Topic: All Topics

An informal discussion with Andreas Dahl-Jørgensen

Laura Lee Dooley — Fri, 17 May 2013 07:39:13 -0400

Join WRI and Andreas Dahl-Jørgensen, for an informal discussion on Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI). NICFI supports the international REDD+ agenda and includes large-scale partnerships with Brazil, Guyana, Indonesia, and Tanzania.

Adviser Andreas Dahl-Jørgensen is responsible for the collaboration with Indonesia, and also works on the initiative’s strategy, global REDD-finance and the private sector, sustainable commodity value chains and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF).

Refreshments will be provided. Kindly register by 7 June.

Our office is located within walking distance of Union Station in downtown Washington, D.C. If you are arriving by Metro, use the First Street, NE exit at Union Station.

Register by June 7

Caring for Climate WEBINAR: Responsible Corporate Engagement On Climate Change Policy

Laura Lee Dooley — Thu, 16 May 2013 13:51:47 -0400

Caring for Climate was launched by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in July 2007. The initiative is jointly convened by the United Nations Global Compact, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Caring for Climate endeavors to help prevent a climate change crisis by mobilizing a critical mass of business leaders to implement and recommend climate change solutions and policies.

Ahead of the 19th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC to be held in November 2013 in Warsaw, Poland, Caring for Climate is conducting a study on corporate engagement on climate change policy, together with the World Resources Institute (WRI), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Ceres and CDP.

This study seeks to help companies evaluate, improve and demonstrate responsible influence on climate change policy, as well as to develop guidance material and recommendations for companies to become responsible corporate climate stewards. Responsible business engagement on climate change policy can help steer more action and commitments from both businesses and policy-makers in support of the climate agenda.

Two webinars will be conducted to gather input from signatories on the study. The previous one was on June 20. Webinars will be open for Caring for Climate signatories.

To register please send an email to caring4climate@un.org

Caring for Climate WEBINAR: Responsible Corporate Engagement On Climate Change Policy

Laura Lee Dooley — Thu, 16 May 2013 13:29:01 -0400

Two webinars will be conducted to gather input from signatories on the study. The next one will be on July 25. Webinars will be open for Caring for Climate signatories.

To register please send an email to caring4climate@un.org

Sustainable Brands 2013: From Revolution to Renaissance

Laura Lee Dooley — Thu, 16 May 2013 09:18:18 -0400

Creating Conditions for a Flourishing Future

Sustainable Brands 2013 – Discover what happens when brand strategists & designers connect with sustainability teams to drive purpose driven innovation. An explosion of creativity and imagination is sweeping across the global brand community much like that of the 16th century Renaissance. Courageous brand leaders and entrepreneurs are finding ways to reinvent business and economies by looking to healthy natural systems for inspiration. Join the assembly of global thought leaders and practitioners who are demonstrating the many ways that brands can benefit by leading the way to a flourishing future.

Participate in the birth of a Sustainable Brand Renaissance by joining over 1,500 attendees in over 80 sessions, workshops, plenaries, evening events, and co-create sessions. Collaborate with market-making companies such as Unilever, Coca-Cola, UPS, Ford, Molson Coors plus others as peers and colleagues gather for the largest annual Sustainable Brands community event this coming June in San Diego, CA. Take part in innovation studios and experiential brand-activation activities, an expanded solutions expo, research roundtables, and more.

WRI BREAKOUT SESSION ON STRATEGY AND METRICS

Business Tools for Transformation: A Sustainability SWOT and Creating a Step-Change toward Sustainability

3:30-4:30pm
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Sunset Ballroom 1-3

Moderator:

Eliot Metzger, Senior Associate, WRI

Panelists:

Sally Uren, Deputy Chief Executive, Forum for the Future
Katie Dillon, Sustainability Manager, Target

Description: How does WRI’s sSWOT tool help drive action and collaboration that gets companies to go beyond incremental innovation? What types of partnerships does a company need to help fully utilize the strengths of sSWOT? How is sSWOT related to systems innovation and Forum for the Future’s step change exercise?

Related Links:

For more information and to register, visit http://www.SustainableBrands13.com or call 415.626.2212

Climate Investment Funds: Country Experiences Event

Laura Lee Dooley — Mon, 13 May 2013 07:31:30 -0400

WRI, in its capacity as Civil Society Observer on the Clean Technology Fund, hosted representatives from 4 countries in a discussion of the opportunities, challenges, and major lessons learned from their engagement with the Climate Investment Funds over the past 5 years. This meeting was held on the sidelines of the official CIF Committee meetings, held from April 29 – May 3, 2013.

The Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) are entering their fifth year of operations as a bridging source of international climate finance to assist developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change. Through CIF funds and facilities, almost 50 developing countries and regional groupings have developed strategies, plans, and designed projects that can provide both climate and development benefits.

At this juncture, as an increasing number of these climate-compatible development projects begin to be implemented, what have been the experiences of countries in their interactions with the CIFs? What kinds of lessons are beginning to emerge on best practices and challenges faced? And how can these lessons be utilized for the greater efficacy of the broader international climate finance architecture? The opportunity to hear from country representatives provided attendees a unique perspective to learn about the work of the CIFs from the country level.

SPEAKERS

Presenter: Artur Lacerda
Country: Brazil
Fund: Forest Investment Program (FIP)

Forest Investment Program, Brazil (May 5, 2012) from World Resources Institute (WRI)

Presenter: Erastus Wahome
Country: Kenya
Fund: Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program (SREP)

Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program (SREP) from World Resources Institute (WRI)

Presenter: Ilhomjon Rajabov
Country: Tajikistan
Fund: Pilot Program for Climate Resilience

Pilot Program for Climate Resilience from World Resources Institute (WRI)

Participant: Martin N. Sishekanu
Country: Zambia
Fund: Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR)

Zambian Experience and Lessons Learned So Far from World Resources Institute (WRI)

The German Fast-Start Finance Contribution

Sarah Parsons — Thu, 09 May 2013 16:27:15 -0400

Summary

Industrialized countries have repeatedly committed to provide new and additional finance to help developing countries transition to low-carbon and climate-resilient growth. This assessment addresses German efforts to provide “fast start finance” (FSF) as a contribution to the pledge by developed countries to provide USD 30 billion from 2010 to 2012 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is part of a series of studies scrutinizing how developed countries are defining, delivering, and reporting FSF.

Germany has increased climate finance in recent years and met its self-defined FSF pledge. According to the government’s FSF reporting, from 2010-2012 Germany provided a total of EUR 1.29 billion (approximately USD 1.7 billion) for climate action in developing countries that was counted towards FSF. Germany has therefore slightly exceeded its FSF pledge for the period 2010-2012. Even before the start of the FSF period, Germany was already providing significant funding for climate change-related activities in developing countries, particularly for renewable energy and energy efficiency. It therefore started from a relatively high climate finance baseline. Moreover, FSF is only a part of what the German government provides in climate-related finance for developing countries. Overall, Germany has increased delivery of international climate finance when compared to climate-related spending prior to the FSF period: In 2011, Germany committed about EUR 1.8 billion in total for climate finance, an increase from EUR 470 million in 2005.

Germany’s FSF is roughly evenly distributed be¬tween bilateral and multilateral cooperation. Out of the EUR 1.29 billion, EUR 585 million was channelled through multilateral funds. The largest single channel is the World Bank-administered Climate Technology Fund (CTF), which received EUR 375 million from Germany from 2010-2012. Substantial amounts of funding were also transferred to adaptation-related multilateral funds and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Two federal ministries, the German Federal Ministry Economic Coop¬eration and Development (BMZ), and the German Federal Ministry Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), are responsible for the disbursement of FSF resources. Nearly half of this funding has been channelled through the German development cooperation agencies GIZ and KfW. Relatively few resources were delivered directly to developing country domestic institutions.

Germany FSF has primarily supported general mitigation (45 percent), and efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (26 percent), while 28 percent supports adaptation. Germany aimed to provide 50 percent of its climate finance for mitigation, 33 percent for adaptation activities, and 27 percent (EUR 350 million) for REDD+. The Copenhagen Accord sought a balance between adap¬tation and mitigation (including REDD+) during the FSF period. Adaptation has received less finance than expected at the outset of the FSF period. Overall, most German FSF resources have been allocated to the regions of Africa (34 percent) and Asia (29 percent). Additionally, roughly 60 percent of all adaptation finance and 50 percent of bilateral adaptation finance has been allocated to Small Island Developing States, Least Developed Countries, and African countries.

The majority of Germany’s FSF is provided through grants. Loans are provided to the CTF, and account for about 29 percent of the overall FSF contribution. Germany is relatively transparent about its FSF. Through BMU and BMZ, the German government publishes lists of the FSF projects it supports, reporting on the recipient country, project name, project description, objective, amount, implementing agency, financial instrument, and expected project duration. It also reports to the European Commission (EC) on an annual basis. In addition, Germany has commissioned a study on lessons learned from FSF for long-term finance. However, official reporting would be strengthened through the inclusion of information on the actual disbursements and on project impact.

Germany is one of the few countries which has applied and published a specific definition of “new and additional” for its FSF. Germany only counts those funds towards FSF which were committed in addition to a 2009 baseline (as part of Official Development Assistance, or ODA, spending) and/or which are generated by new financing sources, namely the auctioning revenues under the EU ETS. Nonetheless, some of the financial resources counted as FSF were pledged before the FSF period: for example, Germany pledged finance to the CIFs in 2008, but only funding delivered from 2010 onwards was counted as FSF. All German FSF is counted towards ODA. However, Germany has yet to meet its commitment to provide 0.7 percent of its Gross National Income as ODA, and in fact its ODA contributions have recently declined. Also, Germany’s climate finance is committed in the context of a complementary commitment to scale up finance for biodiversity under the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). It will be important to monitor reporting against both of these commitments in order to understand whether pledges have been duplicated or recycled.

Most of the projects counted towards FSF seem to have a principal or at least significant climate objective. An independent application of the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD) climate markers to the FSF projects suggests that the vast majority of projects seems to have a clear climate element, based on limited project informaiton. However, a focus on only bilateral projects reveals that the share of principally climate-driven projects may be lower than bilateral projects committed to other climate objectives. Furthermore, an assessment of the incremental climate change costs that are covered through the projects is not available.

Germany is one of the few developed countries to have committed climate finance beyond the FSF period. At COP18, Germany pledged to deliver EUR 1.8 billion in climate finance in 2013, an increase from the EUR 1.4 billion delivered in 2012.1 These funds will come from the general budget and from the “Sondervermögen Energie und Klimafonds” (“Special Energy and Climate Fund”). This separate budget structure is financed by auctioning revenues from the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS). The current low prices of carbon, however, may reduce available climate finance beyond 2012.

With regard to reporting on international climate finance, we suggest the following actions to further in¬crease transparency:

Continue to publish annual, project-level information after the close of the FSF period. Reporting systems could be updated to reflect the parameters of the new United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) common reporting format (for example, by specifying the sectors to which funding is directed). It could also seek to improve reporting on the actual state of implementation of projects, and actual disbursement of committed funds. Therefore, Germany may explore practical options for providing some project-level information on the results of at least the larger programs funded in real time, e.g on the basis of the project reporting that is required of implementers (such as through annual or evaluation reports).
Provide additional information on which projects are funded by which ministries.
Provide more detailed financial information on projects that meet commitments to increase both climate and biodiversity finance to provide greater clarity on synergies, and assure that finance has not been double-counted. Such reporting can also be related to climate finance reporting under the OECD climate markers, in order to ensure consistency with FSF reporting.
Further strengthen and harmonize reporting and transparency standards for implementing institutions, in particular dedicated multilateral climate funds. Ger¬many can support progress to this end as a member of the governing bodies of these funds.

With regard to Germany’s international climate finance approach as a whole, we offer the following recommendations:

Continue to work to increase support for adaptation, with the goal of achieving a greater balance between adaptation and mitigation.
Explore ways to work more closely with recipient country-based institutions through its delivery of climate finance. This may need to be accompanied by capacity building support in order to increase these countries’ capacity to access such funding and use it effectively.
Explore options to ensure that increasing climate finance as part of efforts to deliver ODA does not reduce support available to help countries address development challenges as a whole. In the German case, the fact that ODA has been declining while climate finance increases at a relatively rapid rate presents a particular challenge.
Consider options to find more reliable sources of climate finance. The German climate finance approach has been largely sourced through the revenues from emission-trading. Nevertheless, there is a need for all countries to further scale-up climate finance in order to meet agreed goals of mobilising USD 100 billion from a mix of public and private sources by 2020. Options might include multilateral efforts to strengthen the EU ETS through increased EU mitigation targets, as well as the deployment of other innovative sources, such as financial transaction taxes or revenues from international transport. A clear pathway for scaling up climate finance would help create greater predictability of finance, and help generate trust and ambition in developing countries.

Environmental and Social Policies in Overseas Investments: Progress and Challenges in China

Sarah Parsons — Wed, 08 May 2013 16:57:41 -0400

Summary

Like other countries that invest overseas, China—through the projects it finances and executes—can bring great benefit to the countries and communities in which it invests (“host countries”). However, investments can pose challenges and risks to host and investor countries. Effectively tailored environmental and social policies can identify and mitigate not only unanticipated environmental and social harm, but also some of the investment risks that can undermine the long-term financial success of a project.

Even in the midst of the 2008–09 global financial crisis, China’s outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) continued to grow.1 Between 2008 and 2009, China’s OFDI flows grew nearly 8 percent, while total world OFDI flows during the same period decreased nearly 40 percent (Unctad Stat 2012). In both 2009 and 2010, the Export-Import Bank of China and the China Development Bank together lent more than the World Bank did to developing countries (Dyer, Anderlini and Sender 2011).

Environmental and Social Policies in Overseas Investments: Progress and Challenges for China examines trends in China’s overseas investments and considers how social and environmental policies can reduce investment risks and enhance the positive impacts of China’s OFDI. We focus on three major forces in China’s OFDI: the central government, financial institutions, and centrally owned state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Although a variety of institutions are involved in overseas investments, the majority of Chinese OFDI originates from centrally owned SOEs, and its OFDI growth is fueled largely by the strong lending capacity of its financial institutions, especially the China Development Bank and the Export Import Bank of China. Aid, trade, and other types of financial interest that may be associated with overseas economic interests are not addressed here, nor are overseas investments by collectively or privately owned companies.

As China continues to expand overseas investments, understanding and managing the environmental and social impact of these investments in host countries can help it build mutually beneficial relation-ships with host countries. Already, methods to address environmental and social issues in overseas investments are emerging in China. Chinese regulatory authorities are creating guidelines in their areas of jurisdiction, and individual financial institutions are developing and refining their own policies. International experience with environmental and social risk mitigation offers a useful context for Chinese investors and policymakers to consider as they continue to develop these overseas investment policies.

Moving forward, China faces several challenges, not the least of which is a lack of understanding of the regulatory and legal environment in host countries. Attention to host countries’ regulatory and legal environments must be ratcheted up if investment risks are to be reduced. Supervisory challenges and coordination among ministries should also be prioritized. Finally, even though governments, financial institutions, and corporations have produced multiple guidelines and policies to guide more sustainable overseas investments, implementation remains a major challenge. Sufficient resources should be directed toward implementation to overcome barriers such as cost, coordination of resources, and time.

While these challenges are real, China’s rapid economic growth and global presence also create opportunities that offer insight for a global audience. China can shape the direction and return of its OFDI to maximize positive impact and achieve “win-win” relationships with host countries. As an experienced recipient of OFDI, China can now apply those lessons as it invests abroad. In addition, China can step into facilitator and leadership roles in the international agenda of promoting sustainable cross-border investment, especially in developing countries.

This issue brief is the first in a series of WRI publications by the International Financial Flows and the Environment (IFFE) project that examine the role of environmental and social policies in overseas investments. Future publications will look at the “business case” for adopting stronger environmental and social policies, and will include case studies of overseas investments from China and other countries.

SIBRT Congress III: Best Practices in SIBRT in Latin America

Laura Lee Dooley — Fri, 03 May 2013 17:05:43 -0400

The association of Latin American Integrated Transportation Systems and Bus Rapid Transit (SIBRT), in partnership with BHTrans and EMBARQ Brasil is inviting you to the SIBRT Third Congress: “Best Practices in SIBRT in Latin America”, in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, June 4 to 7, 2013.

The SIBRT Congress is expected to attract 500 representatives from public agencies managing advanced systems of public transport; private operators; and experts from industry suppliers. The conference aims to cultivate discussion on best practices in sustainable transport, with a focus on improving quality of service and user satisfaction.

Activities:

Best Practices Congress
Trade Shows
General Assembly - SIBRT
Technical Visits
Meeting of industry suppliers, managers, and operators
Workshop for Operators

For more information:

Please visit congresosibrt.org, email comunicacion@sibrtonline.org or call +55 41 3088 4196.

WEBINAR: Aqueduct for Corporate Water Disclosure

Laura Lee Dooley — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:12:59 -0400

How to use Aqueduct to respond to the 2013 CDP Water Questionnaire.

New reports and articles are increasingly pointing to water risk as one of the biggest challenges facing the global economy. Successful businesses will be those that can capitalize on changing global water availability, measure and manage their water use, and manage the risks that water shortage can pose to their supply chain. Additionally, investors are increasingly requesting companies to disclose business critical water-related information to inform their decision making processes and drive strategic investment.

In response to this, the World Resources Institute (WRI) recently launched the new Aqueduct global water risk mapping tool, including 12 new indicators of water-related risk. By using Aqueduct companies and investors can better assess and disclose where and how water can create risks. The pre-eminent platform for corporate water disclosure is CDP’s water program, and the deadline for corporations to submit their water response for the 2013 questionnaire is rapidly approaching on June 27th.

This webinar – co-hosted by WRI and CDP – will take a close look at how companies can use Aqueduct and respond to the 2013 CDP Water Questionnaire. The webinar will explain step by step the Aqueduct tool functionalities and data input requirements, as well as an overview of how to interpret the results and respond to the CDP Water Disclosure 2013 Information Request.

Report Finds 85% of Reefs in the Coral Triangle Are Threatened - Now Available in Bahasa Indonesian

Lauren Zelin — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:35:32 -0400

“Reefs at Risk Revisited in the Coral Triangle” maps threats to reefs in Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, and Timor-Leste

The report Reefs at Risk Revisited in the Coral Triangle, released at the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium this past July is now available in Bahasa Indonesian. The report finds that more than 85 percent of reefs in the Coral Triangle are directly threatened by local human activities, substantially more than the global average of 60 percent. Reefs at Risk Revisited in the Coral Triangle shows that the greatest local threats to reefs in the countries that make up the Coral Triangle are overfishing, watershed-based pollution, and coastal development. When these threats are combined with recent coral bleaching, prompted by rising ocean temperatures, the percent of reefs rated as threatened increases to more than 90 percent across the Coral Triangle region.

Reefs at Risk Revisited in the Coral Triangle was developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) in close collaboration with the USAID Coral Triangle Support Partnership (CTSP), a consortium of WWF, The Nature Conservancy, and Conservation International that assists the six Coral Triangle governments in implementing their regional and national Coral Triangle Initiative plans of action. This report was adapted from WRI’s landmark 2011 global analysis of threats to coral reefs, Reefs at Risk Revisited, supplemented with more recent and detailed data for the Coral Triangle region.

Indonesia is home to 16% of the world’s coral reefs (second only to Australia in total reef area) and the highest reef-associated population in the world, with nearly 60 million people living on the coast near coral reefs. The bahasa Indonesia edition of this report is intended to inform local and national decision-makers of the status of the country’s and region’s coral reefs and support coastal management activities in Indonesia.

To read the full report in Bahasa Indonesian click here: Reefs at Risk Revisited in the Coral Triangle

85% Terumbu Karang di Coral Triangle Tergolong “Terancam”

Lauren Zelin — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:44:56 -0400

Laporan lengkap sekarang tersedia dalam Bahasa Indonesia.

“Terumbu Karang yang Terancam di Coral Triangle” memetakan tingkat ancaman terhadap terumbu karang di Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua Nugini, Filipina, Kepulauan Solomon, dan Timor-Leste.

Laporan Terumbu Karang yang Terancam di Coral Triangle (Kawasan Segitiga Terumbu Karang) kini tersedia dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Laporan ini dirilis pada bulan Juli lalu di acara Simposium Internasional Terumbu Karang ke 12. Laporan ini menemukan bahwa lebih dari 85 persen dari terumbu karang di Kawasan Segitiga Terumbu Karang (Coral Triangle) secara langsung terancam oleh aktivitas manusia, jauh melebihi rata-rata global yaitu 60 persen. Temuan laporan ini menunjukkan bahwa ancaman terbesar bagi terumbu karang di negara-negara kawasan Coral Triangle adalah penangkapan ikan yang berlebihan, polusi pada daerah aliran sungai, dan pembangunan kawasan pesisir. Ketika ancaman ini digabungkan dengan pemutihan terumbu karang (coral bleaching) yang didorong oleh kenaikan suhu laut, terumbu karang yang tergolong “terancam” meningkat menjadi 90%.

Laporan Terumbu “Terumbu Karang yang Terancam di Coral Triangle” dikembangkan oleh World Resources Institute (WRI) dan bekerjasama dengan Kemitraan Pendukung Segitiga Terumbu Karang USAID, sebuah konsorsium yang berisi WWF, The Nature Conservancy, dan Conservation International. Konsorsium ini membantu mengimplementasi rencana aksi enam negara yang membentuk Kawasan Segitiga Terumbu Karang. Laporan ini diadaptasi dari analisis WRI tahun 2011 tentang ancaman terhadap terumbu karang pada tingkat global, Reefs at Risk Revisited. Laporan ini dilengkapi dengan data terbaru dan lebih mendetil untuk wilayah Segitiga Terumbu Karang.

Indonesia adalah rumah bagi 16% dari terumbu karang dunia (kedua terbanyak setelah Australia) dan hampir 60 juta penduduk yang mata pencahariannya tergantung pada terumbu karang. Edisi Bahasa Indonesia dari laporan ini diharapkan dapat menginformasikan pembuat kebijakan baik di tingkat lokal maupun nasional mengenai keadaan terumbu karang di wilayah pesisir Indonesia.

Read the full report in bahasa Indonesian here: Reefs at Risk Revisited in the Coral Triangle

The U.S. Contribution to Fast-Start Finance: FY12 Update

Sarah Parsons — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:06:17 -0400

Summary

As part of the international climate negotiations, developed country governments committed to provide developing countries with “new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching $30 billion in the period 2010-2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation.” This fact sheet considers U.S. efforts to provide “fast-start finance” (FSF) over the full three-year period, drawing primarily from program data presented in the State Department’s report series, “Meeting the Fast Start Commitment.” The fact sheet is part of a series of analyses on FSF contributions, and updates a May 2012 working paper quantifying total U.S. contributions to the global FSF commitment.

Over the FSF period, the United States has reported roughly $7.5 billion, or about 20% of the global self-reported total flows of FSF. Notable attributes of the U.S. FSF contribution include:

The levels of finance fluctuated over the three-year period, with the largest volume in FY11. This is related to variations in spending on the part of key agencies such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC).
Over the three-year period, a significant share of the U.S. portfolio supported clean energy in Asia. OPIC and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) played key roles in administering finance, and finance was channeled via a combination of grants and loans, guarantees, and insurance.

Transparency has improved in FY12 reporting, but there is room for further improvement. In addition to implementing the new international reporting requirements adopted at Doha, the following actions would help support verification of aggregate figures, as well as coordination and accountability:

Publishing a detailed, disaggregated, annual list of projects and programs;
Using the Foreign Assistance Dashboard as a platform for sharing information;
Aligning reporting under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) with reporting to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); and
Continuing to work with other countries and multilateral institutions to strengthen and harmonize reporting systems.

RELEASE: 14 Latin American and Caribbean Countries Adopt an Ambitious Plan of Action to Improve Access Rights in the Region

Lauren Zelin — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:17:15 -0400

Fourteen Latin American and Caribbean countries adopted an ambitious Plan of Action to improve access rights in the region, including access to information, public participation, and access to justice. The plan, which was approved at a meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, on April 16-17, 2013, seeks to implement the Latin American and Caribbean Declaration on Principle 10 that was signed at the Rio +20 Conference in June 2012, under which countries agreed to work towards a regional instrument to improve access rights.

The meeting began with Colombia and Honduras signing on to the LAC Declaration, a major accomplishment for all parties. The 14 countries that have now signed on include: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay.

“The new Plan of Action shows political will to transform environmental justice and transparency in the region,” said Carole Excell, Senior Associate at the World Resources Institute and The Access Initiative. “It sets the pace and the agenda to tackle the challenges of negotiating a regional instrument to ensure access rights across Latin America and the Caribbean.”

Under the new 2013-2014 Plan of Action, the LAC countries have committed to:

Promote the Principle 10 Declaration and incorporate new signatories into the process;
Strengthen and highlight the progress made on rights of access to information, participation, and justice;
Promote active participation of civil society at the national level; and
Develop working groups to deliberate capacity-building and cooperation efforts, and determine the nature and scope of the regional instrument.

Ambassador Jose Balmaceda of Chile noted that the Plan of Action “is a strong political signal to the international community that we are responding in a responsible way to this commitment [to Principle 10] … It is the first time that government representatives from 14 countries and civil society sat down to debate – with transparency and trust – relevant issues for the future of the region. This is a testament to maturity in the region. We have been able to reach consensus on the Plan of Action that will allow us to move ahead on national processes and regional efforts. I am sure that this result will motivate other nations in the region to join the process.”

The Plan of Action includes a number of innovative provisions, including procedures for public participation in the regional process and its working groups. It will create opportunities for close South-to-South cooperation on rights to promote transparency, public participation, and access to justice, as well as a focus on increased support for effective implementation at the national level.

“We hope at the end of 2014 we can count on the development of an instrument on Principle 10 that establishes concrete actions to guarantee effective and informed participation to all citizens and communities of our region,” said Daniel Barragan, Ecuadorian Center for Environmental Law (Centro Ecuatoriane de Derecho Ambinental Ambiental), an environmental law NGO. “Soon we can have a voice and be a part of the decision making on the environment and natural resources.”

In addition to adopting the Plan of Action, members elected co-chairs to run the working groups. Costa Rica and Brazil were mandated to design the regional instrument on Principle 10 and Jamaica and Columbia were given the role to facilitate work on cooperation and capacity building.

RELEASE: Green Power Market Development Group Announced at Clean Energy Ministerial

Michael Oko — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:36:02 -0400

Business group will help increase the uptake of renewable energy sources in India

A group of leading businesses and organizations announced the expansion of India’s Green Power Market Development Group (GPMDG) at the Clean Energy Ministerial in New Delhi. The objective of the GPMDG is to transform energy markets and enable corporate buyers to access reliable and clean energy, diversify their energy portfolios with green power, and reduce their impact on climate change.

According to the latest reports, clean energy investment dipped in 2012, but it still was nearly $270 billion, which is a five-fold increase over the past decade.

Jamshyd Godrej, Chairman of CII - Godrej GBC said, “Moving to clean energy makes good business sense—and it can be done economically so that it benefits businesses and consumers alike. This innovative partnership brings together leaders in business and the non-profit arenas so we can mobilize action while understanding the underlying financial, regulatory and environmental considerations. If done right, the partnership can really help to spur the deployment of renewable energy in India.”

The GPMDG in India already has seven businesses on board with combined market value of more than $450 billion. It is being organized by the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) and the World Resources Institute (WRI), with the support of Shakti Foundation, Caterpillar Foundation, and US Department of Energy.

The GPMDG, which was recently launched in Bangalore, brings together renewable energy buyers, sellers and regulators together on a common platform. Its aim is to help close the supply-demand gap with renewable energy sources. GPMDG intends to integrate both utility scale and decentralized renewable energy options into industrial parks and housing developments in Bangalore.

“We need to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy in order to increase access to reliable and clean energy,” said Manish Bapna, Managing Director, World Resources Institute. “Companies can help generate this growth by procuring clean energy that is less expensive than diesel-based alternatives and will soon be cheaper than grid-based alternatives. The Green Power Market Development Group can be a powerful catalyst toward reaching these goals.”

By aggregating demand through a critical mass of participants, the GPMDG helps corporate renewable energy procurement achieve greater scale. It will help companies collaborate to buy renewable energy efficiently, and not in a fragmented way. GPMDG companies can be leveraged to build demand for renewable energy procurement, support new renewable energy projects, raise awareness and influence policy. Interactions between the private sector and policymakers will explore policy solutions and identify modifications in regulatory measures which can facilitate and encourage renewable energy purchase agreements.

Putting the Pieces Together for Good Governance of REDD+: An Analysis of 32 REDD+ Country Readiness Proposals

Sarah Parsons — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:05:45 -0400

Executive Summary

Developing countries are receiving new financial and technical support to design and implement programs that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degrada¬tion (referred to as REDD+). Reducing emissions from forest cover change requires transparent, accountable, inclusive, and coordinated systems and institutions to govern REDD+ programs. Two multilateral initiatives— the World Bank-administered Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the United Nations Collaborative Pro¬gramme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries (UN-REDD Programme)—are supporting REDD+ countries to become “ready” for REDD+ by preparing initial strategy proposals, developing institutions to manage REDD+ programs, and building capacity to implement REDD+ activities.

This paper reviews 32 REDD+ readiness proposals sub¬mitted to these initiatives to understand overall trends in how eight elements of readiness (referred to in this paper as readiness needs) are being understood and prioritized globally. Specifically, we assess whether the readiness proposals (i) identify the eight readiness needs as relevant for REDD+, (ii) discuss challenges and options for addressing each need, and (iii) identify next steps to be implemented in relation to each need. Our analysis found that the readiness proposals make important commit¬ments to developing effective, equitable, and well-governed REDD+ programs. However, in many of the proposals these general statements have not yet been translated into clear next steps.

Key Findings:

Discussions of stakeholder participation, non-carbon monitoring, and cross-sectoral coordination are the strongest in terms of the number of readiness proposals that identify issues as relevant for REDD+, discuss key challenges and options, and propose clear next steps (e.g., studies, processes, institutional support costs).
Few REDD+ countries consider specific design op¬tions or challenges related to REDD+ benefit sharing, conflict resolution, or revenue management systems, although most include plans to address these issues as readiness activities move forward.
Relatively few readiness proposals identify specific next steps to address land tenure challenges or estab¬lish mechanisms to coordinate with local institutions during REDD+ planning and implementation.
Cross-cutting issues such as vertical coordination of REDD+ programs and coherence of proposed new REDD+ bodies with existing forest sector institutions have not been explicitly considered in most readiness proposals to date.

Delivering on the commitments made in the readiness proposals will be crucial to building stakeholder confidence and scaling up financial support for REDD+ programs. We make three recommendations that can help countries make short-term progress on REDD+ objectives and ultimately develop effective and equitable REDD+ programs:

REDD+ countries, donors, and civil society stakehold¬ers should consider gaps identified by our analysis and work to ensure that readiness activities promote comprehensive and integrated approaches to designing REDD+ strategies, systems, and institutions.
REDD+ countries should improve efforts to prioritize and sequence readiness activities to enhance transpar¬ency on how readiness financing is allocated to differ¬ent readiness needs.
REDD+ countries should develop transparent and ac¬countable domestic systems for tracking progress on readiness activities to ensure that readiness proposal commitments to well-governed REDD+ programs are carried out in practice.