Questions rise over $100 bn climate change financing progress

A day before the crucial climate conference in Paris, Economic Affairs Secretary Shaktikanta Das today questioned the "correctness" of an OECD report claiming significant progress on a roadmap for USD 100 billion a year climate change financing by 2020.
During the recent Lima World Bank/IMF meetings, India had raised the issue of a roadmap for USD 100 billion a year climate change financing by 2020.
Das has stated that India had also raised questions on the "correctness" of the recent OECD report, which has claimed that significant progress had already been made.
He expressed his views in his foreword to a discussion paper titled 'Climate Change Finance, Analysis of a Recent OECD Report: Some Credible Facts Needed' prepared by the Climate Change Finance Unit, Department of Economic Affairs.

"...Our Climate Change Finance Unit , Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance and its experts have mentioned that the OECD report appears to have overstated progress," the Finance Ministry said in a statement.
The discussion and the review paper suggests that much more work has to be done, it said.

Das has further said that "we need to establish more credible, accurate, and verifiable numbers on the true size of the mobilisation of climate change finance commitments and flows from developed to developing countries".
The OECD in partnership with Climate Policy Initiative (OECD-CPI) recently released a paper 'Climate Finance in 2013-14 and the USD 100 billion goal'.

The paper has claimed significant progress towards that goal. The preliminary estimates were that the mobilisation of climate change finance from developed to developing countries had reached USD 62 billion in 2014 and USD 52 billion in 2013, equivalent to an annual average over the two years of USD 57 billion.
The discussion paper examined "carefully the OECD report's accuracy, methodology and verifiability of the numbers reported. It finds serious problems on all counts".
Numbers were derived on self-reported basis from self-interested players, and open to "gaming" and exaggeration.
The discussion paper added that the views and analysis contained do not necessarily reflect the views of the government of India.