Eliette Riera’s Post

🌍 That concludes London Climate Action Week. It's been an informative week full of valuable discussions. The final event we attended was "Innovative Climate Finance: Reforming Global Financial Architecture for a Sustainable Future," hosted by Aurélien Pillet from Globesight, featuring speakers Dr. Malle Fofana, Lucia F., Satheesh Sundararajan, Saliem Fakir, and Guly Sabahi. Our key takeaways from the event were: 💧As the effects of climate change worsen, the global financial structure faces significant and increasing challenges. These challenges include high borrowing costs, substantial debt levels, inequitable fund distribution, and heavy administrative burdens. 💧Climate finance is primarily sourced from public funds, which face competition from other sectors. There needs to be reforms in the global financial structure to mobilise private funding as there is a significant gap between public and private finance. 💧International climate funds play a crucial role in mitigating, adapting, and performance-based finance. They are positioned as de-riskers and finance aggregators but unfortunately lack sufficient capacity. Integration across the financing supply chain and engaging all actors is vital. A big thank you to all the speakers throughout the week for their valuable insights and perspectives on a variety of climate-related issues, reminding us of our responsibility to protect the environment and the opportunities we have to find innovative sustainable solutions to the challenges ahead. #londonclimateactionweek #climatechange #climatefinance

Today, the new Fiscal Sustainability Report for Switzerland 2024 was published. The report not only deals with the long-term fiscal burden of ageing, but for the first time presents results about the effects of climate mitigation measures on public finances. Thanks to everyone involved: Benjamin Lerch, Carsten Colombier, Thomas Brändle, Michaël Girod, Philipp Rohr, Sarah Pfäffli, Sabine D'Amelio, Eidgenössische Finanzverwaltung EFV, Ecoplan

Excellent event last night hosted by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change & the Environment at The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), reflecting on developments over the last 15 years since the Climate Change Act (CCA) was passed. A few key takeaways: - The way that the Government has rowed back on certain aspects of our net-zero agenda has been damaging to the reputation of the UK internationally, and the investment case for net-zero generally. The challenge here is investment, and investment requires certainty as to the direction of travel. - The CCA has had a range of direct and indirect benefits in empowering civil society to bring cases before the courts, challenging the way that the government is delivering net-zero. This has included by way of the evidence that has come out of these cases, and in allowing arguments to be reframed in terms of carbon budgets. - The CCA would benefit from being better aligned with our international commitments, particularly our NDCs under the Paris Agreement. It would also make sense if the CCA placed broader duties on all Ministers and government departments to take our net-zero targets into account in all aspects of decision-making. The CCA might also be seen as overly procedural - it tells us the process that the government has to follow but lacks robust requirements for actions that the Courts can force the government to focus on. - The broader challenge here is balancing the timescales of democracy (which runs in five year cycles in the UK) with the both longer and shorter term nature of climate change. John Gummer, Rt Hon The Lord Deben was a true highlight from my perspective, and he powerfully drove home the importance of galvanising actions from young people to get politicians to focus more carefully on climate change. He said two things that particularly stuck with me: 💡 "If we don't have a just transition, we won't have one." 💡 "The world we are building by fighting climate change is a better world, a cleaner world, a more just world." Thanks to all of the panellists (Nicholas Stern, Alina Averchenkova, Lord Robert Carnwath, Lord Deben, and Ruchi Parekh) for an excellent and thought-provoking evening. #climatechange #law #policy #netzero

Great session at the #eaDebates this week on the EU’s way forward on Climate Action in the next EU institutional cycle as the #eugreendeal is facing headwinds. Great to hear Kurt Vandenberghe Director General at DG Climat frame this as an investment plan and economic modernisation programme. Some key takeaways: - the Green Deal sets the framework form tomorrows value chains: as such it has major security and competitiveness implications. - investments and how to finance these are key. Investments in a way are the implementation of the Green Deal. - businesses - at least energy companies and the cement value chain - want stability and certainty of Green Deal policies. Their investment cycles are 30-40years so they need to make decisions now for 2050… - everyone agreed on the need for a smart and realistic industrial policy. Where I am concerned - and moderator Anna Gumbau Martínez graciously picked up my question - is a risk of cognitive dissonance or echo chambers/silos: when sectors needing to transition and decarbonise speak of financing, they chiefly speak of public finance to de-risk investments (state aid, guarantees, CFDs, #blendedfinance #etsinnovationfund). But when European political leaders speak of financing, you hear a lot of talk about the #capitalmarketsunion and mobilising private capital - for example the Letta report recently. As the European Commission repeatedly noted, we have an investment gap of EUR620bn per annum. Therefore private capital has a key role to play. But this will require a much stronger dialogue between policymakers, industry and finance to understand the investments needs, the risk-return profiles and the type of funding (lending, bonds, equity, public vs private markets) and where public money is necessary to improve the “bankability” (“investability”).

In an op-ed for Law360, my colleague Stefanie Spancken-Monz and I analyse the three recent ECHR rulings, discussing in particular the below key aspects. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! 📌 In its decisions in Duarte Agostinho v. Portugal and 32 Other States and Carême v. France, the ECHR adopted a hands-off approach vis-à-vis procedural issues, dismissing the claims as inadmissible. Following these rulings, it is now clear that EU climate change claims need to satisfy stringent requirements with respect to (i) territorial jurisdiction, (ii) exhaustion of local remedies, and (iii) standing based on individual victim status. 📌 Conversely, in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland, the court took a more hands-on approach. It strengthened the role of NGOs by holding that associations do not necessarily have to show that they or their members were victims of convention violations related to climate change for them to have standing. On the merits, it found Switzerland to be in breach of the convention for not sufficiently combating climate change. 📌 The three ECHR climate rulings will likely have significant impact. Most notably, the decision in KlimaSeniorinnen demonstrates the active role that the ECHR intends to play in relation to climate change disputes, although the exact contours remain to be seen. In any event, it is to be expected that this is only the starting point for further climate change disputes before the ECHR.

Thank you for joining our book club in London last Friday - here were some of our discussion points: Can companies truly self regulate when it comes to taking climate action? No! There is consistent profit incentive to not cooperate with agreements to climate goals. Relying on firm self regulation for corporate climate action is neither reliable nor sustainable long term... governments must take unanimous action, and there lies the challenge. Do corporations themselves have moral obligations to act with purpose and within planetary boundaries, whilst protecting stakeholders? Or is their only obligation to make profit? Some of us had mixed views. The discussion considered whether it is the corporation itself or the individuals behind the corporation. Does a corporation as an entity, have moral obligations? Is purpose for profit a good option? If the only underlying motivation is profit, does 'purpose' risk empty promises and greenwashing? Or is purpose a good way to incentivise corporations to think about how society benefitting corporate action could be a positive for shareholders too? What a fruitful discussion... we look forward to the next book club meeting! Afsaneh Angelina Rafii

While an important first step, the SEC's new #climaterisk disclsoure rule falls far short of what is needed. Dropping Scope 3 emissions disclosure and allowing companies to determine if Scope 1 & 2 emissions are material before they are required to disclose, will deprive investors and US financial markets of the information they need to make sound decisions about climate risk facing publicly traded companies. The SEC rule also falls far short of California's new laws on greenhouse gas emissions disclosure (SB 253) and climate risk disclosure (SB 261 --which was orignially proposed and written by our Climate Risk Initiative at the Center for Law, Energy and Environment (CLEE) at University of California, Berkeley - School of Law Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) at Berkeley Law ) as well as EU and other international disclosure requirements. Ceres, Inc. ClimateWorks Foundation Principles for Responsible Investment Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change & the Environment The Nature Conservancy Center for Law, Energy & the Environment at Berkeley Law https://lnkd.in/g7Q-QUJC

Hungry for a new recipe? This one’s on financing the climate transition 🌎 ! Last March 2023, I joined a group of passionate and brilliant experts from government, industry, finance, and academia at a workshop hosted by Climate Compatible Growth #CCG#CCG#CCG in London. We shared common visions of a #lowcarbon future, and participated in a highly interactive dialogue led and curated by the CCG Team. Find the fruit of collaboration recently published here: https://lnkd.in/gtcRvbyt This paper dives into an emerging and effective approach to access #climatefinance that marries political leadership with sound technical analysis. Key features of a roadmap to promote Climate Compatible Growth are: 1.    Politics: Garnering high-level support for decarbonization. 2.    Preparation: Establishing the foundations of institutional capacity. 3.    Vision: Aligning climate change objectives with broader development goals. 4.    Modelling: Conducting deliberative quantification of scenarios. 5.    Consultation: Engaging inclusively across stakeholder groups. 6.    Operationalization: Enhancing the policy and regulatory framework. 7.    Finance: Developing investment plans and financing strategies. Huge thanks to Mark Howells and the CCG team for leading, and inviting us to this brilliant initiative. Very inspiring to be part of this important dialogue with our valued partner, the FCDO Lily Ryan-Collins. Now let the cooking begin! Jamie Leather, Hannah Luscombe, Emma Richardson, James Dixon, Naomi Tan, Vignesh Sridharan, Holger Dalkmann, Johanna Zilliacus

As the vibrant capital of Europe, Brussels is the perfect place to dive into the carbon removals regulatory landscape! In the 'Regulatory Insights' panel within the Negative Emissions Summit, we will be discussing current policies, potential challenges, and the role of government in fostering the growth of CDR. We will be debating the role of the EU and national targets for carbon removals in driving demand and regulatory certainty while bringing in international perspectives on target setting under the NDCs. Panellists: Alexandre Paquot, Director, DG Climate Action at the European Commission (EU Environment and Climate) Katie Lebling, Research Associate at the World Resources Institute Rodica Avornic, Associate Policy Director at Carbon Gap David Thing, Carbon Markets Business Lead at Ørsted Nicole Herold, Policy Manager at Deutscher Verband für negative Emissionen e.V. (DVNE) Moderator: Alice Hancock, EU Correspondent at the Financial Times Join us in Brussels to discuss the role of government in bridging funding gaps, spearheading strategies to stimulate immediate demand for carbon removals, and initiating policies for long-term support for CDR. Register for in-person attendance: https://lnkd.in/dBzP4XaB

Thank you, Mafalda Duarte for amplifying the need to simply access to GCF resources. It will be a game changer in the quantity of climate finance flows to developing countries. Embracing concessional climate finance is crucial especially for long term and scale climate change projects. We however need to be cautious in ensuring that it does not drive developing countries into unsustainable debt dungeons. As such, whilst it is concessional and a necessity, we need to keenly forecast and monitor its likely implication on debt burdens of developing countries.