Show them (and us) the money!

While propounding a "CPR scheme" - the acronym is ironically apposite - that simultaneously fails to fit the scientific facts and fails to accept full responsibility for our disproportionately high per capita CO2 emissions and water use, it’s the height of hypocrisy for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to call for world leaders to show political courage at the climate change talks in Copenhagen.

The media seems to be playing dead on real criticism of that, but what is receiving even less media attention in Australia is the issue of finance to developing countries to help them reduce their emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Be careful of funding announcements by politicians: the same spending seems to be announced many times over under different broad headings. The foreign aid funding of $3.8 billion this financial year must be looked at closely to see exactly what goes where, and for present purposes exactly what part of it is dedicated adaptation funding.

You may (but probably don’t) recall that late last year the Rudd Government proudly announced they’d allocated $150 million to help our Pacific neighbors adapt to climate change. As far as I can work out that’s the same $150 million it pledged to the World Bank and its Climate Investment Funds, a pair of international investment instruments allegedly designed to provide interim, scaled-up funding to help developing countries in their efforts to mitigate increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to climate change.

Will that same $150 million be put on the table yet again at Copenhagen? Or will it be some “new” sum of a similar magnitude? Even if it’s a new spend, it will be hopelessly inadequate: according to the International Energy Agency, the total investment required to avoid dangerous climate change is more than US$1 trillion per annum, with around half of this needed for the developing world. Experts indicate that investments of around US$500 billion a year will be needed to help developing countries adapt to climate change while powering low carbon growth.

And look at the government’s announcement of funding for the following $200 million International Forest Carbon Initiative:

• $30 million for the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (PDF 894KB);
• a $10 million bilateral package of support for Indonesia;
• $3 million to the Papua New Guinea-Australia Forest Carbon Partnership;
• $11.7 million for the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility;
• up to $3million for the Indonesia-based Centre for International Forestry Research;
• $1.5 million to help international NGOs;
• $10 million to the World Bank’s Strategic Climate Fund to support the Forest Investment Program; and
• $15.8 million for the Asia Pacific Forestry Skills Capacity Building Program.

Most, if not all, of this expenditure seems to be directed to reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD). REDD is a set of steps designed to use market/financial incentives to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from deforestation and forest degradation. It sounds rather big of us, until you look at recent international warnings from police, politicians and conservationists that the scheme may be impossible to monitor and may already be leading to fraud.

It doesn’t stop there. Funding announcements also include:

• $150 million from our international aid budget under the International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative to help our neighbours adapt to climate change;
• up to $100 million per annum for a global institute to speed up development of carbon capture and storage technology;
• $12 million to Shaping an International Solution to Climate Change;
• $20 million Pacific Climate Change Science Program;
• $100 million to the World Bank Clean Technology Fund;
• $40 million to the World Bank Strategic Climate Fund to support the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience;
• $1 million to the Trust Fund for Participation in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; and
• $20 million for the Australia-China Joint Coordination Group on Clean Coal Technology.

Bearing in mind that we will have 9 billion mouths to feed by 2050 (which isn’t far away), world agricultural production will have to increase by two thirds, but with 10 per cent less water. Again, experts suggest that $270 billion will have to be invested just to bring water governance systems into the 21st century.

And how much has the Rudd government set aside to address the specific issue of gender and climate change? “What's gender got to do with climate change?”, the usual suspects ask? Well, the fact that it has a lot to do with it is now widely accepted. The connection was emphasised in the recent UNFPA State of the World Population 2009 report:

... women - particularly those in poor countries - will be affected differently than men. They are among the most vulnerable to climate change partly because in many countries they make up the larger share of the agricultural workforce and partly because they tend to have access to fewer income earning opportunities. Women manage households and care for family members which often limits their mobility and increases their vulnerability to sudden weather-related natural disasters. Drought and erratic rainfall force women to work harder to secure food, water and energy for their homes. Girls drop out of school to help their mothers with these tasks. This cycle of deprivation, poverty and inequality undermines the social capital needed to deal effectively with climate change. In addition because women are disproportionately involved in subsistence farming, natural resource management and water collection in developing countries they are more likely to be affected than men by the effects of soil erosion, desertification, droughts, water shortages, floods and environmental changes. Both in gradual and sudden migration and displacement scenarios, pre-existing patterns of discrimination and abuse are often aggravated ...

According to UN Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates, women produce more than 50 per cent of all food grown worldwide, and from 60 per cent to 80 per cent in most developing countries. With the importance of women in food production and preparation, and the potential for land use to contribute to climate change solutions in developing countries, the interconnectedness of gender, farming and climate change demands the immediate attention of the Rudd government if it genuinely wishes to provide effective aid. And effective aid will require genuine financial commitment.

The report also goes on to say that the success of adaptation strategies will depend on the participation of indigenous peoples. The same view was recently echoed by World Bank chief Robert Zoellick. Will the Rudd government incorporate these respected international views in its consideration of climate change related legislation or funding decisions?

For more than a year the Rudd government has been spruiking to the world about our healthy Australian economy, so they should expect the world to be watching closely to see how much we actually commit to helping developing countries. And the watchers will also be looking to see first, just how much is “new” commitment or spending, and second, exactly where the money - our money - is going.