Fit for Purpose: Negotiating the New Climate Finance Accounting Systems

The policy brief examines the challenges of developing a robust accounting framework for climate finance under the UNFCCC, following a decision reached at the Paris negotiations. It identifies two competing approaches to accounting: one focused on 'meeting financial obligations' (assessing the effort of developed nations) and another on 'tracking resilient/low carbon finance' (assessing the total scale of global resources). The authors argue that current practices, particularly the OECD DAC Rio marker methodology, fail because they mix these two approaches, leading to overestimations, double counting, and a lack of transparency. The brief recommends that the SBSTA adopt a two-track approach to develop separate accounting systems for each purpose and establish an internationally agreed baseline to verify the additionality of financial contributions.

• The authors identify two distinct approaches to climate finance accounting: 'meeting financial obligations', which focuses on assessing the financial effort of developed countries toward developing ones, and 'tracking resilient/low carbon finance', which aims to assess the total scale of financial resources globally devoted to mitigation and adaptation.
• The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Rio marker methodology is criticized for mixing the two accounting approaches and failing to accurately reflect the financial effort of contributor countries.
• The Rio marker methodology suffers from several technical flaws, including the inability to identify 'new and additional resources', the risk of double, triple, or quadruple counting when projects target multiple markers, and a lack of granularity where the entire cost of a project is counted as climate finance even if only one component targets climate objectives.
• Current climate finance reporting is prone to significant overestimations due to the reliance on self-reporting by donor countries and the absence of independent verification or systematic quality control.
• The goal of jointly mobilizing USD 100 billion per year by 2020 is obscured because it mixes an 'input objective' (public finance provided by contributors) with an 'output objective' (private finance mobilized in developing countries).
• The authors recommend that the SBSTA develop two separate accounting systems to avoid the pitfalls of a mixed approach and call for the creation of an internationally agreed baseline to assess the additionality of financial contributions.

APA

Weikmans, R., & Roberts, T. (2016). Fit for Purpose: Negotiating the New Climate Finance Accounting Systems. Climate Strategies. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CS-Fit-for-Purpose-Climate-Finance-Accounting-formatted-09.05.2016.pdf

Chicago

Weikmans, Romain, and Timmons Roberts. Fit for Purpose: Negotiating the New Climate Finance Accounting Systems. Climate Strategies, 2016. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CS-Fit-for-Purpose-Climate-Finance-Accounting-formatted-09.05.2016.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Weikmans |first1=Romain |last2=Roberts |first2=Timmons |title=Fit for Purpose: Negotiating the New Climate Finance Accounting Systems |publisher=Climate Strategies |date=May 2016 |url=https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CS-Fit-for-Purpose-Climate-Finance-Accounting-formatted-09.05.2016.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{weikmans2016fit, author = {Weikmans, Romain and Roberts, Timmons}, title = {{Fit for Purpose: Negotiating the New Climate Finance Accounting Systems}}, institution = {Climate Strategies}, year = {2016}, month = may, url = {https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CS-Fit-for-Purpose-Climate-Finance-Accounting-formatted-09.05.2016.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }