european capacity building initiativeecbi lessons learnt and next steps in the negotiations...
TRANSCRIPT
eu
rop
ean
cap
acity
bu
ildin
g
initia
tive e
cbi
Lessons learnt and next steps in the negotiations presented
Benito MüllerEast and Southern African Regional Workshop
Hilton Hotel Nairobi 3 March 2010
eu
rop
ean
capacity
bu
ildin
g
initia
tive
initia
tive e
uro
péen
ne d
e re
nfo
rcem
en
t des
cap
acité
s ecbi
for sustained capacity building in support of international climate change negotiations
pour un renforcement durable des capacités en appui aux négociations internationales sur les changements climatiques
eu
rop
ean
cap
acity
bu
ildin
g
initia
tive e
cbi
The Issue of Distributive Justice and Thematic Balance
Distributive Justice
• Traditional ODA neither involves obligations to pay, not entitlements to receive. Hence, strictly speaking, there is no issue of contributing or receiving ‘a fair share’
• The nature of financial payments for climate change activities, particularly in the case of adaptation and response to climate impacts is one of restitution.
• Hence there are both obligations to pay and entitlements to receive, which implies that equity, in these sense of either shouldering a fair share of the payment burden, or receiving a fair share of the revenue is an issue.
• At present, the focus really has only been of the former (e.g. Mexican and Swiss proposals). Few have raised the issue of how to distribute climate finance equitably.
Thematic Balance
Climate change finance involves a number of different themes (mitigation, adaptation ,technology transfer, etc. ), and the issue of ‘thematic balance’ is whether each of these themes receives an appropriate share of the revenue.
eu
rop
ean
cap
acity
bu
ildin
g
initia
tive e
cbi
(a) Retained, Fragmented, Decentralized (b) Devolved, Consolidated, Decentralized (c) Retained, Consolidated, Centralized
International Consolidated Fund
Country A
Country B
Country C
InternationalSources
Recipient Country D
National (Consolidated) Fund
FundedActivities
Fragmented v. Consolidated
Centralized v. Decentralized
Devolved v. Retained
International Consolidated Fund
Country A
Country B
Country C
InternationalSources
Recipient Country D
FundedActivities
Recipient Country D
Country A
FundedActivities
InternationalSources
IFIs/IGOs/Funds
Country B
Country C
Three Fundamental Dichotomies
eu
rop
ean
cap
acity
bu
ildin
g
initia
tive e
cbi
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Funding approved annualy ($million)
Sec
reta
riat
Siz
e
Multilateral Fund (0.19 people/$m)
Global Fund(0.21 people/$m)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0 10 20 30 40 50
Funding approved annually ($billion)
'Exp
ecte
d' S
ecre
tari
at S
ize
Expected Size(0.2 people/$m)
Centralized Decision Making: The Problem of Administrative Size
eu
rop
ean
cap
acity
bu
ildin
g
initia
tive e
cbi
Operating Entity
Administrative Services
RFM TrusteeThematic Assessment Units
(one per disbursement window)
Secretariat Services
Expert Advisory Panel(s)(as required)
Funded Activities
Domestic Level
International Level
Legend:
Governance Relation (‘under the authority of’) Contractual Relation (MOU or contract)
Designated Funding Entities
Executive Board
External Audit
Internal Audit
UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP)
Direct Access
RFM Core: Consolidation and Decentralization through Devolution
eu
rop
ean
cap
acity
bu
ildin
g
initia
tive e
cbi
Funding versus Disbursement
Disbursements to Designated (National) Funding Entities
Funding is financing (incl. approval and evaluation) of activities such as projects, programmes)
Disbursements are dependent on the disbursement criteria for each theme, as well as the thematic allocations (both approved by the COP on recommendation by the EB). They do NOT rely on evaluations of projects, plans or strategies.
Disbursement Criteria
Disbursement criteria will vary from theme to theme. For example
• Mitigation disbursements could be on a performance basis, with an flat per country component: x million + y million for the MRV reduction in the previous period
• Adaptation disbursements should be carried out by a very simple disbursement formula, e.g. a flat per country component + a component proportional to the number of poor inhabitants.
eu
rop
ean
cap
acity
bu
ildin
g
initia
tive e
cbi
The bulk of the transactions in terms of size of the RFM is (ultimately) meant to be carried out through ‘money-in-money-out’ disbursements to designated (national) funding entities.
However, there will still be a need for international funding in the more traditional sense, such as currently developed under the Adaptation Fund.
• For one, not all funding purposes lend themselves naturally to be devolved to the country level. While mitigation and adaptation per se would seem to be prime candidates for such a devolution, funding decisions for certain types of capacity building and technology transfer activities may be better kept at the international level.
• Even with respect to the other themes, there will for some time to be the need to retain a more traditional international funding capacity, for it may take some time before all countries will be able to participate in the devolved disbursement regime.
RFM International Funding
eu
rop
ean
cap
acity
bu
ildin
g
initia
tive e
cbi
UNFCCC COP
Finance Board
The LCA Draft Decision
Climate Fund/Facility
eu
rop
ean
cap
acity
bu
ildin
g
initia
tive e
cbi
RFM Administration
Legend:
Governance Relation (‘under the authority of’) :
‘Contractual’ Relation (MOU or contract) :
Oversight and governance/contractual:
RFM Operating Entity
Disbursement/Certification :
International funding/Coordination:
UNFCCC COP
Funded Activities
Designated Funding Entity
Finance Board
Funded Activities Funded Activities
Operating Funding Entity I (Mitigation)
Operating Funding Entity 2 (Adaptation)
Coordination or Consolidation: Potential for Compromise?
Climate Fund/Facility
Administrative Services, incl. Thematic Assessment Units
eu
rop
ean
cap
acity
bu
ildin
g
initia
tive e
cbiThank you!