Final Decision Regarding - Appeal No: IDP/2020/C002 in relation to IDP Request No. 071

The GCF Executive Director rejected recommendations from the Information Appeals Panel to disclose a detailed list of funding proposals (FPs) for Board meetings B.26 and B.27. The ED argued that the GCF is not required to create special lists upon request, that the requested information is dynamic and often already disclosed, and that certain documents are 'limited distribution' and thus non-disclosable without Board consent. Furthermore, the ED stated that disclosing draft FP information without explicit confidentiality assessments from accredited entities would pose reputational and legal risks, as no formal mechanism for marking draft FPs as confidential currently exists.

• The GCF maintains that it is not responsible for creating special lists of information upon request, as the Information Disclosure Policy (IDP) applies only to information already in its possession. The ED argues that such a list would be inaccurate because the portfolio process is "highly dynamic" and "constantly updated".
• The Executive Director's estimates of 51 pre-TAP funding proposals for 2020 (21 for B.26 and 30 for B.27) were based on the total pipeline developed to meet key performance indicators in the 2020 Secretariat Work Programme, though these were tentative and based on assumptions that change over time.
• The GCF identifies document GCF/B.25/Inf.05/Add.01, "Status of GCF pipeline - Addendum I: List of funding proposals and project preparation facility requests", as the only official report containing most of the requested information in list form. However, this is a "limited distribution" (LD) document, which is not disclosable under the IDP without the Board's positive override prerogative.
• The GCF argues that disclosing information from draft funding proposals without the express permission of accredited entities is prohibited by the IDP and Decision B.17/09, which requires a "confidentiality assessment".
• While confidentiality notification processes exist for concept notes and final funding proposals, no such formal mechanism exists for specific information derived from draft funding proposals. The ED asserts that assuming a document is authorized for disclosure simply because it is not marked confidential would be imprudent and could lead to "reputational or legal risks".

APA

Green Climate Fund (2020). Final Decision Regarding - Appeal No: IDP/2020/C002 in relation to IDP Request No. 071. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/20201030-gcf-ed-final-decision-idp-2020-c002-idp-rqst-071-iap.pdf

Chicago

Green Climate Fund. Final Decision Regarding - Appeal No: IDP/2020/C002 in relation to IDP Request No. 071. 2020. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/20201030-gcf-ed-final-decision-idp-2020-c002-idp-rqst-071-iap.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Green Climate Fund |title=Final Decision Regarding - Appeal No: IDP/2020/C002 in relation to IDP Request No. 071 |date=30 October 2020 |url=https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/20201030-gcf-ed-final-decision-idp-2020-c002-idp-rqst-071-iap.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{greenclimatefund2020final, author = {{Green Climate Fund}}, title = {{Final Decision Regarding - Appeal No: IDP/2020/C002 in relation to IDP Request No. 071}}, publisher = {Green Climate Fund}, year = {2020}, month = oct, url = {https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/20201030-gcf-ed-final-decision-idp-2020-c002-idp-rqst-071-iap.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }