European Capacity Building Initiative
Policy Briefs and Notes
Bangkok Reports of the ecbi/IIED Supported Negotiators from Vulnerable Developing Countries
Bangkok Reports of the ecbi/IIED Supported Negotiators from Vulnerable Developing Countries
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’.
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.
Opportunities and Challenges
The report by Benito Müller looks at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen and evaluates what happened and suggests what lessons ought to be learned.
It has been said that summits are either 'successful' or 'very successful'. The time has come to face the facts: this is wrong! That is not to say that Copenhagen was a failure, but merely that it could have done better, but still probably passed the test. The final verdict will depend on what happens next. The report by Benito M¸ller looks at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen and evaluates what happened and suggests what lessons ought to be learned.
Failure or final wake-up call for our leaders?
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.
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.
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
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?
