Durban: Turning Green Climate Fund into Greedy Corporate Fund?

Today 163 civil society organisations from 39 countries released a letter exposing an attempt led by the US, the UK and Japan to turn the Green Climate Fund into a “Greedy Corporate Fund” at UN climate talks in South Africa. The Green Climate Fund was created to support people in developing countries – people who are the most affected by the climate crisis but are the least responsible for it. But at the climate negotiations this week, developed countries are trying to allow multinational corporations and financiers to directly access GCF financing. This means companies could bypass developing country governments and their national climate strategies to get to public money.

“Turning the Green Climate Fund into a Greedy Corporate Fund would be
shameful, yet this is what is being attempted at the Durban climate
talks,” said Meena Raman from Third World Network. “Led by the US and the UK on behalf of Wall Street and The City, this attempt to hijack developing countries’ funding is outrageous. Communities need this money to address climate change and to finance their own development – without repeating the same mistakes that the rich countries have made,” said Karen Orenstein from Friends of the Earth US. “The role of private investment in financing climate activities must be decided at the national and sub-national levels in line with countries’ priorities, not corporate bottom lines. The move to allow the private sector to go directly to the Green Climate Fund for money undermines the possibility of a democratic, participatory process for meeting the needs of communities struggling to fight climate change,” said Lidy Nacpil of Jubilee South Asia/Pacific Movement on Debt and Development.

Few adaptation measures in developing countries will be attractive to the private sector, as they will not generate revenue. Some key mitigation programs may also not be financially lucrative. Groups also warned against closed door negotiations on the Green Climate Fund by South Africa, the US, and other developed countries. “Whatever happens in Durban must be fully transparent. We are deeply concerned by reports that South Africa is informally consulting behind closed doors on the Green Climate Fund decision,” said Bobby Peek of groundwork / Friends of the Earth South Africa. “This will greatly undermine the legitimacy, and ultimately the effectiveness, of the Green Climate Fund.”

The concerns expressed in the letter come on top of the long-held
rejection by many in civil society of any role for the World Bank in the
Green Climate Fund.

South pledge more climate action than North

A new report of the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) shows developing countries have pledged to reduce carbon emissions more than industrialised nations, but the two combined fall short of a 2°C target. The report, based on an analysis conducted for Oxfam International, examines four recent detailed studies of countries’ mitigation pledges under the Cancún Agreements, for the purpose of comparing developed (Annex 1) country pledges to developing (non-Annex 1) country pledges. It finds that despite very diverse methodologies and assumptions, all four studies agree that developing country pledges exceed Annex 1 pledges. The three studies that estimate the total mitigation required for a 2°C pathway also find that even countries’ higher-level pledges fall short of the goal.

“There’s a false perception that we need to focus primarily on increasing ambition from emerging economies – these economies have put serious emission cuts on the table,” says Sivan Kartha, lead author of the report. “It’s the developed countries that need to actually reduce their emissions, and increase their commitment to provide finance and technology that will allow even greater reductions in developing countries, if we are to have any hope of keeping to a pathway that limits temperature rise to 1.5°C or 2°C.”

The studies also find that the Annex 1 pledges could be significantly diminished by several factors, such as lenient accounting rules on the use of surplus allowances, double-counting of offsets, and accounting methodologies for land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF). Kartha and co-author Peter Erickson note that one of the studies, by the United Nations Environment Programme, estimates that surplus allowances from the first Kyoto Protocol commitment period alone, for example, could diminish effort by 1.3 GtCO2e in 2020. If such loopholes are not closed off, Kartha says, “developed countries could use them to be in technical compliance with even the upper estimates of their pledges, while their emissions are actually growing between now and 2020, and possibly even beyond.”

The SEI study does not prescribe a specific allocation of effort, but it does cite the foundational principle of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” Developed countries are responsible for more than 75% of historical carbon emissions, Kartha and Erickson note, and even today, under a consumption-based accounting, they are responsible for about 60% of global emissions. In terms of capability, they write, “it is clear that the great majority of financial and technological wherewithal resides in the North,” which controls about three-quarters of the world’s GDP. Given all this, they conclude, “it seems self-evident that the developed world should take responsibility for much more mitigation effort than the developing world, and that this effort must have both a domestic and an international dimension” – the latter involving financial and technological support to developing countries.

Foundation for climate deal laid in Cancún

Governments at the UN climate talks in Cancún, Mexico, managed to approve a series of tangible if modest steps that sets up a "global climate fund" to help poor nations, create a mechanism to share clean technologies, protect tropical forests and help the poor adapt to impacts ranging from storms to rising sea levels, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The UN climate talks are off the life-support machine, following a last-minute agreement that gives the Kyoto Protocol a lifeline, says international agency Oxfam.

The deal’s Climate Fund will be designed by a committee with a strong voice for developing countries, which should ensure that life-saving finance will be delivered to those who are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The Climate Fund will be a major channel for adaptation finance, helping to plug the gap in adaptation funding, so that vulnerable communities have the resources they urgently need. Meanwhile, the emissions cuts pledged after Copenhagen have been set as a minimum, with an expectation to raise them according to the demands of climate science.

Oxfam International’s Executive Director Jeremy Hobbs said: “Negotiators have resuscitated the UN talks and put them on a road to recovery. This deal shows the UN negotiations can deliver.” But many of the most difficult issues remain. According to Oxfam, we will not be able to offer a safe future for vulnerable women, men and children unless governments realize that we swim together or sink together. Our challenge is to elevate our vision and commit to the deep emissions cuts that are urgently needed.

“The progress in Cancún puts talks back on track and revives hopes that a wider, legally binding treaty that sets concrete and credible targets to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions is possible in the future,” also says Stewart Maginnis, IUCN’s Director of Environment and Development. "Under Mexico’s strong leadership and guidance, governments in Cancun have ensured that confidence in the UNFCCC process is being rebuilt, which brings us a step closer to that final deal.”

Adaptation, finance and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) were some of the key issues the 194-nation talks moved forward on. According to IUCN, today’s deal is a move in the right direction, but in the end, only an equitable, comprehensive and legally binding agreement will bring the much needed international commitment to manage the climate crisis.

The inclusion of REDD as part of the Cancún deal is a key step towards resolving the issue of climate change, says IUCN. Other NGOs have strongly opposed it. However, “reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while at the same time conserving forest natural resources on which millions of vulnerable people depend is a win-win solution for people and nature,” says Maginnis. “It has been one of the most promising developments in the negotiations so far, and now this further push by governments makes REDD an integral part of the climate deal.” IUCN welcomes the recognition of women within the deal struck on REDD. Women make up 70% of the world’s poor and provide up to 90% of the food in forest-dependent communities. They depend on forest resources for gathering fuelwood, forest fruits, vegetables and medicines.

Climate funds bypass hardest hit: Oxfam calls for a new global climate fund

The poorest people who need the most help to adapt to a changing climate are largely being bypassed by the small amount of climate funds now being disbursed, says a new Oxfam report published today at the UN climate change talks in Tianjin, China. The report, Righting Two Wrongs: Making a New Global Climate Fund Work for Poor People, shows that negotiators must create a Global Climate Fund that vulnerable populations in poor countries can access so that they are not left behind in proposed climate solutions. The study brings together evidence, which shows that in recent years:

* Less than a tenth of climate funds disbursed to date are estimated to have been for adaptation to help poor people in developing countries who are bearing the brunt of climate impacts.
* The world’s 49 poorest countries have received about one-eighth – $450m out of $3.5bn – of funding from the Global Environment Facility.
* Only $220m has been donated to fund adaptation plans (known as NAPAs) in the Least Developed Countries – just one tenth of the $2bn estimated total plan costs.

Oxfam is calling for a new Global Climate Fund to be set up at the UN climate summit in Cancún in December to govern public funds pledged by developed nations under the Copenhagen Accord. This fund must help address the failure to get adequate climate investments to poor people who bear the brunt of climate change’s impacts. “Righting Two Wrongs” calls for a new fund and broader finance system that is seen as legitimate by both developed and developing countries and that is representative, equitable, accountable, accessible, transparent and efficient. Poor governments must be able to directly access the fund and at least half of the money should be spent helping poor and vulnerable people adapt to a changing climate. In addition, a number of accountability measures are recommended, including ensuring that poor countries and women have an equal say in how the fund is managed and spent and that the fund is transparent as to where the money is going.

* Please find the report >>> here.

Climate cash must not increase developing countries' debt

Oxfam has warned that the $100bn a year pledged by rich nations to help fight climate change could fail the poorest people, if recent moves to deliver climate cash as loans continue. A new report, Climate Finance Post-Copenhagen: The $100 billion questions, comes up as UN climate negotiations re-open for the first time since last year’s summit in Copenhagen. Whilst recognizing the need for some limited cut-rate loans to help poor countries develop in a low carbon way, the international agency strongly opposes the use of loans to help communities adapt to climate impacts.

Oxfam’s concerns come at a time when it is becoming clear that a significant proportion of the first installments of climate cash, to be delivered between 2010 and 2012 will be loans not grants. “At a time of economic emergency, when several poor countries are slashing critical health and education budgets to avoid a debt crisis, rich countries are considering saddling them with climate debt for a situation they did not cause and are worst affected by,” said Oxfam’s Senior Policy Advisor Antonio Hill. “It’s like crashing your neighbor's car and then offering a loan to cover the damages,” he added.

The report lays out a clear road map for how rich countries can not only meet their $100bn a year promise, but also double it by 2020 in line with actual needs. It suggests new and innovative sources from which to raise the cash, to ensure that governments do not raid it from existing and future aid budgets. These include:
* $100bn a year from a global Financial Transactions or ‘Robin Hood’ tax on banks – a small tax of 0.05% that could raise $400bn a year for health, education and climate change.
* $20-$30bn a year through the creation of emissions trading programs for international aviation and shipping; this would cap the amount of carbon emissions that could be produced by these industries, then charge them for each unit of carbon used.
* $75bn a year in fixed contributions from rich countries according to their historic responsibility for carbon emissions and ability to pay; this could be raised through the money from domestic emissions trading (or cap-and-trade) programs or taken from budgets currently used for subsidizing fossil fuels and carbon-heavy industry.
* $16bn a year by 2012 from the IMF in the form of low-interest loans for low-carbon development - using $120bn of rich country Special Drawing rights (SDRs) as capital, ‘green bonds’ could be issued, raising $40bn per year that can be made available as low-cost loans for clean energy investments in developing countries. Of the $40bn loaned every year, the net transfer (or savings) benefiting developing countries is $16bn.

The report also highlights the need for public sources of climate cash, to ensure the world’s poorest are not excluded from investments in their future. Whilst huge sums are needed from big business to create a global green economy, it is unlikely that companies will invest in small-scale projects with little or no financial return, designed to help poor people adapt to climate change, such as planting mangroves and developing irrigation systems. As 80% of food produced in poor countries is grown by women farmers, relying on market forces to deal with climate impacts could pose grave threats to world hunger.
Oxfam is calling on negotiators in Bonn to deliver and report openly on climate cash in 2010. A clear framework for raising and doubling the $100bn pledge in public money must be agreed by the Mexico summit in December this year.

Download the report >>> here.

EU report on climate change fast-track financing

The European Union is failing to give full details about its €7.2bn pledge for immediate climate finance needs in developing countries. This is the EU’s contribution to the $30bn committed by rich countries in Copenhagen to help poor countries curb their emissions and adapt to a changing climate over the next three years. EU finance ministers meeting on 18 May in Brussels were expected to endorse a progress report on whether and how this money is being delivered.

Oxfam warned the EU is not being transparent enough. The report does not provide clarity on how much each EU member state will pay, on how much it will cover mitigation or adaptation projects, and critically, if this money will come on top of existing commitments to provide 0.7% of national income for overseas aid. Neither is the EU revealing the degree to which funds will be disbursed bilaterally instead of through multilateral channels such as the United Nations, nor how the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people will benefit.

Leaders in Copenhagen agreed ‘fast-start’ finance would be “new and additional”. Oxfam says this means money for climate action in poor countries must come on top of rich countries’ commitment to provide 0.7% of their national income as overseas aid. However, the EU is still divided on how to interpret “additionality”, and it is not alone. The US claims that President Obama’s budget request for climate change finance in 2011 is $1.9bn, but from all appearances that includes double-counting of cash from commitments on food security made at last year's G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy.

Tim Gore, Oxfam International’s EU Climate Change Policy Advisor, said: “By not being fully transparent about its financing pledges, the EU is undermining trust with developing countries at a very delicate stage of the game. We need an open dialogue about how to guarantee that climate cash comes on top of money already committed for schools and hospitals. There’s no point trying to cover that up. The most important thing is to be honest about the challenges. If there are difficulties, it is better to be open. We expect the EU to address the current shortcomings in a full report later this year, which details how the money will be spent. In a global climate deal, annual reporting is a must”.

Spain contributes €45m to the Adaptation Fund

Spain has become the first country to make a significant contribution of €45m (ca US$60m) to the United Nations Adaptation Fund. This contribution will help the ground-breaking facility set up under the Kyoto Protocol to finance climate change adaptation projects and programs in developing countries. “I am truly delighted by the Spanish contribution. The adaptation needs of developing countries are immense and require substantial financial resources. Every contribution will help strengthen the efforts and work of the Adaptation Fund, which is now fully operational and ready to finance concrete adaptation projects in developing countries. Spain has sent a strong message to the developing countries that it is serious about its commitment to help them adapt to climate change”, says Farrukh Iqbal Khan, Chairman of the Adaptation Fund Board. “I hope other developed countries would now follow suit by making contributions and thereby helping Adaptation Fund to fulfil its mandate.

Apart from its size, the contribution is noteworthy in that, in accordance with the rules of the Adaptation Fund, the money will be disbursed at the sole discretion of the Adaptation Fund Board to meet the most pressing funding needs of developing countries, without any conditions superimposed by the donor.

The Adaptation Fund is a self-standing fund established under the Kyoto Protocol of the UN Climate Change Convention, which gets its funding from a two percent share of proceeds of all Certified Emission Reductions issued under the Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism projects and other sources of funding. The Fund is designed to finance concrete climate change adaptation projects and programs based on the needs and priorities of developing countries.

“Rich countries must follow the example of the Spanish government and channel cash for immediate adaptation needs through the UN Adaptation Fund. That’s the best way to ensure developing country ownership over adaptation planning, and will help regain much needed trust in the UN climate talks,” said Oxfam International. "We expect all governments to guarantee that longer-term climate financing will be additional to their overseas aid commitments. With such an announcement, as current holder of the rotating EU Presidency, Spain could demonstrate that the EU is serious about increasing financial support which rises to the challenge of growing climate impacts in poor countries.”

How to get a climate deal back on track?

As UN climate negotiators head back to Bonn to find a way forward after the controversial December 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) is releasing a report to call attention to some of the more notable results of the summit, to reinforce the reasons why a UN climate process is so critical, and to point to some possible ways forward to success at Cancun in November 2010. IFG's new report, Safe Passage to Cancun - Getting a UN Climate Deal Back on Track, summarizes the main messages from a recent public event in Washington DC providing analysis and perspectives on the outcomes of Copenhagen.

The Copenhagen Accord’s emission cuts amount to maybe only half of what science says is needed to avoid climate catastrophe. Cancun must achieve more than “climate anarchy,” where each country does only what it desires, free from any comprehensive framework of agreed rights and responsibilities. Any agreements allowing such high temperature increases are irresponsible, non-governance of our global commons; we need better. New, bold and cooperative measures will be needed to drive complex global solutions. Fortunately, the opportunities to re-imagine and re-create our collective trajectory are truly rich. Such perspectives are especially urgent for informing the United States climate policy community, general public, and politicians alike, if we are to bridge the North-South gap in search of global climate solutions.

The main messages emerging from the report include:
* Nations must set a science-based global carbon budget, then fairly share the remaining atmospheric space.
* Climate finance governed by climate authorities is a litmus test for North-South trust building.
* Technology cooperation needs intensified engagement to drive smart innovation farther and faster.
* Indigenous peoples’ issues are gaining ground but still need to consolidate protections for their rights.
* Leaving behind the US—until it gets its act together—could help the rest of the world move ahead.

ONE: Creative thinking urgently needed to tap alternative sources of climate finance

An agreement of $10bn a year in fast track financing for the next three years and $100bn a year by 2020 for poor countries to cope with climate change must come over and above existing aid promises, Africa advocacy group ONE said after the Copenhagen climate summit. Currently these sums will largely be subtracted from promised resources to help these same countries fight poverty. But climate change is putting additional stress on poor countries – which is why they need additional funds to cope with it – on top of existing and promised aid levels,” said Jamie Drummond, Executive Director of ONE UK.

“Promises of aid made by the G8 in Gleneagles in 2005 must not be lost in Copenhagen. Without a clear commitment that these climate funds are additional, the dollar amounts are next to meaningless. This debate over ‘additionality’ might seem arcane, but within the details lie billions of dollars - and very real impacts on millions of lives,” Drummond said. “Without this additionality, Copenhagen adds up to nothing. It is not clear how a cap on two degrees will be achieved, but it is very clear that much more can and must be done, including harnessing the potential of African and other developing countries to be renewable energy hubs and help capture carbon through growing trees."

ONE supports the African proposal for an interim target of $50bn by 2015 on top of existing and promised aid to help the poorest countries – many of them in Africa – with pressing adaptation needs. The Copenhagen Accord mentions a High Level Panel to assess how alternative sources of funding can contribute to raising genuinely additional funds. ONE says this urgent High Level Task Force should be convened immediately and with links to the highest political level to look into alternative sources of climate finance to complement additional public funding from rich countries. These sources could include: revenue from aviation and shipping, international auctioning of emissions allowances, a financial transactions tax and the proposal to use the IMF’s own currency, known as Special Drawing Rights. ONE also highlighted the need for accountability and transparency for these new funds.

Climate change: ITUC statement for Copenhagen

With governments downplaying prospects for December’s UN climate summit and the chances of a binding agreement receding fast, the international trade union movement has called on governments to go to Copenhagen ready to make decisions that will put the world on an unequivocal path to a low-carbon future. “The science shows clearly that the longer we wait, the higher the human, environmental and economic costs will be. We need governments to make ambitious commitments which will set in stone the core elements of a treaty that must be completed as a matter of urgency. This means legally-binding targets on emissions and longer-term financing to assist developing countries to adapt, as well as “just transition” strategies to deal with the social and employment dimensions,” said ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder.

The ITUC statement to the Summit sets out the international trade union movement’s position in detail, emphasising the need for creation of green and decent jobs, through investment in new low-carbon production and services and measures to reduce the carbon footprints of existing industries. The ITUC platform was developed through an exhaustive 18-month process of negotiation involving trade unions from every part of the world, and reflects the concerns and proposals of working people from developing and industrialised countries.

The ITUC Statement to the Copenhagen COP15 Summit and other information about trade unions and climate change can be found at http://climate.ituc-csi.org.

AOSIS States: No Backsliding in climate deal

The world’s threatened island states last week expressed alarm at suggestions that the Copenhagen Climate Summit will not produce legally binding outcomes to build on the current international climate regime. Speaking at the conclusion of climate talks in Bangkok, Ambassador Dessima Williams, Permanent Representative of Grenada to the United Nations in New York and current Chair of the 43-member Alliance of Small Island States, said her group was deeply concerned with the "divisive rhetoric" that had characterised some of the discussions in Bangkok.

Williams addressed the growing divide by proposing two separate and legally binding outcomes in December. Island states joined with other developing nations in calling for deeper emission reduction commitments by industrialised countries under the Kyoto Protocol for the period after 2012. She also called for a second, multilateral and legally binding agreement to define action for all countries, including the United States, sufficient to limit global warming to less than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Responding to a push by some industrialised countries to move forward without the Kyoto Protocol, Williams said: "It is essential that we build upon, and do not weaken, the existing legally binding framework". She added that "now is not the time for backsliding. The failure to deliver ambitious legally binding outcomes in Copenhagen will threaten the survival small island states." – Williams also noted that Bangkok had seen Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama and Sri Lanka join AOSIS and the Group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in calling for global warming to be limited to below 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures. The AOSIS targets are now supported by close to 100 countries, more than half the UN membership.

Statement of the UNFCCC Women’s Caucus at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks

Bits of "women" for a chunk of the earth's population? We, women representing women`s organisations from around the world, appreciate UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon's recognition of women as stakeholders in this process. We are grateful for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat led by Yvo de Boer in recognizing us as a possible constituency. However women's leadership and participation in the discussions and ultimately, in the implementation of climate change solutions have yet to be clearly articulated.

While the documents mention "women" at least 20 times, "women" mostly appear in the lists of vulnerable groups. Yet women have made significant contribution in solving the climate crisis through their leadership, experience, perspectives and ideas. We deserve to be included as stakeholders with interests that outstrip individual governments and corporate entities particularly those that refuse to consider the gendered impacts of climate change.

The strong integration of gender dimensions in the discussions would have enabled a more comprehensive analysis of the causes of climate change. Until today, patriarchal politics and corporate greed are the helm of the UNFCCC process as it is held hostage by most developed countries that have been unconscientiously messing up the planet and are not showing any signs of restraint.

Women represent half of the world's population. Often through our unpaid labour, we provide up to 90% of the household's food and other needs. Many of us walk a long distance just to fetch water. Sometimes some of us are raped as we set out to gather firewood.

Yet we continue to venture outside, if only to feed and shelter our families and communities. We significantly make up small-scale fisheries which is far less intrusive to the marine ecosystem. Despite the deep relationship we have established with nature as resource managers, especially in ancestral domains, a majority have yet to be accorded land rights, credit, information and a string of even the most basic human rights.

This situation even worsens as access to natural resources becomes scarcer
due to climate change.

In times of displacement because of extractive industries such as oil exploration, mining, rising sea levels, droughts, floods, tsunamis, earthquakes and others, women and girls constitute more than half of the death toll because of cultural restrictions, lack the necessary know-how and resources to protect themselves While tired and lost, we continue to perform our reproductive roles as providers and nurturers wherever and however we settle.

As women's empowerment primarily comes from women themselves, we need the opportunities to meaningfully engage the process, whose framework so leaves much to be desired especially in terms of transparency, accountability and equity. Women's participation will be fundamental for realization of a gender integrated approach to climate change. It is for this reason that we urge governments to include the following paragraph in the Shared Vision, which serves as the outcome document's preamble:

"The full integration of gender perspectives is essential to effective action on all aspects of climate change, adaptation, mitigation, technology sharing, financing, and capacity building. UNFCCC processes must ensure compliance with existing women's rights standards and best practice as enshrined in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and UN Security Council Resolution 1325 [Women and Peace-Building]. The advancement of women, their leadership and meaningful participation and engagement as stakeholders in all climate related processes and implementation must be guaranteed."

Bangkok, 8 October 2009

Climate negotiations stuck: US becoming key obstacle

The rift between rich and poor countries has intensified because rich countries have not put serious money on the table to help poor countries adapt to the escalating impacts of climate change and develop on a low carbon pathway, international aid agency Oxfam said on the last day of UN climate negotiations in Bangkok. Oxfam senior climate adviser Antonio Hill said a continued lack of political will from rich country leaders also meant there was no movement on the emissions reduction targets that would help safeguard billions of the world’s poorest from death and suffering.

“The millions of people facing greater floods, droughts and failed harvest after failed harvest will be the real losers if the US, Canada, EU, Japan and Australia continue as blockers to the UN negotiations,” Hill said. The US in particular was becoming the biggest obstacle to a fair and safe global climate deal in Copenhagen. “The US has been silent on the scale of finance it will commit to, and has yet to adopt an ambitious emissions reduction target by 2020, giving negotiators none of the political clout necessary to unblock negotiations in make-or-break areas.” He said the desire of the EU, Japan, Canada and Australia to accommodate the US and abandon the Kyoto Protocol was an example of the poor leadership on show by all these countries these past two weeks.

According to Oxfam, Bangkok has been a warm-up session for negotiators who have shown their skill in trimming text, but in political terms, when the starting gun fired it became a race to the bottom, with rich countries weakening existing commitments under the international framework. The poorest, most vulnerable countries looking ahead to Copenhagen now face an impossible choice - to accept an agreement that fails to reduce the life-or-death risks they face, or to hold out for a safe and fair deal but risk walking away from Copenhagen empty-handed. “It is useful that the US is prompting a debate on who does what under a global agreement, but if it really hopes to have a constructive dialogue with developing countries it has to up the ante first by tabling an offer of finance and emissions cuts commensurate with its historic emissions and economic weight,” Hill said.

“The US’ endorsement of a new fund for developing countries is an encouraging step forward, although big questions remain on how it will operate.” Hill pointed to other areas of useful progress in the areas of agriculture, mitigation action from developing countries, and aviation and shipping emissions over the past two weeks. “But what we have seen in Bangkok was a cosmetic procedure, when what was required was major surgery,” he said.

Developing countries came to Bangkok willing to negotiate. China is a world leader in renewable energy investment, has committed to reduce emissions in line with its economic growth path, and has offered support to help developing countries, including small island states and African nations, adapt to the impacts of climate change. Last week Indonesia committed to deep cuts below business as usual.

For developing countries, another disturbing development in Bangkok has been a hardening of rich country positions on the issue of finance: they are now openly insisting climate finance should come from existing aid budgets. But aid must be increased, not diverted, say NGOs. If promised aid increases are plundered for climate purposes, it could mean that 8.6 million fewer people have access to HIV and AIDS treatment, 75 million fewer children will be in school, and 4.5 million more children die than would otherwise be the case.

Europe’s climate offer would rob tomorrow's hospitals and schools in poor countries

This week the European Commission published its paper on climate financing ahead of the Copenhagen summit in December. Even if Europe’s climate offer could divert money already promised for education and health in poor countries, Oxfam International welcomed the European Commission’s intentions to break the deadlock in global climate talks by moving first. Putting climate financing figures on the table was a necessary first step to open up meaningful negotiations.

"However, the European Commission proposes that rich countries should take money from existing promises to increase overseas aid spending to 0.7% of national incomes. This would rob tomorrow's hospitals and schools in developing countries to pay for them to tackle climate change today. This will undermine progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals”, Elise Ford, head of Oxfam International’s EU office, said. “This is scandalous, especially given Europe's responsibility as one of the world's biggest polluters who has caused the problem, and the onus on them to clean up.”

It’s now up to EU Member States to come up with a stronger proposal at the European Summit on 17 September, to get a good climate deal that does not come at the price of the future development of poorer countries, who are already being hurt by global warming. Funds to help developing countries to tackle climate change must be additional to aid – not instead of it. William Chadza, Executive Director for the Malawian Center for Environmental Policy and Advocacy (CEPA), said: “We must consider Europe's top-end offer of €50 billion to be an opening negotiation tactic, which might be a good start to kick-off the talks. However, the real need of developing countries to cope with the impacts of global warming and develop their own low carbon futures will go far higher than this. The rich world will need to do much more to make a real difference to poor people suffering climate change.”

* Read the media briefing >>> Paying the Climate Bill.

Finance Ministers must find funds to secure climate deal

The G8 must commit $2bn to help poor countries adapt to a changing climate Oxfam urged ahead of a meeting of Finance Ministers in Lecce, Italy, on 12 and 13 June. The international agency also called for European Finance Ministers meeting in Luxembourg today to back a proposal from European experts for poor countries to receive €100bn ($142bn) a year to help them reduce emissions. Putting money on the table to fund least developing countries' most urgent adaptation needs would be an important first step by rich countries towards delivering on longstanding promises of assistance. At least $50bn per year is needed to assist poor countries deal with the impact of climate change and at least $100bn to help poor countries reduce their emissions.

In 2001, the Least Developed Countries Fund was set-up, and the poorest countries were invited to prepare National Adaptation Plans of Action to address their most urgent adaptation priorities. These plans need $2bn to implement; however, rich countries have committed less than 10% of the money to date. European Finance Ministers, meeting on 9 June, could also address a crucial issue threatening to undermine hopes of a global climate deal by backing a proposal which contains concrete figures on the level of support poor countries need to tackle their emissions. To date rich countries have not said how much public funding they think should be made available.

Rich countries are responsible for two thirds of green house gas emissions currently in the atmosphere but it is the world's poorest people who are being hit first and hardest by the changing climate. In Africa, changes to rainfall are already affecting food production, and rising temperatures are boosting the spread of disease. Antonio Hill, Senior Policy Advisor for Oxfam International said: "Funding to help poor countries adapt to a changing climate has been promised by G8 leaders - but it has largely failed to materialize. These politicians found the determination and $8tr to save the banks. They must now deliver the immediate financing which is needed to help the most vulnerable developing countries adapt to a changing climate."

Adapting to a changing climate: it’s time to talk technology

CIDSE and Caritas Internationalis, the largest networks of Catholic development and relief agencies in the world, say UN climate change talks in Bonn will fail the poor unless they provide the tools to deal with the dire consequences of climate change. They call on governments negotiating a new global climate change agreement not to forget about adaptation in their efforts to strike a deal on technology. In their joint report launched at the UN climate change negotiations taking place in Bonn since last week, Reducing Vulnerability, Enhancing Resilience: The importance of Adaptation Technologies for the Post-2012 Climate Agreement, CIDSE and Caritas Internationalis highlight the need for urgent enhanced action on adaptation technologies, which are key for adapting to climate change, reducing poverty and promoting sustainable development.

A substantial increase in investment and international cooperation on technology is one of the keys to reaching consensus amongst developed and developing nations on a new global agreement. Up until now, however, the negotiations have focused on high technologies for reducing emissions in developed and industrialising countries and technology for adaptation has received little attention.

“The negotiations must ensure a coherent and coordinated approach to technology and adaptation under the new agreement, and dedicate the financing and institutional capacity necessary to support them”, said Sol Oyuela, policy expert from the CIDSE and Caritas networks. “The negotiating text which has come out contains some promising language which can be built on in this direction, but there still is a need for more focus on the adaptation technologies, vital for the future of those most exposed to the effects of climate change,” she added. Sustainable afforestation projects in the Satkhira district of Bangladesh demonstrate how communities in developing countries are successfully implementing adaptation technologies. These projects not only protect riverbanks from erosion in face of increasing floods, the fruit provides additional income for the local community and the trees contribute to mitigation by absorbing CO2.

Please find the report >>> here.

Subprime Carbon report points to dangers of unregulated carbon markets

If it is not structured properly, global warming legislation could lead to the creation of an enormous, poorly regulated derivatives market with failures mirroring those that led to the current financial crisis, according to a report released by Friends of the Earth US. The report, Subprime Carbon? Re-thinking the World’s Largest New Derivatives Market, finds that existing financial regulations, as well as those in major cap- and-trade bills, are inadequate to govern carbon trading, creating a potentially huge regulatory gap.

“Global warming has reached a crisis point, and it’s imperative that Congress move quickly to put solutions in place, but it’s also important to be careful and do this the right way from the start,” said Michelle Chan, a senior policy analyst at Friends of the Earth and the author of the report. “If we aren’t careful, we could end up creating a massive, poorly regulated derivatives market that not only poses risks to the broader financial markets, but also undermines efforts to save the climate.”

The report outlines how lessons from the current financial crisis apply to carbon markets, which could become the largest derivatives markets in the world. In particular, it raises concerns about “subprime carbon,” risky carbon credits based on uncompleted offset projects (projects designed to sequester or reduce greenhouse gases). Subprime carbon credits may ultimately fail to reduce greenhouse gases and, like subprime mortgages, could collapse in value, yet they are already being securitized and resold in secondary markets. The report recommends that lawmakers include carbon trading in current debates about financial reform, and warns against hastily creating carbon markets without proper oversight.

The full report can be viewed >>> here.

EU climate approach puts world’s poorest people at peril

EU Environment Ministers have failed to live up to repeated promises to fight climate change. They have called on poor countries to curb their emissions, but have not put cash on the table to help them deal with the effects of the crisis or develop in a low carbon way. Following a proposal from the European Commission in January, the EU will agree the key elements of its position for a global climate deal in Copenhagen at a Heads of State summit on 19-20 March in Brussels. Climate finance for developing countries, which is a make-or-break part of the deal, is supposed to be the main focus. But Member States have used the economic crisis as an excuse to further water down the Commission’s already weak plans on finance. Environment Ministers have admitted on 2 March the huge costs involved, but not agreed how the money will be raised globally, or what the EU will commit.

The lives and livelihoods of millions of poor people are at stake from worsening climate change, created by rich countries. Oxfam International estimates that at least €40bn a year is needed to help poor countries adapt to the impact of global warming – with the EU owing at least €12bn. This is a fraction of the $3.3trn committed by the EU and the US to rescue financial institutions in 2008. Katia Maia, head of Oxfam International’s Campaign and Advocacy Office in Brazil, said: “The latest science shows the climate crisis is more urgent than ever but the EU is putting the brakes on efforts to address it. Europe is one of the world’s biggest polluters but it is doing as little as possible to help poor countries deal with the impacts of a crisis it helped create. The EU needs to put money on the table now. Treating poor people's lives as a bargaining tool in climate negotiations is both immoral and misguided as a negotiating strategy.”

Elise Ford, head of Oxfam International’s EU office, said: “It is now up to EU Finance Ministers and Heads of State to right these wrongs later this month. They must give strong backing for innovative finance mechanisms, so these are at the heart of Europe’s negotiating position for Copenhagen. The excuse of waiting for the US to move first on climate finance is wrong-headed. As EU Commissioner Dimas pointed out, if the EU does not offer real cash, there may be no global deal. And, unless there is a clear EU commitment, there will be little external pressure for the US also to come forward - as it must."

Study: World Bank loans exacerbate climate change

The World Bank has a difficult task at hand; it must continually work to provide the impoverished with access to energy while at the same time, mindfully investing in technologies that do not further compound the effects of climate change. Heike Mainhardt-Gibbs, a consultant with the Bank Information Center (BIC), examines the World Bank’s approach to energy sector investments in her February 2009 study, World Bank Energy Sector Lending: Encouraging the World’s Addiction to Fossil Fuels. The assessment finds that even with important gains in renewable energy and energy efficiency in recent years, the World Bank Group’s overall lending approach to the energy sector does not support developing countries’ transition towards a low-carbon development path.

First, World Bank fossil fuel lending is on the rise. During its 2008 fiscal year, the World Bank and International Finance Corporation (IFC) increased funding for fossil fuels by 102% compared with only 11% for new renewable energy (solar, wind, biomass, geothermal energy, small hydropower). On average, fossil fuel financing by the Bank is still twice as much as new renewable energy and energy efficiency projects combined and five times as much as new renewable sources taken alone. During the last three years, the Bank spent 19% more on coal than on new renewable energy. Bank lending to coal projects will make a low-carbon transition difficult given that coal emits almost twice as much CO2 as natural gas per unit of energy.

Secondly, Bank fossil fuel projects have a clear impact on global CO2 emissions. “When the fossil fuels involved in the World Bank and IFC lending projects for the 2008 fiscal year are combusted, the project lifetime CO2 emissions from this one-year of financing will amount to approximately 7% of the world’s total annual CO2 emissions from the energy sector, or more than twice as much as all of Africa’s annual energy sector emissions,” emphasized Mainhardt-Gibbs. Clearly, the World Bank’s investments in fossil fuel-based energy are far-reaching and yet none of their current climate change initiatives adequately incentivize for a reduction in financing for fossil fuels.

Finally, the Bank must carefully reassess its approach to financing the development of fossil fuels. They share the blame – and thus the shame – for the global climate change crisis. “The Bank’s continued lending focus on fossil fuels commits many developing countries to fossil-fuel based energy for the next 20 to 40 years,” Mainhardt-Gibbs noted. When developing countries eventually take on GHG emissions reduction targets of their own, the World Bank’s current approach to energy will make meeting these targets more difficult and costly for these countries.

New environmental finance architecture or inflation of climate funds?

A new website, www.climatefundsupdate.org, is online now. The Website, which will be improved and expanded over the next several months going forward, is a joint cooperation project by the Washington Office of the Heinrich Boell Foundation as well as the London-based Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and is a follow up to last Summer’s study on new climate financing instruments (done by the Boell Foundation with WWF US and ODI) and related shifts in the global environment finance architecture.

The site lists descriptions of some 18 multilateral and bilateral funds; some new fund proposal not yet off ground, as well as a database of some 800 projects funded by the new and existing climate funds. The idea for the website is to provide fairly neutral “one-stop” introductory information on some of the complexities of the new climate finance architecture leading up to the discussions at the COP in Copenhagen in December on a post-Kyoto Climate Architecture, of which an agreement on financial will be a crucial prerequisite.