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 3 | March 27, 2026
Continuing the discussion on the Consideration of Funding Proposals from the previous day, the Board deliberated on the remaining FPs presented for B44, summarized below:
| Funding Proposals | Comments | Status |
| FP297 CC Asia Climate Fund (Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Uzbekistan)
PSAA Applicant: CC GSH GCF Funding: $37.5 million Public/Private: Private |
The BMs from Germany, Japan, and Spain supported the proposal. The Private Sector Observer also echoed support. The Alternate BM from Japan requested the AE to do a broad outreach to raise awareness and build partnerships for the project in Mongolia, including with domestic and international companies, and academic and research institutes. The BM from Spain noted that the FP will complement existing IFI financing in the area, and noted that Uzbekistan intends to host the next GEF assembly in June.
The CSO AO from Developing Countries questioned the presentation of the applicant as a small entity despite its backing by states and a conglomerate, the lack of due diligence from the Secretariat, and the project’s unclear investment pipeline and lacking gender considerations, as well as the entity’s poor track record. The CSO AO also recalled the iTAP’s comment that there is insufficient assurance that this FP would prioritize climate impact over financial gain. |
APPROVED |
| FP298 Climate Resilience of the Water Sector in The Bahamas
Accredited Entity: CDB GCF Funding: $50.1 million Public/Private: Public |
Many BMs supported the proposal. Citing the need for minimal concessionality, the BM from Sweden asked how the balance between grants and loans was determined. The AE replied that the FP aims to support the most vulnerable communities in the Bahamas after a devastating hurricane destroyed water infrastructure.
The Alternate BM from Uganda, referring to the iTAP’s recommendations, how the loan payments and tariff adjustments in the FP would not generate burdens that would be shifted to communities. The AE assured that the obligations of the loan financing would not affect the most vulnerable, and changing the water structure would have to be approved by the government and was consulted with affected populations. The Co-Chair from Mali shared the same concerns as the Alternate BM from Uganda after the Board’s approval of the proposal. |
APPROVED |
| FP299 ADAPT Jamaica: Enhancing climate
change resilience of vulnerable smallholders in Central Jamaica Accredited Entity: FAO GCF Funding: $40.6 million Public/Private: Public |
The BMs from Costa Rica and Kiribati supported the project. | APPROVED |
| FP300 Peru’s Natural Legacy – Amazon & Climate: Effective Management of Peruvian Amazon Protected Areas for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Accredited Entity: WWF GCF Funding: $37.5 million Public/Private: Public |
The BMs from Costa Rica and Italy supported the project. The Co-Chair from Mali marked that FP300 is a milestone number. | APPROVED |
| FP301 Responsible Commodities Facility – Deforestation and Conversion Free: Finance for soy production in the Cerrado, Brazil (RCF-DCF Project)
PSAA Applicant: SIM GCF Funding: $85.0 million Public/Private: Private |
Many BMs, as well as the Private Sector Observer, supported the project. The BM from Canada sought for updates from the AE on co-financing, and the AE answered that they already have interested investors lined up. The BM from Norway asked how producers with a higher propensity for deforestation were consulted, to which the AE responded that affected stakeholders were mapped and fully involved in project development.
The CSO AO from Developed Countries called on the Board not to approve the proposal for a variety of concerns including the PSAA’s limited track record and lack of a standalone gender policy and the FP’s weak safeguards, speculative mitigation claims, and lack of stakeholder consultations. The CSO AO was also wary that GCF would be dedicating substantial resources to benefit commercial soy farmers with no benefit for smallholders, rural communities, or Indigenous peoples, and in fact, through the FP’s leakage risks, would negatively impact Indigenous and Quilombola territories. |
APPROVED |
| FP302 EcoEnterprises Partners IV (Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Peru) PSAA Applicant: EcoEnterprises GCF Funding: $34.0 million Public/Private: Private |
The BMs from Kiribati, Germany, and Nicaragua supported the proposal, along with the Private Sector Observer.
The CSO AO from Developing Countries deplored the proposal for yet another private equity fund that is three times the size of the PSAA applicant’s predecessor funds. This, despite the PSAA applicant’s two-person E&S team and lack of an internal audit function, history of reporting on R&S risks, and standalone gender and Indigenous Peoples policy. The CSO AO was also concerned about the FP’s lack of additionality and transformative impact. |
APPROVED |
| FP291 ASCENT-GREEN: Resilient Energy
Access for Inclusive Development (21 countries) Accredited Entity: World Bank GCF Funding: $250 million Public/Private: Public |
Consideration of this FP was suspended during the session yesterday and was resumed today. The Co-Chair from Mali foregrounded that the AE held consultations with BMs in between sessions. There were no further comments from the Board. | APPROVED |
| FP252 Acumen Resilient Agriculture Fund II (Morocco, Nigeria, Uganda, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ghana)
Accredited Entity: Acumen Fund, Inc. GCF Funding: $34 million Public/Private: Private |
This FP asked for an extension to arrange its Funded Activity Agreement (FAA) for the second time. The Secretariat recommended the FP’s request for extension, and there were no comments from the Board. | APPROVED |
Following the approval of all funding proposals presented to the Board, the Board proceeded to discuss the Report on Activities of the Secretariat, for which Mafalda Duarte, Executive Director, delivered a presentation. Duarte reported that 106 or 67% of the total number of AEs are DAEs, and that the Readiness Strategy brought important changes such as lifting the annual cap on readiness programming and creating a new DAE window focused on supporting DAEs to access climate finance even beyond the GCF. She also announced that 2025 was a record year of programming with 50 FPs delivering $3.6 billion across 81 countries, and with more results being observed among underserved countries due to the operationalization of the Locally Led Climate Action (LLCA) Framework. She also shared an allocation of $927 million to private sector programming, with a co-financing amount of $8.3 billion, way above GCF average. Finally, she reported the implementation of a new job architecture and salary structure, the integration of private sector specialists to regional departments, and the continued implementation of key reforms such as the ‘efficient GCF’ initiative, updated Monitoring and Accountability Framework (MAF), RAF, and regional presence.
Duarte also shared plans to accredit at least 1 DAE per country and facilitate closer South-South exchange and collaboration. She also shared that the Secretariat is undertaking a review on disbursement bottlenecks, aimed at identifying the structural issues preventing project implementation and the measures that can be put in place to accelerate it. Further, she promised to present a proposal on the enhanced management of financial and treasury risks by B45, and the new country ownership guidelines, currently being developed, by B46. Finally, she divulged plans to launch a new communications and branding strategy.
BMs thanked and congratulated the Executive Director and the Secretariat for major improvements in the function of the GCF, and afterwards made several comments. Many BMs called to expand the composition of DAEs, close the gap between funding approval and disbursement, and strengthen country ownership in the upcoming guidelines. Developed country BMs encouraged more efforts to enhance complementarity and coherence with other multilateral climate funds (particularly aimed at reducing duplication and overlap), reduce burdens for entities seeking GCF financing, maximize the catalytic effect of the Fund, and further increase private sector participation. Many BMs declared their confidence in the Secretariat’s ability to navigate through challenging contexts especially as several reforms are being simultaneously implemented, and as diverging views emerge ahead of USP-3 and the replenishment process. The BM from the Netherlands, however, warned that the Secretariat’s reform load could pose a risk to delivery.
Meanwhile, the CSO AO from Developed Countries problematized the integration of the Private Sector Facility into regional departments, the lack of clarity concerning how private sector activities and priorities are defined and implemented, and the preeminence of private sector participation at the expense of other GCF priorities. The CSO AO also expressed concern over the lack of provisions on how the Secretariat intends to strengthen DAE proposals or increase financing to DAEs. She further argued that the change in branding that the Fund should undertake is that of ensuring greater transparency for the rollout of country platforms, the operationalization of the updated Monitoring and Accountability Framework, and project-level documents and processes that would enable communities to access information, engage, and seek accountability and redress if need be. She also communicated concern about the use of AI in decision-making and the lack of details on how and where AI is being deployed to do this. She concluded her intervention by urging the GCF to go beyond consulting with the IPAG towards engaging directly with Indigenous Peoples and proactively upholding the GCF Indigenous Peoples Policy. Afterwards, the Board noted the document.
The Board then deliberated on the Report on the Execution of the Administrative Budget. On this agenda item, developed country BMs probed excess spending on consultancy (representing 142% of the approved budget), trustee expenditure (130%), and travel (142%). On travel, the BMs from Canada and Finland clarified that they are not necessarily advocating for stopping travel, but believe the travel policy should be revisited in order to improve cost efficiency and curb emissions. The BM from Germany also said that a budget execution report does not need to be presented in every Board meeting; a multi-annual budget should be enough. Claire Williams, Director of Financial Control, elaborated that more details on travel expenses are currently being tracked live, and that the Secretariat does aim to reduce dependency on consultancy in the future. Also responding to the inquiry posed by the BMs from Canada and Netherlands on investment incomes, Williams responded that all investment incomes and reflows go directly to the Fund’s commitment authority. On the other hand, the CSO AO from Developing Countries wondered whether understaffing was causing problems for the operations of the Fund, noting that the goal set in B40 for average staff headcount for 2025 (set at 345 staff) was not fulfilled, falling short at 331 staff. He also noted that the staff’s gender balance, country representation, and indigeneity are unknown throughout the various employment levels of the Fund.
The Board’s deliberation on the next agenda items, namely the Status of Accreditation Master Agreements: AMAs with Substantive Deviations, and Matters Related to the Appointment of the Head of the Independent Redress Mechanism, were held in Executive Sessions, involving only Board Members and Alternate Board Members. In the latter session, Sonja Derkum was reappointed as the Head of the GCF’s Independent Redress Mechanism.
Reopening the agenda item Review of Committees which was suspended on Day 1, Antoaneta Boeva from the Secretariat presented a revised draft decision text on the screen, which was to update the structure and terms of reference of the Board committees based on a Board decision to do so to clarify mandates and reduce duplication. The Co-Chair from Mali then invited the Board to decide on the revised draft decision text. However, the BM from Austria asked for time to peruse the text as it had not been furnished to the Board ahead of time. The Co-Chair from Mali, unaware of this, accepted this suggestion. The Board then adopted the decision text.
Discussed next was the Reports from Board Committees, Panels, and Groups. Richard Bontjer from the Investment Committee reported substantial progress on local currency financing and foreign exchange risk management, given concern about the GCF’s mostly unhedged hard currency lending and limited foreign exchange currency. In addition to GCF’s existing mechanisms for loan restructuring, local currency loan repayment, and partial or full loan/debt cancellation, the Secretariat is developing a loan management system and risk modelling capabilities, and engaging with MDBs, DFIs, and specialized foreign exchange facilities to leverage learning and partnerships. Bontjer affirmed that this work will continue within the Operations and Portfolio Committee moving forward.
Bontjer moved on to present the Review of the independent Technical Advisory Panel, outlining 3 options for possible iTAP reform, each with its own trade-off.
- Option 1 – Maintain the current iTAP and introduce incremental reforms to improve clarity and predictability, which enables stability and continuity, ease of implementation, as well as preservation of existing institutional arrangements, but risks yielding results and perceptions of incremental improvements
- Option 2 – Engage the iTAP earlier in the process and tailor iTAP involvement based on project risk profile, which enables a more targeted use of iTAP resources, but risks potential inconsistency and increased complexity in coordination
- Option 3 – Discontinue the iTAP in favor of a Secretariat-led embedded review, which enables a more simplified and marginally swifter review, but risks losing independent advice, raising transaction costs, and negatively impacting governance.
He elaborated that the recommendation of the Committee is to gather further information on Option 1, incorporating some elements of value from Option 2 such as earlier engagement and selective engagement in more complicated financial models. An update to this work will be presented at B45.
Many BMs concurred with Bontjer’s recommendation, as did the CSO AO from Developed Countries. The BM from Ghana asked which stakeholders were engaged in the review process, to which Bontjer responded that this information can be found in Annex 4 of the meeting report. The BM from Egypt asked whether it would be possible for the Committee to gather information on both Option 1 and Option 3, but this question was unaddressed, prompting him to concur instead with Option 1. Bontjer’s recommendation was thus adopted by the Board.
On the Terms of Reference for the Review of the Accreditation Panel, Achala Abeysinghe, Director of Investment Services, presented the proposed ToR. The CSO AO from Developed Countries began the round of interventions by appealing for an assessment of the AP that is partial and not biased towards a certain outcome. She added that a peer review on the objectives of the AP risks a misrepresentation of the responsibility of the AP and a downplaying of the gold standard it represents. She also expressed disappointment that neither the Active Observers nor the Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group were included in the list of stakeholder interviews to be done. In relation to this, she emphasized the need for AP members to also be allowed to comment on the final report, as was the case in the iTAP assessment. Lastly, the CSO AO affirmed the importance of the AP’s technical expertise and independence.
The BMs from Maldives, Egypt, and Italy supported the proposed review of the AP, and while the Board decided to push through with the review, the BMs from Ghana and Switzerland were concerned that the review might hamper the AP’s work in the upcoming accreditation window. Addressing herself to the CSO AO, Abeysinghe gave her assurance that all relevant stakeholders were consulted, and that the review of the AP will not be a performance evaluation, but a review of its role, governance, and operationalization in light of the RAF. She also assured the BMs from Ghana and Switzerland that the review would not affect the already ongoing accreditation window. As per previous guidance of the Board, the findings of this review will be presented to the Board at B46.
The Board also discussed Dates and Venues of Upcoming Meetings of the Board, which only contained the date and venue for B45. This agenda item was, however, suspended, following a concern from the BM from Maldives on the immediate succession of the UNFCCC intersessional climate meetings in June with B45. Regional Presence and Guidance from the 30th Session of the COP to the UNFCCC, despite having been on today’s agenda, were not discussed. The session concluded at 6:30PM KST.
