Months after the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, developing countries, including Indonesia, remain in a state of limbo over funds committed by developed countries to help them contain the impacts of climate change.
The conference, held in December, was widely viewed as a disappointment over the failure to reach a binding agreement that would have committed developed countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent to 45 percent.
But optimism stemmed from a promise by developed countries to “provide [to developing countries] new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching $30 billion for the period 2010 to 2012” for the purpose of combatting climate change.
Some prominent local environmentalists, however, say that commitment has so far been nothing more than lip service.
“I’ve talked to donor countries — which came up with the numbers in the first place — such as Australia, the UK and Norway, but none of them can elaborate or clarify what, how, when or from whom the funding will be disbursed, or which [developing countries] will receive the money and under what terms,” said Ismid Hadad, chairman of the Working Group on Financial Mechanisms at the National Council on Climate Change.
Furthermore, Ismid said, the money is unlikely to be disbursed this year because there is still debate over whether the new funding should be under one umbrella — the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change — or another mechanism such as the World Bank or Global Environmental Facility, which allocates and disburses about $250 million per year in projects related to energy efficiency, renewable resources and sustainable transportation, in about 180 countries.
“The bottom line is that the US does not believe in a multilateral forum, such as the UNFCCC,” Ismid said. “It sees [the forum] as ineffective, too much talk and a forum it cannot dominate as it is based on ‘one country one vote.’
“I presume that it would want to address the agreement [on a funding mechanism] at the G-20 meeting rather than the [official] climate change meeting because that’s the place for donor countries to gather.”
Based on the National Plan of Action, Indonesia will need at least Rp 83 trillion ($9 billion) to finance efforts to reduce its carbon emissions by 26 percent by 2020, and another Rp 85 trillion in international support if it is to achieve the more ambitious 41 percent emissions cut.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono announced those targets at a G-20 Summit in the US city of Pittsburgh last year.
On the other hand, Ismid said, developing countries — also known as the G-77 countries — have criticized some funding mechanisms as nontransparent. They also say the distribution of the funds would be weighted in such a way that it would only benefit rich countries.
Besides the Global Environmental Facility, there are other funding mechanisms dedicated to climate change, including the Special Climate Change Fund, established in 2001 under the UNFCCC to finance projects that adapt current systems to be more environmentally friendly. The fund works in areas like technology transfer, clean energy, transportation, industry, agriculture, forestry and waste management.
The GEF manages a fund called the Least Developed Countries Fund, which helps some of the world’s least developed — and therefore most vulnerable — countries combat the adverse effects of climate change. There is also the Adaptation Fund, established by the Kyoto Protocol to finance so-called adaptation projects in developing countries. These could include drought contingencies or shoreline management to fend off rising sea levels.
Rachmat Witoelar, executive head of the National Council on Climate Change, said the Copenhagen Accord itself was not legally binding, so developing countries had no leverage through it over developed countries.
“As for the promise [on the funding], well, a promise is a promise,” Rachmat said. “That is on our agenda for preliminary meetings in anticipation of the upcoming Mexico Climate Talks. We plan to discuss it with countries involved [in producing the pledge] and ask them to shell out what they promised.
“I have met with several leaders on this issue, and it is certain the focus will be on the REDD [Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation] and financing.”
Daniel Murdiyarso, a climate change scientist at the Center for International Forestry Research (Cifor) in Bogor, said the funding issues were evidence that there was still no clear international guidance as to the implications of the non-legally binding status of the Copenhagen Accord.
“Meaning that the [climate change] governance is weak. The only strong governance is still the Kyoto Protocol, which will expire very soon,” Daniel said. “If you look back, it is very clear that the countries agreed to curb emissions by 5 percent, an important small step. But now we only have two years left, and the complexities are huge. The geopolitics are also different.”
“These figures are pledges; if they are non-legally binding then how can we be sure that they will be met?”
