Like many climate-vulnerable developing countries, the Philippines prioritises accessibility Green Climate Fund (GCF) because of its climate finance needs.
There are also various international and native sources of climate finance, however the GCF continues to be largest and it is specifically designed for immediate access by developing countries, promoting a paradigm shift towards low emission and climate-resilient development.
The priority surrounding the fund now is its replenishment. To date, the GCF has raised $10.3 billion, many of which were pooled in from, or pledged, by civilized world – or those thought to have caused climatic change and global warming, and those urged through the Paris Agreement to take the lead in mobilising climate finance for developing countries.
Now at the upcoming pledging conference in Paris this October 28-29, such mobilisation must progress beyond previous efforts.
A glance at the GCF website implies that it has 111 projects in its portfolio, with $5.2bn allocated for approved projects, which, with co-financing (or pledges in the requesting country party to determine sustainability and ownership of the project), are worth $18.7bn.
With more than half from the funds already granted or set aside for approved projects (more, after the board meeting this November), deducting also the operating costs of running the GCF secretariat, board meetings, and other activities and support programs, perhaps, there wouldn't be much left within the fund – unless, obviously, new pledges and donations are available in.
This is a major concern for developing countries, specifically for the Philippines and other countries which have yet to receive grants from the GCF. However, there's a good chance the Philippines might finally secure funding this season aside from existing readiness support, following a government's issuance of three no-objection letters to one public and two private proposals for projects on coastal resilience as well as renewable energy and efficiency.
As we near 2023, the issue of replenishment has become increasingly more prominent. It is the year by which the civilized world dedicated to jointly mobilize $100bn in climate finance each year – a promise made way back in '09, in the 15th UN climate talks (Cop15) held in Copenhagen, that was formalized annually later at Cop16 in Cancun (which also decided on the establishment from the GCF) and was afterwards reaffirmed within the Paris Agreement.
A decade since that time, however, I beg to ask: Will the developed countries be able to keep their promise?
In 2023 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development did a study that conservatively affirmed civilized world were indeed on target by 2023.
The analysis, however, came out 3 years ago, and the global political landscape is different since that time. Several leaders from rich nations – for example United States president Donald Trump, who declared they'd withdraw from the Paris Agreement, in addition to Australian Pm Scott Morrison, who said last year they would not provide any more funding to the GCF – have seemingly curtailed the global progress on climate ambition and action.
The response of several US governors to form the United States Climate Alliance is a good sign the nation can still meet its responsibilities to the Paris Agreement. Germany, Norway, France, and the United kingdom has also dedicated to double their respective contributions to the GCF, while Ireland and Canada also indicated it would provide additional financing
Developing countries remember those who stood by their words and delivered their commitments, in the same manner that we'll hold into consideration those who just stood by. We're making progress, but more needs to be done.
While every year has been a critical year for that GCF because it started operations in 2023, there will be greater expectation from the fund in the future years as developing countries further anticipate increased mobilization of climate finance.
In to realise its full potential, the GCF must urgently address the nuances and gaps in their financing policies, strategic direction, and investment criteria. Ultimately, they have to increase the efficiency of their operations and its impact and support to developing countries.
Augmenting the GCF secretariat and increasing the frequency of board meetings are a few earlier suggestions that need to be revisited. But whatever adjustments the fund may need, it has to remain a capable and service-oriented climate finance mechanism, especially in this time around of climate crisis when developing countries grapple for any and all sorts of available climate finance they are able to reach stay alive.
