Business Day TV speaks to Gemcorp’s chief economist, Simon Quijano-Evans
The greenest energy is the energy you do not use, so there's no time to waste
Business grouping threatens court action over blanket power reduction on lines that hurts paying customers
Ipsos says 42% would vote for it in a national election now, down from 47% in the 2021 municipal election
The commission referred Mpact and New Era Packaging to the tribunal for prosecution for cartel conduct in 2019
July credit and debit card transactions and vehicle sales show us demand is strong
New survey highlights the gender imbalance that has overshadowed SA’s corporate sector for years
Aliko Dangote to lead a panel set up to find ways to cut resurgent malaria’s prevalence in Nigeria
England Test captain says he hopes his team has retained their “venom” before the three-match series against SA
Failing to reduce CO² emissions to set targets could cost the carmaker as much as $572m in penalties from US authorities
Johannesburg — The Philippines has sought financing for seven projects from a UN environmental fund to tackle the catastrophic impact of climate change. Yet only one has secured backing since 2016, and it’s not because the $17.3bn fund lacks cash.
Bureaucracy and a blizzard of information requests have stalled applications to the UN Green Climate Fund (GCF) over projects to cope with climate change in a country that faces typhoons, droughts and rising sea levels, said Mark Joven, undersecretary at the Philippines finance department.
It can take as many as four years for projects to get going — too long for urgent needs, such as flood defences. “By then the city applying for a flood facility would already have sunk under the flood it wanted to solve,” Joven said.
GCF, created to help developing nations cut carbon emissions and adapt to a warmer world, said it had helped the Philippines build know-how, but its work faced challenges over permits and Manila’s moves to change which entity dealt with the fund.
Yet the Philippines is not alone in raising complaints. Government and development officials from seven countries told Reuters their GCF applications faced bottlenecks, with several asking not to be named to avoid harming relations with the fund.
Meanwhile, efforts to adjust GCF policies to ease access to funding have been hindered by wrangling on the board between rich and poor nations over how it should approach climate finance, a board member and a German climate finance official said.
“We allowed it to become too political,” said board member Victor Vinas, saying national rivalries on the board unrelated to climate politics also sometimes hindered these efforts.
A GCF spokesperson did not comment on board issues or complaints over bureaucracy but said the fund was accelerating its work.
Helping developing nations secure funds to cope with climate change is a central issue at the UN COP26 conference in Glasgow this month, but funds offered so far have not come near the $1.3-trillion some developing states say they need each year by 2030.
The GCF, the largest intergovernmental fund to address climate change, is part of that financing infrastructure. Governments have pledged $17.3bn to the fund since its launch in 2014, of which the fund has received $11.5bn.
Applications to the fund swelled to $22.4bn by October, a GCF document showed. The GCF says no project approval has faced any delay so far because of a lack of funds.
The fund has committed $10bn to 190 projects, yet only $2.1bn has been paid out so far, the GCF website says.
The GCF spokesperson said disbursement lagged as funds were paid over a project’s lifetime and many were at an early stage. The pandemic had also slowed progress, the spokesperson added.
But some blame other factors for slow approvals. Pierre Daniel-Telep, a former GCF official and now a climate finance consultant, said the fund’s conditions and milestones attached to payouts were often unrealistic or too difficult for poorly-resourced governments to meet.
The fund also aims to draw in private cash, but a report by the GCF’s independent evaluation unit said in February the fund attracted just 18 cents in private cash for each dollar it invested on projects focused on adapting to climate change, citing “insufficiently predictable” decision-making.
The GCF said its portfolio of approved projects had grown by 40% since that February report and that it attracted about $2.70 for every $1 invested on average across its portfolio.
GCF executive director Yannick Glemarec told Reuters that processing project proposals had often taken a long time in the past but the fund had now built up its operational capacity and improved governance to speed up.
He said the GCF approved projects worth $2.5bn every year and had cut the time between proposal review and first pay out to an average of 12-17 months, from 26-28 months in 2018. He also said the fund was hiring five people a month to manage its portfolio.
Some projects have moved fast. A solar plant in Mongolia was operating just over a year after GCF approval, the fund said.
But Glemarec said progress was at risk, with the possibility approvals could be delayed next year due to insufficient funds.
Joe Thwaites, a climate finance expert at US-based think-tank the World Resources Institute, said the GCF was operating in line with or slightly behind other climate finance institutions in the first four years of their lives.
He said two other UN-backed funds, the Adaptation Fund and the Global Environment Facility, had more streamlined processes because they had been around longer, starting around 2007 and 1992, respectively.
But he said the GCF needed to rethink some demands it put on developing countries. As an example, he cited GCF requests in some cases for 30 years of weather data from countries where this didn't exist because of conflict.
“That's a good example of where very, very well-meaning requirements ... can put up hurdles particularly for smaller entities,” Thwaites said.
The GCF spokesperson said it had a flexible approach about data and was working to ease challenges around data requests.Reuters
Would you like to comment on this article? Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.