While Pacific nations push for greater climate finance access ahead of COP31, are we paying enough attention to preparedness so that our systems, capacities and institutional realities can turn funding into results on the ground?
Pacific Island Countries continue to advocate tirelessly for greater access to climate finance. Calls for increased adaptation funding and reduced bureaucracy were echoed at the recent 55th Pacific Islands Leaders Forum in Palau. From a climate justice perspective, Pacific nations contribute the least to global greenhouse gas emissions yet remain among the most vulnerable to climate change impacts.
As the Pacific prepares for COP31, where improving climate finance access for Small Island Developing States has emerged as a key priority, the region has an opportunity to shape a more honest conversation about climate finance. Access matters. But access alone will not protect coastlines, strengthen food security, improve water systems, or reduce vulnerability to disasters.
A difficult question remains largely unasked: Are Pacific governments truly ready to turn climate finance into climate action?
After more than 20 years working in the development sector, I believe we are overlooking a critical aspect of the climate finance debate. While much attention is rightly focused on increasing funding and reducing barriers to access, insufficient attention is being given to institutional readiness. In other words, our ability to implement projects and manage large volumes of donor funding effectively once it arrives.
The Pacific’s climate finance challenge is no longer just about access. It is about readiness.
Preparing for funding opportunities through mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility is essential. These funds provide vital resources for adaptation and resilience initiatives, but they also come with strict requirements, reporting obligations and implementation timelines. Once project agreements are signed, the clock begins ticking immediately.
How prepared are Pacific Island governments to absorb, utilize and account for large volumes of external funding? During my time with the United Nations, I once asked a national project manager in the North Pacific to draw a simple flowchart showing how many people had to review and approve a payment request before the Ministry of Finance could process it.
At first glance, the answer seemed straightforward: three people. A closer examination revealed a different reality. The flowchart showed that at least seven individuals were involved across the project coordination unit, executing government department and national finance office before a payment could be processed. This process was repeated for nearly every transaction over a four-year project period.
Such experiences are not unique. Across the Pacific, climate change project teams often face lengthy approval processes, particularly for large procurements. Compliance with government procedures, while necessary, can result in significant delays as requests move through multiple layers of review. Yet donor-funded projects operate under strict implementation schedules and performance targets. The question is whether our internal systems and procedures are sufficiently modernized to ensure timely decision-making so that benefits reach vulnerable communities as quickly as possible.
Another challenge relates to co-financing requirements. Demonstrating adequate co-financing is often an important component of proposals submitted to multilateral funds such as the Global Environment Facility and, in some cases, the Green Climate Fund.
During my tenure with the United Nations, I recall a project formulation mission to Tuvalu for a Global Environment Facility-funded Ridge to Reef initiative. Senior government officials explained that much of the government’s available co-financing had already been committed to another adaptation project, only a few weeks earlier. At times, the project formulation can feel like a “first come, first served” competition. Pacific Island Countries are also stretched in their capacities to distribute limited co-financing between multiple funding opportunities.
For Pacific Island Countries with small economies and limited fiscal space, balancing these demands can be difficult. While the Green Climate Fund does not impose mandatory co-financing ratios across all projects, proposals demonstrating strong co-financing commitments are often viewed favorably. For countries with limited financial resources, this can create an additional challenge in competing for scarce funding opportunities.
However, ownership should not be measured solely by the size of a government’s financial contribution. It can also be demonstrated through leadership, policy support, institutional commitment and the allocation of capable personnel to project implementation.
As COP31 approaches, Pacific leaders will rightly continue advocating for greater access to climate finance. Yet the next phase of the conversation should focus equally on how we could prepare for receiving and managing large project funding for adaptation interventions.
Resilience is not built through funding approvals alone. It is built through improved processes, systems and people responsible for translating resources into meaningful action. Access without adequate readiness risks turning climate finance into missed opportunities. At the end of day, climate finance from donors is bound by strict deadlines.
Leave a Reply