因應對氣候變遷採取行動而生的成果基礎給付
因應對氣候變遷採取行動而生的成果基礎給付
所謂的「成果基礎給付」(Results-Based
Financing)，指的是為支付溫室氣體減量之費用所需之健全系統，該系統用以確保在確實達到減量與改善後，方需提供金錢援助。此一概念在2015年6月於波昂之聯合國氣候變化談判中提出。
一家名為「遠景」(Perspective)的諮詢公司之常務董事Axel Michaelowa舉例說明：若要直接自新設之綠色氣候基金(GCF)中獲得金援，各國需提出其有能達成受託標準(fiduciary
standards)及社會環境表現標準(environmental
and social performance standards)。
聯合國之清潔發展機制提出「成果基礎給付」之模型
「遠景」公司目前正在找尋如何將現有機制下(如「氣候變化綱要公約調適基金」和「全球環境基金」)可獲得融資之要求，透過簡化使其亦能適用於綠色氣候基金之架構。
該常務董事提到，在這方面，京都議定書的清潔發展機制中所指定的國家主體可以提供許多經驗，並希望綠色氣候基金可以採納清潔發展機制於監測、回報、稽核、出資整合、以及文件透明度方面的長處。
諮詢公司「綠色行動」(Greenwerk)的Björn
Dransfeld亦提到，成果基礎給付的資金僅提供給立即且實際的排放減量，且金援機構只有在排放減量受到稽核後才會為清潔發展機制計劃提供資金。
Björn Dransfeld以開發中國家之化肥企業為例，該種企業直到目前才有誘因對「一氧化二氮」(N2O)進行處理，而非直接將該氣體排放之大氣中，而一氧化二氮是非常具影響力之溫室氣體。目前在清潔發展機制下的計劃中，大部分經認可的排放減量仍只能得到過低的資金援助，以致仍不夠讓各工廠進一步減少排放。Björn
Dransfeld亦提到，各種基金(像是綠色氣候基金)或許可以加入對排放減量的援助，並在國家制定相關政策管理之前，先得到一些立即且實際的成果。
育成和追蹤乃主要需求
清華大學科技法律研究所所長范建得亦以臺灣為例，說明台灣的「育成中心」此類組織，能夠為企劃或新創事業提供資金和技術方面的援助。
肯亞「透明國際」(Transparency
International)的Nzioki強調，有必要清楚定義「氣候資金」如何構成，且該資金需要被適當記錄和追蹤，以避免貪腐。「我們正試著確保各國和該資金之持有者能夠有足夠的能力避免重蹈負轍。」Nzioki如是說。
Results-Based
Finance for Climate Action
Paying
for greenhouse gas reductions, so-called results-based financing, requires
robust systems to ensure that money deployed achieves real reductions and
benefits. This was the main message of a
panel on the margins of the UN climate change negotiations in Bonn, on Tuesday.
For
example, to receive money directly from the new Green Climate Fund (GCF),
countries need to show that they have the capacity to meet set fiduciary
standards as well as environmental and social performance standards, explained
Axel Michaelowa, Managing Director of consulting firm Perspectives.
UN's CDM Offers Model for Results
Based Finance
His
company is looking at how accreditation requirements for funding under existing
multilateral climate funds, such as the UNFCCC’s Adaptation Fund and Global
Environment Facility, could be streamlined to be applicable under the GCF.
Mr.
Michaelowa said there are also lessons to be learned from Designated National
Authorities set up under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM), and said he hoped the GCF would borrow from CDM’s strengths in
monitoring, reporting and verification, stakeholder integration, and
transparency of documentation.
Björn
Dransfeld of The Greenwerk consulting company told attendees that results-based
financing, “payments for performance of a mitigation action,” results in
immediate, real emission reductions, when funding agencies pay CDM projects for
their already verified emission reductions.
He
gave the example of developing-country fertilizer manufacturers, which until
recently had an incentive under the CDM to destroy, and not vent into the
atmosphere, the very potent greenhouse gas N2O. The price paid for the
certified emission reductions earned by CDM projects is now, for the most part,
too low to make it worthwhile for factories to destroy the gas. Mr. Dransfeld
said funds, such as the GCF, could step in to pay for the emission reductions
and achieve immediate, real results, until policy responses, such as a ban on
venting, are phased in.
Incubators and Tracking Key
Requirements
Fan
Chien Te, Director and Prof. of Law, Institute of Law for Science and Technology
at National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, made a case for “incubators,”
entities that can help projects and start-up enterprises access funding and
mobilize technologies.
Psamson
Nzioki of Transparency International, Kenya, stressed the need for a clear
definition of what constitutes “climate finance” and that climate money be
properly labeled and tracked to avoid corruption. “We’re trying to ensure there
is capacity in the countries and handlers of such money to avoid past
mistakes,” said Mr. Nzioki.
