Post-2025 climate finance target: how much more and how much better?

• Published in: Climate policy Vol. 22; no. 9-10; pp. 1241 - 1251
• Main Authors: Pauw, W. P., Moslener, U., Zamarioli, L. H., Amerasinghe, N., Atela, J., Affana, J. P. B., Buchner, B., Klein, R. J. T., Mbeva, K. L., Puri, J., Roberts, J. T., Shawoo, Z., Watson, C., Weikmans, R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Taylor & Francis 26.11.2022; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: Accountability; Ambiguity; Article 2.1(c); Climate; Climate finance; Climate policy; Developing countries; Environmental assessment; Finance; Financing; Grants; Instruments; LDCs; Mitigation; Negotiation; Negotiations; new collective quantified goal; new collective quantified goal (NCQG); Paris Agreement; Prioritizing; Transparency; UNFCCC; United States > US; Climate finance; UNFCCC; new collective quantified goal; new collective quantified goal (NCQG); Article 2; 1(c)
• ISSN: 1469-3062; 1752-7457; 1752-7457
• DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2022.2114985

Formal deliberations for the new collective quantified goal on climate finance began at COP26 in Glasgow. This Perspectives article aims to inform this process by discussing the potential size and nature of is post-2025 target. We argue that the climate finance system around the current target to mobilise US$100 billion per year to support developing countries has been fraught with difficulties, and that it would be ineffective to simply increase the climate finance target without addressing these difficulties. Therefore, we identify and discuss five priority elements for negotiations: the relation to Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement; the adaptation-mitigation balance; financial instruments; mobilising private finance; and 'new and additional' finance. To increase transparency, accountability, and trust in climate finance under the UNFCCC and to simultaneously allow for the mobilisation of finance at scale, we suggest setting a sub-target for grants. In combination with additional (sub)target(s), this could define an overall new collective quantified goal that is better suited to serve the challenging dual role of mobilising finance at scale and transferring resources to developing countries. Ambiguous definitions of climate finance and the US$100 billion target allow for multiple interpretations, reducing transparency and trust between countries. Climate finance targets can be interpreted in a dual and sometimes contrasting way: mobilising investment at scale and transferring resources from developed to developing countries. Recognising this duality may help to find common ground for a post-2025 climate finance target. Increasing the climate finance target may prove ineffective without further clarity on private finance mobilisation, the relation to Art. 2.1(c), and other priority elements. More detailed assessments of needs, priorities, costs, and support are needed to inform the post-2025 target and assess climate finance provision effectiveness. A sub-target for grants could increase accountability, trust, and transparency, and target the needs of the most vulnerable developing countries. Negotiations on the post-2025 climate finance target could also consider additional aspects such as access to and prioritisation of finance, and loss and damage.