Search Climate Insights Directory

The GCF Board's 18th meeting in Cairo focused on operationalizing the fund's implementation phase. Key outcomes include the approval of multiple funding proposals across various regions, the accreditation of five new entities, and the adoption of a Simplified Approval Process (SAP) pilot for small-scale activities. The Board also approved a new Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Policy and a revised administrative budget and staffing target of 250 employees for 2018. However, consensus was not reached on a risk management framework or the selection process for a Permanent Trustee.

The GCF Board's seventeenth meeting focused on enhancing the fund's operational framework, specifically through the adoption of a comprehensive Risk Management Framework (RMF) and an Operational Framework for complementarity and coherence with other climate funds. The Board accredited six new entities, including CDG Capital, IDCOL, SIDBI, MCT, BTMU, and JICA, while introducing new guidelines for country ownership. Significant discussions were held on the pilot programme for REDD-plus results-based payments and the analysis of barriers to private sector engagement. The Board also approved the 2016 audited financial statements and established performance criteria for the Executive Director.

As of May 2017, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) has engaged with 105 countries on 165 readiness requests, committing or spending a total of USD 34.3 million. The programme focuses on strengthening National Designated Authorities (NDAs), developing country programmes and project pipelines, and supporting the accreditation of direct access entities. Key achievements include the provision of in-kind accreditation support to 102 entities across 55 countries and the development of strategic frameworks in various regions. The report details specific activities in countries such as Tonga, Djibouti, and Namibia, and outlines the establishment of no-objection procedures in 34 countries. Additionally, it highlights regional structured dialogues in Asia and Eastern Europe and Central Asia to facilitate project pipelines and knowledge sharing.

The GCF Board approved eight funding proposals totaling USD 387.5 million and accredited seven new entities. Key administrative outcomes include the approval of a USD 43.4 million budget for 2017 and the establishment of work plans for the Independent Redress Mechanism and Independent Integrity Units. The Board also discussed the Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme, allocating up to an additional USD 50 million to it.

The report analyzes seven multilateral climate funds—the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Global Environment Facility (GEF), Adaptation Fund (AF), Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), and the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) and Strategic Climate Fund (SCF)—against five strategies for transformative change: achieving impact at scale, promoting country ownership, improving efficiency, supporting equitable allocation, and increasing accountability. It finds that the proliferation of funds has led to overlapping roles and inefficiencies. The authors recommend short-term reforms to clarify fund specialization and long-term architectural changes, including the potential consolidation or sunsetting of certain funds, such as the CIFs, SCCF, and LDCF, to streamline the climate finance landscape.

The GCF Board's fourteenth meeting resulted in the approval of 10 funding proposals totaling approximately USD 788 million and the accreditation of 8 new entities. Key outcomes include the appointment of Mr. Howard Bamsey as Executive Director, the adoption of a strategy for accreditation prioritization, and a performance review of the World Bank as Interim Trustee, which highlighted a challenge regarding direct cash transfers to non-accredited executing entities.

As of November 2016, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) had approved 74 readiness and preparatory support requests for 61 countries, totaling USD 21.9 million. The programme focuses on strengthening national designated authorities (NDAs), supporting the accreditation of direct access entities, and facilitating adaptation planning. While cumulative commitments from 2014-2016 totaled approximately USD 24.6 million, projected demand for 2017 is expected to rise significantly to over USD 120 million, driven by increased interest in national adaptation plans and strategic frameworks. The GCF is also expanding its support for direct access entities and coordinating with international partners to streamline readiness support.

As of 31 October 2016, the GCF pipeline consists of 46 funding proposals requesting USD 3.2 billion and 169 concept notes requesting USD 7.9 billion. The portfolio includes 27 approved projects, with varying levels of progress in fulfilling conditions for the execution of Funded Activity Agreements (FAAs). The document also tracks the progress of direct access entities and a pilot programme for micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), which has shortlisted 7 concept notes for funding up to USD 100 million.

The GCF Board's twelfth meeting resulted in the endorsement of the initial Strategic Plan (2015-2018) and the accreditation of 13 entities, including HSBC and the African Development Bank. Key operational milestones included the adoption of a Comprehensive Information Disclosure Policy, the establishment of a Budget Committee, and the approval of a risk register. The Board also addressed resource mobilization, noting a USD 3 billion contribution arrangement from the United States and approving a budget increase for Secretariat staffing to approximately 100 members by the end of 2016. Additionally, the Board initiated the process for appointing a new Executive Director and approved a USD 1.5 million grant for project preparation in Rwanda.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Board met in March 2015 to finalize key operational frameworks. The Board accredited seven entities, including the Asian Development Bank and UNDP, and adopted a Gender Policy and Action Plan (2015–2017). It established financial terms for grants and concessional loans, including a distinction between high and low concessionality for the public sector. The Board also approved the terms of reference for an independent Technical Advisory Panel and a Policy on Ethics and Conflicts of Interest. Discussions continued on the Private Sector Facility and the Initial Resource Mobilization process, with a target for 50% of Berlin pledges to be signed by April 30, 2015.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is positioned to become the largest multilateral institution for climate adaptation finance, with donor governments committing US$10.2 billion by the end of 2014. To ensure effectiveness, the document argues that the GCF must prioritize country ownership through direct access modalities, develop robust investment and accountability frameworks that avoid maladaptation, and clarify the role of its Private Sector Facility. It specifically suggests piloting small grants facilities under 'enhanced direct access' to reach local organizations and leveraging the experience of existing National Implementing Entities already accredited by the Adaptation Fund.

The 10th GCF Board meeting resulted in the accreditation of 13 new entities, including the World Bank and Deutsche Bank, despite civil society opposition. The Board approved a US$200 million pilot for Enhanced Direct Access, alongside other pilots for MSMEs and resource mobilization. Additionally, US$2.5 million was allocated for readiness support in nine countries, and the Fund's total signed contributions reached US$5.47 billion.

The document examines the mechanisms for developing countries to access Green Climate Fund (GCF) financing directly rather than through international intermediaries. It distinguishes between 'direct access' (oversight and management at the national level) and 'enhanced direct access' (where funding decisions also occur nationally). Drawing on the Adaptation Fund and Global Environment Facility (GEF), it identifies fiduciary standards and institutional capacity as primary barriers to accreditation. The brief recommends that the GCF Board establish clear access modalities quickly, consider interim accreditation for previously accredited institutions, and support capacity building to enable the devolution of decision-making to subnational levels.

The document analyzes the accreditation processes of the PIOJ in Jamaica and the CSE in Senegal as National Implementing Entities (NIEs) for the Adaptation Fund. It identifies key success factors, such as existing institutional capacity and stakeholder engagement, while highlighting challenges related to stringent fiduciary standards and the difficulty of accessing funds after accreditation. The brief warns that the direct access model may exclude the most vulnerable nations with limited institutional capacity, a risk that could be magnified by the larger scale of the Green Climate Fund.

The document advocates for a shift in the UNFCCC financial paradigm from centrally managed resources to 'devolution,' where National Funding Entities (NFEs) identify needs and manage funds to ensure alignment with national development strategies. It argues that global institutions cannot address the varied complexities of local financing requirements, such as the different needs for energy efficiency versus REDD+ investments. The report surveys approximately 12 established and several developing NFEs, highlighting diverse models: Brazil uses a 'virtual institution' for the Amazon Fund and a law-based National Fund on Climate Change; Bangladesh utilizes a government-chaired board for its Climate Change Resilience Fund; and China employs a state-operated CDM Fund. It concludes that while many countries have the basic fiduciary capacity to manage funds, they lack the specific expertise for climate finance, necessitating targeted capacity-building support from international institutions.

The document advocates for a shift in global climate finance from centrally managed models to a paradigm where national funding entities in developing countries identify needs and manage resources. It argues that local institutions are best equipped to handle the complex financial requirements of mitigation and adaptation and to mainstream these activities into national development strategies. The brief surveys various existing and emerging funds in countries such as Brazil, China, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, highlighting their diverse governance structures and funding sources. It concludes that while many countries are innovating, there is a significant need for capacity development to manage the intricacies of climate finance, and that international institutions should transition to a supportive role focused on technical assistance and risk mitigation.

The document analyzes the mechanisms for recipient countries to access climate finance directly, distinguishing between 'direct access' (oversight and management at the national level) and 'enhanced direct access' (where funding decisions also occur nationally). It highlights that institutional capacity, particularly meeting fiduciary standards, is the primary barrier for developing countries. Drawing on the Adaptation Fund and GEF, the brief notes that while some countries like Belize and Jamaica have successfully achieved accreditation, many others struggle with complex application processes, language barriers, and a lack of documented project management track records. The brief recommends that the GCF define its access modalities quickly, learn from existing funds, and consider conditional accreditation for institutions already approved by other climate funds.

The briefing argues against a 'grand unified formula' for resource allocation, suggesting instead that the GCF use separate funding envelopes for different objectives to balance global efficiency with equity. It recommends that adaptation funding be allocated based on vulnerability-adjusted population numbers and poverty intensity, while mitigation funding could be managed through competitive Quantity Performance Payment (QPP) instruments. The author cautions against using inappropriate proxy metrics for funding needs and suggests implementing funding floors to ensure all eligible countries receive some support.

The 9th GCF Board meeting resulted in the accreditation of the first seven implementing entities and the adoption of an initial investment framework to screen project proposals. However, civil society criticized the accreditation process for a lack of transparency and the Board's failure to explicitly exclude fossil fuel projects from funding. The Fund faces a critical deadline of 30 April 2015 to secure the remaining US$4.5 billion in pledged contributions to become officially effective, with only about 1 per cent legally committed as of the report's date.

FSD Africa's Climate Finance Training Programme aims to close the green funding gap in Africa by training policymakers, regulators, and financial professionals. The program focuses on building the skills necessary to access the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and other climate funds, specifically through the accreditation of direct access entities (DAEs). To date, the training has reached 70 officials and 31 students from 13 institutions across 11 countries. The program expects to drive a sixteen-fold increase in investments in sub-Saharan Africa, with a projected funding split of 40% from climate funds and 60% from private sector financing tools. In Ethiopia, the training targeted staff from the Ministry of Finance, the National Bank of Ethiopia, and the Ethiopia Roads Authority to foster policy change and the potential issuance of green bonds.