With Copenhagen just around the corner, developing governments are expressing an urgent need for greater financial contributions from industrialised nations. And how are industrialised nations going to help? One way is climate change funds. Most developing nations, (see our article on India and US protectionism) believe that the industrialised world should pay for their efforts to cope with and adapt to climate change.
It's an expensive proposition.
The world will need a "phenomenal amount of money" to change its energy supply from fossil fuels to cleaner sources and to adapt to climate change, states Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat. Mr. de Boer estimates that beginning in 2020, the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be $200 billion a year with an additional $100 billion required for adaptation measures. (Adapation refers to people and business adapting to the effects of climate change in order to deliver a sustainable economy vs. mitigation, which is the reaction to rising emissions in order to limit future climate change - most regulatory frameworks address mitigation).
Hundreds of Billions? That's big money.
One of the topics of discussion at Copenhagen in December, will be which countries are going to contribute to climate funds to help developing countries address climate change and to what extent (ie.: how much) are they going to do that.
According to Point Carbon Data collected by the UK's Overseas Development Institute (ODI), has showed that six international multilateral and bilateral funds are responsible for approximately $3 billion in disbursements to more than 830 projects in the developing world which are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The largest contributor is the Global Environment Facility's (GEF) Trust Fund as it relates to Climate Change. The GEF is responsible for nearly $2.4 billion in disbursements to 591 programs. From its inception in 1994, the GEF has supported programs that minimize climate change damage by reducing the risk, or the adverse effects of climate change. On average 32 to 36 countries have contributed, and in its last replenishment in 2006, Canada contributed $131 million, making it the 6th largest contributing nation.
The German Government administered International Climate Change Initiative has disbursed $347 million to 128 international projects supporting climate change mitigation, adaptation and biodiversity projects with climate relevance. The fund intends to focus on countries with a high potential for emissions reduction in view of their significant and rising greenhouse gas emissions.
The Least Developed Countries Fund is managed by the GEF with an aim to address the special needs of the Least Developed Countries. From its inception in 2002, the Fund has aided the 48 Least Developed Countries through disbursements totalled at $47.5 million to over 60 programs. As of May 2009, 19 contributing nations have contributed to the Fund, with Canada being the 10th largest contributor.
The MDG Achievment Fund was established by the Government of Spain and the United Nations Development Programme and made operational in 2007. It has since disbursed $85.5 million to 16 programs aimed at reducing poverty and vulnerability in eligible countries by supporting improvements to environmental management and enhanced climate change adaptation. As of now, Spain and the US are the only two contributing nations to the Fund.
Mexico, Canada's partner in NAFTA, has proposed an "imaginative" climate fund, which aims to bridge the gap between developing and wealthier nations. We previously reported that the Mexican model proposes that countries pay into and are able to receive monies from a fund that may amount to $10 billion a year to help everyone, not just the developing world, adapt to the effects of global warming. Mexico, classified as a developing country by the UN, has suggested that all countries pay into the fund based on that country's economic output, population and fossil-fuel output. Not a bad idea. But still one which is probably subject to governmental budgetary restrictions.
Maybe a better way is the Alberta model. We've told you before about Alberta's climate fund initiative, the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund (the "Alberta Fund"). The Alberta Fund is a different sort of animal from the aforementioned funds. Why? The Alberta fund, as we've mentioned before, is very unique. The funds mentioned above are funded by government. Because of a link with the compliance mechanism, the Alberta solution is an industry based and funded model. Once the money is paid into the Alberta Fund, the money is segregated and not subject to government allocation processes, unlike the international funds.
The Alberta Fund may only be used for purposes related to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases or improving Alberta's ability to adapt to climate change. Mr. de Boer says that the world is going to need a "phenomenal amount of money" to address climate change globally. The Alberta Fund will, over time, amount to a phenomenal amount - just think - in only one and a half years of compliance, contributions to the Alberta Fund are $122.4 million, with future yearly contributions anticipated to be as high as $100 million. If every jurisdiction had fund like that, imagine the dollars flowing into combating climate change!
And while the objects of the Alberta Fund are different than those international funds listed above, everyone's ultimate goal is the same. Implement effective solutions, bend the emissions curve and ultimately find an answer.