|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Climate Change (Mar21/04) Climate Fund meeting exposes folly in resolving disagreements virtually Kathmandu, 26 Mar (Prerna Bomzan and Meena Raman): The 28th meeting of the UNFCCC’s Green Climate Fund (GCF)’s Board, revealed the folly of trying to resolve deep disagreements among members over difficult policy matters in a virtual setting. In particular, negotiations regarding the GCF’s ‘Integrated Results Management Framework’ (IRMF) was deadlocked, and was a befitting example of a failure to reach consensus over a contentious policy issue in a virtual setting, illustrating the obvious limitations of not having face to face meetings. The Board meeting held from 16-19 March, was fractious and rocky from the moment it began, with two completely new Co-Chairs, Jean-Christophe Donnellier (France) and Jose De Luna Martinez (Mexico), who had never participated in any GCF Board meeting before, and who appeared unfamiliar on how to conduct and manage the disagreements among Board members who were often divided along North-South lines. In fact, to many seasoned observers, it appeared as if the French Co-Chair was negotiating with developing country Board members when that should not have been the case, as was rightly expressed by some Board members from developing countries. The entire first day of the meeting was spent over the adoption of the agenda with some developing country Board members contesting that the provisional agenda, (already the third draft), was not agreed by the constituency mainly due to a lot of policy issues which were “not ready” for consideration by the Board. Ayman Shasly (Saudi Arabia) particularly informed the new Co-Chairs about the previous “agreement” with developed country Board members of consideration of only “time-bound” funding proposals and accreditation proposals in a virtual setting with the exception of the updated strategic plan as a policy issue that had been painstakingly negotiated over several weeks and adopted at the last Board meeting. The agenda on the first day was finally gavelled through by Co-Chair Donnellier (France), almost an hour and a half past the scheduled four hours, with a “compromise” of five modifications to it. A new agenda item pertaining to the selection process to recruit the head of the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) was controversially added, as one of the modifications to the agenda. The move was in violation of paragraph 21 of the GCF’s Rules of Procedure, which requires documentation relating to items on the provisional agenda to be circulated at least 21 days in advance of the first day of Board meeting. When this agenda item was discussed the next day, Wael Aboul-magd (Egypt), Shasly (Saudi Arabia), Jeremiah Sokan (Liberia), Nauman Bhatti (Pakistan) specifically referred to violation of Rule 21 and vehemently opposed imposition of it by the developed country Board members. Another unprecedented occurrence witnessed at the meeting was the push by the Co-Chairs for a vote on the consideration of the accreditation proposals of five entities to the GCF, which was thwarted by a few developing country members. This led to the abrupt closing of the Board meeting by Donnellier, four hours past the scheduled closing time and with the deferment in the consideration of the accreditation proposals to the next meeting. (See further details below). On the positive side, the Board of the approved with conditions, USD 1,197.1 million for 15 funding proposals. Two funding proposals - one from Cuba and the other multi-country one jointly from Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius and Seychelles - got approved through a vote, due to the sole objection from the United States (US) on both projects. (See further details below). Six of the funding proposals, (including the two that were subjected to vote), were only approved during the final hours of the last meeting day, following a long drawn-out inconclusive negotiation on the IRMF policy issue. The scheduled four hours with additional two hours past the closing time, involved a series of closed consultations between the Co-Chairs, with consequent constituency meetings (of developed and developing country Board members separately) to resolve the IRMF deadlock, but this was in vain, as no agreement was possible on the matter. Sources told TWN that the funding proposals as well as five accreditation proposals were being held “hostage” against approval of the IRMF, by developed country Board members and Co-Chair Donnellier, who initially pushed for an unprecedented vote on the policy issue followed by intense pressure tactics for a ‘package deal’ approval of the IRMF, funding proposals and accreditation proposals altogether; both of which was successfully pushed back by majority of the developing country Board members. TWN learnt of behind-the-scenes machinations and how some developing country Board members unitedly resisted what they viewed as ‘power play’ and urged for the meeting to resume in plenary so that the public could view the webcast, in the interest of transparency. They wanted to expose the hypocrisy of developed country Board members who advocated “good governance” and the principle of “one Board” in public but behaved the other way in private. Exchanges and deadlock over Integrated Results Management Framework According to the IRMF document prepared by the GCF Secretariat for the Board’s consideration, the framework was intended to merge the initial results management framework and performance measurement frameworks into one IRMF, by updating the GCF results architecture and related measurement and reporting approaches for the ongoing first replenishment period of the GCF (GCF-1) programming. The document summary states that the “proposed results architecture is designed to measure both quantifiable impacts of GCF investments and the GCF contribution to the paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways in the context of sustainable development and supporting implementation of the objectives of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, as set out in the Governing Instrument for the GCF and initial Strategic Plan as well as updated Strategic Plan of the GCF:2020-2023”. The IRMF document also presents a ‘Results Tracking Tool’ which is “intended to enable integrated reporting of progress toward the delivery of the updated Strategic Plan”. When opening the agenda item, Donnellier clearly stated that the Co-Chairs “intend to resolve the remaining issues today and adopt decision”. While most of the developed country Board members welcomed the document and expressed approval of it as well as of the draft decision presented to the Board, some developing country Board members raised significant concerns about the content of the document. Aboul-magd (Egypt) said that the document still remains “complex with consequences for all stakeholders”, pointing out concerns about references to “paradigm shift” and the “assumption” of “systemic change”. He stated that there has not been any agreement in the Board to effect paradigm shift and for the accredited entities to show details would be an impediment especially for smaller entities. Access to resources remains the underlying concern of developing countries, he added further, and also disagreed to approve the ‘results handbook’ to be developed by the Secretariat, without seeing what was in it. Tlou Ramaru (South Africa) echoed Aboul-magd (Egypt) concerns about references to “systemic change” and “paradigm shift”, remarking further that there has been a “mal-alignment” with the GCF’s Governing Instrument (GI). He spelt out that the GI was clear about “promoting” paradigm shift while the current IRMF document mentions “contributing” to a paradigm shift, expressing caution over the use of two different “operative” words. Ramaru also expressed worry about measuring paradigm shift and systemic change which for instance in the case of adaptation, is not about quantification but entails other elements. He added that the document encroached into the policies and institutional mechanisms of governments, making the matter overly complicated and he was not ready to adopt it as it was. He also had issues with the results handbook and its content. Shasly (Saudi Arabia) also underlined that the document was not ready for approval and reminded the Board that developed country members have argued about terms like ‘paradigm shift’, ‘climate rationale’ and now, this new concept of ‘systemic change’. Given the long hours of discussion on the document (of almost two hours of the four-hour third business day), Shasly warned that the remaining funding proposals were being held hostage (with no decisions), and urged the French Co-Chair to suspend the IRMF discussion and to continue consideration of the funding proposals. He also refused to approve the results handbook without having seen it, and proposed asking the Secretariat to bring the handbook together with the IRMF document to the 30th meeting of the Board for consideration. Xia Lyu (China) expressed that the comments of developing country members should be taken into consideration, underscoring the point that there should not be interference in national policies. Jorge Ferrer (Cuba) was concerned about the IRMF imposing further conditions on developing countries and expressed cautioned against leaving the results handbook to the Secretariat based on past experiences. Karma Tshering (Bhutan) pointed out the excess time taken by discussions on the IRMF, and expressed worry over the funding proposals pending consideration. He said that the proposed revisions to the IRMF document were making it more complex with further demands placed on developing countries, adding that he was not in a position to adopt the document. Aboul-magd (Egypt) echoed the views of Ramaru (South Africa) in relation to the words used in the GI on the issue of ‘paradigm shift’ and repeated his discomfort on approving the results handbook without seeing it, likening this to “signing a blank cheque”. With the deliberations leading nowhere to any convergence of views, Co-Chair Donnellier (France) suspended the further consideration of the IRMF agenda item and announced that it would be taken up again on the final day of the meeting. On the final day, the IRMF matter took up the entire day of meeting, amounting to almost six hours of negotiations with developing country members. Donnellier displayed a desperate attempt to impose a consensus, by dismissing and countering the comments and inputs of developing countries by himself. This prompted Shasly (Saudi Arabia) to intervene to remind him to “just be a facilitator and not negotiate” with the Board members. Bhatti (Pakistan) sought clarification on the methodology used by the Co-Chair in addressing the issues raised regarding the IRMF document, as well as the proposed draft decision, given the specific proposals he had raised. Following a series of offline consultations between the two Co-Chairs and consequent constituency meetings and with no consensus in sight, Donnellier announced that it was “not possible to conclude discussions today” and informed that the Co-Chairs will appoint facilitators to take the matter forward and to conclude it before the next 29th meeting of the Board. Funding proposals approved When the consideration of the funding proposals was finally taken up by Co-Chair Martinez (Mexico), after the closure of the IRMF agenda, Cheikh Sylla (Senegal) intervened to express that the Board should “stop playing hostage” in response to proposals for the adoption of the IRMF as a package along with the funding proposals. The Board approved the following 15 funding proposals, with conditions: · USD 175 million for “Mongolia: Aimags and Soums Green Regional Development Investment Program (ASDIP)”, with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as the accredited entity (AE); · USD 25 million for “Building resilience to cope with climate change in Jordan through improving water use efficiency in the agriculture sector (BRCC)”, with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as the AE; · USD 300 million for “ASEAN Catalytic Green Finance Facility (ACGF): Green Recovery Program” in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia and the Philippines, with the ADB as the AE; · USD 23.9 million for “Coastal Resilience to Climate Change in Cuba through Ecosystem Based Adaptation – “MI COSTA”, with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as the AE; · USD 36.8 million for “Ecosystem-Based Adaptation and Mitigation in Botswana’s Communal Rangelands”, with the Conservation International Foundation as the AE; · USD 29 million for “PREFOREST CONGO – Project to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from forests in five departments in the Republic of Congo”, with the FAO as the AE; · USD 17.3 million for “Monrovia Metropolitan Climate Resilience Project”, with the UNDP as the AE; · USD 52.8 million for “Building Regional Resilience through Strengthened Meteorological, Hydrological and Climate Services in the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) Member Countries” in Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius and Seychelles, with the Agence Francaise de Developpement (AFD) as the AE; · USD 82.8 million for “The Africa Integrated Climate Risk Management Programme: Building the resilience of smallholder farmers to climate change impacts in 7 Sahelian Countries of the Great Green Wall (GGW)” in Burkina Faso, Chad, Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Senegal, with the International Fund for Agricultural Development as the AE; · USD 280 million for “Sustainable Renewables Risk Mitigation Initiative (SRMI) Facility” in Botswana, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Mali, Namibia and Uzbekistan, with the World Bank as the AE; · USD 137 million for “Green Growth Equity Fund” in India, with the Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden N.V. as the AE; · USD 8.6 million for “Climate resilient food security for farming households across the Federated States of Micronesia”, with the Micronesia Conservation Trust as the AE; · USD 10 million for “Community-based Landscape Management for Enhanced Climate Resilience and Reduction of Deforestation in Critical Watersheds” in Timor-Leste, with the Japan International Cooperation Agency as the AE; · USD 10 million for “Enhancing Multi-Hazard Early Warning System to increase resilience of Uzbekistan communities to climate change induced hazards”, with the UNDP as the AE; · USD 9 million for “River Restoration for Climate Change Adaptation (RIOS)” in Mexico, with the Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza A.C. (FMCN) as the AE. Richard Muyungi (Tanzania) on behalf of the Board members of the African constituency, made a statement for the record, expressing concerns over the “deeply unbalanced portfolio” of funding proposals presented at the meeting with “only 1% allocated to direct access entities (DAEs) compared to well over 65% allocated to multilateral development banks (MDBs) and bilateral agencies”. He stated further that “there is no 50:50 balance between adaptation and mitigation in this portfolio” and further stressed the need for a “new proactive and strategic approach to programming for direct access and country-led programming”. The statement also proposed to include three paragraphs in the decision of the Board, which “expresses concern” about the lack of balance in the current portfolio, “underscores” the need for greater balance in the next meeting and future portfolios and “requests” the Secretariat to present a comprehensive DAE scaling-up programme and implementation strategy for consideration at the next meeting. In relation to the funding proposal from Cuba, Trigg Talley (US) said that he was required to “oppose” and “vote no” if called, due to “US legislation and policy regarding development projects in certain countries whose governments do not fully meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in persons and are not making significant efforts to do so and which have been designated state sponsors of terrorism”. In a similar vein, he objected to the multi-country funding proposal jointly from Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius and Seychelles, stating “in consistent with our Congressional mandate on countries whose governments are not addressing trafficking in persons” and due to the inclusion of Comoros in the joint project. In addition, some developed country Board members also raised concerns in relation to the UNDP, given potential risks identified in its Office of Audit and Investigations report of December 2020 regarding UNDP’s management of the Global Environment Facility resources. The issue was resolved with “Board conditions agreed” with the UNDP. Accreditation proposals deferred The following five new applicants for accreditation were presented to the Board for consideration, all five being direct access entities (DAEs): 1. Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) 2. Development Bank of Zambia (DBZ) 3. Infrastructure Development Bank of Zimbabwe (IDBZ) 4. Moroccan Agency for Sustainable Energy S.A. (Masen) 5. Vietnam Development Bank (VDB) In addition, the Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC) of Japan, an international access entity that had withdrawn at the 26th meeting of the Board was presented for re-application. Many developed country Board members had strong concerns about SMBC being a coal financing entity and had attached “new” stringent conditions particularly in relation to phase out of coal and shifting its overall portfolio for its re-application. Some developing country Board members objected on the grounds that the “new, ad-hoc conditions” were outside of the GCF’s Accreditation Framework and were not consistent with the accreditation policy and that imposing such conditions would screen out many DAEs. On the final day of the meeting, immediately after approval of funding proposals, the six accreditation proposals were presented together as a “package” proposal for approval. Developed country Board members supported the package approval with the exception of Roth (Sweden), Heike Henn (Germany), and Tobias Von Platen-Hallermund (Denmark), while most developing country Board members raised objection. Co-Chair Martinez (Mexico) then determined that there was “no consensus” in the Board and moved to propose “the voting procedure in agreement with my Co-Chair”, to which Shasly (Saudi Arabia) intervened with a point of order, rejecting the Co-Chair’s proposal and reiterated his objection to the package proposal. Sokan (Liberia) followed suit with a point of order stating that “our position is clear and we are not asking you to go for a vote”, adding that he did not recall voting on accreditation proposals. Martinez then announced that he would consult with his Donnellier, and came back to inform members that they will “close the session at this stage and come back to it later”. Shasly (Saudi Arabia) again intervened, seeking a response to his point of order while Martinez repeated that he would reflect on it and come back later. When Donnellier then proceeded to take up the agenda item on report of the meeting, Muyungi (Tanzania) sought clarification on the way forward on the accreditation proposals, to which Donnellier responded that they would “not take any decision today and propose a decision no later” than the next 29th meeting of the Board. He then abruptly declared the meeting closed. To many observers watching the webcast, the 28th Board meeting was indeed unprecedented in so many ways, and was certainly not normal, illustrating clearly the challenges of virtual meetings trying to resolve disagreements.
|
||
