I wrote the following letter to Ed Miliband on 16 September 2009

Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP
Secretary of State
Department of Energy and Climate Change
3-8 Whitehall Place
London
SW1A 2HH


Our Ref:                       MIN/N0053/KB
Date:                            16 September 2009



Dear Ed,

I am writing regarding the current debate about financing from the developed world to help poorer countries adopt green technologies and protect their people from the consequences of climate change.

As I know you agree, developed countries must be prepared to help meet the incremental costs of climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, where the impacts of climate change will be felt first and worst.  I therefore welcomed the Prime Minister’s initiative on climate change, which states that developed and developing countries should work together towards a global figure of around $100 billion per annum by 2020 to help developing countries address climate change.  However, I am concerned that this figure may not be high enough to ensure that poor countries can make the investments needed to curb global emissions and help the most vulnerable cope with the effects of climate change.

I am a member of Globe International and attended the Legislators’ Forum in Rome earlier this year.  For ease of reference, I enclose a copy of our statement to Leaders of the G8 and Major Economies Forum, which suggests a contribution figure of at least $90-140 billion per year.  It also urged the G8 to make a commitment to immediate additional funding for urgent adaptation needs of at least $2 billion.

In it’s recent report, “2009 World Economic and Social Survey: Promoting Development, Saving the Planet”, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) recommends a new “Marshall Plan” of more than $500 billion per year, or one per cent of world global output, to help developing countries deal with the impact of global warming and adapt to its effects.  The report further states that "by any measure, the amounts currently promised for meeting the climate challenge in the near term are woefully inadequate".

I understand that the Liberal Democrats believe the Prime Minister’s proposed figure is too low and that $160 billion will probably be needed for each year of the period between 2013 and 2017.  Can you confirm that the $100 billion proposed is how much we should aim to be paying yearly by 2020 and not the amount payable in total by 2020?  If so, and you are successful in reaching consensus on these issues at Copenhagen, when do you envisage the annual payments to begin? 

I note that Oxfam have said that the Prime Minister’s proposals to raise $100 billion by 2020, of which no more than $10 billion should be diverted from aid, would not provide the level of immediate help that the world’s most vulnerable people need.  Oxfam estimates that at least $150 billion of finance per year must be made available for developing countries for a safe deal to be possible and also that this money must be “new and additional to existing aid commitments so as not to undermine crucial development objectives such as the Millennium Development Goals”.  I am aware that the Tories have so far refused to give a commitment to 10% of the ODA budget and that the Government has said quite clearly that it does not intend to divert money for tackling poverty to the climate change fund, but I would be interested in your comments on this point - that our climate finance contribution should be in addition to overseas development money, and that 10% is still too much.

With regard to our contribution more specifically: Oxfam calculates the UK’s fair share of the $150 billion estimate to be 5.4%.  Does the Government accept this figure and, if not, what estimate has been made?

I should also be grateful if you could explain in more detail how you plan to raise the finance for this scheme?  I understand that Gordon has said that it should come from the global carbon market and public financial sources, and that the Government is attracted by various proposals, including from Norway and Mexico.  However, I would point out that these proposals will raise much smaller amounts than is needed: Norway has suggested their proposal would raise between $15 - 30 billion annually and Mexico have said theirs would raise at least $10 billion.

Finally, I am interested in who will manage the fund and I note that Friends of the Earth and others have said that they believe the World Bank is the wrong institution to control any financing for climate change.  I share their concerns, which were highlighted in a recent briefing note:

“As the recent financial meltdown has highlighted, it is essential that global financial institutions are fully democratic and accountable.  With the World Bank’s terrible track record in terms of the social and environmental impacts of its lending policies; its conflict of interest as the largest multilateral lender for fossil fuel projects in the world (the World Bank Group’s fossil fuel financing totalled $2.275 billion in 2008) and its inherently undemocratic institutional structure (with a one dollar-one vote decision-making process that marginalizes Southern countries), it is not an appropriate institution for administering the distribution of climate funds.”

“The Road to Copenhagen” document states that finance should be directed at those that need it most and I agree with you.  What are your proposals to try to ensure that finance is both adequate and targeted on the basis of poverty and vulnerability, and that whoever is in charge of allocating finance will do so on a needs-based principle?

I should be grateful for your response to the points raised.

Yours sincerely,




LYNNE JONES MP

back to environment