OWG Proposed Target 13.a
RATING: This target is rated as UNCERTAIN. Currently, LDCs are struggling with the general mechanisms of how the UNGCF would operate. Without clarifying how the fund will function at a practical level (e.g. managing LDC concerns such as geographical concentrations) and without the $100 billion of funding in place, the risk of operationalizing the UN GCF quickly could be an expensive and ineffective undertaking. At this time, the benefits of achieving the goal as stated are not well known. If the fund is used to promote R&D then rating would be PHENOMENAL. If the fund is used to rollout projects with inappropriate technologies then the rating would be POOR.
Setting the Right Global Goals
Just have three minutes? Watch the video:
You can read about our prioritization project, setting smart, cost-effective goals in this op-ed published around the world including Turkey, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Uganda, South Korea, Costa Rica and the Philippines.
Download the entire report
In our recent report, not just the target above, but all 169 targets have been assessed by 60 teams of the world’s top economists. The targets have been categorized into five ratings based on evidence of economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits. While we applaud that the UN Open Working Group's final outcome document contains 43 fewer targets than the previous document, we are concerned that many targets have simply been combined, therefore reducing the number of both phenomenal and poor targets assessed according to our cost-benefit analysis. Our new assessment includes suggestions for how these can be improved as reported in this article by the Financial Times.