Durban
- If all the proposals for sustained funding for the Green Climate Fund
realised, it will place a massive burden on an already struggling
global economy.
If
the Green Climate Fund does indeed manage $100bn a year by 2020 it will
be more than twice the size of the World Bank, said a senior official
who for the past six
months has been closely involved in developing a technical framework
for a fund such as is. He did not wish to be identified.
In
a behind-the-scenes information session at COP17 regarding the fund the
official said that, despite the considerable disagreement and
uncertainty regarding exactly
how the fun should look and function, a couple of potential donors are
ready to inject money into the fund and are anxious to make
announcements in this regard. Three countries are keen to house the head
office of the fund.
But
it's the three main proposals for stable funding sources that could
affect economies and consumers globally. These are carbon taxes on
aviation and shipping and
a tax on all international financial transactions, which has been
labelled the so-called “Robin Hood” tax.
Airlines
globally are already complaining about the EU's plan for a carbon tax
on the full long-distance flights of airlines that fly to and from
Europe or merely
through European airspace. The cost will eventually filter through to
airline tickets.
A
carbon tax on shipping's greenhouse gas emissions will make all
international trade more expensive. The two taxes will force airlines
and shipping to invest in new
aircraft and ships that are more energy efficient.
A
Robin Hood tax on transactions would cut the profits of banks handling
the transactions, and impact their shareholders, warns Dr Marco Lotz,
Nedbank's group sustainability
carbon specialist. All the additional costs will of necessity be passed
on to clients, he says.
The
official involved in the setting up of the Green Climate Fund expects
the wrangle about who will manage and who will advise the fund to
persist to the end of the
climate negotiations. Environmental groups are protesting strongly
because the World Bank is the interim trustee of the fund. According to
the official, at COP16 in Cancún, Mexico, the decision was already taken
that the World Bank should be the interim trustee.
The decision will certainly be reviewed in the next couple of years,
but is not on the agenda in Durban.
The
legal status of the fund is also a bone of contention. It is essential
to know which legal entity adopts the fund because this will determine
who must accept responsibility
if wrong decisions are taken.
According
to the official, in the past week the conferring of a credit rating to
the fund was debated ad nauseam. Negotiators left many of the decisions
regarding
the fund to the envisaged 24-member board. The composition of the board
itself was at issue - it should consist of 12 representatives each from
the developed and developing countries.
The
transitional committee which, co-chaired by Trevor Manuel, Minister in
the presidency, had to draw up a report on the fund, presented it to
COP17 last week.
While
a couple of weeks ago at the committee meeting in Cape Town America and
Saudi Arabia had been opposed to certain aspects of the plan for the
fund, according
to the official they did not again insist on changes to the report.