Climate Finance Needs a Conductor
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 arrangement.Institutional 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 established.But 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 system.Fragmentation 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 underserved.If 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 model.In 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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Business Standard
$300 billion climate finance target by 2035 is insufficient: Centre
The government has expressed its disappointment with the outcome of COP-29 at Baku, saying the new global climate finance target of $ 300 billion annually by 2035 is "substantially insufficient" to meet the financing needs of developing nations. Responding to a question in the Lok Sabha, Minister of State for Environment Kirti Vardhan Singh said that the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance "does not address the needs and priorities of developing countries" and is "incompatible with the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) and Equity". He cited estimates of the Standing Committee on Finance under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which place these needs between $ 5.1-6.8 trillion (equivalent to $ 455-584 billion) per year for up to 2030. The minister said that the categorisation of climate-related outflows and financial efforts by multilateral development banks as contributions to the $ 300 billion goal would include inputs from developing countries themselves, even though the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement require that "developed countries provide and take lead in mobilising climate finance for developing countries". He said India has submitted its view on the "Baku to Belm Roadmap to 1.3T", emphasising that the roadmap "must reflect the perspectives and concerns of developing country parties" and that its suggestions "must adhere to the principles of the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement, including equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and the principles of Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement". COP-29 or the 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference was held in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November last year. A key item on the agenda was agreeing to a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance to replace the $ 100 billion-per-year pledge made by developed countries in 2009. Parties adopted a target of mobilising at least $ 300 billion annually by 2035, from a mix of public, private, bilateral, multilateral, and alternative sources. Several developing countries have argued that the $300 billion annual goal is far below the scale of resources required to respond to climate change impacts and transition to low-carbon economies. Their position is based on UNFCCC assessments, which estimate that their combined needs amount to at least $ 455-584 billion per year until 2030. Critics also point out that a portion of the $ 300 billion could come from private investment or loans, rather than new and additional public finance from developed countries, which could increase debt burdens instead of providing concessional or grant-based support. The "Baku to Belm Roadmap to 1.3T" refers to the proposed plan to scale up global climate finance flows to $ 1.3 trillion per year by 2035. It is meant to guide discussions and technical work between COP-29 in Baku and COP-30 in Belem, Brazil, in November this year. The roadmap is expected to outline milestones, timelines and the balance between public and private finance, and to address the allocation of funds for mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage in developing countries. India, along with several like-minded developing countries, has sought a higher mobilisation goal of $ 1.3 trillion per year till 2030. It has said that such a target should be met through public finance from developed countries, should adhere to equity and CBDR-RC, and should avoid counting contributions that originate from developing countries themselves. Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement states: "Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention." This provision makes it a legal obligation for developed countries to take the lead in providing climate finance, reflecting the Convention's principle of CBDR-RC. The principle of CBDR-RC means all countries share the responsibility to address climate change, but not equally. Developed countries are expected to take the lead because they have contributed more to the problem historically and have greater financial and technological capacity, while developing countries' responsibilities are adjusted to their capabilities and development needs.
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Hindustan Times
What the ICJ ruling means for climate action and justice
Advocates for urgent climate action cheered the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) advisory opinion, which held that climate action is a legal obligation of nation-States. The opinion is a 'planetary' victory at a time when Western governments are increasingly adopting anti-climate stances. Though non-binding, the judgment carries significant legal and moral authority, with the potential to influence future treaty negotiations, domestic legislation, and policy regulations. The court ruled that climate action is no longer optional. States have clear legal obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Paris Agreement, and customary international law to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis (PTI) Yet, it is essential to understand whether this opinion is merely a moral win or if it can provide impetus toward a new era of climate justice and action. The answer lies in how the world responds to four key areas addressed by the ICJ: legal obligations, differentiated responsibilities, loss and damage, and the right to remedy. Vanuatu, a small island-nation in the Pacific Ocean facing an existential threat from the climate crisis, led a coalition of 132 countries in calling on the United Nations General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ. In the largest proceedings before the court, 97 States, including India, and 11 organisations made oral statements. The proceedings focused on two main questions: first, what obligations do States have to act on the climate crisis under international law? Second, what are the legal consequences if States fail to take the required climate action? The court ruled that climate action is no longer optional. States have clear legal obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Paris Agreement, and customary international law to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis. Additionally, countries must work together in good faith to implement measures to address these issues. Yet, a significant shortcoming is that the court did not provide precise benchmarks for the types of climate actions countries must undertake. The imperative to act stems not only from the duty to protect the environment but also from core human rights treaties affirming the right to 'a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.' However, the court offered little clarification on how these human rights protections will be enforced. For instance, ICJ rulings that call on Israel to stop military conflict in Palestinian territory on human rights grounds have not been accepted by the Netanyahu government, and have not ended the conflict in Gaza. In a diplomatic win for India, the ICJ acknowledged the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR). India has long championed CBDR in climate diplomacy. It has been an agenda-setter, building coalitions within the Global South to negotiate climate agreements that recognise the varying technological and financial capacities of countries. India has consistently insisted that developed countries bear a greater burden in reducing emissions, in proportion to their historical responsibilities. These arguments were put forth by New Delhi in its submissions during the ICJ proceedings. The court called on developed countries to support the Global South through climate finance, technology transfer, and capacity building — particularly in adaptation efforts. However, it avoided any declaration on how the principle of CBDR should apply to growing emissions from emerging economies. The judgment stated that developing countries are expected to act, albeit based on their capabilities. It also took a firm stance on the continued use of fossil fuels, declaring that the production, consumption, and granting of exploration licenses and subsidies constitute 'international wrongdoing.' India currently derives more than two-thirds of its total primary energy from fossil fuels. In light of this judgment, New Delhi may find it difficult to justify its development-linked fossil fuel use, particularly in international groupings that include countries most vulnerable to the climate crisis, such as small island nations. The advisory opinion also addressed one of the thorniest issues in climate diplomacy: loss and damage. For years, countries in the Global South have demanded compensation for the irreversible impacts of the climate crisis, including rising sea levels, devastating floods, and prolonged droughts. While acknowledging that treaty-based mechanisms like the Loss and Damage Fund play a role, the court ruled that injured States have the right to 'restitution, compensation, and satisfaction.' This opens the door for States with low historical emissions — particularly those most vulnerable — to legally demand reparations from larger emitters if scientific links can be established between emissions and harm. While the ICJ's stance on reparations is progressive, it is unlikely to result in direct financial transfers. For example, in 1968, the ICJ asked the US to pay reparations to the Nicaraguan government for violating its sovereignty through armed interventions. The US refused to accept the court's jurisdiction, citing legal caveats that enabled it to avoid paying reparations. The challenge lies in the absence of a roadmap for adjudicating legal claims when climate-vulnerable countries pursue litigation without an international enforcement mechanism to support them. At best, the ruling provides additional leverage for Global South countries to negotiate increased financial support from the Global North during climate talks. In a world marked by failing multilateralism and a lack of political will, it remains unclear to what extent the ICJ's ruling will influence the individual climate actions of States toward a deep and rapid transition to a low-carbon economy. It is likely to remain a rhetorical device rather than an operational tool. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction — offering a clear legal framework for how States can hold one another accountable for the climate crisis. Perhaps the most impactful outcome will be the advisory opinion's influence in domestic lawsuits where citizens seek to hold their governments liable for climate inaction. Pooja Ramamurthi has a background in climate and energy diplomacy. Abhinand Siddarth has a background in international law. The views are personal.
Indian Express
01-08-2025
- Indian Express
What the ICJ ruling means for the Kyoto Protocol
While defining the obligations of countries in the global fight against climate change, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) made a crucial clarification regarding the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and its validity in a landmark ruling last week. The ICJ has said the Kyoto Protocol not only continues to remain in force, but is also legally relevant, and that countries remain under a legal obligation to comply with its provisions. The ICJ ruling is the first time that an authoritative assertion has been made on the legal status of the Kyoto Protocol in the post-Paris Agreement period. The common understanding so far has been that the Kyoto Protocol was replaced and superseded by the 2015 Paris Agreement. In other words, the Kyoto Protocol had ceased to exist, or at least became non-operational or defunct, once the Paris Agreement came into effect in 2016, or at the most when the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period ended in 2020. But the Kyoto Protocol was never terminated or abrogated by any process. The ICJ has now clarified that it continues to remain in force and has the status of international law. The Kyoto Protocol, which was finalised in 1997 and came into effect in 2005, was the first legal instrument under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The agreement sought to operationalise the provisions of the UNFCCC through specific climate actions from countries. It assigned specific targets to rich and developed countries to reduce their emissions in particular time frames, called commitment periods. Developing countries did not have any such targets, and were encouraged to take 'nationally appropriate' actions to help the fight against climate change. This was in keeping with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), one of the foundational tenets of international climate law. This principle, in effect, says while the whole world has a responsibility to take actions against climate change, the bulk of the responsibility lies with rich and developed countries. That is because these countries accounted for the overwhelming majority of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the last 150 years, which have caused climate change. The Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period ran from 2008 to 2012, and the second from 2012 to 2020. Developed countries, a group of about 40 mentioned by name in Annex-I of the UNFCCC, had to reduce their GHG emissions by assigned amounts during these periods from baseline values in 1990. These countries also had to provide finance and technology to developing countries to help them tackle climate change, in accordance with the provisions of the UNFCCC. The United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. As a result, the world's largest emitter, both in current terms at that time and historically, did not have any obligation to reduce its emissions. Several other countries, such as Canada and Japan, either walked out of the Kyoto Protocol at a later stage, or refused to accept binding targets for the second commitment period. Developed countries argued that climate objectives could not be achieved if large emitters, such as China, did not contribute to the effort. China, classified as a developing country in the UNFCCC, overtook the US as the world's largest emitter of GHGs by the mid-2000s. However, it did not have any obligation to reduce its emissions. This argument led to efforts to create another legal climate agreement that would ensure the participation of every country. It took the form of the Paris Agreement. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, this agreement did not assign emission reduction targets to any country. Rather, countries themselves had to decide what climate actions they would take. This was called nationally-determined contributions (NDCs). So, while the Kyoto Protocol was top-down, the Paris Agreement took a bottom-up approach. The Paris Agreement did not supersede or terminate the Kyoto Protocol. But a third commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, beyond 2020, was never defined. After the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period ended, the understanding was that it would exist alongside the Paris Agreement for a few years. However, its legal status after 2020 was not very clear. Since it was not terminated, it continued to exist but was not understood to have any relevance. The ICJ has ruled that the Kyoto Protocol remains in force, and countries party to it still have to fulfil their legal obligations under its provisions. 'The Court considers that the lack of agreement on a further commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol after the adoption of the Paris Agreement does not mean that the Kyoto Protocol has been terminated. The Kyoto Protocol, therefore, remains part of the applicable law,' the ICJ said. The international court has also ruled that non-compliance with the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol would constitute an internationally wrongful act. '[T]he absence of a new commitment period does not deprive the Kyoto Protocol of its legal effect. The Kyoto Protocol remains in force… non-compliance with emission reduction commitments by a State may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' the ICJ said. The ruling has clarified that compliance with the targets of the first commitment period is still open for assessment. Note that not all countries have fulfilled their relatively modest emissions reduction targets in the first commitment period. 'While there is no active commitment period at present, the treaty remains in force and relevant, including as a means for assessing the compliance of parties with their commitments during the first commitment period,' the ICJ said. The ICJ ruling came after it was asked by the UN General Assembly to give its advisory opinion on the obligations of countries to protect the climate system, and the legal consequences of not fulfilling them. To give its ruling, the court examined the provisions of the three climate treaties — the 1994 UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement — and several other environment-related international laws that have a bearing on the climate system. Although the ICJ has held that countries are under a legal obligation to take steps to reduce GHG emissions and can be held liable to pay compensation if they fail to do so, the ruling is not binding on countries. That is because it is an advisory opinion. However, the ruling opens up the possibility of increased climate litigation, seeking greater accountability from countries to take more effective climate actions.
