Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper analyses the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as an innovative international institution using document analysis, semi-structured interviews and participant observation. It argues that the GCF is an innovative international institution, but that this brings with it challenges that the paper discusses in more detail. Participation of recipient countries, issues with private sector funding and challenges of transparency are discussed as the major challenges.

The paper and its findings are of interest and are well-presented. The arguments made are sound. However, I don't think they are grounded well enough in the existing literature, and the evidence for the argument made is not well presented.

I recommend that the article could be accepted with some major changes, as detailed in the comments below.

The paper acknowledges that this is a preliminary exploratory study to 'develop research questions' for a larger project. This raises the question of whether there is enough within this study to warrant a full paper. The paper is relatively short (not necessarily a bad thing) and I felt a little light on references (32 references, with a significant number of GCF documents included). In addition, there was limited description of the methods, and little reference to the data collected in the discussion, even given the qualitative nature of the study.

A paper generally seeks to answer a RQ (as well as potentially develop new ones as here) - although exploratory studies are often a bit looser (but equally valid). I'm not always a fan of a research question just for the sake of it in a paper (which is the popular trend), but it may be worth considering here. Some sort of theoretical discussion is usual as well as a basis for analysis but isn't really present here. There are no strict set rules, of course, but here I think the author needs to perhaps justify the approach taken, or seek to ground the work more in theory and/or existing literature.

Overall, I think the argument is well presented and the article very interesting. At the moment, however it reads closer to a perspective-type/opinion piece article - and in my view a very good and interesting one. I note that the author presented a similarly titled conference paper recently, and this maybe an expansion on that. However, as a full research article I feel it lacks some detail and grounding. I think the authors need to justify their approach and back up their findings to support their arguments.

Introduction

I feel that the introduction lacks engagement with the existing literature. The 4th paragraph states that "there is very limited literature on the GCF". I would disagree - a Google Scholar search reveals about 3-4 pages of journal articles on the GCF. Obviously not all will be relevant here, but there is also significant grey literature. Some of these studies clearly look at the institutional and governance aspects of the GCF. See e.g.

Megan Bowman & Stephen Minas (2019) Resilience through interlinkage: the green climate fund and climate finance governance, Climate Policy, 19:3, 342-353, DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2018.1513358 (which specifically talks about Trump's decision and its impacts but is not cited when this is discussed in the paper) Steven Vanderheiden (2015) Justice and Climate Finance: Differentiating Responsibility in the Green Climate Fund, The International Spectator, 50:1, 31-45, DOI: 10.1080/03932729.2015.985523 Abbott, Kenneth Wayne and Gartner, David, The Green Climate Fund and the Future of Environmental Governance (September 19, 2011). EARTH System Governance Working Paper No. 16, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1931066 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1931066 Fridahl et al. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/cclr2014&i=274   There are some more general papers that might provide some good background material as well: Markandya et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.04.013 Lorrae van Kerkhoff, Imran Habib Ahmad PhD, Jamie Pittock & Will Steffen (2011) DESIGNING THE GREEN CLIMATE FUND: HOW TO SPEND $100 BILLION SENSIBLY, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 53:3, 18-31, DOI: 10.1080/00139157.2011.570644

I think the authors general argument is sound, but they need to engage critically with more of this literature to show that this exploratory study (and future studies) are well-positioned and looking at something new. 

Similarly, the author states that "In previous research on how to cope with 74 climate change in the Global South, the discussion was dominated by the question of what kinds of project designs work and are efficient. This literature is based on discourses on climate policies in the North and the general research on development cooperation." Neither statement has citations so the evidence for this is unclear.

I think the paper would benefit from a 'Background' section that presented much of what is in the Introduction in a bit more details (probably starting at line 74).

There may even be scope to engage with the wider literature on international institutions more generally. There's no shortage of theory on institutions and governance, of course, and there's no need for a huge review. However, Ostrom's polycentrism is mentioned briefly for example - but there's no background to this. It isn't clear what the theoretical framework is. To some extent it may not be essential to present this in a exploratory study but it lessens the impact and rigour of the paper. 

Methods

The methods are only briefly presented. How many interviews were conducted? What sort of questions were asked. The study clearly relies on the authors participant observation and the data from the GCF. More details on how this was analysed would support the argument presented.

Some more discussion on exploratory research methods, just to justify the approach may also bolster the paper.

Results and Discussion

I think section 3 acts as a sort of results section (I note that the traditional 'results and discussion' format doesn't always lend itself well to qualitative work, so I'm not expecting this exact structure). Table 1 is well-presented. This section presents the evidence that the GCF is 'innovative'. Again, given the limited background, while I think the argument is fair, it doesn't feel well backed up. This is where Ostrom is mentioned briefly but not given any explanation.

Section 3.2 starts talking about challenges. Further challenges are then laid out in Sections 4 and 5. I'm not sure why the structure follows this pattern.

The last part of section 3.2 (line 244) highlights the prevalence of big international organisations as accredited entities. It doesn't go further into this though. My understanding (and experience) is that the stringent requirements of the GCF (mainly demanded by donor organisations) have made it very hard for smaller organisations in developing countries to lead projects. I give this as an example of how the paper might go a bit deeper and present more analysis.

Section 4 and the discussion on CSOs is important and interesting. What were the views of CSO members interviewed? There may be scope to discuss the relationship between project proponents and CSOs: I was at a presentation by the GCF who said that CSOs (especially local ones) could really swing votes (to the extent of almost blocking projects) and project applicants needed to make sure they had (local) CSO support. Does the author have any evidence to support this?   

Section 5: The discussion on the private sector is a well-presented argument, but again lacks a little bit of support. There's a lot of literature on private-public partnerships more generally (the author alludes to this - line 347). I feel there is scope for a more critical analysis here, especially given some of the citations (both Braking and Sullivan in Antipode).

Also, in the discussion of the importance of private finance (line 301 onwards) there may be scope to discuss why private finance is so important: I suggest it is a combination of current political cliamte (capitalism) and also the realisation that donor countries were never going to supply the ambitious funding targetted. The author may have further insights.

Notably, none of these sections refer to the interviews - it isn't clear how this data backs up the arguments. The participant observation is alluded to (e.g. line 281) - but I suggest the author is a bit clearer/stronger in stating these observations. Again, it is about providing the evidence to support the argument.

Conclusions

These are well-written and present future research questions. I note that the first future question raises polycentric governance again - I wonder if this might provide a useful theoretical framework for this paper?

Minor comments:

Line 31: "social scientists have so far struggled to understand the best ways to put these technological fixes to work in a timely, effective and equitable way." I would argue that social scientists have found lots of ways to put these fixes to work, it is politics that prevents them being implemented. I think this is just phrasing - I took it as laying the failure of implementation at the feet of social scientists, which I'm not sure the author was trying to say.

Line 106: adaptation as the primary need of developing countries. Primary focus certainly - but you could argue that developing countries need mitigation (by industrialised countries) more than anyone else. Again, I know what is meant, but I think it can be clearer.

Table 1: "decisions are recipient driven". Given the balance of the GCF is this right? Project proposals are definitely recipient driven (need for no objection). Decisions themsleves? I'm happy to concede to the authors analysis - I just raise it as a an interesting point.

Line 155: The GCF offers. I would say "the GCF funds" the GCF isn't offering the projects.

Lines 333 and 335: the phrase "goes far beyond" appears twice in two sentences.

 

 

 

Author Response

I want to thank the reviewer for the excellent feedback that was very encouraging and at the same time challenged me to improve my article in several crucial respects. I substantially revised the manuscript and I believe that I now have submitted a much-improved version. The comments by the reviewer also helped me to think about my future research project on the GCF. Specifically, I made the following changes to the manuscript following the suggestions:

1. As suggested, I added a section 2 that engages much more with the relevant literature. I clarified that I meant there are so far few studies on the GCF as a working institution (and not on the GCF in general). In particularly, as suggest by the reviewer I strengthened the explanation of “polycentric climate governance” and what it means for an organization such as the GCF. I also included most of the articles suggested by the reviewer (Megan Bowman & Stephen Minas (2019) Steven Vanderheiden (2015) Abbott, Kenneth Wayne and Gartner, David (2011), Markandya et al., Lorrae van Kerkhoff, Imran Habib Ahmad, Jamie Pittock & Will Steffen (2011)) and many more. Overall, I substantially increased the number of cited articles from 32 to 48. (Please also note that the original GCF documents are references directly in the text und do not appear in the list of references at the end.) At the same time, I tried to maintain the articles readability and accessibility beyond the academic community. In particularly, I tried to avoid bringing in too much political science literature that might not be interesting for the readers of “Sustainability”.
2. I extended the methodological section 3 and expanded the explanations on exploratory research. I clarified the role of the questionnaire and interviews that were primarily used for background information and not for generating data. Thus, I don’t think it is necessary to include the detailed questions in the text. However, if it is wanted I would happy to include the used questionnaire as a supplementary file to the publication.
3. I strengthened the presentation of the argument throughout the text. I also clarified the main goal of the article to identify problems and controversies that need to be researched more in the future. The reason why I submitted the article to “Sustainability” was because the journal especially welcomes articles that present new research ideas and projects. I made this more explicit in the introduction and methods part. At the same time, I agree that there was a need to clarify throughout the text how I arrived at certain conclusions.
4. I changed the structure of the sections. I now put all results into section 4 to make the progression more logical.
5. I added more information on why it is difficult for small organizations in developing countries to lead GCF funded projects due to the stringent rules of the GCF demanded by donors.
6. I extended the part on CSOs and private sector involvement. In particularly, I extended the explanation that on the one hand private sector involvement is needed due to the limited amount of public founding. At the same time, I explain the problems of public private partnerships that clash with the GCF’s principles of transparency and accountability.
7. I changed the sentence in 31 (old version) to: “social scientists have so far struggled to understand why these technological fixes fail to materialize in a timely, effective and equitable way.” This more clearly includes the political obstacles mentioned by the reviewer.
8. In line 106 (old version) I exchanged “need” with “focus”, which is indeed clearer.
9. In table 1 I clarified what I mean with decisions are “recipient driven” in the table and the text. (I also come back to this in section 4.2.)
10. In line 155 (old version) I changed “offers” to “funds”.
11. I further carefully proofread the article again.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is devoted to substantiating the relevance of research on the theme  of the impact of institutional innovations on the design and results of green climate Fund projects. The entire article can be considered as a great introduction to the description of the results of the research that will take place in the future. In this regard, of course, we can assume that the introduction was made qualitatively, many relevant references are provided, and a lot of explanatory information is provided. Nevertheless, the general structure of the article corresponds to generally accepted standards: there is an introduction that outlines the problem under consideration, there are descriptions of the selected methods, 3 units that discuss the theme under study in detail (the disadvantages of the existing system of work on green climate Fund projects are given), conclusions are given, and a list of references is provided. The methods are written appropriately, but they are ones for identifying the problem, but not methods for solving it. The same applies to the presentation of results. If the results are considered to be the justification of the study of the problem and the hypotheses, then Yes, the results are presented in the article. But this does not apply to the results of solving the problem. The same applies to the conclusions. The conclusions outline the future research, its plan, hypotheses, and questions that will be answered. In this plan, the conclusions are supported by the results.

However, it is claimed that this is only the first part of a large study. And judging by the content of the article, a lot of work has already been done. If the journal accepts this kind of question as an article, then I think that the article may be published.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the feedback on my research. I revised the article based on your comments and the comments of the other reviewers. I believe that – thanks to the feedback – I have now produced a much-improved manuscript. The feedback also helped me to prepare for my future research project on the GCF. As you have pointed out in your review, this is the result of a first explorative stage of a longer research project. This first stage is more about identifying problems than about solving them. The reason why I submitted it to this journal is that “Sustainability” welcomes articles that explore new research topics and ideas. I have extended the introduction, methods and the results part to clarify the intentions of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, the authors aim  to lay the institutional groundwork for a larger study that will be analyzing the effect of these institutional 14 innovations on the design and result of the fund’s projects. This paper has potential to be publishable in journal of sustainability, however, there is room for improvement 

I do hope that, despite the  changes required, the authors feel encouraged by the feedback and able to invest the time and effort needed to make this paper publishable in journal of sustainability

 Please, consider these points.

1. I do not see objective in the introduction but in the abstract, consider to make explicit in the introduction  
2. There is necessary to extend methods, maybe a figure could help. Explain what GFC's website consists 
3. What are the results?, section 3, 4 or 5? All of them? Please consider a whole section called results and discussion, then added subsections as you have in your paper 
4. I don't see any reference about your results and how they are compared to other studies/proposals, please consider adding references that support your results
5. In conclusions, section Future research, there are interesting questions, however, I don't see that these right place for these questions, consider to change the location, before conclusions could be a right place. 

 

Author Response

I want to thank the reviewer for the excellent feedback that was both very encouraging and at the same time challenged me to improve my article in several crucial respects. I substantially revised the manuscript and I believe that I now have a much-improved version. The comments also helped me to think about my future research project on the GCF. Specifically, I made the following changes to the manuscript following the suggestions:

1. I substantially extended the methods part (now section 3) and included information on what information were taken from the GCF website as well as the purpose of interviews etc.
2. I added a new section 2 that offers a more extensive and critical review of the existing literature. This part now explains much better how my research compares to other studies. However, given the very limited amount of studies on the GCF as a working institution, this research is primarily an exploratory one raising new questions. This is the reason why I submitted the article to “Sustainability” because the journal particularly welcomes submissions that explore new research topic and ideas.
3. I merged all results that were previously spread over 3 sections into section 4. As this is an explorative qualitative study, I did not name this section “results”. However, I think through these changes the progression of the paper is now much more logical.
4. The reviewer suggested to present the open questions for future research before the conclusions (and not as part of the conclusions). However, as one of the important objectives of this paper is to develop research questions for future, I think it is best to present them as a subsection of the conclusions. However, if it is customary in Sustainability to present questions for future research before the conclusions that would also be fine with me.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the revisions to this paper.

I think the changes made have really improved that paper, and provided the necessary background on which to 'rest' the very interesting findings and discussion that were already there. The improved methods section also provides enough detail to be confident in the research.

All my concerns have been addressed, and I recommend the paper for publication. I think it is a valuable contribution, and actually fills a gap I've been looking for something to cite.

I have just a few very minor language queries/corrections:

Line 64: I think the word although is needed for the sentence to be clearer: ‘…although private sector involvement…’?

Line 84: ‘undermined’ is quite a normative word, with fairly negative connotations. Some might argue that the shift away from the West is a positive thing. You could say has ‘...challenged the leading role...’. Please keep undermined if that is the sense you meant though - I just highlight how I read it.

Line 89: CSOs needs defining at first use

Line 169-170: "...exploratory approach seems appropriate, as the GCF is a relatively new institution on which there is still limited existing research". This is basically a repeat of line 157-158. Only one or the other is needed I think

Author Response

I would like to thank the reviewer for the additional comments and the nice words! I followed all the suggestions made and changed the manuscript accordingly.

Thank you very much again! I have seldomly had a review that was very encouraging and at the same time helped me to address the weaknesses of my work.