28th Green Climate Fund Board Meeting Notes

 

28th Green Climate Fund Board Meeting Notes

First Day (March 16, 2021)

The 28th Board meeting commenced with a short speech from the new co-chairs (Mexico and France) who were nominated after the B27 in November last year.

The agenda for the whole meeting was presented but was rejected by developing country Board members. The exchange between the developing and developed country BMs led to removing some items and adopting the new agenda.

 developing country constituency usually discuss and build consensus on agenda items that will be tabled for the succeeding Board Meeting, the process that did not happen since the newly elected co-chair from Mexico is new to the GCF Board

 a BM recalled the previous consensus among Board members regarding policy documents that need extensive scrutiny, but difficult due to the challenges brought by the virtual setting, limiting full participation of some BMs in discussions

 Developed country BMs believe the items the other constituency wishes to remove are essential policy documents that the Board has to resolve the soonest

 the Board has left more than 50 policy documents unaddressed, including the recruitment of the Independent Evaluation Unit's new head (IEU).

Second Day (March 17)

The Board members approved items that were decided outside a Board meeting, including the seven items:

1. The Election of Co-chairs of the Board

2. Appointment of the additional members of the Independent Technical Advisory Panel (ITAP)

3. Accreditation of Observer Organizations

4. Dates and Venues of upcoming Board Meetings

5. Initial Analysis of Options to Minimize Effects of Currency Fluctuations on the Commitment Authority of the GCF

6. Reappointment of the members of the ITAP

7. 9th Report of the GCF to the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC

The Board has yet to approve the selection process of the new head of the Independent Integrity Unit and some Board members. 

Several developing country BMs expressed that the addition of this agenda item without the 21-day notice is a violation of the GCF Rules of Procedure

Developed country BMs wanted to proceed with the decision and start the recruitment sooner for the Independent Evaluation Unit's head.

Other developed countries BMs also regarded the work of the IEU as valuable to improve the governance issues and policy gaps in the Fund

-the Co-chair from Mexico suggested suspending the item for the next Board Meeting

The Secretariat noted several issues and challenges faced by the ITAP (Independent Technical Assistance Panel):

- the workload of the ITAP peaks before every Board Meeting and is not evenly distributed throughout the year

- ITAP is at the end of the line for FP evaluation. This means that all project proposals submitted to the Fund have to undergo a rigorous process of examination before they are forwarded to the ITAP

- The ITAP members are compensated on a fixed monthly basis regardless of workload

- ITAP has no codified appraisal methodology and schedule to follow, resulting in inconsistencies in the quality and clarity of some of its assessments

- these issues have resulted in the following challenges: 

 Only a maximum of 20 funding proposals (FPs) per Board Meeting are considered

 many processes were ad hoc and not institutionalized, resulting in limited time in answering questions and conducting consultations with stakeholders, accredited entities, and national designated authorities

 ITAP members, along with AEs, NDAs, and the GCF Secretariat, tend to feel the pressure and lose their work-life balance before Board Meetings due to the constraints brought by the existing funding proposal policies and protocols 

 A larger ITAP (10 members) means cohesion declines and complexity increases

 the GCF Secretariat recommended streamlining the ITAP and increasing their project review capacity while maintaining sustainable work arrangements and ensuring transparent, predictable, efficient, and equi table reviews 

CSO Intervention:

Generally concurred with the recommendations of the Secretariat but echoed the concern raised by the ITAP on a smaller peer review group;

Urged the Board to take into consideration the appeal of the ITAP and recognize the amount of time and resources required to ensure quality output from the Panel

Funding Proposals

A total of 15 FPs were presented for Board consideration at this Board Meeting, with 4 under the Simplified Approval Process (SAP), and 11 Funding Proposals

Some concerns by the Board members:

(1) the imbalance between adaptation and mitigation projects, 

(2) the low number of FPs coming from DAEs (only 1%), 

(3) the geographical imbalance of project recipient countries, with Latin America and the Caribbean states receiving the least amount of funding; and

(4) how grants are far less than the loaned amounts.

(5) on fraud and collusion allegations against UNDP concerning its projects with the Global Environment Facility (GEF)

(6) carbon capture technology and tax havens should never be encouraged by any proposal as some FPs for consideration

CSO intervention on the funding proposals:

- highlighted the increasing number of FPs coming in as financing facilities making the GCF a "fund of funds," and underscored the fact that 2 FPs considered at this Board Meeting has a waste-to-energy component, which is questionable based on GCF's Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESS)

- the increasing number of projects in the form of loans should not be the way to respond and help but a burden to the vulnerable recipients—countries, people, communities.

- It also proposed that the Myanmar subproject should be suspended until further notice.

Third-Day (March 18, Thursday)

Integrated Results Management Framework, an agenda item that seeks Board approval regarding the Fund's ability to measure and report the impact of its investments

- Board is requested to approve the IRMF together with the Secretariat's mandate to develop an updated funding proposal template and guidance by B29

- Secretariat presented a more streamlined and more robust results management approach to measuring quantifiable impacts of the Fund's investments and contribute to the objectives of the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement:

- three result measurement levels – 

 GCF Impact level – paradigm shift potential, 

 GCF outcome level – reduced emissions and increased resilience, and 

 project/program level, and presents 25 indicators

The Secretariat proposed two options as a resolution to the questions regarding paradigm shift and systemic change indicators:

Option 1: Retain all IRMF components with revisions to the paradigm shift element based on the GCF Governing Instrument provisions. Policy evaluators will use proposed scorecards, and capacity building and guidance will be provided to AEs, especially DAEs.

Option 2: Revise the paradigm shift and systemic change indicators by removing the scorecards and retain the Results and Outputs Management Framework to systemic change. Capacity building and guidance will be provided to AEs and DAEs.

Results Handbook should also clearly define Climate Rationale's concept – a handbook that the GCF Secretariat will develop until the 29th Board meeting.

Applicant Direct Access Entities:

1. APL 106 – Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) - Philippines

2. APL 107 – Development Bank of Zambia (DBZ) - Zambia

3. APL 108 – Infrastructure Development Bank of Zimbabwe (IDBZ) - Zimbabwe

4. APL 109 – Moroccan Agency for Sustainable Energy SA (Masen) - Morocco

5. APL 110 – Vietnam Development Bank (VDB) – Vietnam

International Access Entity:

6. APL 100 - Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC) - a notorious financier of dirty energy projects, is the re-applicant that withdrew its application last B26 due to concerns raised by CSOs in line with its track record of funding coal projects. A letter to the GCF Board, signed by over 400 civil society organizations from around the world, sent the last B26, and re-sent before this Board Meeting, called for the rejection of SMBC's accreditation application.

Some Board members agreed to accredit the SMBC, while others proposed stronger conditions for the accreditation of SMBC. 

Dates and Venues of Board Meetings:

- 29th BM: June 28 to July 1 (venue TBD)

- 30th BM: October 4 to 7 (venue: TBD)

Fourth Day (March 19)

The Board members addressed some issues not adopted the other day, including:

- The rationale behind the requested 12.4 million USD budget, 

- Clarifying some vague indicators, especially systemic change,

- The issue surrounding the IRMF Handbook and FP templates

To resolve the conflicting ideas among Board members, the webcast was suspended for consultations that lasted four hours. 

The deferred funding proposals from the second-day meeting were deliberated again and were all approved, each with some conditions. The funding proposals were for Congo, Cuba, ASEAN, Liberia, and the Indian Ocean Commission member countries.

The Board discussed the accreditation proposals that include 5 applicant entities, primarily banks. The debate among BMs revolved around Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation's accreditation. It is the only bank strongly opposed by CSO's due to its top-notch record as a fossil fuel funder. Some Board members also opposed the accreditation of SMBC, while some agreed but with strong conditions. In the end, the co-chairs decided to defer the accreditation of the applicants to the 29th GCF Board meeting in June. 

You can watch the recorded proceedings of the GCF 28th Board meeting below:

https://www.greenclimate.fund/boardroom/meeting/b28#videos. 

Thanks for reading.

Prepared by:

Abraham Sumalinog