* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
The answer’s still clear as mud
$100 billion a year sounds like an awful lot of money - but that depends on what it's needed for, where and by when.
Back in 2009 in Copenhagen, when governments failed to agree a new global climate change deal, they patched together a last-minute, non-binding accord. In it, they committed to a goal of mobilising $100 billion a year by 2020 from "a wide variety of sources", including public and private, to help vulnerable countries adapt to extreme weather and rising seas, and shift their development onto a low-carbon path.
In the five years since, there has been little progress on working out how to double or treble climate finance flows to developing countries from the current annual figure, which is in the low tens of billions. Developing countries have called for an interim goal, but so far to no avail.
And it's still as clear as mud what can be counted towards the $100 billion. Some poorer nations insist the bulk must come from the public treasuries of rich polluting nations. Others take a more pragmatic stance, arguing it should cover pretty much everything, from private bank loans to income from selling carbon offsets.
This inability to define what the $100 billion should consist of, where it should come from, and where it should go to has become "the source of much of the discontent and many of the problems that have dogged climate finance negotiations over the past five years", development charity Oxfam said in a report this week.
The vague nature of the target has undermined developing countries' ability to create effective plans for their adaptation and mitigation needs, it argued.
Everyone and no one is accountable - with no wealthy country setting a specific plan for how it will deliver its share, and no individual developing country knowing how much it can expect to receive and when.
"The $100 billion promise is an iconic reference point in global climate negotiations. Countries have haggled over it for years," said Oxfam Executive Director Winnie Byanyima. "But for people on the front lines of the climate crisis, this abstract number has made little to no difference in their lives.”
And although that abstract number may seem like a huge amount, Oxfam - and many others - say it is not enough. It's too low a goal if the money is to come from both public and private sources, and too little if it's to be spread between adaptation and mitigation, the aid group's report said.
Sub-Saharan African countries alone will need $62 billion per year to invest in climate adaptation, it noted.
THE CONTENTIOUS $100 BILLION GOAL
So should the $100 billion goal be scrapped? That seems unlikely in the absence of any alternative, more realistic assessment of needs that would also be politically palatable for cash-strapped governments.
Ahead of the annual U.N. climate conference in Lima this week and next, there were some crumbs of comfort, with the Green Climate Fund (GCF), a new international climate finance vehicle, managing to raise close to $10 billion for its inital capitalisation.
That amount was widely regarded as the minimum required to build sufficient trust for developing states to start putting forward offers to curb their greenhouse gas emissions.
But the money is only likely to come through over the next three to four years. And some developing countries - including small island states - are calling for initial GCF pledges to be raised to $15 billion.
Clearly more finance is needed to get anywhere near $100 billion by 2020, but rather than coming up with the missing cash, the Lima talks are likely to focus on working out a better process for measuring and reporting the money that is already flowing, experts say.
Reports on climate finance due out in Peru may highlight a divergence between the amounts different countries have received, said Amal-Lee Amin, associate director of E3G, a sustainable development think tank.
"It is likely that finance will remain a contentious point that could continue to divide the negotiations," she warned.
But in theory at least, a better grasp of spending to date should make it easier to agree in a year's time in Paris on a clear pathway for ramping up climate finance as part of a new global climate change deal.
FAIR FINANCE IN 2015 DEAL?
Oxfam proposes that for mitigation - actions that reduce emissions - governments should collectively recognise and commit to bridge an investment gap of the order of several $100 billion per year.
For adaptation - such as flood defences or national disaster planning - they should promise to bridge the deficit with public finance, as this remains the main source of funding for adaptation.
But the size of that adaptation gap must be linked to how much global average temperatures are set to rise, Oxfam says, as well as to the cost and timing of measures set out in national plans.
On top of that, wealthier countries should be prepared to pay their fair share of the total, Oxfam argues – and it includes an indicative calculation in its report, based on cumulative emissions and income levels.
According to the Oxfam estimates, the United States, European Union and Japan would need to bear the burden of paying for mitigation and adaptation between 2020 and 2025 - likely to be the first commitment period of the new global deal. The U.S. would be liable for more than half, the EU roughly a quarter and Japan about a tenth.
Yet such an approach is likely to be highly controversial among politicians.
Others are more optimistic about raising the needed large additional sums from innovative financing sources, such as phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. Such a move in India, for example, could help bring clean power to millions of poor people who lack it, Amin said.
There has also been much talk - with limited results - about imposing levies on the aviation and shipping industries, as well as on financial transactions such as share and currency trading. Again, there are powerful interests that oppose such taxes.
But with climate pressures growing fast around the world, there's no time to lose in understanding what has worked and hasn't for financing efforts so far, and coming up with fresh ideas about how to drive urgently needed investment into expanding renewable energy and building more resilient societies.
Interested in climate finance? Put your questions and comments to our panel of experts in an online debate on Thursday, Dec 4, 9am EST/2pm GMT: http://www.trust.org/spotlight/climate-finance-deal
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
