@ tim totally agree , but unfortunate it seems it is the case
On the gap in climate finance: briding this gap was certainly a focus of much of the negotiation on finance at Doha. If there is going to be a different outcome at Warsaw, there will need to be a political process that gets underway within developed countries to mobilise new finance, including in the context of acting to realise new sources of finance.
Somebody suggested in Doha that negotiators should not be allowed to know for what country they negotiate. In that way they would only negotiate for the common good, rather than self-interest of their own country. One have to love that kind of thinking!
@ climatecfo, @ Neila, i think the AF presents a very good basis to build on not to replicate but to learn from, not only on projects and direct access but also on predictability of funding and depending on market mechanisms
@TimmonsRoberts: Thanks! Useful to think that we need to be up $11 billion a year - shows the gap!
@ Simon - we certainly pushed for something like that in Doha (and indeed each year since Copenhagen!) As Smita says, if we're to get different outcomes we need political decisions on new sources of public finance
@ Gupta ; i think all countries want to have this paradigm shift, but for the majority of developing countries, it doesnt only relate to changing policies and actions but also on the avaialability of means of implementation that would add to national efforts, and these means of implementation part is kind of missing i think
Daisy asked for views on how the GCF could operate to improve the delivery of climate interventions. For Oxfam a big part of the answer is focussed on how we can ensure national ownership by recipient countries - we're v interested in national institutions like the People's Survival Fund in Philippines as a model for the National Designated Authorities to help facilitate this
on the gap issue, let me point that the WB report mentions that climate finance flows to developing countries was around 100 billion last year
@SimonMaxwell: Thanks for contributing! Very interesting.....
so the challenge
is on how to define climate finance and make sure there r certain criteria to allow for fair allocation between countries and regions
I also have to leave - this was interesting (and fun). To be continued I am sure. Thank you all, and thank you for organizing the debate.
@Rabscuttler Interesting, if $100bln by 2020 is so arbitrary, maybe it needs to be revised. Is that possible and/or desirable?
@nsvenningsen: Thanks very much, Niclas, for your time and lots of great points.....
Hi Timmons Roberts (1.57), several countries did set out scaled up climate finance, demonstrating ambition, at Doha. The UK will provide £1.8bn over the next two years (to 2015). We would like to see other countries do the same at Warsaw. It wil be important that all countries contribute their fair share. #climatefinance
@ Megan ...i agre it should be revised based on the 2 degrees target ..otherwise we will end up with efforts that are just for the 100 billion and that will never lead to the 2 degrees
@ daisy, thats good to know , then a process is needed to ensure that countries have similar burding sharing sense
i have to leave for a meeting.. that was very intresting and i thank CDKN and all
@monasr: Thanks very much for joining us and for some great info....