BACK TO MAIN  |  ONLINE BOOKSTORE  |  HOW TO ORDER

TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Apr11/01)
30 April 2011
Third World Network

Green Fund meeting preceded by debate on election of officers

Mexico City, 29 April (Meena Raman) – The first meeting of the Transitional Committee (TC) to design the Green Climate Fund (GCF) established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) kicked off on Thursday, 28 April in Mexico City, following protracted discussions behind closed doors over election of officers of the meeting.

Parties also had an intense exchange of views on the agenda of the meeting, with the African Group proposing an alternative agenda and the Alliance of Small Island States asking for an amendment to the agenda proposed by the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. While the AOSIS proposal was accepted, the African Group proposal was not accepted despite several proposals by some countries to take into account the issues raised by the Group.

There was a lively exchange on the purpose, principles and scope of the GCF. Many countries, both developed and developing, stressed the need for a new financial architecture in climate financing which brings transformational changes in developing countries in addressing climate change and that also enables developing countries to have direct access to funds. 

The TC meeting ends on 29 April.

The meeting was supposed to begin at 10 am but got delayed for more than 6 hours, as informal consultations among TC members took place behind closed doors and was closed to observers.

According to sources, Mexico, the host of the TC meeting (and which was also the President of the 16th Meeting of the UNFCCC Conference of Parties) insisted on wanting a key role as Chair or co-chair of the process. Its representative on the TC is its Minister of Finance and Public Credit, Mr. Ernesto Cordero Arroyo.

Several Parties had wanted two co-chairs to steer the TC meeting - one from an Annex 1 (developed) country and another from a non-Annex 1 country, as is commonly the practice under the UNFCCC.

Mexico, though an OECD country, is a non-Annex 1 Party under the UNFCCC but is not a member of the G77 and China.

It was also learnt that South Africa (which will host the next meeting of the Conference of Parties in Durban later this year) had wanted its representative, Mr. Trevor Manuel, the Minister in the Presidency in charge of the National Planning Commission, to be also considered as Chair or co-chair of the process.  Mr. Manuel was however not present at the meeting in Mexico City. 

This would have meant two co-chairs from non-Annex 1 Parties, which was not acceptable to some developed countries.

The Asian Group had also proposed a representative from Asia to be considered as a possible co-chair, given that none of the existing subsidiary bodies under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol are led by a member from the Group.

Following intense consultations, a compromise was finally reached with Parties agreeing to the TC being led by three co-chairs, comprised of Mexico, South Africa and Norway, with the last represented by its State Secretary from the Ministry of Finance, Mr. Kjetil Lund.

The delegations of the Philippines and Pakistan, during the formal session of the TC, expressed the extreme flexibility shown by the Asian Group in the discussions in agreeing to the compromise reached.

The Philippines said that its understanding was that the role and mandate of the co-chairs will emanate from the TC members and also that there would be roles for other TC members to also drive the process forward.

Ms. Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC declared open the meeting in the late afternoon, and explained that at Cancun (last meeting of the COP in 2010), Parties had agreed that the GCF would be designed by a Transitional Committee comprised of 40 members, with 15 members from developed countries and 25 members from developing countries.

She stressed that the task of the TC was to design the GCF in time for its approval at the South African COP meeting in Durban and the Fund spelt a new era for climate change financing. Figueres also said that the GCF would benefit from a robust, transparent and flexible design to deploy climate funding both for adaptation and mitigation.

Once the Parties confirmed the election of the 3 co-chairs, Mexican Finance Minister Cordero conducted the meeting. He said that the work of the TC would be conducted in an inclusive and transparent manner to achieve satisfactory results.  

When it came to the consideration of the agenda for approval of Parties, Samoa, speaking for AOSIS, wanted an additional agenda item to consider the “purpose, principles and scope” of the GCF.  The proposal by AOSIS was accepted by members of the TC as an exchange of views on this matter. An interesting discussion followed under this agenda item.

Egypt submitted the proposal of the African Group for an alternative agenda for the consideration of Parties. The African Group proposal was more detailed than that provided by the Executive Secretary. Egypt said that its proposal was for a work programme that was taken from the operative paragraphs of the Cancun decision and would encompass the work needed for the lifetime of the TC.  The agenda provided by the Executive Secretary included the following items: working arrangements for the TC; work plan of the TC and other matters.

The African Group proposal included agenda items on procedural matters (relating to rules of procedure for the TC meetings; designation of a secretariat of the TC; budget for the TC meetings, secretariat etc; division of work of the elected TC officers); 2011 work programme of the TC (including legal arrangements, institutional arrangements, financial matters relating to resources of the GCF, modalities of contributions to the Fund etc, role and responsibilities of the Fund’s trustee, advisory and technical expertise of the Board, complementarity between the Fund’s activities and those of other funding mechanisms and institutions); monitoring and evaluation of the operation of the GCF and modalities for involving stakeholders in the Fund operations.

(The World Bank is the interim trustee of the GCF.)

In the Mexican co-chair Cordero’s response to the African Group proposal, while saying that the comments of Group were well taken, he said that Parties had to be practical to advance discussions. Cordero said that the agenda proposed by the Executive Secretary was general enough to capture the suggestions of the African Group and these issues could be added when the specific agenda items were being addressed. 

Several delegations expressed support for consideration of the African Group proposal, including Nicaragua, the Philippines, Bangladesh, India and Singapore and no objections were raised by any TC member. Singapore in fact suggested that the African Group’s listing of issues could be an annex to the agenda with the understanding that it was an indicative list of issues though not exhaustive, as the general agenda by the Executive Secretary did not give the assurance that all the issues were on the table. 

Despite these interventions, Cordero insisted that the agenda be adopted as proposed by the Executive Secretary, with the additional amendment made to include the AOSIS proposal. Cordero said that there was no consensus to accept the African Group proposal. He said this despite the fact that there were no objections to considering them.

In fact, as shown above, several delegations had supported the listing of the issues for consideration of the TC.

The TC members then adopted the agenda as proposed by the Mexican co-chair.

The meeting proceeded to deal with the agenda item on an exchange of views between Parties on the purpose, principles and scope of the GGF.

Brazil said that the fund should be governed by the principles of the Convention. Among them was the primary responsibility of the developed countries to provide financial resources to developing countries. There was a need to balance the resources for mitigation and adaptation.  Brazil also said that there was need to promote through democratic governance the developing countries’ sense of ownership of the fund.

Samoa, speaking for AOSIS said that the purpose of the Fund was to enhance implementation of the Convention and its ultimate objective by scaling up the delivery of new, additional, predictable and adequate multilateral climate financing to catalyze transformational changes in developing countries in accordance with their sustainable development priorities, as well as to support adaptation actions.  It said that the Fund functions under the guidance of, and is accountable to, the COP and supports projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation, adaptation, capacity-building, technology development and transfer.  It also stressed the need for the Fund to operate as a financial instrument with implementation responsibilities, including direct access.

The United Kingdom said that it was important to ask what the objective of the Fund was and how to ensure value for money. It also asked the question of the purpose of the Fund and the problem it was trying to fix in terms of the existing architecture. Some of the problems it identified included the issue of fragmentation of the funding, the responsiveness and ability to respond at a speed and scale to deliver finance to where it needs to go quickly and to address direct access. It also stressed the need to leverage private sector financing.

The United States said that it was useful to have a short statement of purpose which related to the need to address the challenge of addressing climate change through deploying financial instruments that leverage private sector investment. It said that there was need to refer back to what was decided to Cancun and not to re-litigate what was decided but to focus on the mechanics of the GCF.

Pakistan said that the principles and provisions of the Convention must apply.  It stressed the importance of the Fund having an international legal personality, which was capable of getting into contracts with member states and operationalising direct access of the funds to developing countries.  It said that there was need for a transformation and a new business model that also ensured sufficiency of funds, predictability and delivery.

Nicaragua referred to the Cancun decision and said that Parties had agreed to scale up new and adequate funding, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of developing countries. It also stressed that direct access was important to operationalising the GCF. There was also need to operationalise the need to derive funds from a wide variety of sources, including alternative sources. It said that there was need to operationalise the GCF to be accountable to, and function under the authority of, the COP and to enable thematic funding windows. It said that the work of the Board of the Fund should be Party-driven.

China said that the objective of the GCF was to establish support to developing countries to combat climate change. The mandate of the TC is from the Cancun decision. On the principles of the GCF, as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention, it should be consistent with principles of the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Action Plan (adopted at the COP meeting in 2007 as the mandate for the ongoing negotiations). It also stressed the need for easy access with no conditionality.

Australia said that there was need for private sector involvement and the funding should be results-based, with strong country ownership and that enable direct access. The GCF should be flexible to a range of finances and financial instruments. It should also be based on robust fiduciary standards and effective use of funds.

Germany said that there was need to assist developing countries for a low carbon path which cannot be business-as-usual and must ensure transformational change in energy, land use and forestry management. The purpose must be to build resilience to existing impacts in all areas. It said that there was need to build on existing efforts and experience, and merge these into better design and framework.

The Philippines said that there was need to learn from lessons from the past. It referred to the G77 and China proposal for establishing a new financial mechanism which was underpinned by the principles of the Convention relating to equity, common but differentiated responsibility, operate under the authority and guidance of the COP, have equitable and balanced representation in the governance and be transparent and ensure direct access of funding for developing countries. It should be flexible and free from conditionality and be predictable as well as adequate.  

France said that the GCF should help scale up climate financing and support the effort of existing institutions. There was need to address the missing links and cover all thematic windows and streamline and reduce fragmentation.  

Japan stressed the need to operationalise the Cancun decision and said that the GCF provided an historic and unique opportunity to address climate change and can be a game-changer. It said that there was need to stock-take on why existing funds cannot bring transformational change and also address fragmentation and the governance structure. It asked if Parties were respecting ownership and if the voices of stakeholders were being heard. It said that there was need to address the missing links and to address why there were problems and how to address them.  

Saudi Arabia also stressed the need to adhere to the principles of the Convention and for the Fund to be comprehensive in serving the needs of all developing countries, including in addressing response measures and the need for diversification.

Spain said that the objective of the GCF should be to resolve the current problems of the financial architecture and that there was need for a new financial architecture. There was need for a new approach to adaptation and mitigation financing and to consider the needs of developing countries. The added value in governance was in having new actors; in identifying new sources and new financial instruments. There was need for huge amounts of money for transformation.

Denmark asked what it would take the Fund to be a success and said that Parties needed to look at this when comparing with other institutions. There was need to deliver results at speed. There was also need for national institutions to ensure direct access (to funding).

Barbados said that it would like to see transformational change and that the GCF was established after experiencing frustration. It hoped that the GCF would be transformational and ambitious.

India reiterated that the GCF should be demonstrably new and additional. The funds should be primarily in the form of grants. It said that it must be recognized that the overriding priority for developing countries is to overcome poverty and that there are trade-offs for developing countries in the short-term in addressing climate change. It stressed that there should be no conditionality for financing and that the institutional mechanism should be innovative with a new architecture and governance.

Singapore said that the GCF must make a difference in achieving the ultimate objective of the Convention in stabilizing greenhouse gases. It must also be a model of efficiency in terms of administration with no wastage.+

 


BACK TO MAIN  |  ONLINE BOOKSTORE  |  HOW TO ORDER