One Response

  1. Jonathan Pickering
    Jonathan Pickering February 16, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    I agree with Bob’s view that the important progress on climate finance made in Cancún was enabled in part by significant previous steps made in Copenhagen and throughout last year (including the work of the AGF). I’d just like to comment on a couple of the big questions raised in the post about the financial architecture.

    First, on how money gets into the Green Climate Fund: designing the Fund will be a major challenge for the lead-up to COP17, and the Transitional Committee has such a heavy workload that it may have little chance to make much headway on longer-term sources of funding this year. At the international level it is possible that the task of identifying sources will be left in part to a new Standing Committee on finance (also agreed to in Cancún), but unfortunately there is no timetable yet for how and when it will be set up, and its mandate remains vague. At the domestic level, however, Australia and other countries that are likely to contribute to the Fund can already start building on the work of the AGF to develop new funding sources, some of which may not rely on international agreement (e.g. earmarking revenue from a carbon pricing scheme or redirecting fossil fuel subsidies).

    Second, on how money will flow from the Fund, I agree that it will be important to use effective established bodies wherever possible. Another channel to consider is the Kyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund. The Adaptation Fund is widely supported by developing countries and is increasingly attracting developed country contributions (including from Australia), and it will be important to ensure this innovative mechanism is able to play a significant role in distributing adaptation funding as the broader architecture emerges.

Leave a Reply