Climate Finance Inflows into the Caribbean

Climate Finance Inflows into the Caribbean
Launch of the PANOS Caribbean Online Database & Its
Establishment as a Regional Hub for Climate Change Information
Montego Bay, Jamaica
June 19-20, 2014
Pledges to climate funds in 2013 are 71% lower than they were in 2012
Nearly sixty cents out of every dollar pledged has now been approved for
viable projects.
Approved spending for mitigation in the entire developing world in 2013 was
only slightly higher than Poland's annual spending on fossil fuel subsidies
Funding to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation grew to a
total of US$ 647 million in 2013, less than was spent on a single highway
through the Amazon
Funding in response to German flood damage in 2013 was four times higher
than the total sum of funding to help developing countries adapt to climate
change since 2003
Public funding has not yet attracted as much private investment as expected:
for every US$1 spent between 2010 and 12, only US$0.25 of private finance
had been drawn in as of the beginning of 2012
Korea has pledged the most to the Green Climate Fund to date - US$ 40
million - ahead of all developed countries
Despite many meetings, we still don't know where Long-Term Finance - which
is supposed to deliver US$ 100 billion by 2020 - will come from
Despite increasing austerity, Europe remains a leader on climate finance,
providing 61% of total funds for multilateral finance to date
Total spending on Fast-Start Finance represents just 1.76% of global funding to
respond to the 2008 financial crisis
Source: Climate Finance Update
Source: Climate Funds Update
Source: Climate Funds Update
Challenges in tracking funds
Lack of data and varying metric for private vs. public flows
Collective vs. individual reporting ($100 B commitment v. UNFCCC)
Disbursements v. Commitments
Double counting
Inflows into the Caribbean
Lessons from Fast Start Finance
Thematic Areas – Mitigation
continues to be a priority
 Bilateral vs Multilateral –
UNFCCC Funds remain
 Instruments – Less reliance on
grant financing
 Prioritization – SIDS, LDCs and
Africa remain under- served
Green Climate Fund (GCF)
Created in 2010 at COP-16 in Cancun
Governing Instrument was approved at COP- 17
in Durban
Governed and supervised by a 24 member
Board in Songdo, South Korea
The World Bank is the Fund’s Interim Trustee
Its Operational Guidelines have just been
GCF - The Structure
Scale and Impact
An equal number of members from developed countries and developing countries
including dedicated seats for SIDS and LDCs
To make a significant and ambitious contribution to the global efforts to combat climate
To promote a paradigm shift and help developing countries transform their economies and
put them on a low emission and climate-resilient path.
Expected to become the main global fund for climate finance
Recipient countries will be able to utilize direct access or access through international and
regional intermediaries and implementing entities under the Fund
Minimum floor for adaptation financing to SIDS, LDCs, Africa and other vulnerable
developing countries
The allocation of resources will be balanced between adaptation and mitigation activities
What prevents greater uptake?
 Donor
focus on larger emerging economies
 Burdensome access criteria
 Lack of capacity and in-country expertise
 Under-financing of regional priorities
 High transaction costs
 Lack of understanding of SIDS issues at the
International level
 Absence of a voice in decision-making in key
international financial institutions
Sharon Lindo
[email protected]

similar documents