Climate Change Mitigation in Developing Countries Presents Financing Challenges

November 3, 2009

Email this story Print this post Add your comments

A new global deal on climate finance will significantly redistribute power, responsibility and accountability between traditional donor and recipient countries, according to a new study released by World Resources Institute (WRI).

The new analysis provides recommendations on how climate change mitigation and adaptation programs in developing countries could be financed by a new set of institutional arrangements.

According to WRI, as the December deadline approaches to conclude a new agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), climate negotiators have yet to agree on how to finance cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while meeting the energy needs of developing countries.

Maria Athena Ballesteros, a senior associate at WRI and lead author of the report, Power, Responsibility, and Accountability: Re-Thinking the Legitimacy of Institutions for Climate Finance (PDF), said there is no consensus on how the money is to be delivered or what the right mix of institutions or mechanisms need to be.

The report analyzes various country proposals and 10 international and national climate finance funds, with emphasis on the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which has served as the operating entity of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC. The report identifies three key areas of institutional legitimacy: power, responsibility and accountability.

Here are some key findings from the report.

The study indicates if existing institutions are to meet evolving standards of legitimacy, then their fundamental governance structures and their operational procedures will need to be reformed to give greater voice to developing country recipients.

In addition, the international community must also make greater efforts to de-link the source of finance from the informal power by donors, by adopting new levies such as the levy on Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects.

The study also recommends that the next generation of climate finance needs to promote the responsibility of recipient countries, by strengthening the national institutions that will implement mitigation and adaptation activities and by ensuring their transparency and accountability to citizens within their countries and the international community. They will also need to work in closer partnership with national stakeholders.

The study finds that national implementing institutions that take on a greater role in climate finance need to demonstrate their ability to be held accountable, both nationally and internationally, for the results of their investments.

The report suggests several standards of good governance for national implementing institutions. These include governance structures that should be inclusive and transparent, with their responsibilities clearly articulated. They must also have the technical capacity to develop ambitious and effective programs in partnership with local stakeholders, particularly citizens and other potential program beneficiaries.

The report also notes that it will be essential to have strong provisions for accountability in place, including to ensure compliance with international good practice for fiduciary management, robust anti-corruption measures, and to manage potential environmental and social impacts.

If these standards can be met, national institutions may hold significant promise for climate finance, said WRI.

Email this story Print this post Add your comments

Advertisers

Make sustainability part of your strategy.

Get equipped at the SAP Sustainability Resource Center. >>

Unclear about the EPA's new GHG Rule?

Learn how it could affect your business. >>

EPA mandatory emissions reporting starts Jan 1st

CSA Standards can help your organization get ready for compliance. Find out how. >>

Product Environmental Compliance Best Practices

How to achieve compliance at a significantly lower cost. Download the full report. >>

Join the Discussion

Reader Comments

We can’t turn back time we need to adapt. Take a look at this article The Great Transition: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21656220/The-Great-Transition-Navigating-Social-Economic-Ecological-Change-in-Turbulent-Times

Fling | November 3rd, 2009

Recent Daily News [ see all ]

11/20/2009
11/19/2009
11/18/2009

Charts [ see all ]

European Paper Industry Cuts CO2 Emissions by 42% since 1990

S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks

Nike Tops Annual Climate Action Scores

Oceans May Trap more Carbon than Forests

Jobs

View All Jobs >> Post a Job >>

Comments and Discussions

Environmental Leader on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"The survey respondents (the PDF report mentions 4,000 respondents in 38..."

Jake on UPS Trying New Hydraulic Hybrid Trucks
"A point of clarification: the Reuters press release referenced herein reports that 20 UPS will purchase..."

Custom Organic Shirts on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"90% of North Americans believe it is urgent to get a global climate..."

peter dublin on California City’s Green Building Ordinance Applies to Commercial Buildings
"Why energy efficiebnt regulation on buildings –..."

JEONG CHUN PHUOC on EU Poised to Give Heavy Industry Free Carbon Permits
"“Competitive Intelligence in Environmenting : A Holistic Deal for..."

Philip Vandenberg on Building an Energy-Efficient Data Center Using Virtualization Technology
"Rob has implemented many best practices for data centres..."

George Hoguet on Rising Sea Levels Would Hit U.S. East Coast Hardest
"Want to add some pressure into the system? Check out the Facebook group -NO TV..."

Environmental Leader