Read the liveblog transcript

From the liveblog: Niclas Svenningsen of  UNFCCC says the private sector will invest where it makes sense to the private sector to invest. By putting a price on carbon, e.g. through CDM, that incentive is there. Over the past 10 years CDM has generated more than 1,4 billion tons of emission reductions, and seen more than US$ 215 billion in investments in CDM projects. But due to restrictions of use of CDM in some of the major carbon markets (e.g EU emission trading scheme) the demand for CDM credits is too low to drive investments. Getting more funding for adaptation (and mitigation) requires higher CDM offset prices, which will be the case once parties agree to increased ambition, and provided that parties do not restrict the use of CDM credits. To be fair to EU, while they on one hand restrict the supply of CDM credit), many other countries don’t use them at all.

From the liveblog: Svenningsen points that about 50% of estimated climate finance needs would need to be provided from the private sector. At the same time as the world is struggling to come to grips with how to meet the funding needs, the global carbon markets are crashing with rock-bottom prices for carbon credits, reflecting a too low mitigation ambition to drive carbon markets.

From the liveblog: AlertNet Climate Editor Laurie Goering says: Seems to me that rising losses from extreme weather - particularly floods, like those that hit Thai factories not so long ago - would be a pretty good argument for the private sector investing in adaptation (or at least flood walls, etc.) out of self interest.

From the liveblog: Smita Nakhooda from the Overseas Development Institute says making progress on mobilising new sources of climate finance is going to be a key challenge in the year ahead, and may have implications for the links between ODA and climate finance and issues of additionality. If climate finance can be delivered from new and innovative sources of climate finance, this may allow for greater clarity on additionality, and reduce risks that climate finance will dwarf ODA. Options to raise new sources of climate finance are interlinked with developed countries domestic efforts to respond to climate change including new efforts to price carbon and reduce subsidies for fossil fuels.

From the liveblog: AlertNet's Laurie Goering asked how did this finance gap between 2010-2012 and 2020 come to be in the first place? Seems a fairly huge and evident hole, right?

From the liveblog: Smita Nakhooda from the Overseas Development Institute says on the gap in climate finance: briding this gap was certainly a focus of much of the negotiation on finance at Doha. If there is going to be a different outcome at Warsaw, there will need to be a political process that gets underway within developed countries to mobilise new finance, including in the context of acting to realise new sources of finance.

From the liveblog: Niclas Svenningsen from UNFCCC says: To Robertmwaren’s question about, how to draw the line between what counts as adaptation vs mitigation (Is this a line worth drawing at all?) 
Good question!! In some cases the on-the-ground action will contribute to both mitigation and adaptation. One possible model is to NOT make that distinction but ask the end users of finance decide their priorities themselves, but it is equally plausible that donors will put requirements on how to use the funding. I think this is the norm today.

From the liveblog: While allocation for mitigation is increasing, allocation for adaptation (which is more relevant for developing countries) is increasing. In climate finance, will there be separate allocations for adaptation and mitigation? If so how much will be allotted for adaptation and how much for mitigation?

Some of the problems countries have encountered re: climate finance have been associated with the difficulties of navigating the proliferation of finance channels and entities; it seems that the lessons of aid effectiveness have not translated into this field. What changes do you anticipate with the advent of 'readiness' finance under the GCF? And related to this, are small nations' demands for 'direct access' realistic in the short-medium term?
by NaomiH 

From the liveblog: Daisy Streatfield from the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change says: We fund a range of programmes with our International Climate Fund, some are bilaterally with governments, some multilateral funds, some through institutions like CDKN. We have a set of indicators against which we will measure the outcomes delivered. We want to ensure that our programmes deliver real results in developing countries and that we learn what works and what doesn't.