BACK TO MAIN  |  ONLINE BOOKSTORE  |  HOW TO ORDER

TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Jul21/02)
6 July 2021
Third World Network

GCF: Divergences over climate rationale of adaptation projects

Delhi, 6 July (Indrajit Bose) — The Board of the UNFCCC’s Green Climate Fund (GCF) was divided over assessments of funding proposals by the Fund’s Independent Technical Advisory Panel’s (ITAP) at its 29th meeting (B.29) held virtually from 28 June to 1 July.

Several developing country Board members raised concerns over the ITAP not endorsing funding proposals involving adaptation projects, as the ITAP’s assessment was that the proposals lacked “climate rationale”.

The developing country Board members stressed that they stand to lose out when historic climate data becomes a decisive factor in the ITAP assessments, since their countries lack such data. Developing country Board members also called for such funding proposals to come to the Board for approval, irrespective of whether ITAP endorses the project or not. There was however no consensus on the matter and the Board agreed that the Co-Chairs, Jean-Christophe Donnellier (France) and Jose De Luna Martinez (Mexico) would carry out consultations on the matter.

In its presentation to the Board, the Secretariat informed that for B.29, they had submitted seven funding proposals to the ITAP for review. Of the seven, the ITAP did not endorse three funding proposals, of which one was crosscutting and two were adaptation proposals. (The Board approved the remaining four proposals. See related TWN Update.) The Secretariat also said that the ITAP did not endorse large-scale regional adaptation programmes and pointed to the treatment similar projects may face, especially in the absence of GCF policy on programmatic approaches and climate rationale.

Details of complete ITAP assessments were circulated to the Board as ‘limited distribution’ documents, not available to observers. However, in the public document on funding proposals published on the GCF website, some of the reasons for the ITAP not endorsing the proposals were made available.

“For the first case, the project was not endorsed by the ITAP due to the scoring of the impact potential (scored “low”) and paradigm shift potential (scored “uncertain”) investment criteria. The ITAP noted in its assessment that the overall funding proposal package should be strengthened with climate rationale using historical observed datasets and validated models, climate risk and vulnerability assessments, more detailed feasibility and market studies for the proposed climate-resilient agricultural activities…The ITAP considers that unless validated with observed data in the project implementation areas, the use of computer-simulated gridded data from the climate data research unit is not acceptable given the availability of point-source based observational datasets in the countries. According to the ITAP, the climate data research unit uses computer-generated climatological data that fails to capture the sensitivities of climatological changes (e.g. annual, decadal) in the project areas of study,” states the document.

In the second case, besides, the ITAP not recommending the funding proposal for the Board’s consideration due to its scores for the impact potential and efficiency and effectiveness under the GCFs investment criteria, the ITAP also noted that, “regardless of this being a regional programme, the project intends to use adaptation measures as response mechanisms…and therefore the regional climatological data presented needs to be unpacked and re-analysed with validation for specific sub-regions in each of the countries.”

In the third case, the ITAP noted that the “overall funding proposal package should be strengthened by including a more complete needs assessment for climate information services…and improvements to the climate rationale.”

During the discussion divergences emerged among Board members on how to tackle the matter.

Jeremiah Sokon (Liberia) said it was not acceptable that some funding proposals, including those from Least Developed Countries (LDCs), were denied due to weak climate rationale and added that for countries like Liberia, seeking 30 years of climate data is akin to denying funding to them. He also said that the ITAP continues to make it difficult or impossible for poor countries to have access to adaptation funding. Sokon further said that there is no consistent policy/criteria given to the ITAP and that all funding proposals should come to the Board for approval until B.31, even when the ITAP did not endorse a proposal. He recommended that the decision giving the ITAP the right to veto projects should be suspended and he referred to decision B.17/09, sub-paragraph i which reads: Decides that the Secretariat shall only submit to the Board for its consideration those funding proposals whose approval has been recommended by the ITAP and the Secretariat.

Richard Muyungi (Tanzania) supported Sokon’s proposals and said that the key issue is to address the manner by which the ITAP was addressing matters related to adaptation, climate rationale and programmatic approaches in the absence of any Board policy on these matters.The Africa Group is particularly concerned about ITAP’s sharing of some of those guiding documents with the accredited entities and requesting them for the application without Board guidance,” he said.

Nagmeldin Goutbi El Hassan Mahmoud (Sudan) said that there is a problem in the manner the ITAP operates and increasingly, the adaptation projects suffer and the Board needs to correct this. “I see some of the questions around climate rationale which do not make sense. There is the issue of variability as well. Many national and local circumstances contribute to vulnerability and not just climate exposure. 30 years’ data is just not available in developing countries,” said Mahmoud. He also questioned why the projects had met with approval in the Secretariat’s review of the climate rationale, but not from the ITAP.

Reina Sotillo (Argentina) said climate data and rationale for adaptation is still building worldwide and for developing countries, it is a permanent learning and challenge to meet requirements of the GCF which are complex. She also spoke about Board guidance on the issue and added that the authors of the projects are not responsible for the absence of a decision by the Board in this regard.

Victor R Vinas (Dominican Republic) supported Sokon on suspending the veto power of the ITAP and stressed that the reason the GCF was formed was to benefit the most vulnerable countries and developing countries needed the adaptation projects (to be funded).

Expressing concern over the situation, Gerard Bussier (Mauritius) stressed the need for Board guidance on the matter and to address policy gaps regarding the climate rationale issue.

In response, the ITAP Chair, Daniel Nolasco said that the projects that were not endorsed by the ITAP were not just because of climate rationale. On climate rationale, Nolasco said that at B.21 in Bahrain, the ITAP had flagged that a project’s climate rationale was weak and yet it had endorsed the project. “Later on at a meeting with the (then) Co-Chairs, we were asked why ITAP would endorse a project with weak climate rationale. ITAP adapted to that. At B.23, we had a meeting open to all accredited entities. We presented the issue of climate rationale as a potential pitfall and we started following advice from the Co-Chairs and we started not endorsing projects that did not have climate rationale or weak climate rationale,” responded Nolasco. 

Heike Henn (Germany) said the ITAP is a crucial part of GCF operations and that she sees no reason to change the mandate given by the B.17/09 decision. She suggested that the concerns raised could be addressed by closing policy gaps and the Board must give clear guidance to ITAP and the Secretariat.

Supporting ITAP’s role and its “expert advice”, Hans Olav Ibrekk (Norway) also stressed on the need for Board guidance on climate rationale.

Agreeing with the ITAP assessments and supporting additional guidance from the Board, Stephane Cieniewski (France) said the ITAP had “reasonable grounds for postponing the projects”.

Jan Wahlberg (Finland) supported ITAP’s role and said it is important to ensure that the GCF finances projects focused on climate adaptation and mitigation, but not any type of development projects.

Mathew Haarsager (US) supported the ITAP role as the Board’s gatekeeper and said it was not supportive of suspending any previous decision.

Given the differences of views, further consultations on the matter will continue between the Co-Chairs and Board members.

 


BACK TO MAIN  |  ONLINE BOOKSTORE  |  HOW TO ORDER