Search Climate Insights Directory

The document evaluates the outcomes of COP19 through a human rights lens, noting progress in establishing the Warsaw Mechanism for loss and damage and rules for REDD+ safeguards, while criticizing the lack of accountability in the Green Climate Fund and the postponement of Clean Development Mechanism reforms.

The report details the financial activities of the World Bank's modified cash basis trust funds, showing total receipts of $5,872 million and total disbursements of $5,565 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013. It includes a comprehensive list of trust funds, their funding sources, and the fair value of the pooled cash and investments, which stood at $12,051 million as of June 30, 2013.

The letter urges UNFCCC delegates to establish clear requirements for mitigation to stay below 2 degrees warming and to implement strict safeguards for carbon markets. Specifically, it calls for the rejection of a pilot phase for trading units under the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), the creation of an international accounting framework to prevent double counting, and the exclusion of non-additional projects and coal power from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The guide argues that financial instruments should target projects that are socially beneficial but unattractive to commercial investors, rather than attempting to make all projects financially viable. It emphasizes that understanding project-level barriers is essential for designing appropriate instruments and that investments require a favourable policy environment to be effective. Additionally, it notes that national climate finance institutions require specific expertise to optimize the use of support.

The document is an open letter from civil society networks and affected citizens calling on UNFCCC delegates at COP19 to ensure that carbon markets do not undermine climate goals. It demands the prevention of the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) pilot phase, the establishment of accounting rules to avoid double counting, and the exclusion of non-additional projects and fossil fuel financing from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The document is an open letter addressed to ministers and delegates of UNFCCC signatory states, urging them to adopt ambitious climate protection measures and stop the use of emissions trading to weaken climate commitments. The signatories, representing 33 countries, demand the rejection of a pilot phase for emissions unit trading under the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), the prevention of double counting, and the exclusion of non-additional projects and coal from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). They also call for the cessation of fossil fuel subsidies and the implementation of human rights safeguards in climate projects.

The document calls for the establishment of clear, equitable mitigation commitments to maintain a 2°C warming limit and requests the rejection of a pilot phase for trading carbon market units under the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA). It advocates for an international accounting framework to prevent double counting, the exclusion of non-additional projects and coal power from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and the implementation of human rights safeguards for mitigation projects under the CDM, Green Climate Fund, and NAMAs.

The document is an open letter signed by 87 civil society networks and organisations from 33 countries. It calls on UNFCCC delegates at COP-19 to ensure ambitious mitigation commitments to maintain a temperature limit of 2°C and to prevent carbon market mechanisms from weakening these goals. Specifically, the signatories demand the rejection of a pilot phase for trading carbon market units under the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), the establishment of an international accounting framework to prevent double counting, and the exclusion of non-additional project types, such as large power projects and coal power, from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI). The letter also advocates for the cessation of fossil fuel subsidies and the implementation of human rights safeguards for projects under the CDM, Green Climate Fund, and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs).

The document is an open letter addressed to COP19 participants, arguing that carbon markets must not be allowed to undermine national climate commitments. It calls for clear, ambitious targets to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, the end of the first commitment period for carbon trading under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to avoid emissions leakage after 2020, and the establishment of an international accounting system to prevent double counting. Additionally, it advocates for the exclusion of flexible mechanisms like the CDM and large-scale projects from climate pledges, the removal of coal from the Clean Development Mechanism, and the protection of human rights when integrating the Green Climate Fund into carbon markets.

The document outlines the state of climate finance negotiations leading up to COP19, focusing on the mobilization of US$100 billion per year by 2020 and the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund. It details the work of the Standing Committee on Finance, the challenges facing the Adaptation Fund due to falling carbon prices, and the need for 'enabling environments' in both developed and developing countries to attract and deploy investment. The guide emphasizes that providing financial assurance to developing countries is critical for securing their commitment to a new global climate agreement in 2015.

The document identifies various project-level barriers to climate investment, such as externalities, financial market imperfections, and regulatory risks, and suggests tailored financial instruments—including grants, concessional loans, guarantees, and equity—to address them. It emphasizes that financial support should target projects that are societally beneficial but commercially unattractive, and that such instruments must be supported by a consistent policy environment to be effective.

The paper examines 27 PPCFIs with approximately US$41.3 billion in capitalization, finding a strong bias toward mitigation over adaptation and a preference for established markets over least-developed countries. It identifies significant hurdles in attracting private capital at the fund level, noting that only two of eleven funds aiming for private capital achieved sizeable investment. The authors recommend standardizing processes, increasing private sector awareness, and leveraging the Green Climate Fund to coordinate the fragmented landscape of climate finance.

The World Resources Institute outlines five priority areas for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) Board's fifth meeting in Paris: defining funding focus, mobilizing predictable financial resources, ensuring equitable distribution between adaptation and mitigation, building diverse partnerships, and optimizing financial incentives for investors. The briefing emphasizes that current commitments, such as the US$100 billion annual pledge by developed countries, are insufficient compared to the estimated annual needs of developing countries, which could reach $565 billion for mitigation and $70-100 billion for adaptation by 2030.

The document argues that a paradigm shift requires moving from small, project-by-project interventions to programmatic approaches that address entire sectors or economies. It emphasizes that strong country ownership is a prerequisite for ambition and long-term sustainability, suggesting that the GCF should provide more beneficial funding conditions to countries with higher ambition. The brief also discusses the need for clear performance indicators to measure transformative impact and the importance of substantial financial resources from developed countries to trigger larger investments.

The document examines the mechanisms for developing countries to access Green Climate Fund (GCF) financing directly rather than through international intermediaries. It distinguishes between 'direct access' (oversight and management at the national level) and 'enhanced direct access' (where funding decisions also occur nationally). Drawing on the Adaptation Fund and Global Environment Facility (GEF), it identifies fiduciary standards and institutional capacity as primary barriers to accreditation. The brief recommends that the GCF Board establish clear access modalities quickly, consider interim accreditation for previously accredited institutions, and support capacity building to enable the devolution of decision-making to subnational levels.

A coalition of civil society organizations (CSOs) argues that the current timeline for selecting permanent active observers for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is insufficient to ensure inclusivity and transparency. The groups cite a lack of disseminated requirements, incomplete accreditation, and uncertain financial support for Southern participants as primary barriers. They propose selecting temporary observers for the June 2013 board meeting in South Korea while calling for a formal, independent selection process—similar to that used by the Climate Investment Funds—to be established for permanent representatives.

The report examines the challenges and mechanisms for attracting private capital to climate finance, noting that private funding is nearly three times larger than public funding but remains difficult to channel toward adaptation in developing countries. It identifies political, project-related, and financing barriers—particularly in Africa—and suggests a combination of policy reforms and financial instruments like loan guarantees and pledge funds to mitigate risk. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is highlighted as a central vehicle for achieving the $100 billion annual target by 2020, though it must address the funding gap between mitigation and adaptation.

The submission emphasizes that climate change is a major human rights challenge and urges that the 2015 Agreement's Preamble and Shared Vision explicitly recognize the link between human rights and climate change. It calls for a rights-based approach to adaptation, the regulation of corporations to prevent rights abuses during mitigation, and the establishment of an international mechanism to provide compensation for loss and damage. Additionally, it advocates for strong safeguard policies and accountability mechanisms within climate finance, specifically mentioning the Green Climate Fund, and demands guaranteed access to information and justice for all affected communities.

The document discusses the upcoming Fifth Review of the UNFCCC's Financial Mechanism, emphasizing the need for a holistic assessment of climate finance processes to address past shortcomings and institutional fragmentation. It highlights the role of the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) in leading this review and the importance of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) in the new architecture. The brief critiques previous reviews for being too focused on the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and lacking independent oversight, while calling for better measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of financial flows to developing countries.

The document examines the impact of the growing middle class in developing countries on global carbon emissions, projecting that this group will grow from 1.5 billion in 2009 to almost 5 billion by 2030. It argues that because traditional carbon pricing is often impractical in these contexts, targeted technology and innovation policies are needed to steer consumption toward low-carbon alternatives in urban planning, transport, and household energy. Using case studies on Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), the brief emphasizes that success depends on addressing the political economy and building local capabilities rather than relying solely on economic incentives.