You can watch the GCF B44 proceedings live and on demand here: https://www.greenclimate.fund/boardroom/meeting/b44
Full transcript of the interventions by the GCF Observer Network are available here: https://www.gcfwatch.org/resources/board-meeting-resources/44th-board-meeting-of-the-green-climate-fund-gcf
Day 2| March 26, 2026
The Co-Chair from Mali, Seyni Nafo, started the meeting at 10:11AM KST with an announcement that small groups were formed to help build consensus on Regional Presence and the Independent Redress Mechanism Compliance Report C-0009. He sought the cooperation of the Board Members in building consensus. The Board then opened the agenda item Status of the GCF Resources, Portfolio, and Pipeline.
Below is a summary of the presentations made by Director of Treasury Sean Ko, Director of Investment Services Achala Abeysinghe, ad interim Chief Investment Officer Amer Baig, and Director of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Oscar Garcia, to the Board.
| Resources and Commitment Authority | Accreditation, Readiness, and Project Preparation Facility | Portfolio and Pipeline | Impact and Results |
| Total pledges:
$29.9 billion Total received: $23.1 billion (or $25.6 billion if including investment incomes and reflows). $5.5 billion from GCF-2 has been received according to the payment schedule, without delay. The Secretariat expects the same for the rest and are following up. Commitments: $23.3 billion Total commitment authority (available to commit): $2.3 billion Note: This is a different amount from the $1.6 billion stated in the document |
Total number of AEs: 158 AEs (88 DAEs) – 12 from SIDS, 19 from LDCs, 29 from Africa
Approved Funding for Readiness: $749 million
Project Preparation Facility
|
Total number of projects: 336
Total funding for projects: $19.3 billion Total disbursements: $6.2 billion Portfolio if B44 FPs approved:
Number of CNs in pipeline: 144 (after retiring / prompting revision of 277 CNs) Number of FPs in pipeline: 46 (from 62) |
Emissions reduced:
96M tCO2eq Final target: 430M tCO2eq
Beneficiaries: 249 million Final target: 502 million Value of physical assets: $443 million Final target: $2.194 million USD Hectares of ecosystems under improved management: 33 million hectares Final target: 53 million hectares Co-benefits: 1 million jobs created, and 24 projects delivering health co-benefits |
Many developed country BMs were pleased to see the substantial level of funding for private sector projects at 36%, as well as the proportion of over more than half of multi-regional proposals involving the private sector. Developed country BMs were also united in calling for an even greater participation of the private sector and increased mobilization of “innovative financing.” In addition, the BM from Germany urged the placement of a dedicated section on Complementarity and Coherence into the document, in order to enhance alignment of portfolio and pipeline with other multilateral climate funds — a position supported by other developed country BMs. The BM from Sweden also encouraged all countries to contribute to the Fund.
Meanwhile, the BM from Uruguay mentioned the need to scale up both public and private finance. While the BM from Ghana was encouraged to see a rise in private sector engagement, he also pointed out that private sector engagement has been convoluted, prompting him to seek further clarity from the Secretariat on what specific types of entities make up the private sector engagement of the GCF. The BM from Sweden also sought clarity from the Secretariat on emission reduction activities in the private sector pipeline.
Though many BMs were happy with the mitigation and adaptation benefits reported in the GCF portfolio, the BM from Egypt flagged that the GCF portfolio’s reported 96 million MtCO2e of emission reductions was actually very incremental when measured against the gigatons of emissions reductions needs of developing countries and the ambition set out in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). He further said that the impact reporting of the GCF’s delivery must be on the basis of comparing what is written in the Governing Instrument and what is written in the Updated Strategic Plan, rather than the co-benefits written in Section 6.2.2 of the report.
The BM from Egypt also expressed concern that developing countries were being made to increase their ambition without a corresponding increase in finance to support implementation, setting an impossible expectation for developing countries and signaling a departure from the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). He further argued that grant equivalents must not be split 50-50 between mitigation and adaptation; instead, adaptation must have more grants as stated in the Paris Agreement. The BM from Egypt ended his intervention with a recommendation to pursue emerging technologies such as direct air capture. In line with this, the BM from China noted room for improvement in scaling up investment in renewable energy and green AI.
On a similar note, the BM from Pakistan conveyed disappointment in the developed country BMs’ proposal to scale up innovative financing, which he viewed as a convenient way for developed countries to skirt their climate finance obligations. He stated that developing countries have been told for decades to believe in international law and the rules-based order, but climate negotiations supposedly guided by the principle of CBDR-RC, and against the backdrop of growing inequality between developed and developing countries, have been focused on prescribing developing countries to increase ambition, rather than compelling developed countries to fulfill their fair share of climate action and deliver climate finance.
Many BMs were disappointed with the persistent gap between approval and disbursement, prompting them to call upon the Secretariat to address bottlenecks. Some warned that this delay in disbursement may significantly affect discussions on replenishment. Many BMs welcomed the prioritization of DAE accreditation. However, developing country BMs noted the significant imbalance in the portfolio between IAE and DAE composition (80% and 20% respectively), and thus raised the continued constraints faced by DAEs in terms of capacity to develop concept notes and funding proposals, as well as implement projects. In line with this, developing country BMs called to strengthen the Project Preparation Facility and Readiness Programme, particularly the DAE window, recognizing their role in increasing uptake by DAEs.
Across constituencies, BMs expressed appreciation for the Secretariat’s innovation in reporting the status of resources, portfolio, and pipeline, pertaining to its pivot to more results-based reporting. The CSO AO from Developed Countries, however, noted that the report in its current form has left out several critical and previously provided details, such as calculations on the available commitment authority. She also questioned the report’s claim that adaptation financing is now at 59% in grant equivalent terms, given that the portfolio is largely driven by energy access and power generation. She further drew attention to the reporting of co-financing based on ex-ante calculations, against the backdrop of many projects failing to secure their intended co-financing commitments. Finally, she further flagged the increase in IAE-dominated medium- to large-scale projects and supported the calls of developing country BMs for greater support to the DAE window.
The Consideration of Accreditation Proposals was next on the agenda, and began with the Co-Chair from Sweden asking the Board to declare any potential conflict of interest with the applicant entities. No conflicts of interest were declared.
Achala Abeysinghe, Director of Investment Services from the Secretariat, presented the progress on the transition to the Revised Accreditation Framework (RAF). It can be recalled that at B42, the Board adopted the RAF which established 2 windows for accreditation each year, enabled self-nomination based on a set of guidelines, and suspended the re-accreditation process, among other reforms. Notably, Abeysinghe reported that 60% of entities invited to the first application window were DAEs.
Diana Isiye, Chair of the Accreditation Panel, then presented the 12 accreditation proposals for the Board’s consideration, featuring 6 DAEs including the first from the State of Palestine, 1 DAE from the African State (Nigeria), and 1 DAE from SIDS (Barbados). Isiye also clarified that as part of the transition process to the RAF, some accreditation proposals are still being reviewed under the previous Accreditation Framework, per preference of the applicant. Thus, both the RAF and previous Accreditation Framework are currently happening in parallel. The 12 accreditation applicants are listed below, as well as any comments made by the Board:
- APL163: Bank of Bhutan Limited (DAE, Bhutan)
- APL 164: Eldik Bank Open Joint-Stock Company (DAE, Kyrgyzstan)
- APL165: Municipal Development and Lending Fund (DAE, State of Palestine)
- The BMs from Egypt and Pakistan congratulated the entity and expressed support for the application.
- The BM from Egypt noted that the National Designated Authority (NDA) of the State of Palestine had reached out to the seat concerning the proposal.
- The BM from Pakistan argued that the high risk in the State of Palestine must not preclude investment as the circumstances surrounding the risk were imposed on them.
- APL166: Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority (DAE, Nigeria)
- The BM from France noted that the climate strategy of the entity was still at the early stage of implementation, and suggested a follow-up on this.
- The BM from Ghana congratulated Nigeria for the approval.
- APL167: Asian Forest Cooperation Organization (DAE, Republic of Korea)
- APL168: Caribbean Export Development Agency (DAE, Barbados)
- The BM from Kiribati expressed strong support for this application.
- APL169: Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (IAE)
- The Alternate BM from Nepal congratulated and vouched for the entity.
- APL170: Catholic Relief Services – United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (IAE)
- APL171: World Health Organization (IAE)
- APL172: World Vision Australia (IAE)
- Upgrade from medium size with grants, to small size with on-lending or blending: Conservation International Foundation (IAE)
- Upgrade from small to medium size, and from basic fiduciary standards to specialized fiduciary standard: Save the Children Australia (IAE)
The BM from Egypt registered disagreement with certain paragraphs of the accreditation proposal documents on the basis that he believed these paragraphs to be a misapplication of GCF accreditation policies. These paragraphs revolved around the respective entities’ climate policies, plans, or track record. Meanwhile, the CSO AO from Developing Countries, starting with a message of solidarity for the people of Palestine, commented that all new applicants were recommended for accreditation with conditions, when under the RAF, these applicants would have failed the initial screening requirements and would have been unable to address many of the AP’s identified gaps under the now-approved 2-month application window. He also emphasized the need to focus on supporting newly accredited DAEs in bringing forward successful funding proposals.
The CSO AO from Developing Countries posed a question to the Accreditation Panel on why and through what procedure the Africa Finance Corporation (AFC), a private sector entity accredited as an IAE, was re-classified as a DAE. Abeysinghe responded that this is because the AFC shared their intent with the Accreditation Panel to operate nationally, and the Accreditation Panel found that the AFC was consistent with the DAE requirements. Such a re-classification, she clarified, did not require a Board decision.
Regardless, all above accreditation applications were approved by the Board. Moving on to the Consideration of Funding Proposals, ad interim Chief Investment Officer Amer Baig presented an overview of the 18 funding proposals being brought to the Board for consideration. These total $960.3 million, and comprise 7 DAE proposals, 6 IAE proposals, and 6 proposals under the Project-specific Assessment Approach (PSAA), with 8 FPs being adaptation-only. If all FPs are approved by the Board, grants would make up for 51% of funding among the FPs passed this B44, while equity would marginally overtake loans at 18% and 17% respectively. Before review by the independent Technical Assessment Panel (iTAP), 19 FPs were intended for the Board’s consideration, but 1 was not cleared by iTAP, leading to a reduction in the total number of FPs for the Board’s consideration to 18.
Several BMs made comments. The BM from Egypt disagreed with elements of the assessments for FP290, FP296, FP297, and FP298, though he did not elaborate on his disagreement. The BM from China, pertaining to FP291, FP293, and FP302, said that GCF stakeholders should fully comply and respect the One China policy. The Alternate BM from Belgium reiterated the need to streamline the approval process and delegate authority according to risk thresholds, encouraged further private sector mobilization on FPs, and said that concessionality would have to be revisited in the leadup to GCF-3.
The CSO AO from Developed Countries raised concerns on the trends and dynamics observable among FPs, both for this batch and over time. She viewed positively the indicator that there are 12 single-country projects for this batch, noting that many multi-country programmatic proposals have never actually delivered subprojects for their intended countries. She also followed up on long-delayed policy guidance on programmatic approaches, noticing that 8 of the FPs for B44 were classified as programmes. She added that since the full subproject pipelines of programmes are not confirmed prior to approval, selection criteria, and indicative sectoral and geographic distributions, and subproject Gender Action Plans must be made visible for programmes. The CSO AO further flagged a lowering of standards in assessing PSAA applicants relative to usual standards in assessing regular funding proposals, and emphasized the crucial role of the accreditation process and the AP. Finally, the CSO AO reiterated long-standing concerns on the promotion of “nature-based solutions” and “climate-smart agriculture,” as well as the displacement and marginalization of local and traditional knowledge, and advocated for climate solutions that are locally led.
The 18 FPs for the Board’s consideration are summarized below:
| Funding Proposals | Comments | Status |
| SAP066 SCALE – Strengthening Chad’s Adaptation for Land, Ecosystems and Smallholders
Accredited Entity: ACTED GCF Funding: $25.0 million Public/Private: Public |
Several BMs supported the proposal, but the BM from Sweden and Alternate BM from Uganda raised concerns on operational integrity, safeguards, and proper involvement of local stakeholders. The CSO AO from Developing Countries also raised concerns on the lack of engagement with Indigenous Peoples in the project area during Concept Note and Funding Proposal development. She noted that the FP declared that no Indigenous Peoples were present in the project area despite the Association for Indigenous Women and Peoples of Chad (AFPAT) mapping otherwise.
The BM from the United Kingdom noted that the Embassy of the United Kingdom met with the AE, and she welcomed their commitment to address the iTAP recommendations. The CSO AO added that the AE consulted with the AFPAT, albeit only one day before B44, and agreed to ensure engagement and a formal partnership with Indigenous Peoples. |
APPROVED |
| SAP067 Catalyzing a Climate Risk Protection Shield for Zambian Smallholder Farmers
PSAA Applicant: MoFNP_ZMB GCF Funding: $25.0 million Public/Private: Public |
There were no comments from the Board. | APPROVED |
| SAP068 Scaling up national adaptive capacities for climate change-driven natural hazards through strengthening monitoring and early warning systems (Armenia)
Accredited Entity: EPIU GCF Funding: $9.5 million Public/Private: Public |
The BM from France asked whether Red Cross will be involved in the project, which the AE affirmed, and elaborated that Red Cross has long been consulted throughout the process. The BM from France also recommended for the AE to collaborate with Armenia to comply with the global standards set by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) for weather stations.
The BMs from Georgia, Belgium, and Spain expressed support for the project. |
APPROVED |
| SAP069 Strengthening Community Resilience to the Adverse Effects of Climate Change with an Emphasis on Food Security and Gender Considerations in Priority Areas of Ecuador – FORECCSA+
Accredited Entity: IICA GCF Funding: $23.4 million Public/Private: Public |
While acknowledging the project’s country ownership, the CSO AO from Developed Countries communicated concerns about the revision of the original project to include a parallel partnership with BanEcuador, and the estimation of the number of direct beneficiaries to include only 30% women. To this, the AE argued that its 30% target was realistic and that it assured that it is committed to promote women leadership and gender equity.
The Alternate BM from Costa Rica welcomed the project. |
APPROVED |
| FP289 Building Urban Climate Resilience through Nature-based Solutions in Ethiopia
Accredited Entity: KOICA GCF Funding: $25.0 million Public/Private: Public |
The BMs from Japan, Italy, and France supported the proposal. | APPROVED |
| FP290 PURE Rural Mozambique Climate Project: Driving Mozambique’s climate resilience through energy access and climate-smart Productive Use of Renewable Energy
Accredited Entity: Enabel GCF Funding: $44.2 million Public/Private: Public |
The BM from France and Germany expressed full support for the project under the condition that the iTAP’s recommendations would be met. The BM from Germany also recommended selecting project sites based on vulnerability, increasing flexibility for minigrid developers, and coordinating with other minigrid developers in the region for learning.
The Alternate BM from Switzerland had reservations about the allocation of significant funding to strengthening a national institution instead of doing such capacitation through the Readiness Programme. Though she was supportive of the iTAP recommendations, she asked why the iTAP was not able to rate several of the criteria, to which the iTAP answered that its headline ratings are currently only for medium and large projects. The CSO AO from Developing Countries was concerned about the relatively low number of direct and indirect project beneficiaries despite 9,000 targeted electricity connections, as well as the low standards in scoring minigrid developers against gender criteria, among other concerns. |
APPROVED |
| FP291 ASCENT-GREEN: Resilient Energy
Access for Inclusive Development (Botswana, Burundi, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe) Accredited Entity: World Bank GCF Funding: $250 million Public/Private: Public |
The BMs from Japan and Norway supported the proposal, the latter after the AE had answered its questions, confirming that the project is part of the target countries’ priorities.
Other BMs had concerns. The BMs from Sweden and Netherlands welcomed the project but highlighted the need to ensure minimal or decreasing concessionality, intended only to enable the entry of the private sector. The Alternate BM from Belgium flagged the low disbursement rates by the AE. The BM from Botswana was concerned about the lack of coordination with national entities and therefore lack of country ownership. He also raised concerns about transparency as an annex was only provided to the Board a day before and presented only aggregated rather than disaggregated data. Meanwhile, the concern relayed by the BM from Uganda was about the uncertainty in how risks would be distributed across the 21 countries covered by the project. The BMs from Botswana and Uganda therefore asked for more time to consider the proposal. The CSO AO from Developed Countries had its own concerns, particularly about the integrity failings of carbon markets, the low target for financing women-owned/led companies, and the risks to community safety that comes with deploying security personnel just to protect assets in fragile or conflict affected areas. Finally, the CSO AO warned that the AE’s lack of direct oversight or responsibility in proper disposal of electronic wastes risks long-term soil and water contamination in the communities it intends to help. |
SUSPENDED |
| FP292 Scaling climate-smart solutions for hardest-to-reach MSMEs and farmers
in Kenya (CST Facility) Accredited Entity: KCB GCF Funding: $43.6 million Public/Private: Private |
The BMs from Kenya, United Kingdom, and Italy supported the proposal. | APPROVED |
| FP293 Food Securities Fund Accountable Cocoa and Coffee Tranche (Costa Rica, Cote
d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nigeria, Peru, Rwanda, Uganda) PSAA Applicant: Clarmondial GCF Funding: $56 million Public/Private: Private |
Many BMs supported the proposal for different reasons including scalability, replicability, and the AE’s track record.
The BMs from Japan and Netherlands warned that GCF may be affording the project too much concessionality given the long duration of project implementation. The Alternate BM from Belgium also asked how the project intends to manage the present financial risk in the cocoa sector. The AE responded that it is very hopeful that it will receive more private sector co-financing because of GCF’s catalytic role, and will learn from past and present reviews. The BM from Uganda asked about how the project will manage risk for smallholder farmers, and to this the AE responded that it is not smallholder farmers that will pay for loans but small aggregators such as businesses or cooperatives. The CSO AO from Developed Countries delivered an intervention on the proposal’s I-3 categorization, which means it would do no harm, despite its nature being the injection of additional capital into agricultural value chains. As an I-3 proposal, no environmental and social impact assessment was required, and it would also not need to disclose information on subprojects. The CSO AO was also disappointed to see the project’s low target in employing women workers. The Private Sector AO vouched for the AE’s credibility, the project’s quality, and the alignment of the project with other multilateral climate funds thereby strengthening complementarity and coherence. |
APPROVED |
| FP294 Vietnam REDD-plus results-based payments for results period of 2014
Accredited Entity: JICA GCF Funding: $72 million Public/Private: Public |
The BM from Japan and Norway supported the proposal.
The Alternate BM from Switzerland cautioned against confusing forest reforestation with monoculture tree plantations, and urged the payments for non-carbon benefits to be disbursed only after independent verification has been done. The BM from Netherlands expressed readiness to approve the proposal after clarification on whether local financial institutions and private investors are expected to co-finance field activities, and what indicators it will use to track changes in women’s and ethnic minorities’ control over resources and benefits. The AE replied that it has not identified particular private sector parties but Vietnam’s establishment of a national forest carbon market would encourage the participation of the private sector. The AE also expressed willingness to collaborate with both the private sector and Vietnam government. |
APPROVED |
| FP295 Establishing Climate Resilient, Regenerative Agricultural (CRRA) systems in Tonga, Vanuatu and Samoa
Accredited Entity: SPC GCF Funding: $42.1 million Public/Private: Public |
The BMs from Kiribati and Australia supported the proposal.
The BM from Spain, supported by the BM from France, and the BM from Netherlands asked questions on how the project will ensure financial continuity in the medium and long-term, whether the AE can provide a full Gender Action Plan (GAP), and through what grievance mechanism the AE will address grievances. The AE clarified that the program is self-sustaining in that it functions like a seed bank enabling common access to inputs; that a GAP was submitted as part of the FP package; and that grievance mechanisms will be developed on a subproject basis. |
APPROVED |
| FP296 Navis Decarbonization Fund I (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand)
PSAA Applicant: Navis GCF Funding: $60 million Public/Private: Private |
Only the CSO AO and PS AO intervened. The CSO AO from Developing Countries revolved primarily around the blind pool nature of the FP, which asks the GCF to fund projects with no clear pipelines and no sectoral or geographic targets, likening this to a blank cheque handed to fund managers. The CSO AO also expressed worry about the lack of safeguards against unsustainable biofuel expansion, the lack of a publicly available grievance system, DEI policy, or gender policy, and the lack of meaningful civil society engagement.
The PS AO vouched for the track record of the AE. |
APPROVED |
The Board also discussed the Reports from Board Committees, Panels, and Groups where Isatou Camara, BM from Gambia, was appointed as a member of the Investment Committee; Bob Natifu, Alternate BM from Uganda, as a member of the Risk Management Committee; and Balisi Gopolang, Alternate BM from Botswana, as a member of the Risk Management Committee. The session concluded at 6:28PM KST.
