Civil servants warn bold action needed to meet target – but painful decisions need to be made
Rishi Sunak risks damaging trust in the UK among developing countries and reducing the country’s standing in negotiations, because of a failure to meet climate spending pledges, civil servants have told ministers.
They said that under current policies the only way to meet the £11.6bn international climate funding target agreed at Cop26 was to take a drastic combination of “hugely reputationally damaging” measures including delaying meeting the target, redefining already committed spending as climate funding, and cutting money for research and development, biodiversity and plastic pollution mitigation.
Delay the target. Officials said they could move it to the end of the 2026 calendar year instead of the financial year 2025/26, giving another three-quarters of a year to spend money. They warned this would “be hugely reputationally damaging at a time when the global south mistrusts wealthy countries”. They added: “The geopolitical ramifications are likely to extend beyond climate, damaging our standing with a wide range of developing countries, SIDs [small island developing states], Commonwealth and middle-ground nations, further undermining trust in the UK as a donor.”
Count other already-committed amounts to climate payments as part of the £11.6bn. Civil servants said: “This would be seen as the UK ‘moving the goalposts’ and would be seen as a backwards step, reducing UK standing and influence in climate negotiations.”
Eat into Defra and net zero department budgets. Currently half of the international funding paid by these departments is part of the £11.6bn commitment. Civil servants said it would be helpful for this to be closer to 75%, but this would eat into research and development funding as well as non-climate biodiversity protection programmes and other areas such as preventing plastic pollution.
Obtain a one-off sum from the Treasury. Officials admitted this would be “strongly resisted” by the chancellor but said if the Treasury directly funded loss and damage options, it “would be a strong signal of climate leadership by the UK”.
Continue reading…
