The Price of Climate Action

Philanthropic Foundations in the International Climate Debate

Edouard Morena

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9783319424835
• eBook ISBN: 9783319424842
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Environment & Energy Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book explores how a handful of liberal foundations contributed to establish and orientate the international climate regime. Looking back at the origins of international climate philanthropy and its evolution over the past three decades, the author examines the role of philanthropic foundations in the international climate debate. The research presented in this book shows that foundations, through their grant-making and convening activities, are at the heart of the climate debate. In fact, many credit them with having, through their activities prior to and at the COP, significantly contributed to laying the basis for the Paris Agreement in December 2015.

© The Author(s) 2016

Edouard MorenaThe Price of Climate Action10.1007/978-3-319-42484-2_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Edouard Morena¹

(1)

ULIP and CNRS-LADYSS, Paris, France

Abstract

Following a brief presentation of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) outcome and reactions to it, the chapter introduces some of the core theoretical debates associated with the study of philanthropic foundations’ involvement in the international climate debate. It looks at how the existence of underlying agendas in foundations raises important legitimacy and accountability concerns. The chapter also analyses philanthropic foundations’ broader societal functions—and in particular their role as field-builders. In a final section, it presents the main issues raised by the book—to what extent and how did foundations shape and orientate the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and international climate regime more broadly? And correspondingly, what influence did foundations wield on the Paris outcome?—and offers an overview of the different chapters.

Keywords

Climate philanthropySocial movement fundingPhilanthrocapitalismVenture philanthropyStrategic philanthropy

End Abstract

On the Monday that followed the adoption of the Paris climate agreement, a majority of the world’s newspapers were unequivocal in their celebrations of a “historic pact,” a “historic deal,” a “landmark climate deal,” “a ground-breaking climate accord,” a “chance to save the world.”¹ A few hours earlier on the evening of December 12, 2015 at 7.23 pm, the packed assembly hall in Le Bourget was engulfed with an overwhelming sense of euphoria as Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, brought down the gavel to officially mark the agreement’s adoption. Images of Fabius with tear-filled eyes and of delegates cheering, clapping and embracing each other were broadcast live around the world. After four years of arduous negotiations, 195 countries had finally agreed to a deal that committed them to collectively limit global warming to “well below” 2 ºC over pre–Industrial Revolution levels, to peak climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions “as soon as possible” and to review national mitigation targets every five years beginning in 2023. For UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) agreement marked the world’s entry into “a new era of global cooperation on one of the most complex issues ever to confront humanity. For the first time, every country in the world has pledged to curb emissions, strengthen resilience and join in common cause to take common climate action” (UNFCCC 2015). As he then added, “this is a resounding success for multilateralism” (UNFCCC 2015). Echoing most of the World’s leaders, François Hollande, French president, praised the agreement as a “major act for humanity” (RFI 2015).

On the side of the numerous non-state actors campaigning for climate action, reactions to the agreement were far less unanimous. While Greenpeace International hailed the fact that “today the human race has joined in a common cause,” Avaaz labelled the agreement “a turning point in history” and CARE International welcomed the fact that “all countries promise not to leave the poor behind,” others were less enthusiastic (Voorhaar 2015). At a press conference on December 12, convened by representatives from the climate justice community—Third World Network, LDC Watch, Friends of the Earth USA, Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development—Asad Rehman from Friends of the Earth International described a “Titanic scenario” where the “ship is sinking and the band plays on to the warm applause of our political leaders […] and the poor are being denied a place in the lifeboats” (Friends of the Earth International 2015). For Kate Lappin of the Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development, “this deal does not deliver climate justice: Justice requires accountability, responsibility, remedies and action by the perpetrators. Polluters got another unwarranted good behaviour bond and more opportunities to profit from climate change” (Carbon Pulse 2015). Outside of the negotiation space, a number of grassroots organizations also expressed strong reservations towards what they saw as an unjust and inadequate agreement.

In between these two positions were a number of more nuanced reactions. While welcoming the deal’s global character and its ambitious target, many pointed to its vagueness when it comes to securing the means of implementing and reaching its stated goals. Others criticized the fact that developed countries were not doing their fair share of efforts through the deal. For Harjeet Singh, global lead on climate change with Actionaid International, “what we needed out of Paris was a deal which put the world’s poorest people first […]. Yet what we have been presented with doesn’t go far enough to improve the fragile existence of millions around the world. Despite disappointment, the Paris agreement provides an important hook on which people can hang their demands” (Voorhaar 2015).

Within the climate community gravitating around the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) space, one group in particular was especially satisfied with the Paris outcome. The members of this group were not just satisfied with the agreement but with themselves. They were convinced that they had played a pivotal role in the Paris success. Cutting across a variety of organizations and interests, this group of activists, consultants, business representatives, policy analysts, public figures, climate experts, communications and media specialists, and data analysts worked together—and often in collaboration with the UNFCCC and Parties to the negotiation—in the months and years leading up to COP21 to create the conditions for a “successful” Paris outcome. Late into the evening of December 12, at the Climate Action Network (CAN) International celebratory event in central Paris, members of this highly qualified and experienced network of individuals were celebrating not only the agreement but also their contribution to its realization. As they sang along to Queen’s “We are the Champions!” they had themselves in mind. This was their moment. This was their agreement.

Three main characteristics set this group apart from other actors and groups of actors involved in and around the UNFCCC process. First of all, the group’s specificity stems from the heterogeneity of its members and the fact that it breaks pre-existing, non-state actor typologies in the climate field. Drawing on Peter Newell’s typology of groups in the climate debate and their strategies, we can say that the group in question combines elements of the “inside-insider,” “inside-outsider” and “outside-outsider” categories (Newell 2005, 114).² While its members are formally part of the Observer³ category, many of them have developed close working relations with UNFCCC officials, national delegates and government representatives. Whereas Newell broadly associates each group with a given strategy and ideology, in the group at hand, members tactically align their respective action repertoires for the purpose of an overarching and mutually agreed objective. Through their interactions and shared meaning systems, they form an organizational field that brings a number of different actors “into routine contact with one another under a common frame of reference, in pursuit of an at least partially shared project” (Bartley 2007, 233; Minkoff and McCarthy 2005). In addition to forming an organizational field, they constitute an informal community of individuals; individuals who, in different capacities, have a long experience of monitoring and engaging in the UNFCCC process (negotiators, non-governmental organization [NGO] representatives). In other words, while keeping with their organizational specificities, they devise ways of collectively working towards a pre-determined outcome in Paris. In some cases, this involves finding ways of getting their respective organizations to adjust their strategies in accordance with the overall group strategy.

Members of this group were bound by a common yardstick for measuring success in the Paris climate negotiations. Broadly speaking, this included three items—that would ultimately be included in the final Paris agreement: a long-term goal, a mechanism to regularly review and ratchet up national mitigation and financial commitments and, finally, a global framework to ensure transparency (Morgan 2015). These criteria confirm the international climate regime’s shift away from a top-down, multilateral and legally binding approach to international climate governance to a more bottom-up approach centred on national commitments.

The second major characteristic of this group is its participants’ shared “roadmap” for success. This involves, as was previously suggested, coordinating actions at multiple levels and locations, as well as engaging with a wide range of actors in order to not only generate the conditions for an agreement but also ensure that it is suitably interpreted in the media and society at large. It also means getting their respective organizations and constituencies to buy into the strategy—or at least not get in the way. By focusing on not just the content but the interpretations of the agreement, the belief is that an optimistic and galvanizing message leading up to and coming out of Paris will catalyse ambitious action on behalf of state and non-state actors. Hence, the need for Paris to send “unambiguous signals that the world will shift its economic and social activity toward more climate-friendly and sustainable pathways” (Oberthür et al. 2015, 1). The signals become just as important as the substance of the agreement. As Laurence Tubiana, lead negotiator for France and chair of the European Climate Foundation, candidly explains in a post-COP interview for Libération: “We had to anticipate the interpretation of the agreement. Words contribute as much to change as the agreement itself: it is what I call the convergence of rational anticipations.” As she adds, “the agreement has to be a self-realizing prophecy” (Losson 2015).

A third and final characteristic of this group is that most of its members were either directly involved in or associated with the International Policies and Politics Initiative (IPPI). Set up in 2013 by five philanthropic foundations—European Climate Foundation (ECF), ClimateWorks Foundation, Oak Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) and the Mercator Foundation, IPPI is presented as “a new platform for philanthropic cooperation to catalyse greater ambition on climate through activities and processes taking place at an international level” (ECF 2014, 26). It is “designed to help philanthropy identify opportunities for international collaboration, develop joint strategies, and pool and align grant making to achieve greater overall impact.”⁴, ⁵ It acts as a platform where foundations and grantees meet to strategize on how international political and policy levers can catalyse more ambitious policies at the domestic level.⁶ As Jennifer Morgan (World Resources Institute [WRI]), who coordinated the IPPI platform in the run-up to and during the Paris COP, explains “IPPI is focused on using the ‘Paris moment’ to increase the scale and pace of change” (Cox 2015, 21).

Launched in 2013, IPPI is not the only case of foundation involvement in the international climate debate. As we will see, there were other foundation initiatives before it and in parallel. However, IPPI is without doubt the most elaborate and possibly, given the Paris “success,” the most effective. Given its influential role in pushing for a certain outcome and organizing non-state actors in the run-up to and during Paris, IPPI sheds light on an understudied actor in the international climate regime: the philanthropic foundation. A rapid overview of funding sources shows that a significant share of non-state actors involved in and around the UNFCCC process is either partially or totally reliant on foundation support. As we will see, the source, the nature an...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontmatter
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Philanthropic Foundations and the International Climate Regime
• 3. A Strategic Approach to Climate Philanthropy
• 4. Foundations in Copenhagen
• 5. The International Policies and Politics Initiative
• 6. Conclusion
• Backmatter