Skip to main content

30th Green Climate Fund Meeting Notes

 30th Green Climate Fund Meeting Notes


30th Green Climate Fund Board Meeting

4-7 September 2021 (Virtual meeting)

 

The GCF's Board Members were expected to approve 13 Funding Proposals equivalent to USD1.2 billion and accredit 4 Accredited Entities (actually for re-accreditation), and also address various policy gaps and governance issues.

 

1st Day (4 October 2021)

The first day was slow which was spent on discussing procedural matters

The co-chair from Mexico (Jose) opened the meeting by welcoming the new Board members and their alternates

Discussion on the Technical Sessions held a week before B30 on the Simplified Approval Process (SAP), and Climate Rationale was done without considering the evaluations made by the IEU. The co-chair responded by saying that the independent evaluation of SAP and Climate Rationale are already part of the proposed agenda. Due to some objections from a couple of Board members, the co-chairs agreed to add another agenda item related to evaluation functions

Independent Units Plans and Budgets for 2022

Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM), Independent Integrity Unit (IIU), and the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU), to present their work plan and budget for 2022.

Independent Redress Mechanism Unit:

l  IRM total budget for 2022 proposed is USD 1.64 billion

l  The IRM head also noted that the budget for travel, consultancies and operation costs have gone down due to the virtual set-up

l  The IRM's budget utilization for 2021 is also above 80%.

Independent Integrity Unit (IIU)

l  a total budget of USD 2.7 billion for 2022 was proposed

l  reported that they received 5 new cases in 2021, two of which pertained to staff misconduct and three related to GCF projects;

l  reported an overall decrease in reported cases compared to the previous year.

l  Initiative in 2021 centered on pivoting towards mitigation, preventive initiatives, and proactive integrity reviews.

The Board approved the work plans and budget of the IIU.

Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU)

l  proposed a budget of USD 6.5 billion,

l  reported a 9.7% increase from their 2021 budget.

l  Preparing for the significant evaluation as part of the GCF's Second Performance Review (SPR). They also identified plans for capacity building, strengthening evaluation standards, conducting global evidence reviews on gendered impacts and behavioral interventions

The Board approved the work plans and budget of the IEU.

 

2nd Day (5 October 2021)

Executive Director Glemarec's presentation on the Secretariat on the Capabilities to deliver the Updated Strategic Plan (USP) for 2020-2023

l  GCF plans to commit ($15 billion), implement ($13.1 billion), and disburse ($5.1 billion) by 2023, the Secretariat expects a dramatic increase in workload as well.

l  The 290 full-time employees are facing issues of burnout due to significant pressure. According to surveys they have conducted, work-life balance is a top issue among GCF employees.

l  There's a need for additional Secretariat capacity for much better work results and response times.

 l  They estimate that around 437 full-time employees (FTEs),accompanied by efficiency reforms, are required to deliver the USP priorities. They proposed two options by which to go about this expansion:

n  (1) via a phased scale up to 350 FTEs by 2023; and

n  (2) via a scale up to 300 in 2022 and a review in 2023 to assess whether the Secretariat needs more expansion

l  The Executive Director considers and conceptualizes plans on establishing a regional presence in countries and regions where the GCF operates and provides services.

n  BMs for developing countries welcomed this development, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean states, LDCs, and the African states.

n  CSO intervention delivered by Eileen Cunningham, the Active Observer, supported regional presence, work and life balance of staff while asserting that the increased staff capacity should strengthen its activities in implementing and monitoring project safeguards and activities related policies

 Programme and Administrative Budget for 2022 of the GCF Secretariat.

The 4 initiatives to achieve the USP, which require increases in the budget for building full time employee capacity are:

1.      Scaling up programming for DAEs, adaptation projects, and private sector projects and partnerships;

2.      employ a data-driven, risk-based approach to managing finances

3.      Improving access and effectiveness via business process reform and digitalization; and

4.      Preparing for the 2nd replenishment process.

 

l  The Secretariat proposed an $87.8 million administrative budget (5.1% increase), $79.4 million Secretariat budget (5.8% increase), $4.8 million Board budget (0.2% increase), and a $3.65 million trustee budget (2.9% decrease).

l  Secretariat budget involved an increase in staff costs

n  ($2.8 million increase), anticipating that there will be 250 staff by the third quarter of 2022.

n  They also proposed an increase in budget for consultants ($1.6 million increase), arguing that this is essential to maintain GCF momentum and avoid significant disruption to crucial functions.

n  The administrative budget plans to increase 66 consultants FTEs and 20 intern FTEs.

 

Our CSO intervention, delivered by Erika Lennon, Active Observer from

l  CSO intervention also supported the focus on enhancing country-drivenness and stressed that engagement should not merely be between governments/NDAs, AEs, and the GCF but should include local communities and indigenous peoples

 

Board Decisions proposed between B29 and B30

l  there were 8 decisions presented to be part of in-between meeting decisions (BBMs). Of these, 4 were approved, and 4 were objected.

 

The 10th GCF Report to the COP was circulated to the Board for approval without a Board Meeting last July 14, 2021.

The revised version, which included all objections and comments, was circulated to the Board a few hours before Day 2 of this Board Meeting.

1. The Privileges and Immunities (P&I) annex report has been deleted. Instead, paragraphs to explain the status of bilateral agreements on P&I were added.

2. Text to ensure consistency with the Updated Strategic Plan (USP) has been added

3. Text to ensure consistency with Accredited Entities' overall portfolio with low carbon emission and climate-resilient development pathways were added.

 

Matters Related to the Evaluation Functions of the GCF Board

l  The Co-Chairs decided to conduct offline consultations between Day 1 and Day 2 to develop an agreeable decision text. The co-chair went back to this agenda by showing the latest draft decision text.

l  "Requests the IEU to prepare a summary of views expressed by Board Members on each evaluation referred to in paragraph (d) so that these views can be incorporated into Board discussions and decisions, on related policy items."

 

3rd Day (6 October 2021)

The Board spent more than 4 hours discussing the agenda item Consideration of Funding Proposals (FPs).

l  13 FPs were considered amounting to a total of USD 1.2 billion

l  GCF secretariat bared that a total of 16 FPs were submitted to the ITAP for evaluation, but 3 FPs were not endorsed.

l  13 FPs, 61% are requested by the public sector, while 39% are private. In terms of access modality,

l  the majority come from International Access Entities (IAEs) at 70%, while only 30% are from DAEs.

l  Geographically, the FPs are concentrated in the Latin America and Caribbean Region (51%) and a few FPs targeting Asia and the Pacific, Africa, and Eastern Europe.

l  The Fund will have a total of 190 FPs amounting to USD 10 billion.

 

The CSOs concurred with this point in our intervention delivered by Erika Lennon,

l  adaptation projects should never be treated as investments and be debt-creating. Recipient communities should not be asked to pay for adapting to a climate crisis that they did not create.

l  Many of the FPs have not disclosed any information about the sub-projects despite what is required under the Fund's Environment and Social Policy (ESP).

l  Stakeholder engagement remains limited for some FPs who have not ensured free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) with indigenous peoples and local communities.

l  Some of the FPs came up with a computation about target beneficiaries when they had yet to identify the location of their sub-projects.

 

FP169: Climate change adaptation solutions for Local Authorities in the Federated States of Micronesia

Country: Federated States of Micronesia

AE: The Pacific Community (SPC)

Total Project Cost: USD 19.7 million

GCF Financing: USD 16.6 million (grant)

Co-financing from Government of FSM: USD 2.9 million (in-kind)

Co-financing from SPC: USD 202,510 (in-kind)

APPROVED

 

FP170 Enhancing Climate Resilience in Thailand through Effective Water Management and Sustainable Agriculture

Country: Thailand

AE: UNDP

Total Project Cost: USD 33.9 million

GCF Financing: USD 17.5 million (grant)

Co-financing from MOAC Royal Irrigation Department: USD 16.2 million (grant and in-kind)

Co-financing from Krungsri Bank: USD 114,000 (in-kind)

DEFERRED (approved on the last day)

 

FP171 Enhancing Early Warning Systems to build greater resilience to hydro-meteorological hazards in Timor-Leste

Country: Timor-Leste; AE: UNEP

Total Project Cost: USD 21.7 million

GCF Financing: 21 million (grant)

Co-financing from the government of Timor Leste: USD 0.75 million (in-kind)

APPROVED

 

FP172 Mitigating GHG emission through modern, efficient, and climate-friendly clean cooking solutions (CCS)

Country: Nepal; AE: AEPC

Total Project Cost: USD 49.1 million

GCF Financing: 21.1 million (grant)

Co-financing from AEPC: USD 21 million (grant)

Co-financing from Local Governments: USD 7 million (grant)

APPROVED

 

FP173 The Amazon Bioeconomy Fund: Unlocking private capital by valuing bioeconomy products and services with climate mitigation and adaptation results in the Amazon

Country: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname

AE: IDB

Total Project Cost: USD 589.1 million

GCF Financing: 279 million (USD 137.5 million grant, UUSD 135 million loans, USD 6.5 million equity)

Co-financing from IDB: USD 14 million (grant), USD 155 million (loan), USD 145 million (guarantee), USD 4 million (equity) and USD 1.4 million (in kind)

APPROVED

 

FP174 Ecosystem-based Adaptation to increase climate resilience in the Central American Dry Corridor and the Arid Zones of the Dominican Republic

Country: Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama

AE: CABEI

Total Project Cost: USD 268.3 million

GCF Financing: 174.3 million (USD 84.3 grant, USD 60million loan, USD 30 million guarantee

Co-financing from CABEI: USD 42.8 million (loan)

Co-financing from countries: USD 51.2 million (in-kind)

DEFERRED for further consultations with BM from China (approved on the last day)

 

FP175 Enhancing community resilience and water security in the Upper Athi River Catchment Area, Kenya

Country: Kenya

AE: National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) –

Total Project Cost: USD 10 million

GCF Financing: 9.5 million (grant)

Co-financing from NEMA: USD 0.24 million (in-kind)

Co-financing from WRA: USD 0.22 million (in-kind)

Co-financing from KMD: USD 0.01 million (in-kind)

APPROVED

 

FP176 Hydro-agricultural development with innovative agriculture practices resilient to climate change in Niger

Country: Niger; AE: BOAD

Total Project Cost: EUR 45.5 million

GCF Financing: EUR 30.1 million (EUR 24.2 million grant, EUR 5.9 million loans)

Co-financing from Government of Niger: EUR 6.2 million (tax exemptions)

Co-financing from BOAD: EUR 9.2 million (loan)

APPROVED

 

FP177 Cooling Facility

Country: Bangladesh, El Salvador, Kenya, Malawi, North Macedonia, Panama, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, Sri Lanka (listed as target countries)

AE: World Bank

Total Project Cost: USD 879.84 million

GCF Financing: USD 157 million (USD 32 million grant, USD 125 million loans)

CO-financing from WB: USD 563.4 million loan, USD 50million guarantee, USD 80.5 million grant

Co-financing from Global Financing Facility: USD25 million grant

Co-financing from health Emergency Preparedness and Response Trust Fund: USD 3 million grant

Co-financing from Pandemic Emergency Facility: UUSD 0.94. million (Grant)

DEFERRED (approved on the last day)

 

FP178 Desert to Power G5 Sahel Facility

Country: Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger

AE: AfDB, Total Project Cost: USD 966.7 million

GCF Financing: USD 150 million (USD 82 million loans, USD 40 million reimbursable grants,  USD 20 million guarantees, USD 8 million grants)

Co-financing from AfDB and private sector): USD 816.7 million

APPROVED

 

FP179 Tanzania Agriculture Climate Adaptation Technology Deployment Programme (TACATDP)

Country: Tanzania; AE: CRDB Bank PLC

Total Project Cost: USD 200 million

GCF Financing: USD 100 million (USD 70 million senior loans, USD 10 million guarantees, USD 20 million grants)

Co-financing from CRDB: USD 100 million (senior loans)

APPROVED

 

FP180 Global Fund  for Coral Reefs Investment Window

Country: Comoros, Mozambique, Belize, Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Seychelles, Philippines (other countries listed but haven't signed NOLs)

AE: Pegasus

Total Project Cost: USD 500 million

GCF Financing: USD 125 million junior equity

Co-financing from Pegasus: USD 375 million + 1% GP commitment inn Senior loans

DEFERRED (approved on the last day)

 

FP181 CRAFT - Catalytic Capital for First Private Investment Fund for Adaptation Technologies in Developing Countries

Country: Bahamas, Brazil, Colombia, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Rwanda, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago

AE: Pegasus

Total project cost: USD 400 million

GCF Financing: USD 100 million (junior equity)

Co-financing from Pegasus: USD 300 million (USD 262.1 senior equity, USD 21.15 million equity, USD 16.8 million equity)

APPROVED

 

4th Day (7 October 2021)

Consideration of Funding Proposals pending their approval was quickly approved, and the summary of discussions per FP is below:

FP170 Enhancing Climate Resilience in Thailand through Effective Water Management and Sustainable Agriculture

Country: Thailand; AE: UNDP

Total Project Cost: USD 33.9 million

GCF Financing: USD 17.5 million (grant)

Co-financing from MOAC Royal Irrigation Department: USD 16.2 million (grant and in-kind)

Co-financing from Krungsri Bank: USD 114,000 (in-kind)

APPROVED

 

FP174 Ecosystem-based Adaptation to increase climate resilience in the Central American Dry Corridor and the Arid Zones of the Dominican Republic

APPROVED

 

FP177 Cooling Facility

APPROVED

 

FP180 Global Fund for Coral Reefs Investment Window

APPROVED

 

The Board also approved the deadline extension of SAP018 Enhancing Climate Information Systems for Resilient Development in Liberia from 2021 to 6 February 2022.

 

Consideration of Accreditation Proposals

l  No new applicants were presented; only 4 entities seeking re-accreditation were subject to Board approval

Status of GCF Accreditation Applications:

l  a total of 125 entities are currently in the GCF Accreditation Pipeline seeking accreditation

l  2021 is the first batch or stage or re-accreditation with 2 already re-accredited last B29 and 4 this B30

l  23 entities are due for re-accreditation by the end of 2022 where 9 are National DAEs, 6 are Regional DAEs, and 8 are IAEs

 l  The Digital Accreditation Platform (DAP) is operational for accreditation applications as well as re-accreditation applications.

 l  Efforts such as workshops and modules are given to AEs and NDAs on how to perform their roles effectively throughout the accreditation process and as an entity

CSO intervention delivered by Erika Lennon

l  raised concerns on the procedural weakness of the re-accreditation process, such as lapses and lack of public transparency on monitoring and reporting of the re-applying AEs.

l  We called upon the GCF Board and the Secretariat to prevent the 23 AEs from opting out of the fossil fuel portfolio assessment.

l  Asked for the full disclosure and streamlining baseline settings, citing the inclusion of all financial instruments and activities that the AEs have operationalized since their accreditation in the GCF.

l  The question on the effectiveness and accessibility of grievance mechanisms for potentially impacted people and the disadvantages that applicants with less capacity encounter in the entire accreditation and re-accreditation processes.

 

Board moved to approve the re-accreditation application.

l  Of the 4 applicants, only one was not approved

RAPL008: Environmental Investment Fund (EIF)

Type: DAE; Country: Namibia; Size: Micro

ESS Risk Category: Low (Category C/I-3)

RE-ACCREDITED without changes to accreditation type

 

RAPL024: Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA)

Type: DAE; Country: South Africa; Size: Large

ESS Risk Category: High (Category A/I-1)

RE-ACCREDITATION SUSPENDED

 

RAPL031: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Type: IAE; Country: Switzerland (Headquarters); Size: Medium

ESS Risk Category: Medium (Category B/I-2)

RE-ACCREDITED without changes to accreditation type

 

RAPL007: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Type: IAE; Country: United States of America (Headquarters)

Size: Medium; ESS Risk Category: Medium (Category B/I-2)

RE-ACCREDITED with minor changes for it to be allowed to award grants and be eligible for projects with funding allocation mechanisms.

 

For simplification, the IEU suggests the following:

l  Simplify documentation requirements

l  Better define key GCF concepts such as climate rationale

 

For acceleration, the IEU suggests the following:

l  Develop and enforce transparent and predictable standards for every step of the SAP process

l  Provide one set of consolidated comments for each concept note and proposal

l  Develop key performance indices (KPIs) for the GCF Secretariat that incentivizes processing of projects through SAP

l  Focus on developing processes for post-approval stages

 

Proposed SAP (Simplified Approval Process of proposals) update:

l  SAP projects were initially capped at USD 10 Million and are now proposed to be capped at USD 20 to 50 Million

l  The final cap amount is subject to the final decision of the Board.

l  SAP projects may now be approved through decisions in-between Board Meetings (BBMs) with

l  An option to make SAP concept notes voluntary

l  An option to allow SAP projects to be Category B in Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESS) Risks Level

CSO intervention delivered by Eileen Cunningham (Developing country Active Observer)

l  that SAP projects should not be categorized as Category B.

l  An increase in the number of SAP projects must be grounded in keeping the eligibility of the projects within Category C ESS risks.

l  Those concept notes should continue to be optional, and the development of SAP proposal templates should involve consultations with NDAs, CSOs, Indigenous Peoples, and Communities.

l  SAP projects that are to be approved in-between Board Meetings (BBMs) following a no-objection basis should also have clear guidelines that include stakeholders' participation.


The Board agreed to ensure that CSOs and AO participation shall be strictly observed during SAP approvals done in BBMs

The BM from Korea expressed that the efforts in revising the GCF's salary structure by comparing it with ADB and World Bank salary structures should eventually lead to the development of a GCF's salary structure

The Tenth Report of the GCF to the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC, as part of the Board Decisions in between B29 and B30, was also adopted

 

Other agenda items, such as the Dates and Venues of future Board meetings, were also not discussed. However, below are the proposed dates for the upcoming Board meetings…

31st Board Meeting: 13-16 December 2021, Luxemburg (a net-meeting), or 7-10 February 2022, Albania (an in-person meeting)

32nd Board Meeting: 28-31 March or 9-12 May 2022 (TBD venue)

33rd Board Meeting: 27-30 June 2022

34th Board Meeting: 24-27 October 2022

 

You can watch the 30th Board meeting recordings below:

https://www.greenclimate.fund/boardroom/meeting/b30#videos

 

Prepared by Abraham Sumalinog

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Climate and COP Negotiations Lobbying Crisis

 Climate and COP Lobbying Crisis The climate crisis is a pressing concern that must be addressed rapidly and effectively with concrete action. How?  Climate crisis issues can be resolved by reducing emissions and increasing renewable energy sources, transitioning to a Circular Economy, investing in green infrastructure, and adopting holistic strategies that address the underlying causes of climate change. These measures are essential if we are to avoid catastrophic environmental consequences. Furthermore, they create an opportunity for innovation and economic growth by developing and implementing new low-carbon technologies and sustainable business models. It is also essential to build resilience and adaptive capacity in our communities. This means investing in infrastructure that helps people cope with the impacts of climate change, such as sea-level rise, extreme weather events, and flooding, among other methods. It also involves developing innovative approaches to reduce emissions a

COP26: Article 6 Outcomes

 COP26: Article 6 Outcomes Image Source: eu.boell.org This article is a brief version of the article published by twn.org on the results of negotiations among Parties on issues related to the contentious Article 6 of the Paris Agreement (2015) Article 6 Outcomes on Market/Non-market Approaches Article 6 is PA’s ‘cooperative approaches’ among Parties involving the use of market and non-market mechanisms of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC)’s implementation Establishment of the ‘Glasgow Committee on Non-market Approaches’ – a win for DCs -        This formal institutional mechanism can advance the non-market approaches (NMAs), which was initially resisted by developed countries -        Considered a victory under the Paris Agreement’s Article 6.8 No Decision for a Mandatory Contribution – a loss for DCs -        The market-based approach under PA’s Article 6.2 is a loss to the developing countries as there was no decision reached for a mandatory contribution t