Skip to main content

Postface: fragmentation, failing trust and enduring tensions over what counts as climate finance

Abstract

The Paris Agreement commits nations in Article 2(1) to “Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.” However there is an absence of internationally agreed accounting rules that would permit overall assessments of progress to this goal and any meaningful comparisons of performance between countries. This is true also for the quantitative Copenhagen/Cancún promise by developed nations to jointly mobilize US$100 billion by 2020. Our goal is to provoke discussion about the depth of the problems this lack of a functional definition and accounting system have created and perpetuated. We do so by describing the fragmented system of national reporting of climate finance and how the OECD’s Rio Marker system is serving neither contributors nor recipients. More than a trust issue between developed and developing countries, we argue that the lack of modalities to account for climate finance also considerably impedes the effective functioning of the bottom-up approach that now prevails under the UNFCCC. The deadline to propose "modalities of accounting climate finance" by 2018 is a crucial window in which to address this chronic issue in international climate policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    All figures are in current US$ unless specified otherwise.

  2. 2.

    In contrast to the “pledge and review” or “Nationally Determined Contribution” bottom-up approach developed at Copenhagen and Paris, the top-down Kyoto Protocol regime included legally enforceable emission reduction targets for Annex I (developed and former Soviet Union) countries (Hare et al. 2010; Rayner 2010; Ciplet et al. 2015). However, both approaches could more precisely be described as combinations of bottom-up and top-down elements (see Dubash and Rajamani 2010).

  3. 3.

    This section only deals with the accounting and reporting of bilateral climate finance. The coverage and robustness of current accounting and reporting systems for multilateral climate finance and private finance remain even more limited (UNFCCC Standing Committee on Climate Finance 2014; OECD and CPI 2015).

  4. 4.

    The generic term “project” used in this paper also refers to other types of aid modalities (e.g., budget support, technical assistance).

  5. 5.

    Each aid project is also similarly screened on the Rio markers about “biological diversity” and “desertification.”

  6. 6.

    See www.oecd.org/dac/environment-development/rioconventions.htm.

Abbreviations

DAC:

Development Assistance Committee

GCF:

Green Climate Fund

OECD:

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

UNFCCC:

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

References

  1. AdaptationWatch. (2015). Towards mutual accountability: The 2015 adaptation Finance Transparency Gap Report. http://adaptationwatch.org/. Accessed 22 April 2016.

  2. Barr, R., Fankhauser, S., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Adaptation investments: A resource allocation framework. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15, 843–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrett, S. (2012). The necessity of a multiscalar analysis of climate justice. Progress in Human Geography, 37(2), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ciplet, D., Roberts, J. T., & Khan, M. (2013). The politics of international climate adaptation funding: Justice and divisions in the greenhouse. Global Environmental Politics, 13(1), 49–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ciplet, D., Roberts, J. T., & Khan, M. (2015). Power in a warming world: The new global politics of climate change and the remaking of environmental inequality. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Climate Policy Initiative. (2015). The landscape of climate finance. Venice: Climate Policy Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dasgupta, D., & Climate Finance Unit, Indian Ministry of Finance. (2015). Climate change finance, analysis of a recent OECD report: Some credible facts needed. Delhi: Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. http://pibphoto.nic.in/documents/rlink/2015/nov/p2015112901.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2016.

  8. Dellink, R., den Elzen, M., Aiking, H., Bergsma, E., Berkhout, F., Dekker, T., et al. (2009). Sharing the burden of financing adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19, 411–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dubash, N. K., & Rajamani, L. (2010). Beyond Copenhagen: Next steps. Climate Policy, 10(6), 593–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Forstater, M. (2012). Towards climate finance transparency. London and Bristol: Publish What You Fund and AidInfo. http://betacompany.nl/files/Towards-Climate-Finance-Transparency_Final.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2016.

  11. Greene, W. (2004). Aid fragmentation and proliferation: Can donors improve the delivery of climate finance? IDS Bulletin, 35, 66–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ha, S., Hale, T., & Ogden, P. (2015). Climate finance in and between developing countries: An emerging opportunity to build on. Global Policy, 7(1), 102–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Haites, E., & Mwape, C. (2013). Sources of long-term climate change finance. In E. Haites (Ed.), International Climate Finance (pp. 162–177). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Halimanjaya, A. (2015). Climate mitigation finance across developing countries: What are the major determinants? Climate Policy, 15(2), 223–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hare, W., Stockwell, C., Flachsland, C., & Oberthür, S. (2010). The architecture of the global climate regime: A top–down perspective. Climate Policy, 10(6), 600–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Junghans, L., & Harmeling, S. (2012). Different tales from different countries: A first assessment of the OECD “Adaptation Marker”. Bonn: Germanwatch. https://germanwatch.org/de/download/7083.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2016.

  17. Michaelowa, A., & Michaelowa, K. (2011). Coding error or statistical embellishment? The political economy of reporting climate aid. World Development, 39(11), 2010–2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Morita, K., & Matsumoto, K. (2014). Financing adaptation to climate change in developing countries. In W. Leal Filho (Ed.), Handbook of climate change adaptation (pp. 1–19). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nakhooda, F., Fransen, T., Kuramochi, T., Caravani, A., Prizzon, A., Shimizu, N., Tilley, H., Halimanjaya, A., & Welham, B. (2013). Mobilising International Climate Finance: Lessons from the Fast-Start Finance Period. London: Overseas Development Institute, World Resources Institute, and Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8686.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2016.

  20. OECD. (2012). Development co-operation report 2012. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. OECD. (2015). Climate Fund Inventory Database. Climate Fund Inventory Prepared for the G20 Climate Finance Study Group. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://qdd.oecd.org/subject.aspx?subject=climatefundinventory. Accessed 22 April 2016.

  22. OECD, & CPI. (2015). Climate finance in 201314 and the USD 100 billion goal. Paris: OECD; Venice: Climate Policy Initiative. http://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/OECD-CPI-Climate-Finance-Report.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2016.

  23. Oxfam. (2012). The Climate Fiscal Cliff: An Evaluation of Fast Start Finance and Lessons for the Future. Briefing, November 25, 2012. Washington, D.C.: Oxfam. www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/oxfam-media-advisory-climate-fiscal-cliff-doha-25nov2012.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2016.

  24. Pickering, J., Jotzo, F., & Wood, P. (2015). Sharing the global climate finance effort fairly with limited coordination. Global Environmental Politics, 15(4), 39–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rayner, S. (2010). How to eat an elephant: A bottom-up approach to climate policy. Climate Policy, 10(6), 615–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Roberts, J. T., & Baum, J. (2014). Still the Wild West: Japan’s claim that coal plant financing is climate aid shows lack of standards. Brookings.edu Planet Policy Commentaryhttp://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2014/12/09-japan-coal-plant-financing-roberts-baum. Accessed 9 May 2016.

  27. Severino, J.-M., & Charnoz, O. (2005). Les ‘mutations impromptues’: état des lieux de l’aide publique au développement. Afrique contemporaine, 1, 13–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. UNEP. (2013). Africa’s adaptation gap. Climate change impacts, adaptation challenges and costs for Africa. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. www.unep.org/pdf/AfricaAdapatationGapreport.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2016.

  29. UNFCCC. (1999). Decision 4/CP.5. Guidelines for the preparation of national communications by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention, Part II: UNFCCC reporting guidelines on national communication. Document FCCC/CP/1999/6/Add.1.

  30. UNFCCC. (2009). Decision 2/CP.15. Copenhagen Accord. Document FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1.

  31. UNFCCC. (2011). Decision 2/CP.17. Outcome of the work of the ad hoc working group on long-term cooperative action under the convention. Document FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1.

  32. UNFCCC. (2012). Decision 19/CP.18. Document FCCC/CP/2012/8/Add.3.

  33. UNFCCC. (2015). Decision 1/CP.21. Paris Agreement. Document FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1.

  34. UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance. (2014). 2014 Biennial assessment and overview of climate finance flows report. Bonn: UNFCCC.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Vidal, J. (2015). Paris climate talks: Indian officials accuse OECD of exaggerating climate aid. The Guardian, Wednesday 2 December 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/paris-climate-talks-indian-officials-accuse-rich-countries-of-exaggerating-climate-aid. Accessed 22 April 2016.

  36. Weikmans, R., & Roberts, J. T. (2016). Fit for purpose: Negotiating the new climate finance accounting systems. Climate Strategies Policy Briefs, 3. http://climatestrategies.org/publication/negotiating-the-new-climate-finance-accounting-systems/. Accessed 22 April 2016.

  37. Weikmans, R., Roberts, J. T., Ciplet, D., & Adams, K. (n.d.). Greenhouse in the dark: Assessing transparency in the provision of climate finance (unpublished manuscript).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jakob Skovgaard, Carola Betzold and Jonathan Pickering for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this paper. This research was partially supported by the Belgian American Educational Foundation (Romain Weikmans).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Timmons Roberts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roberts, J.T., Weikmans, R. Postface: fragmentation, failing trust and enduring tensions over what counts as climate finance. Int Environ Agreements 17, 129–137 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9347-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Climate finance
  • UNFCCC
  • Paris Agreement
  • OECD Rio Marker
  • Tracking