COP21: Tories recycle cash earmarked for overseas aid to pay for Paris climate deal

MPs are angry that sums earmarked for overseas aid are being diverted to climate change fund

Rich nations have pledged £67bn a year to developing countries

(Getty Images)

The landmark Paris climate change deal risks being “dismissed as a con” unless the UK and other rich nations live up to a promise to provide $100bn (£67bn) a year to help the developing world cope with global warming, campaigners and MPs from across the political spectrum have warned.

When the treaty was signed last weekend, it was widely hailed as a historic moment in humanity’s efforts to prevent the planet from warming to a dangerously high level, with islands being submerged by rising seas and areas close to the equator becoming uninhabitable.

However the UK government has since confirmed that its contribution to this fund will come from the existing international aid budget, prompting accusations that it is simply “robbing Peter to pay Paul” and “cheating” the spirit of the agreement. While David Cameron has earned plaudits on the world stage for committing 0.7 per cent of the UK’s gross national income (GNI) to international aid, campaigners pointed out that when wealthy nations first set this target in 1970, climate change was not a consideration.

The poorest countries have done the least to cause global warming, but they tend to be in areas that are most at risk from its effects.

Glyn Davies, Conservative MP for Montgomeryshire and a member of the Commons’ Energy and Climate Change Committee, told The Independent on Sunday that he was concerned that “we may be rebadging money”.

“I’m quite interested that we’re making a genuine commitment to a new climate change fund, which is helping developing countries. A hugely important part of the Paris agreement was the climate fund. It got the developing countries signing up to the agreement. … That needs to be sound and doesn’t need to be dismissed in any way as a con on the countries that signed up in Paris. We want it to be real …

“This one has got to stick. This has got to be seen as exactly what it says on the tin.”

Angus MacNeil, the Scottish National Party MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles) who chairs the committee, said that climate justice demanded that the money “should be over and above” development aid.

“Most people would imagine that if you’re talking about $100bn for climate finance, you’re talking about new money, not robbing Peter to pay Paul,” he said. “I think it’s cheating the spirit of it all. If you are moving money out of development and into climate, you’re not just robbing Peter, you’re robbing Peter, Paul, James and Andrew.”

Giving 0.7 per cent of GNI as international aid proved highly controversial, with a rebellion against Mr Cameron by scores of Tory MPs when it was put to a Commons’ vote in March. The UK was already a significant donor nation, providing $19.4bn out of total foreign aid of $135bn in 2014.

However Alex Scrivener, policy officer at Global Justice Now, formerly the World Development Movement, disputed the idea that the UK was already being “generous”. “I believe that the rich countries will try to wriggle out of their commitments on the $100bn. We see it [the Paris treaty] as a bit of a betrayal on behalf of the poorer countries.”

The agreement had been “framed very much as a success”, he said. But “As far as we’re concerned the Paris summit was a failure. The targets that were agreed are not legally binding and even if they were, they would lead us to between 2.7 and 3 degrees of warming, which is well over what we need.”

Tracy Carty, climate change policy adviser at Oxfam GB, was more supportive of the Government’s current position. In September, the UK announced it would give £5.8bn from the international aid budget to help tackle climate change over the next five years. Ms Carty said the UK had adopted a “better position” than most other countries but there was “still a concern” over the link to aid money: “The continued absorption of climate finance into ODA budgets is … not sustainable without major consequences for other essential development priorities.”

The target of creating an annual $100bn fund includes private sector money that has been “mobilised” by nation states.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change defended including climate finance in the aid budget: “We know that the world’s poorest will suffer the most from its effects so eradicating poverty and tackling climate change are inextricably linked,” a spokesman said. “By investing 0.7 per cent of our national income on aid we are playing a vital part in helping to create a more secure and prosperous future for us all.”