The Political Economy of Climate Finance Lessons From International Development Corrine Cash Full Chapter PDF

The Political Economy of Climate
Finance: Lessons from International

Development Corrine Cash
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-political-economy-of-climate-finance-lessons-from
-international-development-corrine-cash/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Principles of International Political Economy Mark

Hallerberg
https://ebookmass.com/product/principles-of-international-
political-economy-mark-hallerberg/
China's Economic Rise: Lessons from Japan’s Political

Economy 1st ed. Edition Sangaralingam Ramesh
https://ebookmass.com/product/chinas-economic-rise-lessons-from-
japans-political-economy-1st-ed-edition-sangaralingam-ramesh/
Political Economy of Development in Turkey: 1838 –

Present Emre Özçelik
https://ebookmass.com/product/political-economy-of-development-
in-turkey-1838-present-emre-ozcelik/
The Political Economy of Human Behaviour and Economic

Development: Psychology and Economic Development
Sangaralingam Ramesh
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-political-economy-of-human-
behaviour-and-economic-development-psychology-and-economic-
development-sangaralingam-ramesh/
The Political Economy of Emerging Markets and
Alternative Development Paths Judit Ricz
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-political-economy-of-emerging-
markets-and-alternative-development-paths-judit-ricz/
Ten Crises: The Political Economy of China’s

Development (1949-2020) Tiejun Wen
https://ebookmass.com/product/ten-crises-the-political-economy-
of-chinas-development-1949-2020-tiejun-wen/
The International Political Economy of Oil and Gas 1st

Edition Slawomir Raszewski (Eds.)
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-international-political-
economy-of-oil-and-gas-1st-edition-slawomir-raszewski-eds/
Regulation and Finance in the Port Industry: Lessons

from Worldwide Experiences Claudio Ferrari
https://ebookmass.com/product/regulation-and-finance-in-the-port-
industry-lessons-from-worldwide-experiences-claudio-ferrari/
Political Economy of Development and Business: Towards

Decolonisation, Transformation and Alternative
Perspectives Bhabani Shankar Nayak
https://ebookmass.com/product/political-economy-of-development-
and-business-towards-decolonisation-transformation-and-
alternative-perspectives-bhabani-shankar-nayak/
The Political Economy
of Climate Finance:
Lessons from International
Development
Edited by Corrine Cash · Larry A. Swatuk
International Political Economy Series
Series Editor
Timothy M. Shaw , University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, USA;
Emeritus Professor, University of London, London, UK
The global political economy is in flux as a series of cumulative crises
impacts its organization and governance. The IPE series has tracked its
development in both analysis and structure over the last three decades.
It has always had a concentration on the global South. Now the South
increasingly challenges the North as the centre of development, also
reflected in a growing number of submissions and publications on
indebted Eurozone economies in Southern Europe. An indispensable
resource for scholars and researchers, the series examines a variety of capi-
talisms and connections by focusing on emerging economies, companies
and sectors, debates and policies. It informs diverse policy communities
as the established trans-Atlantic North declines and ‘the rest’, especially
the BRICS, rise.
NOW INDEXED ON SCOPUS!
Corrine Cash · Larry A. Swatuk
Editors
The Political
Economy of Climate
Finance: Lessons
from International
Development
Editors
Corrine Cash Larry A. Swatuk
Mount Allison University School of Environment, Enterprise
Sackville, NB, Canada and Development
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, ON, Canada
ISSN 2662-2483 ISSN 2662-2491 (electronic)

International Political Economy Series
ISBN 978-3-031-12618-5 ISBN 978-3-031-12619-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12619-2
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: © RBFried/iStockphoto
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
This book is the product of a Social Sciences and Humanities Research

Council (SSHRC) funded workshop that brought 11 specialists together
from both development and climate finance. The goal of the work-
shop was to discuss “what can we learn from 60 years of development
finance for climate finance?” The participants at the workshop represented
academia, civil society organizations, think tanks and practice. The goal
was to have a diversity of views and perspectives in the room. While not
all authors from that workshop have contributed chapters to this book,
we believe that the views expressed here represent the discussions that
occurred over three days quite well.
We would like to thank the participants from that workshop, including:
Dr. Blair Feltmate, Dr. Romeo Bertolini, Dr. Nick Mercer, Dr. Kate
Ervine, Brian Tomlinson, Delaine Mccullough, Leslie Qammaniq, Simon
Addison and Dr. Chijioke Oji. We would also like to thank the Coady
International Institute for supporting that workshop. Tiffany MacLennan
worked tirelessly to ensure the smooth running of the workshop. Laina
Timberg contributed important last-minute editorial assistance. We thank
them both.
Larry A. Swatuk would like to thank Corrine Cash for involving him
from the start of this worthwhile project. Covid-19 presented many chal-
lenges but working together on this collection was not one of them. On
behalf of all contributors, we would like to thank Anca Pusca and Ananda
v
vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Kumar Mariappan for their encouragement and support in the production

of this volume.
We hope that the research and reflections within this collection
provides insight into the considerable challenge of ensuring that climate
finance reaches those who need it most.
Contents
1 Climate Finance: Lessons from Development Finance 1

Corrine Cash and Larry A. Swatuk
2 How Lessons from Development Finance Can
Strengthen Climate Finance 21
Leia Achampong
3 International Climate Finance and Development
Effectiveness 45
Brian Tomlinson
4 Climate Finance and Principles for Effective
Development Cooperation 75
Brian Tomlinson
5 What Can We Learn About the ‘Country Ownership’
of International Climate Finance by Employing
a Relational Conception of Scale? 99
Jonathan Barnes
6 Towards Accountability in Climate Finance: Lessons
from Nepal and Indonesia 129
Cathy Shutt and Brendan Halloran
vii
viii CONTENTS
7 Delivering Adaptation Finance Through the Market?

The Trouble with Using Carbon Offsets to Finance
Climate Adaptation in the Global South 153
Kate Ervine
8 Climate Finance and Neo-colonialism: Exposing
Hidden Dynamics 179
Rebecca Navarro
9 Climate Finance and the Peace Dividend, Articulating
the Co-benefits Argument 205
Catherine Wong
10 Toward Just and Effective Climate Action 233
Larry A. Swatuk and Corrine Cash
Index 245
Notes on Contributors
Achampong Leia is a climate justice and women’s rights activist and

has a Masters’s degree in Sustainability Science and Policy (MsC) from
Maastricht University. With a background in research, policy analysis and
advocacy on climate change issues, Achampong’s current research focus
is on the best ways to strengthen financial mechanisms to increase the
quality and additionality of climate finance. Achampong presently works
at Eurodad on climate finance and climate justice.
Dr. Barnes Jonathan is Researcher at the International Institute of
Environment and Development where he focuses on climate governance
and finance. He is a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Geography
and Environment at the London School of Economics and Political
Science. His Ph.D. explored questions of justice in climate finance, specif-
ically looking at the Green Climate Fund in South Africa. He has a
policy background in climate and development finance including roles
at the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development and the
Commonwealth Secretariat.
Cash Corrine holds a Ph.D. in Urban Planning from the School of
Planning, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Cash is Assistant
Professor in the Department of Geography and Environment at Mount
Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada. Prior to joining
Mt. Allison, Dr. Cash was a member of the Programme Teaching Staff
at the Coady International Institute as well as an Assistant Professor in
ix
x NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
the Climate and Environment Program at St. Francis Xavier University,

Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada. Among her most recent publications
are two co-edited collections: Water, Energy, Food and People: The Nexus
in an era of Climate Change and The Political Economy of Urban Water
Security under Climate Change.
Ervine Kate is Associate Professor in the Department of Global Devel-
opment Studies at Saint Mary’s University and a Faculty Associate of
SMU’s School of the Environment. Her research examines the global
political economy of the environment, with a specific focus on climate
change mitigation, carbon markets, carbon offsetting, climate finance to
the Global South and climate justice. Among her recent publications is
the book Carbon (Polity, 2018).
Halloran Brendan is International Budget Partnership’s Head of
Strategy and Learning. In this role, he facilitates strategy and learning
processes at IBP—both the internal production of learning insights and
drawing on evidence and ideas from broader research and practice in
the governance space. Prior to joining IBP in 2016, Brendan lead the
learning work of the Transparency and Accountability Initiative, where
he played a role in shaping and interpreting evidence about what works,
as well as supporting collective learning spaces. Before that, he spent
five years living, researching and working in Guatemala. Brendan has a
Ph.D. from Virginia Tech, and has published work in a variety of jour-
nals, think pieces and blogs, including his own—Politics, Governance,
and Development.
Navarro Rebecca is a young Researcher at the Bonn International Centre
for Conflict Studies (BICC) in Germany. As a geographer who recently
graduated with a master’s degree in Nature Conservation and Landscape
Ecology at the University of Bonn, she has explored different areas related
to climate change from an interdisciplinary perspective. Since 2018 she
has been working in the field of sustainable technologies for agriculture
in the Global South.
Shutt Cathy has over 28 years’ experience of research, teaching
and practice within the international development sector, which has
included programme and evaluation work for a range of International
NGOs, Foundations, commercial suppliers and complex multi-sectoral
consortia. She holds a DPhil in International Development from the
Institute of Development Studies where she is an Honorary Associate.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xi
Cathy also teaches on Institutions of Aid and Policy Analysis in Energy

and Sustainability at the University of Sussex.
Swatuk Larry A. is Professor in the School of Environment, Enter-
prise and Development at the University of Waterloo, Canada. He is also
Extraordinary Professor in the Institute for Water Studies, University of
the Western Cape, South Africa and External Researcher, Bonn Interna-
tional Centre for Conflict Studies (BICC), Bonn, Germany. His recent
research focuses on the unintended negative consequences of state-led
climate action leading to potential ‘boomerang effects’. Among his most
recent publications is the co-edited collection (with Corrine Cash) enti-
tled The Political Economy of Urban Water Security under Climate Change
(Palgrave).
Tomlinson Brian is Adjunct Professor in the Department of Inter-
national Development Studies at Dalhousie University and Executive
Director of AidWatch Canada. He has had a long career working
with international civil society organizations in international develop-
ment and is widely published on Canadian development cooperation,
including editing and contributing to the biannual global Reality of
Aid Reports. He follows closely trends and issues relating to Canadian
international climate finance.
Wong Catherine is Team Leader for Climate and Security Risk and the
technical lead on climate, peace and security in UNDP’s Global Policy
Network. She is matrixed to the Conflict Prevention, Peacebuilding and
Responsive Institutions Team—Crisis Bureau and the Climate Strategies
and Policy Team—Bureau of Policy and Programme Support. Catherine
possesses more than 15 years’ experience working on climate change and
environment at headquarters and in-the-field. She serves as UNDP’s focal
point on the Climate Security Mechanism and the UN Water-led core
group on Leveraging Water for Peace. Catherine was recognized as one
of 25 Young Security Leaders by the Government of Germany, Körber-
Stiftung and the Munich Security Conference (2021–2022) and is an
observer of the International Military Council for Climate and Security.
Acronyms
3MR Third Monitoring Round

AC Adaptation Communications
ADEs Anthropogenic Dark Earths
AF Adaptation Fund
ANC African National Congress
AWF African Wildlife Foundation
BAU Business-As-Usual
BMR Biannual Monitoring Process
CBDR-RC Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective
Capabilities
CCBC Climate Change Budget Code
CDKN Climate and Development Knowledge Network
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CER Carbon Emission Reductions
CERs Certified Emission Reductions
CFF Climate Finance Facility
CIFs Climate Investment Funds
CNA Centre for Naval Analyses
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
COP Conference of the Parties
COP-PF4SD Community of Practice on Private Finance for Sustainable Devel-
opment
CPDE CSP Partnership for Effective Communication
CPI Climate Policy Initiative
CSA Climate Smart Agriculture
CSOs Civil Society Organisations
xiii
xiv ACRONYMS
CSP Communication Service Provider

DAC Development Assistance Committee
DAEs Direct Access Entities
DBSA Development Bank of South Africa
DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change
DFIs Development Finance Institutions
EFLG Environment Friendly Local Government
EU European Union
FIFs Financial Intermediary Fund
FMIS Financial Management Information System
FoE US Friends of the Earth United States
GCF Green Climate Fund
GEF Global Environment Facility
GHGs Greenhouse Gas
GNI Gross National Income
GPEDC Global Partnerships for Effective Development Cooperation
GWP Global Warming Potential
HFC Hydrofluorocarbons
HRD Human Rights Defenders
IBP International Budget Partnership
IDR Indonesian Rupiah
IEA International Energy Agency
IETA International Emissions Trading Association
IEU Independent Financial Unit
IFC International Finance Corporation
IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
IMF International Monetary Fund
INCAF International Network on Conflict and Fragility
INGOs International NGOs
INISIATIF National Center for Indonesia Leadership
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency
ITMOs Internationally transferred mitigation outcomes
KTNI Indonesian Traditional Union of Fisherfolk
LDCs Least Developed Countries
LORTA Learning-Oriented Real-Time Impact Assessment
LTSs Long-term Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions Strategies
MDB Multilateral Development Banks
MINUSMA Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali
MoCA Ministerial on Climate Action
MSF Multi-Stakeholder Forum
NAPs National Adaptation Plans
NCQG New Collective Quantified Goal
ACRONYMS xv
NDA National Designated Authority

NDCs Nationally Determined Contributions
NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations
ODA Official Development Assistance
ODC Official Development Cooperation
ODI Overseas Development Institute
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
OMGE Overall Mitigation in Global Emissions
OI Oxfam International
OPM Oxford Policy Management
PAR Participatory Action Research
PBF Peacebuilding Fund
PCD Petersberg Climate Dialogue
PDB Public Development Banks
PITA Participation, Inclusion, Transparency, and Accountability
PSA Power Shift Africa
PSE Private Sector Engagement
REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
SACFA South African Finance Assemblage
SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute
SCF Standing Committee on Finance
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SDSN Sustainable Development Solutions Network
SIDS Small Island Developing States
SOP Share of Proceeds
SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and
Protracted Crises
SSDC South-South Development Cooperation
TANAPA Tanzania National Parks
TAP Technology Action Plans
tCO2e Tons of CO2 equivalent
TFGB Trees For Global Benefit
UN United Nations
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNDESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNSD United Nations Statistics Division
WBG World Bank Group
WHO World Health Organisation
List of Figures
Fig. 3.1 Trends in international climate finance (Source OECD,

Climate Finance Provided and Mobilized by Developed
Countries in 2013–2018, Bilateral Adjusted is OECD
DAC Bilateral Provider Perspective, Significant Purpose
[Rio Marker 1 adjusted to 30%, Loans adjusted at Grant
Equivalency, Total Commitments]) 54
Fig. 3.2 Modalities for MDB climate finance, percentage of total
MDB climate finance (Source OECD DAC Climate
Finance Recipient Perspective, Loans at gross face value) 55
Fig. 3.3 MDB adaptation finance (Source Joint Report
on Multilateral Development Banks Climate Finance,
Various Years) 61
Fig. 3.4 DAC providers bilateral adaptation finance (Source OECD
DAC Provider Climate Finance, various years, significant
purpose adjusted to 30% and loans at grant equivalency) 62
Fig. 3.5 Adaptation finance to vulnerable least developed and small
island states: share of total bilateral and MDB adaptation
climate finance 64
Fig. 3.6 Loans in bilateral climate finance as a share of total
bilateral climate finance 66
xvii
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Group of 10 (G10) country climate finance performance 5

Table 3.1 Top 10 DAC providers, share of total (adjusted) bilateral
climate finance, 2019 54
Table 3.2 Climate finance and DAC/EU gender marker 68
Table 3.3 Select providers, bilateral principal purpose climate
finance as a share of real bilateral ODA commitments,
2019 70
Table 5.1 Analytical categories to operationalize relational scale vis
a vis a hierarchical conception 105
Table 5.2 Accredited entity comparison 109
xix
CHAPTER 1
Climate Finance: Lessons from Development

Finance
Corrine Cash and Larry A. Swatuk
Introduction
We either choose to achieve rapid and large-scale reductions of emissions

to keep the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C—or we accept that
humanity faces a bleak future on this planet. We either choose to boost
adaptation efforts to deal with current extreme weather disasters and build
resilience to address future impacts—or we accept that more people will
die, more families will suffer, and more economic harm will follow. We
C. Cash (B)
Department of Geography and Environment, Mount Allison University,
Sackville, NB, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]
L. A. Swatuk
School of Environment, Enterprise and Development,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2022
C. Cash and L. A. Swatuk (eds.), The Political Economy of Climate
Finance: Lessons from International Development, International Political
Economy Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12619-2_1
2 C. CASH AND L. A. SWATUK
either choose to recognize that business as usual isn’t worth the devas-
tating price we’re paying and make the necessary transition to a more
sustainable future—or we accept that we’re investing in our own extinc-
tion. It is about much more than environment, it is about peace, stability
and the institutions we have built to promote the wellbeing of all.
Patricia Espinosa (2021)
Anthropogenic climate change poses an existential threat to humanity.

Abrupt changes to the climate at various scales are underway due
primarily to the burning of fossil fuels in human industrial processes (see,
e.g., https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/). The planetary impact of these
processes is commonly called ‘global warming’ and its cumulative impact
is exacerbating humanity’s lurch towards an unknown, largely unpre-
dictable and, most certainly for large swaths of the planet, undesirable
future. The most reliable scientific evidence suggests that action to limit
warming to less than 2 °C can contribute meaningfully to minimizing
negative long-term consequences for ecosystems and people. Poor and/or
uncoordinated action, however, will lead to catastrophic outcomes at a
variety of spatial and temporal scales. Recent extreme weather events—
drought, flood, fire—offer but an inkling of our climate-changed future.
While calls to action are persistent and increasingly alarmist in tone, the
institutional and organizational systems that are in place seem ill-suited
to the task at hand: sovereign states, inter-governmental organizations,
development banks, private entrepreneurs, non-governmental organiza-
tions, global meetings which bring together actors with very different
ideas about what is to be done how and when.
This collection focuses on climate finance as one of the emergent
institutional mechanisms for dealing with the negative effects of anthro-
pogenic climate change across the Global South. In terms of total global
(public and private sector) finance deployed in support of climate action,
it is a minor contributor. At the 2009 Conference of the Parties (COP) at
Copenhagen, rich countries pledged to provide US $100 billion/per year
in finance to developing countries to assist them in developing and imple-
menting mitigation and adaptation measures. As shown in this collection,
the avenues along which finance is to travel are many and varied, from
the orthodox (e.g. bilateral and multilateral grants and loans) to the
1 CLIMATE FINANCE: LESSONS FROM DEVELOPMENT FINANCE 3
more creative (e.g. carbon markets, job-creating low-emission produc-

tion processes). According to the UNFCCC (n.d.), ‘Climate finance is
needed for mitigation, because large-scale investments are required to
significantly reduce emissions. Climate finance is equally important for
adaptation, as significant financial resources are needed to adapt to the
adverse effects and reduce the impacts of a changing climate’. Climate
finance is meant to be ‘new and additional’ to already existing develop-
ment finance. To put the $100 billion pledge into context, Dodd (2020)
estimated the financial support needed for achieving Sustainable Develop-
ment Goals 3 (Health) and 4 (Education). Dodd chose colleagues chose
these two SDGs as they closely align with the central focus of Overseas
Development Assistance (ODA). Whereas ODA in 2019 was estimated to
be $147 billion, the costs of achieving SDG 3 varied from $227 to $406
billion per year up to 2030 (Dodd, 2020: 4). In comparison, for SDG
4 Dodd (2020) looked at two studies where the estimated costs varied
dramatically from $222 billion per year between 2015 and 2030 (Wils,
2015) and $3 trillion per year by 2030 (Education commission, 2016).
Current debates regarding climate finance offer important insights
into not only the facts and arguments regarding the ways and means
to move away from fossil fuel dependence towards a clean energy near-
term future, but a window into abiding problems of social organization
broadly defined. Put differently, the political economy of climate finance
mirrors closely the economic, political, social and ecological dynamics of
a neoliberal, globalized world. Importantly, then, there are lessons to
be learned from international development for climate finance, as shifts
in development thinking and practice closely reflect changing dynamics
of global political economy. We return to this point below. Suffice to
say here, however, that current approaches to climate finance are already
making many of the same mistakes that characterize experiences in inter-
national development: from funding ‘white elephants’ to anti-democratic
practices, from being captured by political agendas to privileging ‘expert’
(Western, scientific) knowledge; from taking markets and private prop-
erty as an uncontested baseline assumption to seeing techno-economic
approaches as necessary and equally incontestable solutions to formidable
and complex challenges.
Financing Climate Action

As human endeavour has dramatically altered the face of the Earth, under-
mining ecosystem resilience worldwide—from forests and grasslands to
wetlands and coral reefs—the cumulative impact is being realized at plan-
etary scale. The negative impact of human activities on particular types
of ecosystems has long been recognized, with the demise of much of
the world’s wetlands being one example. At a slightly larger scale, the
failure to act ‘in time’ or to recognize the folly of our ways, is a central
feature of world history, with scholars regularly chronicling the rise and
fall of civilizations, from Easter Island to the Inca, to Rome. Recogni-
tion of the human impact on the biosphere, however, is of more recent
vintage. Whereas ecosystem impacts are local/regional (e.g. point source
and diffuse pollution; deforestation; fish die-offs; eutrophication) and
require comparative inquiry regarding problems and solutions, biosphere
impacts (e.g. loss of biodiversity; global warming; sea level rise) are by
definition a collective action problem.
Given that global climate change impacts at local/regional levels,
existing socio-ecological challenges related to land degradation and defor-
estation, for example, may be exacerbated by permanent shifts to previ-
ously stable climate systems and predictable patterns of weather. Some
scholars label this the move from the Holocene era to the Anthropocene.
It is the abruptness of this shift, in addition to the human driver, that
makes current era climate change significantly different from past climate
change. Moreover, the interactions between biosphere and ecosystem
phenomena require an integrated approach to climate action; piecemeal
action will not suffice.
The UNFCCC Conference of the Parties 27 (COP 27) has adopted
the tagline ‘together for implementation’, thereby acknowledging the
need for a collective, integrated approach to addressing the sources and
consequences of climate change. Yet, at the June 2022 Bonn climate
talks, division, discord and acrimony were the order of the day. Devel-
oping countries pressed for a new finance mechanism to address ‘loss and
damages’ due to developed country emissions effects. This was not only
rejected but left out of the meeting’s final agenda. At the same time, a
recent ODI study reveals how far rich most countries are from meeting
their climate action financial commitments (see Table 1.1 for a selection)
(Colenbrander et al., 2022). At COP 15 in Paris, OECD countries agreed
to contribute US$ 100 billion per year to assist developing countries to
mitigate and adapt to changes in climate. This total was meant to be the
minimum amount committed per year until 2025, after which the total
would be revised upward. As shown in several chapters in this book, espe-
cially 2, 3 and 4, the funding was meant to come from a variety of public
and private sources and to be disbursed in a number of ways.
In a June 2022 ODI working paper, Sarah Colenbrander and
colleagues demonstrate that much of the rich world, especially the U.S.A.,
is failing to pay what they call their ‘fair share’. ‘The US is overwhelmingly
responsible for the climate finance gap having provided just 5% of its fair
share in 2020. Although its economy is 40% larger than the European
Union’s, it provided only one-twelfth as much climate finance’ (Colen-
brander et al., 2022: 10). The fair share is determined by three criteria:
Gross National Income (GNI); cumulative CO2 emissions (1990–2019);
and population. While emissions totals reflect the polluter pays principle,
GNI and population reflect both financial and human capabilities to act
(so aligning with the UNFCCC principle of ‘common but differentiated
responsibility and respective capabilities’).
As shown in Table 1.1, only five of the G10 countries are found to be
paying their fair share.
The ODI report goes on to highlight how state performance in
meeting climate finance commitments tends to vary directly with how well
Table 1.1 Group of 10 (G10) country climate finance performance
Country Fair share (US$ Provided (US$ Progress towards

billions) billions) meeting
commitment based
on fair share (%)
Sweden 0.91 1.47 161

France 5.39 8.66 161
Japan 11.89 16.09 135
Netherlands 1.76 2.14 122
Germany 8.33 9.91 119
Switzerland 0.94 0.68 72
United Kingdom 5.84 3.2 55
Belgium 1.13 0.59 52
Italy 4.73 1.43 30
Canada 4.13 0.74 18
United States 43.48 2.3 5
Source Adapted from Colenbrander et al. (2022)

states have performed in meeting their mutually agreed target of 0.7% of

GNI in development finance. According to OECD calculations for 2018,
only four countries—Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg and Sweden (in
ascending order)—met this commitment.
Furthermore, the authors caution against reading too much into good
performance. Most of France’s resources ‘were provided as loans rather
than grants’ (Colenbrander et al., 2022: 13). As shown in Chapter 3
(Ervine), of the $79 billion in climate finance generated for the Global
South in 2018, ‘only 20% was delivered as grants and 74% was deliv-
ered as loans’ (see also OECD, 2020: 6). Ervine, citing OECD (2020),
goes further to say that ‘20% of the loans from developed countries and
76% from multilateral development banks were in fact non-concessional.’
Developing countries have spent more on debt service than they have
received in climate finance from developed countries.
As highlighted in Chapter 2 (Achampong), climate finance is not
meant to substitute for development finance but to constitute ‘new and
additional’ support sourced from public and private, bilateral and multi-
lateral institutions that complements ODA. Moreover, Tomlinson, in
Chapter 4, states ‘[d]eveloping countries are not only seeking a commit-
ment target that is additional to current levels of ODA, but also financing
for “loss and damage” due to current and expected climate change events
that is additional to finance for adaptation and mitigation’.
Yet, as climate finance increasingly turns towards adaptation it increas-
ingly looks like development assistance. Donor states, eager to make good
on their pledges, using the Rio Markers, are busy playing a game of
‘tick box’, claiming existing development actions as (partially or totally)
climate focused (Chapter 4). Granted, there are a variety of legitimate
challenges to accurately measuring climate finance, but claiming existing
project/programme support as climate finance is primarily an exercise in
climate action-washing.
Financing the Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs)
The SDGs constitute the focal point for orthodox thinking on interna-
tional development. As such, they reflect not only the dominant discourse
of development theory and practice, but a jumping-off point for debate
regarding the forms, ways and means of ‘development’. At the outset of
the SDGs, a preliminary analysis from the SDSN (Schmidt-Traub, 2015:
1) estimated ‘that incremental spending needs in low- and lower-middle-

income countries may amount to at least $1.4 trillion per year ($340–360
billion for low-income countries and $900–944 billion for lower-middle-
income countries)’. According to the UN SDG Report 2020 (UN, 2020),
there were already several significant problems with implementation prior
to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic including funding shortfalls, data
gaps, limited human resource capacity particularly in low-income devel-
oping states, restricted absorptive capacity of recipient states and weak
uptake on several SDGs and targets, particularly mainstreaming protection
and rehabilitation of biodiversity. According to a 2019 report from the
Social Progress Imperative, performance was so poor that, other things
being equal, the SDGs would be achieved only in 2073—almost five
decades behind schedule (Green, 2019). In the intervening three years,
however, the foundation under the global political economy has shifted
dramatically.
The pandemic has turned most states inward. The socio-economic
foundations of political stability have been badly shaken: clogged
harbours; broken global supply chains; the (near) collapse of entire indus-
tries and sectors; social protest. Vaccine nationalism coupled with exten-
sive rich state support for the pharmaceutical industry exposed the vast
socio-economic inequalities within and across states today. The Russian
invasion of Ukraine has exacerbated these and added new challenges for
all states, rich and poor alike. Staple food shortages, the Western shift
away from Russian petroleum and gas, combined with numerous socio-
economic sanctions imposed on the Putin regime have driven worldwide
inflation and economic stagnation. Irrespective of their capacity to meet
their obligations, most rich countries point to these phenomena to help
explain stagnation in development and climate finance. At the same
time, these same states are pressing a market-oriented, private sector-led
approach to development and climate action, citing constrained budgets
and the ‘benefits’ of entrepreneurship as motivating factors.
Problems with ‘Aid’

Obsession with amounts, methods and metrics serves to distract from
more important questions regarding underlying assumptions, ideological
positions and power relations. International development has long been a
battleground of values, perspectives and ideas. Far from uniting behind
the so-called ‘global goals’, sovereign state approaches to achieving
the sustainable development goals are as diverse as are their socio-

political/socio-economic agendas. Over recent decades there have been
several attempts to clarify the global development agenda, in particular to
put decision-making regarding action into the hands of recipient states.
This is reflected in agreements such as the Paris Declaration, the Accra
Agenda for Action and the Global Partnership for Effective Development
Cooperation. Both the Millennium Development Goals (2000–2015) and
SDGs (2015–2030) claim to be participatory and inclusive.
Despite the rhetoric of ‘togetherness’, irrespective of whether projects
and programmes are developed and designed in the Global South, the
ontological and methodological frameworks remain Western/colonialist,
hierarchical and neoliberal capitalist in theory and practice. This is nothing
new. The ‘aid industry’ has been critiqued extensively from all points on
the political ideological spectrum. Commonly held critiques focus on the
self-serving nature of ‘aid’, support for corrupt governments, and the
forcing of geo-political agendas by powerful states into ‘development’
practice. From the ideological right there is an increasing chorus that aid
should begin at home, with the Covid-19 pandemic augmenting these
calls. From the left there is the abiding argument that neoliberal capitalist
development impoverishes the many and ‘liberates’ the already empow-
ered few. With the advent of the so-called ‘debt crisis’ of the early 1980s,
Western states and banks began a coordinated assault on active and inter-
ventionist state behaviour across the Global South. Using debt financing
as an entry point, donors and international financial institutions forced
structural adjustment conditionalities into lending agreements. The liter-
ature is voluminous so there is no need to go into details here. The
central point to be made is that structural adjustment programmes led
to a multi-decadal debt crisis among the weakest states in Africa, south
Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. Having long paid back the prin-
ciple, many states continue to pay on interest. Moreover, significant new
debt has been taken on via public and private lending (domestic and
international), with China playing a particularly prominent role. Much
of this borrowing is against hypothesized future earnings, reflecting the
long commodities boom on the African continent in support of China’s
dramatic economic rise. However, the pandemic stopped many economies
dead in their tracks, leading to a renewed ‘debt crisis’. In Sub-Saharan
Africa, debt as percentage of GDP before the pandemic rose from 35.1%
in 2014 to 55.4% in 2019. It is estimated that this has risen to more than
60% in 2021 (Heitzig et al., 2021: 4). The World Bank (2021) estimates
the 2020 debt of low- and middle-income Sub-Saharan African countries

to be $702 billion, approximately two and a half times greater than it
was just ten years earlier. As a significant amount of this debt is taken on
in support of infrastructure, both the (multilateral, bilateral) lender and
the recipient are likely to claim that these loans are in support of climate
action.
The global development architecture is entirely hierarchical and disci-
plinary in nature. Those countries most vulnerable to climate change are
also the weakest in the global political economy; they are in no position
to bargain to their advantage. History shows that financial institutions
are more than willing to lend in support of dubious projects—rare is
the country that defaults on its debts, as restructuring is the norm. One
wonders, where is the oversight in such a relationship? Evidence also
shows that when it comes time to restructure, it is the poor that pay—e.g.
through the loss of state-supported services—not the politicians, bankers,
entrepreneurs and global ‘civil servants’ who signed on to the agreement.
Social Organization
The problems with aid highlight the highly problematic character of social
organization. The human world is beset by a complex array of challenges
involving the built and natural environments. Organizations such as the
United Nations characterize these as a collective management problem
and seek to reduce this complexity into actionable pieces articulated as
the SDGs, through specialized agencies, collaborative multi-stakeholder
arrangements and so on. Generally known as ‘global governance’, this
approach puts great faith in humanity’s ability to rationally respond to
empirically verifiable threats and vulnerabilities.
At the same time, and as shown above, effective collective action
is hampered by numerous material, institutional and ideational factors.
From a simple shortage of finance, to bureaucratic complexity, to differing
world views, the number of factors getting in the way of positive collective
social change is significant. At present, there is a resurgence of populist
nationalism worldwide in reaction to the seeming failures of neolib-
eral globalization. With less than a decade remaining until the end of
the SDGs in 2030, it seems highly unlikely that ‘the world’ will come
anywhere close to achieving the ‘global goals’.
Somewhat paradoxically, while the Russian invasion of Ukraine draws
attention away from what many call the ‘climate emergency’, climate
change-driven extreme events are increasing incidences, scales and impacts

of natural disasters, driving millions out of the countryside into already
massively overcrowded cities and adding climate-refugees to the already
burgeoning number of people on the move, thereby heightening levels
of intra-group conflict. In the absence of effective climate action, the
need for humanitarian assistance will only grow. At the same time, it is
increasingly apparent that all development planning needs to be ‘climate
ready’, both in terms of mitigation—i.e. reducing the carbon footprint
of all activities—and adaptation—i.e. preparing adequately for the ‘new
normal’.
While there is an increasing chorus of voices that varies from school
children to artists, from city mayors to leaders of countries, all calling
for rapid and effective climate action, those most empowered to act (and
most responsible for the climate emergency in the first place) seem happy
to plod along, dinosaur-like, making pronouncements, signing agree-
ments, but largely choosing the time-honored path of delay, deny and
blame others. The Covid-19 global pandemic provided an important
window into this world. When faced with a global crisis, the willingness
to work together for a global best result was absent. States pursued self-
help, supported particular sections of (pharmaceutical) industry, hoarded
personal protection equipment (PPEs) and vaccines and offered limited
assistance to those most in need both within their own countries and
in other parts of the world. Covid’s uneven impacts varied directly
with the neoliberal capitalist world’s uneven socio-economic terrain. It
is clear that this is only the latest in an ongoing series of global viral
emergencies. Millions died and while the pandemic has abated in some
parts of the world, it rages on largely out of the limelight of Western
public consciousness. Climate change impacts also are being felt unevenly,
helping to explain the divisions of opinion regarding the timing and scale
of appropriate action. However, unlike coronavirus, in the absence of
a sustained and coordinated response, the climate emergency will only
worsen, ultimately engulfing us all.
The fact of the sovereign state functioning in a world of states, exer-
cising a variety of forms of (ideational, institutional, material) power is
a primary impediment to meaningful action. As suggested above, those
most vulnerable to climate change are also those least able to influence the
global agenda. Those most capable of facilitating ‘transformative change’
are least interested. In the context of neoliberal globalization, there has
arisen a powerful constellation of social forces (companies, states, individ-

uals, select non-governmental organizations) reluctant to let go of the
ideational (market forces, sovereignty), institutional (financial markets,
bond-rating agencies, World Economic Forum, World Trade Organiza-
tion, World Bank, International Monetary Fund) and material (capital,
military) bases of their power despite all of the evidence regarding the
need for transformation (see Espinosa in the epigram at the start of this
chapter).
It is this world out of which climate finance has emerged. Make
no mistake, climate finance as currently articulated is a product of this
neoliberal world order. We have highlighted a few of the ways in which
international development mirrors this world. By aligning climate finance
with development thinking and action, it seems to us that the capacity
for meaningful action particularly where it is needed most is seriously
hampered. It is no accident, then, that those most vocal in challenging
the current development architecture, are the same who are now raising
their voices in relation to climate finance (mis)steps, with Oxfam Inter-
national’s (2020) Climate Finance Shadow Report 2020 serving as an
appropriate example.
The Book
As with this introductory chapter, the essays that follow constitute indi-
vidual entry points into the complex and contentious topic of climate
finance. Together, they constitute a critical voice whose primary message
is to not repeat the errors of the past. Climate finance intersects with
international development in two specific ways. First, where support for
mitigation heavily focuses on infrastructure, it aligns with the historically
primary development agents’—states, banks, engineering firms—long
obsession with energy, transportation and services: multi-purpose dams
(hydropower, irrigation, water supply), ports, railways, central-business
districts (CBDs) and car-dependent suburbs. The aim being, of course,
to mirror Western development by mimicking ‘best practice’. Today, in
the context of climate action, this means a focus on green design, green
infrastructure, and the development of circular economies, otherwise
known as ecological modernization. Second, with the recent turn towards
climate finance for adaptation, this draws climate action directly in line
with discourses of sustainable development and the ‘triple bottom line’:
social equity, economic efficiency, environmental sustainability. Irrespec-

tive of the entry point, and as highlighted above, development discourse
remains dominated by techno-economic and techno-managerial thinking
and practice. Put simply, the ‘vicious cycle of poverty’ model long discred-
ited by critical development scholars and practitioners is alive and well in
the offices of the world’s most powerful states, inter-governmental orga-
nizations, private companies and financial institutions: if you put enough
money behind it and create a particular set of incentives, ‘development’
will follow. But where is the evidence that such a process has ever worked?
Especially a process driven by the global political and economic architec-
ture devised to serve the most powerful interests in Western boardrooms
and state houses?
Contrary to the dominant developmental discourse of neoliberal capi-
talist development through the market, the most successful ‘developmen-
tal’ states of the past fifty years are those in East and Southeast Asia,
every one of which pursued a path to sustained economic growth through
systematic state planning and careful control of finance and market forces.
As climate finance draws closer to development finance, each of the chap-
ters here offers cautionary tales regarding lessons from the past, present
and future of international development.
In Chapter 2, Leah Acheampong states that tackling climate change
and ensuring that there are liveable environments for people, biodiver-
sity and ecosystems to flourish in is part of achieving the sustainable
development agenda. Ensuring that communities address and adapt to
climate impacts enables them to maintain and strengthen their livelihoods
and helps future generations to thrive. It also supports the sustain-
able development of equitable societies within which citizens have access
to education, justice, health and affordable energy. As such, climate
finance is a vital and powerful sustainable development tool. Acheam-
pong argues that in order for climate finance to adequately support
vulnerable communities’ efforts to tackle climate change and develop
sustainably four elements deserve close consideration: (i) the climate
finance agenda must be driven by the most vulnerable; (ii) the quality of
climate finance must improve; (iii) greater access to new and additional
climate finance is needed to minimize debt; and (iv) climate finance must
be gender-responsive.
In Chapter 3, Brian Tomlinson highlights the ways in which successful
climate actions are inextricably linked to improving the quality of life of
the world’s most vulnerable people. While the degree of decarbonization
needed for a 1.5 °C target is politically ambitious for most developed

countries, the consequences of missing this target for vulnerable popula-
tions in the Global South will be profound. Five decades of development,
the ambition of Agenda 2030 and the achievement of 17 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) agreed by the international community in
2015, are seriously undermined without a strong political consensus in
developed countries, focusing on renewed commitments to deeply trans-
formative action on the climate crisis at the highest level. As many
countries stagger to rebuild from the still unpredictable implications
of the pandemic, developed countries have responded with trillions of
dollars for emergency finance to protect their citizens, demonstrating that
“affordability” is less a technical constraint than a political one.
As with the Covid-19 pandemic, addressing the climate emergency is
a global justice challenge of the first order, one which must include and
prioritize the most vulnerable countries and peoples. With so little time to
act effectively to avert the worst consequences, this chapter looks at the
recent history of international public climate finance to situate how well
the international community is prepared to meet this challenge in ways
that bridge the implications of climate apartheid.
Considering these challenges for human rights and a just global order,
this chapter examines (i) the current ambition in setting international
climate finance goals against what is required; (ii) the degree to which
existing goals have been met to date; (iii) the trends in the allocation
of this climate finance against Paris Agreement commitments to give
priority to vulnerable countries and peoples; and lastly, (iv) the implica-
tions of good practice approaches in effective development cooperation
for realizing meaningful impacts through official climate finance.
In Chapter 4, Tomlinson then turns to an interrogation of develop-
ment effectiveness, an idea that has been evolving over the past decade.
At the same time, its implications for provider practices and develop-
ment outcomes have been affected by a changing and more complex
development finance landscape. Emerging cooperation modalities, such
as South–South Development Cooperation (SSDC), global International
NGOs (INGOs) or blended finance with the private sector, have become
more prominent, deepening a debate on development effectiveness.
Climate finance is now a growing and important dimension of this finance
landscape. Developed country providers will be pressed to respond to
the undeniable and urgent need for dramatically increased allocations of
climate finance. But seemingly climate finance has yet to be analysed in
relation to lessons from efforts to improve effective development coop-

eration. In putting forward a framework for assessing climate finance
drawing on the principles for effective development cooperation, this
chapter draws upon the third monitoring round (3MR) of the Global
Partnerships for Effective Development Cooperation 2018/2019 bian-
nual monitoring process. The GPEDC monitors the implementation of
the four principles against ten indicators for effective development coop-
eration. The chapter argues that building trust will require major new
commitments on the part of providers to set ambitious climate targets
for themselves, to scale up their international climate finance based on
real need, including for loss and damages, and to strengthen its overall
effectiveness for developing country partners. Providers must pay much
greater attention to the needs, interests and priorities of the many vulner-
able countries and populations that will bear the major impacts of climate
change so far largely unchecked. Lesson from 15 years of discourse and
country attention to conditions for effective development cooperation
can provide a useful framework for sharpening this finance as a tool for
inclusive and transformative change for millions of affected people.
In Chapter 5, Jonathan Barnes asks the question ‘What can we
learn about the “country ownership” of international climate finance by
employing a relational conception of scale?’ In theory, country ownership
re-frames development aid as development cooperation that empowers
national governments to choose and implement policies. Barnes addresses
a conceptual impasse where a lack of clarity about what it means and how
to use it blunts country ownership. He argues that a relational conception
of scale can un-pack development work and look beyond reified gener-
alities that limit explanatory value in a hierarchical interpretation. The
Green Climate Fund (GCF) exemplifies this muddled thinking, where
country ownership is simultaneously presented as a principle, investment
criteria and an outcome. South Africa has a varied and dynamic partner-
ship with the GCF which the author frames as an assemblage to explore
who and what steers climate finance in a relational ontology. Four analyt-
ical categories are distilled to operationalize and distinguish a relational
approach from a hierarchical one. This permits an empirical analysis of
how projects are assembled that acknowledges the wide range of contin-
gency and possibility. These categories are as follows: (i) a material-human
hybridity; (ii) how complex social actors imprint in proceedings indirectly;
(iii) what shapes categories of actors that own proceedings in an emergent
sense; and (iv) how raised expectations and misunderstandings help and
hinder different project development processes. This re-affirms the value

of relational scale in human geography and enlivens country ownership
conceptually. It advances a heuristic generalization that highlights partial
scalar effects and moves analysis beyond pre-figured labels and a version
of ownership premised on multiplicity, immanence and emergence. This
nuance is missed by a hierarchical conception of scale.
In Chapter 6, Cathy Shutt and Brendan Halloran draw on their expe-
riences in Indonesia and Nepal to investigate accountability in climate
finance. According to the authors, there is overwhelming evidence that
those who are poor or marginalized will be disproportionately impacted
by climate change. Poor people are more susceptible to climate hazards
because they live in poorly constructed homes in high-risk areas; often rely
heavily on natural resources for food, fuel and income; and have limited
options. They also have little capacity to respond to climate hazards
because of existing structural inequalities. How governments manage the
funds needed to build the resilience of people and communities to climate
change will determine whether climate change will further entrench or
deepen existing poverty and force more of those who are “near poor”
into poverty.
Hundreds of billions of dollars are being mobilized globally from
donors and domestic sources to address the causes and impacts of climate
change. Governments around the world are now establishing and oper-
ationalizing the budget systems, institutions and processes for managing
these funds. At the same time, countries are facing increasing pressure
to generate revenues domestically as donors scale back aid, heightening
the need for effective and accountable climate finance management.
Unfortunately, the budget systems in most of the countries that will
generate and/or receive significant funds for addressing climate change
are not transparent and accountable. Such systems are more likely to
produce inadequate, poorly designed or poorly implemented investments
in climate change mitigation and adaptation, placing those most effected
by climate hazards at grave risk. And because of the interaction of climate
change and poverty, failure to improve these systems would have serious
implications on the International Budget Partnership’s (IBP) mission to
realize equitable, just and sustainable societies.
Kate Ervine, in Chapter 7, focuses her attention on the problematic
idea of carbon offsets. According to Ervine, estimates reveal a consistent
failure to fulfill climate finance targets, with adaptation finance receiving
proportionately less than finance directed to mitigating climate break-

down. Financing for loss and damage is even more critically inadequate.
Though likely an underestimate, official figures peg adaptation costs at
approximately US $70 billion per year presently, growing to an estimated
$140–300 billion by 2030 and $280–500 billion by 2050. Much of the
scholarly literature and policy work is thus focused on determining how
sufficient funds to finance adaptation will be raised and from where they
will come. This challenge is perceived as especially acute given the absence
of incentives for private sector investment in adaptation projects.
Ervine’s chapter offers a critical intervention into discussions and
debates on the related themes of adaptation finance and adaptation to
climate breakdown with a particular focus on carbon markets. Abundant
and well-documented evidence shows that carbon offsetting under the
Kyoto Protocol allowed polluters in the Global North to avoid taking
action, shifting the burden of responsibility for lowering emissions to
distant nations and communities; that an overwhelming share of offset
projects failed to fulfill their emission reduction commitments resulting in
an overall increase in global emissions; and that carbon offsetting today
represents a dangerous obstacle to achieving real and lasting emission
reductions consistent with limiting heating to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial
levels.
The chapter thus offers an intervention into critically oriented research
on adaptation to climate breakdown in the Global South. Much of
this literature has documented the problems with adaptation interven-
tions—that they fail to problematize how pre-existing inequalities at the
community level shape outcomes and heighten marginalization; that they
fail to interrogate multi-scalar sources and structures of vulnerability and
oppression, including relations of production and social reproduction,
class, gender, race and more, thereby threatening to reproduce them;
that they fail to offer spaces for democratic dialogue, mutual learning
and participatory practice in adaptation projects; and that they conceptu-
alize adaptation as a technical fix in response to external climate threats,
thereby mystifying the imperative to understand climate breakdown and
the need for adaptation as deeply enmeshed in, and constituted through,
globalized socio-economic and political structures to which we must
respond as part of adaptation interventions.
In Chapter 8, Rebecca Navarro exposes hidden, neocolonial dynamics
within climate finance thinking and practice. Despite the manifold loop-
holes of carbon markets, the demand for climate offsets has never been
higher than in recent years. Besides the questionable efficacy of such

climate compensating measures, growing critique has also been voiced
concerning their role in perpetuating global power dynamics and neocolo-
nial patterns. The history of nature conservancy and its implementation in
the global South under the veil of sustainable development prepared the
ground for the deployment of carbon markets, which have also evolved,
responding to criticism, presumably seeking ethical improvements. While
many studies have addressed evident forms of physical land grabs as
a consequence of environmental and climate action, Navarro’s chapter
highlights the subtler expressions of “carbon colonialism” found in recent
research, showcasing them through different case studies. As climate
finance diversifies to meet the needs of a growing awareness among both
Western society and host communities, new challenges beyond land-use
conflicts appear that need to be addressed. As opposed to land grabs, they
take place in unseen dimensions of instrumentalization, where “contradic-
tory knowledge translations” are used to ensure legitimacy. Exposing such
hidden dynamics is essential to respond appropriately and seek solutions
to decolonize climate finance.
In the final substantive contribution, Chapter 9, Catherine Wong
focuses on climate finance and the peace dividend, articulating the co-
benefits argument. The role and impacts of climate finance on peace and
security in conflict-affected and fragile contexts—many of which are also
vulnerable to climate change rank among the lowest recipients of climate
finance—is an area still little investigated by either the climate finance,
climate security or environmental peacebuilding fields. A recent UNDP
report (2021) with the Climate Security Mechanism and the Nataij
Group argues for the need to better understand peace co-benefits. Wong’s
chapter attempts to fill this void, highlighting that greater attention is
needed to the allocation, access and thus distribution, quality and quan-
tity of finance, and therein, the design of climate finance mechanisms and
their inherent impacts on equity in conflict-affected and fragile contexts.
Wong critically examines the literature and underlying arguments from
the emerging fields of climate finance, climate security and environmental
peacebuilding and the application of a co-benefits approach to strengthen
policy coherence, before considering learnings from nascent practice,
including the efforts of the UN system. The chapter identifies gaps for
further investigation and key guiding principles on the measurement of
peace and security co-benefits or dividends of climate finance and draws
conclusions from a new meta-analysis by UNDP (2021) and advocates for
a transdisciplinary approach. As one of the first attempts to systematically

consider climate finance in climate-vulnerable conflict-affected and fragile
contexts, it argues that better metrics accounting for peace co-benefits or
dividends, reinventing Theories of Change, and establishing intersectoral
Communities of Practices and special vehicles/calls for proposals could
strengthen access and outcomes.
Conclusion
One of the great lies of international development is that the challenges
of poverty and underdevelopment are largely related to having access to
adequate capital and technology, human capacity, and appropriate forms
of organization and management. Such a story serves to depoliticize the
challenges before us. At best it provides some space for useful things to
happen. At worst it supports business as usual. Is it not a telling fact
that as we move towards the 70th anniversary of the Bandung Confer-
ence on development so few countries in Asia and Africa—indeed, in the
world—can claim to have improved the lives of a majority of their peoples?
How many trillions of dollars in ‘aid’ have flowed from the rich world to
the poor? How many dams, railways and highways have been built in
the name of ‘modernization’? Today’s world is more unequal than ever
before. It is a world where a handful of men hold more wealth than the
bottom half of humanity. And it is this world that stands at the precipice
of climate chaos.
If there is one important lesson for climate finance to learn from inter-
national development, it is that progressive movement in support of those
most in need of assistance is first and foremost a political struggle. As
many activist academics can attest, shifting international development
away from its basic framework of capital accumulation is a long-term
project. Getting states, corporations and international financial institu-
tions to recognize and meaningfully consider the gender, race, class,
environmental and social justice aspects of their actions is an ongoing,
and often frustrating, process. Transformation towards a socially equi-
table, environmentally sustainable, low-carbon future therefore requires a
clear strategy and a type of social organization that seeks to build creative
coalitions within and across the fragmented landscape within which we
currently reside. We believe that the essays collected here provide insights
and ideas in support of this worthy cause.
References
Colenbrander, S., Cao, Y., Pettinotti, L., & Quevedo, A. (2022). A fair share of
climate finance? Apportioning responsibility for the $100 billion climate finance
goal (ODI Working Paper). ODI.
Dodd, A. (2020). The cost of achieving SDG 3 and SDG 4. How complete are
financing estimates for the health and education goals? Development Initiatives.
Education commission. (2016). The Learning Generation. Investing in education
for a changing world. The International Commission on Financing Global
Education Opportunity.
Espinosa, P. (2021). Remarks by UNFCCC Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa
to open COP26. https://unfccc.int/news/remarks-by-unfccc-executive-secret
ary-patricia-espinosa-to-open-cop26. Accessed 29 June 2022.
Green, M. (2019). We are 43 years behind schedule on achieving the SDGs and
the US is going backwards. Reuters Events: Sustainable Business. https://
www.reutersevents.com/sustainability/we-are-43-years-behind-schedule-ach
ieving-sdgs-and-us-going-backwards#:~:text=or%20e%2Dmail%20*-,’We%
20are%2043%20years%20behind%20schedule%20on%20achieving%20the%
20SDGs,the%20US%20is%20going%20backwards’&text=Business%20as%20u
sual%20is%20not,Sustainable%20Development%20Goals%20(SDGs). Accessed
4 July 2022.
Heitzig, C., Ordu, A. U., & Senbet, L. (2021). Sub-Saharan Africa’s debt
problem: Mapping the pandemic’s effect and the way forward. The Brookings
Institution.
OECD. (2020). Climate Finance Provided and Mobilized by Developed Countries
in 2013–18. OECD.
Oxfam International. (2020). Climate Finance Shadow Report 2020. Oxfam
Great Britain.
Schmidt-Traub, G. (2015). Investment needs to achieve the sustainable devel-
opment goals: Understanding the billions and trillions. SDSN Working Paper
(12 November). SDSN.
UNDP. 2021. Climate finance for sustaining peace. Making climate finance work
for conflict-affected and fragile contexts. UNDP.
UNFCCC. (n.d.). Introduction to climate finance. Available at: https://unfccc.
int/topics/introduction-to-climate-finance. Accessed September 25, 2022.
United Nations (UN). (2020). The sustainable development goals report 2020.
United Nations.
Wils, A. (2015). Reaching education targets in low and lower-middle income
countries: Costs and finance gaps to 2030. UNESCO. Available at: https://
unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000232560. Accessed September 25,
2022.
World Bank. (2021). International Debt Statistics 2022. The World Bank.
CHAPTER 2
How Lessons from Development Finance

Can Strengthen Climate Finance
Leia Achampong
Introduction
Covid-19 has exposed the precarity of the current economic and financial
system. Aid budgets have been slashed (The Guardian, 2021), social secu-
rity gaps have been exposed (KPMG, 2020) and the fragility of healthcare
systems has been laid bare. The pandemic has further exacerbated the
inequality and divide within and between societies—including gender
inequalities, and has highlighted the impacts of historic disinvestment
(Capital Impact Partners, 2020) in marginalized communities.
Tackling these crises will require a huge amount of resources. It is in
the interest of all countries and international institutions to ensure that
the world recovers from the pandemic together to engage in a pathway
towards a peaceful, safe and dignified future. Without this, gains made
L. Achampong (B)
Eurodad (European Network On Debt and Development), Climate Finance,
Brussels, Belgium
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 21

Switzerland AG 2022
C. Cash and L. A. Swatuk (eds.), The Political Economy of Climate
Finance: Lessons from International Development, International Political
Economy Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12619-2_2
22 L. ACHAMPONG
in poverty eradication and towards sustainable development risk being

further undermined (UNDESA, 2020).
Tackling climate change and ensuring that there are liveable environ-
ments for people, biodiversity and ecosystems to flourish in is part of
achieving the sustainable development agenda. Ensuring that communi-
ties address and adapt to climate impacts enables them to maintain and
strengthen their livelihoods, and helps future generations to thrive. It also
supports the sustainable development of equitable societies within which
citizens have access to education, justice, health and affordable energy. As
such, climate finance is a vital and powerful sustainable development tool.
The objective of this chapter is to help strengthen synergies between
the agendas of the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). This chapter is comprised of three sections. The first section of
this chapter outlines the key issues, and the second section highlights
lessons learned from long-standing work on development finance that
should be taken into account in climate finance discussions. The final
section concludes with a set of policy options for the way forward.
This chapter argues that in order for climate finance to adequately
support vulnerable communities’ efforts to tackle climate change and
develop sustainably:
i. The climate finance agenda must be driven by the most vulnerable

ii. The quality of climate finance must improve
iii. Greater access to new and additional climate finance is needed to
minimize debt
iv. Climate finance must be gender-responsive.
Climate Finance: The Key Issues

Country Ownership of Climate Finance
Many climate-vulnerable countries in the global south are attempting to
respond to the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic while experiencing
ongoing climate impacts (BBC News, 2020; ReliefWeb, 2021). Although
developing countries have contributed the least to climate change, they
are experiencing the worst effects of climate change and have been
for decades (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, 2020). The compounding nature of
these impacts has made it difficult to put in place and implement domestic
Covid-19 health measures (The Daily Star, 2020); thereby impacting the
2 HOW LESSONS FROM DEVELOPMENT FINANCE … 23
ability of developing countries to meet their own needs during these

crises, which in turn is exacerbating vulnerable countries’ risk of falling
into a debt trap (Munevar, 2021a). Despite all of this, increasingly there
is a lack of alignment between climate-vulnerable countries’ strategies for
climate resilient, sustainable development (UNDP, 2019) and developed
countries’ development cooperation commitments. Given the severity of
climate change and its impacts on achieving sustainable development,
countries must work to realign the two.
However, many climate-related meetings where discussions on aligning
the two take place, are hosted by the large economic powers that are also
the biggest contributors to the current climate crisis (UNFCCC, 2021a).
Examples of such meetings include the Ministerial on Climate Action
(MoCA) (European Commission, 2022) which is hosted by Canada,
China, and the European Union (EU); the Petersburg Climate Dialogue
(PCD) (UNFCCC, 2021b) hosted by Germany and the UNFCCC
Climate negotiations (COP) Presidency in a given year. These two meet-
ings only invite a select group of developed and developing countries to
join, but hold political discussions on a range of technical issues that affect
multiple stakeholders. The ‘select’ nature of these meetings excludes
developing countries from important discussions and decisions, including
discussions on access to climate finance. Thus the climate agenda is still
largely controlled and driven by the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.
The multilateral nature of the UN climate negotiations makes it a
useful forum for all relevant stakeholders to be a part of identifying the
problems and solutions. Indeed, between 2021 and 2024 the UNFCCC
climate negotiations will host the discussions for a New Collective Quan-
tified Goal on climate finance (NCQG) (UNFCCC, 2021c) to be agreed
and set, with the new goal expected to start in 2025. The last climate
finance goal agreed under the UNFCCC was ultimately a political agree-
ment among developed countries, that excluded developing countries and
was not based on the needs of developing countries. As such, the current
discussions to set a new global goal are an opportunity to ensure that
all climate finance contributors learn from the experiences of efforts to
achieve the existing global climate finance goal, and react to the feedback
from developing countries on pre-2025 climate finance (Achampong,
2021a). This is to ensure that post-2025, solutions can be used to ensure
that there is no global climate finance gap (Achampong, 2021b). It is
crucial that the process to set this new goal includes all relevant countries
and stakeholders, to ensure that these discussions—and the subsequent
24 L. ACHAMPONG
efforts agreed—are driven by equity and the needs of those most affected.
All affected stakeholders, including members of civil society must be a part
of policy development and implementation processes.
Quantity, Quality and Composition of Climate Finance

Implementing solutions and addressing climate impacts will require a
substantial amount of finance. As evidenced by the UNFCCC First
Report on the Determination of the Needs of Developing Country Parties,
the costed needs of developing countries to implement Nationally Deter-
mined Contributions (NDC) amount to between $US 5.8 trillion and
$US 5.9 trillion (Standing Committee on Finance, 2021). Out of this
“USD 502 billion is identified as needs requiring international sources
of finance” (Standing Committee on Finance, 2021), meaning that a
country is not able to fund these measures through the use of domestic
resources. These amounts do not include costed needs to implement
other climate action plans from developing countries e.g. Technology
Action Plans (TAP) or Adaptation Communications (AC), of which the
needs are also substantial (Standing Committee on Finance, 2021). To
add further context research published by the Climate Policy Initiative
(CPI) states that total global climate finance flows have slowed in the last
few years. Yet “[a]n increase of at least 590% in annual climate finance is
required to meet internationally agreed climate objectives by 2030 and to
avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change” (Buchner, 2021).
What is more, the 2021 NDC Synthesis report (UNFCCC, 2021d) shows
there is a clear difference between developing countries’ climate action
needs and their financial capacities. Furthermore, 2022 estimates from
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
state that “[t]he gap in financing needed to achieve SDGs, such as
ending poverty and halting climate change, now sits at $17.9 trillion
for the 2020–2025 period […] This puts the current annual gap at
$3.6 trillion—more than $1 trillion wider than before the COVID-19”
(UNCTAD, 2022). This is backed up by 2022 analysis from the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shows that “In a
high-vulnerability development pathway, climate change in 2030 could
push 35–132 million people into extreme poverty, in addition to the
people already in poverty assuming climate is unchanged” (O’Neill et al.,
2022).
These data sources all highlight that the current quantity of climate
finance is insufficient to meet current and future needs. Yet the existing
global climate finance goal of US$ 100 billion per year is not predicted
to be met until 2023 and is not predicted to be surpassed until 2024
(COP26 Presidency, 2021).
Worryingly, there are three ongoing trends that are undermining the
quality of climate finance:
i. non-concessional finance
ii. over-reporting on climate finance, and
iii. dichotomy between needs and granted finance.
The majority of climate finance is provided in the form of loans

(OECD Library, 2021), which are often counted at their full face value
(Oxfam International [OI], 2020), instead of only counting the grant
equivalent of a loan.1 When only the grant equivalent is factored in,
then climate finance between 2017 and 2018 is estimated to be US$ 25
billion per year (OI, 2020), which is less than half of the estimated public
climate finance for this same period (OECD Library, 2021). Moreover,
according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment (OECD) public loans in 2019 (concessional and non-concessional)
accounted for seventy-one per cent of climate finance amounting to $US
44.5 billion (OECD Library, 2021). Additionally, the IPCC highlights
that “African countries expect grants rather than debt because loans
add to already high debt levels that exacerbate fiscal challenges, espe-
cially given the debt crisis emerging out of COVID-19” (Trisos et al.,
2022: 28). This comes when finance from international economic insti-
tutions (which is typically in the form of debt-generating instruments) is
expected to grow significantly. As evidenced by the 2020 Joint Report
of eight Multilateral Development Banks (MDB) on climate finance for
developing countries, total loans, equity, lines of credit, and policy based
financing (borrowed finance) from these institutions amounted to $US
58.8 billion out of $US 66 billion in total climate finance provided (World
Bank Group et al., 2021). Thus, this excessive reliance on loans means
that climate finance makes climate-vulnerable countries more vulnerable
1 Grant equivalent: The final amount of money a developing country receives after
repayments, interest rates, fees and other factors.
26 L. ACHAMPONG
to debt, which in turn reduces the ability of these countries to adapt and
to address loss and damage, or to invest in high-quality and universal
public services and social protection.
Another worrying trend is that climate finance is being over-
reported. Oxfam estimates that over-reporting of climate relevance means
that bilateral climate finance could be around a third lower than reported
(OI, 2020). This is further echoed by research from CARE Denmark and
CARE Netherlands, which shows that the World Bank is over-reporting
on climate finance provided for adaptation (CARE Climate Change,
2021). Usefully, both developed and developing countries agree there
is a need for enhanced transparency on whether climate finance goals
are being met or not. However, the extent to which progress should
be tracked is a continuous matter for debate, including on the type of
financial flows that should be tracked.
One of the reasons for over-reporting on climate-relevant finance
is because the current methodologies used under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are not being
applied consistently to the data reported by climate finance providers
(Independent Expert Group on Climate Finance). All of this adds further
complexity to determining whether climate finance providers are truly on
track towards achieving existing, global climate finance goals. Vulnerable
communities cannot afford to be ‘short-changed’ if they are to address
the ongoing impacts of climate change, as well as develop sustainably.
In 2021, as part of a package agreeing the rules that guide the
implementation of the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2018a), countries
agreed on a set of common tabular format reporting tables on finan-
cial support provided and received (UNFCCC, 2022). Significantly, these
tables require developed countries to report on financial support pledged
and disbursed via various channels, including bilateral and multilateral
channels. Additionally, developed countries must also now report on the
inflows and outflows of finance they provide to multilateral institutions
separately, which makes it clearer to determine what disbursed multilat-
eral climate finance is attributable to which reporting country. Previously,
it was harder to determine how much finance provided to multilateral
institutions by a country was actually disbursed as climate finance to a
developing country.
However, these tables do not require developed countries to report on
the grant equivalent of finance provided but developed countries can do
so in a voluntary capacity. Knowing what the grant equivalent of finance
is makes it more manageable to accurately track climate finance and its

economic impact. Given the high-amount of finance that is provided
using debt-generating instruments such as loans (OECD Library, 2021),
the grant equivalent should always be reported. What is more, the funding
source and financial instrument used are only required to be reported on
to the ‘extent possible’. If developed countries do not report the final
instrument used to provide the finance it makes it harder to further the
collective understanding of the impact of debt-generating instruments.
Additionally, loss and damage finance cannot be reported as a type of
support, but can be reported under ‘additional information’ when the
information is available. While this is a significant development, consid-
ering that developing countries have repeatedly made it clear that they
need finance to address loss and damage, it is crucial that this flow is actu-
ally tracked to ensure there is a collective understanding of the financing
gap, on finance to address loss and damage.
Added to this, analysis by Oxfam shows that there is a clear dichotomy
between where climate finance is most needed and where it actu-
ally goes (OI, 2020). 2019 climate finance figures from the OECD
show that $US 50.8 billion out of $US 79.6 billion of provided and
mobilized climate finance went to mitigation; amounting to 63.8% for
mitigation measures (OECD, 2021). This shows that, while vulner-
able communities have identified mitigation as an area where finance is
needed (UNFCCC, 2021d), other areas of need are being severely under
supported. As the UNFCCC First Report on the Determination of the
Needs of Developing Country Parties shows, the most commonly identi-
fied areas where finance is needed are both mitigation (specifically on
renewable energy, energy efficiency, transport and forestry) and adapta-
tion (specifically on water, agriculture, coastal protection and resilience)
(Standing Committee on Finance, 2021; UNFCCC, 2021d). Increas-
ingly, these needs include access to finance to address severe losses and
damages caused by ongoing climate impacts (Achampong, 2022; Chhetri
et al., 2021; Standing Committee on Finance, 2021) the severity of
which cannot be overlooked.
Despite these clear signals from developing countries about their needs,
the Adaptation Fund (AF) remains severely underfunded. Total contri-
butions to the AF up to September 2021 amounted to US$1103.26
million (World Bank Group, 2021), whereas finance for fossil fuels—from
28 L. ACHAMPONG
G20 countries through their international public finance institutions—

amounted to US$77 billion per year between 2015 and 2020 (OCI &
FoE US, 2020). This is approximately 70 times more for fossil fuels
via G20 countries’ international public finance institutions in a one-
year period than in the 20-year history of the Adaptation Fund. Such
a disparity is highly worrying, particularly given the adaptation needs of
climate-vulnerable communities.
Accessing High-Quality, New and Additional Climate Finance

to Minimize Debt
Accessing finance is another component of quality finance. Between 1999
and 2018, seven out of the ten countries and territories most affected
by climate change were developing countries, and losses between this
period “amounted to around US$ 3.54 trillion (in purchasing power
parities)” (Eckstein et al., 2019). Such severe impacts are disproportion-
ately impacting developing countries, and they need access to additional
financial support to tackle climate change impacts.
To date, access to climate finance is often via complicated access
procedures that in some cases require the use of accredited entities as
‘middle-persons’. All of which impedes developing countries and climate-
vulnerable communities’ ability to tackle climate change. The lack of
access to climate finance, and the need for climate finance can some-
times result in developing countries agreeing bilateral climate finance
between themselves and richer countries. Experiences from development
finance agreements show that bilateral agreements often come with policy
conditions that vastly favour the richer country, and severely impact the
development of strong domestic economies in developing countries, as
well as livelihoods (Maffei, 2019). This also limits the ability of developing
countries to have democratic ownership over climate finance strategies.
Added to this is the complexity of climate finance flows. The Overseas
Development Institute (ODI) states “[t]he climate finance architecture is
too complex with insufficient resources spread thinly across many small
funds with overlapping remits” (Nakhooda et al., 2014). In the midst of
this complex landscape, development finance and climate finance streams
are often drawn from the same well. Significantly, the OECD states that
“Development finance and climate finance have distinct roles and aims.
A complete conflation of these budgets and efforts would likely not
succeed in achieving either of the critical climate or development agendas”

(Ahmad & Carey, 2021).
One of the main issues with the quality of climate finance is whether
or not it is additional to existing finance commitments, such as Official
Development Assistance (ODA). Developing countries made it clear from
the outset that climate finance must be ‘new and additional’ to existing
aid budgets. However, when the current $US 100 billion goal was set in
2009 at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) climate negotiations COP15 (it was formalized at COP16 in
2010), no baselines were set from which to count climate finance as addi-
tional to existing financial commitments (UNFCCC, 2009, 2011). Given
the declining levels of humanitarian financial support (Global Citizen,
2019) and cuts to development finance (Devex, 2020), it is crucial to
ensure that public climate finance providers do not divert finance away
from existing finance commitments to fund climate efforts. However, it is
estimated that, for 2017–2018, “reported climate-related development
finance was 25.5 per cent of bilateral Official Development Assistance
(ODA)”, and the “majority of [this] climate finance was counted towards
donor commitments to increase aid to 0.7% of gross national income”
(OI, 2020). All of which highlights the difficulties in ensuring that climate
finance is ‘new and additional’ to existing finance commitments.
Debt Implications
Low disbursement ratios coupled with a lack of access to climate finance
are impacting developing countries’ ability to carry out effective climate
action. Particularly, as due to other financial commitments, developing
countries often do not have the domestic financial flows to finance their
own climate action measures. Lower-income countries are spending five
times more on debt repayments than they are on tackling climate change
(Jubilee Debt Campaign, 2021). In 2020, lower-income countries spent
$372 billion on public external debt repayments (Munevar, 2021b).
What is more, the IPCC reports that “[t]he total external debt servicing
payments combined for 44 African countries in 2019 were USD 75 billion
(World Bank, 2018), far exceeding discussed levels of near-term climate
finance” (Trisos et al., 2022: 31).
Limited to no-capacity to tackle climate change in a fiscally responsible
and sustainable manner creates a continuous cycle of (i) climate-impacts
induced debt, which leads to (ii) debt-induced climate vulnerabilities, and
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of How to
build a house
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
Title: How to build a house

an architectural novelette
Author: Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc
Translator: Benjamin Bucknall
Release date: September 17, 2023 [eBook #71669]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Sampson Low, Marston, Low, and

Searle, 1874
Credits: Bob Taylor, deaurider and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HOW TO

BUILD A HOUSE ***
HOW TO BUILD A HOUSE.
THE OLD CHÂTEAU.

HOW TO BUILD A HOUSE:
AN ARCHITECTURAL NOVELETTE.
BY
E. VIOLLET-LE-DUC.
TRANSLATED BY BENJAMIN BUCKNALL,

ARCHITECT
LONDON:
SAMPSON LOW, MARSTON, LOW, AND SEARLE,
CROWN BUILDINGS, 188, FLEET STREET.
1874.
[All Rights Reserved.]

LONDON
R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS,
BREAD STREET HILL.
TRANSLATOR’S NOTE.
Among the voluminous and invaluable published works of M. Viollet-

le-Duc, none perhaps will have greater interest for the amateur or for
the practical architect than the “Histoire d’une Maison.” Of all the
architectural problems of the day there is not one of greater
importance or difficulty than that of building a house which shall fulfil
the various needs and conditions of a modern dwelling; and the
author has brought the results of a long course of study, observation,
and experience, to bear upon this problem in a most practically
instructive and fascinating shape. A lively narrative introduces the
reader to the minute and thorough discussion of every stage of the
processes involved, so that his attention is agreeably relieved; and
each step is illustrated by plates and diagrams, which render the
details intelligible even to the least informed student.
As the scene of this architectural novelette is laid in France, there
is much both in the general remarks and in the arrangements of the
building described which only applies to the social conditions and
requirements of the French. But the value of the principles laid down
and the practical instruction conveyed is not thereby materially
lessened, since every page of the book exhibits important truths or
excellent methods, which are of general application. By following out
those principles it would be easy to obtain the same admirable
adaptation of arrangement, soundness of construction, and charm of
design for an English house, which the author has so ably laid down
and fully illustrated in reference to its French counterpart.
It may be interesting to the reader to know that the “Histoire d’une
Maison” was written and illustrated by M. Viollet-le-Duc during the
evenings of two months—July and August—of last year (1873),
which were spent by him in the Alps for the purpose of surveying and
mapping for the French Government the whole of the French Alps—
a task accomplished by him, alone and unassisted, with minute
accuracy and beauty of delineation, and in a marvellously brief time.
Benjamin Bucknall,
Architect.
Oystermouth, Swansea,
April 1st, 1874.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
PAUL GETS AN IDEA 1
CHAPTER II.
WITH A LITTLE HELP, PAUL’S IDEA IS DEVELOPED 13
CHAPTER III.
THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE 26
CHAPTER IV.
PAUL’S IDEAS RESPECTING ART, AND HOW THEY WERE MODIFIED 31
CHAPTER V.
PAUL PURSUES A COURSE OF STUDY IN PRACTICAL
40
ARCHITECTURE
CHAPTER VI.
HOW PAUL IS LED TO RECOGNIZE CERTAIN DISTINCTIONS
60
BETWEEN ETHICS AND ARCHITECTURE
CHAPTER VII.
SETTING OUT THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE HOUSE, AND
71
OPERATIONS ON THE GROUND
CHAPTER VIII.
PAUL REFLECTS 81
CHAPTER IX.
PAUL, CLERK OF THE WORKS 88
CHAPTER X.
PAUL BEGINS TO UNDERSTAND 96
CHAPTER XI.
THE BUILDING IN ELEVATION 106
CHAPTER XII.
OBSERVATIONS ADDRESSED TO EUGÈNE BY PAUL, AND THE
115
REPLIES MADE TO THEM
CHAPTER XIII.
THE VISIT TO THE BUILDING 121
CHAPTER XIV.
PAUL FEELS THE NECESSITY OF IMPROVING HIMSELF IN THE ART
126
OF DRAWING
CHAPTER XV.
CONSIDERATION OF THE STAIRCASES 133
CHAPTER XVI.
THE CRITIC 137
CHAPTER XVII.
PAUL INQUIRES WHAT ARCHITECTURE IS 146
CHAPTER XVIII.
THEORETICAL STUDIES 156
CHAPTER XIX.
THEORETICAL STUDIES (continued) 172
CHAPTER XX.
STUDIES INTERRUPTED 183
CHAPTER XXI.
BUILDING RECOMMENCED—THE TIMBER WORK 189
CHAPTER XXII.
THE CHIMNEYS 204
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE CANTINE 211
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE JOINER’S WORK 214
CHAPTER XXV.
WHAT PAUL LEARNT AT CHATEAUROUX 222
CHAPTER XXVI.
THE SLATING AND PLUMBING 230
CHAPTER XXVII.
ORDER IN FINISHING THE WORK 241
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE HOUSE-WARMING 247
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
FIG PAGE
THE OLD CHÂTEAU Frontispiece.
THE OLD CELLAR Vignette.
1. PLAN OF THE GROUND FLOOR 22
2. PLAN OF THE FIRST FLOOR 24
3. ROOF PLAN 33
4. PLAN OF THE SECOND FLOOR 36
5. THE ENTRANCE FRONT 37
6. EXAMPLE OF A BUILDING SITE 46
7. DITTO 47
8. DITTO 49
9. SECTION OF CELLAR VAULT 53
10. THE OLD CELLAR 54
11. THE OLD CELLAR STAIRS 56
12. THE BULGED WALLS 58
13. CONSTRUCTION OF A ROOF PRINCIPAL 62
14. CAMBERED TIMBER 67
15. THE OLD ROOF 68
16. COUPLED TIMBERS 69
17. DITTO 69
18. TIMBER CLIPS 70
19. SETTING OUT THE BUILDING 73
20. USE OF THE THEODOLITE 79
21. THE CELLAR PLAN 89
22. DEPOSIT OF EXCAVATED SOIL 92
23. FOUNDATION STONES 94
24. SECTION OF SEWER 95
25. CENTERING OF CELLAR VAULT 97
26. SECTION OF CELLAR AIR-HOLES 99
27. RESPECTIVE VIEW OF DITTO 100
28. SPRING OF THE CELLAR VAULTING 101
29. THE GARDEN FRONT 103
30. THE QUOIN STONES 107
31. THE WINDOW CASING 108
32. THE CEILINGS 110
33. METHOD OF TRIMMING THE FLOORS 112
34. PERSPECTIVE OF DITTO 112
35. VIEW OF THE BUILDING OPERATIONS 120
36. HOLLOW BEDDED STONES 123
37. DRAWING MODELS 128
38. DITTO 129
39. PLANS AND SECTION OF THE PRINCIPAL STAIRS 132
40. THE STAIRCASE STRING 135
41. STEP OF WINDING STAIRS 136
42. SECTION OF THE SIDE WALLS, WITH DETAILS 163
43. AN ORIEL WINDOW 166
44. BAY WINDOW OF BILLIARD-ROOM 170
45. DETAIL OF CORNICE, STRING COURSE, ETC. 176
46. TRANSVERSE SECTION OF THE HOUSE 191
47. PLAN OF THE ROOF SUPPORTS 192
48. SECTION OF THE ROOF 194
49. THE STAIRCASE ROOF 196
50. FLAWS IN TIMBER 198
51. COUPLED BEAMS 199
52. SECTION OF THE FLOOR JOISTS 201
53. DITTO 201
54. SECTION OF THE FLOOR BEAMS 201
55. THE DORMER WINDOWS 203
56. THE DOORS 216
57. DETAILS OF DITTO 217
58. THE CASEMENTS 218
59. DETAILS OF DITTO 219
60. THE METHOD OF SLATING 233
61. DETAILS OF THE PLUMBER’S WORK 235
62. THE NEW HOUSE 258
HOW TO BUILD A HOUSE.
CHAPTER I.
PAUL GETS AN IDEA.
Who is happier than the young student from the Lyceum when he
comes home for the summer vacation, bringing with him proofs of a
well-spent year? Everything smiles upon him. The sky is serene, the
country wears its loveliest dress, and the fruit is ripe.
Everyone congratulates him on his success, and predicts for him,
after his six weeks’ repose, an energetic recommencement of
congenial labour, crowned by a brilliant career in the future.
Yes, our student is a happy fellow; the air seems preternaturally
light, the sun shines more brightly, and the meadows wear a richer
green. Even the unwelcome rain is laden with perfume.
As soon as the morning breaks he hastens to revisit his favourite
haunts in the park—the stream, the lake, and the farm—to see the
horses, the boat, and the plantations.
He chats with the farmer’s wife, who smilingly presents him with a
nice galette, hot from the oven. He walks with the gamekeeper, who
tells him all the news of the neighbourhood while going his rounds.
The sound of the sheep bells is musical—nay, even the monotonous
song of the shepherd-boy, now grown a tall fellow, and aspiring to
the full dignity of shepherd.
It is indeed a happy time. But in a few days the shade of the noble
trees, the lovely scenery, the long walks, the gamekeeper’s stories,
and even the boating, become wearisome, unless some congenial
occupation presents itself to occupy the mind. It is the privilege of old
age alone to delight in memories, and always to find fresh pleasure
in the contemplation of woods and fields.
The stores of memory are soon exhausted by youth; and quiet
meditation is not to its taste.
Monsieur Paul—a lively youth of sixteen—did not, perhaps,
indulge in these reflections in the abstract; but as a matter of fact,
after a week passed at the residence of his father, who cultivated his
considerable estate in the province of Berry, he had almost
exhausted the stock of impressions which the return to the paternal
domain had excited. During the long scholastic year how many
projects had he not formed for the next vacation! Six weeks seemed
too short a time for their accomplishment. How many things had he
to see again; how much to say and do. Yet in eight days all had been
seen, said, and done.
Besides, his eldest sister, who had been lately married, had set
out on a long journey with her husband; and as to Lucy, the
youngest, she seemed too much occupied with her doll and its
wardrobe to take an interest in the thinkings and doings of her
respected brother.
It had rained all day; and the farm, visited by M. Paul for the fifth
time, had presented a sombre and mournful aspect. The fowls
crouching under the walls had a pensive look; and even the ducks
were dabbling in the mud in melancholy silence. The gamekeeper
had indeed taken M. Paul with him on a hare-hunting expedition, but
they had returned without success, and pretty well soaked. To his
disappointment, M. Paul had found the keeper’s stories rather long
and diffuse—not the less so as they were being repeated for the
third time with few variations. Moreover, the veterinary surgeon had
announced that morning, to M. Paul’s vexation, that his pony had
caught a cold and must not quit the stable for a week. The paper had
been read after dinner, but M. Paul was little attracted by its politics,
and the miscellaneous intelligence was deplorably uninteresting.
Monsieur de Gandelau (Paul’s father) was too much taken up with
agricultural matters, and perhaps also with the treatment of his gout,
to seek to relieve the ennui of which his son was the victim; and
Madame de Gandelau, still suffering from the depression caused by
her eldest daughter’s departure, was working with a kind of
desperation at a piece of tapestry, whose destination was a mystery
to all about her, and perhaps even to the person who was so
laboriously adding stitch to stitch.
“You have had a letter from Marie?” said M. de Gandelau, putting
down the newspaper.
“Yes, my dear, this evening. They are enjoying themselves
excessively; the weather has been charming, and they have had the
most delightful excursions in the Oberland. They are on the point of
passing the Simplon for Italy. Marie will write to me from Baveno,
Hôtel de——”
“Capital! and how are they?”
“Quite well.”
“And they still mean to go to Constantinople on that important
business?”
“Yes, N—— has had a letter urging him to go; they will take Italy
only en route. They hope to embark at Naples in a month, at latest.
But Marie tells me they cannot return within a year. She does not
appear to think much of so long an absence, but it gives me a pang
which no arguments for its necessity can alleviate.”
“Ah! well, but do you expect our children to marry for our
advantage? And was it not settled that it should be so? They say
affection seldom stands the test of living constantly together on a
journey. N—— is a good, noble fellow, hard-working, and a little
ambitious, which is no bad thing. Marie loves him; she has
intelligence and good health. They will pass the trial successfully, I
have not a doubt, and will return to us well-tried companions for life,
thoroughly acquainted with each other, and having learned how to
further and to suffice for one another’s happiness; and with that
spice of independence which is so necessary for preserving a good
understanding with one’s neighbours.”
“I daresay you are right, my dear; but this long absence is not the
less painful to me, and this year will seem a long one. I shall
certainly be glad when I begin to prepare their rooms for them here,
and have only a few days to reckon till I may hope to see them
again.”
“Certainly, certainly; and I too shall be delighted to see them at
home. Paul, too! But as it is certain they will be a year away, it would
be a fine opportunity for resuming my plan.”
“What, my dear? Do you mean building the house you were
thinking of, on that bit of land which is part of Marie’s dowry? I beg of
you to do nothing of the kind. We have quite enough room for them
here, and for their children, if they have any. And, after this long
absence, it will be a new trial to me to have Marie settled at a
distance from us—not to have her near me. Besides, her husband
cannot stay three-quarters of a year in the country. His engagements
do not allow of it. Marie would then be alone. What can she do in a
house all to herself, with her husband absent?”
“She will do, my love, as you did yourself, when my business
called me—as it did too often—away from home; yet we were young
then. She will have her house to see after; she will get into the way
of managing her property; she will have occupation and
responsibilities; and so she will be satisfied with herself and with the
result of her thought and work. Believe me, I have seen the warmest
family affections weakened and destroyed by the habit of married
children living with their parents. The wife likes to be mistress in her
own house; and this is a sound and just feeling; we should not run
counter to it. A woman who has been wisely educated, having a
house to look after and the responsibility and independence which
responsibility in every form brings with it, is more capable of
maintaining her own dignity of character than one who has been kept
all her life in a state of tutelage. Marie would be very comfortable
here, very happy to be with us, and her husband would be not less
satisfied in knowing that she was with us; but she would not have a
home of her own. An unmarried daughter is only in her place when
with her mother; but a wife is only in her place in her own house. A
married woman in her mother’s house takes her place only as a
guest. And even if we suppose no mutual irritation to arise from this
life in common—and this can hardly fail to arise—it is certain that
indifference to practical interests, nonchalance, and even ennui, and
all the dangers thence ensuing, are sure to be caused by it.
“You have brought up your daughter too well for her not to be
ardently desirous of fulfilling all her duties; you have always shown
her an example of activity too conspicuous for her not to wish to

The Political Economy of Climate Finance Lessons From International Development Corrine Cash Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Political Economy of Climate Finance Lessons From International Development Corrine Cash Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Political Economy of Climate Finance Lessons From International Development Corrine Cash Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Political Economy of Climate

Finance: Lessons from International

Principles of International Political Economy Mark

China's Economic Rise: Lessons from Japan’s Political

Political Economy of Development in Turkey: 1838 –

The Political Economy of Human Behaviour and Economic

Ten Crises: The Political Economy of China’s

The International Political Economy of Oil and Gas 1st

Regulation and Finance in the Port Industry: Lessons

Political Economy of Development and Business: Towards

ISSN 2662-2483 ISSN 2662-2491 (electronic)

Cover illustration: © RBFried/iStockphoto

This book is the product of a Social Sciences and Humanities Research

Kumar Mariappan for their encouragement and support in the production

1 Climate Finance: Lessons from Development Finance 1

7 Delivering Adaptation Finance Through the Market?

Achampong Leia is a climate justice and women’s rights activist and

the Climate and Environment Program at St. Francis Xavier University,

Cathy also teaches on Institutions of Aid and Policy Analysis in Energy

3MR Third Monitoring Round

CSP Communication Service Provider

NDA National Designated Authority

Fig. 3.1 Trends in international climate finance (Source OECD,

Table 1.1 Group of 10 (G10) country climate finance performance 5

Climate Finance: Lessons from Development

Corrine Cash and Larry A. Swatuk

We either choose to achieve rapid and large-scale reductions of emissions

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Anthropogenic climate change poses an existential threat to humanity.

more creative (e.g. carbon markets, job-creating low-emission produc-

Financing Climate Action

Table 1.1 Group of 10 (G10) country climate finance performance

Country Fair share (US$ Provided (US$ Progress towards

Sweden 0.91 1.47 161

Source Adapted from Colenbrander et al. (2022)

states have performed in meeting their mutually agreed target of 0.7% of

Financing the Sustainable

1) estimated ‘that incremental spending needs in low- and lower-middle-

Problems with ‘Aid’

the sustainable development goals are as diverse as are their socio-

the 2020 debt of low- and middle-income Sub-Saharan African countries

change-driven extreme events are increasing incidences, scales and impacts

arisen a powerful constellation of social forces (companies, states, individ-

social equity, economic efficiency, environmental sustainability. Irrespec-

needed for a 1.5 °C target is politically ambitious for most developed

relation to lessons from efforts to improve effective development coop-

hinder different project development processes. This re-affirms the value

proportionately less than finance directed to mitigating climate break-

higher than in recent years. Besides the questionable efficacy of such

a transdisciplinary approach. As one of the first attempts to systematically

How Lessons from Development Finance

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 21

in poverty eradication and towards sustainable development risk being

i. The climate finance agenda must be driven by the most vulnerable

Climate Finance: The Key Issues

ability of developing countries to meet their own needs during these

Quantity, Quality and Composition of Climate Finance

The majority of climate finance is provided in the form of loans

is makes it more manageable to accurately track climate finance and its