Page 64 - Respond 2014 | RTCC Publications
P. 64

can coP 19

move the

green climate

fund closer

to reality?

By Andrea Rodriguez and Marcus Pearson, Aida Americas

The Green Climate Fund was created as an effective response to the impacts of climate change by channeling
fnancial resources from developed to developing countries. Will this happen? The Conference of the Parties in
November will provide an opportunity for developing countries to lobby for signifcant fnancial commitments
from the developed world to ensure the long-term viability of the GCF

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was created in 2010 at the 16th Conference of The ffth meeting in Paris could address the many
the Parties (COP 16) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate outstanding issues still needed to bring the GCF into
Change (UNFCCC). Its mission is to channel public and private fnancial resources effective operation. To do so, the Board must overcome
to developing countries to help them mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate its perceived ineffectiveness.
change through low-emission and climate-resilient programs.
Civil Society Concerns
But nearly four years later, the GCF has yet to disburse any funds. Civil society organizations (CSOs) are concerned about
the GCF’s decision-making process and future. Perhaps
The GCF board has held four meetings with only limited results. At the frst meeting the greatest issue is the uncertainty of funding. The
in Geneva in August 2012, the board selected two interim co-chairs: Mr. Zaheer Fakir GCF board has started to identify project areas and
of South Africa and Mr. Ewen McDonald of Australia. It also formed committees, defne criteria to allocate resources, but developed
designated the World Bank as Interim Trustee, and agreed to invite observer countries have yet to pledge meaningful funds. Concrete
organizations to participate, albeit in a restricted capacity. commitments are essential to ensuring the availability
of predictable resources needed to achieve long-term
A lack of consensus stalled decisions at the October 2012 meeting in South results to mitigate and protect against the impacts of
Korea, where the only notable motion was making Songdo, South Korea the GCF’s climate change.
CSOs also fear that a lack of transparency and
More advances came at the February 2013 meeting in Berlin. The board adopted accountability will hamstring the GCF. Transparency does
procedural rules to govern its actions, regulate board member selection and defne not seem to be a priority for the board. For example, the
the participation and role of civil society observers. This laid the groundwork for the board has decided against webcasting its meetings even
GCF to carry out its mission. though the UNFCCC commonly does so, helping to cut
costs and carbon emissions associated with travel. If
At the June 2013 meeting in South Korea, the board then discussed the GCF’s the GCF already broadcasts meetings to observers in an
business model framework (BMF) and the policies, guidelines and organizational overfow room, why not webcast? CSOs fear the board
structures needed to commence operations. The board also chose the governance does not want to make its meetings open to the public.
structure of the private sector facility (PSF) and appointed Ms. Hela Cheikhrouhou of
Tunisia as executive director of the GCF Secretariat.

   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69