WRI Insights

One of the biggest successes from 2009’s COP 15 conference was securing funding for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. Donor nations agreed to “provide new and additional resources […] approaching $30 billion for the period 2010–2012, with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation.” They also committed to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020. But the agreement left a key question unresolved: how should funding be “balanced” between adaptation and mitigation? Should the funding balance be 50/50 between adaptation and mitigation or should it based on each country’s needs? Should funding include both private and public sector investment? These are some of the questions that negotiators will need to address during COP 19 in Warsaw. But whatever they decide as being a “balanced commitment,” one thing is clear: finance for adaptation needs to increase in the coming years.

In order to understand where the climate finance agenda is likely to go, it is first necessary to grasp where it stands today. To that end, Overseas Development Institute, WRI, and IGES – in partnership with the [Open Climate Network](http://www.wri.org/our-work/project/open-climate-network) – have conducted [the first in-depth examination of Fast Start Finance (FSF)](http://www.wri.org/publication/mobilising-international-climate-finance), the period from 2010-2012 in which developed nations pledged to deliver US$ 30 billion in climate finance. As of September 2013, countries reported providing $35 billion in public FSF from 2010 through 2012, exceeding their pledge. Just five countries – Germany, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States— provided US$ 27 billion of this finance.

The issue of "loss and damage" will be a critical component of the discussions at COP 19 in Warsaw. These negotiations could be contentious and emotional—and not surprisingly, given what is at stake. Losses and damages under scenarios well below [four degrees of warming](http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf) could, over time, include the submergence of mega-cities, the collapse of major ecosystems, and the loss of entire island nations. But the loss and damage (L&D) negotiations need to succeed for COP 19 to succeed—and for the global community to get on track to achieve an ambitious, effective, and equitable [climate change agreement in 2015](http://www.wri.org/blog/qa-how-do-we-secure-strong-international-climate-agreement-2015).

Like all U.S. states, Illinois will need to reduce its power sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in order to alleviate climate change impacts and [comply with future EPA standards](/blog/states-can-take-action-now-meet-future-power-plant-emissions-standards). The good news is that the state has already taken steps to reduce its emissions, including saving energy and increasing its use of renewable energy sources. And, Illinois has the potential to go even further. **New WRI analysis finds that Illinois can reduce its CO2 emissions 35 percent below 2011 levels by 2020 just by complying with current policies and taking advantage of existing infrastructure.** Achieving these reductions will allow Illinois to meet or exceed moderately ambitious EPA power plant emissions standards, which are due to be finalized in 2015.

The amount of adaptation finance has increased in recent years, at least in part as a result of agreements reached at the U.N. climate negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009. In the past year, [Oxfam](http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/the-climate-finance-cliff), [WRI](/our-work/project/adaptation-finance), [Overseas Development Institute](http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/5160-adaptation-finance), and civil society networks in [Nepal](http://www.cen.org.np/), the [Philippines](http://www.ejeepney.org/), [Uganda](http://www.can.ug/) and [Zambia](http://www.zccn.org.zm/) have been working together to figure out just how much adaptation finance has been flowing to these four countries and where it’s going. It’s a bit like trying to figure out the tangle of plumbing and pipes in an old house. There is money for climate change adaptation coming from different sources, flowing through different channels, and being used for different purposes.

The stakes are high at this year’s international climate negotiations in Warsaw, Poland ([COP 19](/un-climate-change-conference-resource-hub)). It is vital that negotiators get down to business on designing [the international climate action agreement](http://www.wri.org/blog/qa-how-do-we-secure-strong-international-climate-agreement-2015), including actually constructing the pathway needed to reach this agreement by 2015. Making progress across five key issues will be critical to achieving this goal.

Energy and consulting firm Wood Mackenzie, supported by data and analysis from [WRI’s Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas](http://aqueduct.wri.org/atlas), surveyed water risks among the world’s top energy-producing regions. They found that three energy sectors face particularly high water risks: [shale gas](http://www.wri.org/event/2013/04/clearing-air-reducing-upstream-greenhouse-gas-emissions-us-natural-gas-systems) in the United States, coal production and coal-fired power in China, and crude oil in the Middle East.