Governing Climate Finance: Paradigms, Participation and Power in the Green Climate Fund

Abstract

Climate-focussed civil society organisations (CSOs) assert that their raison d'être is to convey the voice of affected communities to decision makers as well as keep governments accountable to their promises of arresting climate change. The enticing prospect of making a difference for many people on the ground through high-level advocacy has led an increasing number of CSOs to engage in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Yet, access and engagement is challenging for CSOs, who often complain about being sidelined at the UNFCCC negotiations. When it comes to policy processes that govern climate finance, such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs), and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the scope for participation has proven even more difficult for CSOs. For this reason, CSOs spent considerable time and effort in lobbying for a new climate finance institution in the run up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009. The idea of establishing a new institution gained broader traction among parties to the UNFCCC due to increasing controversies associated with contemporary climate finance. The new institution, the Green Climate Fund (GCF), was conceived as a ‘paradigm shift’ in climate finance with the ambition that it would channel most future financial resources to assist developing countries in adapting to the adverse effects of climate change. The GCF was furthermore mandated to catalyse finance for mitigation projects under various existing UNFCCC programmes and to attract investments from the private sector. A group of approximately 35 CSOs participated consistently in the design process that took place from 2011 to 2015. The CSOs initially celebrated the creation of the GCF and put significant time into participating in the design process. However, the CSOs have since become highly critical of the fund and vocal in their disappointment. This thesis sets out to understand the motivations, practices, and impediments of the CSOs in explaining this outcome. Based on interviews with over 50 individuals from CSOs, the private sector, decision makers, and the GCF, it explores the role of CSOs in the GCF design process in two domains. First, it shows how the CSOs during the design process developed shared professional norms and a coherent policy enterprise, which suggests that they formed an epistemic community. Second, it shows how the CSOs’ scope for influence was challenged by rigorous observer policies and a consistent depoliticisation of the GCF design process, which defined boundaries for what could be discussed. This thesis concludes by explaining how the CSOs influenced the GCF design in few but key areas by substituting broader political arguments with narrowly focussed policy interventions. It argues that that in doing so, the CSOs themselves contributed to the depoliticisation of climate finance. Through this work, this thesis contributes to debates about the implications of civil society participation in global climate finance.

Date of Award	31 Dec 2017
Original language	English
Awarding Institution	The University of Manchester
Supervisor	Philip Woodhouse (Supervisor)