TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Apr26/02)
3 April 2026
Third World Network

Historic step: GCF Board approves regional offices in developing countries

New Delhi, 3 April (Radhika Chatterjee)- The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Board took a historic major step towards operationalising the Fund’s regional presence by agreeing on 5 host cities for regional offices in multiple developing countries. The decision was adopted at the forty-fourth meeting of the Board (B.44) held from March 25-28, 2026, in Songdo, South Korea.

The host cities selected include Panama City in Panama (serving Latin America and the Caribbean); Amman in Jordan (serving Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East); Nairobi in Kenya (serving East and Southern Africa); Abidjan in Côte d'Ivoire (serving Central, North and West Africa) as well as a sub-regional office in Suva, Fiji (serving the Pacific). The Board confirmed that the GCF headquarters in Songdo would cover East, Southeast and South Asia.

The host cities were selected following secret balloting among the Board members and the decision was adopted by consensus.

(The Board at its 42^nd meeting [B.42] had requested the Secretariat to launch a call for proposals to host GCF regional presence. In response to the call, 47 developing countries had submitted proposal to host such offices. They were then assessed against criteria which was also approved by the Board at B.42. Following the assessment, the Secretariat put forward two scenarios at B.44: one scenario tested a configuration of two offices in the African region; and scenario two presented a configuration of one office in Africa. The common elements across the two scenarios were that the GCF’s headquarters in Songdo would serve East, South-East and South Asia; there would be an outpost in the Pacific; and one regional office each in the Latin American and Caribbean, and the Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East regions.)

During the discussions, it emerged that developing country Board members expressed preference for the first scenario for establishment of two offices in Africa. The Small Island Developing States (SIDS) though, expressed their displeasure of being assigned an “outpost” rather than a full-fledged regional office. (In the final decision adopted, this was changed to a sub-regional office.) Developed countries were more favourable towards the second scenario. Extensive consultations happened throughout B.44 on the host cities as well as cost implications of having regional offices, which were raised by developed countries. Developed country Board members also stressed the need for achieving “budget neutrality” in this regard. (See highlights below of exchange on regional presence below).

A particular issue arose over whether the regional offices should be rolled out together, which was a preference of developing country members, or in a phased manner, which was the preference of most developed country members.

On the final day of the meeting, Hiroki Matsui (Japan) proposed language addition to the draft decision text to reflect a phased approach while operationalising regional offices. This was strongly opposed by Mohammad Ayoub (Saudi Arabia), Danyal Hasnain (Pakistan), Nino Tandilashvili (Georgia) and Antwi-Boasiako Amoah (Ghana). Given that no consensus could be reached on the phased approach, Japan’s proposed text was removed from the draft decision.

Matsui said he had repeatedly emphasized the need for a “phased-out” approach, adding that “When the United States (US) was in the room in B.42, she (the US Board member) did not join consensus and had insisted on a phased approach…I have the responsibility to reflect this realistic view…” (The US is no longer on the Board of the GCF.)

Responding to Japan, Ayoub said they must stick by what they had agreed and that a principled approach would be important for “sticking to fairness”, adding that Japan’s proposal would take the discussion backwards. Tandilashvili found Japan’s proposal “unacceptable” and Hasnain said it “opens a can of worms” and looks like a “filibuster approach”. Jose Delgado (Austria) also expressed explicit disagreement with Japan’s proposal and said it would lead members “away from convergence”.

Following the exchanges, in the decision adopted, the Board “requested the Secretariat to advance the operationalization of regional presence, and to ensure strict cost control throughout implementation, including the timely realization of efficiency gains and cost offsets, so as to achieve budget neutrality within five years from the entry into force of the first host country agreement and…maintain zero-real growth thereafter, relative to the final budget of that five-year period”.

The decision adopted also noted that “budget neutrality is understood to mean that the implementation and operational costs of regional offices are offset by corresponding operational savings and efficiency gains”. The Board also encouraged the host countries to “offset implementation costs, including through in-kind or financial contributions, to promote co-location with other international organizations where feasible, and to facilitate the timely provision of such support”.

The decision adopted also requested the Secretariat to develop “quantitative and qualitative indicators of the monitoring plan to support the assessment of the effectiveness of regional presence and capturing and applying lessons learned throughout the rollout of regional presence…”

In other decisions adopted, the Board approved USD 960.3 million to 18 new projects; approved the accreditation of 10 entities, including 6 direct access entities; adopted the decision on Guidance from the UNFCCC’s COP 30, as well as Co-Chair’s proposal on the Board workplan update for 2026 – 2027. (Further articles on these aspects will follow.)

Highlights of exchanges on the regional presence issue

Mohammad Ayoub (Saudi Arabia) said “cost effectiveness, portfolio size, multilingual approach, geographic balance” are important factors which should be looked at. He also said that it is important to have a representative office in an Arabic speaking country and expressed support for having two African offices. “We want to adhere to the technical assessment (of the Secretariat). We are making a decision on the future of the Fund, which needs to be in good faith, and should not be politicised…Choosing offices and cities that are best qualified to serve the purpose and balance the portfolios cannot happen if there is only one office in a large region like Africa with 54 countries.”

Isatou F. Camara (Gambia) supported the first scenario (with two offices in Africa) because it is the “only option that ensures regional presence, particularly in the African region.” She said it is critical for offices to remain close to national offices to support country ownership. She also said it is important to recognize that west African countries are most exposed to climate risks and systemic vulnerabilities.

Pacifica F. Ogola (Kenya) said there should not be delay in further decisions on the matter of regional presence. The cost of that delay “is borne by communities that cannot wait.” Aligning with the first scenario, she pointed out two regional offices in Africa was important given how wide the region is.

Hiroki Matsui (Japan) raised concerns about budget neutrality if regional offices are implemented and asked the Secretariat “to present in numerical terms how the increasing operating costs will be offset” by them. He said “budget neutrality must be achieved before a decision on regional offices is made.” He also said if operational costs are high then the “GCF must streamline and consider rolling back some other activities… [we] need to consider whether this is truly beneficial for our work.” Matsui stressed the need for “concrete plans for offsetting increasing operational costs” and said the “current geopolitical situation is narrowing efforts for international community. The primary purpose should be to improve overall GCF performance through reducing costs and improving the effectivity of GCF.”

Annette Windmeisser (Germany) said countries should demonstrate potential and active GCF portfolio, and factors like political relevance, operational stability and climate ambition “have to be prioritized.” Expressing a preference for the first scenario, she said “budget neutrality over time is non-negotiable” and recommended the “clear operationalistion of budget neutrality” with explicit clarification on how net costs would be reduced, emphasizing the need for offsetting establishment costs. She added that her seat supports the implementation plan and a “phased approach.”

Henrik Bergquist (Sweden) said there is need for a phased approach and that he “would have preferred to have an even smaller number of regional offices to begin with, keeping in mind how reform is progressing.” He expressed a preference for the second scenario and said it reflects “highest level of efficiency and prudence.”

Hans Olav Ibrekk (Norway) aligned with Japan’s intervention and said “a lot has happened since we made commitment to regional presence a year ago. We are not sure if we are heading in the right direction…we will do our utmost to find a common solution.” Stressing the importance of budget neutrality, he said there is a “need to put in place necessary safeguards to ensure this” and expressed doubts if that could be done in the short term, but that it could be done in the long term. He said there is a “need to focus on operational efficiency during implementation” and “to deliver results to achieve good replenishment.” He too expressed a preference for a phased approach and said the “Board needs to be informed and engaged whenever action needs to be taken.”

Other developed country board members like Jose Delgado (Austria), Ramon Lopez (Spain) and Sandra Louiszoon (Netherlands) shared similar positions on the importance of budget neutrality, need for operational efficiency, preference for a phased approach and the second scenario presented by the Secretariat.

Stéphane Cieniewski (France) said he could support the first scenario adding further that the cost implications would be key. “We are not seeking cost efficiency, but budget neutrality. This is much more demanding and will require strong monitoring process.”

Anna Merrifield (Finland) shared similar concerns as others on budget neutrality and said “we are in a sensitive global context. The United Nations is cutting back on its regional presence; there is a general trend of decreasing costs and official development assistance budgets. There is a clear reputational risk which needs to be kept in mind.” Expressing a preference for the second scenario, she said budget neutrality should be anchored with each regional office.” She also said there is a need for ensuring proper assessment of regional presence before end of the GCF’s third replenishment process.