Project
Photo: GCFAdvocating before the Green Climate Fund
The Green Climate Fund is the world's leading multilateral climate finance institution. As such, it has a key role in channelling economic resources from developed to developing nations for projects focused on mitigation and adaptation in the face of the climate crisis.
Created in 2010, within the framework of the United Nations, the fund supports a broad range of projects ranging from renewable energy and low-emissions transportation projects to the relocation of communities affected by rising seas and support to small farmers affected by drought. The assistance it provides is vital so that individuals and communities in Latin America, and other vulnerable regions, can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and address the increasingly devastating impacts of global warming.
Climate finance provided by the Green Climate Fund is critical to ensure the transformation of current economic and energy systems towards the resilient, low-emission systems that the planet urgently needs. To enable a just transition, it’s critical to follow-up on and monitor its operations, ensuring that the Fund effectively fulfills its role and benefits the people and communities most vulnerable to climate change.
Reports
Read our recent report "Leading participatory monitoring processes through a gender justice lens for Green Climate Fund financed projects" here.
Partners:
Related projects
Latest News
Letter to Green Climate Fund Board and Advisors: Concern regarding the use of GCF resources to support large hydropower
We write to express our concern regarding the use of GCF resources to support large hydropower in general, and in particular the following proposals in the GCF pipeline: Qairokkum Hydropower Rehabilitation, Tajikistan Upper Trishuli-1, Nepal Tina River Hydro Project, Solomon Islands Large hydropower is a non-innovative, last-century technology with dubious climate mitigation benefits and a long track record of exceedingly high financial, environmental, and social costs. Supporting such proposals would not be consistent with the Fund’s goal, to promote a paradigm shift toward lowemission, climate resilient development, in the context of sustainable development. Further, large hydropower projects would not meet the GCF’s selection criteria related to impact, paradigm shift potential, sustainable development, and efficiency and effectiveness. The reasons why the GCF should not support large hydropower are described in the annex, and briefly summarized here: Large dams are vulnerable to climate change: more frequent droughts make them inefficient and increased rainfall reduces their lifespan. Large dams exacerbate climate change: considerable amounts of greenhouse gasses, notably methane (30 times more potent than CO2), are emitted from reservoirs; and their construction damages carbon sinks, including forests and rivers. Large dams harm biodiversity, which in turn impairs communities’ capacity to adapt to a changing climate. Large dams can negatively affect local communities by impoverishing them, breaking social networks, and negatively affecting livelihoods and cultures. Large dams can become dangerous: climate change-related extreme weather events and earthquakes can cause dams to fail, jeopardizing lives and property downstream. Large dams are not economical and are ill suited to address urgent energy needs: recent studies clearly demonstrate that large dams typically suffer significant cost and time overruns. Better energy options are widely available and the GCF should play a fundamental role in promoting them.
Read more
The role of civil society in the Green Climate Fund
Climate change is real, and its impacts are here to stay. The nations of the world have agreed that, to get out of this mess, they must act together. But beyond setting intentions, little progress has been made. One important opportunity to get things done is the Green Climate Fund, the primary financial mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It’s a relatively new institution with the ability to move large quantities of money from rich countries to those in development. With these resources, the most vulnerable and least financially equipped nations can develop the projects and programs they need to confront climate change. How the Fund works in practice The Fund is a complex mechanism in which diverse actors interact. The Board of Directors, in charge of governing and supervising the Fund, is made up of 24 members, 12 representatives from developed nations and 12 from developing ones. The Independent Secretariat implements the decisions adopted by the Board. The Fund relates to countries through the National Designated Authorities or Focal Points, which are entities designated within each nation. The Fund also accredits national, regional and international institutions to channel economic resources through the presentation and implementation of climate proposals. These are called Accredited Entities. Last, but certainly not least, observers from civil society and the private sector play a key role in ensuring that the Fund takes into account the needs of local populations, especially the most vulnerable, when approving projects and programs to combat climate change. How decisions get made In practice, the Fund has been built at meetings of its Board of Directors, held every three months. There, board members discuss and decide on the policies that shape the Fund. They also grant accreditation to entities that will channel funds from the GCF to the different countries, and approve the projects and programs that the Fund will finance. Last October, I was fortunate to participate, as a civil society observer, at the 14th meeting of the Board, which was held at the Fund’s headquarters in Songdo, South Korea. I had the opportunity to see, on the ground, how this complex international mechanism works and, above all, how civil society contributes. It quickly became clear to me that the working conditions of civil society are not easy. To begin with, there is no economic support for civil society representatives that must travel and stay abroad at least three times a year to attend the board meetings. Inside the meetings of the Board, only “active observers” can participate: two from civil society and two from the private sector. The remaining observers sit in an adjoining room, following the meeting on television screens. Civil society has the right to speak, but this right can only be exercised by the two active observers, and only if the Co-Chairmen of the Board of Directors approve. All civil society interventions are previously discussed, prepared and perfected by the coalition of observers. This leads to many sleepless nights, since the subjects are broad and complex. In practice, civil society contributions are relegated to the end of the Board’s discussions. When time is scarce, a common reality, many times the right to speak is denied. This can be extremely frustrating, since crucial contributions are lost. Why civil society support is important Civil society contributes to the construction of the Fund’s policies with the objective of elevating its standards. Among other tasks, each funding proposal is studied, and the communities potentially affected by or benefitting from it are contacted, in order to understand what the project or program may actually involve, beyond what appears on paper. That’s why the informal work that civil society does “behind the scenes” is so important. It is the work done during recess, at lunchtime, and in the corridors. Gradually, civil society observers build relationships with decision makers (Board members and advisors) and are able to share their ideas, concerns and suggestions with them. The results of civil society’s work are being seen in decision-making, slowly but surely. The Green Climate Fund offers hope because its guidelines are correctly posed: it seeks to promote transformation and paradigmatic change, promises transparency, and its decisions are made giving equal weight to representatives of developed and developing nations. Its mandate is to promote “country ownership” of the programs and projects it finances, that is, to ensure they are guided by the needs and priorities of the beneficiary countries. In addition, the Fund has an obligation to act with a gender approach. However, the Fund also has problems and shortcomings. That’s why involvement of civil society is critical. Because they do not represent any government, political party or other interest, civil society observers ensure the protection of the environment, respect for human rights, and the participation and inclusion of people directly affected by climate change. The physical participation of civil society in Board meetings is vital. They ensure the Fund takes into account the voices of the communities directly affected by or benefitting from the financing. Learn more about the Fund on our website!
Read more
Letter to Green Climate Fund Board: Improve Decision Making
Letter signed by 70 international civil society organizations: As members of civil society following the Green Climate Fund (GCF), we are writing to express our concern about the way the Board reached some of its most important decisions during the 14th Board Meeting (B.14). We would also like to share some thoughts on how to improve upon this process in the future. We are especially referring to the practice of “package approval” that was used to approve funding proposals and new accredited entities. Weak process. The Board approved 10 proposals worth $745 million without discussing each one separately. The Board’s assessment of each of the funding proposals should be made individually and with the utmost care, to ensure that the objectives, principles, policies, and operational modalities of the Fund are respected and complied with. Furthermore, there was no opportunity for active observers to highlight individual comments for each of the funding proposals (they could merely air some concerns during the overarching discussion of all funding proposals). The same can be said with regard to the package approval of eight accredited entities. There was no public discussion of the merits and/or shortcomings of each approved applicant entity and no possibility of civil society input. Civil society has vital contributions to make, and for our engagement to be meaningful, active observers must be given the opportunity to share important points regarding each proposal and accreditation application during Board meetings. Indeed, the Board’s way of working has actually been in conflict with the GCF’s own Governing Instrument, which states that “the Fund will operate in a transparent and accountable manner”. Approval despite clear failures of GCF policy compliance. The Board repeatedly overlooked the failure of a number of proposals to comply with GCF policies and procedures. For example, public notification for a number of projects was out of compliance with the Fund’s information disclosure policy, which requires a 120-day notification period for proposals with high social and environmental risk. Mandatory gender action plans were missing from several projects, and stakeholder consultations in some cases were highly inadequate. Yet the Board approved all of the projects with one package decision. The Board even pushed through proposals without the requisite guiding policy in place. For example, programs to be implemented via sub-projects were approved, yet the GCF does not have a policy regarding whether or not high risk sub-projects must come back to the Board for approval. We believe they should, to ensure the GCF’s accountability, and to preempt some of the serious environmental, development, and social shortcomings widely seen at other multilateral institutions that finance sub-projects via financial intermediaries. Precedent-setting. While the Board stated that “the approach taken to approving funding proposals at B.14 does not constitute a precedent,” we are concerned that, at this point, the Board has taken such an approach multiple times. Steps to put a stop to these modalities becoming the de facto modus operandi must be taken in the lead up to B.15, including: Timely public disclosure on the GCF’s own website that, at minimum, follows GCF rules (i.e. 120 days for ESIAs for high risk funding proposals, 30 days for medium risk, and three weeks prior to board meetings for all other materials). All annexes and the Secretariat’s due diligence should also be disclosed for funding proposals; Publication of applications for accreditation as soon as they are filed, as well as operationalization of formal mechanisms for third party input (from affected communities, indigenous peoples, civil society, etc.); Individual consideration of each funding proposal and each applicant for accreditation during public sessions of the Board; Opportunities to consider civil society interventions during the debate on each individual proposal, rather than at the end of agenda items; Where formal (or informal) working groups are established to consider conditions to be placed on proposals, there should be a clear process to allow the consideration of civil society feedback, at a minimum in writing, but preferably through the direct participation of the CSO active observers or their alternates; Discussions on more complex and/or controversial proposals require several rounds of debate. In these cases, civil society observers should be given the opportunity to make further interventions responding to new proposals, conditions and amendments. Civil society observers are committed to working with the Board to improve the accountability and transparency of Board decisions, in particular on funding and accreditation approvals. As a learning institution, the GCF needs to take the time to look at the merits of individual proposals and applicants in order to clearly elaborate how they can support the paradigm shift in recipient countries. We therefore urge the Board to better prioritize valuable time during the upcoming Board meetings to allow for meaningful discussions.
Read more