European Capacity Building Initiative

Policy Briefs and Notes

Whether or not the regime emerging from the current negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will be based on an explicit cost/burden sharing formula, the debate about (implied) costs/burdens will be central. Such a debate cannot be genuinely meaningful in the absence of an acceptable operationalisation of Article 3.1 in general, and of the concept of ‘respective capability’ in particular.

The Brief proposes a measure for national 'differentiated economic capabilities ('ability to pay') as integral part of an operationalisation. The primary purpose of the measure is to define or assess climate change cost/burden sharing (schemes). To illustrate the potential use of this methodology the Brief considers two examples: assessing the fairness of a given cost distribution; and developing a (rule-based) 'graduation scheme' regarding obligations to pay.

This is a second revised edition of the original ecbi Policy Brief by Benito Müller & Lavan Mahadeva that served as summary for policy makers of a technical report by the same authors published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, available at the link below. The revision is mainly with regards to the final section on determining ‘Levels of Capability’.

Author:
Benito Müller and Lavan Mahadeva
Publication Date:
January, 2014

A great deal of confusion has resulted from the fact that it has hitherto not been possible for the GCF Board to agree on definitions for some of the key nouns referred to in the GCF Governing Instrument in the context of who can access GCF funding. This Concept Note by Benito Müller proposes the following definitions in terms of the GCF accreditation categories:
• Implementing Entity (IE): an entity accredited by the GCF to access GCF funding.
• Project Implementing Entity: an IE accredited for project management.
• Funding Entity: an IE accredited to award grants and/or allocate funding.
• Intermediary: an IE accredited for on-lending and/or blending.

Author:
Benito Müller
Publication Date:
April, 2015

Opportunities and Challenges

Author:
Christian Holz and Xolisa Ngwadla
Publication Date:
October, 2016

A policy brief proposing a Reformed Financial Mechanism for the post Copenhagen period.

A policy brief proposing a Reformed Financial Mechanism for the post Copenhagen period.

Post Copenhagen Architecture and Governance

Author:
Benito Müller
Publication Date:
April, 2010

This Rough Guide to Enhanced Direct Access (EDA) by Benito Müller provides the key conceptual tools needed to understand EDA and exemplifies the main access models graphically with a number of figures, meant to illustrate the key differences between these models.

This Rough Guide to Enhanced Direct Access (EDA) by Benito Müller provides the key conceptual tools needed to understand EDA and exemplifies the main access models graphically with a number of figures, meant to illustrate the key differences between these models.

Author:
OCP/ ecbi/ OIES
Publication Date:
March, 2014

This OCP/ecbi submission to the Standing Committee on Finance summarizes the most recent developments regarding the relations between the Adaptation Fund and the Green Climate Fund and proposes that with regard to this particular relationship, the SCF should focus on how to make best use of existing complementarities between the two funds.

Author:
Benito Müller
Publication Date:
April, 2015
Author:
Harro van Asselt, Romain Weikmans and Timmons Roberts
Publication Date:
October, 2016

The 'institutionalized' group of Friends of the Chair is composed of delegates trying to influence the Chairman and each other about the way forward, reflecting national positions, and trying to hammer out compromises.

In the preparations for the Copenhagen COP-15 and in the aftermath of the confusing negotiations in Bella Centre there have been many references to the concept of Friends of the Chair. The 'institutionalized' group of Friends of the Chair is composed of delegates trying to influence the Chairman and each other about the way forward, reflecting national positions, and trying to hammer out compromises. This is a long-haul effort which is different from the idea of appointing Friends of the Chair as part of the end game of a negotiation: in this latter case it is ideally a method for the Chairman to get the most important actors to agree and clinch a deal that will lead to final agreement in the plenary.

The Art of Negotiation in the Rio process and climate negotiations

Author:
Bo Kjellén
Publication Date:
April, 2010

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Board is in the process of considering "additional modalities that further enhance direct access". A devolved and decentralized access modality has been proposed as an alternative to the more traditional model, where detailed project approval is carried out at the multilateral level. This ecbi Policy Brief by Benito Müller and William Pizer explains the relation between "enhanced direct access" and "programmatic approaches," and addresses certain concerns raised about this decentralized/devolved access model, using seven case studies to illustrate current practices that could provide ideas and insights about how the GCF might design its own approach. The case studies are focused around four questions:
a. How does the funding model generally work, in terms of disbursing funds?
b. Who decides what? What decisions are taken by the governing funding body and what decisions are devolved and to whom?
c. How does this funding model ensure the governing body’s objectives are met, and how does it ensure that the various fiduciary standards and safeguards are satisfied?
d. How is the funding level for a particular programme determined?

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Board is in the process of considering "additional modalities that further enhance direct access". A devolved and decentralized access modality has been proposed as an alternative to the more traditional model, where detailed project approval is carried out at the multilateral level. This ecbi Policy Brief by Benito Müller and William Pizer explains the relation between "enhanced direct access" and "programmatic approaches," and addresses certain concerns raised about this decentralized/devolved access model, using seven case studies to illustrate current practices that could provide ideas and insights about how the GCF might design its own approach. The case studies are focused around four questions:
a. How does the funding model generally work, in terms of disbursing funds?
b. Who decides what? What decisions are taken by the governing funding body and what decisions are devolved and to whom?
c. How does this funding model ensure the governing body’s objectives are met, and how does it ensure that the various fiduciary standards and safeguards are satisfied?
d. How is the funding level for a particular programme determined?

Author:
Benito Müller & William Pizer, with contributions by Sophie de Coninck, Dan Morrow, Gonzalo Serrano de la Rosa, Anju Sharma & Ced Hesse
Publication Date:
March, 2014

Having been established more than a decade ago to address the urgent and immediate needs of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) especially vulnerable to the impact of climate change, the Least Developed Countries Fund for Climate Change (LDCF) still struggles to obtain adequate and predictable funding. The Global Environment Facility, the operating entity of the LDCF, has been unable to program LDCF resources at the level of around US$200 million per year, as proposed in the Programming Strategy for the LDCF.

More generally, this Think Piece by Benito Müller argues, a success at the UN Climate change summit Paris in December will require a significant finance package which is not ad hoc, but rather provides genuine longer-term predictability. In addition to using the proceeds of new international market mechanisms, we think there is also a need to look at innovative sources at the national and sub-national level.

Author:
Benito Müller
Publication Date:
May, 2015

Pages