COP-31: Donor-Think Tank Nexus and Falling UNFCCC?

Climate change threatens the existence of both human civilization and the planet.  Therefore, climate change is considered an existential threat to humanity and the planet. It requires a response commensurate with the threat. It is possible, but it requires unity to tackle the challenge: responsibility according to capacity; empathy; willingness to contribute; respect for human and planetary needs; and harmony between human and planetary needs and boundaries. We have to devise a system built on principles of fairness and equity that respects sovereignty and dignity. The system should not remain engaged in word games or debates. It ensures the availability of the financial and technological resources needed to combat climate change impacts and pave the way for building an ecological civilization.

To build such a system, the world needs a vision that instills a sense of community, where everyone believes they have a stake in one another. Survival is in unity and togetherness, and building fences will lead to disaster.

In this context, the world came together and initiated the process of climate change negotiations. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established and entrusted with the goal of forging consensus to find a solution to climate change. It was deemed necessary to combat the challenge of climate change.

However, since its establishment, the UNFCCC has failed to deliver on its promises or fulfill its founding agenda. It failed to implement its decisions. The UNFCCC’s history is full of examples, and the most prominent ones are the Kyoto Protocol and the financial commitments at Copenhagen. The first failure accumulated in the form of the Kyoto Protocol. Developed countries never fulfilled their commitments to reduce GHG emissions; instead, they continued to increase them. The process is still going on. Copenhagen COP-15 was organized with the promise to deliver. The slogan “Copenhagen or Brokenhagen” became famous at COP-15.  COP-15 ended with the promise of US$ 100 billion in financial assistance. It was a difficult task, but the Global South’s insistence and Chinese pressure made it possible.

Unfortunately, the developed countries did not deliver on their promises and turned it into an opportunity to make more money. Oxfam’s report on climate finance indicates that, of the total money mobilized, more than 2/3 was in the form of loans without concessions. Developing countries pay more than they get. According to Oxfam, developed countries receive US$7 for every US$5 lent. This further worsened developing countries’ debt situation and made it impossible for many to repay principal or interest. Moreover, developed countries spread disinformation about mobilizing financial resources. For example, according to an Oxfam report, in 2022 developed countries announced they had contributed US$116 billion. However, in reality, they mobilized around US$35 billion. The worst exploiters on this front are Germany, France, Japan, and Italy. Regrettably, the UNFCCC has done little to compel countries to fulfill their commitments.

The weakness of the UNFCCC has turned the Conference of the Parties (COP) into a tourism and luxury party event. The UNFCCC is now seen as a debate forum where representatives of countries showcase their communication skills; speeches are delivered and dispersed without result.

The question is why the UNFCCC is failing to get consensus when the future of humanity and the planet is at stake. In my view, three culprits are responsible: states represented by governments, the private sector, and the donor-think tank nexus. States are well-known actors that steer negotiations and are entrusted by the human community to find consensus. Unfortunately, they are divided along geographical boundaries and lose sight of the humanity behind it. The private sector’s greed for profit and its tendency to shirk responsibility for tackling climate change without a profit incentive make it another visible player. Its behind-the-scenes role in creating stumbling blocks to consensus hinders efforts to combat climate change.

However, the most damaging actor is the donor-think tank nexus, but its role is often overlooked or neglected in discussions of the failure of UNFCCC negotiations. Donors, mostly developed countries, multilateral institutions, or the private sector, use this nexus to divert attention from the negotiations and from their responsibilities. Think tanks have emerged as a key tool for shaping global discourse, influencing decision-making bodies, and shifting responsibility.  Regrettably, many think tanks worldwide, especially those funded by corporations, their foundations, or bilateral and multilateral agencies, remain ready to do anything to secure funding. The donor-think tank nexus works in a very sophisticated way to achieve its objectives.

Let’s try to understand the workings of the nexus. Donors work from behind the scenes, and on the surface, think tanks act as independent organizations. They use think tanks to achieve three specific objectives: build their image, delay action, and shift responsibility. To do that, the donors identify a few think tanks globally and in key countries. They start by helping think tanks cultivate an image of themselves as righteous, independent organizations working for the climate change cause and representing people’s interests. To further strengthen the image of think tanks as independent organizations, donors allow them to criticize their governments and question developed countries, but only within boundaries.

After cultivating that image, think tanks start serving their sponsors and undermine the interests of people and countries. This isn’t an assumption; it is reality based on data and facts. An analysis of funding opportunities shows that almost all opportunities are advertised with certain preconditions. Every donor provides funding with pre-written terms of reference (ToRs), and ToRs are devised with the interests of funding countries or corporations at the center. To access opportunities, think tanks must commit to the ToRs and cannot deviate from them.

Second, they task think tanks with image-building campaigns through the agreed funding ToRs. Local think tanks organize big conferences or events with the donor’s logo and promotion everywhere. They also lure governments in selected countries with a few million dollars just to build their image. Third, local think tanks also receive funds to pressure their governments to commit to global-level initiatives beyond their capacity.

Fourth, they also use think-tank pressure and financial assistance to shift responsibility, such as for reducing GHG emissions. For that purpose, they fund think tanks to devise policies for governments and ensure donors’ preferences are incorporated. Then these think tanks run campaigns to pressure developing countries to commit to unrealistic GHG-reduction targets. The most recent example is the Methane Alliance, where developed countries lured developing countries with financial assistance. They also misuse carbon financing to shift responsibility for reducing GHG emissions onto developing countries.

Throughout the process, think tanks act as a smokescreen, protecting donors’ image and presenting them as saviors of humanity and the planet by hiding the facts. For example, Germany has successfully cultivated its image as a strong advocate for the green transition and for combating climate change. It did so by providing a few million Euros to developing countries, most importantly to think tanks, to create its positive image. We can observe this phenomenon in Pakistan. German development and economic agencies select a few think tanks to serve the interests of Germany.

The campaigns and work of these think tanks have helped Germany to hide the facts from the public. For example, these think tanks do not tell people that Germany is among the worst exploiters of the climate finance system. Through the loans it extends, it extracts more money than it gives to developing countries. They also ignore Germany’s GHG emissions and its energy sources. They also stay silent about the fact that Germany is one of the major users of coal to produce electricity. This is the story of many countries, including France, Italy, and Japan.

The question is why the nexus’s role is overlooked. The answer is that some civil society organizations and think tanks are doing an excellent job.  The nexus uses examples from these organizations, or their data, to justify its existence and role. The donor-think nexus is doing it again for the upcoming negotiations. As a result, there is fear that the upcoming COP-31 will not deliver the desired results. This nexus will do everything it can to stall negotiations or divert attention. For the think tanks, it is a matter of survival; if the negotiations succeed and the problem is solved, what would their future be? Therefore, they will do what donors ask, because if donors stop funding them, how will these think tanks survive? For example, before climate change, WTO negotiations were a favorite area of donor funding, and every other think tank was an expert on it. Now donors have stopped funding the WTO, and no think tank talks about it. Suddenly, most of the think tanks and experts jumped to climate change negotiations by changing the cap of expertise.

In conclusion, the discussion above makes it clear that to make negotiations successful, we need to control, if not eliminate, the donor-think tank nexus. There is a need to redefine the structures and roles of think tanks. Otherwise, donors, including bilateral, multilateral, and private sector donors, will continue to use them to fail the climate negotiations. This failure will lead to destruction and instability across the world.