Tag: finance

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.

Topics: 

CAN Intervention - Long Term Finance Consultations - May 22, 2012

Distinguished delegates. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Lies Craeynest from Oxfam International, and I will speak on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

Thank you co-chairs for your proposal on how to implement the decisions made in Durban on the Long Term Finance work programme. Many delegates from developing countries have spoken about the need for a balanced approach in taking forward the Durban agreement, and have stressed that the discussion on raising mitigation ambition pre 2020 needs to go hand in hand with the discussion on  mobilising the means of implementation to do so. We agree. 
Topics: 

Two for the Price of None

Over the past week, we’ve heard discussions in a variety of forums here in Bonn on how to address the urgency of climate change by increasing emissions reductions and mo-bilizing enough climate finance to help fund the transition to a climate resilient future for all. Well, ECO has found just the source to help both of these efforts – end fossil fuel subsidies by 2015!

Let’s start by raising mitigation ambition. The UNFCCC re-ceived many submissions on raising ambition. 111 countries were represented in the sub-missions citing phasing out fossil fuel subsidies as a po-tential source of additional emission reductions repre-sent. And how often does that happen?

Perhaps all 111 countries saw the recent statements by the Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency, who said that phasing out fossil fuel subsidies could provide half of the emission reductions needed to stave off dangerous climate change between now and 2020. Now, because the devil is often in the details, phasing out these  government handouts could go a substantial way in helping close the gigatonne gap. The ambition work programme under the ADP would be well-served to include this in its deliberations.

Now, on to finance. Recent estimates show that fossil fuel subsidies in rich countries could be in the tens of billions of US dollars, to perhaps as much as $100 billion. How about, instead, governments spend that money to support climate change fighting efforts? ECO encourages delegates to include this in discussions of both short-term and long-term finance.

While we’re at it, let’s all make sure we’re talking about the same stuff.  The numbers quoted above are estimates, mainly because the data out there isn’t transparent enough to allow for more precise figures. But, wouldn't you know, the UNFCCC could provide just the tools to increase transparency in this area through its national communications and biennial reports.  And since so many UNFCCC parties want to remove these subsidies, why not report on their existence and efforts to remove them? Who doesn’t like taking credit for doing good things, after all?

ECO hopes parties here at the UNFCCC will take note of the multiple benefits of removing fossil fuel subsidies. ECO encourages delegates to speak to their colleagues in the G20 and Rio+20 negotiations as well, so that progress can be made wherever possible, in order to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2015.

Related Newsletter : 

Mmmmm mmmmm MRV!

Developing countries have long insisted on the need for transparent and coordinated provision of financial support, to enable independent review of the extent to which commitments are fulfilled, as well as maximise the effectiveness of the funding. Moreover, transparency is vital to ensuring that the funds are equitably distributed over all developing countries in need of support, with priority for the most vulnerable developing countries.

At present, though there have been some positive steps taken in this direction, unless ECO was not invited that magical day, there is no common framework for measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) of international climate finance that fully captures existing financial flows.

ECO was happy to hear that at the end of 2011 the European Commission proposed a new EU regulation (referred to as the “MMR” Regulation) on monitoring and reporting for EU climate finance. The MMR (yet another acronym that delegates and observers should learn by heart) will standardize climate finance reporting requirements for EU Member States. We are glad to hear that the proposal is going through the EU legislative process this year, just in time to monitor the EU’s post-2012 financial commitments for climate action.

But the MMR still needs guidance from EU Member States on key concepts and methodologies to be included in the legislation: what is meant by climate finance and in particular “private climate finance”? What is “new and additional” climate finance and how are the baselines set for measuring this? How should the MMR count the climate-relevant activities and outcomes when reporting on projects with broader objectives?

In the grand tradition of EU stakeholder consultation processes, ECO knows that its ideas will be read and considered, and so takes the opportunity to recommend that the MMR include the following:

- detailed information on where the money is going

- comparable information that can be aggregated

- sources and recipient institutions as well as the channels used need to be visible in order to keep track of the financial flow

- Also, for this process to be really transparent, it is crucial that this information be made accessible to third parties, including recipient countries and NGOs and that the reported information be quadruple-checked by independent finance experts

But all this being said, ECO would like to remind all parties that any MMR or MRV proposal does not make any sense as long as there is no finance to MMR or MRV (or whatever you want to call it). At the end of the day, we need developed countries to start pledging substantial, scaled-up climate funding for 2013 onwards. Or the MMR will be yet another empty shell.

And because ECO knows that parties want to hear more about the major MRV reform behind the obscure acronym, the ACT Alliance and CAN-Europe went to great lengths to organize a side event on the role of private finance in climate action next Monday.

ECO will definitely be there.

Topics: 
Related Newsletter : 

CAN Intervention - AWG-LCA Opening Plenary - May 17, 2012

 

Distinguished delegates,
My name is Sunil Acharya and I will speak on behalf of the Climate Action Network. With the LCA's mandate extending till the end of this year, Parties must ensure that outstanding issues will be dealt with promptly, and any remaining matters transferred to the ADP or SBs without loss of work.
 
Parties must agree to a peak year by COP 18 in order to put global emissions on a pathway and keep warming below 2 C and to keep 1.5 C within reach.  Moreover, Parties must urgently agree upon the structure and technical input required as part of the review of the adequacy of the long-term goal to begin in 2013.
 
To ensure the peak year and global goal are respected, Parties must also make progress on clarifying the assumptions behind their targets and actions – a process crucial to raising the level of ambition by COP18 and beyond as part of both the LCA and ADP.
 
As the FSF period is in its last year and the GCF on the way to being operationalized, Parties’ attention should now turn to scaling up towards the $100 billion, and capitalizing the Fund with a significant portion. 
 
This year’s Long Term Finance (LTF) Work Programme provides a critical opportunity for focused and constructive engagement under the UNFCCC on mobilizing and scaling up climate finance, especially from public sources. In order to enable progress towards concrete decisions, previous efforts should now inform a process under the UNFCCC where all Parties can participate in defining the way forward. 
 
The Work Program should contribute to decisions at COP 18 that identifies and advances promising sources of finance especially public sources, provides a roadmap for agreeing to specific pathways for mobilizing $100 billion by 2020, establishes a shared understanding of developing country needs and explicitly commits to providing financing from 2013 onwards. Both the new market mechanism and the framework on various approaches must ensure the high environmental integrity of all carbon markets and not lead to double counting or a “race to the bottom.”
 
Thank you Chair
Related Member Organization: 

CAN Intervention - Long Term Finance Consultations - May 17, 2012

 

Distinguished delegates,
My name is Mahlet Eyassu, Forum for Environment, Ethiopia and I will speak on behalf of the Climate Action Network.At a time when the impacts of climate change are increasingly severe, progress on long-term finance must be more ambitious and cannot be delayed any longer.Since the commitment to mobilize $100 billion in climate finance by 2020 was made in 2009 we’ve seen little progress towards it.  Even more worrying is the fact that there is currently no certainty on how much climate finance will be delivered after the Fast Start Finance period ends this year.
 
The long-term finance work programme provides a critical opportunity for focused and constructive engagement on mobilizing and scaling up climate finance that must not be wasted. It is vital the Work Programme contributes to decisions at COP 18 that:
 
1. Identify and advance promising sources of finance, especially public sources, such as providing guidance to the IMO and ICAO on generating financing from measures to address emissions from international shipping and aviation; as well as public finance liberated in developed countries through the elimination of their fossil fuel subsidies.
 
2. Provide a roadmap for agreeing to specific pathways for mobilising $100 billion by 2020 - including maximization of public sources, an appropriate role for the private sector and trajectory for scaling up.
 
3. Establish a shared understanding of developing country financing needs – based on a review of recent literature on mitigation and adaptation financing requirements; and
 
4. Explicitly commit to providing scaled up financing from 2013 onwards, including for the capitalization of the Green Climate Fund.
 
In addition to constructive engagement on these areas through the work programme, parties must also be afforded sufficient contact group time in Bonn, Bangkok and Doha to negotiate vital decisions for agreement at COP 18.  In this respect it is imperative the Work Programme is seen as a compliment to, rather than a substitute for, the formal negotiations.
Topics: 
Related Member Organization: 

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.

Topics: 
Related Newsletter : 

CAN Intervention Finance informal, November 30, 2011

Thank you Chair,

I am speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

In Durban parties must take strides towards the full operationalisation of the Green Climate Fund by 2013 and make progress on long-term sources of finance to fill the fund.  A decision on finance in Durban must include the following elements:

 
First, developing countries cannot afford delay to the operationalisation of the Green Climate Fund, and the work of the Transition Committee this year cannot be wasted. CAN strongly urges parties to follow the recommendation of the Transitional Committee to adopt the governing instrument of the Green Climate Fund.

Parties must also ensure the Fund is capitalized as soon as possible; which will require commitments here in Durban to cover the costs of the Board and secretariat in 2012 and to ensure a substantial first tranche of funding so that disbursement of finance can begin in 2013.

To be successful over time, the Green Climate Fund must have stable and predictable sources of capital.  Parties must therefore move forward on the most promising new sources of public finance here is Durban, such as carbon pricing for international transport.  Crucially, parties must also adopt a work plan here in Durban to further consider other sources of public finance next year ahead of decisions at COP-18, such as use of Special Drawing Rights and Financial Transaction Taxes and reallocation of fossil fuel subsidies implemented in developed countries.

Finally, parties must agree that there will be no financing gap after the “Fast Start Finance” period ends, and agree a trajectory to progressively ramp up financing to meet the $100 billion per year commitment by 2020. Some parties have insisted there is no risk of climate finance falling off a cliff in 2013.  Informal statements to this effect are welcome, but the process would benefit much more from a clear statement of this intent in the text.  

Topics: 
Related Event: 

CAN Intervention, AWG-LCA Closing plenary, 7 October 2011 (English)

 
CAN intervention
Closing AWG-LCA Plenary
Panama, October 7, 2011
 
Delivered by Sandra Guzmán, CEMDA
 

Thank you Mr Chair
 
I am speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.
 
To get to the deal we need in Durban, we have some advice for some of the countries present
here:
 
EU: You know what you have to do. The KP is in your hands
Australia and New Zealand: Get off the fence. Commit to a Kyoto 2nd Commitment Period.
Japan, Canada, Russia: don’t destroy our only legally binding multilateral treaty.
LDCs and AOSIS: stay strong. we stand in solidarity with you
US:  
     o Come with a mandate to reach agreement on long-term finance in Durban.  
     o Agree to a common accounting system based on the KP rules.
BASIC - your domestic climate leadership can shape the future climate regime we all need.
This is your time!
Africa: Durban is your COP, it is your moment, fight for the agreement you need.
 
To you all: Address the gap in ambition between your pledges and what the science requires.  
Be prepared to come to Durban TO ADOPT THE SECOND COMMITMENT PERIOD OF THE KYOTO
PROTOCOL and AGREE ON A MANDATE FOR A legally binding outcome in the LCA.  IT is time to
bring A SENSE OF URGENCY to these negotiations... IN DURBAN, YOU WILL GAIN A LOT IF YOU
GIVE A LITTLE.   

Thank you Mr Chair
 
 

 

Related Event: 

Pages

Subscribe to Tag: finance