• English
  • Deutsch
Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
YouTube icon
Google+ icon
Header image Ecologic

Rio+20: Financial Resources for Improved International Environmental Governance

Rio+20: Financial Resources for Improved International Environmental Governance

The international architecture for financing environmental protection and institutions has become quite confusing, spread out across an increasing number of bilateral and multilateral actors, funds and financing mechanisms. This study, commissioned by the German Federal Environment Agency, investigates the current system and provides recommendations on how to improve it. The study is available for download.

Currently, as there is no established system for the tracking of international, environmentally-focused finance streams, there are no clear and straightforward answers to questions such as: Where do the funds come from? Who decides, and by what rules, how the funds are allocated? Who monitors their use? And how can new financing mechanisms and private funds be integrated into the existing system?

This study provides an overview of the structure, size, functioning of and flaws of the current system for financing international environmental governance (IEG). It also discusses different reform option and their pros and cons.


Citation
Christiane Gerstetter, Benjamin Görlach, Susanah Stoessel, Maria Ivanova, Sandra Cavalieri, Elizabeth Tedsen, Haran Bar-On 2012: Rio+20: Financial Resources for Improved International Environmental Governance. Study on behalf of the Federal Environment Agency. Ecologic Institute, Berlin.
Language
English, German
Author(s)
Year of Publication
Dimensions
191
Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary
1.1 The current system – an overview
1.2 Improving tracking of IEG funding
1.3 Improving coordination and coherence
1.4 Improving the amount, predictability and stability of public sector funding
1.5 Improving private sector involvement and use of innovative financing mechanisms
1.6 Improving the link between policy and funding
1.7 Refocusing the current debate

2 Zusammenfassung
2.1 Das gegenwärtige System – ein Überblick
2.2 Verbesserte Erfassung der Umweltfinanzierung
2.3 Verbesserung von Koordination und Kohärenz
2.4 Mehr, vorhersehbarere und stabilere Finanzmittel aus dem öffentlichen Sektor
2.5 Verstärkte Beteiligung des Privatsektors und Nutzung neuer Finanzquellen
2.6 Eine engere Verbindung von Politik und Finanzen
2.7 Neuausrichtung der Diskussion

3 Introduction

4 The existing system of IEG finance
4.1 Types of funding and their legal basis
4.2 Current system for tracking
4.2.1 DAC statistics and the Creditor Reporting System (CRS)
4.2.2 AidData
4.2.3 Climate Funds Update
4.2.4 UN Financial Tracking Service (UN FTS)
4.3 Quantitative overview
4.3.1 A cautionary note on current data availability
4.3.2 Trends in funding for environment
4.3.3 Trends in environmental funding depicted by other research efforts
4.4 Contributions by the largest donors
4.5 An overview of multilateral environmental trust funds
4.6 Share of administrative costs  Rio+20: Financial Resources for Improved International Environmental Governance IV
4.7 In-depth analysis of some mechanisms for disbursing funds and their performance
4.7.1 UNEP Environment Fund
4.7.2 Global Environment Facility (GEF)
4.7.3 Multilateral Fund (Montreal Protocol)
4.7.4 Adaptation Fund
4.7.5 Climate Investment Funds
4.7.6 Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
4.8 Other mechanisms
4.8.1 UNDP
4.8.2 World Bank
4.8.3 Regional Development Banks

5 Shortcomings of the existing system and reform needs
5.1 Lack of consistent and comprehensive data
5.2 Fragmentation of the funding landscape
5.3 Lack of sufficient, stable, balanced and predictable funding
5.4 Disconnect between policy priorities and funding

6 Existing reform proposals
6.1 Political reform debate
6.2 Academic debate

7 Design choices and trade-offs
7.1 Ecosystem vs. sectoral approaches
7.2 Mainstreaming environmental funding vs. separate environmental funding institutions
7.3 Build new institutions or reform existing ones?
7.4 Centralize, coordinate, or… ?

8 Scenarios for the system of IEG funding
8.1 Scenarios
8.2 Implications of the different scenarios
8.2.1 Better coordination and greater transparency?
8.2.2 Sufficient and more predictable funding?
8.2.3 More efficient funding procedures?
8.2.4 Improved link between policies and finance?

9 Reform options

Rio+20: Financial Resources for Improved International Environmental Governance V
9.1 A unified system to track environmental funding
9.2 Improving cooperation and coherence among financing mechanisms and funds
9.3 Increasing IEG funding and making it more predictable and stable
9.3.1 Reforming donor contributions to IEG funding
9.3.2 Mobilizing private funding
9.3.3 Conclusions
9.4 Improving the policy/funding link

10 Looking towards Rio+20

11 Conclusions and recommendations
11.1 De-mystifying and better linking debates
11.2 Improving tracking of IEG funding
11.3 Improving coordination and coherence
11.4 Increasing public funding and making it more predictable and stable
11.5 Improving private sector involvement and use of innovative financing mechanisms
11.6 Improving the link between policy and funding

12 Annex: Methodological note on data used in Section 4.3.2

13 References

Keywords
finance, climate change, international environmental governance, IEG, Rio+20, sustainable development, multilateral environmental agreements, UNEP,
not available as public website article:
not available in CVs:
Not available in Reference Tool:
Reference before Ecologic:
Publication Archive Location at Ecologic I Drive:
Notes: