Opinion: Moving forward on climate and development post-COP 26

The countries that gathered at COP 26 to address the climate crisis made new commitments to curb methane emissions, end deforestation by 2030, and scale up support for adaptation. Nations have also pledged annual financing commitments for climate mitigation and adaptation work in low-income countries. These contributions are important, but limiting global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius and increasing the resilience of infrastructure, communities, and individuals will cost trillions every year.

Given this chasm between the funding needed to accomplish our goals and the funding that is available, perhaps the most important question facing the world coming out of COP 26 is: How can we make the biggest impact with limited resources?

For the international development community, three of the most important solutions are evidence-based decision-making, multisectoral programming, and accessible funding.

Efficient impact through evidence-based decision-making

Climate change affects many areas, including weather, migration, health, economic performance, land use, political and social pressures, and more. Processing and combining different data sources enable us to track the scope of these environmental and economic impacts. That way, we can identify the mitigation and adaptation actions that provide the biggest bang for the limited buck.

For example, in the Philippines, a U.S. Agency for International Development-funded program marshaled the power of data to create a cost-benefit analysis that determined the lowest cost actions to mitigate climate impact. The study became the foundation of the country’s post-2020 climate actions under the Paris Agreement.

The data allowed program implementers to determine the true baseline for greenhouse gas emissions, create energy calculators, and model future weather conditions to inform where the government could intervene to make a difference. It also told us how much assistance would be needed to achieve other mitigation goals.

In East Africa, the Power Africa East Africa Energy Program is helping Rwanda’s energy utility more accurately measure the existing energy generation and presumed potential of hydropower, solar, geothermal, wind, peat, and other renewable energy sources. The data shows which types of power plants will be the most affordable and reliable, lighting a pathway for more cost-effective and sustainable development of Rwanda’s energy sector.

The program is also using an evidence-based trade initiative to strengthen climate resilience in a low-cost way. Given that hydropower is less variable in the Nile Basin, countries in that region can trade energy to countries in East and Central Africa that are threatened by drought and rainfall variability. In this win-win scenario, megawatts that would have gone unused will provide homes and businesses with sustainable, affordable energy instead.

Embracing parallel priorities through multisectoral programming

To make the biggest impact with limited resources, we must also integrate efforts to address climate-related challenges and other development goals.

Many climate-vulnerable countries care about getting to net-zero carbon emissions and building a green economy. But they also care about powering hospitals, creating jobs,  recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, and much more.

Addressing climate change does not have to come at the expense of these or other development goals. When we weave climate change adaptation and mitigation into multisectoral solutions, we are advancing development and creating more resilient communities and systems in an affordable, sustainable way.

To make climate-first development work, approaches cannot just be tailored to each country but must be driven by each country — not just its national leaders, but its civil society organizations, local governments, and the private sector. It also requires that donors make climate change a crosscutting factor as USAID has recently done by announcing plans to “further integrate climate change considerations into international development and humanitarian assistance programs across all sectors.” Programs should also elevate the role of environmental specialists in development programs and interventions to ensure climate programming is intertwined across all sectors.

More accessible funding

Lastly, the limited climate-specific funding that is available must become more diverse and accessible. For example, development agencies should offer to coach local organizations submitting proposals to the Green Climate Fund. On the other side of the table, investors may have to recalibrate what a return on investment should look like when it comes to funding climate change plans and projects.

Make no mistake: reaching our climate goals will require more investment than is currently promised. But as an international community and as development practitioners, we cannot wait to act, and we cannot sacrifice other important development goals. But with an evidence-based road map and some innovative thinking, we won’t need to.

Catch up on the event “Unlocking resources for climate resilience through private sector partnerships” hosted by Devex and RTI International on the occasion of COP 26.