Search Climate Insights Directory

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Accreditation Panel assessed KCB Bank Kenya Limited (APL104) for accreditation as a national direct access entity. The bank is recommended for accreditation for medium-sized projects and medium environmental and social risk (category B/I-2), covering basic fiduciary standards, project management, and on-lending/blending. While the bank fully meets standards for transparency, accountability, gender, and environmental and social safeguards, it only partially meets requirements for procurement oversight, independent project evaluation, and public disclosure of project results. Accreditation is recommended subject to several conditions, including the revision of its Supply Chain and Procurement Policy and the future conduct of an external audit of its environmental and social management system.

The Green Climate Fund's Accreditation Panel assessed Kemitraan bagi Pembaruan Tata Pemerintahan (Kemitraan), an Indonesian non-profit, for fast-track accreditation. The assessment found that Kemitraan meets all required basic and specialized fiduciary standards, environmental and social safeguards for minimal risk (Category C/I-3), and gender policy requirements. Kemitraan has a track record of managing over USD 130 million in donor contributions and implementing climate-related projects, including peatland restoration and REDD+ infrastructure. The Panel recommends accreditation for micro-sized projects with no conditions.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Accreditation Panel recommends the accreditation of the Infrastructure Development Bank of Zimbabwe (IDBZ) as a national direct access entity for 'small' projects (above US$ 10 million up to US$ 50 million) with a medium environmental and social risk category (B/I-2). While the IDBZ demonstrated strong alignment with GCF's gender policy and environmental and social standards, the assessment identified several fiduciary gaps. These include a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of its internal audit function, the operational status of its Investigations, Integrity & Loss Control Division, and the public disclosure of procurement and project evaluation data. Accreditation is recommended subject to specific conditions to be met before and after the first funding proposal and disbursement.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Accreditation Panel recommends the accreditation of the Vietnam Development Bank (VDB) as a national direct access entity. VDB is approved for 'small' projects (up to US$ 50 million), medium environmental and social risk (Category B/I-2), and various fiduciary functions including on-lending and grant awards. While VDB's institutional policies and capacities generally meet GCF standards, the assessment identified gaps in its track record regarding the public disclosure of monitoring reports, grant results, and environmental and social (E&S) complaints. Consequently, accreditation is subject to specific conditions, including the formal adoption of a disclosure policy and the provision of gender assessments and E&S communication systems with its first funding proposal.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Accreditation Panel recommends the accreditation of Joint Stock Company TBC Bank (APL113), a leading Georgian banking group, for medium-sized projects with high environmental and social risk (Category I-1). While the bank fully meets basic fiduciary, environmental, and social standards, the panel identified gaps in its procurement oversight of executing entities, public information disclosure for on-lending operations, and a track record of gender assessments in climate projects. These gaps are addressed through specific conditions for accreditation.

The Accreditation Panel recommends that the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) be upgraded to 'large' project size and 'high risk' (Category A/I-1) environmental and social risk categories. The assessment found that IFAD's fiduciary standards, project management capacities, and environmental and social safeguards fully meet GCF requirements for these expanded parameters.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has recommended the re-accreditation of Namibia's Environmental Investment Fund (EIF) for a second term, maintaining its status as a national direct access entity for 'micro' projects (up to USD 10 million). While the EIF demonstrates strong alignment with GCF's climate mandates and robust environmental and social safeguards, the assessment identified significant gaps in financial reporting, project monitoring, and internal audit track records. The recommendation for re-accreditation is subject to several conditions, including updating the Gender Equality Charter and improving the monitoring of grant awards to executing entities.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) assessed the Centre de Suivi Ecologique (CSE) for re-accreditation. While the GCF recommends re-accreditation for a second term, it did not grant the requested upgrade to 'small' project size or 'medium risk' (category B) status, maintaining the entity's 'micro' size and 'minimal to no risk' (category C) status. The assessment found that CSE aligns with GCF's strategic goals, particularly in climate change adaptation in Senegal, but identified gaps in its internal audit functions, risk management, and grievance redress mechanisms. Re-accreditation is subject to several conditions, including the operationalization of an independent internal audit function and the appointment of an independent observer for its grievance mechanism.

Between August 2021 and July 2022, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) approved USD 1.69 billion for 19 new projects, bringing its total approved funding to USD 10.4 billion across 196 projects. The Fund updated key policies, including the Private Sector Strategy and the Simplified Approval Process, and launched the GCF-2 replenishment process. Significant efforts were made to support vulnerable regions, with 65% of adaptation funding in grant equivalent terms allocated to LDCs, SIDS, and African States. The GCF also expanded its network of accredited entities and continued its Independent Evaluation Unit's assessments of portfolio effectiveness.

The document outlines the conditions for funding proposals considered at the GCF Board's 43rd meeting. It establishes general requirements for all proposals, such as the signing of a funded activity agreement (FAA) and legal due diligence. Additionally, it specifies tailored conditions for certain projects, including requirements for grey-green infrastructure in South Sudan, staff expertise and SEAH protections for a multi-country programme (FP286), and ESIA updates and brine plume modelling for a project in Jordan.

The guide outlines the GCF's strategy to increase renewable energy (RE) shares in national energy matrices to mitigate climate change. It defines three dimensions for emission reduction: large-scale low-carbon electricity, increasing access to clean energy in Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and implementing innovative mitigation solutions like energy storage. The document specifies which activities are eligible for the Simplified Approval Process (SAP)—such as micro-scale solar grids and rooftop solar—and which are excluded, such as large-scale solar parks and certain biomass projects. It also provides a performance measurement framework focusing on tCO2eq reductions, financing leverage, and co-benefits like improved health and reduced deforestation.

The GCF Environmental and Social Policy defines a comprehensive framework for managing environmental and social risks across all GCF-financed activities. It mandates that accredited entities maintain an Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) and adhere to a mitigation hierarchy to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse impacts. The policy introduces a risk-based categorization system (Categories A, B, and C for activities; I1, I2, and I3 for intermediaries) to determine the depth of required assessments and stakeholder engagement. Key protections are specified for indigenous peoples, including the requirement for free, prior and informed consent in applicable circumstances, as well as safeguards for human rights, gender equality, and biodiversity. The framework also establishes a three-tier grievance redress system operating at the GCF, accredited entity, and activity levels.

The GCF's Environmental and Social Policy defines the requirements for accredited entities to identify, assess, and mitigate environmental and social risks. It mandates a risk-based approach using Environmental and Social Safeguards (SAS), a mitigation hierarchy, and rigorous due diligence. The policy emphasizes the protection of vulnerable groups, indigenous peoples, and biodiversity, while requiring transparent information disclosure and the establishment of grievance redress mechanisms at the activity, entity, and fund levels.

The GCF's initial accreditation framework integrates fiduciary standards and environmental and social safeguards (SAS) into a three-stage process: no-objection and readiness, accreditation review and decision, and final arrangements. It distinguishes between basic fiduciary criteria (administrative and financial) and specialized criteria (project management, grant-making, and lending). Until its own SAS are developed, the GCF adopts the International Finance Corporation's (IFC) Performance Standards, applying a risk-based approach to categorize projects (Categories A, B, and C) and intermediaries (Levels I1, I2, and I3). The process is overseen by the GCF Board, supported by an Accreditation Committee, an independent Accreditation Panel, and the Secretariat.

The report form classifies the Global Subnational Climate Fund (SnCF Global), managed by Pegasus Capital Advisors (PCA), as a Category I-2 programme. It confirms that an Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) has been established and disclosed in multiple languages to accommodate target countries across Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Mediterranean.

The document outlines the operational framework of the GCF's Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM), which serves as an independent accountability body. It defines two primary tracks for redress: requests for review by developing countries when funding is refused based on policy non-compliance, and a grievance process for individuals or communities negatively impacted by GCF projects. The latter includes a voluntary 'problem solving' phase and a formal 'compliance review' phase. The IRM is tasked with monitoring the implementation of corrective actions and reporting findings to the GCF Board.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has introduced a pilot scheme to reduce the time and effort required for approving small-scale projects. To be eligible, projects must have transformative potential, request no more than 10 million USD, and have minimal to no environmental and social risks. The scheme utilizes simplified Concept Notes and Funding Proposals, with a specific goal that direct access entities comprise at least half of the approved projects. Projects with known 'risk factors'—such as those affecting indigenous peoples or critical infrastructure—are excluded regardless of their scale.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has updated its Simplified Approval Process (SAP) to accelerate the delivery of small-scale climate projects. To be eligible, projects must request a GCF contribution of up to 25 million USD and have minimal to no negative environmental or social impacts. The update introduces several streamlining measures, including making concept notes optional, allowing pre-feasibility studies instead of full feasibility studies, and developing guided templates for high-demand impact areas. The GCF Secretariat is specifically tasked with ensuring that Direct Access Entities (DAEs) account for at least 50% of approved SAP proposals. The process maintains standard GCF quality and policy requirements but employs a more proportionate review approach by the Secretariat and the Independent Technical Advisory Panel (ITAP).

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) employs an Environment and Social Management System to ensure climate finance does not cause harm to local communities or the environment. This system is anchored by the Environmental and Social Policy and the Indigenous Peoples Policy, adopted in February 2018. GCF requires Accredited Entities to implement their own management systems and undergo evaluation to mitigate risks. To address grievances, the GCF provides an Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM) and requires project-level grievance redress mechanisms.

The Policy on Restructuring and Cancellation outlines the processes for modifying Green Climate Fund (GCF) projects before and after the execution of a funded activity agreement (FAA). It defines 'Major Changes' that require Board approval, such as those affecting climate outcomes or financial structures, and specifies the authority of the Executive Director (ED) to grant certain extensions and minor changes. The policy also details the consequences of failing to meet conditions, including the potential for project cancellation if a Major Change is not approved and the project is not otherwise progressed or withdrawn.