Mr. Conor O'Neill:

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak.

As international aid and development organisations, we already see the impact that climate change is having around the world and recognise the profound inequality described by Ms Wathuti. To address it, my colleague Dr. Walsh has already spoken about the need for deep, rapid and sustained emissions cuts. My colleague Ms Curran will discuss loss and damage in more detail. I will focus in my remaining time specifically on the issue of climate finance including what support has been pledged, what has been delivered, and crucially how Ireland compares.

At COP15 in Copenhagen way back in 2009 and reaffirmed in Paris in 2015, wealthy countries pledged to provide $100 billion per year in financial support to developing countries for climate action to both reduce emissions and to help build resilience and protect communities. The underlying rationale is that wealthy countries should take the lead because, historically, their emissions have caused the crisis and they have greatest financial capacity. This is essentially a form of the polluter pays principle, whereby climate finance is a responsibility rather than a question of charity. It is not some form of an optional extra but the repayment of an ecological debt and a key pillar of the Paris Agreement.

A decade later this target has not been met, with OECD data showing that US$83 billion was provided in 2020. However, as Ms Wathuti noted, the vast majority of this money was in the form of repayable loans that only add to unsustainable debt burdens and ultimately leave the costs still shouldered by the world’s poorest. A further portion was mobilised private finance that tends to flow towards projects that can deliver a return on investment rather than where need is greatest. Taking all of this into account, colleagues in Oxfam estimate that just $21 billion to $24 billion in public climate finance was provided in 2020, which is less than a third of the headline figure and just a quarter of what was promised.

In assessing Ireland’s contribution to this global effort we look primarily at two things. They are quality and quantity. In quality, Ireland has been a leader. Much like our record on official development assistance, ODA, more broadly, Irish climate finance is provided publicly on a grant basis as opposed to through loans. There is an important focus on adaptation and building capacity and resilience in poorer countries. Transparency is relatively high, with much of the relevant data published in yearly reports by Irish Aid. Taken together, this is a commendable track record that should be strengthened and advocated for both within the EU and at the Conference of the Parties, COP.

On quantity however the story is very different. The chart that members have to hand shows Irish climate finance since the $100 billion pledge was made. They will see roughly €35 million was contributed on average for the first six years, before a rise in 2016, although a portion of this was due to a change in reporting rules and what was eligible to be counted. From 2019 onwards, levels plateau at just over €90 million.

The second chart below, however, provides some crucial perspective. The red marker reflects the pledge made by the Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, at COP26 in November 2021 to increase Ireland’s contributions to at least €225 million per year by 2025. The green marker however reflects best current academic estimates of our actual fair share of the global target, which is calculated based on factors like historic emissions, financial capacity and different pathways to staying under 1.5°C of warming. A combination of a range of recent estimates gives us an approximate figure of €545 million per year.

From this perspective, we see the blue contributions line flatten out significantly and the key takeaway is immediately apparent. We are providing less than one fifth of our fair share and are failing on a key global justice component of the Paris Agreement. It is also important to note that the $100 billion target is a wholly political figure. It is not based on any scientific assessment of need and is widely recognised as insufficient. Work is under way at COP to try to revise it upwards. As such, this green line should be considered the floor of our ambition and something we should be delivering now, rather than pushing out to 2025.

Finally, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, states clearly that this finance should be new and additional to meet the full incremental costs borne by developing countries. This principle is extremely important. It is designed to ensure that contributions do not detract from already limited ODA budgets, leaving the world’s poorest to choose between existing development needs like schools and hospitals and adaptation measures like flood defences. It is for this reason that some countries, such as Denmark, only count contributions above the long-standing target of 0.7% of gross national income, GNI. By contrast, the current programme for Government instead commits to doubling the share of ODA that can be counted as climate finance. This is concerning because it risks reconfiguring existing ODA, rather than making a concerted effort to increase contributions overall.

We recognise that this is extremely challenging but that is a reflection of the seriousness of the situation we are in.

The only way to rise to it is for countries like Ireland to step up, meet the target in this document and provide the leadership we need.