Connect with us

Published

on

Government officials from small island developing states (Sids) have said they find it difficult to get money from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) for projects to help them adapt to climate change.

The GCF was set up in 2010 to distribute money from rich countries to poorer ones to help them cut emissions and adapt to climate change.

The fund is supposed to pay particular attention to the needs of small islands as well as the world’s poorest countries (LDCs) and African countries.

Small island officials told the authors of a new ODI report that getting money from the GCF was preferable to getting it from other sources like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund or the private sector.

Polish election result improves prospects for EU climate ambition

But, they said that GCF money was handed out too slowly, the process of applying is too difficult for nations with small civil services and a number of requirements discriminate against smaller nations.

Emily Wilkinson is the lead author of the report, which was shared exclusively with Climate Home. She said that “small island developing states really value the GCF, there’s nothing like it”.

But, she said, “the fact that a third of the proposals of all countries that we spoke to have been in the pipeline for over three years is quite staggering”.

Beneficiary metrics

With funding from rich nations stagnating, the GCF is looking to do as much as it can with its limited money. That’s made things harder for small islands.

Colin Young is a former government official from Belize and is now the head of the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre, which has worked with the GCF on projects in Barbados.

He told Climate Home that when they apply for projects, the GCF is increasingly telling them they need to get the cost per person helped down.

ODI report author Emily Wilkinson told Climate Home that one small island was told by the GCF that “the investment figures are very large compared to the beneficiary population and the climate impact”.

Africa and India push rich nations to phase out fossil fuels faster

The GCF’s investment criteria lists “impact potential” as one metric. As an example, it mentions “number of beneficiaries, number of people affected by climate impacts”.

As small island nations tend to have small populations, the number of beneficiaries is often in the low thousands.


"How do we say in a small country that is in the middle of a hurricane belt, droughts and floods - where people are impacted on the frontlines of climate change - and say that your project we have difficulty funding it because each person is going to get too much per capita from the resources?" Young asked.

Dominica was devastated by a hurricane in 2019. Its environment minister Cozier Frederick said that "adaptation and resilience funding needs are naturally higher for small island states compared to projects in other developing nations".

"Consequently," he said, "there is constant push back from the GCF on costs when applications are submitted".

A GCF spokesperson told Climate Home that number of beneficiaries was one of its "core indicators" but that there was no minimum threshold that has to be met.

Grants vs loans

The report found that one thing small islands like about the GCF is that it offers grants as well as loans.

But, with funding scarce, the report found the GCF is increasingly looking more to loans, so it gets its money back and can lend it out for another projects.

Renewable energy projects tend to be funded through loans, as the solar and wind panels generate electricity which can be sold, generating money to pay back the loan.

But, while that might work for a big solar farm in a large middle-income country like China, not every renewable energy project will make money.

World Bank approves green reforms, appeals for more money

Young said that for small islands, solar panels are often more about resilience to weather extremes than about reducing emissions.

For example, he said, solar panels can provide back-up energy to hospitals or water pumping stations when a storm knocks out the fossil fuel-powered electricity generator. But those solar panels won't make enough money to pay back the cost of installing them.

He said that the GCF's "increasing desire" to use loans not grants comes from the fact that the needs of developing countries "are clearly much greater than the resources the GCF has".

Nevertheless, he said small islands and the least developed countries "should not be lumped into the category with countries that clearly have less vulnerabilities in terms of size and geography and population".

Getting better

While problems remain, ODI's report found the GCF has taken measures to help small islands get funds.

In particular, small islands appreciated a GCF programme which gives each government $1 million to train staff and engage stakeholders to access GCF funds without relying on private consultants.

One anonymous Pacific interviewee described this as "super important" while a Caribbean official said it "has certainly helped us".

Most of the report's fieldwork was done before Mafalda Duarte took over as head of the GCF in August 2023.

A GCF spokesperson said the GCF gives half its funding to adaptation and half of that goes to LDCs, Sids and African states.

They added that the GCF is a "strong partner for Sids because of the eligiblity challenges small island developing states face with other sources of finance".

They said that there are "processes in place ensure that once a project is brought to the Board for approval GCF is confident of its impact potential. Processes are rigourous for that very reason."

They acknowledged that the GCF must speed up and simplify its process and said it had an "ambitious reform agenda".

The post Small islands struggle to get help from UN’s flagship climate fund appeared first on Climate Home News.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2023/10/20/small-islands-struggle-to-get-help-from-uns-flagship-climate-fund/

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

Published

on

Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.

After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.

It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.

“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.

    In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.

    Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.

    By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.

    Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions

    The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.

    After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.

    Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

    Greenpeace campaigner Raoul Monsembula in the peatland forest around Mbandaka, Democratic Republic of Congo, on September 15, 2017 (Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace)

    Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.

    “Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.

    “Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.

    Paris Agreement requirement

    The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.

    The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.

    Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.

    Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.

      The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.

      Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.

      “In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.

      The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.

      Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’

      Published

      on

      Article Contents

      Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.

      The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.

      Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.

      But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.

      Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.

      The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.

      In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).

      Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.

      A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.

      Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developments, debates and disagreements at the IPCC meeting.

      What timeline options were delegates debating?

      Top of the agenda during the Addis Ababa meeting was a decision on the timeline of the publication of AR7’s three working group reports – also known as the “work plan”. The three reports cover climate science (WG1), impacts and adaptation (WG2) and mitigation (WG3).