The impacts of global warming that have driven a growing response from the MS are the background for this study. The United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) entered into force in 1994, ratified by 197 parties, including all United Nations member states. It sought to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
The purpose of this study is to review how multilateral organisations (MOs) and the multilateral system (MS) more generally are responding to climate change within the context of the Paris Agreement and SDG 13, and the upcoming COP 26. More precisely, the study seeks to provide insights into the “direction of travel” of MOs and, through them, the MS, by studying how selected MOs work with countries to address the challenge of climate change. The study provides key lessons and policy options for acceleration of climate action as the international community prepares for COP 26.
This study is a learning exercise as it seeks to provide insights into the constraints and opportunities faced by the MOs, countries, and the broader MS in addressing climate change. It is not an evaluation and does not specifically assess the effectiveness of the different MOs as regards Paris alignment, nor does it compare the performance of various MOs.
The study builds on 11 MO analyses and five country analyses that are complemented by global perspectives. The MOs selected for analysis represent the variety of roles in tackling the climate change agenda and include international financial institutions (IFIs) – the African Development Bank Group (AfDB), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDBG), and the World Bank Group (WBG) including the International Finance Corporation (IFC), as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – UN agencies including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and two vertical funds – the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF). As climate action occurs at country level, any MO response is largely shaped by the “demand” of developing countries for assistance. The country analyses therefore review in greater depth the response of the MS to the climate action priorities of five countries representing a variety of climate change contexts and challenges – Brazil, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia and Jamaica. The MO and country analyses relied primarily on a review of MO climate-related strategies, MO country programmes and country-specific documentation. The MO analyses benefited from feedback from MO staff members who were interviewed by the study team from Centennial Group International and reviewed draft versions.
Finally, the global perspective was gathered from reviewing broader climate related studies and research undertaken by international institutions and the research and NGO communities. Interviews were also conducted with experts from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) of the UNFCCC, as well as from global partnerships and think tanks, the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), the NDC-Partnership, and the World Resources Institute (WRI). A reference group of MOPAN members from Denmark, Germany and Sweden guided and advised the study team.
