by Nina Somera, Isis International

Bangkok, Thailand (3 October 2009) - In this morning meeting on financing, the parties continue to lock horns over the discussions on the architecture.

The G77 countries and China, represented by the Philippines have been pushing for alternative financing mechanisms under the Convention. Meanwhile, developed countries maintain their position in prefering existing financial institutions. As Japan said, “Institutional arrangements need to be decentralised. We can’t see the necessity of have a big structure to cover financing.”

South Africa asserted that financing developing countries must be at the “core” of the commitments under the Convention. She also expressed the disappointment over the lack on engagement on the proposal of the G77 and China. “Ï am afraid that we are not moving forward. We really ask the developed countries to engage G77”[and China].

As the Philippines also observed that “architecture” is understood differently by the developing and developed countries. For the former, it means “one house” but for the latter, it is “several houses that are not even in the same subdivision.” As she further explained, “[That] of G77 [and China] is built on the experiences on the ground. [The other] is the same fragmented structure that we have now…that have miserably failed and is punishing the poorest of the poor.”

Venezuela made equally strong statements especially in light of the issue of “historical responsibility.” She remarked, “We are here because somebody made a mess and we are dying because of their historical behaviour.”

Another focus is the Green Fund proposal of Mexico that is based on the principles of “polluter pays”, equity or based on the countries’per capita emissions, efficiency and capacity. The concept of the Green Fund promises that developing countries would be able to access funds that may even be greater than its contributions.

The reception on the proposal was mixed. Some countries lauded the initiative especially as it takes into account the developed countries’historically accumulated emissions. However countries such as South Africa and Gambia expressed that their contribution might pull out resources from otherwise more urgent needs. As Gambia pointed out: “Our priorities at home are health, water and education. It would be very difficult for African countries to take up financial commitments.”

Moreover, China questioned the participation of developed countries in the Green Fund. “I am troubled with the ideas behind and beyond the proposal, that the developing countries would pay what they are not supposed to pay.” Other resevations deal with the scale of the Green Fund and its nature as one that is “outside the Convention.”

For its part, Mexico reiterated that the Green Fund is based on the common but differentiated responsibilities. As he explained, “We don’t intend to burden the economy. The Green Fund is not mandatory for developing countries.”