An explicit treatment of agriculture in the post -2020 climate agreement will put agriculture at the centre of global policy discussions, and address the objective of protecting food production enshrined in Article 2 of the UNFCCC. Adaptation is a more important priority among LDCs than mitigation in the agricultural sector. However, positive synergies exist between agricultural mitigation and the core needs of LDCs, including food security, adaptation and development. LDCs will need support to assess climate change impacts, identify response mechanisms, integrate the mechanisms into agricultural development plans, and implement the plans.
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
Whether or not the regime emerging from the current negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will be based on an explicit cost/burden sharing formula, the debate about (implied) costs/burdens will be central. Such a debate cannot be genuinely meaningful in the absence of an acceptable operationalisation of Article 3.1 in general, and of the concept of ‘respective capability’ in particular.
The Brief proposes a measure for national 'differentiated economic capabilities ('ability to pay') as integral part of an operationalisation. The primary purpose of the measure is to define or assess climate change cost/burden sharing (schemes). To illustrate the potential use of this methodology the Brief considers two examples: assessing the fairness of a given cost distribution; and developing a (rule-based) 'graduation scheme' regarding obligations to pay.
This is a second revised edition of the original ecbi Policy Brief by Benito Müller & Lavan Mahadeva that served as summary for policy makers of a technical report by the same authors published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, available at the link below. The revision is mainly with regards to the final section on determining ‘Levels of Capability’.
Publication Date:
January, 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
Discussions on the formulation and implementation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) have begun, but more clarity is needed on how finance for NAPs at the international level can support adaptation planning and implementation. This should be a priority for the 2014 climate conference in Peru, and for the Global Environment Facility, the Green Climate Fund (GCF), and other financial contributors. LDCs can explore low-cost and ‘no regret’ adaptation strategies to provide robust policy responses in the face of information uncertainty, and refine assessments of economic impacts of climate risks, in order to target adaptation investments better.
Publication Date:
March, 2014
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) should not be ditched in favour of new, untested mechanisms. New Market Mechanisms (NMMs) should use the governance structure of the CDM, but should go further in standardising baseline and monitoring methodologies. The Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) is unlikely to generate benefits that could not be harnessed by NMMs or the CDM. A sufficient demand for credits requires strengthening of Annex B country commitments and “graduation” of advanced developing countries to take up emission targets under the 2015 agreement. The stronger the commitments, the less the market mechanisms would have to contribute to global reductions. Targeted climate finance for underlying funding of CDM projects and Programmes of Activities(PoAs)is needed.
Publication Date:
March, 2014
The negotiations under workstream 1 of the Ad hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) , on a regime which is “applicable to all”, offer an opportunity for LDCs to ensure that the ambition of all Parties is raised. “Applicable to all” does not, however, mean uniformity of action. Of particular importance to the LDCs is the differentiation of approaches to commitments, and the provision of ways to deal with the special circumstances of Small Island Developing States and the LDCs.
Publication Date:
March, 2014
