Where does the first green climate money go?

Furthermore, important steps have to be taken regarding numerous subjects, such as the Fund’s transparency. It should also improve its reporting and monitoring mechanisms, including gender aspects. Another example is the desired development of the accreditation process for local institutions. For in order to appeal to the Fund and to be allowed to make a proposal, an institution has to be accredited, or approved, first. This is a long and laborious process about which there is much uncertainty. Moreover, many organisations hardly have any experience with accreditation.

 

On September the third this year, the Dutch climate fund HIER Klimaatbureau and among others Both ENDS organised a lunch meeting called ‘Bridging the finance gap: How to mobilize climate finance to drive inclusive mitigation and adaptation?’. One of the day’s central themes was: how do you get local groups to (co-)decide on how and where climate funds are spent? Oxford Climate Policy director Anju Sharma urged attendants to improve the way local access to climate funds is organised, and to allow local institutions and organisations more authority and freedom within the Green Climate Fund. Priorities have to be set locally, because that is where the consequences of climate change are felt. The solutions and measures for countering climate change or minimise its consequences therefore depend on the context and cannot be devised from a distance.

 

This is a message we wholeheartedly support, so we closely follow any developments concerning the accreditation process. We offer input in our role as civil society observer during meetings like this one in Zambia, and we cooperate with the Indonesian Samdhana Institute, which is in the process of becoming an accredited institution.

 

Anju Sharma’s wish seems to have been granted: The Green Climate Fund Board will start a pilot programme to increase the decision-making power of local institutions. Unfortunately, this topic will not be discussed until the next meeting, so it will take some time. The accreditation process will also be adapted to the type and size of the organisation. This way, a local institution will not have to follow the same long and complicated administrative route as large international development banks such as the World Bank.

 

But we have to remain very critical when we look at the choices of the Green Climate Fund. What will be the relation between international institutes (that sometimes have very dubious reputations), the private sector, and national and local institutions? Which projects will be approved of and will local organisations actually be able to play their rightful part in the process? How transparent is the accreditation process? And perhaps most importantly: what will be the actual local consequences in developing countries?

 

Here in Livingstone I will have the opportunity to see some of these developments for myself. When we return we hope to be a little closer to answering these questions. With that, we also hope to be of better support to The Samdhana Institute in their accreditation process. So in the future, they can not only successfully apply to the Fund themselves, but can also share this knowledge with other local organisations.

 

You can read earlier blogs about the Green Climate Fund by Both ENDS employees here.

Also see the letter signed by international organisations including Both ENDS, in which they call upon developed countries to make an amount of 100 billion dollars available for the Green Climate Fund and keep their promises.