D e v e l o pme n t : E q u a l i t i e s a n d s u s t a i n a b i l i t y pledges of Copenhagen. Collectively these are seen as important developments towards improved access opportunities to the climate change global funds. Conclusions The national and regional capacity required to navigate, access and successfully implement climate change resources from different development partners has progressed over the years and will continue to do so. The last three years have drawn particular attention with climate change financing pledges, resulting in focused efforts to better understand and approach this issue in a sustainable and practical manner, many of which are being led by Pacific island countries themselves. Improved ability to access and effectively manage climate change finance cannot be considered in a vacuum. It must be guided by country priorities and clearly add to the overall resilience, risk reduction and sustainable development of PICs. It is directly related to and intertwined with development aspirations and challenges, and is subject to the array of existing development co-ordination challenges on top of the particular complexities surrounding climate change financing. Alignment and integration of efforts on climate change financing and development coordination will continue to be encouraged and strengthened between relevant stakeholders at all levels. As such, the understanding and support of donors to ensure that processes do not gain additional complexity will allow PICs to focus on the challenges of climate change adaptation, mitigation and risk reduction. Current efforts to progress reform of public financial management systems and the adoption of more transparent aid management policies will provide direct and tangible returns beyond improved access to climate change financing for PICs. To this end, the Forum Compact for Strengthening Development Co-ordination provides good guidance by defining avenues for reporting and a framework for the consideration of issues jointly by development partners and FICs at the country level. It is essential, however, that while recipient countries and their bilateral partners continue to strengthen their systems to better utilise all available resources to build resilience and lasting development potential, global finance for climate change, ODA and investment must be demystified and reformed to ensure that the most vulnerable and those with the least capacity are able to access and benefit on an even playing field. For most PICs, the realm of global financial decision making and reform is well beyond their reach. In such circumstances larger players at the helm, including the Commonwealth, have a responsibility to represent the perspectives and voices of the smallest and most vulnerable. Acknowledgements With especial thanks to Tuiloma Neroni Slade, Secretary General; Coral Pasisi, regional and international issues adviser; Dr Scott Hook, economic infrastructure adviser; and Exsley Taloiburi, climate change co-ordination officer of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. Endnotes 1 PIFS Options paper 2011c and SPREP paper 2011. 2 PIFS Booklet 2012 (www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/ attachments/documents/Pacific%20experiences%20with%20 modalities%20relevant%20for%20Climate%20Change%20Fi nancing,%202012.pdf). 3 www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/embeds/file/ PCCFAF_NauruCaseStudy_Final%20Report.pdf. 4 Leonardo 2010. 5 http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/embeds/ file/PCCFAF_Final_Report.pdf. Commonwealth Governance Handbook 2013/14 112
CGH13_ebook
To see the actual publication please follow the link above