Was just hearing at Chatham House yesterday how a financial transactions tax could be a great source of money - and help curb speculative investing in favor of investing in longer-term projects
Hi Laurie, both public and private finance are important and we should work to ensure that the private sector is playing its part in mitigation as well as adaptation. We are not going to deliver the action needed to address climate change if we don't shift private investment towards low carbon climate resilient options #climatefinance
Kudos to the UK for aiming to make 50% of funding for adaptation! Most donors are distinguishing between adaptation and mitigation, so it's still critically important that that threshold be met. Over time, it could indeed make sense to devolve the adaptation/mitigation decision to countries (and communities) themselves, as suggested earlier. But at the moment, we have to start by getting climate finance providers to up their percentage for adaptation. This should be a big issue for the Warsaw COP! #climatefinance
@simon maxwell: There is a crucial role for both public and private finance; public finance has a particular role to play in helping to stregnthen the underlying institutions and processes. In many cases public and private investment in climate change solutions are quite closely linked, with private investment flowing in response to public policy and regulatory changes (often supported by public finance).
Hi folks, I'm Tim Gore of Oxfam International - trying to catch up with all the questions as I'm coming from an excellent workshop on inequality and low carbon devpt in South Africa... but that's another story...
To Mizan Khan about whether there is there resistance for global application of PPP?
In UNFCCC the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is applied. In the Kyoto protocol the world was defined as Annex I (developed) and non-Annex I (developing countries) where e.g. only Annex I countries had binding mitigation targets. Under the UNFCCC Durban agreement (COP17) to develop a new binding agreement by 2015, ALL countries are to be legally bound (but exactly what that means still has to be elaborated). At the same time, the very same parties are discussing a market based mechanism to address the climate footprint from aviation under ICAO, and there the ICAO Chicago convention principle on non-distortion of competition is applied. This makes for a beautiful Ping-Pong game between these priciples, that has been going on for the last 15 years without much results. What I am saying is that the Polluter Pay Principle is probably recognized but its application is not at all clear to the parties. I guess it comes down to the need for political will to find a common view. Hopefully we are moving in that direction now.
Hi @AndyAllanCO2 (1.03), at the COP in Warsaw we'd like to see more countries set out what climate finance they will provide post-Fast Start as the UK did at Doha. We also expect countries to provide information on their strategies and approaches for mobilising finance towards the $100bn 2020 goal. #climatefinance
On the public/private split, it's vital to keep in mind that different kinds of needs will require different kinds of finance. Private finance is much less appropriate for most adaptation purposes than may be the case with clean energy. The private sector should take responsibility for its role in adaptation and resilience, but that's not to say that we can count on private finance to do things like plant mangroves or invest in improved infrastructure.
Tim, is Oxfam still worried we'll see a fall in levels of climate finance this year compared with fast start? How are the sums adding up since Doha?
@Timmons Roberts Indeed, given the unfortunate situation with the percentage of finance for adaptation so far, we need to get to firm commitments on that front, not just broad declarations of 'balance' as in past agreements.
There's no question that the private sector need to think about investing in adaptation - we think there's often a business case for them doing so, but also that they have responsibilities towards vulnerable communities in their supply chains to help them adapt. But that doesn't mean govts can offload adaptation financing entirely on to the private sector - there are lot of adaptation investments that can only be met through public funding - in total amounting to more than 100bn for adaptation alone - and that's why we have said that only public finance should be counted for adaptation under UNFCCC commitments.
Question earlier from Patrick Luganda in Uganda: My concern is how do we ensure that millions of small holder farmers especially in Africa are able to participate in the financing mechanism that is being debated? When governments access climate financing how sure are we it will not be manipulated to other more 'pressing' matters?
And another from Manipadma Jena in India: India's 60% farmland is rainfed,impacted by erratic rainfall &urgently needs finance fr adaption.What can India expect from #ClimateFinance
@ Megan, we haven't started crunching the new numbers for this year yet, but there's nothing we've heard to make us think that our prediction ahead of Doha that public climate finance would go down not up after the end of the Fast Start Finance period won't come to pass... The 11 EU Member States working on a Financial Transaction Tax could change that by agreeing this year to use a proportion of the revenues as additional climate finance...
Hi Dony (1.11), Yes. We are working to mobilise scaled up finance. We have already outlined our increasing public finance out to 2015 which is an important part of this, and we have a number of initiatives which aim to leverage private finance into climate action. #climatefinance
And one more question put in earlier: Does the climate finance mechanism incorporate a prominent gender perspective?
@Simon Maxwell In addition to the swamping aid question, there's a real issue around relabeling of aid. Lots of food, water, etc. projects and programs being classified as climate finance, without necessarily going through a rigorous process of climate assessment and planning. Not sure that loose relabeling is helpful to either climate or the other objectives.
The private sector will invest where it makes sense to the private sector to invest. By putting a price on carbon, e.g. through CDM, that incentive is there. Over the past 10 years CDM has generated more than 1,4 billion tons of emission reductions, and seen more than US$ 215 billion in investments in CDM projects. But due to restrictions of use of CDM in some of the major carbon markets (e.g EU emission trading scheme) the demand for CDM credits is too low to drive investments. Getting more funding for adaptation (and mitigation) requires higher CDM offset prices, which will be the case once parties agree to increased ambition, and provided that parties do not restrict the use of CDM credits. To be fair to EU, while they on one hand restrict the supply of CDM credit), many other countries don’t use them at all.
Making progress on mobilising new sources of climate finance is going to be a key challenge in the year ahead, and may have implications for the links between ODA and climate finance and issues of additionality. If climate finance can be delivered from new and innovative sources of climate finance, this may allow for greater clarity on additionality, and reduce risks that climate finance will dwarf ODA. Options to raise new sources of climate finance are interlinked with developed countries domestic efforts to respond to climate change including new efforts to price carbon and reduce subsidies for fossil fuels,