Wednesday, October 31, 2012

GEF & GCF



Global Environment Facility ( GEF )

Global environment Facility was created in 1991 as a result of mounting concern in the preceding decade over global environmental problems and efforts to formulate financing responses to address these problems. Of the many ideas for financing environmentally beneficial projects proposed by various governmental and non-governmental institutions, the GEF was the one which finally received the necessary political and financial support. The GEF is funded by donor nations, who commit money every four years through a process known as GEF replenishment. The GEF makes these grants available to developing countries and economies in transition to support actions to address critical threats to the global environment in the areas related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer and persistent organic pollutants. Apart from serving as the financial mechanism of UNFCCC, GEF also serves as the financial mechanism of other Conventions, namely Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD).

Green Climate Fund ( GCF )
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is designated as an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is accountable to and will function under the guidance of the Conference of the Parties (COP). It has been formed in accordance with article 11 of the Convention, and has been founded within the framework of the UNFCCC as a mechanism to transfer money from the developed to the developing world, in order to assist the developing countries in adaptation and mitigation actions to combat climate change. The formal decision to form this Fund was taken at the 15th CoP in Copenhagen. And it is expected that the GCF would deliver a significant portion of the climate finance pledge by developed countries to mobilize $100 billion per year by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

Why was there a need to set up the Green Climate Fund , when already the GEF was set up ?


With the growing realization about the large amount of resources that would be required for climate change mitigation and adaptation, especially in developing countries and also with fourth assessment report of the IPCC establishing this fact. It became evident that the funding and operational arrangements under the Global Environment Facility were inadequate, and there was a need for major and urgent reforms in the financial mechanism. With this, the developing countries initiated the talks on the need of a new green fund to carry out the full mandate of provision of financial resources to developing countries exclusively dedicated to climate change, unlike GEF which serves broader areas of global environment. Moreover, the GEF is based on voluntary contributions rather than being based on the principle of assessed contributions, which generates concerns over the political neutrality of the Fund. It was established at that time without any legal capacity and there were also other concerns, like lack of financing for adaptation. This is also because adaptation targets local impacts and associated vulnerabilities rather than generating global benefits, which the GEF mandates. Most importantly the funds received under the climate change focal area in GEF were not in line with the actual requirement of funds, and neither was the scope of GEF large enough to channel and disburse a significant part of the US $100 billion pledged under long term finance by developed countries, which would now flow through the Green Climate Fund. All these reasons lead to the formation of the Green Climate Fund. 



  



Climate Change Finance Unit : Functions and Responsibilities



  • To serve as the nodal point on all climate change financing matters in the Finance Ministry.
  • To represent Ministry of Finance in all climate change financing related issues in all international and domestic  agreement & conventions.
  • To prepare briefs and position papers for Government of India's position on climate change financing
  • To provide guidance and inputs to MoEF to feed into climate change negotiations as well as to develop capacity to analyze emerging issues
  • Assess the submissions on 'climate change financing' from various national Governments who are Parties to the UN framework Convention on Climate Change
  • Analyze the financial pledges of developed countries
  • Provide inputs to Green Climate Fund.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

India Ranks 132 ( 185 )in "Ease of Entrepreneurs Starting a Business": World Bank

India remains one of the most difficult places to do business in the world. It has once again been ranked 132nd of the 185 countries in Doing Business 2013, a study conducted by the International Finance Corporation. This being in contrast to Bangalore being ranked in Top 10 cities in the world for entrepreneurship. India is below neighbouring nations with Bangladesh at 129, Pakistan at 107 and Sri Lanka at 81. India continues to be a tough place for doing business even as the country has improved regulator processes for starting enterprises and trading across borders. Singapore retained its top spot in this list for the seventh year in a row.
Also, India could not make into the 10 economies that have improved the most. Poland (rank 55) tops this list, with Sri Lanka (81) coming second and Ukraine (137) third. India also remains the second-most difficult country to enforce contracts (184) just behind Timor-Leste (185).


As a consolation, India ranked among the top 50 improvers since 2005. The report said that India has implemented regulatory reforms particularly in the early years of the Doing Business survey. It also said that after establishing its First Credit Bureau in 2004, India focused mostly on simplifying and reducing the cost of regulatory processes in such areas as starting a business, paying taxes and trading across borders. Also, India is the first economy in the region to make dealing with construction permits easier for local firms since 2005.
In nutshell, it is a bad news for India that aspires to return to 8%-plus growth rate in the medium term in order to create jobs and lift a huge mass of its citizens out of poverty. These numbers will have to change considerably if India has to return to high growth and if it is to generate jobs. Just opening a few sectors to foreign investment in the name of reforms will not be sufficient. India should take on basic tasks to become a good place for doing business.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Decontrol the Sugar Industry



A govt. committee headed by Chairman of PM’s Economic Advisory Council , C Rangarajan has Favoured to Decontrol the Sugar Industry , Dispensing Immediately with the Levy Sugar Obligation & Administrative Control on Non-levy Sugar .
According to committee , India contribute 17% to the world sugar production but its share in export is only just 4% . The committee pitched for a Stable Trade Policy and a Moderate Duty of Import & Export & also to Done Away Outright Ban or Quantitative Restrictions on Sugar Trade . Committee points out that Export & Import Policy should not be guided by Domestic Availability. The Committee recommended for the removal of the concept of a minimum distance of 15 kms obligating a mill to buy cane from growers with in the reservation area . Instead , mills must enter into contracts with farmers . This would help phase out the cane reservation area & bonding .
Further , The Committee suggested the State Administered Price (SAP) of sugar cane set by state should be done away with , in favour of the Fair & Remunerative Price (FRP) set by the Central Govt. as minimum . Mills must share 70% of value of suger & each by product , including bagasses , molasses & price-mud (ex-mill) , as cane dues payable to farmers for supplies .

And , on account of payment to farmers , Committee recommended that payment to farmers should be made in two phase : the first , the Minimum FRP and the second subsequent to the publication of half – yearly ex-mill prices . 
Next , Committee says , Rationalization of Sugar Cane Price and Liberalization of Sugar Trade need to be introduced over a period of 2-3 years in a calibrated and phased manner . However , levy sugar obligation & administrative control on non-levy sugar should be done away with .  Under which , the mills are required to sell 10% of their production to govt. at below market price for the poor under the TPDS . Instead , the state that want to provide sugar under TPDS might procure from open market through competitive bidding and also fix the issue price .