on losses and damage, “the agenda is conditioned”, regrets the negotiator Alpha Kaloga

Interview by our special correspondent in Sharm el-Sheikh

What is the Green Fund?

It is a financial mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [qui a créé les COP en 1995]created in 2010 at [la COP de] Cancún (Mexico). It is the response to a long demand from developing countries to respond to issues of greenhouse gas emission reduction and adaptation. It aims to emphasize direct access to funding for countries once they are accredited.

How is it funded? Is it by the 100 billion dollars per year promised in 2009 for 2020 and which have not yet been met?

The Green Fund is not the only beneficiary of the 100 billion. The Paris Agreement says that a significant amount of financial resources must go through the green fund, especially for adaptation. The 100 billion was promised in a context of transparency and action in terms of mitigation. This promise was based on two financial sources: the two and the mobilization of the private sector. So the 100 billion concern not only the Green Fund but also the other bilateral channels, the multilateral development banks and all the other channels for financing climate actions in developing countries. And developed countries like bilateral channels because it gives them some leeway to advance their own agenda.

At present, the Fund has only received its first two capitalizations of ten billion each. Knowing that for the first, the United States, which had promised three billion, was only able to pay out one billion with the arrival of Donald Trump, who stopped funding the Green Fund.

The Green Fund is supplemented by country pledges, which are not donations. For example, France has used very sophisticated financial instruments which condition its contribution. This is what makes the resources of the Green Fund a little difficult to access for developing countries.

Why is this Fund not taking off?

It’s a nice experiment but doesn’t have enough resources. Most West African countries have received some funding for adaptation projects, which are therefore not development options but have become imperatives due to the impacts of climate change. Development will have to be reconciled with these imperatives, and the Green Fund is supposed to pay this additional cost. It invests in agriculture, forests, renewable energies, in the construction of dykes against the saline intrusion which is affecting a large part of the African coasts.

► To listen again: COP27: Green Climate Fund, why does it get stuck?

A very small part, less than 10% of the total amount approved by the Green Fund, has actually been disbursed over the past five years. Why ?

Donors always have levers, which consist of an arsenal of conditions to ensure that these funds reach the recipients.

For example, what are these conditions?

Accreditation. To have it, you have to have high fiduciary standards, environmental and social safeguard mechanisms. And most of the institutions that are available are not originally made for the climate…

These are guarantees for the developed countries that the money goes well towards sustainable investments…

Exactly, but I think that all the funds disbursed by the Green Fund are so sophisticated that there is no possibility of the funding being diverted. The money that is promised is not given all at once, but in small instalments. And at each installment, the impact of the money received must be assessed. We need much more confidence, ambition and seriousness from the developed countries so that they say we created this fund for developing countries, let’s help them through this fund, instead of making things difficult. »

For a project to be approved, a letter of non-objection is required upstream which states that this project aligns with the development and climate change objectives of the countries, but also that these projects have been the subject of consultation with the communities and that there are no negative impacts. But a project takes five years [de préparation et validation, NDLR]most of it is being finalized and therefore we still have to wait to be able to measure the impact of these projects on the ground.

You are also the spokesperson for the Africa group for “loss and damage », which were included on the agenda for the first time. How did you experience it?

It was on Saturday around 4 am that we managed to adopt the agenda, I was still there. This question has been asked for thirty years. It’s a big step, but a small step compared to the end goal.

But what is not said is that this agenda is conditioned. There is a footnote that says discussions under this agenda will have no repercussions on other agendas. And the developed countries have imposed that the oral report of the presidency which pronounces the adoption of this agreement says that there are no legal proceedings or compensations. This prejudges the relevance of the discussions, it limits the ambition of the funding, and it leads developing countries to ask themselves the question: will it be possible under the Convention to have this polluter-pays principle implemented?

What is the next step ?

The objective is clear, they know it, it is a financial mechanism, in line with needs.

In France, there was an unprecedented drought and there were a lot of echoes in the press. But that is the daily reality of our countries. An extreme climatic event can sometimes have an impact of 5 to 6% of GDP. And when you look at the growth of countries, very few have an annual growth of 6%. So it’s a step backwards. We have irreversible impacts. In island or coastal African countries, people are forced to leave ancestral lands.

The countries of the North do not seem at all inclined to go further. We are in negotiations, there are always compromises. How can African countries coax developed countries into concessions on “loss and damage”?

I think it’s the notion of co-benefit. Today, if we build a road, for example in Guinea, which is not compatible with the vagaries of climate change, we risk having to redo it because of flooding. By making construction smarter and more compatible with climate change, money is well spent.

You have to imagine a world at 2.5°C. There will be the desert in Spain. What will sub-Saharan Africa be like? People will be forced to move. So it would be a good long-term investment for countries. It is also a way of reminding that they must take ambitious actions in terms of mitigation [réduction des émissions de gaz à effets de serre, NDLR].

Civil societies in developed countries are alerted. The European Union, the United States, Canada are under pressure. They can’t afford to leave these rooms without coming up with something.

How did you receive Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to create a “council of wise men”?

Any initiative to call our global pact to order is good. But I believe that we must show by example by taking, in the next fortnight, our responsibilities and concrete decisions. Discussions, there have been many in the past, by people who are called champions of climate change, who cultivate a responsible debate but who bring nothing concrete on the ground.

In the negotiations, on this issue in particular, do you sense a divide between North and South?

There is a split which is there and which is sometimes very pathetic. I don’t blame my fellow negotiators. I too come with a clear roadmap, coming from the African Union and the Conference of Ministers of the Environment of Africa.

I feel the strategy is to be ambitious in rhetoric, to recognize [les besoins de compensations, NDLR] but developed countries are not ready to do this in reality because they are afraid of the implications of loss and damage. That’s why they said “no compensation or prosecution”. On our side, there is the frustration of never being heard.

On all sides, we are making concessions. This result at least was pulled out with great difficulty, but the process must continue because for us in Africa, this is what will allow us to have some justice and climate equity.

Fifteen days of marathon negotiations begin. Tell us how it goes, very concretely, with the delegation?

Today for example, at 8am, I was in the room to write the report on yesterday. We had meetings on the agenda on loss and damage that took us at least five hours. In addition to that, we had meetings with the group of developing countries, the G77 [qui comprend 135 pays émergents et en voie de développement et la Chine]. Because we first make compromises between us to then arrive with a voice. And then we compromise with the developed countries. There have also been bilateral meetings with funding agencies to strengthen our resources. So these are intensive days. Yesterday I was able to eat my first meal since breakfast at 9 p.m.

We need courage, optimism and goodwill from the developed countries. Losses and damages are a question of generation, of equity, of justice, of solidarity. Climate change is not a development issue, it is not something voluntary.

►Also listen : COP27: Green Climate Fund, why does it get stuck?