack of data indicates need for further mapping Currently, mitigation financing focuses predominantly on few countries (Brazil, China, Mexico, South Africa, India) and large scale projects especially in energy and transportation sectors NEEDED: Moving away from big-is-better project attitude as the norm and smaller scale projects as exception or political fig leaf Focus on capacity building (economic literary and mitigation technology), the scaling up and aggregation of low-tech mitigation efforts and appropriate tech transfer and tech support

11 11 Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol allowing industrialized countries to meet their emission reduction target in a cost-effective way by financing GHG emissions reduction in developing countries ( off-setting ) PROBLEM: allows industrialized countries to delay dealing with their own emission problem. BUT: of 2,152 CDM projects under way globally (as of April 20, 2010), only 36 total in Africa in LDCs -> countries that need lowcarbon investment most are mostly left out Most projects in just a few countries: China (806), India (499); Brazil (171) REASONS: cumbersome project-by-project application procedure (lack of know-how)/costs, market-driven push for cheapest emissions reduction opportunity bias in favor of large emitter countries and large-scale projects ignores women s ongoing mitigation contributions (mostly small scale and community-based).

12 12 need to include poor/women in design of CDM projects; streamline application procedures/reduce registration fees for small projects; improve access for small, community-based initiatives; allow bundling or template approaches potential of CDM to combine poverty alleviation & women s empowerment with GHG abatement (see experience of Grameen Shakti in Bangladesh focus on small-scale, off-grid projects (mini-hydro, small-scale afforestation/reforestation; biomass energy generation, home solar, efficient lighting etc. NOTE: future of current CDM is in doubt, but likelihood of similar successor mechanism need for women s advocates to engage in ongoing debate for the future shape of the CDM

13 brings CDM to grass-roots by bundling smaller projects (planned 30,000 units of 65 watt capacity solar home systems in off-grid rural households over 5 years, submitted as Small Scale CDM project).

13 13 brings CDM to grass-roots by bundling smaller projects (planned 30,000 units of 65 watt capacity solar home systems in off-grid rural households over 5 years, submitted as Small Scale CDM project). Will replace kerosene and diesel generator for lighting and electricity reduce GHG emissions Not-for-profit Grameen Shakti active in several ways: works also with WB as aggregator and guarantor thru a public-private-partnership, the Community Development Carbon Fund (CDCF), project plans almost 970,000 SHS by 2015; Dealer credit model in which Grameen gives individual households soft microcredit to make the solar home system affordable; the cost of the SHS to be repaid in monthly rates over up to 4 years The funding thru the CDM keeps the purchase costs for SHS down Project includes training of female engineers to install and maintain solar home systems

14 14 Adaptation= reduction of vulnerabilities to climate change for livelihoods of poor people and the eco-systems they depend on vulnerability and poverty strictly connected to gender inequality GOAL: mainstreaming of climate policy into development policy (which acknowledges the value of gender mainstreaming) DOUBLE MAINSTREAMING PROBLEM: existing adaptation funding mechanisms are extremely underfunded (roughly $560 mio only) While many funds include some social aspects in project preparation and financing (usually community-based), an explicit gender focus is generally missing SOME REASONS: lack of gender-differentiated data; exclusion of women in project design and implementation as relevant stakeholder; technical expertise, not social expertise of project staff

15 15 Main instruments are underfunded and stuck on project-by-project, not programmatic approach. Some actual numbers (as of end of 2009): Least Developed Country Fund, LDCF (at GEF): $135.5 Mio Special Climate Change Fund, SCCF (at GEF): $100.5 Mio Pilot Program on Climate Resilience, PPCR (World Bank): $142.3 Mio Kyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund, AF: $2.8 Mio With the exception of the Adaptation Fund (funded by a 2 % levy on CDM projects, potential income: more than $100 by 2012), they depend on unpredictable voluntary contribution of donor countries EXAMPLE of LDCF: supposed to help with preparation and implementation of National Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPAs). UNFCCC estimate the cost to be $800 Mio to $1.5 Bn Currently: of 44 NAPAs registered with UNFCCC, less than a third mention gender-equality as important underlying principle BUT: gender needs to be incorporated under NAPA finance/budget plans, NAPA reviews and updates on an ongoing basis

16 16 REDD=reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation payments for environmental services (not cutting down forests) Several actors (bilateral, at UN, at WB, regional); main funds: Amazon Fund: $110 Mio Congo Basin Forest Fund: $100 Mio UN REDD: $52 Mio Forest Carbon Partnership Facility: $ 54 Mio Forests are home to 300 million people worldwide Gender differences in the management of forest resources based on socioeconomic differences and gendered roles and rights (women lack legal ownership, traditional role of guarding and maintaining communal forests as part of community livelihoods not recognized care-taking without economic value attached) For women to profit from REDD schemes gender-differentiated tenure and ownership rights need to be addressed front and center

17 17 New climate finance architecture with shifts of momentum & financing might to WB and MDBs from GEF and UNFCCC (confirmed by Copenhagen Accord) PLUS for Gender Approach climate change as a development concern (WB and MDBs with gender-awareness; UNFCCC with only modest, but evolving Gender Focal Point - one) WB and most MDBs have gender policies and are committed to gender mainstreaming (UNFCCC not yet on the book) WB/MDB experience with social sector programs (health, education) MINUS for Gender Focus on market-driven solutions (carbon finance) role of scarce public funding MDBs are part of the problem (investments in oil, coal, gas, mining) Focus on scaled-up mitigation interventions and large-scale technology Donor, not recipient country driven Mostly concessional finance, not grants; treated as ODA (no additionality ) Few stakeholders from recipient countries (including women) consulted

18 18 Raise gender-awareness and commitment to gender equity with all institutions and donors (multilateral, bilateral, private) in the new climate finance architecture Change the tone of the discourse from a technocratic-scientific exercise to one centered on global justice and human rights, including the right to development and gender equity Strive to incorporate gender-specific language in the outcome document in Cancun in December and in any Post-Kyoto Agreements Lobby for the inclusion of gender experts and gender champion in the Secretary General s High Level Advisory Panel on Climate Change Financing Require the UNFCCC to develop a Gender Plan of Action Demand the development of gender guidelines at the GEF Develop a set of gender-sensitive criteria for new funds Require gender audits of new climate funding mechanisms

19 19 Demand that climate change finance, especially for adaptation, is allocated as grants, not loans Develop publicly disclosed gender budgets and gender accounting for projects/programs financed under these new instruments (international and national level) as well as for climate-friendly development finance Incorporate gender considerations into national plans on adaptation and mitigation (NAPA and NAMA), especially budget allocations under those plans Improve women s participation in stakeholder and consultation processes for climate finance issues & insure their inclusion in DM bodies of new instruments Strive for a global North-South deal on climate finance on the basis of no climate justice without gender justice (also vis-à-vis Southern govts. and global civil society)

20 Thank you for your interest! For further information, visit: Or contact: Liane Schalatek Heinrich Böll Foundation North America

Gender and Adaptation Finance: Double Mainstreaming for Sustainable Development

Gender and Adaptation Finance: Double Mainstreaming for Sustainable Development Climate Adaptation Challenges from a Gender Perspective CSO Messages for Rio+20 Joint Parallel Event, Heinrich Böll Foundation