There is a rumour that developing countries are puzzling over how to build confidence and trust for the Lima and Paris COPs. See below for a few great ideas.
At least $US15 billion, and pledges no later than November: that’s what the Green Climate Fund (GCF) bank account balance should read, and what developing countries need. Parties also made it clear that these pledges should be in addition to overall levels of climate finance and overseas development assistance. ECO does not want to have to write about how developed countries have stolen money from education and health programs or from the Adaptation Fund, just to fill the GCF.
Finance must and will go up, not down: is another key take away from the ADP discussions. ECO is excited that countries do intend to abide by the Warsaw decision (the main reason why we walked back into these negotiations, Volveremos) to scale up public finance levels.
P.S, to the US: ECO sends its warm regards for reassuring parties using ECO language (finance is going up not down, and there is no falling off a finance cliff, etc).
P.P.S. to all developed countries: this reassurance now needs to translate into concrete commitments and provisions in the 2015 agreement.
Financial commitments in the iNDCs: ECO has heard many parties making a strong plea to include provisions on climate finance, types, channels and instruments in developed countries iNDCs. Dear (developed country) Reader, you are not misreading, ECO is using the big words: commitments - finance - iNDCs. We know you’re not a fan but ECO wonders how else – as the Africa Group put it plainly - can we assess whether developed countries are contributing their fair share of the global effort? Did ECO mention that finance IS key factor in that fair share?
A global finance goal: ECO understands if developed countries would prefer to hide behind a collective effort and adopt a joint goal for the mobilisation of finance for post-2020. ECO and many countries support a PUBLIC finance goal to put an end to all the dodgy accounting tricks attempting to shift responsibility to the private sector.
Ex-ante assessment of the financial commitments: Now, that’s a great way of assessing adequacy and consistency with equity. Thumbs up to the Least Developed Countries group for putting it forward today, how else can we ensure funding is aligned with needs?
No backsliding on commitments: These four words clearly spell it out. Developed countries have to commit to this golden rule – hello shameless countries with declining climate finance levels!
The “POTODOSO” theorem: In operationalising the equity reference framework (ERF), ECO is getting serious about all countries contributing their fair share to the global effort. In practice, it means that some developing countries will find their levels of responsibility and capability are comparable to that of some developed countries. After 2020, those “countries in a position to do so” – the POTODOSO (more than acronym, it’s bound to become an equity theorem) - are expected to support their much poorer and much more vulnerable developing country partners in adapting to the worsening impacts of climate change.
Shifting the trillions: ECO was nodding off after hearing too many developed countries making the case - again - for private climate finance when some countries – AILAC for starters – made a refreshing proposal to look at how climate finance could be used to shift the trillions in the global economy away from fossil fuels. ECO believes that most countries could include efforts to this end in their iNDCs.
Alternative sources of finance: the icing on this ADP finance cake, ECO was so pleased to hear countries like Zambia, Norway, Belize, and Bangladesh suggest a renewed focus on alternative sources that would auto-generate climate finance, such as from bunker fuels or the long-standing proposal for passenger levies in international transport – which could be CBDRRC’ed through an incidence mechanism as suggested by South Africa. ECO loves it when parties’ proposals – collectively - make so much sense.