Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
commitment to climate finance cannot be regarded as additional to existing aid
commitments (Oxfam, 2012).
In 2012 the UNFCCC annual conference in Doha confirmed the bleak picture
for climate change adaptation financing. The Doha Agreement failed to commit
developed nations either to scaling up climate financing from 2013 or to a dollar
amount. This means that the initial commitment to fast start finance made in
Copenhagen in 2009 is not being adequately progressed. Australia was one of a
number of countries that gave no firm commitment to increase funding. More
generally, there was no assurance given to developing countries that climate
financing, be it for mitigation or adaptation, will increase in the immediate
future. Given that global Official Development Assistance fell for the first time
in a decade in 2012, the signs are not positive that additional funding will be put
on the table.
Inadequacy of current adaptation financing mechanisms and frameworks
Current climate financing mechanisms are not working. Adaptation in the
poorest, most vulnerable countries is being neglected. First, most climate
finance is being spent on mitigation rather than adaptation. Oxfam estimates
that less than one tenth of the climate funds to date have been spent on
adaptation in vulnerable countries. Oxfam's position is that adaptation should
be the focus of at least 50 per cent of all climate financing. The reality is that
the impacts of climate change are being felt by some of the world's poorest
communities now. While these communities have some scope for mitigation,
their most pressing need is for assistance with adapting to the consequences of
climate change.
Second, current mechanisms are neglecting the poorest countries. For example,
one of the largest funds, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), has delivered
less than an eighth of its climate funding to the 49 poorest countries. One third
has gone to China, India and Brazil (Oxfam, 2009b). One of the overarching
problems with the current system is that there are too many funds with too
little money. To date, the climate finance landscape has been characterized by a
disparate jumble of sources, channels, institutions and governance arrangements,
and
a history of unfulfilled promises and demands.
There are currently over 20 established climate funds as well as a considerable
number of additional non-climate-focused funds that support adaptation. Many
of these funds have been woefully underfunded, and resource allocation and
distribution has tended to be slow and unpredictable. For developing countries,
fund proliferation undermines the effectiveness of finance and reduces the
amount of support they receive. It increases the burden of transaction costs on
countries that often have limited capacity to access funds, and fragments their
ability to manage resources strategically (Oxfam, 2009b).
The difficulties for countries with relatively weak state capacity to access these
funds is profound. As Espen Ronnenberg, the climate advisor of the Secretariat
of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP), has noted:
