Climate Change and Financial Assistance: A Fragmented, Unified or Coordinated Approach?

Innovation and Leadership in English Language Teaching

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 126-152

  de Chazournes, Laurence Boisson ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85199004160     PISSN: 2041272X     EISSN: 20412738     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/9789004258242_008     Document Type: Chapter

References (117)

1. See Boisson de Chazournes, L., “Technical and Financial Assistance,” The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 947–73.
2. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 31 ILM (1992) 849.
3. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 37 ILM (1998)22.
4. Hossain, K., “Evolving Principles of Sustainable Development and Good Governance,” in Ginther, K., Denters, E. & de Waart, P.J.I.M. (eds.), Sustainable Development and Good Governance (Dordrecht: Nijhoff, 1995) 15–22.
5. For instance, in 2008 the World Bank Group and regional development banks such as the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank have established the Climate Investment Funds, including the Clean Technology Fund and the Strategic Climate Fund. See: “World Bank approves Climate Investment Funds. Targeting $5 billion over next three years to support developing countries,” 1 July 2008, available online at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21826304~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html.
6. See Bodansky, D. & Rajamani, L., “The Evolution and Governance Architecture of the Climate Change Regime,” in Sprinz, D. & Luterbacher, U. (eds.), International Relations and Global Climate Change (2nd edn; Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013) 14, available online at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2168859. See also Boisson de Chazournes, L., “La protection du climat en droit international-Eléments d’un régime juridique en émergence,” 3 Revue Suisse de droit international (2010) 351.
7. The 2007 Bali Action Plan agreed that there should be “common but differentiated” contributions towards meeting the goal of global reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Decision 1/CP.13: Bali Action Plan, FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1) and the 2008 G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit emphasized that “both developed and developing” countries “commit to combat climate change in accordance” with the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” Declaration of Leaders Meeting of Major Economies on Energy Security and Climate Change, Hokkaido Toyako Summit, (8 July 2008), para. 1, online at: http://www.g8summit.go.jp/eng/doc/doc080709_10_en.html. Moreover, in the G8 Summit Final Declaration it was indicated that “the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050 can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” Hokkaido Toyako Summit Leaders Declaration, (8 July 2008), para. 23, online at: http://www.g8summit.go.jp/eng/doc/doc080714__en.html. Already the 2005 Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005 stimulated a concerted effort to broaden and accelerate support to developing countries relating to energy access and climate change through the Clean Energy Investment Framework. See Gleneagles Plan of Action, Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development, online at: http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/Files/kfile/PostG8_Gleneagles_CCChangePlanofAction.pdf. Recently, in an agreed outcome pursuant to the Bali Action Plan (Draft decision-/CP.18), the importance of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities was emphasized in order to support mitigation and adaptation actions of developing countries under the UNFCCC.
8. See for example Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 4.7 of the UNFCCC. See Stone, C.D., “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities in International Law,” 98(2) American Journal of International Law (2004) 276–301.
9. The Bali Action Plan endorsed both functions of financial aid. Decision 1/CP.13: Bali Action Plan, para. 1 (b) (vii).
10. See http://www.gefweb.org/projects/Focal_Areas/climate/climate.html.
11. It has been pointed out that the European Union’s financial resources are almost exclusively devoted to the mitigation of climate change. See: Adelle, C., Pallemaerts, M. & Baldock, D., Turning the EU Budget into an Instrument to Support the Fight against Climate Change (Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies: 2008:4) 51, online at: http://www.sieps.se/publ/rapporter/2008/bilagor%202008/2008_04.pdf. Moreover the GEF has pointed to the critical situation of the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) in dealing with adaptation projects. The Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund (LDCF/SCCF) Council Meeting pointed out that “the situation of the SCCF remains critical. With about only US$60 million for adaptation worldwide, and a demand of over $100 million per year from vulnerable countries, the fund cannot meet the existing demand for projects that address adaptation” (GEF Highlights of the Council’s Discussions, LDCF/SCCF Meeting, (26 November 2007) p.1). Even though the SCCF has experienced steady growth recently ($ 240 million, had been pledged to the SCCF by June 2012), the demand for resources greatly exceeds current funds. For detailed information see http://www.thegef.org/gef/SCCF.
12. See: Instrument for the Establishment of the Restructured Global Environmental Facility, Geneva, 16 March 1994, reprinted in 33 ILM (1994) 1273. See Decision 12/CP.2: Memorandum of Understanding between the Conference of the Parties and the GEF Council, 1996, FCCC/CP/1996/9 in: Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations, vol. 3, (1999) 279–85.
13. See Streck, C. & Lin, J., “Making Market Work: A Review of CDM Performance and the Need for Reform,” 19(2) European Journal of International Law (2008) 409–42.
14. Stewart, R., Kingbury, B. & Rudyk, B., “Climate Finance for Limiting Emissions and Promoting Green Development: Mechanisms, Regulation, and Governance,” in Stewart, R., Kingbury, B. & Rudyk, B. (eds.), Climate Finance: Regulatory and Funding Strategies for Climate Change and Global Development (New York: New York University Press, 2009) 8–9.
15. See Gomez-Echeverri, L., “Developing Countries and a Reformed UNFCCC Financial Mechanism,” in Stewart, R. et al., supra note 14, p. 168.
16. Streck, C. & Lin, J., supra note 13, p. 412.
17. Article 3.1 and 3.2 (emphasis added).
18. The preamble of the UNFCCC in its first paragraph reads as follows: “Acknowledging that change in the Earth’s climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind.”
19. See Boisson de Chazournes, L., “Technical and Financial Assistance and Compliance: The Interplay,” in Beyerlin, U., Stoll, P-T. & Wolfrum, R. (eds.), Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements – A Dialogue between Practitioners and Academia (Leiden/Boston: Nijhoff, 2006) 273–300.
20. Article 4.7.
21. Boisson de Chazournes, L., “The Global Environment Facility Galaxy: On Linkages among Institutions,” Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations, vol. 3, (1999) 243–85.
22. Financial mechanisms are mostly geared toward the funding of government projects. However, there is an emerging trend favouring the provision of such assistance to actors other than States as well. In this context, the GEF’s Small Grants Programme, administered by UNDP, is an interesting model. It provides grants of up to $50,000 to finance activities of NGOs and community-based organizations. With its grassroots approach, this programme has helped to develop innovative ways for promoting sustainable development and to increase the visibility of the GEF at the local level. One should also mention the medium-sized grant programme (MSP), which is open to NGOs (albeit not exclusively), for grants below US $1 million. Expedited procedures were established to allow MSP grants to be processed in a simpler and quicker way than larger grants.
23. These organizations are known as GEF “executing agencies” and they are: the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).
24. GEF, Joint Summary of the Chairs, GEF Council Meeting, (14–15 October 2002), p. 5.
25. Article 25 (b) of the GEF Instrument states that: “Decisions of the Assembly and the Council shall be taken by consensus. In the case of the Council if, in the consideration of any matter of substance, all practicable efforts by the Council and its Chairperson have been made and no consensus appears attainable, any Member of the Council may require a formal vote.”
26. Decision 4/CP.14: Additional Guidance to the Global Environment Facility, FCCC/ CP/2008/7/Add.1.
27. Decision 5/CP.16: Further guidance for the operation of the Least Developed Countries Fund, FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.2.
28. See http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/publication/23469_LDCF.pdf.
29. See Decision 10/CP.7: Funding under the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2.
30. Decision 1/CMP.3: Adaptation Fund, FCCC/KP/CMP/2007/9/Add.1.
31. Decision 17 CP.7: Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2, para. 15 (a). See infra on the Clean Development Mechanism.
32. For detailed information see: https://www.adaptation-fund.org/media/private -donations.
33. In 2005, the GEF Council adopted a decision titled “Resource Allocation Framework.” This decision establishes some allocation criteria based on an index of a country’s potential to generate global environmental benefits and on an index of performance. Some States expressed doubts in relation to this decision maintaining that it is still unclear what impact the implementation of this decision will in fact have on countries. They also noted that the GEF ultimately responds to the COP of the multilateral environmental treaties that have designated the GEF as the financial mechanism for such agreements. GEF, Joint Summary of the Chairs, Special Meeting of the Council, (31 August–1 September 2005), Annex I, Decision on the Resource Allocation Framework. See Boisson de Chazournes, L., “The Global Environment Facility (GEF): A Unique and Crucial Institution,” 14(3) Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (2005) 193–201.
34. Clémençon, R., “The Bali Road Map. A first step on the difficult Journey to a Post-Kyoto Protocol Agreement,” 17(1) The Journal of Environment and Development (2008) 78–79.
35. Decision 5/CMP.2: Adaptation Fund, FCCC/KP/CMP/2006/10/Add.1.
36. Decision 1/CMP.3: Adaptation Fund, FCCC/KP/CMP/2007/9/Add.1. para. 6. Annex I Parties include the industrialized countries that were members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1992, and the countries with economies in transition (the EIT Parties), including the Russian Federation, the Baltic States, and several Central and Eastern European States. Non-Annex I Parties are mostly developing countries. Certain groups of developing countries are recognized by the Convention
37. Decision 1/CMP.3: Adaptation Fund, FCCC/KP/CMP/2007/9/Add.1. para. 18.
38. Ibid., para. 12.
39. Decision 1/CMP.3: Adaptation Fund, FCCC/KP/CMP/2007/9/Add.1. para. 21.
40. Decision CMP.4: Report of the Adaptation Fund Board, FCCC/KP/CMP/2008/L.7, para. 11.
41. The detailed rules for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol were adopted at COP 7 in Marrakesh in 2001, and are called the “Marrakesh Accords.” Decision 7/CP.7: Funding under the Convention, FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2, paras. 1–2 and 6.
42. See Decision 5/CP.7: Implementation of Article 4, paras. 8 and 9 of the Convention (decision 3/CP.3, and Article 2, para. 3, and Article 3, para. 14, of the Kyoto Protocol), FCCC/ CP/2001/13/Add.2, p. 36, para. 12.
43. The COP has requested “the Global Environment Facility to ensure the separation of the administration and activities of the Trust Fund of the Global Environment Facility and the Least Developed Countries Fund.” Decision 3/CP.11: Further Guidance for the Operation of the Least Development Countries Fund, FCCC/CP/2005/5/Add.1, para. 9. See also Decision 1/CP.12: Further guidance to an entity entrusted with the operation of the financial mechanism of the Convention, for the operation of the Special Climate Change Fund, FCCC/CP/2006/5/Add.1, pp. 3–4.
44. It is stated that: “The Special Climate Change Fund should serve as a catalyst to leverage additional resources from bilateral and other multilateral sources; Activities to be funded should be country-driven, cost-effective and integrated into national sustainable development and poverty-reduction strategies; Adaptation activities to address the adverse impacts of climate change shall have top priority for funding.” Decision 5/CP.9: Further guidance to an entity entrusted with the operation of the financial mechanism of the Convention for the operation of the Special Climate Change Fund, FCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.1, para. 1.
45. The additional costs are defined as “the costs imposed on vulnerable countries to meet their immediate adaptation needs.” Decision 3/CP.11: Further guidance for the operation of the Least Developed Countries Fund, FCCC/CP/2005/5/Add.1, p. 10, note 2.
46. Decision 1/CP.12: Further guidance to an entity entrusted with the operation of the financial mechanism of the Convention, for the operation of the Special Climate Change Fund, FCCC/CP/2006/5/Add.1, para.1.
47. See GEF, Programming to Implement the Guidance for the Special Climate Change Fund adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC at its Ninth Session, GEF/C.24/12, 2004, paras. 43–46.
48. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (2008) 442, available online at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm.
49. Least Developed Countries Fund. Financing Adaptation Action, available online at: http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/publication/LDCF_Brochure_CRA.pdf.
50. See http://www.thegef.org/gef/SCCF.
51. Decision 17/CP.7 and its Annex: Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2.
52. See, Oliveira Machado Filho, H., The Principle of Common but DifferentiatedResponsibilities and the Climate Change Regime, (PhD Thesis, Graduate Institute of International Studies and Development, 2008) 292–99.
53. Article 12.4.
54. Decision 17/CP.7 and its Annex, Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2, para.7. The main functions of the Executive Board are, inter alia, to approve new methodologies related to baselines and monitoring plans, to accredit operational entities, maintain and make publicly available a database of CDM project activities containing information on registered project design documents, verification reports as well as information on all CERs issued. Decision 17/CP.7 and its Annex: Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/CP/2001/13/ Add.2, paras. 5–6.
55. Appendix A, Annex of Decision 17/CP.7: Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2, para. 1.
56. Decision 17/CP.7 and its Annex: Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2, paras. 26–27.
57. Ibid., para. 29.
58. Ibid., para. 40.
59. Streck, C. & Lin, J., “Making Market Work: A Review of CDM Performance and the Need for Reform,” supra note 13, 414–15.
60. See Boisson de Chazournes, L., “Technical and Financial Assistance,” supra note 1, 947–73.
61. Decision 17/CP.7 and its Annex: Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2, paras. 28–34, pp. 32–33.
62. The Kyoto Protocol, Article 12.5 (a).
63. Ibid., Article 12. 5 (b).
64. Ibid., Article 12.5 (c).
65. Information available on: http://www.cdmpipeline.org/cdm-projects-type.htm. The Marrakesh Accords allow for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) projects to be eligible under the CDM (Decision 17/CP.7 and its Annex: Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2, para. 7). The rules for including afforestation and reforestation projects in the CDM were further developed by the ninth session of the Conference of the Parties in December 2003. Decision 19/CP. 9: Modalities and procedures for afforestation and reforestation project activities under the clean development mechanism in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.2. By the end of 2012, the amount of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) issued was 1152 million. Information available online at: http://www.cdmpipeline.org.
66. See Bodansky, D. & Rajamani, L., supra note 6, p. 23.
67. Decisions of the Executive Board are not submitted to the control of review mechanisms. See Streck, C. & Lin, J., “Making Market Work: A Review of CDM Performance and the Need for Reform,” supra note 13, pp. 420–22.
68. CDM insights, data as of 31 December 2012, available online at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Statistics/Public/CDMinsights/index.html.
69. In order to respond to these challenges, a CDM Policy Dialogue was launched in 2011 at the Climate Change COP in Durban. In September 2012 an independent High-Level Panel on the CDM Policy Dialogue issued a set of recommendations, i.e. 51 actions across 12 areas to be implemented in order to strengthen and reform the CDM. See http://www.cdmpolicydialogue.org/report/rpt110912.pdf.
70. The existing WB carbon funds can be divided into so-called “country funds” that are mainly funded by governments (e.g. ICF (Italian), NCDMF (Dutch), NECF (Dutch), DCF (Danish), SCF (Spanish), CFE (European)) and “specialty funds’ (e.g. BioCF (afforestation and reforestation), CDCF (projects with associated community benefits), UCF T1(HFC 23), UCF T2, FCPF (deforestation), CPF (emission reductions), PMR, Ci-Dev (planned to be launched in late 2012) and the above mentioned PCF). Information on these funds, available online at: https://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=Funds&ItemID=24670.
71. “10 Years of Experience in Carbon Finance,” (World Bank, 2010) 4, available online at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCARBONFINANCE/Resources/Carbon_Fund_12-1-09_web.pdf.
72. The Resolution distinguishes between “Eligible Private Sector Participant” meaning “any person, other than an Eligible Public Sector Participant, organized in a country Party to the UNFCCC and whose participation in the Fund has been approved by the Trustee” and “Eligible Public Sector Participant” meaning “any government, agency, ministry or other official entity of a country Party to the UNFCCC and whose participation in the Fund has been approved by the Trustee.” Resolution No. 99–1 Authorizing Establishment of the Prototype Carbon Fund, Article I paras. 16 and 17. See Freestone, D., “The World Bank’s Prototype Carbon Fund: Mobilising New Resources for Sustainable Development,” in Schlemmer-Schulte, S. & Tung, K-Y. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Ibrahim F.I. Shihata (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001) 265–341.
73. Resolution No. 99–1 Authorizing Establishment of the Prototype Carbon Fund, Article IV.
74. Project Selection Criteria and Project Portfolio Criteria, Schedule I to the Instrument establishing the Prototype Carbon Fund, World Bank Resolution No. 99–1.
75. See http://carbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=PCF&ItemID=9707&FID=9707.
76. The FCPF was approved by the World Bank Board of Executive Directors on 25 September 2007. See the Charter of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (hereinafter FCPF Charter) in: Information Memorandum on the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (13 June 2008), available online at: http://carbonfinance.org/docs/FCPF_Info_Memo_06-13-08.pdf.
77. The Heiligendamm communiqué provides: “reducing, and in the long term halting deforestation provides a significant and cost-effective contribution toward mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and toward conserving biological diversity, promoting sustainable forest management and enhancing security of livelihoods. To this end, we will encourage the establishment of a pilot project dedicated to building capacity, creating and testing performance-based instruments to reduce emissions from deforestation in developing countries, in support of and without prejudice to ongoing UN climate change discussions. We therefore encourage the World Bank, in close cooperation with the G8, developing countries, the private sector, NGOs and other partners, to develop and implement such a forest carbon partnership as soon as possible.” Growth and responsibility in the world economy, (8 June 2007), para. 56, available online at: http://www.g-8.de/Webs/G8/EN/G8Summit/SummitDocuments/summit-documents.html.
78. Decision 1/CP.13: Bali Action Plan, FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1, para. 1 (b) (iii).
79. For the purpose of the FCPF Charter, “Subtropical Area” means “the zones of the Earth immediately north and south of the Tropical Area, which are considered to be roughly between 35° and 23.5° north and south latitudes respectively” and “Tropical Area” means “the area bounded by the Tropic of Cancer on the north and Tropic of Capricorn on the south, which lie at 23.5° north and 23.5° south latitudes, respectively.” Article 1, section 1.1, para. 72, FCPF Charter.
80. With the Readiness fund, the World Bank hopes to help developing tropical and subtropical countries prepare themselves for participation in a system of positive incentives for REDD. These include, inter alia, “determining a national reference scenario based on historical emissions from deforestation and degradation, preparing a national REDD strategy and establishing a monitoring system for emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.” The Carbon Fund supports a few countries that have successfully participated in the Readiness Fund to join a second mechanism through which the Facility tests and evaluates incentive payments for REDD programmes in approximately five developing countries. The Carbon Fund remunerates the selected countries in accordance with negotiated contracts for verifiably reducing emissions. The Carbon Fund’s payments are intended to provide an incentive to the recipient countries within each of these countries to achieve long-term sustainability in financing forest conservation and management. Such advances will reduce the negative impacts on the global climate from the loss and degradation of forests. Information Memorandum on the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, supra note 79, p. 2.
81. Ibid., p. 2 and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Booklet, (2008), online at: http://carbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=FCPF&FID=34267&ItemID=34267&ft=Featured Resources&FeatResID=37318. The targeted size was reached in 2012, when the total amount of contributions and pledges reached US$ 218 million, see: Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. 2012 Annual Report, p. 53, available online at: http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Oct2012/FCPF%20 FY12%20Anual%20Report%20FINAL%20Oct8.pdf.
82. Article 9, section 9.1 of FCPF Charter.
83. Article 10, section 10.1 (b) of FCPF Charter.
84. Article 11, section 11.2 of FCPF Charter.
85. They include six countries in Africa (the Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar); five in Latin America (Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Mexico, Panama); and three in Asia (Nepal, Lao PDR, and Vietnam). See “First Countries Named to Benefit from Forest Carbon Partnership Facility,” available online at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21846447~menuPK:34463~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html.
86. According to the FCPF Charter: “During the period between the Operational Date of the Facility and before the establishment of the Participants Committee in accordance with Article 11 (‘Interim Period’), a temporary Steering Committee shall be established by the Facility Management Team to perform the functions of the Participants Committee set out in Section 11.1, in particular, to select Eligible REDD Countries to participate in the Facility” (Article 15, section 15.1).
87. See http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=CPF&ItemID=41756&FID=41756.
88. See “The World Bank Carbon Partnership Facility: Questions and Answers,” available online at: http://wbcarbonfinance.org/docs/CPF_Q_A_27March08.pdf.
89. Joint MDB Report to the G8 on the Implementation of the Clean Energy Investment Framework and the Climate Change Agenda going Forward, June 2008.
90. Clean Technology Fund, (2008), p. 7, para. 17, available online at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCC/Resources/Clean_Technology_Fund_paper_June_9_final.pdf; Strategic Climate Fund, (2008), p. 8, paras. 25–26, available online at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCC/Resources/Strategic_Climate_Fund_final.pdf#Strategic_Climate _Fund.
91. Strategic Climate Fund, supra note 94, p. 11, para. 19.
92. Clean Technology Fund, supra note 94, p. 9, para. 26; Strategic Climate Fund, supra note 94, pp. 12–15, paras. 25–36.
93. Clean Technology Fund, supra note 94, pp. 9–10, paras. 28–30; Strategic Climate Fund, supra note 94, p. 12, paras. 25–27.
94. Clean Technology Fund, supra note 94, p. 9, paras. 27–30; Strategic Climate Fund, supra note 94, p.12, paras. 25–27.
95. Clean Technology Fund, supra note 94, p.10, para. 32; Strategic Climate Fund, supra note 94, p. 13, para. 29.
96. Clean Technology Fund, supra note 94, pp. 12–13, paras. 40–41; Strategic Climate Fund, supra note 94, pp. 16–17, para. 43.
97. Clean Technology Fund, supra note 94, pp. 15–16, paras. 56–57; Strategic Climate Fund, supra note 94, p.20, paras, 57–58.
98. See https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/funds-and-programs.
99. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal. The report concluded that “for the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of … emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.” IPCC, A Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers, (2007), online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf., p.12. The Stern Review on the economics of climate change reported that there are large economic, environmental and social costs for not acting; and that the benefits of early global action to mitigate climate change will be far greater than the costs related to the impacts of climate change. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, (2006), available online at: http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report .cfm.
100. See Damian, M., “Il faut réévaluer la place de l’adaptation dans la politique climatique,” 15 Natures, Sciences, Sociétés (2007) 407–10.
101. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, supra note 49, p. 563.
102. As of June 2009, it was estimated that developing countries had received less than 10 per cent of the funds promised by developed countries to help them adapt climate change impacts, see “Facilitating an International Agreement on Climate Change: Adaptation to Climate Change,” p. 24, available online at: http://www.unfoundation.org/assets/pdf/adaptation_to_climate_change.pdf.
103. Müller, B., Copenhagen 2009: Failure or Final Wake-Up Call for Our Leaders? (Oxford: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 2010) 4.
104. Article 8 of the Copenhagen Accord. See the full text of the Copenhagen Accord available online at: http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/application/pdf/cop15_cph_auv.pdf. Even though the financing commitments made in Copenhagen were large – some might say too ambitious – the total amount of financing needs related to climate change are even higher. See World Development Report, “Generating the Funding Needed for Mitigation and Adaptation,” Development and Climate Change, Chapter 6, (Washington: World Bank, 2010) 257.
105. Article 8 of the Copenhagen Accord. An important question is which should be the baseline for new and additional funding. See “Baseline for trust: defining ‘new and additional’ climate funding,” IIED Briefing, June 2010, available online at: http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/17080IIED.pdf.
106. Article 10 of the Copenhagen Accord: “We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacity-building, technology development and transfer.”
107. See“Banunveilsnewhigh-leveladvisorygrouptospuractiononclimatechange,”available online at: www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33748. This group was composed of 19 experts, co-chaired by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, M. Gordon Brown, and the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, M. Meles Zenawi.
108. Report of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing (2010), p. 14, available online at: http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/Documents/AGF_reports/AGF%20Report.pdf.
109. Bodansky, D. & Rajamani, L., supra note 6, p. 36.
110. FCCC/CP/2010/Add.1, decision 1/CP.16, para. 102.
111. Governing Instrument for the Green Climate Fund, FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1, annexed to decision 3/CP.17, available online at: http://gcfund.net/fileadmin/00_customer/documents/pdf/GCF-governing_instrument-120521-block-LY.pdf.
112. FCCC/CP/2010/Add.1, decision 1/CP.16, para. 99.
113. For an overview of the potential sources of climate finance see Report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing (2010), supra note 112, pp. 14–16.
114. Governing Instrument for the Green Climate Fund, Article 32.
115. Ibid., Articles 33 and 34.
116. Article 2 of the UNFCCC Convention.
117. For an assessment of the role of these principles, see the Symposium on “Global Administrative Law in the Operations of International Organizations” (Boisson de Chazournes, L., Casini, L. & Kingsbury, B. (eds.)), 6(2) International Organizations Law Review (2009) 315–666.