A/HRC/44/44 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, according to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.98 41. Still today, the provision of such climate finance and technologies expresses human rights-based international solidarity. It is indispensable to reorient economies towards a sustainable future and to strive for dignity, poverty alleviation, equality, economic/social rights, and the right to development. Under the Paris Agreement, developed countries have obligations to assist developing countries financially and other parties are encouraged to provide support. 99 To that end, developed countries pledged to mobilize funds of $100 billion annually until 2025. States have also affirmed that climate finance should be balanced between mitigation and adaptation. 42. However, when it comes to putting these promises to work, climate finance is woefully deficient. The total amount of funding contributed thus far by the developed countries falls short of the above pledge to developing countries. 100 The institutions charged with delivering such funding (and hence the application procedures that countries must navigate) are sprawled across various mechanisms of the United Nations climate regime, bilateral agreements, donor funds, development banks, carbon markets and foreign direct investment.101 Additionally, only between 21 and 29 per cent of public flows of such funds have gone to adaptation, widening the gap in finance needed to help developing countries prevent the worst effects of climate change and alleviate poverty. 102 It is no wonder then that adequate climate finance is not reaching the poorest and most vulnerable countries, including the small island developing States and the least developed countries. 103 What is more, the majority of public climate finance has taken the form of loans, 104 which exacerbates the indebtedness of developing countries. 43. The Green Climate Fund was established to centralize finance in a new mechanism that could improve concerns about access and fairness. However, only a fraction of climate finance has, thus far, been committed to this Fund. 105 Despite its mandate for direct access and country ownership, almost three quarters of finance from the Fund has gone to five large international organizations, including the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme.106 These and other difficulties jeopardize the Fund’s purpose to improve equitable access to significant climate finance, which could strengthen cooperation on clean energy, resilient food systems and other instantiations of the right to development. 44. Like climate finance, technology transfers to developing countries needing such support are a vital part of achieving human rights-based international solidarity in the climate change context. Accordingly, the international climate regime, donors and multilateral financial institutions have programming for technology transfers. However, in a similar manner to finance, these technology transfer channels are fragmentated, not 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 Ibid., arts. 4 and 11. Paris Agreement, art. 9. Charlene Watson and Liane Schalatek, “The global climate finance architecture”, Climate Funds Update, February 2019, p. 1. Ibid., p. 2; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat, “Summary and recommendations by the Standing Committee on Finance on the 2018 biennial assessment and overview of climate finance flows” (Bonn, 2018). See United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat, “Summary and recommendations by the Standing Committee”, para. 39; United Nations Environment Programme, Adaptation Gap Report (Nairobi, 2018), pp. 21–28. See Oxfam, “Climate finance shadow report” (2018), pp. 18–19; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat, “Summary and recommendations by the Standing Committee”, para. 42. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat, “Summary and recommendations by the Standing Committee”, figure 2, p. 8; Oxfam, “Climate finance shadow report”, p. 4. Watson and Schalatek, “The global climate finance architecture”, p. 3. Friends of the Earth United States and the Institute for Policy Studies, “Green Climate Fund: a performance check” (2017), p. 3. 15