Search Climate Insights Directory

Carbon Market Watch calls for the operationalization of rules for Article 6 that prioritize the avoidance of double counting, a clear end date for the transition from Kyoto Protocol mechanisms, and the implementation of robust human rights and social safeguards to prevent the adverse impacts seen under the Clean Development Mechanism.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) must transition from a zero-sum offsetting system to a results-based climate finance scheme to maintain environmental integrity and social safeguards. The organization also warns that the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) could increase global emissions if double counting of reductions is not prevented through transparent monitoring and a common accounting system.

The document examines the tension between the high E&S safeguard standards of MDBs and the capacity or sovereignty of borrowing countries in sub-Saharan Africa. It specifically analyzes the World Bank's 2016 Environmental and Social Framework (ESF), which allows for greater use of domestic safeguard frameworks. The author argues that to avoid the dilution of standards, MDBs and governments must move toward partnerships based on country-specific 'E&S safeguard plans' and enhanced capacity building, while ensuring civil society remains an active agent of accountability.

CIEL and other civil society groups are calling on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to immediately adopt the proposed Environmental and Social Policy (ESP), Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) Policy and Action Plan, and Indigenous Peoples Policy (IPP). The document argues that the GCF has already funded 54 projects without permanent safeguards to protect human rights and the environment, and that 23 additional projects awaiting approval at the B.19 meeting could negatively impact ecosystems and local communities. Furthermore, CIEL emphasizes the need for a funded work plan and budget for the Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM) to provide remedies for people harmed by GCF projects.

As of 31 January 2018, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) had accredited 59 entities, with a pipeline of 198 entities having created accounts on the Online Accreditation System. The report highlights a strategic shift toward prioritizing direct access entities, which now constitute a larger share of those completing the accreditation process. It also details the ongoing support provided to direct access entities through readiness programs and gap assessments, and tracks the progress of accredited entities in fulfilling specific fiduciary, environmental, social, and gender conditions. Additionally, the document notes a temporary lack of quorum in the Accreditation Panel (AP), which delayed new accreditation recommendations for the nineteenth Board meeting.

The report finds that while infrastructure and mining are major drivers of forest loss, a lack of aggregate data prevents a global assessment of progress. It highlights the role of transport networks and mineral extraction in tropical deforestation and details emerging sustainability standards and data initiatives intended to fill these research gaps.

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 paper examines the shift toward 'country ownership' in environmental and social (E&S) safeguards, where MDBs increasingly allow borrowing nations to use their own national systems. Through case studies of South Africa's Medupi Power Station and Ethiopia's road sector, the authors analyze the tension between MDB technical standards and national development priorities. While South Africa is presented as a model of high legislative alignment, Ethiopia illustrates challenges including capacity gaps, limited civil society participation, and the influence of non-traditional funders like China. The paper argues for a move from prescriptive standards to results-based implementation, recommending country-specific 'E&S safeguards plans,' enhanced regional capacity building, and a greater role for national development finance institutions (DFIs).

The GCF evaluated its gender policy, finding it more effective in programmatic operations than institutional ones. It proposes transitioning to a 'Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Policy and Action Plan' to broaden its scope beyond women to include other marginalized groups. Key updates include making Gender and Social Inclusion (GESI) plans mandatory for all projects, adopting a human rights-based approach, and implementing Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) protocols.

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.

The document examines the shift by multilateral development banks (MDBs) toward using a borrower country's own domestic public financial management (PFM) and environmental and social frameworks (ESF) rather than imposing external rules. While UCS promotes national sovereignty and reduces duplication of costs, its adoption is hindered by MDB concerns over financial and reputational risks, as well as capacity gaps in borrowing countries. Case studies reveal divergent attitudes: South Africa views UCS as a right, Kenya prefers a hybrid approach, and Morocco is pragmatic, accepting MDB systems where domestic gaps exist.

The Infrastructure Development Bank of Zimbabwe (IDBZ) is seeking up to USD 35,722 in readiness support from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to achieve accreditation as a National Implementing Entity. The proposal, supported by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), focuses on conducting gap assessments of the IDBZ's fiduciary standards, environmental and social safeguards, and gender policy. This effort aims to enable the IDBZ to access climate finance directly, supporting Zimbabwe's goal to reduce energy emissions per capita by 33% below business-as-usual levels by 2030. The project is expected to take approximately six months.

The Green Climate Fund Proposal Toolkit 2017 serves as a comprehensive manual for creating funding proposals for the GCF. It details the roles of National Designated Authorities (NDAs), Accredited Entities (AEs), and Executing Entities (EEs), while outlining a ten-step approach to project design. Key requirements include alignment with the GCF's Results Management Framework (RMF), adherence to International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards for environmental and social safeguards, and the integration of gender-sensitive objectives through a Gender Action Plan (GAP). The document also explains the GCF's six investment criteria—impact potential, paradigm shift potential, sustainable development potential, recipient needs, country ownership, and efficiency and effectiveness—and provides guidance on selecting financial instruments such as grants, concessional loans, equity, and guarantees.

The report critiques the 2010 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between California, Acre, and Chiapas, which aimed to link jurisdictional REDD+ programs to California's cap-and-trade system. It argues that these mechanisms prioritize market logic over structural climate causes, leading to land grabbing, the criminalization of traditional practices, and the marginalization of indigenous peoples. In Acre, the report identifies methodological flaws in emission accounting and failures in community-level projects. In Chiapas, it highlights the expropriation of territories for agrofuel monocultures and increasing public debt. The document concludes that REDD+ safeguards are largely rhetorical and recommends the exclusion of carbon markets and offsets from environmental policy.

The Bhutan for Life (BFL) project is a 14-year initiative designed to provide a financial bridge for the sustainable management of Bhutan's protected areas (PAs) and biological corridors (BCs), covering approximately 51% of the country's territory. The project is categorized as 'Category B' by WWF, meaning potential adverse impacts are site-specific and reversible. The ESMF provides a structured process for screening, impact assessment, and the development of activity-specific Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMPs). Key project components include forestry and land use climate mitigation, community-based adaptation, climate-smart conservation, and institutional capacity building. The framework emphasizes Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) for affected communities and establishes a multi-tiered Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) ranging from local negotiation to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests (MoAF).

The proposal seeks funding to support the CSE in Senegal through a gap assessment and action plan to ensure compliance with Green Climate Fund (GCF) fiduciary standards, environmental and social safeguards, and gender policies. The total cost for these activities is USD 29,722, including project management and consultant site visits.

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.

The GCF Secretariat is developing a request for proposals (RFP) for REDD+ results-based payments (RBPs) and guidance for early-phase engagement. Drawing on a COP 22 dialogue and existing frameworks like the Warsaw Framework for REDD+, the Secretariat is analyzing key operational elements including the scale of intervention, access modalities, carbon pricing, and the reconciliation of Cancun safeguards with GCF environmental and social safeguards. The report outlines a process for gathering further technical and stakeholder input to finalize these instruments.