|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Climate Change (Oct21/03) Delhi, 12 October (Indrajit Bose) — The Board of the UNFCCC’s Green Climate Fund (GCF) approved USD 1.2 billion to 13 projects at its 30th meeting held virtually from 4-7 October. Of the 13 projects approved, 8 were related to adaptation, 2 to mitigation and 3 were crosscutting. Prior to their approval, contentious issues arose over conditions being imposed on projects as well as over the update of the Simplified Approvals Process (SAP) of funding approvals. Several procedural irregularities also arose which occupied substantive time during the Board meeting (further details below). Funding Proposals The following projects were approved during the meeting:
Tlou Ramaru (South Africa) on behalf of the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) expressed concerns about the Independent Technical Advisory Panel (ITAP) imposing conditions on 10 of the 13 funding proposals presented to the Board for approval. “We are of the view that the Board needs to minimize the number of conditions it places on funding proposal (FP) approvals. While there may be certain circumstances that justify approval with the conditions, we see this practice as the exception and not as the norm,” said Ramaru. He also added that some of the conditions proposed were duplicative and redundant since they were already pre-planned activities which the accredited entities would undertake irrespective of the condition. Ramaru also expressed concern over “backroom” processes and lack of transparency where conditions were placed and presented to the Board as a “fait accompli”. He requested the Co-Chairs to cease such practices and ensure that all proposed conditions are placed on the record, are justified and discussed in the Board prior to placing the FP conditions up for approval. Ayman Shasly (Saudi Arabia) wanted to know if the there were any conditions that were implicitly or explicitly in conflict with the policies of the GCF. In response, the ITAP representative said that they use conditions where a FP needs to go the extra step to meet “extra quality standards” and the Secretariat responded that none of the conditions were inconsistent with the policies of the Fund. During the discussions on UNDP’s Thailand proposal, Board members from the UK (Josceline Wheatley) and the US (Mathew Haarsager) objected to deferring the conditions and making them contingent to the second disbursement. Their preference was for the conditions to remain as presented. Contention also arose on CABEI’s proposal titled ‘Ecosystem-based Adaptation to increase climate resilience in the Central American Dry Corridor and the Arid Zones of the Dominican Republic’. Ren Yan (China) said that CABEI, the accredited entity did not take into account the “full consideration of national circumstances and not made effective use of GCF resources”. “The funding proposal is an adaptation project from the public sector that introduces a loan facility component which follows a phased approach with predetermined conditions to curtail the programme. Such loan facility would increase the fiscal and debt burden of countries and undermine local adaptation efforts to address climate change. Based on these operational and technical reasons, China opposes the funding proposal,” said Yan. During the proposal approval process, however, China requested its statement be recorded and did not block consensus on the FP. Updated Simplified Approvals Process The proposed draft decision on the update of the Simplified Approvals Process (SAP) could not be adopted due to differences among Board members. (The SAP is an application process to simplify access for smaller-scale projects.) The differences arose over the following areas: (i) whether the SAP proposals could be approved between Board meetings; and (ii) raising the cap for SAP projects (from existing USD 10 million to USD 20 million or USD 50 million) and expanding the SAP projects to include those with potential limited environmental and/or social risks and/or impacts (category B) from the existing minimal or no adverse environmental and/or social risks and/or impacts (category C). Jeremiah Sokan (Liberia) spoke for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and said the updated SAP is very important to his constituency and that the SAP needs to be practical and implementable. He proposed moving to the USD 20 million cap and that he was comfortable staying within category C. He also said that SAP projects must be approved between Board meetings. Nadia Spencer Henry (Antigua and Barbuda) spoke for the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and said that the views of the SIDS had not been adequately considered in the proposed update of the SAP and they were opposed to it. “We want a SAP that works for everyone. We had raised issues on the pre-approval as well as the post-approval processes. Both the processes as they stand now do not simplify or make significant changes when we compare it to the project approval processes,” she said. She also added that the SIDS would like to see a proper mapping of the comparisons for every stage between the regular project approval process and the SAP. Richard Muyungi (Tanzania) said he understands the importance of SAP, but the Africa Group’s objections lay in the approvals process proposed and that they were not supportive of SAP proposals being approved between Board meetings. Ayman Shasly (Saudi Arabia) also said that he supports the updated SAP, except for the between Board meetings approval process proposed. Wael Aboulmagd (Egypt) said he is comfortable with the focus on category C projects and supported doubling the cap. However, he too was not persuaded with regard to decision-making between meetings. Toru Sugio (Japan) welcomed the policy and supported increasing the cap to USD 50 million and Category B projects. Jaime de Bourbon de Parme (Netherlands) said the SAP is one of the measures that would resonate at the UNFCCC’s COP 26 and supported raising the ceiling to USD 20 million as well as for decisions to be taken between meetings. Hans Olav Ibrekk (Norway) said SAP is important to his constituency and there is a need to simplify the SAP. He said he is flexible to expand the ceiling to USD 20 million or USD 50 million and would be happy to discuss it between meetings. He expressed disappointment that the authority to approve SAP proposals was not being delegated to the Executive Director (ED) of the Fund which would have simplified things in the real sense of the term. (The option to delegate authority to the ED was not presented in the current draft since Board members had expressed their reservations to do so when the option was presented to them in an earlier draft of the policy for consideration.) Susan Krohn (Germany) said she is open to SAP approvals between board meetings and moving up its scope to USD 20 million. She said she would feel more comfortable with SAP proposals remaining in risk category C. She also wondered if the concerns of the SIDS could be met by a step-wise approach. Marta Mulas (Spain) referred to SAP as their priority and added that her preference is for SAP to remain with Category C projects and that decision on SAP proposals between meetings was a good idea. Mathew Haarsager (US) also referred to SAP as a priority and to make it more accessible to developing countries, particularly the SIDS and LDCs. “We would like to keep this with category C projects. We support the increase to USD 20 million and we are supportive of approval between Board meetings provided that Board members and civil society organisations are given adequate opportunity to comment,” he said. Josceline Wheatley (UK) said that he viewed the SAP process in terms of simplification, facilitation and acceleration. He said the ceiling needs to be doubled and leaving risk category as is would be a good way forward. He also supported the decision-making process to be between Board meetings. Following the discussions, Co-Chair Jose De Luna Martinez (Mexico) said that there is a need for another version which incorporates the feedback received and encouraged the Secretariat and objecting members to work on the issues. Procedural Issues At the outset of the GCF Board meeting, procedural issues arose, with Co-Chairs Jose De Luna Martinez (Mexico) and Jean-Christophe Donnellier (France) not having followed the rules of procedures in relation to objections by developing country Board members on draft decisions that were considered between the 29th and 30th Board meetings. It resulted in the developing country Board members raising a point of order, which needed to be resolved at the opening of the 30th Board meeting. (According to Paragraph 43 of the Rules of Procedure, “If an objection has been received (on a draft decision proposed in between meetings), the Co-Chairs will work through the objection with the Board member directly. If the objecting Board member upholds his/her objection following discussion with the Co-Chairs, the proposed decision will be considered by the Board at the following meeting”). However, instead of speaking to objecting Board members directly, the Co-Chairs launched small group consultations with non-objecting members and this prompted the objecting Board members to raise a point of order on the way the Co-Chairs handled the matter. Further, in relation to a point of order, the rules of procedure state, “The Co-Chairs will rule on points of order and any such determination will be final unless a Board member objects. In that case, the Board will consider the course of action to be taken.” The Co-Chairs in response to the point of order had sent in a written note, but it was not adequately clear whether the note was a ruling on the point of order. Speaking to the issue, Wael Aboulmagd (Egypt) said he was at a loss to understand what the Co-Chairs note was i.e. whether it was a response, a determination or a ruling. “So many issues in your response are not consistent with the rules of procedure. It needs to be put on record that this should not set a precedent. The idea is to sort it out and move forward,” said Aboulmagd. Ayman Shasly (Saudi Arabia) stressed that procedures are not subject to interpretation and need to be adhered. Tlou Ramaru (South Africa) also said that he did not know what to make of the Co-Chairs explanation and requested that the Co-Chairs to make a ruling on the point of order. The Secretariat further confirmed the understanding that the members who had raised the point of order had in fact not received a ruling on the point of order, as is prescribed in the rules of procedure and that the written note by Co-Chairs “falls short of a determinative ruling and to make some headway, there needs to be a ruling before moving forward”. In response, Co-Chair Martinez informed the Board that they disagreed with the point of order and they had engaged in bilateral conversations with the objecting Board members and convened small group technical sessions which were not meant to replace the bilateral meetings with the objecting Board members and that is their final determination on the point or order. Aboulmagd responded that there had been a tendency this year to deviate from the rules of procedure. He said further that he was not convinced of the urgency of items chosen for decisions between meetings and there was no need for the small group meetings with non-objecting members. (The topics for decisions between Board meetings included: Tenth Report of the Green Climate Fund to the UNFCCC COP; Updated accreditation framework; Dates and venue of the thirty-first meeting of the Board, Updated guidelines for the operation of Board committees, among others). Shasly and Ramaru too objected to the Co-Chairs ruling on their point of order. Following further consultations in a constituency meeting, the following was placed on the record of the meeting as a solution which the Co-Chairs also agreed to. “The Board noted the Point of Order on the application of the Rules of Procedure, the Co-Chairs’ ruling and the objection to the Co-Chairs’ ruling. Following consultations between Co-Chairs and the objecting members, the Co-Chairs read the following into the record of the meeting: The Co-Chairs are aware of the objecting members views to the Co-Chairs ruling and note that the circumstances related to the Point of Order and the subsequent ruling and objections. The Board notes that the application of the Rules of Procedure is not open to interpretation and that the circumstances leading to B.30 do not constitute a precedent, nor a change to the Rules of Procedure. The Board notes that when an objection has been raised to a decision proposed without a Board meeting that the Co-Chairs work directly with the objecting member/s only in accordance with paragraph 43.” Next Board meeting The Board also decided that its next meeting will take place from 7-10 February 2022.
|
||
