Simon Jessop and Emma Rumney

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters), – Seven U.N. projects were sought by the Philippines to finance their efforts to address climate change’s catastrophic effects. One project, however, has not been funded since 2016. This is not because of a lack of cash in the $17.3 million fund.

Mark Joven, an undersecretary in the Philippines finance ministry, stated that bureaucracy, a flood of information requests, and bureaucracy have held back applications to U.N. Green Climate Fund. These funds are used to fund projects to address climate change. The Philippines is facing rising sea levels and droughts.

Projects can take up to four years before they are completed. This is too long for emergency needs like flood defenses. Joven explained that by then, the city that applied for the flood loan would be already under the flooding it was trying to control.

GCF, which was established to assist developing nations in cutting carbon emissions, and adapting to a warmer future, stated that it has helped the Philippines develop know-how. But, its work had faced difficulties due to Manila’s efforts to modify the entities dealing with the fund and permits.

However, the Philippines isn’t the only country that has raised complaints. Reuters was contacted by seven governments and officials of development from seven countries, who said that their GCF applications were experiencing bottlenecks. Some requested anonymity to protect relations with the fund.

However, attempts to adapt GCF policies in order to make funding easier have been hampered by disagreements on the board among rich and poor countries over how to approach climate finance. A board member said this, as did a German official with climate finance.

Victor Vinas, who is a member of the board, said that “we allowed it to get too political”. He also stated that national rivalries within the board were sometimes an obstacle to these efforts.

GCF spokeswoman, however, did not address board concerns or complains over bureaucracy. However she said that the fund is accelerating its work.

At the U.N. COP26 Conference in Glasgow this month the central topic is to help developing nations obtain funds to combat climate change. But, funds have so far not been as close at $1.3 trillion which some states from developing countries say they will need by 2030.

APPLICATIONS SWELL

Part of this financing infrastructure is the GCF. It’s the largest intergovernmental global fund for climate change. Since its inception, $17.3 billion has been pledged by governments to the fund. The fund also received $11.5 billion.

A GCF document revealed that the total number of applicants to this fund had reached $22.4 billion as of October. According to the GCF, there has been no delay in project approvals due to a shortage of funds.

The GCF website states that the fund has already committed $10 billion for 190 projects but only $2.1 million has been spent.

GCF spokeswoman said that disbursement was slower because the funds were distributed over the project’s entire life span and not all projects were in their early stages. A spokesperson said that progress had been slowed by the pandemic.

Some blame other reasons for slow approvals. Pierre Daniel Telep, an ex-official of the GCF and climate finance consultant said that many conditions and milestones associated with payouts are too unrealistic for low-resourced countries.

Also, the fund aims at drawing in private capital. However, an independent report from the GCF’s evaluation unit stated in February that it received only 18c in private cash for every dollar it spent on climate adaptation projects. It cited “insufficiently predictable” decisions-making.

According to the GCF, its approved project portfolio has grown by 40% in February’s report. It also stated that $2.70 was earned on average for each $1 invested across its portfolio.

FACING HURDLESSES

Yannick Glemarec, Executive Director of GCF, told Reuters the processing of project proposals used to take a lot longer in the past. However, the fund has now increased its operational capacity and improved governance so that it can speed up.

He stated that the GCF had approved $2.5Billion worth of projects every year, and cut down the average time between first review and pay out to 12-17 month. In 2018, it was 26-28 months. The fund is also hiring five employees per month to manage its portfolio, he stated.

Some projects are moving quickly. The fund stated that a Mongolian solar plant was in operation just over one year after GCF approval.

Glemarec stated that progress is at risk and approvals may be delayed due to insufficient funding next year.

Joe Thwaites (climate finance expert, U.S-based thinktank the World Resources Institute) stated that the GCF had been operating at the same level as or slightly ahead of other climate finance institutions for the first four year of its existence.

The Adaptation Fund, which is U.N.-backed, was he said, while the Global Environment Facility and the Global Environment Facility had simpler processes, they’d been around since 1992 and 2007 respectively.

However, he stated that GCF needs to reconsider the demands they made of developing countries. GCF has requested 30 year weather data for countries without conflict in certain cases.

Thwaites explained that this is a great example of when very, very good-meaning requirements can create hurdles for smaller entities.

GCF spokesperson stated that it has a flexible approach to data management and works with data requesters to resolve any issues.