C

limate finance was a central issue in recent negotiations of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, as it will lay the foundation for the 2015 agreement under the convention. Large-scale finance is required for addressing climate change, which entails both mitigation actions to achieve the target of below 2 degrees Celsius of warming, however unlikely, and adaptation to the severe impacts of climate change.

The current financing flow from developed to developing countries must be increased to be adequate, predictable, long-term and sustainable '€” and financing has to come from new sources on top of the traditional Official Development Assistance (ODA).

Mitigation needs for developing countries are estimated at in a range of US$300 billion to $1 trillion annually until 2030. Meanwhile, adaptation costs present the largest uncertainties, reaching anywhere between $100 billion to $450 billion a year according to one estimate '€” not to mention compensation for permanent loss and damages associated with climate change impacts in vulnerable developing countries.

As a country with long coastal lines making it very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, it is Indonesia'€™s interest to have increased financing from the public as well as private sources. Current finance flows indicate they are heavily weighted toward mitigation, which would undermine the need of developing countries for early adaptation actions. Future climate finance must address the optimum balance between adaptation and mitigation.

The Green Climate Fund was established to make a significant and ambitious contribution toward attaining the goals set by the international community to combat climate change. An increased amount of finance is necessary for developing countries to maintain their emissions at an accepted level and to fund adaptation measures. The pledge by developed countries to scale up the contribution of $100 billion per year by 2020 is a significant starting point in the negotiation on climate finance.

The last Conference of the Parties (COP) in Warsaw that ended last weekend offered little progress on how to achieve the pledge, let alone on the need for a road map sketching out how developed countries would reach the $100 billion target. The question on how and when developed countries are planning to mobilize resources for the Green Climate Fund, which operates starting September 2014, remains unsolved.

It was disappointing to see how the countries that made the $100-billion pledge seemed to play with time by delaying commitments. But extreme weather events may not be caused directly, but exacerbated by climate change, such as the devastating Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.

Moreover, the climate agreement shall be made in Paris, two years from now, so we are running out of time. The last COP did not focus on meaningful things that should be agreed upon in Paris, but it was rather a talk about the talk.

Japan made pledges of $16 billion for emerging nations to finance climate actions, but a great percentage of it is ODA and loans, not a '€œcontribution'€. The last report by the think tank ODI, the World Resources Institute and the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, revealed that Japan claimed to contribute $13.5 billion for the Fast-Start Finance, the biggest compared to other countries, however, almost 40 percent was actually loans and 81 percent was classified as ODA.

An unpublished study by the National Council on Climate Change and Surya University reported that Japan gave more than $2 billion for Indonesia, out of which 96 percent was in loans. The country also reversed their emissions reduction pledge.

Other developed countries have made no significant attempt in mobilizing resources, except for the European Union that will use the EU-Emission Trading Scheme auctioning revenues as an alternative source. Australia backtracked on its previous pledge to support developing nations, due to its new government, which pushed the direction of its climate policy to the other extreme.

The US has never been on the forefront of the climate debate, with the US ranked 43 and Canada, even worse, 58 in the effectiveness of climate policy. Obscurity over finance forces concerned parties and NGOs to shout: Where'€™s the Finance?

Due to limited public sources, developed countries attempted to shift the discussion on climate finance to private finance. True, finance from the private sector is no less important than public sources. However, it is almost impossible to expect predictable commitments. There is good news on clean energy though. Investments in clean energy exceeded half a trillion dollars, with $200 billion in developing countries in 2010.

A 2012 study revealed that domestic and foreign private companies in Indonesia recorded more than five times the growth in clean energy investment in 2011 compared to previous years by spending more than $1 billion. However, this is still a small fraction of the world'€™s total private funding in clean and renewable energy of $263 billion. Institutional investors have big potential to catalyze greater investment in a low carbon economy.

On the other hand, private finance for adaptation is still infinitesimal. Many adaptation activities such as disaster prevention and health programs are not attractive for private equity investors because they do not generate tangible financial return.

This situation has understandably created frustration, not only among the delegates who struggled past midnight in Warsaw, but also among people who would like to witness commitments and responsibilities being fulfilled, for the sake of our future generations. Civil society organizations including environmental and research organizations need to work together with government to keep pushing the agenda and think of innovative solutions.

Back home, developing countries also need to increase institutional capacity to be able to meet stringent fiduciary principles and standards to access the Green Climate Fund. Indonesia until now has not been able to access the Adaptation Fund because it cannot meet certain accreditation criteria.

Stringent standards are necessary to make sure the fund is channeled effectively; however, it is also important to have the right balance between ensuring good governance and simplifying procedures as well as trusting the local system.

It is also commonly known that government capacity in budgeting and disbursing funds in general is not optimal. Large-scale financing will not be effectively spent if the absorptive capacity is low. Both donor and recipient countries may focus on a sector-by-sector approach instead of single project basis, which will cut red tape and transactions costs.

Results-based financing, or rewarding countries based on verified performance, is a key incentive to improve the institutional capacity of developing countries.

Last but not least, coordination among institutions involved in climate finance, specifically in Indonesia, needs to be strengthened. Experience from institutional arrangements for accessing multilateral and bilateral aid will be a valuable lesson for future climate finance coordination. Indonesia'€™s success in finally having the REDD+ Agency established to access the $1 billion aid from Norway is a good start to learn from.

The writer is senior researcher at the Center for Climate Finance, Surya University in Serpong, Tangerang, Banten.