Excellencies, colleagues,
I am Federico Merino from the Government of the City of Buenos Aires, speaking on behalf of the Local Governments and Municipal Authorities constituency.
Our contribution connects your four questions through one concern: how international finance can strengthen a country’s capacity to decide, invest and deliver public services.
That starts with distinguishing provision, allocation and access. Replenishments and multi-year commitments already provide some visibility, although we are seeing reduced or withdrawn pledges. The practical question is what countries can actually programme, on what terms, and with what control over priorities. We therefore propose published approval and disbursement timelines, funded preparation and procurement free from donor tying, with proportionate safeguards.
These reforms need to reflect how each channel works. Climate funds and development banks have different mandates and instruments, but both must respond to developing-country priorities, with local governments meaningfully involved in decision-making.This is how country ownership becomes part of allocation.
Effective access also depends on adequate provision. The COVID response exposed major differences in fiscal and monetary capacity between developed and developing countries. Scaling up climate finance requires comparable political commitment, translating available fiscal capacity into additional international public support under Article 9.1.
Existing commitments remain the starting point. We propose increasing resources through international tax cooperation, action against tax havens and illicit flows, and solidarity levies allocated to climate finance. Bridgetown offers further avenues through Special Drawing Rights, including rechanneling through development-bank hybrid capital and consideration of new allocations. Fairer liquidity arrangements and climate-oriented refinancing also deserve examination within central-bank mandates. Their costs and debt effects matter, because additional lending capacity does not automatically produce grants.
This brings us to the terms on which finance reaches countries. Grants are essential for vulnerable territories and investments that cannot sustain repayment. Where repayment is credible, highly concessional loans can help. The assessment must cover currency exposure, guarantees and subsidy costs throughout the chain: a municipal grant can originate in sovereign borrowing. Disaster clauses and well-designed debt swaps can provide relief, alongside timely restructuring where needed.
Development banks’ own financing models influence those terms. We therefore support the direction of the Finance in Common System FiCS proposals to adapt prudential and credit-rating frameworks to public development banks’ mandates and risk profiles, including reviewing Basel III treatment where applicable, while maintaining robust supervision.The aim is affordable financing over the long periods that public investment requires.
To turn these reforms into investment, countries need lasting domestic capacity. Multilevel-framed country-led platforms can bring finance ministries, public banks and local governments together around territorial programmes. Dedicated windows and predictable transfers will connect resources to those programmes. National and subnational banks need capital, local-currency resources and permanent preparation teams. Domestic FinHubs can provide that expertise. The test begins when external consultants leave: can the institution prepare and finance the next programme?
Accountability must follow this whole chain. Reporting needs to distinguish pledges, approvals and disbursements, and public provision from private mobilisation. Clear attribution of multilateral flows will separate shareholder contributions from bank lending and prevent double counting. Financial terms, grant equivalents and net transfers can then clarify what gross volumes mean for recipients.
At territorial level, we need to know who receives, manages and decides, and which needs are met. LGMA’s 30by30 benchmark requires agreed definitions and evidence of subnational implementation. A funded territorial component in relevant SCF analysis, using national systems, would help establish that evidence.
We invite the Presidency to carry these proposals into funded country partnerships, with named responsibilities and progress reported by COP32.
Stronger local institutions will give countries greater control over finance and greater capacity to deliver their commitments.
Thank you.
