| 1. |
- Pauw, W. P., et al.
(författare)
-
Post-2025 climate finance target : how much more and how much better?
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Climate Policy. - : Taylor & Francis Ltd. - 1469-3062 .- 1752-7457. ; 22:9-10, s. 1241-1251
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Formal deliberations for the new collective quantified goal on climate finance began at COP26 in Glasgow. This Perspectives article aims to inform this process by discussing the potential size and nature of is post-2025 target. We argue that the climate finance system around the current target to mobilise US$100 billion per year to support developing countries has been fraught with difficulties, and that it would be ineffective to simply increase the climate finance target without addressing these difficulties. Therefore, we identify and discuss five priority elements for negotiations: the relation to Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement; the adaptation-mitigation balance; financial instruments; mobilising private finance; and new and additional finance. To increase transparency, accountability, and trust in climate finance under the UNFCCC and to simultaneously allow for the mobilisation of finance at scale, we suggest setting a sub-target for grants. In combination with additional (sub)target(s), this could define an overall new collective quantified goal that is better suited to serve the challenging dual role of mobilising finance at scale and transferring resources to developing countries. Key policy insights Ambiguous definitions of climate finance and the US$100 billion target allow for multiple interpretations, reducing transparency and trust between countries. Climate finance targets can be interpreted in a dual and sometimes contrasting way: mobilising investment at scale and transferring resources from developed to developing countries. Recognising this duality may help to find common ground for a post-2025 climate finance target. Increasing the climate finance target may prove ineffective without further clarity on private finance mobilisation, the relation to Art. 2.1(c), and other priority elements. More detailed assessments of needs, priorities, costs, and support are needed to inform the post-2025 target and assess climate finance provision effectiveness. A sub-target for grants could increase accountability, trust, and transparency, and target the needs of the most vulnerable developing countries. Negotiations on the post-2025 climate finance target could also consider additional aspects such as access to and prioritisation of finance, and loss and damage.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pauw, W. P., et al.
(författare)
-
Beyond headline mitigation numbers : we need more transparent and comparable NDCs to achieve the Paris Agreement on climate change
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Climatic Change. - : Springer. - 0165-0009 .- 1573-1480. ; 147:1, s. 23-29
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) were key to reaching the Paris Agreement and will be instrumental in implementing it. Research was quick to identify the ‘headline numbers’ of NDCs: if these climate action plans were fully implemented, global mean warming by 2100 would be reduced from approximately 3.6 to 2.7°C above pre-industrial levels (Höhne et al. Climate Pol 17:1–17, 2016; Rogelj et al. Nature 534:631–639, 2016). However, beyond these headline mitigation numbers, NDCs are more difficult to analyse and compare. UN climate negotiations have so far provided limited guidance on NDC formulation, which has resulted in varying scopes and contents of NDCs, often lacking details concerning ambitions. If NDCs are to become the long-term instrument for international cooperation, negotiation, and ratcheting up of ambitions to address climate change, then they need to become more transparent and comparable, both with respect to mitigation goals, and to issues such as adaptation, finance, and the way in which NDCs are aligned with national policies. Our analysis of INDCs and NDCs (Once a party ratifies the Paris Agreement, it is invited to turn its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) into an NDC. We refer to results from our INDC analysis rather than our NDC analysis in this commentary unless otherwise stated.) shows that they omit important mitigation sectors, do not adequately provide details on costs and financing of implementation, and are poorly designed to meet assessment and review needs.
|
|
| 3. |
- Pauw, W. P., et al.
(författare)
-
Private finance for adaptation : do private realities meet public ambitions?
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Climatic Change. - : Springer. - 0165-0009 .- 1573-1480. ; 134:4, s. 489-503
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The private sector’s role in climate finance is increasingly subject to political and scientific debate. Yet there is poor empirical evidence of private engagement in adaptation and its potential contribution to the industrialised countries’ mobilisation of USD 100 billion of annual climate finance from 2020 onwards to support developing countries to address climate change. This paper analysed 101 case studies of private sector adaptation under the Private Sector Initiative (PSI) of the UNFCCC Nairobi work programme, and examined these against ten ‘adaptation finance criteria’ that were distilled from UN climate negotiation outcomes. Results show that private adaptation interventions complement public adaptation activities. Yet the ten adaptation finance criteria are not met, which demonstrates that the diplomatic UNFCCC conceptualisation of financing adaptation is dissonant from the private sector reality. For example, while the case studies’ investments are ‘new and additional’ to Official Development Assistance (ODA), their ‘predictability’ remains unclear. And despite some commitment for ‘up-scaling’, plans and associated costs for doing so remain undisclosed. Developed countries’ role in ‘mobilising’ private financial resources under the PSI seems limited. It is unrealistic to expect that the UNFCCC alters existing criteria to suit private initiatives, or that the private sector aligns its initiatives to meet existing criteria. This paper advocates monitoring and reporting only of those private investments that principally finance adaptation. This practical way forward would allow private finance to meet criteria such as predictability, transparency, and mobilisation, but would drastically reduce the amount of private investment that could contribute to reaching the USD 100 billion climate finance target.
|
|
