BACK TO MAIN  |  ONLINE BOOKSTORE  |  HOW TO ORDER

TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Sept11/04)
13 September 2011
Third World Network

Strong call for Green Climate Fund to have legal personality

Geneva, 13 Sept (Meena Raman) – Several members from both developed and developing countries of the Transitional Committee (TC) to  design the Green Climate Fund (GCF) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) called for the Fund to be endowed with legal personality so as to enable it to fulfill its objectives and functions effectively. 

This call was made during the third meeting of the TC in Geneva on Monday, 12 September.

Most of the developing countries on the TC including Egypt, Pakistan, Philippines, Brazil, China, India, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Barbados called for the GCF to have legal personality, learning from the experiences of other funds such as the Multilateral Fund under the Montreal Protocol.

Barbados drew reference to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) which was disadvantaged by not having a legal status and depended on the World Bank for its legal capacity.

Some developed countries echoed the sentiments of developing countries and this included Sweden, Switzerland and Russia. Sweden said that if the TC members were serious about the GCF being ambitious, then the issue of it having legal personality could not be avoided.  

The United States wanted more consultations with its lawyers on the matter, saying that the issue was complex. This drew sharp criticisms from DRC, Brazil and China, while Russia said that the problem was political and not legal.

Day two of the meeting saw an intense exchange of views on 4 of the 5 issues identified as key by the co-chairs. The four issues discussed were (i) the relationship between the GCF and the Conference of Parties (COP); (ii) legal status of the GCF, which involves the issue of the legal personality or legal capacity, as well as privileges and immunities for the GCF and/or its officials; (iii) issues related to the establishment of an independent secretariat including the selection of its head and (iv) the use of funding windows.

The 5th issue on “the structures and processes for the engagement of the private sector” is expected to be discussed on 13 September, which is the final day of the meeting. 

In considering the issue of the legal status of the GCF, Mr. Trevor Manual of South Africa who co-chaired the meeting with Mr. Ketjil Lund of Norway provided 3 options.

Option 1 is for the GCF not to have any legal personality, in which case the Fund would depend on another body for its legal capacity as is the case with the GEF and the World Bank.

Option 2 is for the GCF to have legal capacity but not juridical personality as is the case with the Adaptation Fund (established under the Kyoto Protocol) where legal capacity is derived through German law. (The Adaptation Fund Board has been granted legal capacity by the Government of Germany under its national laws) and option 3 is for legal personality to be endowed through a decision of the Conference of Parties (COP) or through a new treaty or the national law of a Party.

Dr. Omar El-Arini of Egypt (who served as the first Chief Officer of the Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol from 1991 till 2003) stressed the need for the GCF to have legal personality so that it has capacity to enter into agreements with international, regional and national organizations; have capacity to enter into contracts with implementing entities and with the trustee; to enable the Fund to be able to borrow or lend money; issue guarantees; to employ staff; acquire property and institute legal proceedings in defence of its rights. It was necessary for the GCF to act as an independent entity. He said that it was not difficult for the GCF to be conferred juridical personality and referred to the experience of the Multilateral Fund (MF) where a simple decision of the Meeting of Parties of the Montreal Protocol conferred such personality.

Mr. Farrukh Khan of Pakistan (who was former Chair of the Adaptation Fund Board) also supported the call for the GCF to have legal personality, as this would enable the GCF to enter into contractual agreements with the private sector and have capacity to float climate bonds. This was also important to ensure direct access for to enable direct contractual agreements with entities. He stressed the need to identify the host country of the GCF and for criteria to be developed to determine this.

Mr. Jan Cedergren of Sweden said that if members were serious about the GCF’s objectives of being ambitious, then the issue of the Fund having a formal legal personality could not be avoided. The TC should declare its intent to create the legal personality and how this was to be done was another matter.  

Ms. Bernarditas Muller of the Philippines also echoed the need for the GCF to have legal personality and referred to the joint submission of 13 countries in Tokyo which supported this. She also said that there was no need for a memorandum of understanding between the GCF and the COP as suggested by some developed countries as it was the COP that established the GCF and the legal personality of the GCF could be conferred through a COP decision. 

Ambassador Sergio Serra of Brazil echoed support for the call for the GCF to have legal personality, stressing that it was the only route to achieve the objectives of the Fund. He said that legal personality should be conferred by a decision of the forthcoming COP.

Dr. Yaga Reddy of India also echoed the call for the GCF to have legal personality.

Mr. Selwyn Hart of Barbados agreed with Sweden and said that it was clear, from the experience with the GEF that the GCF needed legal personality. He said that members had heard from a senior official of the GEF that one of its disadvantages or failings was the absence of legal personality and TC members should not replicate this mistake in the case of the GCF.

The representative from Switzerland made similar comments as Barbados in relation to the disadvantages of the GEF and supported the need for the GCF to have legal personality.

Alexey Kvasov of Russia said that there were many legal options but the issue was a political. He said that there was need for an interim solution as a full fledged international treaty to confer legal status was not possible. There was need for high aspirations and he was “inspired” by “hints of a solution” by Dr. El-Arini.

Mr. Andrzej Ciopinski of Poland said that it was premature to decide on the issue of legal personality and the best way to enable such personality was through an international treaty. 

Mr. Gilbert Metcalf of the United States US said that the issue was complex and wanted more time for consultations with lawyers before deciding on the issue. He said that legal attributes of GCF would depend on the key operational attributes of the Fund. If legal personality is to be through a treaty, this could take years as there would have to be negotiations with every country.

In response to the US, Mr. Tosi Mpanu Mpanu of the Democratic Republic of Congo (who is also Chair of the African Group) said that it was unacceptable that members were being asked to go home and consult their lawyers before deciding at this 3rd meeting of the TC and delay the possibility of a successful outcome. He said that much reference has been made to the example of the establishment of the Multilateral Fund and members can learn from that.

Ambassador Serra of Brazil supported the DRC representative saying that the decision is political and as suggested by Sweden, if the TC members were serious, a decision can be made to confer legal personality on the GCF.

Mr. Wu Jinkang of China echoed the sentiments of DRC, Brazil and Sweden that if members were serious about the GCF, legal personality can be conferred and a way out for this could be found, as suggested by Egypt. This was an issue for the TC members and not for lawyers.

Germany also wanted more information and clarity on the issue. Ms. Alicia Santamaria of Spain said that there was no need for a legal discussion now as form followed functions, but it was open to all options and possibilities. Bangladesh also echoed similar concerns as Spain and the US. France also was not ready to take a decision on the issue and wanted more clarity. 

Mr. Manuel said that it was clear that members knew what was wrong with the GEF and do not want to take that route. He wanted the issue of the legal personality to be concluded at this meeting in Geneva. He proposed that the matter be discussed further on 13 September.

(Discussions on the other issues will be reported in forthcoming articles).

 


BACK TO MAIN  |  ONLINE BOOKSTORE  |  HOW TO ORDER