World's biggest climate fund ramps up investment plans
The Green Climate Fund's plan to release about $1.2 billion for 17 projects mostly in Asia and Africa follows approval by shareholders including the United States at a meeting this week, against a fractious political backdrop that has seen development aid slashed.
Official development assistance could fall 17% this year after a 9% drop in 2024, the OECD said in a June report, opens new tab, led by hefty cuts to U.S. aid by President Donald Trump.
"At a time when collective climate action is more needed than ever, GCF is stepping up to deliver on its mandate," GCF Co-Chair Seyni Nafo said in a statement.
The GCF disbursement includes $227 million for an initiative to expand green bond markets in 10 countries. Green bond markets are where companies raise capital for projects that limit climate change or otherwise benefit the environment.
In South Asia, it will invest $200 million in the India Green Finance Facility to scale renewables and energy efficiency, while in East Africa it will invest $150 million in the food system to support nearly 18 million people.
All the projects will bring the GCF investment portfolio to $18 billion across 133 countries. So far, countries have pledged $29.9 billion to the GCF and paid in $21 billion.
As well as releasing more money, the GCF board also approved plans to speed up its work with partner organisations, which can include accredited entities like other multilateral lenders and so-called Direct Access Entities in developing countries.
From an average 30 months to accredit a DAE, the aim is to shorten the time to nine months or less by overhauling its procedures, including carrying out much of the due diligence at the project stage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reeves refuses to rule out tax rises after ‘damaging' welfare bill U-turn
Rachel Reeves has avoided ruling out future tax rises after admitting the government's concessions on its welfare reforms had been ' damaging '. The government narrowly avoided a major Commons defeat on Tuesday in the wake of a backbench rebellion after it U-turned on plans restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip). But as she faced questions about how the climbdown would affect the Treasury, the chancellor warned there would be ' costs to what happened '. The original welfare proposals had been part of a package that ministers expected would save up to £5 billion a year -with economists warning that tax rises are now likely to plug a gap left by the concessions to rebels. Ms Reeves said: 'It's been damaging. 'I'm not going to deny that, but I think where we are now, with a review led by (disability minister) Stephen Timms, who is obviously incredibly respected and has a huge amount of experience, that's the route we're taking now.' Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer has said the Government is still committed to welfare reform, but ministers will now wait for the conclusions of the Timms review before implementing changes to Pip. The fallout threatens to cause lasting damage to morale in Labour ranks, with some MPs calling for a reset in relations between the parliamentary party and the leadership before fractures widen. Images of the Chancellor crying in the Commons on Wednesday also spooked the financial markets and led to questions about her future, though a Treasury spokesman said the tears were the result of a personal matter and Downing Street said she would remain in post. In an interview with The Guardia n newspaper, Ms Reeves said she had never considered resigning, adding: 'I didn't work that hard to then quit.' She said she had gone to PMQs because she 'thought that was the right thing to do' but that 'in retrospect, I probably wished I hadn't gone in… (on) a tough day in the office'.
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action loses appeal hours before terror ban due to start
Palestine Action has lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge to temporarily stop it being banned as a terror group, less than two hours before it was due to come into force. Earlier on Friday Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move is due to come into force at midnight after judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused the bid for a temporary block. Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, judges refused to grant the temporary block. The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said: 'The judge was entitled to take the view that the harm identified… would be the product of an individual's decision not to comply with the order.' She added that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid. Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, added: 'You are not going to get to the Supreme Court before midnight.' The judge said that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. In their 11-page written judgment, the judges said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told appeal judges that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' which was 'all the more impressive given the time constraints'. He added that the judge 'was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did'. The barrister said: 'The judge conducted a very careful analysis of all the matters he relied upon.' Mr Watson also said that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech. 'There was no error by the judge in concluding that there was a serious question to be tried while at the same time acknowledging that he couldn't, on the material in front of him, say that it had strong prospects of success,' he added.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
A year of Keir: It has ended in tears, but here's why he might be doing better than you think
Keir Starmer's first anniversary as prime minister arrives at a very bad moment. He will not be remembered for what he achieved in the past 12 months, but will be overshadowed by a humiliating double U-turn over £5bn of cuts to disability benefits which wiped out any savings from the reforms. It severely dented his authority and left him looking not in control of his rebellious MPs. In a week when he hoped to talk up the government's achievements, Starmer had to try to stabilise the financial markets after Rachel Reeves shed tears sitting next to him at Prime Minister's Questions. Although the chancellor insisted this was due to a 'personal matter,' Starmer's initial failure to guarantee she would stay in her job until the next general election sparked a wobble in the markets. Later he made clear she would remain in her post 'for many years to come' but that did not quell speculation at Westminster that she would not. The anniversary will also be remembered for Starmer's unusually frank admission of his mistakes. He took full responsibility for last week's welfare climbdown, admitting he had been distracted by the G7 and Nato summits. He regretted his controversial speech on immigration in which he unintentionally aped Enoch Powell by saying the UK risks becoming 'an island of strangers'. Remarkably, I'm told Starmer's mea culpa was his own work and not discussed with his closest advisers. This is rare for such an important intervention. All prime ministers need a sounding board; perhaps Starmer lacks one. Some allies insist his two admissions are a refreshing change from the macho politics shaped by Margaret Thatcher's 'there is no alternative' mantra, saying it showed a human side his critics often accuse the seemingly dull, technocratic PM of not displaying. (He and his family were distressed on the day of the immigration speech because his former family home in Kentish Town, London, had just been firebombed). But other Starmer allies were shocked and appalled by his move. 'Insane,' one told me. 'With zero charisma, the one thing he is supposed to be is competent. He admits he didn't read his immigration speech properly before making it. How competent is that?' Downing Street's plan was for the anniversary to mark a change of gear: the government's first year was about 'clearing up the mess' left behind by the Conservatives. Year two is supposed to begin the 'renewal of Britain' and for the public to start to see the difference Labour rule makes. However, the volte-face over welfare was Starmer's third U-turn in a month: he also diluted the ill-fated decision to means-test the pensioners' winter fuel allowance and accepted a national inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal. The U-turns reinforced the image of a prime minister not in control of events. But they were better than ploughing on and making a political problem even worse. Aides make a virtue of Starmer's pragmatism. As one puts it: 'If plan A doesn't work, he will try something else until it does. He is a problem solver. He learns from his mistakes, and is a quick learner.' Critics dispute the latter point, saying No 10 was painfully slow in spotting and ending the row over 'freebies' for Starmer and his ministers. Starmer's U-turns are not the whole story of his first year in office. The bad headlines they inevitably attracted epitomise how a relatively small number of damaging events can drown out real achievements. The media's maxim that bad news trumps good could also have been written for Starmer's government. Even Starmer's critics acknowledge his strong performance on foreign affairs. The most difficult in-tray of any MP since the end of the Second World War has dominated his first 12 months in Downing Street more than he could have expected. Foreign diplomats say Starmer's serious, grown-up approach has mended fences after the instability of the Tory years, especially with EU countries. The PM has confounded critics who warned that hugging Donald Trump close would not work. Starmer aides are adamant the US president did not sideline him over the bombing of Iran, despite appearances to the contrary. The UK secured the best deal of any country on US tariffs, as well as trade agreements with India and the EU. However, there are few votes in foreign affairs and Labour strategists believe the government's fate will be decided on three domestic issues – the economy/living standards, public services and immigration. True, mistakes have been made on the economy. On taking office, Labour was too obsessed with a revenge mission: in 2010, David Cameron and his chancellor George Osborne pinned the blame for the coalition government's austerity measures on the previous Labour government's overspending. Even though the real cause was the global financial crisis, the public bought it and Labour's economic credentials did not recover until Starmer became leader. So Reeves was determined to blame Labour's admittedly rotten fiscal inheritance on the Tories. In doing so, ministers now admit they overdid the gloom, suppressing business and consumer confidence and destroying the optimism and hope that normally greets a new government. Even after Labour's 'loveless landslide', the party should have been able to capitalise on many voters' relief at kicking the Tories out. Reeves's decision on winter fuel, announced three weeks after the election, was designed to show the financial markets that Labour could make 'tough decisions'. But it was very unpopular and became emblematic; voters judged it odd that this was the first thing Labour did. The long gap between the announcement and the chancellor's first Budget in October prolonged Labour's agony. Its honeymoon, always likely to be short, became even shorter. Although the economy grew by 0.7 per cent in the first three months of this year, Reeves's hope that this meant things were 'turning a corner' may prove to have been premature. Most experts have downgraded their growth forecasts for this year. Job and investment prospects were not helped by her £25bn hike in employers' national insurance contributions. Starmer might now find it hard to move Reeves from the Treasury; the markets wobbled on Wednesday because they feared a more left-leaning chancellor would change her fiscal rules to allow higher borrowing. The prime minister and chancellor now face a nightmarish dilemma as they work out how to fill a black hole estimated at between £20bn and £40bn in the Budget this autumn (including the £5bn of lost welfare savings). The markets don't want increased borrowing. Labour MPs clearly don't want spending cuts. The only other avenue – tax rises – is inevitable, but the options are limited by Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, national insurance for employees, or VAT. While plenty of good things have been done, Labour has often not received much credit – partly because it has not always shouted them from the rooftops. The national minimum wage was raised by 6.7 per cent, boosting the wages of a full-time worker by £1,400 a year. Renters' rights have been enhanced through legislation, including a ban on no-fault evictions. State-funded childcare will increase this autumn, when the first 300 school-based nurseries will open. Half a million more children will be eligible for free school meals from September next year. Reeves's fiscal rules will allow £113bn of investment in building projects. Other pro-growth measures include setting up GB Energy to invest in renewables and a national wealth fund to stimulate private capital. When the history books are written, perhaps the most significant change will prove to have been the new planning rules designed to allow more housebuilding. The target of 1.5 million homes in five years will be hard to hit, but Labour deserves credit for trying. The symbol of public services is the NHS, and in last month's spending review, the government prioritised it with a £29bn-a-year injection. With defence also getting a boost, other departments were squeezed by Reeves's fiscal rule to balance income and spending by 2029-30. 'We have placed a big bet on the NHS,' one Labour MP said. 'We've got to pray it works.' There are some small rays of hope for Labour. It has provided for 4 million more NHS appointments, and waiting lists have fallen by 5 per cent since their September 2023 peak, to 7.39 million. The number of people who think public services are in a bad state has dropped from 68 per cent in October to 55 per cent, according to More in Common. 'Delivery' is seen by Labour strategists as the best way to combat the growing threat from Reform UK. After appearing to ape Nigel Farage's party, Starmer now wants to go head-to-head against him at the next election. 'We have to be the progressives, fighting against the populists of Reform,' he told The Observer. But the government has not yet delivered in one area Nigel Farage is well placed to exploit – illegal migration. The small boats crisis that bedevilled the previous government now haunts Labour, with crossings at a record high. 'It's very visible; we need to do better,' one loyalist MP said. Starmer hopes closer cooperation with France will soon pay dividends. He will need it to. Can Starmer turn things round? After the shambles over welfare and his surprising mea culpa, even some natural allies are starting to doubt it. 'I'm no longer sure he has it in him,' one told me. To succeed, Starmer knows he has to deliver what he promised the country – change – and replicate his success on the international stage in the domestic arena. But his friends play down the idea of a 'big bang' reset or a single big idea. Tom Baldwin, his biographer, told me: 'The classic Starmer way to do this is not with cymbals crashing and a grand vision, but getting on with the job and doing more things in better ways.' I think Starmer will need a stronger team in Downing Street, with more experienced heavy hitters like Jonathan Powell, an undoubted success as his national security adviser. A long-promised economics adviser is required to keep a closer eye on the error-prone Reeves than Starmer has been able or willing to do. A beefed-up policy team is seen by some insiders as necessary. Some think the PM needs more advisers willing to 'speak truth to power' and tell him when the government makes mistakes – or better still, before it makes them. They say he is too reluctant to sack long-time aides who share his worldview. Morgan McSweeney, the chief of staff, has become a lightning rod for criticism of Starmer himself, as he knew he would when the going got tough. 'Part of his job is to be a human shield,' one friend said. McSweeney is in a powerful position. He was the architect of last year's landslide and, as one insider put it: 'Unusually, he chose Starmer to front his campaign to take back the party from the left's control, rather than Starmer choosing him.' Labour figures find it hard to imagine the PM without his longstanding consigliere. But McSweeney might walk out, or a plan mooted this spring for him to return to being a campaign strategist might be revived. McSweeney's detractors concede he has improved the No 10 operation after taking over from the former civil servant Sue Gray, who was forced out only three months after the election. She is blamed for Labour's uncertain start. 'We had a plan to win the election but no plan for government,' one minister admitted. But Gray did ensure that Starmer talked to his ministers and MPs and reached out beyond his trusted advisers; a failure to do that contributed to the welfare rebellion. The PM needs to rebuild relations with his unhappy backbenchers. In mishandling the welfare issue, he blew up his strategy of marginalising the 35 Corbynista MPs, who joined forces with the much bigger soft left contingent to defeat the cuts. Some soft left rebels now want to rally behind Starmer to unite a divided party – but, having tasted power, others will want to wield it in future. Starmer has acknowledged the need for a coherent narrative that sets out what his government is about. 'We haven't always told our story as well as we should,' he told Sky News on the margins of the G7 summit. Although he recoils from 'performative politics', it is his duty to become a better communicator. 'He needs a project, a plan,' one adviser told me. 'He has to learn you can't govern without an agenda. He now needs to pin down what he believes in, what he wants his legacy to be, and what he fights the next election on.' After the welfare debacle, Starmer's government ends its first year looking battered and bruised. It feels much older than 12 months. Labour trails Reform by five points in the opinion polls and has had the worst start of a newly elected government in history. With Starmer's personal ratings dire, it is no longer unthinkable that his party decides he is not the right leader for the next election. The unhappy anniversary week has fuelled such chatter among Labour MPs. His internal critics will look for progress by what will be difficult elections for Labour next May, for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and local authorities, including in London. But, unlike the Tories, Labour doesn't do regicide, and we are not there yet. Starmer has a ruthless streak, and opponents underestimate him at their peril. 'I am hugely competitive – whether it's on the football pitch, whether it's in politics or any other aspect of life,' he told the BBC this week. The PM has been here before: he also had a bad first year as Labour leader. He believes people were wrong to write him off after Labour lost the 2021 Hartlepool by-election, and that they are wrong today. In 2021, he shook up his team, fought back, and against the odds won a landslide. In his next fightback, Starmer again intends to do whatever it takes. But don't expect a fireworks display. He will do it his way.
