{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029116465863453816, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.602649006622516, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
New and additional to what? Assessing options for baselines to assess climate finance pledges

All major climate policy agreements – the UN Framework Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and recently the Cancún Agreements – have stated that climate finance for developing countries will be ‘new and additional’. However, the term ‘new and additional’ has never been properly defined. Agreeing to a system to measure a baseline from which ‘new and additional’ funding will be calculated will be central to building trust and realizing any post-Kyoto agreement. We explore eight different options for a baseline, and assess each according to several criteria: novelty to existing pledges, additionality to development assistance, environmental effectiveness, distributional consequences, and institutional and political feasibility. Only two baseline options do well on these criteria and are therefore viable: ‘new sources only' and ‘above pre-defined business as usual level of development assistance’.