Tag: GCF

CAN Intervention: CAN with CJN, Gender YOUNGO and TUNGO in High Level Ministerial Dialogue on Finance, COP20, December 9, 2014

Hello, my name is Blessing Mutiti and I am speaking on behalf of the youth, ENGO, gender and trade union constituencies.

We want to stress the importance of climate finance for all our constituencies and the people we represent. Many of those who are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change are least responsible for causing it. So providing climate finance is a legal and moral obligation of developed countries - those countries who have the greatest responsibility and capacity.

Without adequate, new and predictable finance, developing countries will not be able to contribute towards mitigation, nor will they be able to adapt. Finance is crucial for supporting those countries and their communities in proactive adaptation to climate impacts, and for ensuring that the transition we are asking all countries to make is a just one.

The recent UNEP adaptation gap report gives an indication of both the scale of finance that we need for adaptation in Africa alone and how quickly that scale increases if we fail to mitigate adequately. Strong commitments to climate finance from developed countries are necessary for progress in these negotiations, but also – just as importantly – for the impacts this finance has on the ground, for real people.

Like some of you have mentioned, we also welcome the recent pledges to the Green Climate Fund, an important institution that has the potential to be groundbreaking in its operations. The GCF, if it lives up to its principles of country ownership, direct access, gender sensitivity, stakeholder engagement, and supporting transformational rather than incremental change, is precisely the institution we need to face up to the climate crisis.

However, these pledges to the GCF are only a starting point of what needs to be a long-term financial commitment for developing countries beyond the initial resource mobilization period. $10 billion is a good step, but it is nowhere near the actual needs in developing countries. If spread over the four years of the GCF’s initial phase, this is only $2.5 billion per year, compared with the $100 billion a year expected by 2020, much less the hundreds of billions of actual needs. So we need something more here in Lima – namely, a finance roadmap leading up to 2020 and the promised $100 billion per year.

Developing countries need predictability. To make concrete national mitigation and adaptation plans, these countries must know what level of support will be available. Furthermore, they - and we! - need political assurance that the money will actually flow. A lack of clarity in climate finance since the end of Fast Start Finance has eroded trust and slowed progress in these negotiations. The same thing could happen if the GCF pledges are not followed up with specific, quantified indications of what finance will flow in addition to the GCF money, as well as after the GCF’s initial period.

A finance roadmap, in which countries give concrete, quantitative indications about how much finance will be available each year until 2020, would go a long way towards reassuring us all that finance will be available to address the climate crisis with the decisiveness it requires, for both mitigation and adaptation, with additional financing needs for implementing a loss & damage mechanism. This roadmap should include targets for the aggregate public finance that will be available for developing countries each year, scaling up to the $100 billion goal for 2020.

Leveraging of private sector finance should not be counted toward fulfilling that goal. We question the increasing trend of prioritizing public-private partnerships and the ‘transformative’ role of the private sector in combating climate change without equally challenging the fact that private companies are not obligated to invest in social needs and global public good, nor accounting for the ways in which the private sector, especially large transnational corporations, have contributed to establishing the unsustainable development model which drives catastrophic climate change. We affirm that regulation, and accountability and transparency of non-state actors, particularly transnational corporations and public-private partnerships, are critical for achieving sustainable development. Therefore, we urge caution to avoid the casual promotion of public-private partnerships to catalyze action on climate. We call for transparency, accountability and rigorous adherence to the numerous normative rights frameworks and legally binding agreements in the field of sustainable development, which provide the foundation for the work of the United Nations.

In addition to the fact that finance needs to flow, it also needs to flow to the right things. We stand firm that fossil fuels and high-risk technologies that create irreversible damage to our health and the planet must be kept out of a 2015 agreement, and must not be supported by climate finance. If dirty and harmful energy is financed by the GCF or other climate finance channels, the very legitimacy of those institutions will be called into serious question - an outcome none of us want. All climate finance must be provided in the context of the strongest possible social and environmental safeguards and respect for human rights.

We urge you to deliver for the communities, youth, women, workers, and everyone else we represent. Without adequate and predictable finance, there is no 2015 agreement in Paris. Without adequate and predictable finance, there can be no safe, clean energy revolution. Without adequate and predictable finance, there is no just transition to a sustainable future. It is your responsibility to ensure the finance is available for all these things that we all want - and we are committed to holding you accountable to that responsibility.

Thank you.


Climate Action Network responds to the Green Climate Fund pledging conference

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) "pledging conference" has ended today in Berlin with USD9.4 billion being pledged in support climate action in developing countries.

New, significant pledges were made by  Italy (USD313mn) and the UK (USD1.1bn), as well as an updated amount from Norway (USD130mn). Even developing nation Mongolia tabled USD50,000 adding to efforts announced earlier this year by Mexico and Peru. This  has left developed countries who refused to step up to their obligation, such as Australia, Austria, Belgium and Ireland, increasingly isolated on the world stage.  There were expectations that Canada and Poland would put money on the table today but they didn't make the deadline for the conference.  

While it is disappointing that the the total amount heading for GCF coffers falls just short of the unofficial target of USD10 and well under the USD15 billion in contributions for the initial phase that developing countries have asked for, it is good news that the GCF can now get down to its real work -  supporting efforts of countries around the world to scale up the roll out of renewable energy, adapt communities to climate impacts and develop sustainably. 

Wealthy countries, who have been responsible for causing climate change, have an obligation to put money on the table to help poorer countries take climate action. Doing so will help to build trust between countries as we near a new international agreement to limit climate change due in December 2015 in Paris.  USD10-15 billion to be spent over four years may sound like a lot, but it's just one third of the amount made available after the Copenhagen Summit, in the "Fast Start Finance" period. And with all countries now expected to take climate action under the new international agreement due next year, this fund needs to support climate projects in over 100 nations over four years.

The work does not stop here. Countries who haven't yet put money on the table for the GCF have until the major UN climate negotiations of the year get underway in Lima next month to step up. Those that have already pledged can confirm there's no strings attached to their commitments. To encourage more pledges, countries can decide to include financial support for climate action as part of their national contributions towards the new international agreement.

What's more, the GCF has to keep growing in size, but also in transparency and effectiveness. By the time the new international agreement on climate change is slated to come into effect in 2020, it should command a significant portion of the USD100 billion a year in climate action financing rich countries committed to back in 2009.  To get there, countries will need to put together a  climate action finance pathway - requiring some innovative thinking, new sources of money, and a plan to scale up existing sources such as an annual target under the new agreement.


Adaptation Fund overlooked because there’s a new kid in town?

While we all breathlessly wait for big money to hit the GCF (US$15 billion in pledges is expected by the end of this year), ECO would like to remind everyone that there are other funds in dire need of money too. One of them, the Adaptation Fund, which has projects ready to be implemented in vulnerable countries such as Ghana, Mali or Nepal, is now just waiting for the resources to get those projects started.

Pledges to the Adaptation Fund were among the very few positive outcomes from Warsaw. ECO is shocked that some countries have not yet paid up. Given the urgency of climate change, ECO would love to see the October session kicking off with the transfers of pledged funds from both Belgium and France, who, as the host of the 2015 COP, may want to uphold its commitments.

Honouring pledges made in the past is obviously critical, but so is putting the Adaptation Fund permanently on a more sustainable funding base. This could be done by, for instance, tapping into alternative sources that auto-generate revenues. Until then, the Fund’s board will have to continue to announce fundraising goals as it had to do for 2014 and 2015 ($80m each). ECO expects that Lima will see developed countries make pledges for the tried-and-tested, fully operating, but under-resourced Adaptation Fund.

Related Newsletter : 

Green Climate Fund: from “If and When” to “How Much”

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is a cornerstone of the emerging architecture of the global climate regime. Just two weeks ago, the Board of the GCF surprised many observers when they reached agreement on the eight essential requirements for the GCF to begin to receive, manage, and disburse funds. This deprives those developed countries who bear the primary responsibility for contributing funds to the GCF, and had been holding back pending these board decisions, of an excuse to delay making substantial contributions to the fund. We now fully expect these countries to put substantial financing at the disposal of the fund by Lima, with disbursements starting in 2015.

Just what does “substantial” mean? The volume of funds must be sufficient to inspire developing country confidence in the commitment of developed countries to support climate action and inspire developing countries to put sufficient effort into creating projects and programs to make good use of this funding. It must also enable the GCF to create a paradigm shift in the transition to a low emissions, climate resilient world, and to contribute significantly to closing the mitigation gap in the pre-2020 period.

ECO wonders how serious developed countries are about the GCF, really. As soon as the GCF is fully operational, and the institutional arrangements are in place for direct access by developing countries, ECO suggests that regular contributions to the GCF increase rapidly, surpassing USD$10 billion annually. This must also scale up further to account for a substantial part of the $100 billion committed by developed countries by 2020.

ECO warns developed countries that the funds allocated to the GCF cannot simply be transferred from a static, or even worse, shrinking budget for climate finance. Rather, developed countries must scale up their overall level of finance and take full advantage of the growing interest across the developing world to pursue low carbon climate resilient development.  Many developing countries are already taking ambitious actions with their own resources, but the sum of efforts worldwide still falls short of what is necessary. Funds channeled through the GCF, as well as other sources, can magnify these efforts and leverage much greater actions. 

Related Newsletter : 

CAN Intervention in the SB38/ADP2-2 Bonn Intersessional: Special Event with Co-Chairs on Finance, 8 June, 2013

Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Alix Mazounie and I’m speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.

The importance of finance to both raising pre-2020 mitigation ambition and getting a successful deal in 2015 cannot be overstated.

But climate finance is currently in no man's land. After the end of the Fast Start Finance period last year, 2013 should mark the start of a new finance period.

Instead, we are almost half way through the year and we've seen no new commitments on finance beyond the small handful of pledges made in Doha.

 As CAN we think no developed country should be coming back to this process empty handed.

The various streams of work on finance this year, in particular the Long Term Finance work Programme and the Ministerial on finance at COP 19 (which crucially must involve finance ministers or ministers with mandate on finance), need to secure concrete decision options for consideration and agreement at COP 19:

(1) We need ALL developed countries to set out what climate finance they will provide over 2013-2015, and commit to a roadmap for scaling-up global public climate finance and reaching $100bn per year by 2020.

(2) We need agreement that a minimum of 50% of all public climate finance between now and 2020 will be spent on adaptation. Better than that, we need developed countries to make a collective pledge to save the Adaptation Fund and keep implementing ambitious projects on the ground.

(3) We need confidence that the Green Climate Fund is operational and ready to receive substantial pledges in 2014. A first round of pledges in Warsaw will send a strong political signal that the Green Climate Fund must not be left an empty shell for a fourth COP in a row.

With the LCA finance negotiations behind us, and ADP negotiations on pre-2020 ambition focused on mitigation, this year’s LTF WP is the main space for making progress on finance.

We need all countries to understand that forward steps on climate finance pre-2020 are key to ADP outcomes in both work-streams.

A new agreement applicable to all seems unlikely to emerge if developing countries have not seen existing promises of financial support being met.

So - in response to your question on our role in this process - we believe we would be fruitfully contributing to the ADP process if developed country parties agreed to our longstanding asks to scale up public finance. 


CAN Speaking Notes from GCF Board Meeting, March 12 - 15


Resource Mobilization:

·      In our earlier interventions we emphasized that the GCF should narrowly focus on ambitious, paradigm shifting actions. That, of course, implies that resources will be made available at the scale and urgency that the task requires, in accordance with the commitments of Article 4.3 and 11.3 of the Convention. So these are, in large measure, two sides of same coin.

·      Developed countries should put forward initial pledges as a matter of urgency in 2013, that could be reported back to COP19, as indicator of progress taking place here, and to prepare the way for disbursements next year.

·      We’d support Derek and several other’s preference for option 2, step-wise approach, with a caveat.

·      As a matter of credibility and impact, rapid resourcing leading to disbursements as soon as possible is critical, in the context of adequate environmental, social and fiduciary standards. .

·      Resourcing need not await agreement on a burden sharing allocation. Neither should it prejudge the outcome of a future agreement on burden sharing arrangements for future replenishment processes.

·      The longer term framework must be designed to deliver adequate and predictable resources. To that end, the resource mobilisation framework should be designed to also allow the receipt of revenues from sources of additional public finance other than direct contributions from developed countries, such as from financial transaction taxes, the use of special drawing rights, carbon taxes, and aviation and maritime levies.

·      The scale of the GCF’s ambition should not be limited by the claim that there is a scarcity of public money. Certainly, enormous sums have been made rapidly available to pay for other actions governments have seen as urgent, wars and financial bailouts.

·      Multiple feasible proposals exist for generating large amounts of public money from innovative sources, such as carbon pricing, closing tax loopholes, and redirecting fossil fuel subsidies in developed countries, etc.  At the end of the day, its an issue of political scarcity, not economic scarcity.

·      Finally, regarding section 6.3 on earmarking. We wouldn’t want to see individual contributors circumvent Board decision-making through earmarking. Allocation of funds should be decided by the GCF board, reflecting developing country needs and in accordance with the GI’s requirement for a balanced allocation between mitigation and adaptation. In particular, we are concerned that adaptation will be given short shrift under an earmarking arrangement.


Addressing "to promote a paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways.":

·      Address first 2 guiding questions: what it means to “to promote a paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways”.

·      Given the scale of the challenge and the unique mandate of the GCF, the objective of achieving a “paradigm shift” should be the central organizing principle of the GCF’s work.  How the GCF defines and prioritizes actions to spur a “paradigm shift” will be a key determinant of its impact and effectiveness on the climate crisis and in making a significant difference in the lives of affected people.

·      It is therefore critical for the Board to reach understanding on the “paradigm shift” the GCF will promote for mitigation and adaptation. This includes a discussion on how to apply it also to the PS facility. We believe the “paradigm shift” must include these three pillars: (1) ambition, (2) country-driven planning, and (3) multi-stakeholder, participatory and inclusive decision-making.

·      All 3 are critically important to us, but country led planning and participatory decision-making have other textual homes in the GI, so won’t address them further now. Ambition—what is suitably ambitious to merit GCF support? does not, so I’d like to spend the time discussing.

·      A couple introductory points:

·      Rough and ready understanding: When BAU for decisions by governments, investors and consumers, and civil society lead to the low carbon and climate resilient actions.

·      Consensus that GCF Funded initiatives should deliver sustainable development and resiliency benefits, including at the local level. Board should be clear about how those values be integrated in decision-making? 

·      GCF needs to be strategic and add value. For example, actions that would go forward without GCF support cannot, by definition, promote a paradigm shift.

·      Mitigation:

o   First, the GCF should focus on enabling a rapid shifting of emissions trajectories, taking into account environmental and social safeguards, and taking a gender-sensitive approach, ensuring social, economic and development co-benefits particularly for the poor.

o   Second, paradigm shifting actions should also include initiatives that may deliver smaller immediate reductions, but can contribute towards transforming markets and patterns of consumption and investment over the medium to long term.

o   In this regard, initiatives to support SME are critical. Many of the most transformational initiatives underway today are happening at the local level, scaling up these initiatives can be an extremely effective way to catalyze a paradigm shift at the scale and ambition that is required. Resist the idea that ambition and transformation are synomymous with big infrastructure.

o   In general, preference for supporting policy level shifts over one-off investments.

·      Adaptation:

o   Ambition in adaptation context is tougher to define. It means building resilience at different levels--national, regional and local—to the variety of climate induced stressors that need to be addressed comprehensively.

o   It must be understood in the context of developing country needs and the rights of those directly impacted, including critically, equitable resource access and the participation of affected communities in adaptation decision-making.

Thank you for the opportunity to come speak at this informal session, and we look forward to contributing to a rich discussion over the next 3 days. 


BMF Intervention Notes

·      URGENCY! When we next come together in June, it will be 3.5 years after announced in Copenhagen, 2.5 years after agreed in Cancun. still talking about vision of fund, not even yet about mobilizing resources at scale and urgency required, let alone supporting action on the ground! We know this not easy, but urge board to redouble efforts to find a way forward.

·      That said, We fully support the effort to clarify proposed areas of work, objectives, gaps and opportunities in existing architecture, and indicators of success, as a matter of priority and indeed urgency.

·      But, This work should be undertaken in the context of the overarching objective of promoting a paradigm shift and resiliency in context of sustainable development.—so within each area of work, and for each proposed objective, this effort should identify the approaches that are likely to be suitably ambitious and transformational in their impacts, and will also serve the interests of the poor. Need for the overarching objectives to be translated into specific, measurable criteria for evaluating and prioritizing proposals.

Section C

·      Also don’t find wholesale/retail illuminating.

·      Convergence on principle of direct access and country drivenness—further work will need to include analysis of options how the PSF can serve to further the country-driven approach, and the role of national designated authorities in that process AND modalities for subnational and non-governmental access. 

·      transparency and accountability, input from CSO and PSO, (c5)

·      On leveraging:

o   Emphasize the importance of policy shifts, which may often have the potential to leverage greater change than discrete investments. This is true, even if you think that leveraging the private secotr is a critical priority. so a critical question here is the extent to which the Fund will focus on supporting those shifts.

o   Leveraging finance not an objective in itself, need to relate back to overarching objectives of paradigm shift, and promoting sustainable development and resilience, esp for the poor.  narrow indicators of leverage may not be helpful in benchmarking impact.

·      Annex and CONSULTANCY

·      We recognize this is an enormously difficult undertaking, and that the Board needs to bring an extremely broad array of expertise to bear.

·      But obviously, the full range of necessary expertise is unlikely to reside in any one consultancy or think tank, and so it is critically important that this process be open to a broad range of inputs. A couple of specific recommendations:

o   Build on the enormous body of work already undertaken under the convention, country needs assessments, national communications, country plans, and the work of the transitional committee.

o   Consultancy or think tanks should include developing country perspectives, and expertise beyond the financial realm

o   The TOR should be put out for public comment.

o   The TOR should make clear that the work should be based on broad consultation and public input

o   The report should present options and alternatives, not just recommendations.

 On safeguards in Annex I (f) (1): includes analysis of best practices in the participatory decisionmaking and application of safeguards/standards in funding decisions and implementation of activities, including the PCF


Notes for intervention

Readiness, including needs assessments, organizational capacity building and the development of strategic plans from which funding proposals can be derived will be essential.

Show real value in two ways:

·      Readiness will expand the universe of countries who can come forward with the kind of high quality, transformational proposals that the Board will be looking for.

·      Improve the overall quality of proposals that will be put before the Board, as countries learn from each other and build on previous proposals.

We also believe that at least an initial strategy for supporting readiness could be fast tracked within the broader BMF conversation, and I would submit that this might provide a useful way forward on the sequencing issue that arose in the last session. The preparation of a fast tracked readiness strategy might unlock  opportunities for more rapid capitalization, in advance of resolving all of the outstanding BMF issues.



CAN Submission: Response to Questions related to the “Paradigm Shift” Posed in the Co-Chairs’ information, Green Climate Fund, March 2013


On behalf of the more than 700 member organizations in the Climate Action Network International, we appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments on Co-Chairs’ information note on the informal discussion on the business model framework of the Green Climate Fund.

This submission will address the “initial guiding questions” posed by the Co-Chairs in relation to the Operational Objectives of the Fund: 

1. What does it mean, in practice, to promote a paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways? 

2. What results will the GCF be supporting to contribute to this paradigm shift? For example, for mitigation, are we only interested in tCO2e, or do we want tCO2e plus some measure of transformational change (for example, some demonstration of fit of activity with national strategy/innovation/fiscal effort)? 

The GCF should promote a “paradigm shift” by scaling-up resource flows for ambitious and effective climate related policies and actions in accordance with country-led strategies. It should incentivize synergies between the GCF’s strategic objectives and the achievement of overall national development strategies and the production of development co-benefits. To achieve these objectives, civil society and other stakeholders must be full partners, both at the international and national level, in determining the way in which the GCF will finance climate action. 

Towards this end, the Board should adopt the following definition of “paradigm shift” as part of its strategic vision or business model for the GCF: 

A paradigm shift involves a strategic, long-term, and fundamental re-orientation towards low-emission, climate-friendly, climate-resilient, pro-poor, gender-equitable and country-driven development. Such a transformation must be undertaken on the basis of country-owned strategies, plans and programmes that are developed and implemented through participatory and inclusive processes and that are integrated into developing countries’ core development plans. 

This understanding of “paradigm shift” includes three essential elements: (1) ambition, (2) country-led planning, and (3) participatory and inclusive decision-making. 



CAN View: Fill the Fund in Qatar- $10-15 billion for the Green Climate Fund, July 2012


In Qatar, developed countries need to put forward a climate finance package that includes:  

  • Commitments to total climate finance  (bilateral and multilateral, inside and outside the GCF) in 2013-2015 that are substantially above the levels of the Fast Start Finance period (2010-12); 
  • A pledge of at least $10-15 billion in new and additional public finance to be disbursed to the GCF over the years 2013-2015, with 50 percent of these initial resources for adaptation through direct access where possible and preferred;   
  • A clear roadmap for scaling-up climate finance to meet  the $100 billion per year commitment by 2020; 
  • Decisions that advance the most promising alternative sources of public finance as part of this roadmap;
  • Decisions allowing the full operationalization of the Green Climate Fund.  

<read more>


Fill the Fund!

As the end of the Fast Start Finance period approaches, ECO lies awake at night thinking about what happens next. There is nothing on the table for 2013 and beyond, and a huge mid-term finance gap is looming. ECO is as worried as developing countries that developed countries have little interest in discussing a scaling-up roadmap of climate finance towards 2020, with clear milestones, and ensuring that the Green Climate Fund doesn’t remain an empty shell.

Adaptation and mitigation needs have only grown larger since they were last assessed, and ECO believes that a finance gap is the last thing the climate, and these negotiations, needs. ECO worries that climate finance will be lower in 2013 than in the three years since Copenhagen.
ECO wonders if negotiations, including those on increasing mitigation ambition, will progress at all without a clear signal that developed countries will be living up to their commitment to provide new and additional climate finance, and start making progress towards meeting the US$100 billion per year by 2020. Yes, some developed countries have made reassurances that climate finance will not fall of a cliff after 2012, but in ECO’s view, general reassurances are one thing; individual commitments, though, are quite another.
So ECO strongly suggests that developed countries show that they mean business, and clarify what they intend climate finance to look like in the beginning of 2013 and over the years to 2020. As a clear down payment on trust, which has been our missing friend here in the Maritim, ECO believes developed countries should make a political commitment in Doha to initially pledge at least $10-15 billion to be disbursed to the Green Climate Fund over the years 2013-2015 as part of a broader climate finance commitment.

 The Green Climate Fund has some work ahead, and we urge all parties to get on with the institutional arrangements without delay. That should not stop parties from making their political commitments in Doha. Hesitating countries might be interested to know that, in fact, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria received pledges well before it was ready to receive funds.
Such a pledge would send a strong and positive signal and help fight the perceptions of the last two weeks that the means of implementation may not be forthcoming. Pledges in Doha could be complemented by future revenues from new alternative sources, such as from a fair bunkers mechanism or a financial transaction tax. Of course, initial pledges in Doha would be the first step on a longer pathway to scale-up the annual turnover of the Green Climate Fund by 2020, where the majority of the $100 billion commitment is channelled through the GCF itself.
ECO believes that all this is firmly within the remit of possibilities of developed countries, as the memories of the bank bailouts with hundreds of billions (or was it trillions) of dollars are still fresh on our mind. We suggest that when negotiators have arrived back home, they make urgent phone calls to their finance ministers to get them started on preparing for the Doha pledges. Civil society, to be sure, will be ringing them.


Progress on the Path to $100 billion

This year’s long term finance work programme provides a critical opportunity for focused and constructive engagement on sources of climate finance and developing country financing needs. 2012 should be a pivotal year for climate finance, as Fast Start Finance comes to an end and developed countries start on the path to US$100 billion per year by 2020

Negotiations on long-term finance have faced significant headwinds in recent years, and analytical work has been limited to ad-hoc and one-off initiatives like the UN Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, and fora with limited and exclusive memberships such as the G20. If rich countries want to show climate finance is not just another broken promise to poor countries, they must use this year’s work programme to help make significant progress on agreeing to a roadmap to scale up funding over the next eight years to $100 billion per year by 2020.

To help ensure this ambition is realised, ECO would like to highlight the following objectives for the work programme, for consideration by parties attending today’s UNFCCC consultation on its scope

It is vital the work programme contributes to decision(s) at COP18 that make concrete progress towards scaling up finance, including:

- Identifying and advancing promising sources of predictable and assured finance, especially public sources, such as providing guidance to the International Maritime Organisation and International Civil Aviation Organisation on generating financing from measures to address emissions from international shipping and aviation, as well as financial transaction taxes and public finance liberated in developed countries through the elimination of their fossil fuel subsidies

- Providing a roadmap for reaching agreement on a pathway to mobilising $100 billion by 2020, including maximisation of public sources channelled through the Green Climate Fund, an appropriate role for the private sector and a trajectory for developed countries to scale up

- Establishing a shared understanding of developing country financing needs, based on a review of recent literature on mitigation and adaptation financing requirements

- Clear commitments to provide scaled up finance from 2013 onwards, including for the capitalization of the Green Climate Fund

This work is all the more urgent given the link between raising and delivering climate finance and reaching the goal of staying below 1.5/2 degrees C of warming. Scaled up finance to support increased ambition in developing countries is critical to move them towards low carbon development pathways.

In addition to constructive engagement on these areas through the work programme, all parties must be afforded sufficient spin-off group time in Bonn, Bangkok and Doha to participate in defining vital decisions for agreement at COP 18. In this respect it is imperative the Work Programme is seen as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, negotiations involving all parties.

Related Newsletter : 


Subscribe to Tag: GCF