Search Climate Insights Directory

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 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 guide outlines five essential building blocks for green bond markets: the enabling environment, investors, issuers and project pipeline, governance, and definitions and standards. It emphasizes that while public sector support is often needed initially, a successful market must eventually become self-sustaining, diverse in its environmental objectives, and transparent in its reporting. The document provides practical frameworks for policymakers to assess their market's readiness and offers case studies from China, India, and Nigeria to illustrate effective policy incentives and issuance strategies.

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 document argues that many LGPS funds are failing their fiduciary duties by ignoring climate risk or incorrectly delegating its management. It identifies five misconceptions: that climate change is not a financial risk, that delegation to managers is sufficient, that delegation to the LAPFF is sufficient, that pooling removes the need for fund-level consideration, and that taxpayers bear all the risk. The authors request that TPR investigate these issues, issue guidance, and engage with Defra for an Adaptation Report.

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 report examines the intersection of climate change and fiduciary duty for public pension fund trustees. It identifies four primary financial risks—physical impact, carbon asset, transition, and litigation—and argues that these risks necessitate the exercise of duties to inquire, monitor, diversify, and act impartially. The document suggests that failure to account for these risks may lead to lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duty, particularly regarding the interests of future beneficiaries. Recommended actions include modifying investment principles, divesting from climate-vulnerable assets, active shareholder engagement, and investing in clean energy.

The document outlines a legal opinion stating that UK pension fund trustees must account for climate risks in investment decisions if those risks are financially material, warning that failure to do so could lead to legal challenges.

The document examines the transition of sustainable investing from a fringe approach to the mainstream among US institutional investors. It identifies key drivers such as the financial materiality of ESG factors, supportive policy frameworks like the Paris Agreement, and a desire for mission alignment. The paper categorizes sustainable investing into five main strategies: negative screens, positive screens, ESG integration, impact investing, and shareholder engagement. Despite growth, the authors identify significant systemic barriers, including short-term performance biases, inadequate ESG data and disclosure standards, and a lack of institutional-quality sustainable investment products. The paper concludes with recommendations for asset owners to build internal capacity and for market actors to provide more actionable frameworks and improved data.

The document concludes that pension fund trustees are legally obliged to take climate change into account if it presents a material financial risk to the fund's performance. While trustees must generally prioritise the best financial interests of beneficiaries over moral or ethical concerns, any factor—including environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors—that is financially material must be considered. The opinion argues that trustees who refuse to assess whether climate change is financially material may be open to legal challenge.

The document addresses the 'Missing 60%'—the discrepancy where asset managers support climate disclosure resolutions at companies like BP and Shell but oppose similar resolutions at US companies like Exxon and Chevron. It argues that trustees can use contractual mandates, the UK Stewardship Code, and the UNPRI to secure greater transparency and control over how their shares are voted. Specific recommendations include adding clauses to mandates for advance disclosure of voting intentions, utilizing Statements of Investment Principles (SIP) for segregated accounts, and challenging managers on conflicts of interest related to their own pension business.

The document serves as a guide for commercial banks, MSMEs, and investors in Bangladesh to engage with the Green Climate Fund. It details the roles of the National Designated Authority (NDA), the process for becoming a National Implementing Entity (NIE), and the options for acting as an executing entity. It specifically highlights the Private Sector Facility (PSF) and its MSME support programme, outlining the fiduciary, environmental, and social standards required for accreditation, as well as the criteria used to evaluate project proposals.

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 report argues that while cities are critical for climate action, they face significant barriers in accessing international climate finance due to limited institutional capacity and rigid funding requirements. It proposes three access modalities for the GCF: promoting unconventional implementing entities, accrediting cities as implementing entities themselves, and utilizing Enhanced Direct Access (EDA) through mechanisms like a National City Facility. The authors emphasize that GCF should prioritize secondary cities and provide a diverse range of financial instruments to unlock domestic and local funding.

FSD Africa maintains a "zero tolerance" policy toward fraud and corruption, applying these standards to all directors, employees, consultants, and funding recipients. The policy defines sanctionable practices—including corrupt, fraudulent, collusive, coercive, and obstructive practices—and mandates a framework for reporting and investigation. It establishes the role of an Investigative Officer, typically the Chief Operating Officer, to conduct impartial inquiries and report findings to the Chair. Additionally, the document outlines strict Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) controls, emphasizing 'Know-Your-Client' (KYC) protocols, enhanced due diligence for Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), and the screening of counterparties against international blacklists.

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 report evaluates National Climate Change Funds (NCCFs), finding that they currently play a limited role in global climate finance, accounting for less than 0.2% of total flows in 2013. It identifies key barriers to resource mobilisation, including weak institutional capacities and a lack of clear vision, and proposes a structured three-step approach—defining vision, building capacity, and engaging investors—to improve their sustainability.

The Green Climate Fund is developing a template accreditation master agreement (AMA) to formalize legal arrangements with accredited entities, utilizing a 'fit-for-purpose' approach that tailors conditions to an entity's specific accreditation scope. The draft incorporates existing Fund policies on fiduciary standards, environmental and social safeguards, and gender, while using placeholders for pending policies on fees and fraud. Consultations with entities accredited under decision B.09/07 have highlighted concerns regarding compliance and fees, with the Secretariat planning to circulate a discussion draft in June 2015 and conduct face-to-face meetings in July 2015.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is establishing a monitoring and accountability framework for its accredited entities (AEs). The framework focuses on two main pillars: monitoring compliance with fiduciary, environmental, social, and gender standards, and monitoring project implementation performance. Accreditation will be valid for a fixed term of five years or less, with a renewal process based on compliance and performance records. Monitoring includes annual AE self-assessments, mid-term Secretariat missions, and a second-level monitoring system using web-based tools. The framework introduces a 'watch list' for entities showing 'red lights' such as repeated reporting failures, with remedies ranging from readiness support to the potential withdrawal of accreditation. Local monitoring will be supported by National Designated Authorities (NDAs), local agents, and civil society organizations.