Finance, loss and damage dominates recent ministerial meeting aimed at developing pathway towards global agreement in December
By Ed King
Rich countries could deliver $60 billion in climate finance a year by 2016 or 0.1% in Gross National Income in proposals put forward at a recent meeting of over 50 ministers in Paris.
The ideas were suggested at a summit hosted by the French government on September 6-7, which included senior officials from the US, China, EU and major emerging economies.
A report of the gathering, published on Thursday, indicates none of these proposals were adopted, but says mobilising a promised $100 billion by 2020 was at the “heart” of talks.
“There was some support for setting an intermediate target, with a specific proposal of aiming to mobilise 60 billion USD in 2016,” it reads.
“Some felt that they would be able to meet their share of such an aspirational target.”
Meeting the $100 billion by the end of the decade is a key demand from developing countries, who say they have not received anywhere near the sums promised to them in 2009.
Without money many say they cannot invest in new, cleaner forms of energy and transport or prepare for the potentially devastating impacts of rising temperatures.
Further clarity on these flows is expected from major donors in Lima next month, on the sidelines of the annual World Bank/IMF meeting.
And while the lack of funds remains a toxic issue dividing developed and developing countries, this summary says there is growing consensus on how it can be resolved.
On loss and damage, also known as climate compensation, participating countries agreed it should be part of a Paris outcome, but are still divided on whether it should be legally binding.
Wealthy countries do not want to commit to any deal that makes them liable for future extreme weather events linked to climate change, fearing they could face vast and unlimited bills.
Instead many are arguing for a scheme that helps vulnerable countries develop early warning systems or insurance mechanisms to cope with floods, droughts, storms or rising sea levels.
“An open question remained on whether it should be within the legal instrument or in associated decisions,” says the report.
“There was also understanding that action on loss and damage could be in a framework of solidarity and international support rather than compensation.”