Tag:

shield

News

Philippines Secures $6.8M Green Climate Fund Grant for Vulnerable Communities

by Rachel Morgan News Editor
written by Rachel Morgan News Editor

The Philippine government has secured a $6.8-million (approximately ₱417-million) technical assistance grant from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to bolster the nation’s ability to implement climate-resilient projects. As the first country in the Asia-Pacific region to access this support under the GCF’s second replenishment period (2024–2027), the Philippines will utilize the funds as non-repayable aid to strengthen its shift toward a clean energy economy and protect vulnerable communities from climate volatility.

Strategic Implementation of the 60-Month Program

Approved on June 24, the Third Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme (RPSP 3) is a five-year initiative. According to Finance Undersecretary Joven Z. Balbosa, the grant is designed to turn the country’s climate ambitions into concrete action. The program aims to synchronize upcoming climate investments with the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) and the Nationally Determined Contribution Implementation Plan (NDCIP).

Strategic Implementation of the 60-Month Program

Did You Know? The $6.8-million grant is structured as aid rather than a loan, meaning the Philippine government has no obligation to repay the funds, allowing resources to be redirected toward food and water security projects.

Institutional Collaboration and Project Development

The program involves a coalition of international and local partners. The Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) will serve as the primary delivery partner, collaborating with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). These organizations are working alongside the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Climate Change Commission (CCC) to ensure local ownership of the initiatives.

Institutional Collaboration and Project Development

Hemant Mandal, GCF regional director for the Asia-Pacific, stated that the grant acts as a catalyst for structural improvement by reinforcing coordination mechanisms and building a pipeline of projects. By institutionalizing these processes, the program intends to mobilize further international financing for national climate goals.

Future Funding and Next Steps

Following the approval of the RPSP 3, the Department of Finance (DOF) has already taken steps toward expanding its climate funding portfolio. The agency has initiated a second proposal that could secure up to $3 million in additional grant support.

Future Funding and Next Steps

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary purpose of the $6.8-million grant?
The grant provides technical assistance to help the Philippines access climate investments, align projects with national plans, and improve food and water security for vulnerable populations.

Are there repayment obligations for this funding?
No. The funds are provided as aid by development partners, meaning there is no obligation for the Philippine government to repay the $6.8 million.

Who is managing the implementation of the program?
The Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) is the primary delivery partner, working in coordination with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), and local agencies like the DENR and the CCC.

How might this focus on “readiness” influence the country’s ability to secure larger infrastructure investments in the coming years?

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Business

Investors Weigh Class Action Against Super Trustees Following First Guardian and Shield Collapse

by Chief Editor
written by Chief Editor

More than 100 investors have joined a potential class action investigation led by Gordon Legal following the collapse of First Guardian and Shield Master Funds, which left thousands of people with hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. While some investors received partial capital reimbursements from platforms like Netwealth and Macquarie, legal representatives argue these payouts failed to account for compounding interest and lost retirement growth, leaving thousands of Australians with significantly diminished nest eggs.

Why are investors pursuing legal action after receiving payouts?

Although platforms like Netwealth and Macquarie have reimbursed portions of the lost capital, legal experts contend these payments are incomplete. James Naughton of Gordon Legal states that investors have not been compensated for the “opportunity cost” of their money being trapped in collapsed funds. Because these funds were intended for retirement, the lack of compounding interest means many investors have effectively lost years of growth. According to Mr. Naughton, the legal team is investigating claims for at least tens, and potentially hundreds, of millions of dollars in additional compensation.

Why are investors pursuing legal action after receiving payouts?
Did you know?

The collapse of First Guardian and Shield involves a combined hundreds of millions of dollars in investor funds. While 6,000 investors were affected by First Guardian, another 5,800 were impacted by Shield.

What is the difference between an AFCA complaint and a class action?

Investors currently face a choice between two primary recovery pathways: the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) or a class action lawsuit. Melinda Kee, who leads the investor advocacy group SOS Save Our Super, recommends the AFCA process because it is free for individuals and provides a formal determination. However, James Naughton argues that AFCA has limitations, particularly when the focus is on the role of the superannuation trustee rather than individual financial advisers. A class action aims to hold the platforms accountable for their due diligence responsibilities regarding the funds they host.

Gordon Sondland Sues Pompeo For Legal Fees From Trump Impeachment Probe

How do regulators view the shift to managed investment schemes?

Financial regulators have expressed growing concern regarding the trend of investors moving retirement savings into self-managed super funds and less-regulated managed investment schemes. This shift has contributed to a “cost blowout” in taxpayer-funded compensation schemes designed to protect victims of financial misconduct, including the fallout from the Dixon Advisory collapse. As investors like 55-year-old Natasha Langby—who lost tens of thousands in retirement savings—seek restitution, the debate continues over whether platforms bear the ultimate responsibility for the funds they promote to the public.

How do regulators view the shift to managed investment schemes?
Pro Tip:

Investors who believe they were affected by the First Guardian or Shield collapses should document all correspondence with their super platforms and track the specific dates of their investments to assist in potential legal or regulatory filings.

Frequently Asked Questions

  • Who is leading the potential class action? Gordon Legal, alongside Keily McCrosson, is investigating claims for investors who used platforms like Macquarie and Netwealth.
  • Have the platforms commented on the potential lawsuit? Both Macquarie and Netwealth have declined to comment on the ongoing investigation.
  • Is it free to lodge a complaint with AFCA? Yes, lodging a complaint through the Australian Financial Complaints Authority is a free process for individuals, though it can be time-consuming.
  • How many people were affected by these collapses? Approximately thousands of people lost money across the First Guardian and Shield funds.

Are you an investor affected by the collapse of these funds? Share your thoughts in the comments below or contact our editorial team if you have further information regarding this developing story.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail