The Climate Funds Update data is now
current as of June 2013. This brief note highlights new developments including
pledges, approvals, and disbursements.
New Climate Finance pledges March 2013
– May 2013:
On 24th May 2013 Sweden’s government announced a
new pledge to the Adaptation
Fund of USD 15 million, making Sweden the biggest donor to the Fund with a
total committment of USD 59.21 million. Canada is a new contributor to the Congo
Basin Forest Fund (CBFF) with a pledge of USD 21.02 million. Spain
increased its pledge to the UN-REDD
Programme by USD 2.42 million.
New approvals and disbursements March 2013 – May 2013:
The Amazon Fund increased the disbursements for five projects by USD 6.65 million. The Forest Investment Programme (FIP) approved three full projects: One new project in Mexico, for supporting forest related micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in Ejidos (USD 2.88 million); and two new Project Preparation Grants (PPGs) in Ghana and Indonesia for integrating a landscape approach in reducing pressure on natural forests, and engaging local communities, and for community focused management and investment to address deforestation and degradation, and natural resources management, respectively. The Scaling-Up Renewable Energy Program for Low Income Countries (SREP) approved new preparation grants for investment plans in Armenia and the Solomon Islands, which are within the list of ‘reserved countries’ for pilots. While the SREP will support the development of the plans, finance for implementation will need to be raised.
Enhanced transparency and disclosure practices:
Fund, as it now reports ‘live’ information
on projects’ disbursements as well as project performance reporting. The Amazon Fund
now reports detailed information on the contributions
made to the fund, distinguishing ‘committed’ and ‘received’ funding, and on the
side, distinguishing between different types of project management. The Climate
Investment Funds (CIFs) provide project by project information on disbursements,
but only on public projects; private projects are not disclosed for
confidentiality reasons. Both the Adaptation Fund and the Climate Investment
Funds have committed to adopting the International Aid Transparency Initiative
We summarise the objectives
, instruments, channels, and recipients of FSF, as well as the different approaches that countries have taken to reporting and the extent to which their contributions are new and additional. Smita Nakhooda's joint commentary with Taryn Fransen of WRI
reflects on the challenges and opportunities before the international community as they work to scale up international climate finance, in light of the Fast Start experience.
Developed countries agreed to deliver USD 30 billion in new and additional ‘fast-start finance’ (FSF) between 2010-2012 to developing countries, as a step towards mobilizing USD 100 billion per year from public and private sources by 2020. By the end of the FSF period, the self-reporting of developed country governments indicated that they had exceeded this goal. ODI, World Resources Institute (WRI) and Open Climate Network (OCN) have been working to understand where the money has gone, and what it has supported. This analysis can help to shed light on what has been achieved during the FSF period, and to draw lessons for international climate finance in the years ahead. You can view a compilation of this analysis on our new Fast Start Finance page.
On April 11th the US hosted a Ministerial
Meeting on Mobilizing Climate Finance. Climate Funds Update users may be
interested in WRI’s analysis of key issues to address.
Climate Funds Update data is now current as of March 2013.
2012, countries have pledged and deposited money in a number of climate funds.
The UK has pledged USD 147 million to the Clean
Technology Fund and deposited USD 101 million. Sweden
also made a new contribution to the Scaling-Up
Renewable Energy Program for Low Income Countries of USD
26 million, and
additional contributions to the Adaptation
Fund (USD 15 million) and to the Least
Developed Countries Fund (USD 17 million).
Most climate funds have approved new projects, particularly for
· The Pilot
Program for Climate Resilience approved USD 121 million for 7 new
full size projects (using both loans and grants) and 4 new preparation grants
Mozambique, Tajikistan, Yemen, Grenada. Additional projects in
Cambodia and Nepal were approved, as well as one regional project across Asia
and the Pacific. The two biggest projects by funding focus on building climate
resilience to transform hydro-meteorological services and adapt to climate
· The Least
Developed Countries Fund approved USD 50 million in grants for 9 new
adaptation projects in Burkina Faso, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Malawi, a second
project in Mali, Sudan, Vanuatu and Yemen. Two of these are focussed on
enabling women to adapt to climate change and build resilience. The GEF
Trust Fund - Climate Change focal area (GEF 5) approved USD 37 million in grants for 12 new projects in different countries.
These include renewable energy projects (e.g. rural electrification in Ecuador,
solar photovoltaic energy in Iraq, and geothermal power projects in Djibouti)
as well as energy efficiency, including low carbon development in Brazilian
Please contact the Climate Funds Update team with any
questions or for further information.
This piece was written by Charlene Watson of the Overseas Development Institute.
Since 2007, parties to the UNFCCC have been discussing the
design of a registry of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). This
Registry would match developing country actions with possible sources of
international financial support. Such a matching function may be difficult to
realise, as funders rarely ‘shop’ in such a way for projects, but the emerging NAMA Registry proposal
and protocol could improve the transparency of financial support for climate
What value can the
NAMAs take on many forms,
but are broadly
defined as a set of country-driven, sustainable development-compatible
actions aimed at reducing emissions. The intention
of the Registry is to compile developing country NAMAs in order to match them
with developed country support through a web-based platform. This support might
take the form of technological capacity or assistance, direct mitigation actions,
or finance. The Registry has the
potential to provide information on developing countries’ climate finance needs
and whether such needs are being, or can be, met. Such transparency can foster
trust between developed and developing countries in the UNFCCC process to
deliver fair and effective outcomes
A number of climate
finance tracking initiatives already exist, including our ODI-HBF Climate Funds Update. Climate
Funds Update monitors finance from pledge to disbursal in 23 of the dedicated
public climate funds and initiatives. Other initiatives track Fast Start Finance, finance for reducing emissions from forestry
activities, and climate finance flowing through national
budgets. Such initiatives provide crucial data on where climate finance is
going and to what
activities. They also help monitor whether developed countries are meeting
their collective pledges to mobilise US$ 30 billion between 2010 and 2012 and the
longer term objective of making available US$ 100 billion a year by 2020.
NAMAs recorded in the Registry won’t necessarily sum to the
total cost of mitigation activities in any given country, but will provide one
insight into how much and what type of finance is needed by developing country governments.
In doing so, the Registry would go beyond other climate finance tracking initiatives.
However, it remains to be seen how the NAMAs already submitted
to the UNFCCC (now
totalling close to 50), and also recorded in the Ecofys NAMA database, will be integrated in the Registry, as these are
not necessarily seeking international financial support. There are also
questions about how the Registry will reflect information on finance delivered through
other forms, such as through developed countries’ biennial reports on action.
But so far, engagement
with the registry has been limited
In August 2012, the UNFCCC Secretariat requested
parties to submit NAMAs to be included in a prototype Registry.
countries have submitted information on NAMAs seeking preparation support. Mali
has requested US$ 40,000 support each for preparation of two NAMAs for energy
efficiency and renewable energy, and forestry, respectively (both note that
capacity building and technical support is also needed). Ethiopia has requested
US$ 400,000 for support for preparation of an interurban electric rail NAMA. Uruguay’s
three requests for sustainable housing, low emission agricultural technology
and wind energy NAMAs amount to US$ 1,675,000.
have been submitted seeking support for implementation: Chile seeks a US$7.5
million grant for implementation of a national forestry and climate change
strategy, while Uruguay has requested a US$2 million grant for integrating photovoltaic
solar energy into the national grid. Three more NAMAs
have been submitted for recognition. All
submissions have requested grant finance, and so far the Registry contains
information from only four countries.
No submissions on support for NAMAs have
been received from developed countries: a sticky issue for recent negotiations in Doha.
Will the Registry be a useful addition to the international climate
Commitments were made in Doha to have a fully operational
prototype by April 2013, on which comments will be invited. Participation in
the Registry is voluntary and there are minimal requirements from Parties on
information submitted. Developed country incentives to engage with the Registry
are unclear. Its function in practice as a clearing house for information on NAMAs,
and in improving the transparency of climate finance, remains to be seen.
To have any impact in improving the transparency of action and support, greater engagement with the design of the registry is needed. This would ensure that it presents information that helps us understand finance needs and assess the impact of supported programmes. Those institutions and individuals already involved in tracking climate finance may have useful insights to share on these practical challenges.
This piece was co-authored by Smita Nakhooda of the Overseas Development Institute and Taryn Fransen of the World Resources Institute, with inputs from Noriko Shimizu (International Group for Environmental Strategies) and Sven Harmeling (Germanwatch).
'Developed countries self-report that they have delivered more than $33 billion in fast-start climate finance between 2010 and 2012, exceeding the pledges they made at COP 15 in Copenhagen in 2009. But how much of this finance is new and additional?' Full text available here
CFU is glad to feature this guest
commentary on climate finance transparency from our colleague Maya Forstater,
Climate Finance Advisor to Publish What You Fund.
say if you like sausages you should never visit a sausage factory. But users of
Climate Funds Update’s data tools may be interested to read about the process
sausage-makers – Charlene Watson, Smita Nakhooda, Alice Caravani, Liane Schalatek
– have helpfully outlined the process in their report on The Practical Challenges of Monitoring Climate Finance. Over the
past three years they have painstakingly tracked 22 funds; combing through websites,
trustee reports, press releases and notes from civil society organisations to
identify funding decisions and work out how far the money had got along the chain
from pledge to disbursement. They double check this with the Funds involved, before
publishing it, then going back two months later to start the whole process
again in order to keep the data up-to-date.
this effort is worthwhile because credible, comparable and up-to-date
information is essential to understanding who benefits from public climate
financing, and how scarce public resources are being used, and to building
task is made harder by climate funds that sometimes don’t report regularly, by
inconsistent terminology, and by the lack of a system for tracking funding
between funds and projects, leading to the potential for double counting.
Climate Funds Update is just one of a cluster of initiatives monitoring
overlapping flows of climate finance. Most recently, the multi-lateral
development banks released their first Joint MDB Report on Climate Finance which
sums together both the dedicated funds which feature on Climate Fund Update,
but also mainstream development funding with adaptation or mitigation
challenge of tracking climate finance will only become trickier as the Fast Start
period comes to an end, and countries shift towards the longer-term goal of
scaling up to mobilise US$100 billion a year of ‘new and additional’ funding
from a wider variety of sources. The Climate Policy Initiative last year mapped
the landscape of climate finance revealing
spaghetti strings of intermediaries, instruments, channels and end-users.
Overall they counted US$97 billion worth of public and private flows but
emphasised that this could not be equated to the US$100 billion promised by
developed countries in the Copenhagen Accord, as it is not yet clear what
should be counted ‘in’ and what should be counted ‘out’.
their report to the upcoming COP 18 meeting, the co-chairs of the UNFCCC Work
Programme on Long Term Financing, Georg Børsting and
Zaheer Fakir, highlight the urgent need to “improve the transparency of climate
finance at the international level while keeping systems simple and
One key obstacle is the lack of global agreement on what counts as climate
finance, what ‘mobilising’ means, and against what benchmark ‘new and
additional’ should be counted. These
thorny issues will be amongst the topics discussed in Doha, and are likely to
go forward to future COPs.
But there is a system already in
operation, which could make climate finance data more accessible and useful,
and take a great deal of the painstaking effort out of tracking it.
The problem of hard to publish, hard
to find, hard to use data is common to both climate finance and development
cooperation. In our report Towards
Climate Finance Transparency, Publish What You Fund and aidinfo argue that a new approach to data transparency, which
originated in the aid sphere could be used unlock climate finance data, without
blurring the (as yet undefined) boundaries of what can be counted as climate
finance for the purposes of UNFCCC commitments.
The International Aid Transparency
Initiative (IATI) is an open data standard that
enables funders to publish detailed information in a timely, accessible and
comparable way on their own websites. The location of the data is recorded in a
central registry which acts as a single point of access for data users. Crucially, this makes the data machinereadable,
unlocking it from individual databases and reports and opening it up to automated
collation and interactive data use and visualisation.
Those providing data to IATI commit
- Can update their information at least
quarterly, preferably monthly;
- Publish forward-looking data, such as
project budgets, planned disbursements, and aggregate country budgets as well
as detailed project information, such as which organisation receives the funds,
details of disbursements and expenditure, and contact details;
- Publish in a way that allows funds to
be tracked through the funding chain and data and reconciled with the financial
year of the recipient country.
Published in a common data format, it
is readily comparable and easily combined with other datasets to meet users’
individual needs. The standard is not limited to ‘aid’. All funders including
providers of ODA and OOF (other official flows), humanitarian flows,
south-south development co-operation, NGOs, foundations and other private donors,
are able to publish to the IATI standard. Data users are able to filter the
data they need by source type, theme, location or any number of criteria they
Countries that have agreed to
implement IATI include Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany,
Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the
UK and the US. This means that over a third of all fast start finance has come
from agencies that are already committed to implementing the IATI standard. The
World Bank, the European Commission, the UNDP and other multilateral funders
have also championed the system, although to date it has not been implemented
in the climate specific trust funds.
Small changes to the IATI standard
would enable funders to tag the information they publish about funding flows
with more detailed climate change markers, for example indicating the percentage
of each budget intended for climate mitigation, adaptation or REDD goals and to
state whether this is part of a UNFCCC climate finance commitment.
The IATI standard itself would not answer the political questions
determining what is ‘in’ or ‘out’ for the purposes answering the US$100 billion
dollar question. But it would provide a simple, manageable and powerful system
to improve climate finance transparency; providing finance and line ministries,
civil society, legislators and citizens with timely, comprehensive, accessible and comparable information about climate
finance flows which could then be mapped onto domestic budgets and priorities.
 Note by the Co-Chairs, Report
on the workshops of the work programme on long-term finance, November 2012:
We have now updated all fund and project data through 15thNovember 2012. For more information on our latest publications in preparation of the COP meetings in Doha click here. Please contact the Climate Funds Update team with any questions or for further information.
As Qatar prepares to host COP 18, decisions on how to deliver and channel finance
to help developing countries respond to climate change will again be on the
agenda. Climate finance is mobilized in the context of UNFCCC principles that
recognize countries common but differentiated responsibilities to act to
address climate change. Despite fiscal pressures, we see some encouraging signs
that countries are delivering public climate finance in this year’s series of
Climate Finance Fundamentals.
Finance Fundamentals are based on data from Climate Funds Update, a joint
initiative of the Overseas Development Institute
(ODI) and Heinrich Böll Stiftung (HBF),
which monitors climate funds from the stage when donors pledge funding through
to the actual disbursement of financing for projects.
2012, 1.2 billion dollars of climate finance has been pledged. The total volume
of climate finance pledged through the 23 dedicated public funds we monitor on
CFU now amounts to $29.8 billion.
2003 and 2012, $7.28 billion has been pledged to finance
activities. About $5.61 billion of this pledged amount has been deposited to
the designated funds. The volume of finance approved for REDD+
activities increased by about $120 million in 2012, adding to the $ 1 billion total approved for
REDD+ activities. Disbursement of finance continues to be slow.
2003 only 15% of climate finance approved for projects has gone to finance adaptation.
But support is growing. This year $556.3 million was pledged to finance
adaptation activities, bringing the total since 2003 to $2.73 billion; of this,
about $2.23 billion has been deposited.
total amount approved for projects in sub-Saharan
Africa has increased by $300 million since 2011. Of the total climate
finance channeled to sub-Saharan Africa, 56% supports mitigation activities,
while adaptation projects receive 28% of funding in this highly vulnerable
finance for the Middle
East and North Africa, the host region for this year’s COP, has increased by
5% in 2012. Egypt and Morocco, however, receive 80% of the total approved
America and the Caribbean region continues to receive the most REDD+
funding, with a total of $598 million approved for projects.
billion has been approved for projects in the Asia
–Pacific region since 2003. This year alone, $735 million was approved for
new projects. Of the total, a full 67% supports mitigation activities.
How is this finance channelled? The global
climate finance architecture is multifaceted. Some finance is spent through
multilateral funds – such as the Global
Environment Facility and the Climate Investment Funds. But
a large share of public climate finance is spent
bilaterally, administered by existing development agencies such as Japan’s JICA
and the US
Agency for International Development (USAID). Some countries, notably
Brazil and Indonesia, have set
up their own national climate change funds. Their objective is to establish
funds with high levels of accountability that can finance projects that reflect
national circumstances and priorities.
It is also necessary to consider the social dimensions
of climate finance. There is evidence to suggest that women are disproportionally
affected by climate change impacts. As a result, global interest in
options to strengthen the linkages between gender
equity and climate change finance has increased.
is an expectation that the Green
Climate Fund (GCF) may help to fill some of the gaps in the current climate
finance architecture, especially when it comes to more adaptation finance for
vulnerable countries. The precise volume of finance to be channelled through
the GCF remains unclear, although it could potentially manage tens of billions
of dollars per year over time.