Latest news with #UNFrameworkConventiononClimateChange
The Wire
18 hours ago
- Business
- The Wire
Climate Finance Needs a Conductor
As the multilateral order comes under growing strain, several trends are becoming increasingly clear. International development assistance and climate finance appear to have peaked, even as global needs continue to evolve. At the same time, international institutions, faced with mounting pressure to prove their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, are reassessing their operations. But today's climate-finance challenges demand more than introspection; they call for structural change, decisive action, and – above all – coordinated leadership. Climate finance is currently delivered through a broad array of institutions: multilateral bodies like the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the newly established Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD); multilateral development banks (MDBs); and an ever-expanding network of philanthropic, national, and regional initiatives. Each was created to fill a perceived functional or political gap. Collectively, however, they form a sprawling and often unwieldy sprawl creates two major challenges. First, it fosters unhealthy competition. Many of these institutions draw on the same pool of donors, serve similar recipient countries, and have overlapping mandates. The result is a bureaucratic maze and high transaction costs, with recipient countries often spending more time navigating the system than accessing its benefits. As a 2024 report by the G20's climate-finance working group warned, fragmented and inefficient access mechanisms are among the most significant obstacles to effective climate action. Second, and paradoxically, this competition also leads to inertia, because institutions, protective of their respective niches, become increasingly reluctant to depart from established practices. While differences in size and financial terms should enable climate funds and MDBs to serve distinct, complementary roles, in practice their policies and portfolios often converge. The FRLD is a striking example. When the need for a dedicated mechanism to address loss and damage became urgent, no existing institution was equipped – or willing – to take the lead, so a new entity had to be competition for resources and inertia regarding evolving challenges are only part of the issue. The deeper challenge lies in fragmented governance. Despite repeated calls to improve coordination, meaningful alignment remains elusive, largely because climate-finance institutions operate under fundamentally different governance structures. The GCF, GEF, FRLD, Adaptation Fund, and Climate Investment Funds all report to separate governing bodies, each with its own mandate and varying degrees of alignment with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). MDBs answer to their shareholders, while bilateral and philanthropic organisations are driven by domestic or private agendas. As a result, no single body is capable of overseeing or steering the entire doesn't just hinder strategic planning; it also distorts access. Each institution has its own rules, timelines, and application requirements, creating a patchwork of uncoordinated and inconsistent processes. Recipient countries must navigate multiple systems, often with limited institutional capacity, making access to climate finance burdensome and uneven. A recent synthesis report report by the GCF's Independent Evaluation Unit underscores the need for structural reform, finding that climate finance tends to flow to countries that already have access to traditional development financing. While this may seem intuitive, it is also deeply troubling. The implication is that countries with greater institutional capacity and experience with complex funding mechanisms are better positioned to secure climate finance, leaving the world's most vulnerable regions systematically there is a broad consensus that access should be faster and simpler, why does it remain so difficult to achieve? The answer is that facilitating climate finance is not just a technical challenge. As the GCF synthesis report notes, real progress requires more than procedural tweaks. It calls for governance structures tailored to the specific needs of fragile and capacity- constrained countries, sustained investment in institutional capacity, and an equitable distribution addition to creating inefficiencies, fragmented governance deepens inequality. Without sufficient specialisation, a willingness to break with the status quo, and a dose of institutional innovation, climate finance will continue to flow to countries with stronger institutions and fuller project pipelines. What climate finance urgently needs is a coordinating mechanism, coalition, or platform with the authority to review the current architecture and guide institutions toward more specialised, complementary roles – much like a conductor bringing harmony to an otherwise disorganised orchestra. And this is the fundamental challenge: the absence of a decision-making platform tasked with steering the evolution of climate finance architecture. While the G20 has made climate finance a top priority and addressed several issues related to the broader financial architecture, its limited membership means it lacks universal representation. The UNFCCC can direct funds within its own financing mechanism, but it is slow-moving and lacks the mandate to regulate MDBs and other actors. Similarly, the UN Environment Assembly may not have the necessary speed, scope, or reach to lead this effort effectively. The upcoming Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) is a rare opportunity to address the institutional sprawl that impedes effective climate action. As a UN initiative, it offers both legitimacy and universal participation. While not a climate summit, it is one of the few platforms where climate finance intersects with broader questions of development, debt, and institutional reform. The FfD4 draft outcome document rightly urges international policymakers to prevent the further proliferation of climate funds, calling for greater integration among existing mechanisms. But it may need to go further by offering clear guidance on how the various components of climate finance can work together more effectively. Even if FfD4 does not resolve these questions, it could still play a pivotal role in identifying the coordinating force needed to ensure the coherence of climate finance.
Leaders
2 days ago
- Business
- Leaders
Saudi Arabia, UNEP Foster Cooperation on Emissions Reduction
Saudi Arabia and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) have strengthened their cooperation in the fields of emissions reduction and global climate action, according to the Saudi Press Agency (SPA). On Sunday, the Saudi Minister of Energy, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, met with the UNEP Executive Director and Under-Secretary-General of the UN, Inger Andersen, in Riyadh. During their meeting, both officials discussed avenues for cooperation on climate action and joint efforts to achieve the objectives of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. The two officials reviewed Saudi Arabia's climate initiatives and efforts, such as the Saudi Green Initiative (SGI) and the Middle East Green Initiative. They also reviewed the Kingdom's ambitious programs to utilize renewables and reduce emissions through the implementation of the Circular Carbon Economy (CCE) framework. Furthermore, the meeting saw the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the Saudi Energy Ministry and the UNEP as part of the Regional Cooperation for Emissions Reduction Initiative. The MoU aims to support the countries of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region in achieving their climate goals by developing clean energy technologies and policies in accordance with the CCE framework to advance climate action. The cooperation between Saudi Arabia's Energy Ministry and the UNEP plays a pivotal role in sustainability and climate change. The MoU further advances their common goals of enhancing resource management and reducing carbon emissions by adopting a comprehensive and balanced approach to achieve sustainable development. Moreover, areas of cooperation include policy research and recommendations, partnerships with international organizations, participation in climate action and CCE events, knowledge and expertise exchange, and development of climate policy frameworks through engaging in regional and global climate activities. Short link : Post Views: 25
Saudi Gazette
2 days ago
- Business
- Saudi Gazette
Saudi Arabia, UNEP sign cooperation deal for emissions reduction and global climate action
Saudi Gazette report RIYADH — Minister of Energy Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman met with Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and Undersecretary General of the United Nations Inger Andersen in Riyadh on Sunday. They discussed cooperation on climate action and joint efforts to advance the objectives of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. The two sides also discussed Saudi Arabia's climate initiatives, including the Saudi Green Initiative and the Middle East Green Initiative, as well as other efforts undertaken by the Kingdom to expand renewable energy and reduce emissions through the Circular Carbon Economy (CCE) framework. During the meeting, the Ministry of Energy and UNEP signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to cooperate under the Regional Cooperation for Emissions Reduction Initiative. The agreement aims to support MENA countries in achieving their climate goals by promoting clean energy technologies and developing relevant policy frameworks to advance climate action. The MoU reflects shared goals to enhance resource efficiency and lower carbon emissions through a comprehensive, balanced and sustainable approach. Areas of cooperation include policy research and recommendations, partnerships with international organizations, participation in climate and CCE-related events, exchange of knowledge and best practices, and the development of climate policy frameworks, supported by regional and global climate networking activities.
Shafaq News
6 days ago
- Politics
- Shafaq News
Iraq joins UN climate loss and damage committee
Shafaq News/ On Wednesday, Iraq was elected to the executive committee of the UN's Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage. Youssef Mueed Youssef, director of the Climate Change Directorate at Iraq's Environment Ministry, was appointed during the ongoing SB62 climate meetings in Bonn, Germany, according to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat. The committee oversees global coordination on climate-induced loss and damage, including the Santiago Network and the recently established Loss and Damage Fund. Iraq's Environment Ministry described the membership as a diplomatic achievement, given the country's acute vulnerability to climate impacts such as desertification, declining water flows, and rising temperatures. The United Nations has consistently ranked Iraq among the five countries most at risk from climate change. In its 2022 report, the World Bank urged the government to adopt a low-carbon development strategy, diversify the economy, and invest in climate resilience. The same report estimated Iraq would need $233B in climate-aligned investments by 2040—equivalent to 6% of its annual GDP—to address pressing development and environmental challenges. More recently, the Strategic Center for Human Rights reported that Iraq has lost nearly 30% of its productive agricultural land over the past three decades due to climate-related degradation.
Indian Express
24-06-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Climate finance: India takes lead in cornering developed nations
In a small but important victory in climate negotiations, developing countries led by India have managed to force a reopening of discussions on the obligations of developed nations to 'provide' finance, and not just make efforts towards 'mobilising' financial resources, for climate action. The issue of climate finance was sought to be settled last year at the COP29 meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan, where developed nations had agreed to mobilise a sum of at least USD 300 billion per year from 2035. The figure is three times the amount that developed countries are currently obligated to raise, but well short of the USD 1.3 trillion a year that is the assessed minimum requirement of the developing countries. At the ongoing annual climate talks in Bonn, Germany, a formal 'consultation' was held on the issue Monday after developing countries made a united pushback, seeking inclusion of a dedicated agenda item to discuss the obligation of the developed countries under the 2015 Paris Agreement to provide financial resources to the developing countries. The Paris Agreement obligates the developed nations to both 'provide' finance (Article 9.1) as well as 'take the lead in mobilising climate finance' (Article 9.3). The two are related but independent obligations. One does not replace, or take precedence over, the other. The promise to mobilise USD 300 billion a year from 2035 sidesteps the obligation under Article 9.1. The developing countries had been extremely dissatisfied with last year's outcome in Baku, with India calling the USD 300 billion amount 'abysmally poor'. Later, India had also said that it would be forced to temper the ambition of its future climate action if adequate amounts of climate finance was not provided for. In the run-up to the Bonn climate talks, which began last week, India enlisted the support of other developing countries in demanding that a separate agenda item be opened to discuss the implementation of Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. The demand has been met with strong opposition from the developed nations who argued that the matter was already being addressed through various existing strands of negotiations on climate finance which made a new and standalone agenda item unnecessary. The issue shut down the talks for two days last week. Held as a compromise, the formal 'consultation' on Monday saw country after developing country highlighting the failure of the developed nations to deliver on their finance commitments. Expressing deep concern at the lack of adequate financial resources being made available, India said the inability of the developed nations to fulfil their obligations was resulting in an erosion of trust. It said Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement was not just a moral imperative, but a legal obligation and a commitment flowing directly from Article 4.3 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The 1992 framework convention, the overarching international agreement that sets down the broad principles for global fight against climate change, makes it mandatory for the developed countries, in Article 4.3, to 'provide new and additional financial resources' to meet the 'agreed full costs' incurred by developing countries in taking climate action. The formal consultation will result in a 'report' that would be placed before a similar meeting during the COP30 climate conference that is scheduled to be held in Belem, Brazil towards the end of the year. The developing countries are hoping that at Belem they would manage to force the creation of a separate workstream to discuss the implementation of Article 9.1. While that may be some distance away, the developing countries can have the satisfaction of bringing climate finance back under the spotlight, and forcing a discussion that developed nations are generally averse to get into.
