Menu:

 

Want to have your say? Click comments and 'leave a reply'...

One of the key problems, yet rarely addressed, is the question of how adaptation policies will be funded; in particular, how will we fund technological transfer and education to developing countries who cannot afford to pursue these ventures on their own accord.

A further question is why  developing nations should fund adaptation and mitigation of a problem that they did not contribute to in the first place? Should the heavily industrialised countries, who have contributed significantly to the change in conditions, be liable for this expense?

Some of the expected costs of adaptation as assessed by various organisations are:

World Bank (2006) - $9-41 million/year.
Stern Review (2006) - $4-37 million/year
Oxfam (2007) – At least $50 million/year
UNDP (2007) - $86-109 million/year
UNFCCC (2007) - $28-67 million/year
UNFCCC (2007) $49-171 million/year

(Source: Shardul Agrawala, Senior Economist, OECD Environment Directorate)

These figures range from $4-171 million/year and hence represent a large difference in estimations. In order to form a sufficient budget, a smaller gap in estimations is required.
 

Developing countries and industrialised countries are far apart on how much money should be stumped up to help vulnerable economies that are most exposed to the impacts of changing weather patterns. Leaders in December must agree a new deal on funding which will allow a substantial fall in greenhouse gas emissions.

Changes in rainfall are already affecting food production and changes in temperature are increasing exposure to malaria. These changes will become increasingly evident as time progresses and the conditions worsen. 

There have been some calls for developing nations to be the recipient of a 600-billion-dollar "Marshall Plan" annually to tackle climate change with support from rich nations on a scale not seen outside wartime recovery, however justifying such expense to taxpayers during an economic downturn is not an easy sell.

The World Economic and Social Survey called for a "Global Sustainable New Deal" to overcome the "woefully inadequate" estimate of 21 billion dollars currently set aside internationally to adapt to and cope with climate change.

Despite the need for 'green' development there is conflict over the restrictions that these policies will place on the ability of poorer nations to develop their economies and industrialise. Some developing nations still have limited access to electricity and hence some argue that electricity should be prioritised over low carbon growth.

The Adaptation Fund is unique among the financial instruments of the international climate change regime in being exclusively dedicated to the funding of concrete adaptation activities. Given the relatively large but nonetheless limited size of the funding that is projected to be available through this instrument, potential interest in this funding source is bound to be considerable.

 

 


Comments

Tasnim

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:32:10

I think that developed countries should bear the brunt of creating funding opportunities to developing countries to help them cope with adverse affects of climate change. they should do this not simply by handing money into the hands of governments--but by opening up funding streams through which indigenous NGOs and civil society are able to build up the infrastructure to deal with climate change.

I think that as developed states start to reduce their impact on climate change, they can reduce the money being pumped in...but until we reach some stability--i think less money on "national security" and more on "climate security"

 

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:01:03

we have intresting activities i'm all ways with you for interfaith work

J. Mohamed Azhar
204C, Peraru-01,
Kantale.
Sri Lanka
0094777073441
0094265670445
0094718161660
azharknt@gmail.com

 

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:50:22

Inevitably, funding for adaptation is always going to be an issue, particularly in developing countries.

The Climate Justice Fund is a salient example of a proactive mechanism designed by the Church of England to address adaptation. The key purpose is that it “uses income from those saving money by reducing their carbon footprint and gives it to those who are struggling to cope because of climate change”. Ground work support is vital to assist vulnerable communities with the information, tools and infrastructure to help them prepare for possible changes that will affect their livelihood and families. As a Muslim I will like to push for Mosques to adopt a similar idea, which will subsequently help more people globally.

 

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:43:48

On the smaller scale, there are some great examples of fair trade projects being used to raise funds for communities to adapt to climate change. The two issues can be closely linked in that farmers often find themselves at a huge disadvantage as a result of climate change, and fair trade can be a way of empowering them to get out of that cycle in a local context.

 

Silvia Nicolaou-Garcia

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:01:42

I agree with Sarah, we shold try and implement these initiatives in religious places of worships to create healthy habits and a grassroots movement of committed people.

As for the funding, I think fair trade projects and other projects which directly empower the people in the developing countries are a good option.

It's true that funding for mitigation is hard to impose on countries which did not contribute to the problem in the first place....it's a contentious matter. i look forward to discussing all of these issues with everyone enxt week

 



Leave a Reply