Fundamentos de Las Finanzas para El Clima para Los Pueblos Indígenas

ClimateFinanceFundamentalsrelevant
forIndigenousPeoples
Global Workshop of Indigenous Peoples on Climate Finance and

the Green Climate Fund
September 8-9, 2015
Grace Balawag
Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples International Centre for
Policy Research and Education)
Working for the recognition

protection and fulfillment of indigenous peoples rights
Climate Finance Fundamentals

Main Reference: Climate Finance Fundamentals
By Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Boll Stiftung, North America, and
Neil Bird, Overseas Development Institute
Objectives:
To provide introductory briefing on various aspects of climate finance to the
debate on global climate change financing
To gain a better understanding of climate change finance flows to developing
countries and some dedicated funds for IPs/LCs
Outline of presentation:
1. Framework and principles of public climate finance
2. The evolving global climate finance architecture : multilateral, bilateral, national
channels and funds
3. Climate finance thematic briefings Adaptation, Mitigation, gender, climate
funding for specific regions
4. Climate finance for Forest Protection/REDD+: multilateral and bilateral
5.Multilateral REDD+ funds with dedicated funds/grants for IPs/LCs FCPF-CBP,
FIP-DGM, UNREDD-CBR+, others
6. Climate Finance and Gender
7. Some lessons learned and experiences
Global climate finance

framework and principles
Source: Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Boll Stiftung, North America, and
UnderArticle4.3oftheUNFrameworkConventiononClimateChange
(UNFCCC),developedcountriescommittedtoprovidefundingfortheagreed
fullincrementalcostsofclimatechangeindevelopingcountries,meaningthe
additionalcostsoftransformingbusinessasusualfossilfueldependent
economicgrowthstrategiesintolowemissionclimateresilientdevelopment
pathways
Thecentralityofglobalclimatefinance Estimatesforthescaleofoverall
climatefinanceneedsvary,dependingonthecategoryofclimateactionpursued
(adaptation,mitigationorreducingemissionsfromdeforestationandforest
degradation REDD),butwillcertainlyrunintohundredsofbillions,ifnot
trillionsofUSdollarsannuallyby2020.
TheFifthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange
(IPCCAR5)warnedthatdelayingambitiousactionnowtolimitglobalwarmingto
below2Candtoaddressadaptationwillresultinmassivecostincreasesinthe
future.


Other important principles, which can be instructive for a climate finance

governance framework stem from Parties existing human rights
obligations or a larger body of environmental law outside of the UNFCCC
(such as the Rio Declaration and follow-up outcomes).
While the precise meaning of these principles remains a matter of

interpretation and discussion, collectively they can nevertheless serve as
normative guidance for a coherent framework by which to assess and
compare existing as well as new funding mechanisms and commitments,
including under a new universal legally binding global climate agreement
to be finalised by 2015.


Fundamentally, the Convention has laid out that the parties need to take climate
actions, including on finance, on the basis of equity and in accordance with
their common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and respective
capabilities (UNFCCC, Art. 2).
Interpreted as the principle that the polluter pays, this is relevant for the
mobilisation of climate change funding, as is the UNFCCC requirement for
adequacy and predictability in the flow of funds and the importance of
appropriate burden sharing among the developed country Parties (Art. 4.3.)
The Bali Action Plan from 2008 likewise stipulates that funding must be adequate,
predictable, sustainable as well as new and additional (Bali Action Plan, Art.
1(e)(i)).
In the Cancun Agreements, paragraphs 95 and 97 of the outcome document of the
Ad-Hoc Working Group on long-term cooperative action (AWG-LCA) echo these
funding principles on long-term finance that scaled up, new and additional,
predictable and adequate funding shall be provided to developing country
Parties.
Since Durban, a series of workshops on long term finance sought to provide further
clarity on how to mobilise climate finance.

framework and principles:
Polluter pays this principle relates the level of both historical and current
greenhouse gas emissions to the amount each country should pay for climate
action, with an understanding of a common but differentiated responsibility and
respective capabilities determines climate finance as distinctly different from aid
flows.
Respective capability contributions should relate to a measure of national
wealth more broadly defined, as well as the status and trend of national economic
and social development (the right to sustainable development referred to in Art. 3.4
of the Convention). A countrys obligation to pay for climate action and whether to
transfer funds internationally or implement them domestically should be
correlated with a sustainable and universally accepted living standard for each of its
citizens.
New and additional funding should be additional to existing official development
assistance (ODA) commitments and other pre-existing flows from developed
countries to avoid the diversion of funding for development needs to climate
change actions, commonly understood to be above the 0.7 % of gross national
income (GNI) that has been the ODA target.


Adequate and precautionary in order to take precautionary measures to

anticipate, prevent or minimise the causes of climate change and mitigate its
adverse effects (UNFCCC, Art. 3.3.), the level of funding needs to be sufficient to
keep a global temperature increase as low as possible. Most current global funding
needs estimates use a top-down approach by tying their costing to a 2 C global
temperature increase scenario. A better gauge of adequacy might be cumulative
national estimates of need, based on countries own climate action priorities.
Predictable a sustained flow of climate finance is needed through multi-year,
medium-term funding cycles (3 5 years) to allow for adequate investment
program planning in developing countries, to scale up or maintain existing efforts or
to fast start a countrys national adaptation and mitigation priorities with initial
tranches made in the secure knowledge of continued funding


Fund administration and governance: National governments and global funding

entities (receiving contributions from developed countries) are obligated to
administer public funds in a way that is both transparent and accountable.
Accountability furthermore suggests that broad stakeholder participation and
representation should be ensured in the administration of climate funding on the
principle of equity.
Transparent and accountable while relevant for all stages of the climate funding
cycle, both these principles are most strongly tied to the governance of climate
funds.
Transparent administration of public climate funding requires publicly available,
accurate and timely information on a mechanisms funding structure, its financial
data, the structure of its board, its decision making-process as well as actual
funding decisions and disbursements made, as well as implementation results.
Principle of accountability demands the existence of a redress mechanism
thatwould ensure a countrys or affected citizens proceduralrights to challenge
climate funding decisions or climate finance project implementation, as well as
strengthened parliamentary oversight.

Global climate finance architecture:

Global climate finance architecture is complex: finance is channeled

through multilateral funds such as the Global Environment Facility and
the Climate Investment Funds as well as increasingly through bilateral
channels.
In addition, a growing number of recipient countries have set up national

climate change funds that receive funding from multiple developed
countries in an effort to coordinate and align donor interests with national
priorities.
There is generally much more transparency about the status of
implementation of multilateral climate finance initiatives than of
bilateral climate finance initiatives. The proliferation of climate finance
mechanisms increases the challenges of coordinating and accessing
finance.

Global climate finance architecture:

Climate finance refers to the financial resources mobilised to help

developing countries mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change,
including public climate finance commitments by developed countries
under the UNFCCC
In 2009 Copenhagen Accord, and confirmed in the Cancun decision and

Durban Platform, developed countries pledged to deliver finance
approaching USD 30 billion between 2010 and 2012.
No clarity on mid-term finance targets and post-2012 public contributions

have risen only slightly, countries have reiterated their commitment to
increasing climate finance to USD 100 billion per year from public and
private sources by 2020.

Global Climate Finance Architecture

Multilateralchannelsforclimatefinanceas
implementingagenciesandinstitutions
Multilateralclimatefinanceinitiativesoftenbreakfromcontributor
countrydominatedgovernancestructures,typicalindevelopment
financeinstitutions.
Givesdevelopingcountrygovernmentsgreatervoiceandrepresentation
indecisionmaking.
Stepstoincreaseinclusionandaccountabilityinmultilateralfund
governancehavealsobeentaken,includingby:creatingarolefornon
governmentalstakeholdersasobserverstofundmeetings,withvarying
degreesofactiveparticipationopportunities

Multilateral Channels for climate finance

Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) play a prominent role in
delivering multilateral climate finance. Many have incorporated climate
change considerations into their core lending and operations, and most
MDBs now also administer climate finance initiatives with a regional or
thematic scope
Multilateral Development Banks: WB, AfDB, ADB, IADB, EBRD
Multilateral Funds and Initiatives: e.g AF - Adaptation Fund,
CIF - Climate Investment Funds (implemented through WB, ADB, AfDB,
EBRD, and IADB)- CTF, SCF SREP, PPCR, FIP; FCPF, UNREDD,
GCCA - Global Climate Change Alliance, GCF - Green Climate Fund,
GEF - Global Environment Facility, etc.

Bilateral Channels for climate finance

Large share of public climate finance is spent bilaterally, administered
largely through existing development agencies.
With limited transparency and consistency in reporting of bilateral finance
for climate change, however, with countries self-classifying and selfreporting climate-relevant financial flows absent of a common reporting
format, or independent verification.
Bilateral Funds and Initiatives: NAMA Facility (UK and Germany), GCCI
(US), ICF(UK), NICFI (Norway), ICI (Germany)
GCCI - Global Climate Change Initiative (US)
ICF - International Climate Fund (UK)
ICFI - International Climate Forest Initiative (Norway)
ICI - International Climate Initiative (Germany)
NAMA facility - Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action facility (UK and Germany)

National Climate Change Funds

National climate funds have been established by several developing
countries with a variety of forms and functions, resourced through
international finance and/or domestic budget allocations and the domestic
private sector.
AF - Amazon Fund
BCCTF - Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund
BCRF - Bangladesh Climate Resilience Fund
FONERWA - Rwanda National Climate and Environment Fund
GRIF - Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund
ICCTF - Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund
MCCF - Mexico Climate Change Fund
PSF - Philippines People's Survival Trust

Climate Finance on Thematic and

specific regions
Adaptation: To mitigate climate change are crucial, however, it is
also essential to assist developing countries to adapt to the
impacts of climate change already being experienced due to past
andcurrent GHG emissions.
Finance is necessary to fund activities that respond to impacts

such as flooding, cyclones, coastal erosion, droughts and
increased variability of precipitation.
Currently, about 24% of the financing approved since 2003 flowing

from the dedicated climate finance initiatives that CFU monitors
supports adaptation.


specific regions
The provision of adaptation finance is made more
complex by the unequal distribution of climate change
impacts with some of the poorest countries affected
worst (especially Small Island Developing States
(SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs)).
These countries also have differing institutional

capacities to respond to climate change and to ensure
that financing is utilised effectively and equitably,
including with attention to gender.


specific regions: Adaptation
Funds exclusively supporting Adaptation (2003-2014)

Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR)-CIF
Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF)
Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Program (ASAP)
Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF)
Adaptation Fund (AF)
Regionally, adaptation finance has primarily been directed
to Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia and the Pacific, followed
by Latin America and the Caribbean.


specific regions: Mitigation
Funds primarily supporting mitigation (2003-2014)
Clean Technology Fund (CTF)-CIF
Global Environmental Facility Trust Fund (GEF 4/5)
Global Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy Fund
(GEEREF)
Scaling-Up Renewable Energy Program for Low Income
Countries (SREP)


specific regions: Mitigation
Climate finance can play a crucial role in assisting developing
countries in making the transition to more environmentally sustainable
systems of energy production and use, while also addressing
developmental priorities of energy security and energy poverty.
Largest sources of public finance for climate mitigation in
developing countries are the World Bank administeredClean
Technology Fund (CTF) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF),
while the EUs Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund
(GEEREF) and the World Banks Scaling up Renewable
EnergyProgram (SREP) provide mitigation financing on a smaller
scale.
53% of total climate finance since 2008 has been approved in
support of mitigation activities in fast growing countries, primarily for
the development of renewable energy technologies.
Climate funds focused on forest

protection (REDD+)
REDD+ has come into prominence following the recognition that land use
change, principally deforestation, is responsible for 12 - 20% of global
greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, tropical forests provide multiple
ecosystem services and support the livelihoods of an estimated 1.6 billion
of the worlds poorest people who are dependent on forest resources.
REDD+ has the potential to help promote environmental and socially

sustainable use and conservation of forest resources as part of
development strategies, provided safeguards, inclusive gender sensitive
beneficiary schemes and traditional and indigenous usage rights are
acknowledged and protected.
The Warsaw Framework on REDD+ negotiated at COP 19 has highlighted

the importance of safeguards implementation in addition to focus on
financing for verified emissions reductions results

Forest protection / REDD+ finance:

multilateral funds
REDD+ finance is provided by several different institutions under
multilateral funds basically for readiness activities to prepare countries
for funding based on demonstrated reductions of deforestation and
associated emissions:
World Banks Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Readiness Funds
(FCPFRF) with MDBs
Forest Investment Program (FIP) of the Climate Investment Funds
(CIF) with MDBs
UNREDD program with UNEP, FAO and UNDP as implementing
agencies
World Banks Forest Carbon Partnership Facility-Carbon Fund (FCPFCF) with MDBs
Amazon Fund
Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF), administered by African
Development Bank

Other bilateral REDD+ finance

Outside the multilateral climate funds, a number of significant
new bilateral pledges have been made alongside the UN
Climate Summit in September 2014, including
Norways USD 300 million pledge to Peru for verified emissions
reductions, and
USD 150 million to Liberia to support zero deforestation by 2020.
2014 also saw additional, albeit non-legally binding, political

commitments to REDD+ through the New York Declaration on
Forests.
This declaration signed at the Climate Summit also pledges to

cut natural forest loss in half by 2020, and strive to end it by
2030.

Multilateral REDD+ finance with dedicated

IP Funds and IP observers
FCPFReadiness Fund: FCPF- Capacity Building Program for IPs
and Southern CSOs/LCs (FCPF)
CIF-Forest Investment Program (FIP): Dedicated Grant Mechanism

for IPs/LCs (DGM)
UNREDD program: Community-Based REDD+ (CBR+)

Note: All these funds have IP Observers in the Governance/Policy
Bodies: FCPF-Participants Committee, CIF-Trust Fund Committees
and FIP Subcommittee, UNREDD Policy Board

FCPF Capacity Building Program (CBP)

The objective of the capacity building program is to provide ForestDependent Indigenous Peoples and other Forest Dwellers and
Southern CSOs with:
information, knowledge and awareness on REDD+ in order to

enhance their understanding of REDD+, and
to engage more meaningfully in the implementation of REDD+

activities.
The aim is to support activities that empower and enable these

stakeholder groups, to enhance and influence REDD+
development outcomes, and also to strengthen mechanisms for
inclusion, accountability, and participation.

FCPF-CBP
Eligibility criteria for the selection of activities within the regions are proposed:
Be located in FCPF REDD Country Participants;
Be proposed by networks or organizations of Forest-Dependent Indigenous
Peoples and/or Southern CSOs and local communities, as appropriate, or be
explicitly endorsed by relevantnetworks and organizations;
Prepare national and regional organizations of Forest-Dependent Indigenous
Peoples and/orSouthern CSOs, as appropriate, to contribute to their national
REDD+ readiness processes;
Reinforce the national REDD+ readiness efforts;
Include regional and/or national capacity building workshops and initiatives on
REDD+;
Emphasize the dissemination of capacity building benefits to local communities;
and
Show how FCPF support to Forest-Dependent Indigenous Peoples and
Southern CSOs and local communities will be leveraged to attract additional
support.

FCPF-CBP
Examples of themes and topics that would be eligible include:
Research and policy work on land tenure, social and environmental issues;
Sustainable livelihoods and governance issues in the context of REDD+
Readiness;
Analytical and design work on benefit sharing and grievance redress

mechanisms;
Integration of indigenous or community land use mapping in REDD+ processes;

Support for multi-stakeholder dialogues and collaboration between government,
Forest-Dependent Peoples and Southern CSOs, respectively;
Other activities contributing to the national Strategic Environmental and Social

Assessment (SESA); and
Community-level monitoring of and reporting on various aspects of the overall

REDD+ process (to enhance transparency/accountability).

CIF-FIP Dedicated Grant Mechanism for

IPs/LCs (DGM)
DGM is a global initiative conceived and developed as a special window under the
Forest Investment Program (FIP) to provide grants to Indigenous Peoples and
Local Communities (IPLCs) intended to enhance their capacity and support
initiatives to strengthen their participation in FIP and other REDD+ processes at the
local, national and global levels
DGM Design was developed by a working group of IPs/LCs, facilitated by the CIF
Administrative Unit (AU) to be implemented in the 8 FIP Pilot Countries through
Country Grants Projects, under an overarching umbrella of a Global Component,
which will serve as the learning and knowledge-exchange platform for the DGM
Framework Guidelines for the DGM define the common framework for
implementation of the DGM and will serve as guidance to all stakeholders
participating in the program, including FIP Focal Points in the countries, the
National Executing Agencies (NEAs), members of the National Steering
Committees (NSCs), the Global Executing Agency (GEA) and Global Steering
Committee (GSC) of the DGM, civil society, IPLCs, CIF AU and the MDBs.

UNREDD Community-Based REDD+

UNREDD-CBR+ is a partnership between the UN-REDD Programme and
the GEF Small Grants Programme to deliver grants directly to indigenous
peoples and communities to empower them to fully engage in the design,
implementation and monitoring of REDD+ readiness activities, and
develop experiences, lessons, and recommendations at the local level
that can feed into national REDD+ processes.
CBR+ supports community-level projects that complement UN-REDD

National Programmes, national REDD+ readiness processes and/or
strategies.
Currently in its pilot phase, CBR+ is being implemented in six countries:

Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Panama, Paraguay, Democratic Republic of the
Congo and Nigeria.

Gender and Climate Finance

Women, who form the majority of the worlds 1.2 billion poorest people,
are often disproportionally affected by climate change impacts as a result
of persisting gender norms and discriminations. Women and men also
contribute to climate change responses in different ways.
The Cancun Agreements acknowledge that gender equality and the

effective participation of women are important for all aspects of any
response to climate change, but especially for adaptation.
Gender-responsive climate financing instruments and funding allocations

are needed and this is a matter of using scarce public funding in an
equitable, efficient and effective way.
It also acknowledges that climate finance decisions are not made within a
normative vacuum, but must be guided by the acknowledgement of
womens rights as unalienable human rights.


The World Bank and the regional multilateral development banks
implementing the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) have gender policies
for their development financing operations.
2012 comprehensive CIF gender review confirmed that the programs

supported by the Clean Technology Fund (CTF), which finances largescale mitigation in large economies and accounts for 70 per cent of the
CIFs pledged funding portfolio of USD 7.5 billion, did not address gender
considerations systematically.
Gender is not included in the operational principles of the Pilot Program

on Climate Resilience (PPCR), which funds programmatic adaptation
portfolios in a few developing countries, although most pilot countries
have included somegender dimensions in their programme planning
stage.

According to the CIF gender review, these vary from the inclusion during project
preparation of recipient country government agencies focused on women and
gender or gender experts from country missions, to outreach to womens groups as
key stakeholders in consultations or the development of gender action plans for
specific projects.
Gender-responsive programme implementation is the real challenge going forward
with only a minority of the projects including gender indicators. Initial investment
plans analyzed by the 2012 CIF gender review of the Scaling-Up Renewable
Energy in Low-Income Countries Program (SREP), the newest of the CIFs, include
information about environmental, social and gender co-benefits by identifying
women as investment beneficiaries.
Efforts to secure greater involvement and empowerment of women andother
vulnerable groups appear uneven, however. the CIF gender review identified a
variety of concrete measures and tools that could strengthen its genderresponsiveness, including the development of a gender scorecard or detailed
guidance on collecting data via gender-responsive indicators.

Under Adaptation Fund, operational guidelines were adopted that require the
inclusion of gender considerations in project and programme planning, as well as in
project consultation processes as an important review criterion. In October 2013, a
new environmental and social policy was approved, which further strengthened the
Funds attention to gender, as the policy outlines respect for human rights and
support for gender equality and womens empowerment as key principles for the
design and implementation of Adaptation Fund projects and programmes.
The GEF is one of the longest standing international climate funds, but gender
considerations until more recently have not been prominent in program review and
approval processes, for example for the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and
the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF). In 2011, the GEF adopted a Policy
on Gender Mainstreaming which requires all existing GEF agencies (mostly MDBs
and UN agencies) to be assessed for their compliance with the GEF gender
mainstreaming mandate

Experiences from other Global Funds and the

Potential of the GCF on gender
Recent developments at existing climate funds follow good practices and
experiences in other areas of development, where gender considerations
have been systematically and effectively included in global financing
mechanisms devoted to developing country actions
GCF has taken some initial steps towards mainstreaming gender

responsiveness into its operations. The governing instrument for the GCF
includes several references to gender and women in the Funds objectives,
governance and operational modalities, including on stakeholder participation
GCF mandates gender balance for its staff and Board, for example. Recent
Board decisions taken in the context of operationalizing the fund request the
formulation of a separate GCF gender policy and actionplan as well as the
integration of gender considerations in approved operational modalities and
policies.
These include a gender-sensitive approach, including via sex-disaggregated

data collection, to its results measurement framework andanchoring gendersensitivity in the GCF investment criteria while recognizing that further work is
needed.
Some lessons learned on current state of

dedicated public funds for IPs/LCs
Scope of climate-related fund allocations for IPs are primarily under forest
protection / REDD+ at local to global levels, with respective governance
mechanisms
Channels and management of funds are through UN agencies,

INGOs/NGOs as global / national executing agencies or as intermediary
channels of funds due to financial and program capacity requirements as
defined by fiduciary standards
The capacity among IP organizations and networks to comply with the

standard rules and required fiduciary standards is limited; hence, the need
for the development of or strengthening of financial and administrative
capacities among IP/LC organizations
Other points for discussion.. e.g. direct access accreditation standards,

safeguards, grievance mechanisms, etc.

Some lessons learned and experiences from

advocacy work of IPs on other global funds
Active IP representation and effective participation in policy board meetings and

relevant submissions to governance bodies to lobby and bring up IP issues and
concerns through:
Designated Indigenous Peoples observers in governance bodies of funds/programmes;

together with other stakeholders such as MDBs, UN agencies, NGOs, CSOs, Technical
experts, private sector, among others
Approval of dedicated grants/capacity building funds for IPs/LCs, however, financial

management and channels for funds are still defined under standard fiduciary requirements
of WB, UN bodies, and through INGOs/NGOs/UN agencies
Continuing dialogues with IPs and multilateral bodies, state parties, UN agencies, policy
board members to sensitize them on IP priorities/concerns for their support
Support for continuing capacity building activities for IPs/LCs
Ensuring environmental and social safeguards, and accessible grievance mechanisms
Ensuring the respect and recognition of IP rights and traditional knowledge in all climate
change adaptation/mitigation measures

Iyaman!
Thank You!

For more information, get some of our

publications, and please visit:
www.tebtebba.org


Fundamentos de Las Finanzas para El Clima para Los Pueblos Indígenas

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Fundamentos de Las Finanzas para El Clima para Los Pueblos Indígenas

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

ClimateFinanceFundamentalsrelevant

Global Workshop of Indigenous Peoples on Climate Finance and

Working for the recognition

Climate Finance Fundamentals

Global climate finance

Working for the recognition

Global climate finance

Other important principles, which can be instructive for a climate finance

While the precise meaning of these principles remains a matter of

Working for the recognition

Global climate finance

Global climate finance

Working for the recognition

Global climate finance

Adequate and precautionary in order to take precautionary measures to

Working for the recognition

Global climate finance

Fund administration and governance: National governments and global funding

Working for the recognition

Global climate finance architecture:

Global climate finance architecture is complex: finance is channeled

In addition, a growing number of recipient countries have set up national

Working for the recognition

Global climate finance architecture:

Climate finance refers to the financial resources mobilised to help

In 2009 Copenhagen Accord, and confirmed in the Cancun decision and

No clarity on mid-term finance targets and post-2012 public contributions

Working for the recognition

Global Climate Finance Architecture

Working for the recognition

Working for the recognition

Multilateral Channels for climate finance

Working for the recognition

Bilateral Channels for climate finance

Working for the recognition

National Climate Change Funds

Working for the recognition

Climate Finance on Thematic and

Finance is necessary to fund activities that respond to impacts

Currently, about 24% of the financing approved since 2003 flowing

Working for the recognition

Climate Finance on Thematic and

These countries also have differing institutional

Working for the recognition

Climate Finance on Thematic and

Funds exclusively supporting Adaptation (2003-2014)

Working for the recognition

Climate Finance on Thematic and

Working for the recognition

Climate Finance on Thematic and

Climate funds focused on forest

REDD+ has the potential to help promote environmental and socially

The Warsaw Framework on REDD+ negotiated at COP 19 has highlighted

Working for the recognition

Forest protection / REDD+ finance:

Working for the recognition

Other bilateral REDD+ finance

USD 150 million to Liberia to support zero deforestation by 2020.

2014 also saw additional, albeit non-legally binding, political

This declaration signed at the Climate Summit also pledges to

Working for the recognition

Multilateral REDD+ finance with dedicated