In the early 1970s, rich countries committed to give 0.7 percent of their income in the form of aid to poor developing countries as Overseas Development Assistance. In the past decade a few countries have actually reached this target and others have plans to achieve it in the next few years. This money is used primarily for poverty reduction and long-term development goals in developing countries.

But climate change is now creating additional burdens on poor communities across the world. This means that poor communities need additional support to adapt and cope with climate-related changes, including increases in the frequency and severity of weather-related disasters and other slow changes such as sea-level rise, melting glaciers and shifting seasons.

The poor are least responsible for causing climate change but are most affected. Under the laws of natural justice, that suggests richer nations need to stem climate change, and help poorer nations cope with the damage done.

This week leaders from the European Union are debating if the money they will offer to help developing countries adapt to climate change should be part of the 0.7 percent they promised decades ago or additional funding. That this is even up for debate is deeply worrisome.

FUNDING MUST BE ADDITIONAL

As we know, the 0.7 percent commitment was agreed a few decades ago and focused on poverty reduction. At that time, climate change was not a major issue. That means there is no question that any support given to countries to adapt and cope with climate change has to be additional to the 0.7 percent Overseas Development Assistance target.

Poor countries face additional challenges around climate change, but they already face huge challenges coping with lack of health care, education and proper water sanitation, and other poverty-related problems like maternal and infant mortality.

Imagine if someone had promised to support a child through school, and then broke her bicycle. It would hardly be acceptable for them to offer to pay for the bike repairs using the money they had set aside to buy her school books for the next term. Yet this is exactly what donors would be doing if they diverted anti-poverty aid commitments in order to pay for the costs of adapting to the climate change, a problem they have caused.

Adaptation funding must be in addition to existing commitments, since it seeks to help vulnerable communities cope with new threats and challenges over and above those simply associated with their poverty.

The heads of state of the European Union meet this week, under the presidency of Sweden. This is their last chance collectively to hammer out a financial offer to help the developing world deal with climate change, one that is safe, fair and ambitious and on the table in time for negotiations toward a new global climate pact at Copenhagen in December.

A deal at Copenhagen is possible if the EU brings to the table, among other things, the "additional" money they are prepared to contribute to help developing countries adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. They could lead the world by being progressive, just and ambitious, and ensure they are on the right side of history.

Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.