Download here! - wusice

Assessing the Green Climate Fund:
COP18 Implications on International Finance and the Developing World
Alex Bluestone, Alaa Itani, Lauren Kan, Ryan Mikkelsen, & David Zhang
Washington University Students for International Collaboration on the Environment
ABSTRACT
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change began meeting annually at the
Conference of the Parties (COP) in 1995 to assess progress in curbing greenhouse gas
emissions. Following COP15 and the creation of the Copenhagen Accord in 2009, the UNFCCC
established the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to support climate change mitigation and
adaptation projects. Because international funding projects frequently face criticism for lack of
transparency and efficacy, this study examines the varying perceptions of the GCF’s role in
climate change efforts between ‘developed’ nations (i.e. North America and the European
Union) and ‘developing’ nations. The study outlines the difference in countries’ perspectives of
the GCF based on their socioeconomic and political standing within the United Nations. Data
was collected through interviews with country representatives or negotiators, and NGO
representatives attending the UNFCCC COP18 meeting in Doha, Qatar from November 26 December 8, 2012. Negotiators were contacted in advance and interviews were conducted
while conference negotiations transpired. Researchers also obtained consent from negotiators,
informing interview subjects that results will be used for this presentation. Interviews were
conducted with negotiators from countries including the United States, Lebanon, Chile, and
Ghana. Findings matched research predications. Interviews with developed countries indicate
concerns of earmarking and tracing the efficacy of their funding. Developing nations
conversely viewed developed nations as responsible to support their mitigation and adaptation
efforts. Concerns also included whether developed nations would follow through on their
financial pledges to support the GCF. This research is important for understanding the factors
that contribute to climate change discourse and has implications for future policy
implementation. Our findings indicate that these factors may transcend national borders and,
therefore, require international collaboration in order to more comprehensively address the
scale of environmental challenges.
Figure 1. Doha, Qatar skyline.
RESEARCH QUESTION & METHODS
WUSICE delegates selected research topic based on previous experiences of the WUSICE delegation to COP17 in South Africa.
Our topic was inspired by the establishment of the Green Climate Fund in 2010. Our goal was to examine the efficacy of
international financing in addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation. We designed our methods as the following:
• Research question narrowed to: What expectations do ‘developing’ versus ‘developed’ nations (and nongovernmental organizations) have
regarding the implementation and efficacy of the Green Climate Fund? Each WUSICE delegate was assigned geopolitical regions of the world
to collect findings from: Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and East Asia, Central and Southern Africa, Central and South America,
and, as collective regions, Europe and North America.
• Delegates designed questions and conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with representatives from national delegations and non
governmental organizations. These interviews were conducted on site at the UNFCCC COP18 Conference in Doha, Qatar between November
26th and December 8th 2012.
• Representatives were contacted by email for interviews prior to the start of the conference. Delegates obtained informed consent from
interview subjects for recording conversations and for using interview results at the Washington University Undergraduate Research
Symposium. Interview subjects were also informed of our research question and the overall goals of the research. Interviews were compiled
and analyzed to answer research question; names of negotiators and NGO representatives are not included to protect their privacy.
• Difficult to gain randomized, representative sample because we relied on representatives’ flexibility to interview with us. As a result, our
analysis focuses on the individual experiences of negotiators, NGO representatives, and their teams rather than generalizing our results over
an entire country’s government and population, or over an entire NGO body.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
• Green Climate Fund established in 2010 to provide financial support for developing
countries and their climate change mitigation and adaptation projects.
• COP17 approved the governing instrument for the GCF, establishing a 24-member Board to
select projects and administer funding. Half of Board members are from developing nations,
while other half are from developed countries.
• Current co-chairs of the GCF Board are from Australia (Ewen McDonald) and South Africa
(Zaheer Fakir). GCF Board hosted in Incheon City, Republic of Korea.
• GCF Board and Secretariat expected to monitor and evaluate investments while maintaining
transparency of their operations.
• COP17 goal to raise $100 billion for Green Climate Fund by 2020. Negotiators agreed on
Fast Start Financing to raise $30 billion in pledges from 2010-2012.
• As of COP18, Fast Start Financing efforts raised $33 billion in pledges.
• NGO groups and negotiators call into question transparency of the pledges, and whether
countries would follow through on providing promised funding.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the WUSICE, the Undergraduate Research Office, and the College
of Arts and Sciences for providing us the opportunity to research in Doha, Qatar and to
share our experiences with the Washington University faculty and student body. We
further appreciate the United Nations for allowing us to observe the Conference of Parties
and to participate within the process. We thank negotiators and NGO representatives as
well for taking time to share their knowledge with us. Finally, we want to acknowledge the
people and government of Qatar for welcoming us into their homes and nation.
Figure 4. Delegate Lauren Kan
with negotiators Mr. Alpha
Bockari and Ms. Mary from Sierra
Leone.
The following table summarizes our results from twenty different countries, provinces, and nongovernmental organizations. Our findings indicated the following:
• Tension in negotiations between developed and developing nations – developed nations hit by recession and want accountability regarding funding; developing nations concerned
about follow-through on pledge claims (“Developed countries always have an excuse” – Chilean Representative).
• Once funds are delivered, concerns over losing money through bureaucratic aspects of international and national governments, agencies, and departments.
• Climate funds are just the beginning – still have to determine efficacy of the projects and handle tensions between international, national, and local parties involved with
mitigation/adaptation project. NGOs view their role as representing citizen demands, and also as monitors over the transparency of international financing.
COUNTRY or NGO
INTERVIEW SUMMARY
COUNTRY or NGO
INTERVIEW SUMMARY
United States of America
Transparency of where funds are applied is vital to GCF process; expect to see
$100 billion pledged by 2020 as intended.
Japan
Committed financial support to Fast Start Financing in hopes of supporting
countries already making commitments and to countries particularly vulnerable to
climate change effects.
SustainUS
Line between ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries is too sharp; U.S. needs to
Republic of Korea
take larger stance on preventing climate change in international negotiations.
Must be legally binding force to monitor accountability of fund use in transparent
way.
Developed countries must follow through on pledges and can take greater
responsibilities. Developing countries must be main actors in decision making
process with representation from developed countries. Gap between developing
countries pushing for more progress while developed countries less ambitious.
Federal Republic of
Germany
All developed countries should share financial pledges but U.S. should give more
money because of higher proportion of emissions and larger economy. Developed
countries can support developing in avoiding environmentally damaging
mistakes already committed by developed countries (potential to take
preventative approach).
People’s Republic of
China
Developing nations have a greater sense of urgency and higher expectations than
developed nations. Developed countries have not fulfilled their responsibilities but
GCF might alleviate this problem. Funding should come from public sources, and
transparency must be enforced. NGOs should participate more, and must be balance
between market and government initiatives.
Center for Climate and
Energy Solutions
(Germany)
NGOs play integral role in monitoring effectiveness and transparency of funds.
With regard to COP, engage with negotiators before meeting but presence
important during COP to remind parties of NGO positions.
National Institute for
Environmental Studies
(Japan)
International funding mechanisms like GCF do not take into account capacity and
responsibility of developing vs. developed world. NGOs can bridge gap between
people and government.
Lebanese Republic
Concerns for transparency of pledges and funding; for example funding for Fast
Start Financing and funding for other sustainability projects were
undifferentiated by donors. Lebanon also willing to make large commitments to
climate change adaptation and mitigation projects, but funding is essential for
that process.
United Church of
Canada (El Salvador)
Language of climate change discussions should change to fully incorporate
vulnerable/less developed nations. Richer nations were made ‘richer’ by extracting
resources from vulnerable nations whether material wealth (minerals, natural
resources) or labor. Developed nations should thus be responsible for the financing
of environmental projects and in providing assistances in technology and expertise.
Republic of Iraq
Major focus on capacity building rather than implementation of budgets; other
issue ignored is technology transfer to give developing countries chance to
develop technology without prohibitive costs of intellectual property laws.
Government must work with United Nations agencies to implement projects, as
already happening – this process already happens with other international
financing projects. Involvement of different actors in project implementation will
ensure transparency.
Republic of Chile
Independently constructing and implementing climate change solutions, Chile
distinguishes itself from India or the Alba nations that demand funding to act on
climate change projects. However, Chile believes that if the developed world wants
countries like Chile to take on more ambition, the developed world must provide the
financial help. Emphasized the importance of measurement, reporting, and
verification. Aid should be based on the merits of each project. Not just extending
hand looking for a handout.
Arab Youth Climate
Movement
Funds essential to the climate change mitigation and adaptation process;
developed countries have responsibility to support developing countries to grow
without committing same environmental mistakes. Technology transfer another
major issue.
Buenos Aires Province
of Argentina
Emphasized the importance and role of subnational governments, which are often
better at identifying the regions most in need of finance. Stressed that financed
projects should essentially serve as test runs whereby successful solutions could then
be replicated in similar situations around the world.
Republic of Sierra Leone
GCF is welcome source of support with an appropriate goal, but ambiguity in the
text. Must ensure that larger, more powerful nations like China and India will not
receive repetitive funds. Climate issues not national issues, rather international
problem.
Rainforest Alliance
Wanted to see clarification on where funds for the GCF were specifically going to
come from after the period of Fast Start Finance had ended. Needed to see
description on how to break down billion dollar commitments into smaller,
manageable amounts.
Republic of Ghana
GCF finance is a major concern, in particular, very little information has been
released with details as to how finance will be distributed, ways it can be used,
and what limitations, if any, the funding would be subjected to. Such information
should be divulged in full, to ensure a transparent process.
Amazon Environmental
Institute
International funds like the GCF are only part of a broader solution with strategies
such as carbon market. This is important because in Brazil, the land use sector
accounts for the largest amount of emissions, nearly 60% of total GHG. If there is no
financial mechanism that puts value on the forest, they will continue to cut the
forest, which will continue to add to global emissions.
Republic of Indonesia
Developed world has responsibility to support developing nations with
technology transfer and capacity building in addition to financial support.
Geography of Indonesia makes it susceptible to impacts of climate change; must
be emphasis on adaptation efforts. No real commitment or agreement on funding
from all negotiators; also no equality in accessing Fast Track Financing
The United Mexican
States
There is a serious problem that many developing countries, including Mexico, aren't
sure how the money is being counted. Developed nations claim to have given out 'x'
amount of dollars and nations like Mexico are confused saying: We have not received
anywhere near that much money. Numbers not matching has become a big issue due
to poor communication.
Figure 2. Negotiators at COP18.
COP & CLIMATE FINANCE
Figure 3. WUSICE Delegation from left:
Ryan Mikkelsen, David Zhang, Alaa Itani,
and Alex Bluestone.