Gender and Climate Finance: Double Mainstreaming for Sustainable Development

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 2 of 29

Written by Liane Schalatek, Associate Director, Heinrich Böll Foundation North America, May 2009

Contact:

The views and opinions expressed in this report reflect those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of
the Heinrich Böll Foundation.

© Heinrich Böll Foundation

Heinrich Böll Foundation North America
1638 R Street, NW, Suite 120
Washington, DC 2009
U.S.A.
Tel: (+1) -202-462-7512
Fax: (+1)-202-462-5230
Website:

www.boell.org

For our work on climate finance, see also

http://www.climatefundsupdate.org

Cover photo: FAO/CFU000189/Roberto Faidutti

The Heinrich Böll Foundation, headquartered in Germany (

www.boell.de

) is part of the Green political movement that has

developed worldwide as a response to the traditional politics of socialism, liberalism, and conservatism. Our main tenets are
ecology and sustainability, democracy and human rights, self-determination and justice. We place particular emphasis on
gender democracy, meaning social emancipation and equal rights for women and men. We are also committed to equal rights
for cultural and ethnic minorities and to the societal and political participation of immigrants. Finally, we promote non-

violence and proactive peace policies.

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 3 of 29

Contents

List of Abbreviations

Executive Summary

Introduction

II.

Overview of Cost Estimates for Global Mitigation and Adaptation Measures

III.

Important Climate Finance Fundamentals

IV.

Proliferation of New Climate and Environment Funds

Gender Implications of New Climate Fund Focal Areas

Some Gender Considerations of Mitigation Finance

Case in Point: A Closer Look at the CDM

The CDM and Gender Considerations

Some Gender Considerations of Adaptation Finance

Some Gender Considerations of REDD Financing

Some Gender Considerations of Domestic Emissions Permit Sales or Auctions

VI.

The Evolving Climate Finance Architecture – Boom or Bust for Gender Equity?

VII.

The Way Forward on Gender and Climate Finance – Some Recommendations

Table 1: Cost Estimates for Global Mitigation and Adaptation Measures

Figure 1: Emerging Climate Finance Architecture – Major Bilateral and Multilateral Funds

Figure 2: The Missing Climate Funds

Figure 3: Registered CDM Projects by Host Country and in Selected LDCs, as of May 2009

Figure 4: Estimated Climate Change Funding by Type (2000-2006), in 2005 US$

Figure 5: Adaptation Funding and Funding Sources Available to the GEF

Box 1: Win-Win-Win Scenarios for Development, Women’s Empowerment and Climate Mitigation

Box 2: Gender Aware REDD Projects – Example 1: The Green Belt Movement in Kenya

Box 3: Gender Aware REDD Projects – Example 2: The Equilibrium Fund Maya Nut Program

Box 4: Selected Web Resources on Gender, Climate Change and Climate Financing

References

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 4 of 29

List of Key Abbreviations

AAU

Assigned Amount Units

ADB

Asian Development Bank

AfDB

African Development Bank

Adaptation Fund (under UNFCCC)

CBD

Convention on Biological Diversity

CDCF

Community Development Carbon Fund (World Bank)

CDM

Clean Development Mechanism

CER

Certified Emissions Reductions

CIFs

Climate Investment Funds (World Bank)

COP

Conference of Parties

CTF

Clean Technology Fund (World Bank)

EBRD

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

ERPA

Emissions Reduction Purchase Agreement

ETF-IW

Environmental Transformation Fund, Intl. Window (UK)

EU ETS

EU Emissions trading scheme

FCPF

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (World Bank)

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

FIP

Forest Investment Program (under SCF, World Bank)

GCCA

Global Climate Challenge Alliance (European Commission)

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GDRs

Greenhouse Development Rights framework

GEF

Global Environment Facility

IaDB

Inter-American Development Bank

ICI

International Climate Initiative (Germany)

IFAD

International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFC

International Finance Corporation (World Bank Group)

IFCI

International Forest Carbon Initiative (Australia)

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

KPAF

Kyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund

LDCF

Least Developed Country Fund (under UNFCCC)

LDCs

Least Developed Countries

NAMA

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action

NAPA

National Adaptation Plan of Action

MDBs

Multilateral Development Banks

MDG-F

MDG Achievement Fund, Environment and Climate Change Thematic Window (Spain)

MDGs

Millennium Development Goals

ODA

Official/overseas development assistance

OECD

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PPCR

Pilot Program on Climate Resilience (under the SCF, World Bank)

ppm

Parts per million

PRSPs

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

REDD

Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

SCCF

Special Climate Change Fund (under UNFCCC)

SCF

Special Climate Fund (World Bank)

SFCCD

Strategic Framework on Climate Change and Development (World Bank)

SPA

Strategic Priority on Adaptation (under GEF)

SREP

Scaling-Up Renewable Energy Program for Low-Income Countries (under SCF, World Bank)

UNDP

United Nations Development Program

UNEP

United Nations Environment Program

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNIDO

United Nations Industrial Development Organization

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 5 of 29

Executive Summary

Climate change is real, it is happening already, and its impacts on people are not gender-neutral. It is affecting
men and women all over the world differently, especially in the world’s poorest countries and amongst the
most vulnerable people and communities. As women and men have different adaptive and mitigative
capabilities, the financing instruments and mechanisms committed to climate change activities in mitigation
and adaption need to take these gender-differentiated impacts into account in funds design and
operationalization as well as concrete project financing.

So far, environmental financing mechanisms have provided only limited benefits for the Least Development
Countries (LDCs) and the poorest and most disadvantaged within those countries. Women as a group are
generally least considered by modern environmental financing mechanisms. The reasons are manifold and can
be found among those impeding women’s development all over the world. They range from a lack of access to
capital and markets, to women’s  unrecognized and uncompensated care contributions, to lacking legal
protection and ownership rights  to cultural and societal biases against women’s engagement in learning,
political participation and decision-making processes.

The last few years have seen a proliferation of several dozen new instruments for climate financing with a
multitude of actors. These new mechanisms range from bilateral and national funds to multilateral ones under
the auspices of the UN and the World Bank and the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), carbon funds as
well as the prospect and promise of regional and national cap-and-trade schemes where auctioning of
pollution permits could yield billions of dollars in proceeds to be used for mitigation and adaptation efforts.
Yet, so far none of these new financing initiatives has been engendered. The challenge and the potential is to
ensure that gender differentiated impacts and capabilities are an important consideration in ongoing climate
finance discussions and in fund operationalization.

According to the UNFCCC’s Bali Action Plan, financing for climate change has to fulfill a set of non-negotiable
criteria to convince the developing world to do its share in reducing (largely future) greenhouse gas emissions:
it has to be adequate, sustainable, predictable, and new and additional (not replacing existing flows of
Overseas Development Assistance, ODA).  Several financing proposals have discussed the need to base such
financing on the “polluter pays” principle. In climate talks, negotiators have honed in on the “3 Es” – efficient,
effective and equitable – as important attributes for any future global climate financing agreement.  The
demand for equity – climate justice in other words – in particular points to the “common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities…” that poor and rich countries share in combating global climate
change according to the UNFCCC preamble.

These efforts will have to address linkages between development, poverty eradication and climate action head
on. So far completely missing, if sorely needed, from the normative set of climate finance fundamentals and
any international discussion thereof is the gender dimension. The time to act is now: many of these new
climate funds are currently rolling out their first pilot projects. Gender guidelines and criteria need to be an
integral part of operating procedures and project outlines, not an afterthought or an artificial add-on.

The experiences of mainstreaming gender in development efforts can be instructive, and tools developed in
this context can likewise be adapted and utilized for making climate financing instruments more gender
equitable. These include, but are not limited to gender sensitive indicators; gender analysis of project and
program designs; gender-inclusive consultation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation; possible gender
finance quotas or set-asides via gender responsive budgeting processes applied to project funding; as well as
mandatory gender audits of funds spent . However, the single most important tool in advancing fair and
gender-equitable climate finance mechanisms– and apparently still the most illusive – is a political
commitment on every level to take gender seriously in combating climate change.

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 6 of 29

There can be no fair and equitable global climate agreement without a comprehensive global climate financing
understanding. And this understanding can only be fair, equitable and comprehensive when it incorporates
gender awareness and strives toward gender equitable climate financing solutions.

First and foremost, raise the gender-awareness and commitment to gender equity with all institutions
and donors (multilateral, bilateral, national and private) in the new climate finance architecture.

Develop a set of gender-sensitive criteria for all new climate finance mechanisms supporting
adaptation, mitigation, capacity-building and technology transfer. This includes the funds
administered under the UNFCCC and the GEF as well as the CIFs and bilateral funds.

Require the UNFCCC Secretariat to develop a Gender Plan of Action, following the example of other
UN agencies. The recent development of a CBD Gender Plan of Action could be helpful for the
UNFCCC. Such a Gender Plan of Action should cover all areas of work and programs by the Secretariat,
especially its assistance to the Parties and its work on financing mechanisms.

Demand the development of gender guidelines or a Gender Plan of Action for the Global Environment
Facility with the goal of mainstreaming gender in all its six work areas, including on climate change, so
that UNFCCC climate funding administered by the GEF is distributed with gender-equity as one of the
funding criteria.

Ensure the generation and collection of sex-disaggregated data in all sectors relevant to climate
change by governments, international organizations and financial institutions. International
institutions (f.ex. the World Bank as a “knowledge bank” or the UNFCCC and the GEF) have an
obligation to assist developing country governments and civil society stakeholders in gaining access to
such information. With respect to gender, the old adage is true: what is not counted, does not count.

Demand mandatory periodic gender-audits of just-established and future new climate funding
mechanisms, particularly those operating with public funding. These include funds under the UNFCCC
and the GEF, but also the CIFs as well as bilateral funds. The results of these audits should be publicly
accessible.

Develop transparent gender budgets for projects and programs financed via recent and future publicly
financed climate funding mechanisms.

Improve the participation of women (political and business leaders, gender experts, from
disadvantaged groups such as local communities, and indigenous peoples) in stakeholder and
consultation processes for climate finance instruments and ensure their inclusion in decision-making
bodies for these instruments, such as Trust Fund Committees.

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 7 of 29

Introduction

As women and men have different adaptive and mitigative

capabilities, the financing instruments and mechanisms committed to climate change activities in mitigation
and adaption need to take these gender-differentiated impacts into account in funds design and
operationalization as well as concrete project financing.

The demand for a significantly scaled-up global effort in climate financing comes at a time of multiple crises,
with development progress toward the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015
stalling and an expected 65 million people – many of them women and other vulnerable groups – slipping back
into poverty globally alone this year due to the first global recession since World War II according to the World
Bank.

National budgets in developed and emerging market economies have been severely stressed with large

scale financial sector bailouts; the United States alone, incidentally also historically the biggest emitter of
greenhouse gases, had committed to roughly US$ 5 trillion in bailout efforts

. In spite of this – or rather

because of this, since the economic, development and climate crises can only be solved together – large-scale
mitigation and adaptation efforts globally cannot take a back seat, nor can ambitions for adequate climate
financing be scaled down.  Massive expenditures, while costly, are unavoidable. Their realization is as much a
matter of global justice – the countries most affected by climate change are also the ones that contributed the
least to it – as of political will. That it can be mustered to deal with systemic threats to the global system had
been demonstrated in the case of the global financial sector rescue efforts.  While substantial, gender-
equitable funding for global climate adaptation and mitigation efforts would still cost only a fraction of what
the world community was willing to muster in a few weeks in response to the financial markets’ meltdown of
Fall 2008.

So far, environmental financing mechanisms (one could take the Clean Development Mechanism, CDM, as an
example) have provided only limited benefits for the Least Development Countries (LDCs) and the poorest and
most disadvantaged within those countries.  Women as a group are generally least considered by modern
environmental financing mechanisms.  The reasons are manifold and can be found among those impeding
women’s development all over the world. They range from a lack of access to capital and markets, to women’s
unrecognized and uncompensated care contributions, to lacking legal protection and ownership rights  to
cultural and societal biases against women’s engagement in learning, political participation and decision-
making processes.

See for example WEDO (2007).”Changing the Climate: Why Women’s Perspective Matter,” or IUCN (2007). “Gender and

Climate Change: Women as Agents of Change;”

http://www.iucn.org/what/issues/gender/resources.cfm?322/Gender-

and-climate-change

World Bank (2009). “Financial Crisis. What the World Bank is doing,”

http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/financialcrisis/

For some estimates on alone the US commitments and costs for preventing a financial sector meltdown, see:

http://www.infowars.net/articles/october2008/151008Bailout_figures.htm

and

http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/12/paulson-bernanke-fed-biz-wall-cx_lm_1112bailout.html

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 8 of 29

finance discussions and in fund operationalization. There can be no fair and equitable global climate
agreement without a comprehensive global climate financing understanding. And this understanding can only
be fair, equitable and comprehensive when it incorporates gender awareness and strives toward gender
equitable climate financing solutions.

II.

Overview of Cost Estimates for Global Mitigation and Adaptation Measures

Many cost estimates have been published over the past few years that try to quantify the sums necessary to
pay for mitigation and adaptation measures globally. While estimating methods and analysis differ and there
remains a high degree of uncertainty given unpredictability over future factors including “policy costs”, there
seems to be a convergence toward a close global cost range.

The table below summarizes some of these

costing efforts. The estimates range from up to US$ 86 billion annually for adaptation by 2015 according to
the 2007 UNDP Human Development Report

to some US$ 380 billion it will cost to return in 2030 to return

emissions to 2007 levels
according to a UNFCCC
Secretariat estimate.

As a

percentage of gross world
product, Sir Nicolas Stern and
the IPCC (2007) have estimated
a commitment from anywhere
between 1 to 3 percent in order
to stabilize global greenhouse
gas emissions in the range from
445 – 550 ppm CO2eq.

In a

recent bottom-up study
focusing on mitigation potential,
McKinsey and Company finds
that the annual incremental
economic costs would be
between US$ 273 to US$ 478
billion and that it would cost
less than one percent of
projected Gross World Product
in 2030 for a 35 percent
reduction in global emissions.

These enormous sums just last year would have been politically inconceivable. But this was before the global
financial crisis in only a few short months generated a commitment of US$ 2.5 trillion worldwide in stimulus
packages by the major global economic actors. Advocating for a “Global Green New Deal”, UNEP has asked

Pendeleton, Andrew and Retallack, Simon (2009), Fairness in Global Climate Change Finance, Institute for Public Policy Research

(IPPR), March 2009 (Study supported by the Heinrich Böll Foundation); available at

http://www.boell.de/downloads/ecology/fairness_global_finance.pdf

UNDP (2007). Human Development Report 2007/2008:Fighting climate change. Human solidarity in a divided world. UNDP, New York.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/

UNFCCC (2007). Investment and Financial Flows to Address Climate Change, UNFCCC, Bonn.

Stern, Nicholas (2007). The Economics of Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; available in full at

http://www.hm-

treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm

(last checked by author in March 2009); IPCC (2007). IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Working

Group III Report “Mitigation of Climate Change”; available

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm

(last checked by author in

March 2009).

McKinsey and Company (2009). Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy: Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve,

London: McKinsey and Company; accessible via

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pathways_low_carbon_economy.asp

Table 1: Cost Estimates for Global Mitigation and Adaptation Measures

Source: Sivan Kartha, Stockholm Environment Institute, Presentation, March 2008

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 9 of 29

national governments to commit 1/3 of these stimulus packages to greening the global economy, thus
combining the need for massive public action to stabilize the current economic system with the imperative to
invest heavily now in putting developed and developing economies on a low-carbon growth trajectory.

While

the overall goal is ambitious, many countries, including most importantly the United States and China, do have
significant “green” portions in their respective stimulus packages. However, the commitments to deal with the
climate, financial and development crises simultaneously should not exclude gender-equality. Any Global
Green New Deal must be green and gender-equitable, as a gender forum during the UNEP governing council
meeting in February 2008 in Nairobi discussed.

A “business-as-usual” global economic growth and economic

recovery scenario will not only worsen climate change, but also increase and cement women’s vulnerabilities
and inequities in many regions of the world.

III.

Important Climate Finance Fundamentals

Discussions during the UNFCCC COP 13 in Bali but even more so during COP 14 in Poznan in December 2008
have made it abundantly clear that any chance for a post 2012, post-Kyoto global climate agreement, the
framework of which will have to be negotiated by the end of 2009, will depend on reaching an understanding
between Annex I and Annex II countries on how to finance massive mitigation and adaptation efforts globally.
These efforts will have to address linkages between development, poverty eradication and climate action head
on. According to the UNFCCC’s Bali Action Plan, financing for climate change has to fulfill a set of non-
negotiable criteria to convince the developing world to do its share in reducing (largely future) greenhouse gas
emissions: it has to be adequate, sustainable, predictable, and new and additional (not replacing existing flows
of Overseas Development Assistance, ODA).

Several financing proposals have discussed the need to base

such financing on the “polluter pays” principle.

In climate talks, discussing various climate financing

proposals and schemes, negotiators have honed in on the “3 Es” – efficient, effective and equitable – as
important attributes for any future global climate financing agreement. The demand for equity – climate
justice in other words – in particular points to the “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective
capabilities…” that poor and rich countries share in combating global climate change according to the UNFCCC
preamble.

Unfortunately, today’s existing climate financing instruments for the most part ignore these normative climate
finance fundamentals. Instead of being based on mandatory (some would argue “compensatory”) and thus
predictable transfer payments, current climate funds contributions are mostly voluntary, inadequate for the
needs and often clearly not additional. In many cases – for example with respect to the newly created Climate
Investment Funds (CIFs) administered by the World Bank and the MDBs – financing is provided mostly in the
form of loans, not grants, which, although highly concessional, are expected to be eventually repaid.

That

leads to the absurdity that for example Sub-Sahara Africa, which has contributed negligibly to global CO2

UNEP. 2009. Press Release: “Realizing a Green New Deal”, February 16, 2009; available at:

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=562&ArticleID=6079&l=en

(assessed by the author in March

2009).

See information on the meeting, as well as draft recommendations from the Network of Women Environment Ministers and Leaders

for the Environment (NWEMLE) at

http://www.unep.org/GC/GC25/nwmlesummary.asp

UNFCCC. 2007. Conference of the Parties – Thirteenth Session. Decision 1/CP.13 “Bali Action Plan”; available at:

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf#page=3

See for example the Swiss Funding Proposal for the Bali Action Plan, available at

http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/switzerland_funding.pdf

UNFCCC. 1992; FCCC/INFORMAL/84 GE.05-62220 (E) 200705

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2853.php

; English version available at:

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

In notes about the Meeting of the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) Trust Fund Committee on May 11, 2009 and the Joint CTF – Strategic

Climate Fund (SCF) Meeting on May 12, 2009 shared online, a civil society observer to both meetings confirmed that the World Bank
stated its conclusion that contributions to the CIFs can be reported as ODA (thus, are not additional). It was also discussed that for the
SCF the grant component should be no more than 10 percent of total resources.

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 10 of 29

emissions, is given loans to pay for the adverse effect of climate pollution on its poor population that these
people did neither cause nor benefit from – with some of the most severe effects falling on the most
vulnerable, among them women and children. Many of these LDCs are still highly indebted to start with; some
of the current climate financing schemes for poor countries thus add insult to injury.

Likewise, the political question has to be asked – and should not be taboo when discussing climate financing
needs for the poorest countries to deal with mostly adaptation demands – if it would not be more “equitable,
efficient and effective” for industrialized countries to also consider debt forgiveness and debt relief as climate
finance contributions in addition to designated climate funds. Sovereign and multilateral debt forgiveness for
LDCs, as has been done through the Highly Indebted Poor Countries initiatives (HIPC) with respect to poverty-
eradication efforts, could be conditioned on combined climate and development action. The Commonwealth
Secretariat in a recent paper surveying the existing debts of 58 of the world’s poorest countries has estimated
that multilateral debt eligible for debt swaps to combat climate change could generate USD 90 billion, with an
additional up to USD 40 billion in eligible bilateral debt relief.

So far completely missing, if sorely needed, from the normative set of climate finance fundamentals and any
international discussion thereof is the gender dimension. One problem is the existing lack of gender-
disaggregated data probing the gender-differentiated impacts of and contributions to climate change. While
often conveniently used as an excuse for inaction with respect to gender, this classical “chicken-and-egg”-
dilemma can only be overcome with a clear political work order to relevant organizations (f.ex. the World
Bank, UNFCCC , the Global Environment Facility and others) to start collecting the data they would need to
include gender considerations into climate financing guidelines on a policy and the project level. The time to
act is now: many of these new climate financing initiatives are currently rolling out their first pilot projects.
Gender guidelines and criteria need to be an integral part of operating procedures and project outlines, not an
afterthought or an artificial add-on after years of project work has already been financed by the new climate
funds.

The experiences of mainstreaming gender in development efforts can be instructive, and tools developed in
this context can likewise be adapted and utilized for making climate financing instruments more gender
equitable. These include, but are not limited to gender sensitive indicators, gender analysis of project and
program designs, gender-inclusive consultation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, possible gender
finance quotas or set-asides via gender responsive budgeting processes applied to project funding as well as
mandatory gender audits of funds spent . However, the single most important tool in advancing fair and
gender-equitable climate finance mechanisms– and apparently still the most illusive – is a political
commitment on every level to take gender seriously in combating climate change.

IV.

Proliferation of New Climate and Environment Funds

After many years of inaction, within the last few years, a large number of bilateral and multilateral
environment and climate financing initiatives have been developed.

The activities of the global donor

See for example Jubilee Debt Campaign UK in a new report “A New Debt Crisis?” warning of a new global debt crisis following the

global financial and economic crisis; Report available at

http://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/newdebtcrisis

Commonwealth Secretariat (2009), Debt Relief to Combat Climate Change, Paper prepared by Development Finance

International for the Commonwealth Secretariat, London, April 2009; available at

http://www.commonwealthsmallstates.org/files/190141/FileName/DEBTRELIEFTOCOMBATCLIMATECHANGE.pdf

See for example for an elaboration of this point: Gender cc. 2007. Gender and Climate Change Network – Women for Climate Justice

Position Paper for UNFCCC COP 13: “Gender: Missing Links in Financing Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation”, December 2007;
available

http://www.gendercc.net/fileadmin/inhalte/Dokumente/UNFCCC_conferences/gender_cc_financing_positionpaper_bali_final.pdf

For an overview of new climate financing initiatives, visit

www.climatefundsupdate.org

, a joint project by Overseas Development

Institute and the Heinrich Böll Foundation.

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 11 of 29

community reached a fever pitch in late 2007, resulting not only in the creation of some important new large-
scale multilateral funds, but also in a significant power shift in the global environmental financial architecture
from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the financing arm of the UNFCCC, to the World Bank and the
MDBs. In effect, this shift created an emerging global environmental finance system centered around the GEF
and the World Bank (working in concert with regional Multilateral Development Banks, MDBs) as its two main
pillars for the foreseeable future (see graph below).

Figure 1: Emerging Climate Finance Architecture – Major Bilateral and Multilateral Funds

This shift is caused by a multitude of factors: the desire by industrialized countries – propelled by their citizens’
demand for political action – to quickly scale up climate financing; perceived weaknesses of the existing
climate financing structures under the UNFCCC (mainly the GEF); and the wish for more “donor country
ownership.” As a result, the newest multilateral funds, a portfolio of climate investment funds (CIFs) under
trusteeship of the World Bank, received not only the G7 endorsement at the Hokkaido Summit in July 2008,
but also multi-billion dollar pledges totaling more than US$ 6 billion for the World Bank CIFs. This contrasts
with a total of roughly US$ 1 billion for all GEF/UNFCCC climate financing instruments combined.

Several issues must be noted with respect to the emerging global environment/climate finance architecture.
Chief among them is the suspicion by many developing countries that the UN process on climate financing
which gives recipient countries an equal say with donor countries would be undermined by the creation of the
CIFs and a preponderance of new bilateral donor initiatives.

It also has to be stated that these new funds are

not part of an overarching program or framework nor are they subject to shared guiding principles, thus
increasing the odds for duplication of efforts. They are also plagued by competition for scarce public funding,
lack of cooperation and coordination and possibly missed synergies. Proponents have argued that the

WWFUS, Heinrich Böll Foundation (2008). New Finance for Climate Change and the Environment.

Report produced by Gareth Porter

and researchers from ODI, commissioned by World Wildlife Fund US and the Heinrich Böll Foundation North America, July 2008;
available at

http://www.boell.org/docs/FINAL_Boell-WWFUS_ClimateFinance_Report.pdf

World Bank (2008). “News & Broadcast: Donor Nations Pledge Over $ 6.1 Billion to Climate Investment Funds,”

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21916602~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html

Tan, Celine (2008). “World Bank’s Climate Funds Will Undermine Global Climate Action.” Third World Network, April 10, 2008

Source: www.climatefundsupdate.org

ETF-IW – Environmental Transformation
Fund, Intl. Window

ICI – International Climate Initiative

GCCA – Global Climate Challenge
Alliance

IFCI – Intl. Forest Carbon Initiative

FCPF – Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility

SCF – Special Climate Fund

CTF – Clean Technology Fund

PPCR – Pilot Program on Climate
Resilience

SREP – Scaling-Up Renewable Energy
Program for Low-Income Countries

FIP – Forest Investment Program

KPAF – Kyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund

MDG-F – MDG Achievement Fund,
Environment and Climate Change
Thematic Window

SCCF – Special Climate Change Fund

LDCF – Least Developed Country Fund

SPA – Strategic Priority on Adaptation

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 12 of 29

multitude of actors in a “marketplace of ideas” could be beneficial in developing the most effective and
efficient (albeit probably not the most equitable) climate financing schemes.

Nevertheless, one of the biggest short-comings
and a crucial impediment for a hoped-for future
fair and adequate global climate financing
scheme is the largely voluntary nature of finance
contributions. Earlier this year, the British
Guardian newspaper took a closer look at the gap
between international climate funding pledges
and actual committed financing and found it to be
glaring (see graphic).

Over the last several

months, some donor governments have finally
moved forward in approving the funds they
pledged for the CIFs. Of the initial donor country
pledges for the World Bank’s Clean Technology
Fund (CTF), as of May 2009 the following pledges
have been approved:

Australia (US$ 80 million);

France (US$300 million);

Germany (US$739 million);

Japan, (US$ 1 billion, pending parliament
approval);

Spain (US$118 million delivered);

UK (a total of US$ 1.488 billion
committed to CIFs overall); and

US (US$ 2 billion; approval sought for
partial funding in FY 2010).

The financial crisis will make it undoubtedly more
difficult, both politically and fiscally, for many
industrialized countries to make good on their
initial funding promises.

This could also affect

the ongoing replenishment negotiations for the
fifth GEF replenishment, for which the GEF
optimistically hopes to secure US$ 8 – 10 billion.

The Guardian, February 21, 2009: “Rich Nations Failing to Meet Climate Aid Pledges”, available at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/20/climate-funds-developing-nations

; graphic available at

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2009/02/20/Climate_funds_2102.pdf

As quoted in: Nakhooda, Smita (2009), “Catalyzing Low Carbon Development? The Clean Technology Fund,” Working Paper, May

2009, World Resources Institute.

The Bush Administration had promised US$2 billion over three years for the World Bank’s CTF. However, the U.S. Congress in its

recent FY 2009 budget deliberations decided to cut an appropriation of US$ 400 Million for the CTF. For the FY 2010 budget submitted
for Congress’ deliberations and approvals in early May 2009, the Obama Administration has requested a total of US$ 600 million to be
appropriated to the CIFs, namely US$ 500 million for the CTF and US$100 million for the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF). The Obama
Administration requested also a total of US$ 232 million for adaptation to be administered through USAID and the US State
Department. Included in this sum are US$ 50 million for the UNFCCC’s LCDF and SCCF, which, if approved by Congress, would be the
first contribution ever of the United States to UNFCCC climate funds.

The GEF Trust Fund replenishment is a process held every four years whereby donor nations commit financial resources to support

the operation of GEF. The latest replenishment (fourth) covered the period from July 2006 to June 2010, and amounted to $3.1 billion
contributed by 32 donor countries. Since the current fourth GEF replenishment period will end in June 2010, the discussions on the fifth
replenishment of the GEF Trust Fund will run throughout 2009, with a view to reaching final agreement by March 2010.

Figure 2: The Missing Climate Funds

Source: The Guardian, February 21, 2009

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 13 of 29

Gender Implications of New Climate Fund Focal Areas

The new climate financing funds are centered mainly on three focal areas, namely:

Clean technologies /mitigation: climate funding committed in clean technologies/mitigation funding
mechanisms is supposed to affect transformational change of the energy sector in primarily emerging
market economies.

Adaptation/climate resilience: these financing instruments focus primarily on the poorest, most
affected countries for immediate measures to lessen their vulnerability to climate change

REDD/forest programs: funding schemes focusing on reduction of emissions from deforestation and
forest degradation, often concentrated in a few countries and regions of the world (Brazil – Amazonia;
Congo Basin; Papua-New Guinea)

Until now, none of the existing climate funding initiatives in these areas has made any effort to incorporate a
gender perspective, let alone gender mainstream all its programs and projects, despite a growing awareness (if
yet too few scientific research projects) of gender-differentiated adaptive and mitigative capabilities and
impacts, for example with regard to women’s role in agriculture, their consumption patterns, or differences of
both genders in responding and dealing with natural disasters.

While it should not focus primarily on the role

of women as vulnerable victims, such a gender-mainstreaming effort would instead acknowledge the capacity
of women as a group to act as change-agents by designing and funding programs and initiatives utilizing men
and women’s differentiated strengths and capabilities.

For development outcomes, the World Bank and

other international development organizations as well as bilateral development agencies have amply
demonstrated that mainstreaming gender into development projects improves development effectiveness.
Widely supported by the international donor community, the World Bank Group has in the last few years
repeatedly gone on the record concluding that poverty reduction and development can only be achieved
together with women’s equality. The World Bank has even devised an important part of its development
strategy around “Gender Equity as Smart Economics”.

Likewise, the UN in its Millennium Campaign to reach

ambitious Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) has focused on gender equality as a top goal. It is therefore
not far-fetched to stipulate that incorporating gender awareness and gender criteria into climate financing
mechanisms and strategies would likewise constitute “smart climate finance”.

Some Gender Considerations of Mitigation Finance

Men and women through their actions and activities, which are largely defined by their gender roles,
contribute differently to global warming. Few if any studies have focused so far on the global impacts resulting
from the reality that CO2 emissions are generally lower for women, based for example on their respective
gendered roles in society, their economic activities and priorities or transportation needs and usage.

As with

the general deplorable lack of gender differentiated data sets for all things climate, the need for further
mapping in this specific area is evident. It could, f.ex. shed light on the question whether a more gender-
equitable world would be one with lower emissions.

While the link between adaptation and gender is increasingly acknowledged (unfortunately focusing mainly on
the role of women as victims of climate change), a similar willingness to consider gender with respect to
mitigation efforts still proves to be an intellectual challenge for many – not just in the mainly technically

F.ex.

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Speeches/2008/ms2008075.asp

http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe1/docs/pe1_051001d1b.pdf

IUCN(2007). “Gender and Climate Change: Women as Agents of Change”.

For information on the World Bank’s work on gender and development, see

www.worldbank.org/gender

. For specific work on its

Gender Action Plan, see

http://go.worldbank.org/9P7W3KS0P0

See for one of the few mentions of this, Lambrou, Yianna and Piana, Grazia (2005). Gender: the missing component in the response to

climate change, FAO, 2005; available at

http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe1/docs/pe1_051001d1b.pdf

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 14 of 29

focused scientific community or among policy-makers, but likewise among global civil society climate change
activists. This is mainly due to an inherent bias of mitigation action and policy for large-scale high-tech
solutions, a “big-is-better” project mentality that neglects or often completely negates some of the smaller
scale and less high-tech focused mitigation efforts in which women engage globally on an ongoing basis –
without getting the credit or the financing due their efforts.  A specific focus of mitigation financing schemes
that could benefit women primarily, but also community-based action more generally, should therefore be on
capacity-building measures that raise both economic and technological literacy, but also on initiatives with a
focus on appropriate technology transfer and support.  Small-scale, low-tech mitigation efforts should be
financed for their aggregate and replicable potential not just as a mere “political fig-leaf” or afterthought.
These efforts should be prominently included in any Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMAs) plans
that developing countries will voluntarily develop under the Bali Action Plan pending financial support and
technology transfer by industrialized countries. Currently, climate mitigation projects that benefit primarily
women and poor communities, if they happen at all, find themselves unfortunately still far too often viewed
solely through a “micro-finance” or “pilot approach”-prism.  This has less to do with technical or practical
obstacles to thinking small-scale projects big through replications and aggregations, but everything with
existing financial incentive structures.  Large-scale projects using high-tech solutions allow for larger credits
and higher profit margins for a myriad of groups that want to get a piece of the climate finance pie.

Case in Point: A Closer Look at the Clean Development Mechanism

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) provides for a mechanism to allow
industrialized countries to meet their emission reduction target in a cost-effective way by financing
greenhouse gas emissions reductions in developing countries. Thus, instead of tackling emissions reductions
domestically, developed countries are “offsetting” them with actions in the South.

Initially, poorer

development countries hoped that the CDM would provide them with an opportunity to receive climate
funding while improving their own countries’ climate performance. But the reality has showed that the
countries that need low-carbon investments the most because of a lack of own public funding capabilities and
general FDI disinterest, namely LDCs, are mostly left out of more than 1600 CDM projects registered as of mid-
May 2009.

Many civil society critics see the biggest weakness of the CDM in its current focus on “offsetting” rather than adding significant new

emissions reductions and urge significant reforms to the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol, especially the CDM. See for
example the Intervention by CAN International prepared for the AWG-KP Contact Group in April 2009; available at

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/smsn/ngo/119.pdf

LCDs

(Sample)

# of

Projects

Bangladesh 2
Bhutan

Bolivia

Cambodia

Kenya

Lao

Nepal

Nigeria

Uganda

Tanzania

Figure 3: Registered CDM Projects by Host Country and in Selected LDCs, as of May 2009

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 15 of 29

A few of the many reasons are the cumbersome and expensive project-by-project application procedure and a
lack of know how. As the graph above (from the UNFCCC website, as of May 21, 2009) shows, most projects
funded under the CDM can be found in only a handful of countries, chief among them China (549), India (424)
and Brazil (158). In contrast, only 25 projects were registered for all of Africa, 15 of them alone in South Africa.
Only a handful of LDCs have registered CDM projects within their borders.

The World Bank recently

estimated that the value of all CDM transactions in 2008 in developing countries reached US$6.5 billon,
actually declining in comparison to the previous year, while the value of the entire global carbon market in the
same period doubled to more than US$126 billion.

The CDM and Gender Considerations

The flexible mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol, among them the CDM, are currently under review for a
post-Kyoto 2012 agreement. With the CDM under intense criticism from many, its future beyond 2012 is
uncertain. Without a doubt, the CDM would have to be significantly altered and improved upon to contribute
to a more (gender-)equitable global climate financing agreement.   In its current form, the CDM as a mitigation
finance mechanism – because of its design as a market-driven instruments for realizing the cheapest emission
reductions opportunities – is clearly biased in favor of large emitter countries and large-scale mitigation
projects, leaving not only women’s efforts specifically, but more generally LDCs and smaller community-based
mitigation contributions woefully underfunded, unaccounted and uncompensated.  Such an approach only
makes sense in a narrow mindset that treats climate mitigation as clearly separable from global development
imperatives such as the MDGs, questions of global equity and desired national development outcomes.

Yet, the CDM (or post 2012, a CDM-type new mechanism to be created) could have the potential to combine in
more of its registered projects greenhouse gas abatement with poverty alleviation, desired development
outcomes and women’s empowerment specifically. It could offer women access to a range of projects with a
focus on new technologies primarily in household energy, agriculture, and food processing, but also pay for
environmental services in natural resource management which women have traditionally been involved in
using local and traditional knowledge.

Some promising examples exist (see separate box next page). For

CDM projects to fulfill their potential, however, access for small, community-based initiatives to CDM project
financing would need to be improved, CDM application procedures for smaller projects streamlined and fees
reduced, and more participation and voice would need to be given to women and the poor in designing CDM
projects.

More development-oriented and gender- inclusive CDM projects would shift the focus to more

small-scale, off-grid projects such as mini-hydro, biomass or solar energy generation or small-scale
afforestation and reforestation efforts.

It could be worth exploring whether it is feasible to develop a sort of template approach for some small-scale
project categories, where some of the baselines could be pre-approved.  Additionally, the possibilities for
aggregating or bundling projects and community-scale efforts need to be further strengthened in CDM
operating guidelines and procedures. The CDM Executive Board is working on redefining guiding principles for
bundling as part of the re-evaluation of the CDM’s prospects in a post-Kyoto agreement. A special
consideration in such a bundling approach will have to be given to the “bundling agent” or “aggregator” to
make sure that they are committed to gender-aware and gender-inclusive approaches.  In general, a not-for
profit, public benefit oriented entity such as a development organization, financial institution or NGO might be
preferable to for-profit businesses ventures in helping women profit from CDM funding opportunities.

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Statistics/Registration/NumOfRegisteredProjByHostPartiesPieChart.html

, accessed on May 21, 2009.

World Bank (2009). State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2009, Washington, DC, May 2009. See also:

http://wbcarbonfinance.org/docs/State_of_the_Market_press_release_The_FINAL_2009.pdf

Lambrou and Piana (2005).

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 16 of 29

BOX 1:

Win-Win-Win Scenarios for Development, Women’s Empowerment and Climate Mitigation –
The Examples of Grameen Shakti and UNIDO’s “Lighting Up Kenya” Projects

A positive example for a gender-inclusive development-focused
CDM mitigation project in an LDC is the work of the not-for-
profit Grameen Shakti (a spin-off of the Grameen Bank) in
Bangladesh. Grameen Shakti successfully brings the CDM
mitigation financing mechanism to the community and grass-
roots level by bundling a large number of individual smaller
projects.

Grameen submitted a 5-year project with 30,000 planned units
of 65 watt capacity solar home systems (SHS) in off-grid rural
households as a Small Scale CDM project (one of only two CDM
projects for Bangladesh). The solar home systems, built in the
country and installed and maintained by female engineers that
Grameen Shakti trains as part of the project, are to replace

kerosene and diesel generators for lighting and electricity in an LDC where only 32 percent of the population have
access to the electricity grid, where 36 percent of the population live below poverty the line and where approx. 20
percent of household consumption is spent on fuel.

As part of the project, Grameen Shakti operates a “dealer credit model” in which Grameen gives individual
households a “soft” microcredit to make the solar home system affordable. The cost of the small credit can be
repaid in monthly rates over up to 4 years which mirror the real cost of fuel the household would have to pay
otherwise.  Through the CDM Certified Emissions Reduction (CER) funding, the purchase costs for the solar home
systems can be kept down.  The project shows a win-win-win-situation for poverty reduction and development,
gender empowerment as well as climate mitigation.  The project has the capacity to be significantly scaled up:
Grameen Shakti is currently working with the World Bank’s Community Development Carbon Fund (CDCF) on a
project plan that would bring some 970,000 SHS to rural Bangladesh by 2015.

In an evaluation of various small and medium sized solar home system enterprises and their respective successes,
the private sector arm of the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), which had supported an
earlier smaller-scale Grameen Shakti project in joint implementation with the GEF, points to various lessons
learned from Grameen Shakti: the importance of economies of scale in order to reduce the financial cost of the
monthly rental fee; an ongoing system service and maintenance; and the importance of local ownership,
specifically ties to the local community through financing intermediaries such as Grameen Shakti’s ties to the
Grameen Bank and of government support, f.ex. through subsidies.

A similar win-win-win CDM project, the “Lighting Up Kenya” project of UNIDO, focuses on using small-scale
renewable energy production to create a cluster of village power centers that double as community development
centers by not only providing power but income-generating opportunities to off-grid communities in rural Kenya.
Women are to benefit in such a scheme through the

improvement of their home environment for lighting and

cooking as well as through the creation of economic and job opportunities

Sources:

http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=Projport&ProjID=37262

;

http://www-

wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/01/09/000020953_20080109093650/Rendered/PDF/42103.pdf

;

http://www.greengrowth.org/download/green-business-
pub/Greening_of_the_Business/Private_Sector/Grameen_Shakti_Pioneering_and_Expanding.pdf

;

https://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/UNIDO_Worldwide/Offices/UNIDO_Offices/Kenya/CPC_FLyer_2.pdf

;

http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/p_SellingSolar/$FILE/SellingSolar.pdf

Photo: World Bank

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 17 of 29

Some Gender Considerations of Adaptation Finance

For many observers and particularly for climate science technical experts, it is intellectually challenging at best
to recognize the gender implications of mitigation efforts.  In contrast, in the case of adaptation measures a
link to gender seems more intuitive.  This is mostly related to an understanding of adaptation as reducing the
vulnerabilities created by climate change for the livelihoods of poor people. In such a definition, the clear-cut
connection between vulnerability, poverty and gender inequality does not need any further explanation. Thus,
it is even more surprising that most adaptation financing instruments and the projects they support still lack
gender-awareness and an explicit gender-policy.  In adaptation measures, even more so than in mitigation
efforts, the line of separation to development projects in many cases becomes blurry.  Thus, whether one
would call it mainstreaming or just plainly “thinking together”, climate and gender policies need to be clearly
incorporated into development approaches, as do development and gender policies into climate, specifically
adaptation policy measures.  This double mainstreaming is necessary to achieve sustainable development.

While the need for adaptation financing globally is already great and expected to grow exponentially –
particularly if global mitigation efforts are half-hearted or lagging –, few resources have been marshaled so far.
An analysis by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies from November 2008 found that from 2000 to 2006 only
an estimated US$ 600 Million have been spent on adaptation finance, mostly on disaster risk reduction. This
constituted not only a miniscule amount  (between 0.1 to 1 percent, depending on the estimate)  of the
projected financing needs, but also only  1/34

of the total OEDC country expenditure on climate projects.

Most of the US$ 11 billion spent between 2000 and 2006 by OEDC countries on climate change activities
favored mitigation measures which were highly concentrated in few countries.

Figure 4: Estimated Climate Change Funding by Type (2000-2006), in 2005 US$.

Source: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies

Existing climate funding mechanisms devoted to adaptation finance under the UNFCCC are grossly
underfunded and still operate under a project-by-project, not a comprehensive programmatic approach. These
included dedicated funding for the GEF, as well as the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and the Special
Climate Change Fund (SCCF), in addition to the newly established Adaptation Fund (AF), which is to be financed
by a 2 percent levy on CDM projects. The AF is so far the only UNFCCC adaptation finance mechanism with a

Robert, J. Timmons; Starr, Kara; Jones, Thomas; and Abdel-Fattah, Dinah (2008). The Reality of Official Climate Aid. Oxford Energy

and Environment Comment, November 2008, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies; available at

http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/comment_1108-1.pdf

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 18 of 29

predictable, automated contribution scheme. In contrast, the LDCF and the SCCF rely on voluntary
contributions by donor countries. Not only are pledges for both founds lagging seriously behind actual funds
transfers, they are also a far cry from what mandatory payments as determined by the “polluter pays”
principle would amount to. It is for example noteworthy that the United States has to date not contributed
any funds for the adaptation efforts under the UNFCCC. In its request to the US Congress for FY 2010, the
Obama Administration, signaling a shift in US dealings with the UNFCCC, has for the first time ever requested
some US$ 50 million for the LDCF and the adaptation mandate of the SCCF.

Figure 5: Adaptation Funding and Funding Sources Available to the GEF

Source: GEF,

www.gefcountrysupport.org/docs/940.ppt

Where the SCCF focuses on technology transfer and capacity building, the LCDF is specifically tasked to provide
developing countries with funding assistance for the development of National Adaptation Plans of Action
(NAPAs), some 40 of which have been received by the UNFCCC Secretariat so far.

Less than a third of them

currently even mention gender equality as an important underlying principle, although some NAPAs,
particularly those of Bangladesh (

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/ban01.pdf

) and Uganda

(

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/uga01.pdf

), could be viewed as good examples by identifying gender

equity as necessity for achieving national adaptation and development goals. The ultimate proof for the
successful engendering of NAPAs , however, lies in formulating gender-differentiated financing plans for
achieving those goals and in repeated gender-audits of expenditures made under these plans. Nor can the
NAPAs be viewed in isolation: much more attention needs to be paid to their relationship and coherence with
existing national development plans, such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), which many
multilateral and bilateral donor agencies demand. PRSPs and other development plans likewise are often
lacking the inclusion of gender-considerations.

Besides the UNFCCC adaptation funding measures, the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF) at the World Bank with its
Pilot Program on Climate Resilience (PPCR)—with US$ 1.7 billion in pledged, if not yet delivered funding – is
currently the most important multilateral source for adaptation finance.

In early 2009, eight pilot countries

for the PPCR, namely Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Tajikistan and Zambia, were
selected. According to the World Bank’s Strategic Framework on Climate Change and Development (SFCCD)
which provides the programmatic framework for the World Bank’s work on climate change, including its

http://unfccc.int/cooperation_support/least_developed_countries_portal/submitted_napas/items/4585.php

Of the US$1.7 billion pledged by eight donor countries, by early May 2009 only US$234 million by two donor countries (UK and

Canada) have been received. As quoted in: World Bank (2009), Trustee Report . Financial Status of the Strategic Climate Fund, CTF-
SCF/TFC.2/8, May1, 2009; available at:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCC/Resources/ReportoftheTrusteeontheSCF.pdf

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 19 of 29

portfolio of climate investment funds, climate considerations are supposed to be mainstreamed into the
Bank’s development approach and countries’ core development planning and budgeting. These are to include
social and gender considerations.  And indeed the SFCCD does make at least cursory mention of gender
aspects.  However, the PPCR has so far failed to include any gender criteria or recommendations in its
operating guidelines.  The early projects under the PPCR are critical, as the PPCR aims to demonstrate best
practices for further scaling up of adaptation financing through the World Bank and the regional development
banks. It is therefore not just imperative but a litmus test for the World Bank’s intention of basing their work
on climate change in development concerns that gender considerations are included from the early stages of
pilot country program conceptualization and project implementation, as well as in project evaluation and
review.

Some Gender Considerations of REDD Financing

REDD, or reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation is based on the simple concept of
making payment to forest owners in the South to discourage them from cutting these forests down and thus
preventing the release of the carbon emissions stored by forests. It is estimated that as much as a quarter of
all greenhouse gas emissions stems from deforestation. The Bali Action Plan calls for the development of
“policy approaches and positive incentives” leading to a possible agreement on REDD at COP-15 in
Copenhagen in December 2009. How REDD is to be funded is as much an area of controversy as the utility and
fairness of the concept itself and its role in slowing down climate change. The proposed mechanisms for
financing REDD are carbon trading or designated funds or a hybrid of the two. Carbon trading is seen critically
by many observers concerned with equity and social justice out of fear for the traditional rights of indigenous
peoples and local communities, which for example the UNFCCC does not recognize. It is also criticized because
carbon trading only offsets emissions without leading to a net reduction on both ends of the market
transaction while in REDD the danger of carbon “leakage” is high.

Various voluntary standards, such as the

Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance Standards (CCBA), seek to address these concerns to varying
degrees, however not completely.

Several multilateral agencies as well as governments are involved in REDD activities, as are increasingly private
sector actors.  The World Bank in Bali in 2007 launched the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), its main
mechanism for REDD.  The fund, with a volume of US$155 million, became operational in June 2008 with 13
financial and 25 country participants.  It also finances a few REDD-type projects through its BioCarbon Fund
(operating since 2004, now in tranche 2, with a total expenditure of US$ 90 million)

. Additionally, as part of

its portfolio of Climate Investment Funds (CIFs), the World Bank under its Strategic Climate Fund (SCF) created
a Forest Investment Program (FIP) with US$57 million pledged.

Several UN agencies (UNDP, UNEP, FAO)

have set up UN-REDD which runs pilot programs in 10 countries and has promised US$18 million to five of
these countries. Various governments are also active in REDD, foremost Norway, which has committed US$
600 million per year in support, as well as Germany, Austria, and Brazil, which created the Amazon Fund.

Forests contribute to the livelihoods of many of the more than one billion people living in abject poverty, more
than 70 percent of them women. Forests themselves are home to some 300 million people worldwide. From
a gender-equitable point of view, forest and the management of forest resources are of utmost importance for
sustainable development, as men and women (ab)use, protect and access those resources differently based on
their socioeconomic differences and gendered roles and rights. Women rarely are afforded legal ownership

For a general introduction to some of the concepts and problems surrounding REDD, please see

http://www.redd-monitor.org/redd-

an-introduction/

World Bank (2009). Carbon Finance for Sustainable Development 2008, Washington, DC, April 2009; available at

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCARBONFINANCE/Resources/2008_Annual_Report_CF08_Final_printed_Low_Res_04-29-09.pdf

For more detailed summary information on the FIP, please see:

http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/forest-investment-

program

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 20 of 29

Box 2:

rights over forest resources; traditional tenure and women’s role in guarding and maintaining communal
forests are often not recognized, f.ex. in Africa. These facts on the ground have to be taken into account in a
comprehensive gender assessment of possible impacts, policies and compensation structures before various
REDD financing schemes are negotiated and agreed upon, in Copenhagen or elsewhere.

At the moment, most proposed REDD market-based schemes focus on large-scale deforestation, activities in
which women and indigenous communities in general are less involved.  As it currently stands, women and
community activities stand to benefit more from REDD public funds with an explicit focus on forest
conservation and restoration.  However, it  has been estimated that carbon markets might provide up to 10
times more in funding for REDD initiatives than public donor funds. To compensate for this financing gap,
scarce public funding for future REDD projects that target community-based activities should preferentially
invest in women’s associations. There are many examples of the benefits for the whole community in forest
conservation projects targeting women (see the examples in boxes 2 and 3).   If women as a group were to
benefit from market-based REDD financing schemes, the question of gender and tenure will have to be
addressed upfront. For example, REDD participation by national governments could be contingent upon fair
land ownership laws and the reform of existing, often gender-biased land legislation, with some of the initial
REDD funds being used for statutory reform efforts.  Additionally, mandatory gender-inclusive sustainability
standards should be required for any market-ready REED project as fiduciary duty. Such standards need to be
worked out under strong participation of women and indigenous groups at every level of standard-setting and
development. While currently the CCBA standards, a principal tool for verifying a REDD project’s
socioeconomic impacts, require projects to provide community information (including on gender) and ask for
gender-inclusive consultation, they do not ask for gender-equity in ownership and access opportunities.  It
would behoove standards such as the CCBA to include a specific gender criterion in its community section or as
a requirement for projects aspiring to a gold level status.

Gender-Aware REDD Projects – Example 1: The Green Belt Movement in Kenya

Probably the best known example linking women’s empowerment to climate
change abatement through REDD is the work of the Green Belt Movement in
Kenya, founded by Nobel Peace Laureate Wangari Maathai. Working through
Community Forest Associations (CFAs) with the strong involvement of local
women’s groups, the Green Belt Movement since the early 1970s has
reforested degraded public land and private land with high community access
in the Aberdare Range and Mount Kenya watersheds in Kenya, which had
been deforested for charcoal production or for conversion to illegal agriculture
and cattle grazing.

In November 2006, the Greenbelt Movement signed an Emissions Reductions
Purchase Agreement (ERPA) with the World Bank’s BioCarbon Fund. Under
the still ongoing project, some 1,876 ha of degraded land in the area were
reforested by CFAs in 2007 and 2008. From this project, the BioCarbon Fund
expects to purchase 375,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emission
reductions between 2007 and 2017, with a call option to purchase an
additional 150,000 tons.

Local CFAs were employed to plant and tend

the seedlings during the first two years; they are allowed to

extract

traditional (for example, honey, firewood from deadfall) and medicinal goods
from the forest.

Sources:

http://go.worldbank.org/N8099YMRE0

;

http://greenbeltmovement.org/a.php?id=196

The CCBA standard scorecard lists the 17 different indicators used for project approval; available at:

http://climate-

standards.org/standards/scorecard.html

. See also CCBA (2008). Climate, Community & Biodiversity Project Design Standards, Second

Edition, CCBA, Arlington/VA. December 2009. Available at:

http://climate-

standards.org/standards/pdf/ccb_standards_second_edition_december_2008.pdf

Photo: World Bank

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 21 of 29

Box 3:

Gender-Aware REDD Projects – Example 2: The Equilibrium Fund Maya Nut Program

The Equilibrium Fund, an NGO working with women in Guatemala,
Nicaragua, El Savador, Mexico and Honduras, through its Maya Nut
Program has supported the planting of some 800,000 Maya Nut
trees in Central America since 2001 for food, income and ecosystem
services (reforestation). It has taught over 10,000 women about
the uses, processing, food value and commercialization of the Maya
Nut through providing training and capacity building for 11
women's Maya Nut producer groups. By teaching women to
harvest Maya Nut from natural forest for food and income, they
are motivated to conserve the rainforest and plant more trees for
future harvests. By producing and selling Maya Nut, women earn a
fair wage, often for the first time in their lives.

The Equilibrium Fund estimates that one acre of Maya Nut forest
can sequester approximately 40 tons of carbon over 20 years.  It
seeks opportunities to participate in carbon trading, currently
appealing  primarily to individuals who seek to participate in
voluntary offsetting of their household emissions.  The Equilibrium
Fund could benefit from dedicated REDD public funds, which would
allow it to expand its successful program significantly in size and
reach.

Source:

http://www.theequilibriumfund.org

;

http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/gender_factsheet_forestry.pdf

Some Gender Considerations of Domestic Emissions Permit Sales or Auctions

Developed countries are increasingly selling or auctioning permits to emit either under cap-and-trade schemes
or up front, thus providing an additional revenue stream to governments. Some researchers have estimated
that if post-Kyoto all allowed emissions (so-called Assigned Amount Units, AAUs) could be auctioned, more
than US$ 300 billion could be raised. A share of these revenues could and should be set aside for developing
country mitigation and adaptation efforts.

The European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading System

(EU ETS) has been operating since January 2005. While, so far, only very limited amounts of carbon allowances
in the EU system have been sold or auctioned, it is expected that under the third trading period starting in
2013 the lion’s share of emission permits will be auctioned. Some national governments participating in the EU
ETS, notably the UK and Austria, have already started limited domestic permit auctions. Germany, which has
sold 8.8 percent of its emission permits up to now, will start auctioning them starting in 2010.

In 2008, some

€ 400 million in revenue from the German permits sale has been appropriated for climate change projects, of
which €120 million were used to initially fund projects under the International Climate Initiative (ICI).

Likewise, the United States as part of its ongoing efforts for comprehensive climate legislation is proposing a
cap-and-trade system with at least a portion of the carbon allowances to be auctioned. US development
groups are working with the US Congress to make sure that a significant proportion of such auction revenue
would be used to fund developing country mitigation and adaptation efforts.

Pendleton and Retallack (2009).

For information on the EU ETS, see

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/index_en.htm

For information on the German ICI, please see

http://www.bmu.de/files/english/pdf/application/pdf/broschuere_iki_en_bf.pdf

well as

http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/international-climate-initiative

Photo: The Equilibrium Fund

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 22 of 29

Gender proponents in both donor as well as recipient countries need to work with governments in
industrialized countries considering designating revenue from emission permits sale or auction for developing
country mitigation and adaptation efforts in order to increase bilateral funders’ gender awareness.  Initiatives,
such as the German ICI, should incorporate gender indicators more explicitly in evaluating project proposals
for funding and could set-aside a certain percentage of funds for gender-relevant projects. Likewise, such
initiatives need to perform a comprehensive gender audit of the first projects proposals accepted and
financed. Many of these separate funds and initiatives have only recently started operating or are in the
process of being set up, so changes to future funding guidelines are not only possible but likely. And new
initiatives should include gender-equitable access to finance resources as one of the operating principles. More
transparency is needed in how bilateral donors are developing their funding guidelines and how developing
country interests and demands are incorporated into these funding initiatives.  On the recipients’ side,
governments and civil society in developing countries as beneficiaries of these programs and projects need to
increase their explicit demand for funding for gender-aware adaptation and mitigation projects which address
the different vulnerabilities and capabilities of men and women in their respective countries and communities
in dealing with climate change.

VI.

The Evolving Climate Finance Architecture – Boom or Bust for Gender-Equity?

Some observers have pointed to the emerging global environmental finance architecture, particularly the
emergence of the World Bank and the MDBs as important agents in providing climate financing, as a potential
boost for the inclusion of gender considerations into climate financing instruments. They point to the
development banks’ approach of climate change as development concern and proudly proclaim gender-
awareness and in most cases explicit (even if not mandatory for project financing) gender policies. They also
argue that as development organizations, the World Bank and the MDBs have experience with social sector
and sector programs and concerns (particularly health, education, water and rural development/agriculture)
that are also relevant in dealing with the global climate challenge in a gender-equitable way.

These arguments have been firmly rejected by many critics of the World Bank and the MDBs’ foray into climate
change funding and programming. Some of them feel strongly that the World Bank’s CIFs might be “Doubling
the Damage” by undermining both climate and gender justice, as a recent analysis claims.

They point in

particular to the unsavory role of the World Bank and the MDBs in funding large-scale investment in carbon-
intensive oil, gas and mining projects thus helping to aggravate the problem of climate change on one hand
while claiming to providing solutions to climate change for developing countries with the other.

As largely

donor-driven institutions where recipient countries only have limited voice and vote, the development banks
in the eyes of many – including developing country governments – lack the legitimacy for dealing with global
climate change problems that the UNFCCC framework provides. Lastly, they object to an overreliance on
mostly market-driven solutions provided with scarce public funds that take the form of mostly concessional
loans. While private financing and carbon finance are undoubtedly part of the global climate finance solution,
the role of public organizations using valuable taxpayer contributions should be in funding those projects
which the market forces will not deem profitable, including climate change projects that give a special
consideration to broader development and gender-equity concerns.

Roeke, Anna (2009). Doubling the Damage:World Bank Climate Investment Funds Undermine Climate and Gender Justice, Gender

Action in cooperation with the Heinrich Böll Foundation North America, Washington, February 2009; available at:

http://www.genderaction.org/images/2009.02_Doubling%20Damage_AR.pdf

In a recent analysis looking at the energy portfolios of the MDBs, the World Resources Institute finds that “*m+ore than

60 percent of financing in the energy sector across these institutions does not consider climate change at all. MDBs
remain heavily invested in ‘business as usual,’ despite recognizing the need for transformative changes.” Nakhooda, Smita
(2008). “Correcting the World’s Greatest Market Failure: Climate Change and the Multilateral Development Banks,” WRI
Issue Brief, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, June 2008.

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 23 of 29

As to the UNFCCC, although the framework convention is missing an explicit reference to gender concerns (as
for example the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD, does), the UNFCCC Secretariat has now established a
gender focal point. In the absence of a specific mandate by the parties which it claims it needs to become
more proactive on gender concerns, the UNFCCC Secretariat sees gender considerations as part of the broader
context of sustainable development, looking for gender entry points through the NAPA process and the review
of the CDM to allow for more small-scale development as well as through its work on risk management and
the role agriculture plays in climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.

However, it could do more.

The UNFCCC could follow the recent positive example of the CBD. Just last year, the Secretariat of the CBD
proactively developed a “Gender Plan of Action” and submitted it on its own initiative to the May 2008 COP
for approval, which the parties granted.

The UNFCCC Secretariat could take a similar initiative in developing

its own “Gender Plan of Action” (which most other UN agencies and bodies by now possess). Additionally,
some of the discussions on gender and access and benefit sharing under the CBD could be instructive also for
the UNFCCC. Its secretariat could take the initiative by providing technical background information on how
some of the climate services traditionally provided by women in many developing countries – f.ex. adaptation
through crop selection and water conservation, avoiding deforestation and playing a significant role in
afforestation efforts worldwide – could be captured better in existing financing instruments under the Kyoto
protocol and should also be considered from the outset in any future climate financing instruments still to be
established under the auspices of the UNFCCC.

Very important in this context is also the Global Environment Facility as the financing mechanism of the
UNFCCC. While the GEF does not have a gender policy in its statutes, it did conclude its first ever gender
review of its project portfolio just recently.

Going forward, the GEF has publicly committed to strengthening

its institutional framework for gender mainstreaming, vowing to incorporate gender in its six focal area
programs “as appropriate”. Gender considerations are also an explicit focus of the ongoing review and
replenishment progress, which the GEF hopes to conclude in the summer of 2010 with at least a doubling of its
funding to then US$ 6 billion.

A significant commitment by donor countries in a time of global financial crisis

will not only be seen as a renewed commitment of industrialized countries to help the developing world deal
with environmental degradation and climate change. It will also be instructive as to what role the major donor
countries plan to give the GEF in a still evolving global environment finance architecture.

It has been argued before that the GEF with respect to global environment finance could act as the
coordinating body for the ten different multilateral organizations that serve as the GEF’s global implementing
partners with respect to projects dealing with environmental governance issues more generally and climate
mitigation and adaptation projects more specifically.

There can be no doubt that global climate finance

efforts in light of the ongoing proliferation of funds and programs is in dire need of better coordination and
possibly attempts for a more coherent approach.  Could, or better should the GEF be the coordinating hub of
the wheel of global climate financing?   It remains to be seen how committed the GEF really will be – once the
replenishment pledges have been made – in including gender considerations consistently in its operations and
programs.  If it truly were, raising the GEF’s gender-literacy and cementing a gender mainstreaming mandate
in its statutes could be the prerequisite for ensuring that gender equity is consistently considered as an
important climate finance criterion by various global multilateral implementing agencies.

Remarks by June Budhooram, Gender Focal Point at the UNFCCC Secretariat, made at a Gender Symposium in Monrovia, Liberia, in

early March 2009, speaking on a panel about gender and climate financing instruments with the author.

http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-09/information/cop-09-inf-12-rev1-en.pdf

Global Environment Facility (2008). Mainstreaming Gender at the GEF, Washington, DC, October 2008; available at:

http://www.thegef.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/mainstreaming-gender-at-the-GEF.pdf

Remarks made by Monique Barbut, CEO of the GEF, at a Gender Symposium in Monrovia, Liberia, in early March 2009, speaking on a

panel about gender and climate financing instruments with the author.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Bank were the

three initial partners implementing GEF projects. Seven more agencies joined the GEF family over the years: The Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), the Inter-American Development Bank (IaDB), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO),
the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the African Development Bank (AfDB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(EBRD), and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 24 of 29

VII.

The Way Forward on Gender and Climate Finance – Some Recommendations

No doubt: the proliferation of funds and actors in global climate finance will continue for the foreseeable
future. As there is still a lot of reluctance to consider and ignorance about the relevance of gender in making
climate financing mechanisms effective contributors to long-term sustainable development, any gender-
focused advocacy strategy addressing the issue of financing for adaptation and mitigation will have to be
multipronged and look for a variety of access points and opportunities. These can be in the area of multilateral
actions (global negotiations and between and within international organizations), in bilateral donor – recipient
country relationships, or on a national level looking at the domestic strategies and structures for dealing with
climate change.

Global Level:

Shift the focus of the global discussion on climate change away from a primarily technocratic exercise
to one employing the language of global justice and human rights, including the right to development
and gender equity. This is more than a semantic shift; it acknowledges that a North-South deal on
climate change can only be completed when it incorporates a financial agreement that considers the
questions of equity and fairness on par with the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fast. In such
a climate-just deal, gender –equity will have to feature prominently.

Multilateral Institutions and Processes:

Strive to incorporate gender-specific language and gender considerations in the outcome document of
the COP 15 in Copenhagen so that gender does feature explicitly in a post-Kyoto agreement under the
UNFCCC, specifically with reference to financing, capacity building and technology transfer. Such
gender language should be consistent with existing legal obligations and agreements on gender
equality under the UN system, particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Agenda 21, the Beijing Platform of Action, the Millennium
Development Goals, Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820, ECOSOC Resolution 2005/31 on
mainstreaming a gender perspective into all policies and programs in the United Nations system and
others relevant declarations and agreements.

Demand that the World Bank and the MDBs allocate their funding under the CIFs and related MDB
funds as grants, not repayable loans. Women are often harmed the first and most severely when
public sector programs are cut in times of a developing country’s balance-of-payments crisis.
Increasing a poor country’s indebtedness via expenditures for climate adaptation and mitigation
measures hurts women and other vulnerable groups– incidentally the same groups that are also most

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 25 of 29

affected by climate change impacts – doubly, particularly when those climate change loans don’t
consider women’s differentiated climate change needs.

Develop publicly disclosed gender budgets for projects and programs financed via recent and future
publicly financed climate funding mechanisms.

Improve the participation of women (political and business leaders, gender experts, from
disadvantaged groups such as local communities, and indigenous peoples) in stakeholder and
consultation processes for climate finance instruments and ensure their inclusion in decision-making
bodies such as Trust Fund Committees for these instruments.

Bilateral Donor – Recipient Country Relationships

As a recipient country, request that gender considerations be included in decisions about the structure
and focus of new bilateral climate funding initiatives for adaptation, mitigation, biodiversity and REDD.
Civil society and particularly women’s groups in recipient countries have a special opportunity as well
as responsibility to encourage and where possible support  their governments to submit gender-
inclusive climate financing requests.

As a donor country, many of which (f.ex. the Nordic countries) have been gender champions with
respect to bilateral and multilateral development assistance, encourage recipient countries to
undertake climate adaptation and mitigation projects that include a gender-perspective. Also, take an
active stand in bringing your support for climate change action in developing countries in line with
your bilateral development assistance in making gender an important funding consideration.

National Level

As a national government, ensure that your gender focal point/gender ministry is included in any
government task force on climate change and is in regular exchange and communication with both
your environment and finance ministries.

Incorporate gender considerations in any national action plans or programs on adaptation and
mitigation (NAPA and NAMA), particularly also with respect to the budget allocations for actions
defined under those plans.

Ensure that NAPA and NAMA budgets or finance-plans are gender-aware. Civil society organizations
with experiences in gender-responsive budgeting should monitor national spending of climate change
related funding.

As national parliaments in both developing and developed countries, demand transparency and
accountability of domestic public resources (received or given) which are devoted to funding climate
change actions and the way the government uses them. Take the initiative in establishing national
gender-inclusive climate funding priorities.

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 26 of 29

BOX 4:

Selected Web Resources on Gender, Climate Change and Climate Financing



Bank Information Center

(

www.bicusa.org

) – US NGO committed to monitoring World Bank and

MDB policies, including on climate and energy.



Climate Funds Update

(

www.climatefundsupdate.org

) – independent website sponsored by ODI and

the Heinrich Böll Foundation, which monitors relevant multilateral and bilateral climate funds and
funded projects.



Heinrich Böll Foundation

(

www.boell.de

) and

Heinrich Böll Foundation North America

(www.boell.org) – German political foundation working on gender and climate change and climate
financing issues with resources in German and English.



Global Environment Facility

(

www.thegef.org

) – Official website of the GEF



Global Gender and Climate Alliance

(

www.gender-climate.org

) – new website of a growing network

founded by UNEP, UNDP, IUCN and WEDO; with information and networking opportunities on gender
and climate change for information sharing and networking on gender and climate change.



Gender CC – Women for Climate Justice

(

www.gendercc.net

) – civil society web platform for

information sharing and networking on gender and climate change



Gender Action

(

www.genderaction.org

) – NGO committed to monitoring the MDBs for their gender

impacts; focusing on the CIFs with contributions on gender, climate change and international finance,



International Institute for Environment and Development

(

www.iied.org

) – British think tank with

articles and reports on climate, especially adaptation financing.



IUCN Gender and Environment

(

http://generoyambiente.org

) – website in English and Spanish with

fact sheets, reports, manuals and case studies about gender and climate change.



Overseas Development Institute

(

www.odi.org.uk

) – a leading British think thank on development

issues with a substantial set of articles on climate finance.



Oxfam America “Sisters of the Planet”

(

www.oxfamamerica.org/sisters

) – Gender and climate

change campaign with video materials and fact sheets.



Oxford Institute for Energy Studies

(

www.oxfordenergy.com

) – British think tank with good analysis

on global climate financing mechanisms.



South Centre

(

www.southcentre.org

) – Intergovernmental policy think tank of developing countries

with information on climate financing and developing countries’ positions.



Third World Network

(

www.twnside.org.sg

) – Southern think tank with policy analysis on climate

finance from a developing country point of view.



United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(

www.unfccc.int

)



Women’s Environment and Development Organization

(

www.wedo.org

) – Toolkits, fact sheets

and articles on gender and climate change



World Resources Institute

(

www.wri.org

) – US-based think tank with strong work on climate change

financing



World Bank CIFs

(

www.worldbank.org/cif

) – official information by the World Bank on the CIFs.



World Bank Carbon Finance Unit

(

http://wpcarbonfinance.org

)

–

official World Bank information

web site about its carbon finance unit and the projects financed by its now 12 different carbon funds.

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 27 of 29

References:

Anjaparidze, George (2008), “Financial Proposals from SBI 28: Preliminary Preview, UNFCCC, Bonn 2008.

Baer, Paul; Athanasiou, Tom; Kartha, Sivan; and Kemp-Benedict, Eric (2008). The Greenhouse Development Rights
Framework. The right to development in a climate constrained world; published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Christian
Aid, EcoEquity and the Stockholm Environment Institute; revised second edition, Berlin, November 2008. At:

http://www.ecoequity.org/docs/TheGDRsFramework.pdf

Bapna, Manish aand McGray, Heather (2008), “Financing Adaptation: Opportunities for Innovation and Experimentation”,
WRI Conference Paper, World Resources Institute, November 2008.

Bird, Neil and Preskett, Leo (2008)¸”Recent bilateral initiatives for climate financing: Are they moving in the right
direction?”, Overseas Development Institute, ODI Opinion 112, September 2008.

Brown, David and Bird, Neil (2008), “The REDD road to Copenhagen: Readiness for what?”, Overseas Development
Institute, ODI Opinion 118, December 2008.

CBD (2008). The Gender Plan of Action under the Convention on Biological Diversity¸ Note by the Executive Secretary;
UNEP/CBD/COP/9/INF/12/Rev. 1, Bonn, May 2008. At

http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-09/information/cop-

09-inf-12-rev1-en.pdf

CCBA (2008), Climate, Community & Biodiversity Project Design Standards, Second Edition, CCBA, Arlington/VA. December
2009. At:

http://climate-standards.org/standards/pdf/ccb_standards_second_edition_december_2008.pdf

Chan, Michelle (2009). “Subprime Carbon? Re-thinking the world’s largest new derivatives market,” Friends of the Earth
U.S., March 2009.

CIFOR (2008), “Do Trees Grow on Money? The implications of deforestation research for policies to promote REDD,”
CIFOR Info brief, No. 14, November 2008

CIFOR (2008), “Financing REDD. Linking country needs and financing sources”, CIFOR Info brief, No. 17, November 2008.

Commonwealth Secretariat (2009), “Debt Relief to Combat Climate Change,” Paper prepared by Development Finance
International for the Commonwealth Secretariat, London, April 2009;

http://www.commonwealthsmallstates.org/files/190141/FileName/DEBTRELIEFTOCOMBATCLIMATECHANGE.pdf

Deutsches Institute für Entwicklungspolitik/German Development Institute (2009). “Financing Adaptation to Climate
Change through Budget Support”, Briefing Paper 2/2009, d i e, Berlin.

Doornbosch, Richard and Knight, Eric (2008), “What Role for Public Finance in International Climate Change Mitigation”,
Discussion Paper for the Round Table on Sustainable Development, General Secretariat, OEDC, SG/SD/RT(2008)3.

European Parliament (2008), Financing climate change policies in developing countries. Compilation of briefing papers, EP
Policy Department for Economic and Scientific Policy, IP/A/CLIM/ST/2008-10 11 12 & 13, May 2008.

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, BMU (2009). The International Climate
Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany. Berlin, March 2009. At

http://www.bmu.de/files/english/pdf/application/pdf/broschuere_iki_en_bf.pdf

Gender cc. (2007). Gender and Climate Change Network – Women for Climate Justice Position Paper for UNFCCC COP 13:
“Gender: Missing Links in Financing Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation”, December 2007.

http://www.gendercc.net/fileadmin/inhalte/Dokumente/UNFCCC_conferences/gender_cc_financing_positionpaper_bali_
final.pdf

Global Environment Facility (2008), Mainstreaming Gender at the GEF, Washington, DC, October 2008. At:

http://www.thegef.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/mainstreaming-gender-at-the-GEF.pdf

Gomez-Echeverri, Luis and Müller, Benito (2009). “The Financial Mechanisms of the UNFCCC. A Brief History”, ecbi policy
brief, European Capacity Building Initiative, April 2009.

Greenpeace International (2008), Forests for Climate: Developing a hybrid approach for REDD, November 2008.

Guardian, The (2009), “Rich Nations Failing to Meet Climate Aid Pledges”, February 21, 2009. Available at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/20/climate-funds-developing-nations

;

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 28 of 29

IFC/GEF (2007). Selling Solar: Lessons from more than a Decade of IFC’s Experiences, Washington, DC, 2007;

http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/p_SellingSolar/$FILE/SellingSolar.pdf

IUCN (2007). “Gender and Climate Change: Women as Agents of Change”.
ller

http://www.iucn.org/what/issues/gender/resources.cfm?322/Gender-and-climate-change

IMF (2008), “The Fiscal Implications of Climate Change”, working paper of the Fiscal Affairs Department, International
Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, March 2008.

IPCC (2007). IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III Report “Mitigation of Climate Change”; available

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm

Jubilee Debt Campaign UK (2009). “A New Debt Crisis?”; Report available at

http://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/newdebtcrisis

Lambrou, Yianna and Piana, Grazia (2005), Gender: the missing component in the response to climate change, FAO, 2005.
Available at

http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe1/docs/pe1_051001d1b.pdf

McKinsey and Company (2009). Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy: Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement
Cost Curve, London: McKinsey and Company.

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pathways_low_carbon_economy.asp

Müller, Benito (2008), International Adaptation Finance: The Need for an Innovative and Strategic Approach, EV 42,
Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, June 2008.

Nakhooda, Smita (2009), “Catalyzing Low Carbon Development? The Clean Technology Fund, Working Paper, May 2009,
World Resources Institute.

Nakhooda, Smita (2008), Correcting the World’s Greatest Market Failure: Climate Change and the Multilateral
Development Banks, WRI Issue Brief, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, June 2008

Oxfam (2007). “Financing adaptation: why the UN’s Bali Climate Conference must mandate the search for new funds,”
Oxfam Briefing Notes, 4 December 2007.

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/climate_change/downloads/bn_bali_adaptation.pdf

Pendeleton, Andrew and Retallack, Simon (2009), Fairness in Global Climate Change Finance, Institute for Public Policy
Research (IPPR), March 2009 (Study supported by the Heinrich Böll Foundation);

http://www.boell.de/downloads/ecology/fairness_global_finance.pdf

Redman, Janet (2008), world bank: climate profiteer, Project of the Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, DC, April
2008.

Rippey, Paul (2009). Microfinance and Climate Change: Threats and Opportunities, CGAP, Focus Note, No.53, March 2009.

Robert, J. Timmons; Starr, Kara; Jones, Thomas; and Abdel-Fattah, Dinah (2008), The Reality of Official Climate Aid. Oxford
Energy and Environment Comment, November 2008, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. At:

http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/comment_1108-1.pdf

Roeke, Anna (2009), Doubling the Damage:World Bank Climate Investment Funds Undermine Climate and Gender Justice,
Gender Action in cooperation with the Heinrich Böll Foundation North America, Washington, February 2009. At:

http://www.genderaction.org/images/2009.02_Doubling%20Damage_AR.pdf

South Centre(2008). “The Administrative Costs of Climate Change Adaptation Financing: The Global Environment Facility
as an Operating Entity of the UNFCCC Financial Mechanism,” Analytical Note, SC/GGDP/AN/ENV/4, July 2008.

Stern, Nicholas (2007), The Economics of Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; available in full at

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm

Tan, Celine (2008). “World Bank’s Climate Funds Will Undermine Global Climate Action”, Third World Network, April 10,
2008

UNDP (2008), Negotiations on Additional Investment and Financial Flows to Address Climate Change in Developing
Countries, An Environment & Energy Group Publication, UNDP, July 2008.

UNDP (2007). Human Development Report 2007/2008: Fighting climate change. Human solidarity in a divided world.
UNDP, New York.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/

hbf |Gender and Climate Finance

Page 29 of 29

UNEP (2009). Press Release: “Realizing a Green New Deal”, February 16, 2009; available at:

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=562&ArticleID=6079&l=en

(assessed by the

author in March 2009).

UNEP (2008), Public Finance Mechanisms to Mobilise Investment in Climate Change Mitigation. An overview of
mechanisms being used today to help scale up the climate mitigation markets, with a particular focus on the clean energy
sector, 2008.

UNFCCC (2007). Conference of the Parties – Thirteenth Session. Decision 1/CP.13 “Bali Action Plan”; available at:

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf#page=3

UNFCCC (2007). Investment and Financial Flows to Address Climate Change, UNFCCC, Bonn.

UNFCCC. (1992). FCCC/INFORMAL/84 GE.05-62220 (E) 200705

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2853.php

;

WEDO (2007). “Changing the Climate: Why Women’s Perspective Matter”, New York, 2007.

World Wildlife Fund US & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2008). New Finance for Climate Change and the Environment.

Report

produced by Gareth Porter and researchers from ODI, Washington, July 2008. At

http://www.boell.org/docs/FINAL_Boell-

WWFUS_ClimateFinance_Report.pdf

World Bank (2009). “Financial Crisis. What the World Bank is doing”.

http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/financialcrisis/

World Bank (2009),State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2009, Washington, DC, May 2009

World Bank (2009). Carbon Finance for Sustainable Development 2008, Washington, DC, April 2009. At

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCARBONFINANCE/Resources/2008_Annual_Report_CF08_Final_printed_Low_Res
_04-29-09.pdf

World Bank (2009), Trustee Report: Financial Status of the Strategic Climate Fund, CTF-SCF/TFC.2/8, May1, 2009. At

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCC/Resources/ReportoftheTrusteeontheSCF.pdf

World Bank (2008). Development and Climate Change. A Strategic Framework for the World Bank Group, Washington, DC
2008.

World Bank. (2008). News & Broadcast: “Donor Nations Pledge Over $ 6.1 Billion to Climate Investment Funds,”

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21916602~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:46
07,00.html

World Bank (2006). Gender Equality as Smart Economics: A World Bank Group Gender Action Plan (Fiscal years 2007–10),
Washington, DC, September 2006. At:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGENDER/Resources/GAPNov2.pdf