The UN Green Climate Fund (GCF) is neither Green nor about climate. They are mostly doing routine foreign aid that donor countries would be better off providing themselves. They have received and spent over $20 billion to date, with billions more coming. [some emphasis, links added]
For example, they fund many water supply systems in arid countries. They call it “climate change adaptation,” but it is not adaptation to climate change. It is addressing a condition that has always existed. It is fraud to call this “climate funding.”
The same is true for flood protection in flood-prone areas or improving existing farms, which they also do a lot of. Moreover, much of this so-called adaptation funding actually increases CO2 emissions, so it is not even green.
A fine example is their biggest funding to date, which is part of the huge Jordan Desalination Project. The GCF says that Jordan is among the world’s driest countries, so it certainly needs water. But Jordan has been this dry throughout its history, so the project has nothing to do with climate change.
Furthermore, desalination is highly electricity-intensive, and roughly 70% of Jordan’s electricity production is fossil-fueled, mostly natural gas.
The project includes a token solar facility, but it covers only a small fraction of the 24/7 energy required for desalination and for pumping water up to users, most of whom are about 1,000 meters higher than the plant.
Nor is this a GCF project. Exact numbers are hard to come by, but the GCF’s share of the $6 billion budget appears to be just 5%. The rest is an international grouping of standard sources of foreign aid, including development banks and individual countries.
In fact, GCF boasts that it typically co-funds projects with a minority share. In many cases, probably most, these co-funders are standard foreign aid sources.
This may help explain why many of the projects that GCF funds are neither green nor climate-change-related. Countries getting foreign aid are getting real help.
The glaring question is why GCF donor countries are running some of their foreign aid through the GCF. If they want to do green climate work, they would be better off doing it themselves. If they think the GCF is using their money for green climate work, they are being cheated.
What makes this trickery even worse is that the GCF is a truly inefficient—and bloated—bureaucracy. A lot of the money goes to administrative costs and fees, which normal foreign aid does not incur.
To begin with, the GCF does not fund projects directly. It does it via what are called “accredited entities.”
Here is how the GCF puts it:
“The GCF AE network comprises 158 entities approved by the Board for accreditation. The network includes a wide range of entities such as government ministries, national development banks, multilateral and commercial banks, United Nations agencies, international financial institutions, and national and international non-governmental organizations.”
These entities bring proposed projects to the GCF. In many cases, perhaps all, the budget will include their fee, which could be substantial. Accreditation itself is an elaborate process that must be paid for.
Then too, the project proposals and the proposal process are so elaborate that the GCF has a program to fund their preparation called the “Project Preparation Facility.”
Here is the GCF’s description:
“The Project Preparation Facility (PPF) provides financial and technical support through grants, both reimbursable and non-reimbursable, as well as equity, to support the development of high-quality project and programme funding proposals for submission to the Green Climate Fund (GCF).”
There are also things called “institutional capacity building” and “readiness.” The GCF is even establishing regional offices across the developing world.
All this expensive administrative spending is just a waste when compared to the existing system of standard foreign aid.
It makes no sense for donor countries to run billions of dollars of their limited foreign aid money through the fraudulent and wasteful Green Climate Fund.
Read more at CFACT
