Search Climate Insights Directory

The factsheet defines Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) as national climate plans proposed by governments for the Paris agreement. It criticizes current pledges from developed countries as insufficient and narrow in scope, often ignoring adaptation and historical responsibility. The document advocates for a 'fair shares' approach, which involves setting a global carbon budget to limit warming to 1.5°C and dividing that budget among nations based on their responsibility and capacity, rather than relying on self-proposed contributions.

The fact sheet critiques the INDC process, noting that many developed nations have submitted insufficient commitments that focus solely on mitigation while ignoring adaptation and historical responsibility. It argues that allowing countries to self-determine their contributions risks a global temperature increase of 4 to 6°C. As an alternative, it advocates for a 'fair share' system where a global carbon budget is allocated based on responsibility, capacity, and the right to sustainable societies, supporting a broader energy revolution focused on justice and community-owned renewables.

The document critiques the INDC process, noting that current commitments from developed nations are inadequate and often ignore adaptation, finance, and loss and damage. It argues that allowing countries to self-determine their contributions cannot guarantee the global effort needed to limit warming to 1.5°C. Instead, it proposes a "fair shares" approach, which involves establishing a global carbon budget and dividing it among countries based on their historical responsibility, capacity, and right to a sustainable society.

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.

FSD Africa co-funded the Digital Frontiers Institute (DFI) from 2016 to 2021 to train digital finance professionals in low-middle income countries. The partnership established the Certified Digital Finance Practitioner (CDFP) qualification and reached over 15,000 professionals. Key achievements include the creation of 22 Communities of Practice across 20 countries and the development of 47 DFS regulations, policies, or directives.

The document assesses how the COVID-19 pandemic strained sovereign debt management offices (DMOs) in the MEFMI region, highlighting a general lack of comprehensive business continuity plans and procedure manuals. While most countries maintained legal debt limits and audit frequencies, the crisis forced a shift toward remote work and virtual coordination, which increased operational risks and compromised the segregation of duties. The report recommends strengthening operational risk frameworks, investing in digital infrastructure, and introducing 'escape clauses' in regional debt convergence criteria to better handle future crises.

The proposal addresses Cambodia's vulnerability to climate change, specifically how severe flooding and sea-level rise exacerbate pollution from poorly managed solid waste and wastewater in coastal areas. It seeks GCF funding to revisit national policy and build the capacity of the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, and local authorities in Preah Sihanouk and Krong Kaeb. The initiative aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from untreated effluent and protect livelihood-providing ecosystems by improving coordination and attracting private sector investment for low-emission, resilient infrastructure.

The Bahamas is seeking Green Climate Fund (GCF) readiness support to overcome the lack of Direct Access Entities, which currently acts as a barrier to climate finance. The proposal focuses on capacity building for three national financial institutions, developing a GCF-compliant Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, and creating a pipeline of private sector projects for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Key beneficiaries include the Bahamas Protected Areas Fund, the Bahamas Development Bank, and Access Accelerator, with the ultimate goal of helping the country achieve its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) targets.

The Green Climate Fund has selected Panama City (Panama), Amman (Jordan), Nairobi (Kenya), and Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire) as the locations for its regional offices. The Secretariat is tasked with negotiating host country agreements and operationalizing this regional presence according to a specific implementation plan, aiming for long-term budget neutrality within the existing administrative budget.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has developed an operational framework to improve integration and coherence across climate finance institutions. The framework is organized around four pillars: board-level discussions on fund-to-fund arrangements, activity-level integration, national programming coherence, and a high-level annual dialogue. It aims to reduce inefficiencies and maximize impact by aligning policies, sharing information, and coordinating with other funds such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Adaptation Fund (AF).

The document outlines the GCF's accreditation process, which is divided into three stages: no-objection and readiness, accreditation review and decision, and final arrangements. It defines the fiduciary standards (basic and specific) and environmental and social safeguards (ESS) that applicants must meet. The framework distinguishes between 'direct access' for national/regional entities and 'international access' for global organizations. It also details the roles of the GCF Board, Secretariat, Accreditation Committee, and Accreditation Panel in managing the process.

The document details the IEU's strategic aims to strengthen its staffing, deliver high-quality evaluations, build capacity for evaluation-based learning, and engage with international best practices in climate change evaluation.

The document provides a detailed budgetary breakdown for seven specific integrity outputs of the Green Climate Fund, with the largest allocation of 1,063,068 dedicated to investigation activities.

The guidelines establish a framework for increasing national ownership of GCF activities, emphasizing the central role of National Designated Authorities (NDAs) in aligning climate projects with national priorities. It outlines the use of country programs and structured dialogues to ensure that funding is consistent with national strategies like NDCs and NAPAs. The document also details the integration of national engagement across GCF operational modalities, including the Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme, the accreditation process, and the 'no-objection' procedure, while stressing the need for inclusive, continuous consultation with diverse stakeholders throughout the project cycle.

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 GCF's implementation standards for its Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (AML/CFT) Policy outline a risk-based framework for managing financial integrity. The standards mandate rigorous counterparty due diligence, annual institutional risk assessments, and the monitoring of financial transactions. They define specific high-risk categories—such as politically exposed persons and shell banks—and prohibit relationships with unregulated money transfer agents or anonymous accounts. The Independent Integrity Unit (IIU) is tasked with overseeing the program, conducting investigations, and managing the reporting of suspicious activities to competent authorities. Additionally, the GCF provides capacity-building support to counterparties to strengthen their own AML/CFT controls.

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 GCF's AML/CFT Standards define the framework for managing financial integrity risks, outlining roles for the Secretariat and Independent Integrity Unit, risk-based due diligence for counterparties, and mechanisms for reporting suspicious activities. It mandates annual institutional risk assessments and provides guidelines for capacity building and record-keeping to align with international best practices and FATF recommendations.

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 GCF's initial guiding framework for accreditation integrates fiduciary principles and environmental and social safeguards (ESS) into a three-stage process. It distinguishes between basic and specialized fiduciary criteria and utilizes a risk-based approach for environmental and social screening. The process involves a sequence of readiness assessments, institutional reviews, and final legal arrangements, overseen by the GCF Board, Secretariat, and an independent Accreditation Panel.