Considered as one of the important issues to be discussed at the Durban negotiations, so far Green Climate Fund (GCF) has not been doing all that well. The fund, if established, will be an operating entity
of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programs, policies and other activities in developing countries related to climate change, such as mitigation, REDD+, adaptation, capacity-building, technology development and transfer. Groups belonging to the European Union, Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), Environmental Integrity Group (EIG) and Africa deemed the draft text necessary and sufficient for a financial institutional agreement. The US, which previously blocked an agreement, has, as
expected, called for further work on the design of the instrument.
Also, the group aligned with ALBA (Alianza Bolivariana de Nuestra America), supported by Egypt, raised the issue of the lack of certain elements in the draft instrument, which would hinder democratic access
to resources. They cited the draft instrument’s lack of provisions for the fund to have an international legal personality and to work under the guidance of the Conference of Parties among other things,
these measures could at least allow some degree of control over the funds by developing countries.
Climate funds, especially for adaptation, would be best in the form of grants, and should be new and additional, predictable, equitable and adequate. One major concern is that establishing a private sector
facility within the fund could result into a diversion of scarce climate finance resources moving away from investment in public goods and going towards private sector subsidies for profit-making endeavors. Yet private or public, the funds must be pro-poor, transparent and inclusive.
Despite some of these concerns, which are very important to iron out, what’s really important is to see the actual development of this fund, and commitments as to where the funding will come from.