This time of year, we could have expected all sorts of analysis coming forth, scrutinizing the potential outcomes of discussions that “would have been produced” if parties had taken part in the 26th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 26) on November 2020, as was originally programmed, had it not been rescheduled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We must now have to wait for an additional 11 months in order to know exactly how these negotiations will take shape, although we are getting a few glimpses on what to expect.

According to information generated within UNDP’S Climate Promise —the institution’s flagship initiative to support countries to enhance their National Determined Contributions (NDC)— countries may be increasing their climate ambition, but are grappling with the timing of their submissions, delaying the process well into 2021 while they are focusing on what can be considered more pressing Covid-19 related issues.

This pause in the climate negotiations, which some deem necessary in order to deal with urgent short-term economic recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic at the national level, could be either detrimental in a context of increasingly accelerated impacts of climate change left unchecked. On the other hand, it could pose a “once in a lifetime” possibility for countries to align efforts to reduce the pandemic and deal with climate change (as well as other overlapping environmental crisis) at the same time and in an integrated manner.

But the opportunity must be grasped now. According to a recently published joint study by UNDP and the Pardee Center for International Futures at the University of Denver mapping three different future scenarios, in a “Covid -baseline”, 44 million more people could be living in extreme poverty by 2030; or even worse, in an extreme scenario this number can be bumped up to 207 million, with severe long-term socioeconomic impacts continuing for well over a decade. However, if timely action is taken, but most importantly, coordinated efforts are designed to achieve a sizeable “SDG push[1]“, these scenarios could not only be averted, but improved with a result of lifting 146 million people out of extreme poverty while “resetting the development path of people and planet towards a fairer, resilient and green future”, according to Achim Steiner, UNDP Administrator. This, however, requires for choices to be made now, and reflected and considered not only in national planning efforts focused on strategies to recover from COVID-19, but also in other efforts such as NDC drafting and planning.    

However, the challenge many countries are facing is how to make financial flows available to achieve this “big SDG push”, when in many cases the purpose of COVID-19 stimulus recovery packages may be focused on prioritizing economic productivity, potentially going against environmental protection. Furthermore, these recovery packages will put into question the continuation of commitments signatory countries may have made in the Paris Agreement, specifically on Article 2.1c to make “finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”.

It therefore becomes critical that countries prioritize and align climate and NDC finance with recovery finance. Ideally, this becomes a two-way conversation between climate practitioners and recovery practitioners, translating into more coordination between ministries of Environment and Finance. Not only how NDCs can spur economic growth and job creation, but also how recovery plans prioritize solutions such as fiscal incentives that are climate-friendly, such as carbon funds, carbon taxes, or sustainable bonds (see Mexico’s recent example on SDG Bonds), or include measures such as redirecting stimulus spending to introduce complementary measures that ensure public resources are used to support a just transition to a low-GHG emissions and climate-resilient future.

Climate ambition must not be put to one side while countries contemplate recovery considerations. Recovery packages can thus be consistent and mutually reinforcing with climate finance in order to maximize finance flows that are consistent with pathways for a long-term sustainable recovery.

[1] The main assumption is that the “big pushes” are made in four pillars (i) governance, with reduced corruption, increased government effectiveness, and increased democracy; (ii) social protection, with changes including increased enrollment into and completion of education at all levels, higher social transfers and increased protection of nutrition for less lower income households, greater societal focus on improving access to safe water and sanitation, electricity, and modern cookstoves, and increased supportive government expenditures on education and health; (iii) green economy, assuming a change of calories consumed from meat to vegetables and fruits, reduction of agricultural waste in production, transport and processing, and consumption, increased agricultural yields allowing also increased forest area, reduced urban air pollution, increased efficiency of water and energy use, a carbon tax, accelerated technological advance and a policy emphasis on renewable energy; and finally (iv) digital disruption and innovation, with an increased emphasis on tertiary education especially in science, increased governmental and societal spending on research and development, accelerated introduction of fixed and mobile broadband technology including mobile forms.