UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 23 1993 (IPS) - A multi-billion dollar funding mechanism intended to help solve world environmental problems like global warming is facing serious trouble.

The sixth and final meeting for restructuring the Global Environment Facility (GEF) held in Cartagena, Colombia, last week ended inconclusively bringing the Facility to a virtual standstill.

Ambassador Razali Ismail of Malaysia, the GEF Coordinator for the Group of 77 developing countries, told IPS there were ''serious negotiating setbacks'' at the Cartagena meeting. He laid the blame squarely at the door of donor countries.

''We were dealing with people who did not understand one of the most important principles established (at the Earth Summit) in Rio, namely global partnership. If that partnership is not understood, why should we agree to a GEF?,'' he asked.

A three-year pilot programme aimed at providing grants to Third World nations with ecological problems, GEF has been mired in controversy since it was set up in May 1991.

The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro last year agreed to restructure GEF so that donors and recipients could equitably share the running and the decision-making process in the Facility.

The money was to come from OECD members and the responsibility for implementing GEF was shared by the World Bank, the U.N.Development Programme (UNDP) and the U.N.Environment Programme (UNEP).

Razali said he was ''puzzled and completely baffled'' by the attitude of some of the Western nations representing the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

''There was a serious miscalculation on the part of OECD,''Ambassador Razali said, adding that it was wrong for some of the OECD countries to assume that ''the one who gives the money calls the tune.''

Since last year there have been six North-South meetings on the restructuring of GEF: in Abidjan, Rome, Beijing, Washington DC, Paris and Cartagena.

But the Cartagena meeting, which was expected to finalize the mechanics of GEF, has put the Facility in jeopardy. The OECD and the Group of 77 battled on ''effective participation'' and ''effective control,'' including ''a democratic and transparent decision-making process'' in GEF.

But the OECD was accused of implicitly threatening to reduce its contributions in return for concessions on control and participation.

A Latin American delegate at the meeting stunned the participants by calling the OECD gesture ''pure blackmail.''

An African delegate was even more forthright when he said: ''We cannot be bribed with money.''The discussions should not be resumed, he said, unless there is a change in the OECD attitude.

At the GEF meeting in Beijing early this year, the total commitment by donors amounted to about 3.0 billion dollars. But later in Paris, the commitments declined to 2.0 billion. At Cartagena, the commitments were down to about 1.5 billion because some OECD countries decided to cut their proposed contributions.

Under GEF's fixed percentage burden sharing arrangement, if one country reduces its contribution, the others will also proportionately reduce theirs, thus lowering the total.

Razali said the attitude of some of the OECD countries amounted to a form of punishment. ''They were in effect saying: If you ask for a greater role in participation and decision-making, we are willing to give you, but in return we will reduce our financial contributions,'' he said.

But even after promising concessions, some of the OECD countries -- presumably after consultation with their capitals -- decided to pullback from their promises.

''How can we put our fortunes in the hands of people who are not sure of even their own commitments,'' Razali said.

Speaking on behalf of the 130 developing countries of the Group of 77, Juanita Castano of Colombia said that there was a need for everyone to fulfill the commitments made in Rio.

She expressed concern over the ''simplistic attitude'' of looking at the new structure only from the point of view of financial contributions. This, she said, would deviate from the concept of shared responsibility agreed to in Rio.

''While the developing countries were required to make adjustments qualitatively on their development programs and resource use, there is no commensurate efforts made on the part of the OECD,''Castano said. (ENDS/IPS/TD/DC/93)

Back...