These include questions such as the additionality on top of or as part of official development assistance or predictability of climate finance.
Or issues of adequacy of climate finance provision: should adaptation finance be delivered to some of the poorest developing countries or Small Island Developing States SIDS , which have contributed little to global greenhouse gas emissions, in the form of loans? Or is it legitimate to include flows from expert credit agencies where the purpose is clearly to generate income in the developed countries providing the finance as public climate finance delivered, as the OECD report does?
Or how to account for and report on the gender-responsiveness of climate finance?
Interestingly, the BA in for the first time included some references to the intended gender impact of investments and how this correlates to tracking public climate finance. In contrast, the OECD report did not. At the last climate summit in Katowice COP24 , developing countries had hoped that as part of the rulebook for the implementation of the Paris Agreement a comprehensive climate finance accountability package could be delivered that would have tied indicative advanced ex ante reporting on expected climate finance provision to increase predictability with a clear reporting procedure of how much climate finance developed countries have actually provided over the past two years ex post.
This largely failed. Developed countries rejected any attempts to narrowly define climate finance or even use common reporting time frames.
New Money for the Green Climate Fund: How To Tackle Climate Change More Effectively
The reporting guidelines approved at COP 24 for climate finance provided by developed countries over the previous two years ex post allow them to include an almost limitless set of financial flows, and even non-financial efforts such as capacity building or technology transfers, as climate finance provided. This undermines overall accountability and tracking efforts, as it limits the comparability of the climate finance each developed country provides, and thus the ability to tally up correctly the overall financial flows from developed to developing countries. Many developing countries have made clear that scaling up their efforts to reduce emissions and other climate actions will be conditional on increased climate finance provided by developed countries.
In , at COP26, the process will also start to replace the goal set in Copenhagen with a new higher collective climate finance goal, which has to be agreed to by This symbolizes a small win for developing countries, who wanted to avoid that a future collective climate finance goal would be a random number politically set by developed countries as was the case in Copenhagen rather than one informed by joint deliberation and the assessment of developing country needs.
How to best channel public climate finance flows from developed to developing countries in line with the Copenhagen commitments remains a central question. Developing countries overwhelmingly regard the GCF as the primary multilateral finance channel in support of the implementation of the Paris Agreement and for the climate actions that they commit to under their NDCs and other country-owned climate plans, such as National Adaptation Plans NAPs. They expect therefore to be able to access a significant share of the public commitment of developed countries under the USD billion goal and the future collective new goal to be set by through the GCF.
With USD While its financial clout is relatively modest compared with the trillions of public and private investments that are needed to keep global warming to below two degrees Celsius, it has a significant signaling effect to the wider global climate finance architecture, not the least through its ever growing network of implementing partners, 84 in total as of March These count multilateral development banks, UN agencies, bilateral development agencies, globally operating commercial banks receiving GCF funding through traditional international access as well as regional and national accredited entities from developing countries, which have direct access to the fund.
Balanced allocation for adaptation and mitigation and prioritizing vulnerable countries. Nevertheless, from a developing country perspective, the GCF has a number of advantages over other climate finance channels, in particular bilateral climate finance providers.
- Geschichten von Max, Marlena und ihren Freunden (Max, Marlena und ihre Freunde 1) (German Edition).
- The Enlightened.
- How to make the Green Climate Fund a better force for change;
- Loving An Angel (Angel and Mercy Book 1)!
It is committing to sustainable development, recognizing that funding for climate actions must yield multiple economic, social or gender equality benefits and cannot just focus on reducing emissions at the lowest cost. Contributors to the fund cannot earmark funding, which is one reason why the GCF can implement an allocation framework that commits 50 percent of its funding in grant equivalent terms for adaptation, thus bucking global trends, and reserves half of its adaptation funding for SIDS, African states and LDCs.
Its readiness and preparatory support program, to which it has committed USD million by March , is already supporting more than measures in developing countries, with many more in the pipeline. It is probably the most significant single funding source for strengthening climate action-relevant institutions and processes in developing countries. Retrieved 1 June The Elephant in the Boardroom".
Retrieved 24 July Foreign Policy in Focus. Oxfam America. Inter Press Service. The Independent.
Retrieved 8 December Financial times. Retrieved 23 September April Archived from the original PDF on 18 October Retrieved 7 November The Guardian. Retrieved 8 April CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions. View the discussion thread. Skip to main content. Our Experts. Attend an Event. Connect with Us.
Green Climate Fund (GCF)
For Media. Back to Commentary and Analysis. Arthur Baker and Ian Mitchell. X Views from the Center Feed.
Climate Finance | UNFCCC
Related Experts. Arthur Baker. Ian Mitchell. Disclaimer CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. Related Posts. Blog Post. Alan Gelb and Anit Mukherjee.