“Progress towards tracking public and private climate finance: the

case of Latin America”.

Sandra Guzmán

General Coordinator

GFLAC

• Are the countries complying with their obligations under the UNFCCC (CBDR)?

• Is the international cooperation helping countries to reduce emissions and vulnerability?

• Are the countries allocating national budget to deal with climate change?

• Is climate change part of the national planning?

National Planning

National Budget

International Commitments

International Cooperation TR

AN

SPA

REN

CY

ACCOUNTABILITY

SOC

IAL PA

RTIC

IPATIO

N

HUMAN RIGHTS, GENDER EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

DEVELOPED DEVELOPING

EFFECTIVE

EFFICIENT

COHERENT

SUSTAINABLE

EQUITABLE

SUFFICIENT

INCLUSIVE

Climate finance governance scheme.

NATIONAL

SUB NATIONAL

IMPACT

Regional perspective

• Latin America is not the main destination of climate finance

• Total: 21 billions USD 2014

• Main recipients: Peru (COP20), Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Brazil.

• Lack of finance in Central America

• Distribution: Mitigation (84-90%) and 8% adaptation

ECLAC, 2015

GFLAC

☁ International climate policy adopted

☁ International climate finance flows received

☁ National climate policy

☁ National public budget allocated

Methodology

Analysis criteria ☁ Activities labelled as climate

change

☁ Mitigation related activities

☁ Adaptation related activities

☁ Both /mitigation and adaptation.

☁ Exclusion criteria/ contraire activities

Participant Countries

2014 • Argentina • Chile • Ecuador • Peru

2015 • Bolivia • Guatemala • Honduras • Nicaragua

International flows

National flows

Key challenges

Lack of common understanding about what climate finance means (mitigation, adaptation, both, etc.)

Lack of monitoring and reporting systems (some systems for finance for development)

Lack of transparency and access to information (old or not public information)

No inclusive participation of key stakeholders in the climate finance monitoring

Lack of institutional coordination and institutional arrangements to organize the information about climate finance flows.

Analysis of International flows 2010-2015

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

Argentina

Chile

Ecuador

Perú

International finance received in USD (millions)

2010-2014

Analysis 2010-2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Argentina Chile Ecuador Perú

Allocation by sector

Mitigación

Adaptación

Ambos

Type of finance in Ecuador

12

National public budget analysis 2014-2015

Analysis 2014-2015

Millions of USD

Total National budget 2014

Climate Budget

2014 Total National budget 2015

Climate Budget

2015

Bolivia 28,485 253 32,242 259

Guatemala 7,832 191 8,171 233

Honduras 8,385 176 8,468 174

Nicaragua 2,212 22 2,347 26

Analysis 2015

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

CC-2014 Total 2014 CC-2015 Total 2015

Climate public budget allocation, 2014-2015

Bolivia

Guatemala

Honduras

Nicaragua

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Bolivia Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua

Climate budget allocation in %

2013

2014

Mexico

Climate buget 2008-2013 Año MDP MDP Valor real %

2008 13.0 15.1 n.a

2009 21.5 24.5 59.7

2010 97.6 105.1 334.4

2011 564.5 584.2 456.0

2012 221.1 221.1 -62.2

2013 - - Eliminated PROGRAMAS RAMO 16

P005 PROGRAMA ESPECIAL DE CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO

U022 PROGRAMA DE MITIGACIÓN Y ADAPTACIÓN AL CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO

Public budget in Mexico, Annex 16

Año Total PEF

Climate change Annex %

2013 3,956,361,600,000 34,514,794,262 0.87

2014 4,467,225,800,000 37,702,769,006 0.84

2015 4,694,677,400,000 40,663,437,822 0.87

2016 4,746,945,700,000 44,452,587,536 0.94

ITDP, 2015

Type of activities included in Annex 16

2014 PROYECTO 2015

CONACYT 232,000,000 245,050,710 Provisiones Salariales y Económicas (Unidad de Política y Control Presupuestario) 5.40% 6.8%

TURISMO 655,000 655,000

ENERGIA 2,415,529,114 505,452,443

ENERGIA (Recursos Nucleares) 28,756,955 100%

ENERGIA (ASUNTOS JURÍDICOS) 100.00% 100% Desarrollo Agrario, Territorial y Urbano (Dirección General de Ordenamiento Territorial y de Atención a Zonas de Riesgo)

19.60%

MARINA (Dirección General de Investigación y Desarrollo) 52.10% 178,708,250

SALUD 382,887,782 730,304,282

ECONOMÍA 10,450,000 10,450,000

SCT 1,075,349,983 1,329,333,000

SAGARPA 6,003,936,778 7,079,120,219

SAGARPA (Coordinación General de Ganadería) 4,560,771,176 4,420,744,342

SHCP (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas) 0.40% 54,150,000

Gobernación (Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres) 100.00% 100.00%

SEMARNAT (Dirección General de Políticas para el Cambio Climático) 100% 100%

SEMARNAT (Comisión Nacional Forestal) 91.20% 45.60%

INECC 99.30% 46.10%

Positive + Negative

• CC is part of the planning process in all the countries

• CC actions are being implemented

Positive

• Non-consistency between cc policy and the rest of the planning system

• More money to actions that cause the problem

• CC is not a priority (lack of understanding)

Negative

Towards an MRV system on finance

Measuring

• Common definitions

• Cycle of finance

• Volume

• Complementary finance

Reporting

• Public, transparent and accessible platforms to report

Verifying

• Common criteria

• Impact analysis

• Safeguards and externalities

Recommendations for COP21 • Mandate to the Standing Committee on Finance to elaborate

common criteria (for both donors and recipients) using the same methods and tools

• Develop clear working plan for each element of the MRV (SCF)

• Include in the negotiation text the MRV on finance (Article 6 and Article 9)

• Connect MRV on finance with INDCs (in Latin America only two countries included this: Peru and Colombia)

• National strategies on climate finance to promote coherence

(Argentina 1 versus 48 USD)

FOCAL POINTS AND KEY ALLIES

Thank you

• sguzman@gflac.org

• www.gflac.org

• contacto@gflac.org

• @san_lunag83