 "Image via Shutterstock")
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is an arm of the climate change convention to fund projects in developing countries, supported by financing by rich countries and multilateral donors. India is one of the three board members representing the Asia-Pacific region, along with China and Saudi Arabia. The fund’s board is meeting in Songdo, South Korea, to consider funding proposals.
On Wednesday, India’s representative Dinesh Sharma, special secretary in the finance ministry, called the Pakistan project for adapting to climate change in the Himalayan region as flawed. He said he agreed with all the other proposals.
In response to Business Standard’s e-mail queries, Sharma said he found the Pakistan project flawed on technical grounds and nothing else should be implied from it.
But two other developing country board members that Business Standard spoke to expressed disappointment. “Here (at climate negotiations) we don’t represent just our individual national interests but we work as a group to protect developing country interests India could have put more conditions but let it move ahead. Unfortunately, it is not budging.”
This will, we fear, isolate India and at the same time weaken our unity,” said one of the two, requesting anonymity.
The Pakistan project, supported by the UNDP, is meant to reduce flooding risks in Northern Kashmir area because of outbursts from glacial lakes. An independent technical committee of the GCF assessed the project would provide protection to more than 700,000 people and save more than 100 lives that get lost due to frequent glacial lake outbursts.
When the proposals came up for discussion at the board, India said he had read the Pakistan proposal in detail and had objections to it. He said that the Pakistan project’s success was predicated on there being no glacial outbursts during the five-year tenure of the project, which was unlikely considering the frequency of glacial bursts in the region. “… the project is fundamentally shaky and our (GCF’s) reputation will be at risk.”
Surprised at the Indian rejection, the chair asked if he would be willing to consult with the experts on the proposal to see if there was any way to amend the project or resolve the impasse. Sharma replied, “I can’t think of any conditions on which it can be passed. Just to show that I don’t have a closed mind I can hear them but there is very low probability of learning something or adding something.”
The Indian intervention raised eye-brows at the meeting among several observers and other board members from developing countries. At the GCF developing countries and within that particularly the Asia Pacific group usually coordinate their moves closely to maintain a negotiating balance against the developed countries. But, in this case, they were taken by surprise by the Indian opposition to Pakistan’s project.
Even closed door meeting later in the day between developing country board members failed to convince India to change its stance. The tension created by the Indian intervention led one the board member from Africa to ask that meeting be shifted off-camera because it touched sensitivities of constituencies (groups of countries). The board could not clear any project on Wednesday subsequently and postponed the decision.
“It is quite naturally being seen as a Pakistan-India political issue, even if it is not. It is not healthy that we are seen fighting between ourselves. So far we have made gains here by sticking together,” said the second developing country board member Business Standard spoke with. “Even when we have found projects to be weak we have pushed for them to ensure the funds flow to developing countries, something the developed countries would like not to happen,” he added.
But Sharma, responding to Business Standard queries dismissed the notion that India had singled out Pakistan’s project for any other reason but technical flaws in it. “Every board member is duty bound to point out what is seen as a serious flaw in any project. It would be wrong to imply any of the things mentioned in your mail,“ he said.
Sharma added in his emailed response, “Other projects did not suffer from such fundamental weakness nor are they in such ecologically fragile area having repercussions on more than one country.” He repeated the claimed weakness in the project that he had told the board members.
Business Standard had asked on what grounds India had objected to Pakistan’s proposal, the reasons behind objecting to only one proposal and if opposing the Pakistan project would have adverse repercussions for future Indian projects at GCF.
A senior climate change negotiator in India, said, “Our mandate, as I understand, is to get India proposals through when they are ready. There is no specific mandate to block any other developing country’s proposal.”
An observer at the meeting, also wishing to remain anonymous said, “The political tiff between the two countries should not have played out here. The GCF board members represent regions not just their countries. This could lead to a situation that later others oppose Indian projects when they are lined up for GCF funds.”
At the time of writing this, the GCF board had not restarted discussions on funding proposals that had hit stalemate on Wednesday. The board meeting ends on Friday by when a final call would have to be taken.
GREEN TURNS RED
GREEN TURNS RED
-
The Pakistan project is to be located in Gilgit-Baltistan and the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
-
India’s representative to the Green Climate Fund, Dinesh Sharma, called the project for adapting to climate change in the Himalayan region “flawed”
-
He says the Pakistan project was found flawed on technical grounds and nothing else should be implied from it
- The project, supported by the UNDP, is meant to reduce flooding risks in Northern Kashmir area because of outbursts from glacial lakes
