Money has been a contentious aspect of global climate change. Are rich countries keeping their end of the bargain in helping poor countries adapt to increasingly erratic weather patterns? Are some poor countries exaggerating financial needs or their ability to spend funds?
There are two main issues: the amount of external finance needed to help poor countries adapt, and how it should get to them. A stew of proposals has been simmering for years, but new promises at the last round of climate change talks in Copenhagen in December 2009 heated up the pot.
Developed countries put “new and additional resources” for adaptation and mitigation in the mix, including investments via international institutions amounting to US$30 billion from 2010 to 2012, and in the long term promised to “mobilize” $100 billion a year by 2020.
This raised a flurry of reactions from developing countries, academics, environmental aid activists and NGOs. “Where is the money going to come from?”; “How much of it is new and additional?”; “We need predictable funding”; “Any funds should be besides the ODA [Official Development Assistance]“; “There are too many sources of funds – how do we monitor them?”
Two recent papers have attempted to find answers: a discussion draft by the World Bank, Monitoring and Reporting on Financial Flows Related to Climate Change; and a briefing paper, Copenhagen’s climate finance promise: six key questions, by the UK-based International Institute for Environment and Development.
An article by IRIN tries to find answers to the following questions:
- What are the sources of funding for adaptation?
- How much money could or should be made available?
- What problems are there in mobilising and tracking adaptation funds?
- Is there a way out of the financing quagmire?
- What are “Rio Markers”?
Read the full article: IRIN, GLOBAL: Climate change and adaptation funding equally unpredictable, 11 Feb 2010