Climate Fund Delay Threatens to Undermine Durban Conference

Wednesday, 07 December 2011

Background

The United Nations Climate Change Conference, held in Durban, South Africa, from 28 November to 9 December 2011, cements a change of stance that was signalled at the Cancun 2010 Conference.  Rather than risking the diminished expectations of a globally binding climate treaty, which were thwarted at the 2009 Copenhagen Conference, the agenda coming into this year’s conference was to work toward pragmatic and attainable solutions that could be built upon in the future. Finalising the Green Climate Fund, a promised transfer of funds from industrialised countries to developing nations to help them protect forests, adapt to climate impacts, and develop green technologies, is seen as the first step in this effort by negotiators in Durban.

Comment

The conference’s stated aim was to build momentum toward a fair agreement on cutting global emissions and provide an effective tool for mitigating the damage done to those communities most vulnerable to the impact of climate change. Already agreed upon at Copenhagen and Cancun, the Green Climate Fund is a US$100 billion commitment. Echoed by many other negotiators in Durban, South African Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane declared that the success of the talks would depend on financing the Green Fund.

Dissent has come from the United States and Saudi Arabia, who have refused to accept the working draft presented in late October 2011, which outlined an initial design for the fund. The grounds include a desire to see the fund retain more autonomy from the UN and a greater role for the private sector. Alternative proposals for funding set out by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, or through international shipping and aviation carbon taxes, were rejected by the US negotiating team.

There are understandable motivations behind these proposed preconditions. The United States does not want major developing countries, such as China or India, to escape emissions reduction commitments – even though recent research by the Stockholm Environment Institute demonstrates that 60 per cent of emission reductions by 2020 are likely to be made by developing countries. It is, however, a source of frustration to developing countries that the United States is already arguing over details; the perception being that the US position is blocking a painless agreement to a Green Climate Fund pact by 2015. Delaying the Green Climate Fund pact, initially assumed to be agreed upon, has already minimised the time available to discuss the future of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. It stymies any hopes for a new consensus in Durban for a beginning to talks on a global treaty to reduce carbon emissions.

In a broader context, this serves as a reminder that domestic pressure is the most effective tool for action on climate change. One can argue that the primary aim of these conferences is the building of confidence and trust. For instance, the co-operative system of transparency constructed in Cancun, which allows all major economies to observe how well each is meeting its unilateral commitments, was a laudable achievement.

But the political will for change is found at home. Only then can it be translated into action at UN conferences. In this case, Australia is a fair example, as it attempted to leverage the recently passed Clean Energy Future legislation to build consensus for action in the negotiations, perhaps ineffectually. In any case, generating political will on this issue would be difficult elsewhere in the developed world, particularly in those countries facing serious economic concerns.

Tim Thomas

FDI Research Intern

Global Food and Water Crises Research Programme

*****