|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Climate Change (Apr26/03) New Delhi, 6 April (Radhika Chatterjee) — The Board of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) agreed on the roadmap to its updated strategic plan for the period 2028-2031 (USP 3) at its 44th meeting (B.44) in Songdo, South Korea, held from 25-28 March 2026. The Board also engaged in an intense discussion on the status of GCF’s resources as well as on its pipeline and portfolio performance as regards funding proposals, in the backdrop of preparations for its forthcoming third replenishment (GCF 3) for the period 2028-2031. During B.44, the Board approved USD 960.3 million to 18 new projects, accredited 10 entities, of which 6 were direct access entities (DAE). In a historic decision, it approved a DAE from the State of Palestine, a first for the GCF. Funding proposals approved The following funding proposals were approved:
Entities accredited The following entities were approved for accreditation:
The Board also adopted a decision on regional presence (see related update). Roadmap to Updated Strategic Plan The USP sets out the Board’s long-term strategic vision for the Fund. According to the Board document presented at B.44, “USP 3 will guide the fund in its contribution to delivery of [the] New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) [on finance]”. [In the NCQG decision adopted in 2024, Parties had decided “that a significant increase of public resources should be provided through the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism…and…to pursue efforts to at least triple annual outflows from those Funds from 2022 levels by 2030…” (The GCF is an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention.)] The Board discussed USP 3 in an informal setting prior to B.44. According to sources who spoke to TWN, developing countries expressed during the meeting that the GCF’s replenishment should remain focused and ambitious, and that sovereign grants should be central to it. Sources also said that developed country Board members spoke about geopolitics not being conducive as regards replenishment, which necessitated broadening the contributor base. They also told TWN that developed countries are apparently in a “dilemma”, due to ongoing competition for funds among International Development Assistance (IDA) and the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) replenishments, the timelines of which are similar to the GCF’s. Developed country members also said that potential new contributors should be engaged early in the replenishment process. Reflecting on budget cuts in their countries, developed country members said that these cuts are significantly impacting their official development assistance, and called for balance sheet optimisation, as well as efficient governance of the GCF and to explore contributions from alternative sources. [Policies for contributions from alternative sources came up during the discussion on the Board workplan update for 2026-27 because it features in the workplan for B.45. “We do not share the view that the policy for contributions from alternative sources takes precedence over the policy for contributions,” said Mohammad Ayoub (Saudi Arabia) during the Board workplan discussions at the formal Board meeting. He added that formulating a policy on alternative contributions ahead of the policy on contributions would not be the right signal to send. In this context, he also mentioned that there were different views on “whether a policy for contributions from alternative sources is even needed, given that the policy for contributions itself contains that information.” Following his intervention, several developed country Board members took the floor and emphasised that the policy on contributions and policy on contributions from alternative sources were equally important for a successful the GCF 3 replenishment process. No decision was taken on the workplan, but the Board took note of the document.] During the formal Board meeting discussions on the USP 3, developing country Board members highlighted the importance of scaling up adaptation finance and incorporating lessons from the USP 2 process, as well as the third performance review of the Fund. Developed country board members underscored the current complicated geopolitical context, the need for viewing the GCF in the broader context of multilateral funds and private sector mobilisation as being key to GCF 3’s success. Richard Bontjer (Australia) said USP 3 will be developed in the context of a constrained and complex global environment which needs to be taken into account. He said there is a need for expanding the donor base and using innovative financing, and that there is a need to view the value of GCF in the broader system of multilateral funds. He added further that the USP 3 should build on the third performance review, and the work on the GCF’s gender action plan, and policies on indigenous peoples should be brought into the development of USP 3. Sandra Loiuszoon (Netherlands) said the focus should be on increased mobilization of private sector finance and called it the “central part” of a successful third replenishment. She asked for a greater reliance on innovative instruments like blended finance and increasing engagement with domestic banks, national financial institutions to strengthen the Fund’s work in country ownership and leadership. Following the discussions, in the decision that was adopted, the Board took note of the roadmap for USP 3 prepared by Co-Chairs Seyni Nafo (Mali) and Leif Holmberg (Sweden). According to the roadmap, there will be two retreats — the first one along the margins of the 45th Board meeting (B.45) in Tajikistan and the second retreat in Germany in January 2027, with the aim of adopting USP 3 by the second board meeting in 2027. Board members are also expected to decide on the arrangements for the third replenishment period at B.45. The Co-Chairs will gather views from the Board members through a survey and all stakeholders through an open call for submissions, expected to be launched in April/May 2026. Status of GCF’s resources, pipeline and portfolio performance During the discussions, developing country Board members emphasised the need for having more coherence between international cooperation on climate action and the GCF’s work, and pointed out that asking developing countries to increase climate ambition without increasing the support available to them was incoherent. They also spoke about the importance of adaptation and expressed concerns over low disbursements in this regard. Developed country Board members on the other hand emphasised the importance of scaling up GCF’s reliance on private sector funding. The Secretariat informed the Board that across the portfolio of USD 16.6 billion with 293 projects under implementation, disbursements stood at USD 6.2 billion across 262 projects. Developing country members highlighted the need for increasing GCF funding access through DAEs and expressed concern that much of GCF’s resources were being channelled via international access entities. Some developing country Board members also called for support for pipeline development (of project proposals) in developing countries. Ayoub (Saudi Arabia) referred to the numbers in the presentation by the Secretariat that 96 million tonnes CO2 equivalent were reduced in 2025, and said this number was cumulative, and not annual. “So, it is actually very incremental when we are talking about the needs of developing countries in relation to their plans…” He also said that there is a need for gigatonnes of CO2-eq reductions whereas in the GCF, the discussion is still in million tonnes of CO2 eq. This, he said, reflects “complete incoherence in terms of expectation and reality.” He also said that “developing countries are expected to continuously submit plans”, which “represent progression upon previous efforts and for that, there needs to be enhanced climate ambition”. He also underscored that there is a need to position the GCF as “the main vehicle of support to ensure that those countries that require that support have the ability to implement this effort.” He added the USD 4 billion that remains unpaid from confirmed contributions is a key bottleneck, and that in order to be coherent, “we cannot on the one hand have reduced expectations for support, and then on the other hand, have enhanced expectations for action.” [The amount pledged during GCF’s second replenishment period (2024-27) was USD 10.6 billion from 35 contributors. The Secretariat reported that of the USD 10.6 billion pledges, all the 35 contributors had confirmed all or part of their pledges amounting to around USD 10 billion. Of this amount, USD 5.5 billion had already been received and the rest (USD 4.5billion) had not been paid. The Secretariat said it was expecting the contributions as per the agreed schedule.] Danyal Hasnain (Pakistan) said, “For decades, developing countries have been told to believe in international cooperation and a rules-based order… Now the situation of developed countries is changing. We are facing the heat of geopolitics…. We in South Asia might not be Least Developed Countries [LDCs] or Small Island Developing States [SIDs], but we are very vulnerable to climate change too,” said Hasnain. He also echoed the need for having greater focus on adaptation and said, “My country has a negligible carbon footprint. Mitigation is important, but practically, we need more attention on adaptation.” Min Tian (China) expressed a preference for scaling up funding in renewable energy projects and welcomed enhancing country ownership and the GCF’s role in enhancing multilateral global climate governance. Isatou F. Camara (Gambia) said that “we have USD19.3 billion committed but only USD 6.2 billion has been disbursed. This is basically roughly one-third of resources actually reaching countries: and that this needs to be fixed. She also said there was a mismatch between the numbers and narratives on country ownership. Even though 67% of the accredited entities are direct access entities, “the flow of finance is still largely being intermediated through international entities and access in form is not translating into access in capital especially for LDCs.” She cautioned “against equating readiness support with delivery at scale” and said the readiness grants such as the USD 93 million allocated to LDCs for National Adaptation Plans processes are essential for capacity building, which “would not be counted as climate finance reaching countries in the same way as projects or programme funding because we believe doing so risks over stating projects and programmes.” To fully realize the fund’s mandate, the Secretariat must now lay a stronger emphasis on delivery, accessibility and tangible impact, particularly for the most vulnerable countries. Antwi-Boasiako Amoah (Ghana) said the Secretariat should be intentional in supporting DAEs. Referring to the increasing participation of the private sector in GCF’s activities, he said, “their engagement is very convoluted” and asked for disaggregated data on the nature of private sector organisations and what kinds of things they focus on participating. Balisi Gopolang (Botswana) said it should be ensured that direct access is fully reflected in resource allocation. Pointing to the gap between readiness support and development funding proposals, he said, “Many countries face challenges in converting concept notes into proposals” and that they “need “stronger support for pipeline development, particularly for first time submissions.” He encouraged the Secretariat to streamline the post approval process to reduce the gap between commitment and disbursement. He said adaptation projects often require higher grant components and highlighted the need for offering greater flexibility to financing, specially by the private sector and asked for consideration of the appropriateness of different instruments for different country contexts. Teuea Toatu (Kiribati) said there is a need to move beyond aggregate numbers and asked what percentage of adaptation resources is flowing to the SIDS, and asked the Secretariat to prepare a supplementary annex with a lens of 50% adaptation focus and a regional focus on SIDS. Mayasuki Nakamura (Japan) encouraged the Secretariat to ensure that private sector participation increases in GCF and adaptation projects allocated to SIDS and LDCs are increased too. He said these two indicators constitute an important part of Japan’s assessment of GCF performance. Andrew Hurst (Canada) also echoed the importance of private sector participation and called it critical for GCF’s agenda. He also asked the Secretariat to provide information on “whether and how the private sector have been engaged across those country platform processes that readiness is supporting.” Other developed country members too echoed the importance of increasing private sector funding and engagement in GCF. The next board meeting for this year will be held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, from June 29 to July 2, 2026.
|
||
