European Capacity Building Initiative
Policy Briefs and Notes
The importance of involving stakeholders in the GCF
National and international finance is increasingly becoming available in developing countries to address climate change for both mitigation and adaptation. However, existing (domestic) arrangements for climate finance are often dispersed and fragmentary, and lack clear goals and strategies, therefore allowing for neither efficiency nor accountability. This ecbi Policy Brief by Anju Sharma, Benito Müller, and Pratim Roy examines the governance arrangements for climate finance in India, and proposes the creation of an Indian National Climate Fund to pool climate finance from different national and international sources, to channel it to the State and local levels. The Fund should seek to 'consolidate without centralisation', and to devolve decision-making on the use of climate finance to local governments. In addition to defining a common vision and principles for climate finance, such a National Funding Entity should aim for coherence with national development goals strategies, and integration across sectors; distributive justice, to ensure that climate finance reaches those who need it most, and that their needs are prioritised; and a balance between different thematic areas (such as mitigation, adaptation, capacity building etc.). It should also review progress continuously, and make mid-course corrections where necessary.
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?
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
Generating new (innovative) sources of funding from US states, regions, and cities, for the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) of the Financial Mechanism of the UNFCCC/Paris Agreement.
