UPDATES: Day 2 of the 37th GCF Board Meeting
From The Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD)
Scan the QR code above or click here to access the full copy of CSO updates for the 37th Board Meeting of GCF.
For full transcript of B37 CSO Interventions, check https://www.gcfwatch.org/resources/board-meeting-resources/37th-board-meeting-of-the-gcf.
The second day of the B37 started with the presentation of 3 information documents, which are the Reports of the Activities of the Independent Units. These include the reports from the GCF Independent Integrity Unit (IIU), Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM) and the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU). All were noted without any questions or clarifications from the Board.
It was then followed by the Secretariat’s presentation about the Status of GCF Resources, Pipeline and Portfolio Performance. As of September 30, 2023, the total received resources from the Initial Resource Mobilization (IRM) and the First Replenishment of the GCF (GCF-1) is USD 16.9 billion. Since then, the Fund has committed to spend a total of USD 15.3 billion for approved projects (USD 12.7 billion), accreditation and administrative fees (USD 1.9 billion) and for readiness and project preparation (USD 700 million). Of this, the latest commitment authority or the amount of resources available for funding decisions before B37 is USD 2.4 billion.
As for the Readiness Programme of the Fund, there is an increasing trend in grant approvals and portfolio under implementation. The portfolio has grown slightly from 693 approved grants in April, to 731 approved grants by the end of August. Same goes for grants that have been disbursed, from 567 grants in April to 618 grants in August corresponding to a 9% increase. Under the Project Preparation Facility (PPF), the GCF has approved a total of 69 PPF funding and service requests, as well as 12 technical assistance deployments, amounting to a total of USD 45.4 million and benefiting 49 AEs. However, the PPF portfolio has also faced implementation setbacks resulting in 58 approved no-cost extension requests for PPF funding (including 3 no-cost extension requests for PPF service). Since the PPF started, only 7 approved funding proposals have been developed that received support from the PPF.
The Secretariat also presented an update regarding the Fund’s progress towards achieving its identified targets under GCF-1 as summarized below:
Target |
Status (as of August 2023) |
A 50:50 funding balance between adaptation and mitigation over time in grant equivalent terms, while seeking to deliver portfolio-level mitigation and adaptation outcomes that exceed average initial resource mobilization (IRM) outcomes | 52% Adaptation
48% Mitigation (note: in nominal terms, the funding balance is heavily skewed towards mitigation) |
A floor of 50 per cent of the allocated adaptation funding to be channelled to developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, including LDCs, SIDS and African States, while aiming to build on IRM outcomes | 66% for LDCs, SIDS and African states
34% for others |
A reasonable and fair allocation across a broad range of countries in order to ensure the appropriate geographical balance of funding; | 38% Africa
34% Asia Pacific 25% Latin America and the Caribbean 3% Eastern Europe |
Significant increase of funding channelled through DAEs relative to the IRM | 81% IAEs
19% DAEs |
Maximization of engagement with the private sector, including through micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, ensuring allocation to the Private Sector Facility exceeds 20 per cent in grant equivalent terms | 17% Private Sector
83% Public Sector |
Significant increase of mobilized private sector finance at the portfolio level relative to the IRM | 3.5 times co-financing from Private sector
2.4 times co-financing from Public sector |
As for the Fund’s project portfolio, the total number of approved projects as of August 2023 was 228, amounting to USD 12.8 billion. Of the approved projects, 194 are under implementation, with 181 receiving disbursements. The majority of the GCF portfolio is financed through loans (42%) and grants (41%), followed by equity (11%), results-based payments (4%) and guarantees (3%).
Of the 118 accredited entities of the GCF, 75 are Direct Access Entities (DAEs) and 43 are International Access Entities (IAEs). However, looking at the share of funding volume, DAEs are allocated only 21% of GCF funding, which is very low compared to 79% funding for IAEs. The UNDP, World Bank, EBRD are among the top IAEs receiving the largest share of GCF Funding.
Noting the presentation of the Secretariat, some members of the Board raised recurring concerns about the concentration of funding to IAEs relative to DAEs, and the need to increase the mobilization of finance from the Private Sector.
The Board then moved on to the Consideration of Funding Proposals (FPs) with the Secretariat’s presentation of an overview of the FPs under consideration in B37, along with insights into the GCF project portfolio. The Secretariat proudly noted that the batch of FPs for B37 are mostly adaptation projects, with 51% of financial instruments in the form of grants. However, these figures were expressed in grant equivalence terms. But it is crucial to note that Direct Access Entities (DAEs) continue to receive a substantially low 20% of GCF financing in grant equivalence terms, as compared to International Access Entities (IAEs).
Some developed country BMs expressed a preference for considering more FPs related to biodiversity and ecosystems. Meanwhile, developing country BMs expressed frustration over the fact that DAEs remain to receive less of GCF Funding. The BM from Honduras expressed disappointment after participating in three Board Meetings with no observed changes in DAE financing.
Erika Lennon, representing the CSO Active Observer (AO) from developed countries, shared the GCF Observer Network’s mixed perspective on the GCF’s portfolio. They appreciated the increased number of FPs considered under the Simplified Approval Process (SAP), including a project from the Enhanced Direct Access (EDA) program. However, the CSOs were concerned about the seemingly one-size-fits-all approach to indigenous peoples (IPs) and country ownership. The Observer Network expressed heightened concern about the lack of transparency, especially in private sector FPs, and the notion that no-objection letters equate to genuine country ownership. Following the overarching comments raised, the Secretariat assured the Board that biodiversity FPs are in the pipeline, and more DAE-proposed FPs will be reviewed in upcoming Board Meetings.
The Co-Chairs then proceeded to examine each FP, with details and deliberations on specific FPs summarized below:
FP Details |
Comments |
Status |
SAP030: Strengthening Climate Resilience of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR) Health System
Proposed by: Save the Children Australia (SCA) To be implemented in: Lao PDR Adaptation Category C Risk (Low) Total Financing: $28.17 million GCF Financing: $24.98 million (grants) Co-Financing: $3-19 million ($1.31 million from WHO, $0.4 million from an individual donor, $1.48 million from the Government of Lao PDR) |
Erika Lennon, CSO AO from developed countries shared the GCF Observer Network’s support for the approval of FP, as it presents a good standard of transparency and properly demonstrates locally-led adaptation. The CSOs also appreciated that SAP030 is a health-centered project, emphasizing that the climate crisis is also a health crisis that should be tackled intentionally.
While most of the comments of the Board were in support of the project, the BM from China opposed the approval of the project due to the potential of the project to use solar technologies that may have been produced with child labor or forced labor. Despite the response of the Secretariat that the FP and the AE adhered to the GCF’s Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESS), the BM from China remained unsatisfied, prompting the co-chairs to suspend the approval of the project. The FP was then approved by the Board through a vote, as part of a package of other FPs that the BM from China opposed. |
APPROVED |
SAP031: Marajo Resiliente: Enhancing the resilience of smallholders to climate change impacts through adapting and scaling up diversified agroforestry systems in the Marajo Archipelago of Brazil
Proposed by: Fundacion Avina To be implemented in: Brazil Kind of Project: Adaptation Risk Category: C (Low) Total Financing: $9.88 million GCF Financing: $9.38 million (grants) Co-Financing: $0.5 million (Grants from Fundacion Avina) |
There were no comments from the Board on this SAP Proposal except for Eileen Cunningham, the CSO Active Observer from developing countries who delivered the intervention of the GCF Observer Network. In support of the project, the CSOs highlighted SAP031’s consultation with stakeholders and bottom-up approach that maximized local knowledge and minimized the barriers for smallholders to access credit. | APPROVED |
SAP032: Local Climate Adaptive Living Facility (LoCAL)
Proposed by: National Fund for the Environment and Climate (FNEC, Fonds National Environment et Climat) To be implemented in: Benin Adaptation Risk Category: C (Low) Total Financing: $9.89 million GCF Financing: $9.39 million (grants) Co-Financing: $0.495 million (grants from FNEC) |
Erika Lennon, CSO Active Observer from developed countries shared the GCF Observer Network’s concerns about the project. The CSOs emphasized the importance of ensuring that GCF resources reach vulnerable groups and raised concerns about the complex financial arrangements proposed that beneficiaries may find difficult. The CSOs also called for the improvement of the gender action plan, greater local community participation and transparency throughout the project’s implementation.
As this project was submitted under the GCF’s Enhanced Direct Access program, most BMs expressed support for the approval of the project. However, the BM from China once again opposed the project for the same reasons raised in SAP030. This prompted the co-chair to call for a vote, as part of a package of other FPs that the BM from China opposed. |
APPROVED |
SAP033: Enhancing Climate Information Systems for Resilient Development in Sierra Leone
Proposed by: African Development Bank (AfDB) To be implemented in: Sierra Leone FP Type: Adaptation Risk Category: C (Low Risk) Total financing: $21.1 million GCF financing: $15.1 million (grants) Co-Financing: $6 million ($5 million grants from AfDB; $1 million in-kind from the government of Sierra Leone) |
The Board did not have comments for this proposal. | APPROVED |
FP214: Thai Rice: Strengthening Climate-Smart Rice Farming
Proposed by: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) To be implemented in: Thailand FP Type: Cross-Cutting Risk Category: B (Medium Risk) Total Financing: €118 million GCF Financing: €38.17 million Co-Financing: €79.90 million (€7.62 million in grants from BMZ and other organizations; €42.24 million in kind from the Thailand Government Rice Department and International Rice Research Institute; €30 million loans from Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives Thailand) |
Eileen Cunningham, CSO AO from developing countries shared the GCF Observer Network’s strong disapproval for this FP. First, she shared that farmer groups and civil society in Thailand have not been properly consulted towards the development of this project. Second, the project also places the burden of reducing methane emissions to smallhold farmers and will force them to avail of loans as that are pushed to be standardized in the FP. Lastly, the CSOs urged the Board to stand in solidarity with the local farmers and communities in Thailand towards rejecting this project unless substantial changes are made that are aligned with the principles of climate justice.
The project was approved despite the rejection of civil society. |
APPROVED |
FP215: Community Resilience Partnership Program
Proposed by: Asian Development Bank (ADB) To be implemented in: Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, Vanuatu FP Type: Adaptation Risk Category: B (Medium Risk) Total Financing: $750 million GCF Financing: $120 million ($20 million senior loans; $100 million grants) Co-Financing: $630 million ($535 million senior loans from ADB, $20 million grants from ADB; $75 million grants from bilateral donors) |
Erika Lennon, CSO AO from developed countries shared the concerns and recommendations of the GCF Observer Network about the FP. While the FP has potential in addressing the adaptation needs of the beneficiaries, more development and alignment with concepts of locally-led adaptation and agroecology needs to be done through the subprojects. Institutionalization of stakeholder engagement, as well as bottom-up activity pipeline building, are encouraged to solve the apparent gaps in the governance structure of the FP. Lastly, the Observer Network shares its willingness to collaborate on responsive adaptation activities for Asian and Pacific communities.
The project was approved without conditions despite the pending recommendations of Civil Society. |
APPROVED |
FP216: Scaling up Climate Resilient Flood Risk Management in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Proposed by: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) To be implemented in: Bosnia and Herzegovina FP Type: Adaptation Risk Category: B (Medium Risk) Total Financing: $72.69 million GCF Financing: $14.4 million (grants) Co-Financing: $58.28 million ($21.1 million loan from the European Investment Bank; $37.17 million grants from UNDP and others) |
The Board did not have comments for this proposal. | APPROVED |
FP217: Building Resilience of Vulnerable Communities to Climate Variability in Rwanda’s Congo Nile Divide Through Forest and Landscape Restoration
Proposed by: Ministry of Environment Rwanda (MOE Rwanda) To be implemented in: Rwanda FP Type: Adaptation Risk Category: B (Medium Risk) Total Financing: $50 million GCF Financing: $39 million (grants) Co-Financing: $11 million (grants and in-kind by the Government of Rwanda) |
Some members of the Board aired their support for the approval of this proposal. | APPROVED |
FP218: Building Climate Resilience in the landscapes of Kigoma region, Tanzania
Proposed by: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) To be implemented in: Tanzania FP Type: Adaptation Risk Category: B (Medium Risk) Total Financing: $23.6 million GCF Financing: $19 million (grants) Co-Financing: $4.6 million (Grants from UN High Commission for Refugees |
The BM from Switzerland provided some implementation recommendations to the AE and the implementing entity. | APPROVED |
FP219: Staple Crops Processing Zone (SCPZ): Promoting Sustainable Agricultural Value Chains
Proposed by: African Development Bank (AfDB) To be implemented in: Guinea, Senegal, Togo FP Type: Cross-Cutting Risk Category: A (High Risk) Total Financing: $271 million GCF Financing: $27 million (loans), $75.8 million (grants) Co-Financing: $168.9 million ($85.6 million senior loans from AfDB; $5 million grants from Korea Fund; $10.1 million grant from African Development Fund; $17.6 million loans from West African Development Bank; $31.06 million from Islamic Development Bank; $19.48 million in kind by the Governments of Togo, Senegal, and Guinea) |
The BM from China opposed the approval of the FP due to similar reasons stated in previous FPs. The co-chair suspended the consideration of the FP, and was later on approved through a vote, as part of the package of FPs which were opposed by the BM from China. Only the BM from China voted against the approval of the FP package. | APPROVED |
FP220: Africa Rural Climate Adaptation Finance Mechanism (ARCAFIM) for East Africa Region
Proposed by: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) To be implemented in: Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda FP Type: Adaptation Risk Category: I-2 (Medium Risk) Total Financing: $200 million GCF Financing: $55 million ($10 million grants; $45 million loans) Co-Financing: $145 million ($45 million loans from IFAD; $10 million grants from IFAD; $90 million loans from Equity Bank Kenya and Subsidiaries) |
The BMs from Switzerland and the Netherlands made recommendations for improvements in the project’s organizational structure and national reforms. | APPROVED |
FP221: Rwanda Green Investment Facility
Proposed by: African Development Bank (AfDB) To be implemented in: Rwanda FP Type: Cross-Cutting Risk Category: I-2 (Medium Risk) Total Financing: $142 million GCF Financing: $42.8 million ($30 million loans; $12.8 million in reimbursable and non-reimbursable grants) Co-Financing: $99.2 million ($10 million senior loans from AfDB; $20 million senior loans from European Investment Bank; $20 million senior loans from Agence Française de Développment; $15 million senior loans from Global Climate Partnership Fund; $8.7 million grants from FCDO; $5.4 million grants from DANIDA; $20 million guarantee from SIDA) |
Eileen Cunningham, CSO AO from developing countries shared the concerns and suggestions of the CSOs urging the Board to allocate financial resources for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in the project, and to provide more concessional lending rates, particularly for women-led MSMEs, to which the BM from Mali echoed and advocated for especially in least developed countries (LDCs). | APPROVED |
FP222: Renewable Energy Performance Platform (REPP) 2
Proposed by: Camco Management Limited (CAMCO) To be implemented in: Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Zambia FP Type: Cross-Cutting Risk Category: I-2 (Medium Risk) Total Financing: $250 million GCF Financing: $50 million (junior equity) Co-Financing: $200 million ($150 million in equity; $50 million in senior loans from Development Financial Institutions, private investors, and commercial banks) |
Eileen Cunningham, CSO AO from developing countries, raised the CSO concerns about the FP’s complex design and financial instruments, highlighting potential additional costs and their burden on end users already facing financial challenges. The BM from Ghana echoed the CSO intervention and advocated for a simpler grants-based model as a more favorable alternative.
The BM from China rejected the approval of the FP for similar reasons raised in previous FPs. The Board later on approved the FP through a vote, where the BM from China voted against the approval, and the BM from UK abstained due to a potential conflict of interest. |
APPROVED |
FP223: Project “GAIA”
Proposed by: Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) To be implemented in: Barbados, Benin, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Tanzania, Togo FP Type: Cross-Cutting Risk Category: I-1 (High Risk) Total Financing: $1.48 billion GCF Financing: $152.5 million Co-Financing: $1.375 billion ($295 million senior loans from MUFG; $75 million senior loans from and $70 million equity from FinDev Canada; $25 million senior loans from LGIM; $90 million equity by other lenders and investors) |
Erika Lennon, CSO Active Observer from developed countries, aired the GCF Observer Network’s strong disapproval of the FP. Their concerns centered around the lack of confirmed investments in the proposal, with doubts about the claimed investment potential. The absence of disclosure regarding country allocations, subproject pipelines, and potential risks associated with biofuel financing was also raised, as well as the inadequate actions done to meet the gender policy and social safeguards around the project.
BMs from Antigua and Barbuda and the Dominican Republic questioned the allocation of funding in multi-country programmatic FPs, expressing concerns that small island developing states (SIDS) may not receive even small portions of the funding. The Secretariat and AE, MUFG, responded by assuring minimum investment floors per country and improved financial reporting. Pedro Carvalho, the Private Sector Active Observer, strongly supported the FP’s approval, praising its use of innovative financing structures and instruments and highlighting the project’s ambition in mobilizing a substantial amount of financing. The BM from China once again opposed the approval for the same reason as the previous FPs, prompting the co-chair to suspend the consideration of the FP. |
APPROVED |
FP224: Renewable Barbados Project
Proposed by: International Finance Corporation (IFC) (private sector arm of the World Bank) To be implemented in: Barbados FP Type: Mitigation Risk Category: (Medium Risk) Total Financing: $169 million GCF Financing: $40 million (loans), $1 million (grants) Co-Financing: $128 million ($43 million for equity; $85 million in loans where $8.5 million is from IFC) |
Eileen Cunningham, CSO AO from developing countries, shared the concerns of CSOs about the project’s strong focus on green hydrogen. The intervention pointed out that battery storage could be a more cost-effective alternative, and that the project’s emphasis on green hydrogen might primarily serve the project sponsors rather than the end users. There were also concerns about GCF resources being allocated to unproven solutions.
The CSO intervention was then echoed by BMs from Denmark and Mali, with the BM from Antigua and Barbuda emphasizing the need for highly concessional terms due to the target country’s status as a Small Island Developing State (SIDS). The Secretariat and the AE addressed these concerns by assuring that additional costs would not burden end-users and that the loans are highly concessional. The IFC also defended the use of green hydrogen as an innovative approach to renewable energy. The BM from China opposed the FP’s approval due to concerns about the potential use of battery technology manufactured with child or forced labor. This opposition prompted the co-chair to suspend the consideration of the FP, and was later on approved through a vote, as part of the package of FPs which were opposed by the BM from China. Only the BM from China voted against the approval of the FP package. |
APPROVED |
The Co-Chairs suspended the deliberations on FPs that the BM from China objected. After offline consultations to address the concerns raised, the Board resumed with a vote on the approval of the SAP030, SAP032, FP219, FP223, FP222 and FP224. The said FPs were deliberated as a package since the opposition for all is the same, except for FP222 which was deliberated through a vote separately.
All voting procedures resulted in majority approval of the FPs. The BM from China then delivered a statement manifesting its continuous support for developing countries and urged the GCF to ensure zero tolerance on child and forced labor especially for projects and activities that may involve manufacturing of renewable energy equipment.
After a lengthy discussion, the Board moved to discuss the Consideration of Accreditation Proposals. The Secretariat reported that since the implementation of the Updated Accreditation Framework, there was an increase in the number of applications both for new applicants and reaccreditation applicants. As of September 2023, the GCF has accredited a total of 118 entities, 16 are being reviewed and recommended for reaccreditation, with 6 applications being presented for consideration at this Board Meeting. More than 147 new applications are also in the pipeline, and the Accreditation Committee confirmed that the majority are DAEs.
For B37, the Board is asked to consider the applications for accreditation and re-accreditation of the following:
RAPL043, Foreign Environmental Cooperation Center of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China (FECO) | Reaccreditation |
RAPL053, Micronesia Conservation Trust (MCT) | Reaccreditation |
RAPL040, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) | Reaccreditation |
RAPL038, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (GIZ) | Reaccreditation |
RAPL041, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) | Reaccreditation |
RAPL054 MUFG Bank, Ltd (MUFG) | Reaccreditation |
APL122, Federated States of Micronesia Development Bank (FSMDB) | New application |
APL123, CARICOM Development Fund (CDF) | New application |
APL124, SK Securities, Co., Ltd (SK Securities) | New application |
When the Board was asked for comments, the BM from Saudi Arabia raised a concern about whether the current Secretariat staff size can handle the number of applications received, implying that a short staffed accreditation team is a potential bottleneck. The Secretariat responded to this and said that the streamlined process that they have recently implemented allows them to process a larger volume of applications.
He also registered an important point about the assessment of reaccreditation applications. He asserted that the GCF must ensure that entities seeking reaccreditation strictly comply with the GCF policies and principles enshrined under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. These include making sure that their portfolios are geared towards moving away from any fossil fuel investment. He then emphasized that such compliance is not a small detail that the Accreditation Team can easily brush aside, to which the BM from South Africa supported.
Along the lines of asking about how assessments for reaccreditation applications are made, the BM from US also raised concerns about RAPL043 FECO, which up to this date has not submitted any funding proposal to the Board. She asked how can any assessment be made given that the applicant has no track record of working with the GCF. The Secretariat responded to this and said that FECO is currently working on a concept note of a potential funding proposal with the Secretariat.
Erika Lennon, the CSO Active Observer from developed countries also delivered an intervention on behalf of the CSO Observer Network, emphasizing concerns about the still lengthy period of funding proposal process which takes about 24.3 months on the average, from submission to approval. The CSOs also highlighted the lack of information in the report regarding how AEs are working to operationalize or improve their systems and policies concerning Indigenous Peoples, and reiterated the CSO request to make the AE work programs publicly available, emphasizing their role in promoting proactive, strategic, and country-owned approaches to pipeline development.
Responding to the concern raised by the BM from Saudi Arabia, the co-chair from the US proposed the he work the insertion of the language about compliance with GCF policies with the Secretariat offline, prompting the Board to suspend the approval of the accreditation applications altogether.
The co-chair then proceeded to present a new iteration in the decision text about extending the accreditation term of all AEs by 3 years, in anticipation of the new Accreditation Framework that is expected to be adopted by 2025. She then gave the Board time to think about the said proposal and suspended the adoption of any decision under the agenda item.
The Board’s last agenda for Day 2 was the Secretariat Work Programme and Budgetary Requirements for 2024. The GCF Executive Director briefly presented the 3 priorities of the Secretariat in the following year, and these are:
- Enhancing country ownership and access
- Delivery of impact and results
- Focus on people and performance
Based on the proposed work programme, the Secretariat also laid down the policy agenda items that the GCF must iron out during the Board Meetings next year, and for succeeding years until 2027.
As for the proposed budget, the Secretariat seeks Board approval for 2024 fund-level programming and disbursement budget amounting to USD 1.75- USD 2.2 billion for funding proposals. The Executive Director also explained that as part of priority number 3 for 2024, the GCF must keep a competitive salary scale for its staff members relative to other funds. She proposed to have a 3% to 4.5% adjustment in the salary scale of the Secretariat, to which many BMs supported and preferred the option of adjusting to a 4.5% increase.
The BM from France, had no objections with the work program and the proposed overall budget, but he registered that he prefers the 3% salary adjustment and that he is not comfortable that the adjustment is solely based on what other institutions are following. Eventually, he expressed that he will not stand in the way of arriving at consensus on the matter, which prompted the Board to approve the Secretariat Work Programme and Budget for 2024, including the 4.5% salary adjustment presented.
Day 2 of B37 ended at 18:51 Tbilisi, Georgia time (GMT+4).
Catch the GCF B37 via webcast and on-demand here: https://www.greenclimate.fund/boardroom/meeting/b37#videos
###