Coding Error or Statistical Embellishment? The Political Economy of Reporting Climate Aid

Michaelowa, Axel; Michaelowa, Katharina

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1607623

Cited by 25 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Rio marker methodology also lacks granularity: When an aid project is marked as ''principally'' or ''significantly'' targeting mitigation or adaptation, the whole face-value cost of the project-which can be significant in the case of loans-is considered to be mitigation or adaptation related even if only a component of the project may target a mitigation or adaptation objective. Several studies (e.g., Michaelowa and Michaelowa 2011;Junghans and Harmeling 2012;Oxfam 2012;AdaptationWatch 2015) have called into question the quality of the Rio markers climate data. All highlight the fact that the current reporting system-which exclusively depends on donors' selfreporting-is prone to huge overstatement.…”

Section: A Plethora Of Accounting and Reporting Practices: The Rio Mamentioning

confidence: 99%

Postface: fragmentation, failing trust and enduring tensions over what counts as climate finance

Roberts

Weikmans

2017

Int Environ Agreements

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Paris Agreement commits nations in Article 2(1) to ''Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.'' However there is an absence of internationally agreed accounting rules that would permit overall assessments of progress to this goal and any meaningful comparisons of performance between countries. This is true also for the quantitative Copenhagen/ Cancun promise by developed nations to jointly mobilize US$100 billion by 2020. Our goal is to provoke discussion about the depth of the problems this lack of a functional definition and accounting system have created and perpetuated. We do so by describing the fragmented system of national reporting of climate finance and how the OECD's Rio Marker system is serving neither contributors nor recipients. More than a trust issue between developed and developing countries, we argue that the lack of modalities to account for climate finance also considerably impedes the effective functioning of the bottom-up approach that now prevails under the UNFCCC. The deadline to propose ''modalities of accounting climate finance'' by 2018 is a crucial window in which to address this chronic issue in international climate policy.

show abstract

Section: A Plethora Of Accounting and Reporting Practices: The Rio Mamentioning

confidence: 99%

Postface: fragmentation, failing trust and enduring tensions over what counts as climate finance

Roberts

Weikmans

2017

Int Environ Agreements

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The existence of such a large database has allowed subsequent scholars to examine the design of the treaties that comprise the database for more specific questions that address temporal, spatial, and jurisdictional scales (131). Likewise, the construction of the AIDData database, housed at the College of William and Mary and consisting of information on aid activities worldwide, has come with a resurgence in the application of quantitative methods for analyzing the delivery and impact of aid (132,133).…”

Section: Data Collection and Database Construction Across Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

Methods and Global Environmental Governance

O’Neill

Weinthal

Suiseeya

et al. 2013

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review analyzes the methods being used and developed in global environmental governance (GEG), an applied field that employs insights and tools from a variety of disciplines both to understand pressing environmental problems and to determine how to address them collectively. We find that methods are often underspecified in GEG research. We undertake a critical review of data collection and analysis in three categories: qualitative, quantitative, and modeling and scenario building. We include examples and references from recent studies to show when and how best to utilize these different methods to conduct problem-driven research. GEG problems are often characterized by institutional and issue complexity, linkages, and multiscalarity that pose challenges for many conventional methodological approaches. As a result, given the large methodological toolbox available to applied researchers, we recommend they adopt a reflective, pluralist, and often collaborative approach when choosing methods appropriate to these challenges.

show abstract

“…While the Parties are still negotiating the way this has to be done, scholars have already identified the need for more transparency: the new climate funds set up in the last few years lack transparency (Stewart et al, 2009) and more transparent guidelines for finance reporting are needed under the UNFCCC (Roberts et al, 2010a;Tirpak et al, 2010). Such guidelines seem especially important as the current way of labelling ODA as climate-related (labelling by donors using the OECD's Rio Markers) has been inconsistent and politically-driven in the past (Michaelowa and Michaelowa, 2010) 12 .…”

Section: [Figure 1]mentioning

confidence: 99%

New and additional to what? Assessing options for baselines to assess climate finance pledges

Stadelmann

Roberts

Michaelowa

2011

Climate and Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All major climate policy agreements-the UN Framework Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, and recently the Cancun Agreements-have stated that climate finance for developing countries will be "new and additional". However, the term "new and additional" has never been properly defined. Agreeing a system to measure a baseline from which "new and additional" funding will be calculated will be central to building trust and realising any post-Kyoto agreement. We explore eight different options for a baseline, and assess each according to several criteria: novelty to existing pledges, additionality to development assistance, environmental effectiveness, distributional consequences, and institutional and political feasibility. Only two baseline options do well on these criteria and are therefore viable: "new sources only" and "above pre-defined business as usual level of development assistance".

show abstract

Coding Error or Statistical Embellishment? The Political Economy of Reporting Climate Aid

Cited by 25 publications

References 42 publications

Postface: fragmentation, failing trust and enduring tensions over what counts as climate finance

Postface: fragmentation, failing trust and enduring tensions over what counts as climate finance

Methods and Global Environmental Governance

New and additional to what? Assessing options for baselines to assess climate finance pledges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About