Legal Options and Challenges
ecbi Publications
ecbi's Publications and Policy Analysis Unit (PPAU) generates information and advice for developing country negotiators that is relevant to the climate negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Developing countries often lack the economic and institutional capacity for policy analysis. If negotiators are unable to engage proactively by submitting proposals, responding to proposals from other States, and assessing the impact of global climate policy decisions on their individual States, progress in the negotiations can be hampered by the lack of alternatives and uncertainity. The differences in analytic capacity between developing countries and the industrialised world are often profound – developing countries lack support from organisations like the OECD, for instance, which has an immense apparatus producing thorough and focused reports, including direct advice on future policy responses to each of member country.
ecbi publications aim to be relevant to ongoing negotiations under the UNFCCC, timely, and trustworthy. PPAU works with negotiators from developing countries, sometimes through Editorial Committees, to identify UNFCCC issues where further analysis and policy advice is needed. Global experts are then teamed up with negotiators from devleoping countries to produce Policy Briefs and Discussion Notes. This partnership between experts and negotiators helps to ensure that the process of producing a Brief addresses the specific concerns of developing country negotiators; builds the capacity of developing country co-authors in policy analysis; and also builds ownership of the analysis.
For new negotiators, and for use in ecbi Regional and Pre-COP Training Workshops, PPAU produces Background Papers and a series of Pocket Guides. These generally provide a more basic analysis of issues for newcomers to the process, along with the background and history of the issue in the negotiations.
You can use the search function below or see all our publications in one page here
In a recent Concept Note,1 Benito Müller put forward the idea of a Southern Solidarity Fund (SSF) to receive voluntary contributions from developing countries for South-South climate change cooperation. It is meant to be established by the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC or Convention) with a developing country Board, and to be operated by the Green Climate Fund (GCF), as an operating entity of the FCCC financial mechanism. As such, it is meant to give developing countries ‘the opportunity to provide support to their peers for climate change activities’2 which ‘should be able to avail itself of the best available delivery systems, such as is hoped will be established under the Green Climate Fund, in particular through Enhanced Direct Access, where operational decision-making is devolved to recipient countries.’
Publication Date:
May, 2014
The Berlin Mandate, adopted during the early hours of 7 April 1995, marked the end of the first Conference of Parties (COP 1) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Berlin, Germany.1 The Mandate was one of the most important decisions of the COP, paving the way for the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol.2
As Chief Negotiator for Sweden, I participated actively in high-level informal consultations before the Berlin COP. During the COP, I chaired a high-level working group on the Berlin Mandate, which was established at the very beginning of the conference and worked all through, with meetings practically every day. My reflections in this paper seek to provide an insider’s view of the Berlin Mandate process, and draw lessons for the ongoing negotiations for a post-2020 climate regime.
Process and Substance
Publication Date:
May, 2014
Speaking at a dinner hosted by the Indonesian government during the recent Green Climate Fund Board meeting in Bali, Mr. Bambang Brodjonegoro, the Vice Minister of Finance, stated:
‘During this Board Meeting in Bali, Indonesia announces its pledge to contribute to the Fund. Indonesia also stands ready if all countries are required to contribute for the capital base of the Fund. I am hoping this contribution can support the Fund’s activities in helping developing countries to prepare and finance emissions reduction and adaptation programs, including capacity building programs under the South-South Cooperation that replicate the success stories of climate change programmes in other countries. I do hope other more capable countries can consider making pledges, or adding to their pledges, or making an indication of their pledges during this Bali meeting.’
The significance of this announcement should not be underestimated. It signals the readiness of a major developing country to provide voluntary support for South-South Cooperation on climate change through the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
Speaking at a dinner hosted by the Indonesian government during the recent Green Climate Fund Board meeting in Bali, Mr. Bambang Brodjonegoro, the Vice Minister of Finance, stated:
‘During this Board Meeting in Bali, Indonesia announces its pledge to contribute to the Fund. Indonesia also stands ready if all countries are required to contribute for the capital base of the Fund. I am hoping this contribution can support the Fund’s activities in helping developing countries to prepare and finance emissions reduction and adaptation programs, including capacity building programs under the South-South Cooperation that replicate the success stories of climate change programmes in other countries. I do hope other more capable countries can consider making pledges, or adding to their pledges, or making an indication of their pledges during this Bali meeting.’
The significance of this announcement should not be underestimated. It signals the readiness of a major developing country to provide voluntary support for South-South Cooperation on climate change through the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
A GCF Operated Southern Solidarity Fund
Publication Date:
April, 2014
Key issues for LDCs related to the MRV of mitigation actions include
the development of simplified methodologies for LDCs under the
Framework of Various Approaches to ensure that LDCs can benefit, and
simplified greenhouse gas inventories with the provision of adequate
resources to help LDCs to keep their emissions under control as they
develop.
Publication Date:
March, 2014
Invitation by the The Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia to the Pre-GCF Board Meeting Luncheon Discussion on “Country Ownership and Enhancing Direct Access”, held on 17 February 2014 in Bali, Indonesia. The discussion was aimed to provide a space for the Board and observer organizations to examine the key issues that need to be addressed relating to realising country ownership by enhancing direct access in different ways based on country circumstances in the design of GCF. It featured presentations of ideas from the Board members/alternates and experts as well as lessons learned from national and international funding institutions.
Invitation by the The Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia to the Pre-GCF Board Meeting Luncheon Discussion on “Country Ownership and Enhancing Direct Access”, held on 17 February 2014 in Bali, Indonesia. The discussion was aimed to provide a space for the Board and observer organizations to examine the key issues that need to be addressed relating to realising country ownership by enhancing direct access in different ways based on country circumstances in the design of GCF. It featured presentations of ideas from the Board members/alternates and experts as well as lessons learned from national and international funding institutions.
Publication Date:
February, 2014
This Rough Guide to Enhanced Direct Access (EDA) by Benito Müller provides the key conceptual tools needed to understand EDA and exemplifies the main access models graphically with a number of figures, meant to illustrate the key differences between these models.
This Rough Guide to Enhanced Direct Access (EDA) by Benito Müller provides the key conceptual tools needed to understand EDA and exemplifies the main access models graphically with a number of figures, meant to illustrate the key differences between these models.
Publication Date:
March, 2014
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Board is in the process of considering "additional modalities that further enhance direct access". A devolved and decentralized access modality has been proposed as an alternative to the more traditional model, where detailed project approval is carried out at the multilateral level. This ecbi Policy Brief by Benito Müller and William Pizer explains the relation between "enhanced direct access" and "programmatic approaches," and addresses certain concerns raised about this decentralized/devolved access model, using seven case studies to illustrate current practices that could provide ideas and insights about how the GCF might design its own approach. The case studies are focused around four questions:
a. How does the funding model generally work, in terms of disbursing funds?
b. Who decides what? What decisions are taken by the governing funding body and what decisions are devolved and to whom?
c. How does this funding model ensure the governing body’s objectives are met, and how does it ensure that the various fiduciary standards and safeguards are satisfied?
d. How is the funding level for a particular programme determined?
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Board is in the process of considering "additional modalities that further enhance direct access". A devolved and decentralized access modality has been proposed as an alternative to the more traditional model, where detailed project approval is carried out at the multilateral level. This ecbi Policy Brief by Benito Müller and William Pizer explains the relation between "enhanced direct access" and "programmatic approaches," and addresses certain concerns raised about this decentralized/devolved access model, using seven case studies to illustrate current practices that could provide ideas and insights about how the GCF might design its own approach. The case studies are focused around four questions:
a. How does the funding model generally work, in terms of disbursing funds?
b. Who decides what? What decisions are taken by the governing funding body and what decisions are devolved and to whom?
c. How does this funding model ensure the governing body’s objectives are met, and how does it ensure that the various fiduciary standards and safeguards are satisfied?
d. How is the funding level for a particular programme determined?
Publication Date:
March, 2014
An institutional framework to address residual loss and damage should be guided by UNFCCC principles; recognise the urgency of developing and implementing robust and practical approaches to address loss and damage; address the needs of vulnerable countries; transform the scale of mitigation and adaptation ambition; be facilitative instead of punitive; and be based on the best available science and national circumstances.
Publication Date:
March, 2014
