KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 21 Sayı: 1

Küresel İklim Finansmanında Uygulama Boşluğu: Yapısal ve Alıcı Tarafındaki Engeller ve Türkiye Örneği

The Implementation Gap in Global Climate Finance: Structural and Recipient-Side Barriers and The Case of Türkiye

Eray Erbil(ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4112-0135
Oktay F. Tanrısever(ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0874-1324
Sayfa
279–300
Yayın Tarihi
2026-04-01
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Sonuç olarak, bulgular bu farkın, iklim yönetişim sisteminin işlevsizliğini yansıttığını ve alıcıların yeşil dönüşümlerini birlikte tasarlayabilmelerini sağlayan çok merkezli, ortaklık temelli yaklaşımlara geçişi gerektirdiğini göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Uluslararası müzakerelerde önemli iklim taahhütlerine rağmen, iklim finansmanı taahhütleri ile fiili uygulamalar arasında bir uçurum bulunmaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu çalışma, bu uygulama uçurumunun altında yatan siyasi ve yapısal faktörleri incelemekte ve küresel finansal yapıların ardındaki niyeti sorgulamaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Sonuç olarak, bulgular bu farkın, iklim yönetişim sisteminin işlevsizliğini yansıttığını ve alıcıların yeşil dönüşümlerini birlikte tasarlayabilmelerini sağlayan çok merkezli, ortaklık temelli yaklaşımlara geçişi gerektirdiğini göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:İklim Finansmanı · İklim Yönetişimi · İklim Taahhütleri

Özet

Uluslararası müzakerelerde önemli iklim taahhütlerine rağmen, iklim finansmanı taahhütleri ile fiili uygulamalar arasında bir uçurum bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, bu uygulama uçurumunun altında yatan siyasi ve yapısal faktörleri incelemekte ve küresel finansal yapıların ardındaki niyeti sorgulamaktadır. Makale, niteliksel belge analizi kullanarak alıcı tarafın karşılaştığı zorlukları araştırmaktadır. Türkiye'yi gri bölgedeki bir vaka olarak analiz eden çalışma, Türkiye'nin BMİDÇS kapsamında Ek I sınıflandırmasının, imtiyazlı finansmana yapısal bir engel oluşturduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, araştırma, yurt içi kömür ve doğal gaz sübvansiyonlarının alınan uluslararası iklim desteğinden daha ağır basması gibi kritik bir politika çelişkisini vurgulamaktadır. Sonuç olarak, bulgular bu farkın, iklim yönetişim sisteminin işlevsizliğini yansıttığını ve alıcıların yeşil dönüşümlerini birlikte tasarlayabilmelerini sağlayan çok merkezli, ortaklık temelli yaklaşımlara geçişi gerektirdiğini göstermektedir.

Abstract

Despite significant climate commitments in international negotiations, a gap exists between climate finance pledges and actual delivery. This study examines the political and structural factors underlying this implementation gap and questions the intent behind global financial frameworks. Using qualitative document analysis, the article explores recipient-side challenges. By analyzing Türkiye as a case in the grey zone, the study reveals how its Annex I classification under the UNFCCC acts as a structural barrier to concessional funding. Furthermore, the research highlights a critical policy contradiction where domestic coal and natural gas subsidies outweigh the international climate assistance received. In the end, findings suggest the gap reflects a malfunctioning climate governance system, requiring a shift toward polycentric, partnership-based approaches that empower recipients to co-design their green transitions.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Erbil, E., Tanrısever, O. F. (2026). Küresel İklim Finansmanında Uygulama Boşluğu: Yapısal ve Alıcı Tarafındaki Engeller ve Türkiye Örneği. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 1, 279–300. https://doi.org/10.17153/oguiibf.1773505

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (65)

  1. Ajiya, M. (2023). Understanding climate finance: The myth, processes and accessibility. Eliva Press.
  2. Alayza, N., & Caldwell, M. R. (2021). Financing climate action and the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of 17 developing countries. World Resources Institute. https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2021-10/financing-climate-action-covid-19-pandemic.pdf?VersionId=TMOS7TyYBnE9FAhjVZWubqBGrc_k1ycm
  3. Barua, S. (2020). Financing sustainable development goals: A review of challenges and mitigation strategies. Business Strategy & Development, 3(3), 277-293. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.94
  4. Basak, R., & van der Werf, E. (2019). Accountability mechanisms in international climate change financing. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 19(3), 297-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09437-8
  5. Bhandary, R. R., Gallagher, K. S., & Zhang, F. (2021). Climate finance policy in practice: A review of the evidence. Climate Policy, 21(4), 529-545. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1871313
  6. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  7. Buchner, B., Naran, B., Padmanabhi, R., Stout, S., Strinati, C., Wignarajah, D., Miao, G., Connolly, J., & Marini, N. (2023). Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2023. Climate Policy Initiative. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Global-Landscape-of-Climate-Finance-2023.pdf
  8. Cadman, T., Maguire, R., & Sampford, C. (Eds.) (2017). Governing the climate change regime. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315442365
  9. Cash, C., & Swatuk, L. A. (Eds.). (2022). The political economy of climate finance: Lessons from international development. Springer Nature.
  10. Causevic, A., Haque, N., LoCastro, M., Selvakkumaran, S., Beslik, S., & Causevic, S. (2023). Assessment of the post-Paris Agreement era: International public climate finance in countries with low governance scores. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 43(1), 75-99. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sais.2023.0002
  11. Çeliköz, Ç. (2025). $8.7 billion coal subsidy contradicts Türkiye's renewable goals. Ember. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/8-7-billion-coal-subsidy-contradicts-turkiyes-renewable-goals/
  12. Chaudhury, A. (2020). Role of intermediaries in shaping climate finance in developing countries—Lessons from the Green Climate Fund. Sustainability, 12(14), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145507
  13. Choi, E., & Laxton, V. (2023). Mobilizing private investment in climate solutions: De-risking strategies of multilateral development banks. World Resources Institute. https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2023-07/mobilizing-private-investment-climate-solutions.pdf
  14. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  15. Digitemie, W. N., & Ekemezie, I. O. (2024). Assessing the role of climate finance in supporting developing nations: A comprehensive review. Finance & Accounting Research Journal, 6(3), 408-420. https://doi.org/10.51594/farj.v6i3.926
  16. Enerdata. (2022, January 25). Turkey Plans to Spend €6.5bn on Energy Subsidies in 2022. Enerdata Daily Energy News. https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/turkey-plans-spend-eu65bn-energy-subsidies-2022.html
  17. Guzmán, S., Guillén, T., & Manda, J. (2018). A review of domestic data sources for climate finance flows in recipient countries. United Nations Development Programme. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/asia_pacific_rbap/RBAP-DG-2018-Review-of-Domestic-Data-Sources-for-Climate-Finance-Flows.pdf
  18. IEA (2025). Türkiye. https://www.iea.org/countries/turkiye
  19. Klöck, C., & Nunn, P. D. (2019). Adaptation to climate change in small island developing states: A systematic literature review of academic research. The Journal of Environment & Development, 28(2), 196-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496519835895
  20. Kowalzig, J., Cherry-Virdee, T., Sørensen, R. B., & Cutts, S. (2024). Climate finance short-changed. Oxfam. https://www.oxfamnovib.nl/Files/rapporten/2024/Climate%20Finance%20Short-Changed%202024.pdf
  21. Kraus, J. (2025, March 13). Climate finance hypocrisy. One DATA. https://data.one.org/analysis/climate-finance-hypocrisy/
  22. Lee, C. C., Li, X., Yu, C. H., & Zhao, J. (2022). The contribution of climate finance toward environmental sustainability: New global evidence. Energy Economics, 111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106072
  23. Leva, M. (2017). Financing climate mitigation and adaptation. Carbon & Climate Law Review, 11(4), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.21552/cclr/2017/4/7
  24. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation, (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  25. Michaelowa, A., & Sacherer, A. K. (Eds.). (2022). Handbook of international climate finance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  26. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Türkiye (2022). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol. https://www.mfa.gov.tr/united-nations-framework-convention-on-climate-change-_unfccc_-and-the-kyoto-protocol.en.mfa
  27. MLGP4Climate (2024). Türkiye Municipalities SECAPs. https://mlgp4climate.com/turkiye-municipalities-secaps
  28. Naran, B., Buchner, B., Price, M., Stout, S., Taylor, M., & Zabeida, D. (2024). Global landscape of climate finance 2024: Insights for COP29. Climate Policy Initiative. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Global-Landscape-of-Climate-Finance-2024.pdf
  29. Nor, M. I., & Mohamed, A. A. (2024). Investigating the complex landscape of climate finance in Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Discover Environment, 2(76), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44274-024-00102-9
  30. OECD (2023a). Climate finance provided and mobilised by developed countries in 2013-2021. https://doi.org/10.1787/e20d2bc7-en
  31. OECD (2023b). Türkiye adaptation and resilience assessment: A whole-of-economy approach to climate and disaster risks. https://doi.org/10.1596/40245
  32. OECD (2023c). Development finance for climate and environment. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/development-finance-for-climate-and-the-environment.html
  33. OECD (2024). Climate finance provided and mobilised by developed countries in 2013-2022. https://doi.org/10.1787/19150727-en
  34. OECD (2025). Environment at a glance: Türkiye. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/environment-at-a-glance-country-notes_59ce6fe6-en/turkiye_80948100-en.html
  35. Oh, C., & Matsuoka, S. (2017). The genesis and end of institutional fragmentation in global governance on climate change from a constructivist perspective. International Environmental Agreements, 17, 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-015-9309-2
  36. Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550-557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004
  37. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  38. Pauw, W. P., Castro, P., Pickering, J., & Bhasin, S. (2020). Conditional nationally determined contributions in the Paris Agreement: Foothold for equity or Achilles heel?. Climate Policy, 20(4), 468-484. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1635874
  39. Pauw, W. P., Moslener, U., Zamarioli, L. H., Amerasinghe, N., Atela, J., Affana, J. P. B., Buchner, B., Kelin, R. J. T., Mbeva, K. L., Puri, J., Roberts, J. T., Shawoo, Z., Watson, C., & Weikmans, R. (2022). Post-2025 climate finance target: How much more and how much better?. Climate Policy, 22(9-10), 1241-1251. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2114985
  40. Pickering, J., Betzold, C., & Skovgaard, J. (2017). Managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9349-2
  41. Pickering, J., Jotzo, F., & Wood, P. (2013). Splitting the difference in global climate finance: Are fragmentation and legitimacy mutually exclusive? (Working Paper 1308). Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ancewp/249413.html
  42. Qi, J., & Qian, H. (2023). Climate Finance at a crossroads: It is high time to use the global solution for global problems. Carbon Neutrality, 2(31), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43979-023-00071-7
  43. Qian, H., Qi, J., & Gao, X. (2023). What determines international climate finance? Payment capability, self-interests, and political commitment. Global Public Policy and Governance, 3(1), 41-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-023-00062-5
  44. Rapley, T. (2007). Doing conversation, discourse, and document analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  45. Resmi Gazete (2025). İklim Kanunu. https://mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=7552&MevzuatTur=1&MevzuatTertip=5
  46. Roberts, J. T., Weikmans, R., Robinson, S. A., Ciplet, D., Khan, M., & Falzon, D. (2021). Rebooting a failed promise of climate finance. Nature Climate Change, 11(3), 180-182. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-00990-2
  47. Scandurra, G., Thomas, A., Passaro, R., Bencini, J., & Carfora, A. (2020). Does climate finance reduce vulnerability in small island developing states? An empirical investigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120330
  48. Shishlov, I., & Censkowsky, P. (2022). Definitions and accounting of climate finance: Between divergence and constructive ambiguity. Climate Policy, 22(6), 798-816. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2080634
  49. Skovgaard, J., Adams, K., Dupuy, K., Dzebo, A., Funder, M., Fejerskov, A., & Shawoo, Z. (2023). Multilateral climate finance coordination: Politics and depoliticization in practice. Global Environmental Politics, 23(2), 125-147. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00703
  50. Songwe, V., Stern, N. & Bhattacharya, A. (2022). Finance for climate action: Scaling up investment for climate and development. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. https://repository.uneca.org/assets/pdfjs/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.uneca.org%2Fserver%2Fapi%2Fcore%2Fbitstreams%2F70372848-e9e3-4a80-bff3-4d058e4ec499%2Fcontent&beforePrint=true&afterPrint=true&pagesLoaded=true&pageChange=true&openFile=false&download=false&viewBookmark=false&print=true&fullScreen=true&find=true&errorMessage=undefined&errorAppend=true
  51. South, D. W., & Alpay, S. (2025). Can fund for responding to loss and damage survive the voluntary financing structure?. Climate and Energy, 41(7), 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/gas.22447
  52. Sultana, F. (2022). The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality. Political Geography, 99, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102638
  53. Teleki, B. (2023). The role of finance in EU climate resilience. Pro Publico Bono-Magyar Közigazgatás, 3(3), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.32575/ppb.2023.3.3
  54. Tör, O. B., Kat, B., Teimourzadeh, S., Kol, K. D., Künar, A., Voyvoda, E., Yeldan, E., & Şahin, Ü. (2024). Turkey’s decarbonization pathway: Sectoral cost-benefit analysis (2020–2030). Istanbul Policy Center. https://ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/Content/Images/CKeditorImages/20240808-11084160.pdf
  55. UNFCCC (2023). Republic of Türkiye updated first nationally determined contribution. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2023-04/T%C3%9CRK%C4%B0YE_UPDATED%201st%20NDC_EN.pdf
  56. UNFCCC (2024). Introduction to climate finance. https://unfccc.int/topics/introduction-to-climate-finance
  57. UNFCCC (2025). Funds and financial entities. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/bodies/funds-and-financial-entities
  58. UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance (2021). First report on the determination of the needs of developing country parties related to implementing the Convention and the Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/54307_2%20-%20UNFCCC%20First%20NDR%20technical%20report%20-%20web%20%28004%29.pdf
  59. Von Lüpke, H., Aebischer, C., & Neuhoff, K. (2021). Collective action: New guiding principles for international climate finance. DIW Weekly Report, 11(32), 229-236. https://doi.org/10.18723/diw_dwr:2021-32-1
  60. Wach, E., & Ward, R. (2013). Learning about qualitative document analysis. The Institute of Development Studies and Partner Organisations. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12413/2989
  61. Wasan, P., Kumar, A., & Luthra, S. (2021). Green finance barriers and solution strategies for emerging economies: The case of India. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 414-425. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3123185
  62. Weikmans, R., & Roberts, J. T. (2019). The international climate finance accounting muddle: Is there hope on the horizon?. Climate and Development, 11(2), 97-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1410087
  63. Well, M., & Carrapatoso, A. (2017). REDD+ finance: Policy making in the context of fragmented institutions. Climate Policy, 17(6), 687–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1202096
  64. World Bank. (2021). Towards a greener and more resilient Türkiye. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/turkey/brief/towards-a-greener-and-more-resilient-turkiye#:~:text=In%20October%202021%2C%20T%C3%BCrkiye%20ratified,UN%2C%20IFC%20and%20the%20EBRD
  65. Zhao, J., Zhou, B., & Li, X. (2022). Do good intentions bring bad results? Climate finance and economic risks. Finance Research Letters, 48, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103003