Civil Society Statement, September 22, 2016 Concerns Regarding Green Climate Fund and Support for High Environmental & Social Risk Programs/Projects

More than 100 civil society organizations express deep concern over the Green Climate Fund's (GCF) lack of adequate policies for financing high-risk activities. The statement argues that the GCF Board should not approve high-risk projects—including large hydropower and infrastructure—until it adopts a full Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) and a free-standing Indigenous Peoples' Policy aligned with international standards like UNDRIP. The groups demand more rigorous scrutiny for high-risk sub-projects, country-driven proposals, and strict adherence to public disclosure timelines for impact assessments.

• The GCF Board is expected to consider up to six high-risk programs and projects at its 14th and 15th Board meetings, but civil society argues these should not be considered until appropriate policies are in place.
• The GCF lacks a fully operationalized Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS), leading to a deficiency in mandatory guidelines for project categorization, oversight, and performance benchmarks.
• Civil society demands a free-standing Indigenous Peoples' Policy aligned with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which must include a human rights-based approach and the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.
• High-risk projects should be subject to stricter due diligence, including categorizing programs based on the highest risk sub-project and requiring Board approval for Category A and B sub-projects.
• Large hydropower and infrastructure projects are criticized as rarely meeting the GCF's 'paradigm shift' threshold and are noted for causing significant social and environmental harm and cost overruns.
• The GCF has failed to respect the 120-day public disclosure period for most high-risk projects because it counts the period from the accredited entity's website rather than the GCF website.
• An audit of International Finance Corporation (IFC) investments reveals that its ESMS-based approach often focuses on reporting and compliance rather than actual environmental and social results on the ground.

APA

Fox, A. (2016). Civil Society Statement, September 22, 2016 Concerns Regarding Green Climate Fund and Support for High Environmental & Social Risk Programs/Projects. Friends of the Earth. https://foe.org/blog/2016-09-civil-society-concerns-regarding-gcf-high-environme/

Chicago

Fox, Audrey. Civil Society Statement, September 22, 2016 Concerns Regarding Green Climate Fund and Support for High Environmental & Social Risk Programs/Projects. Friends of the Earth, 2016. https://foe.org/blog/2016-09-civil-society-concerns-regarding-gcf-high-environme/.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Fox |first1=Audrey |title=Civil Society Statement, September 22, 2016 Concerns Regarding Green Climate Fund and Support for High Environmental & Social Risk Programs/Projects |publisher=Friends of the Earth |date=22 September 2016 |url=https://foe.org/blog/2016-09-civil-society-concerns-regarding-gcf-high-environme/ |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{fox2016civil, author = {Fox, Audrey}, title = {{Civil Society Statement, September 22, 2016 Concerns Regarding Green Climate Fund and Support for High Environmental \& Social Risk Programs/Projects}}, publisher = {Friends of the Earth}, year = {2016}, month = sep, url = {https://foe.org/blog/2016-09-civil-society-concerns-regarding-gcf-high-environme/}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }