International
Dangerous double counting
Share
It is becoming clear that people in the poorest parts of the world will be hit first and worst by climate change. Many leaders are promising to help people living in extreme poverty adapt to the effects of climate change and to help reduce emissions. This sounds great, but unfortunately, on closer examination, it turns out most of this money could be double counted - it’s money that has already been promised as development aid.
In other words, some governments want to stretch their much-needed development funding twice as far to try and cover the new challenges presented by climate change. This dangerous double counting needs be exposed - and it needs to stop.
We’re fighting this trend by asking Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen to take the lead as host of the Copenhagen climate change summit in December and set a standard for climate change financing to be transparent and additional to current aid commitments.
Sadly too many times in the past multibillion dollar pledges have in fact involved double and even treble counting of pre-existing promises, leaving people in developing countries no better off. Such behaviour in Copenhagen will only compound the injustice already being perpetrated by climate change, and further question the integrity of developed industrialised nations in the eyes of the rest of the developing world. With integrity and action now, this can be avoided, and we can go on to be the generation that beats both poverty and climate change.
There are some good guys out there. For example, The Netherlands has committed to give 0.7% of their Gross National Income to development and an additional 0.1% to sustainable development, and the UK has promised that no more than 10% of the resources the UK currently offers for development will be used to help the poor fight climate change. This transparency is welcome, and hopefully we can encourage other countries to follow suit.
Jamie Drummond
ONE Co-Founder and Executive Director
- Previous Post Reactions in the News to the World Food Summit
- Next Post GAVI partners meet in Vietnam
 |
 |
 |
Featured Series
About the Blog
The International ONE Blog is a daily log of the anti-poverty movement. The site is operated by ONE staff, with guest contributions from ONE volunteers, members and allies.
The content of each post and each comment represents the views of that author and does not necessarily reflect the views of ONE. ONE does not support or oppose any candidate for elected office, and any post expressing support or opposition for a candidate is not endorsed by ONE.
24/11/2009 at 5:56 am
Considering recent events regarding the Hadley centre don’t you think it prudent there be a mojor investigation before any treaty signing away a nations sovereignty is signed by any country?
If Copenhagen is about honest governence then this treaty would be put on hold until after a full investigation and if it’s found that the IPCC has been commiting scientific fraud all involved should be jailed.
Climate change is a natural event. AGW is a myth perpetuated by socialist in the hope of making billions for themselves. Al Gore is well on his way.
13/01/2010 at 5:29 pm
You undermine your own correct argument against double-counting when you write “the UK has promised that no more than 10% of the resources the UK currently offers for development will be used to help the poor fight climate change. This transparency is welcome, and hopefully we can encourage other countries to follow suit”.
The transparency is fine, but reveals a big problem. You should have noted that the UK is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and in conflict with its obligations under the existing UN climate treaty. I.e. (even though it is improving) UK is still far short of its UN 0.7% overseas aid commitment, so taking 10% of this to spend on countering climate change is not acceptable. Climate change money from developed countries is supposed to be “new and additional”.
Unless there is a very clear-sighted defence by NGOs of this additionality principle, the OECD is likely to give the go ahead for all aid giving governments to copy the UK’s double-counting approach. This will lead to further conflict with developing country governments (and annoyance from the Dutch and few others who are genuinely trying to fund development AND climate change responses).