UPDATES: Day 2 of the 39th GCF Board Meeting
You can watch the GCF B39 proceedings live and on demand here: https://www.greenclimate.fund/boardroom/meeting/b39#videos
Full transcript of the interventions by the GCF Observer Network are available here: https://www.gcfwatch.org/resources/board-meeting-resources/39th-board-meeting-of-the-gcf
DAY 2 – July 16, 2024
The Board opened Day 2 with the agenda item Consideration of Funding Proposals (FPs). The discussion began with an overview from the Secretariat on the batch of proposals and the GCF’s overall portfolio.
For this Board Meeting, a total of 17 FPs worth USD 1.02 billion are for consideration, with USD 439 million proposed by the private sector. Of the total amount requested, 44% are in grants, 43% in loans, and the remainder in equity and guarantees. Four FPs are from direct access entities (DAEs), and the rest are single-country proposals. Originally, 20 projects were submitted to the GCF Board, but the Independent Technical Assistance Panel (ITAP) recommended the 3 FPs to complete compliance based on the concerns raised.
If all 17 proposals are approved, 42% of GCF funding will be in the form of grants and 41% in loans. The remaining funding is divided into guarantees, results-based payments (RBP), and equity financing. Despite the GCF’s mandate to balance mitigation and adaptation funding, the allocation of the GCF portfolio remains to be skewed towards mitigation at 55%. Overall, GCF funding is expected to mitigate 3.0 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalents and benefit 1.16 billion people through adaptation projects.
The Board was pleased to see 17 FPs on the table and many have expressed that this must be the minimum number for future meetings. According to the Secretariat, adequate commitment authority and an improved financial management plan have allowed the Secretariat to increase the FPs submitted to the Board. Other BMs also appreciated the increased number of projects from the private sector, to which the Secretariat assured that there are more being considered in the pipeline.
While pleased with the increase in single-country adaptation projects, some developing country BMs raised concerns about the relatively low funding allocation for adaptation projects. The BM from Mali pointed out that most single-country DAE-proposed adaptation projects are below $10 million as opposed to the FPs proposed by IAEs. Together with BMs from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, they argued that the discussion around complementarity and coherence will be crucial to support the current debates at the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) negotiations, and that it would help scale up DAE capacity for adaptation programming and increase adaptation grant funding. The BM from Sweden proposed that GCF mitigation projects should also fully declare their corresponding “adaptation” benefits to maximize impacts and results, to which the Secretariat said that they are on track in doing this to bridge the adaptation and mitigation gap. However, when adaptation benefits in a mitigation project are minimal, the Secretariat confirmed these are considered only as co-benefits based on GCF practice.
The adaptation funding gap and the low capacity of DAEs to access larger adaptation funding is expected to be addressed at the upcoming Project-Specific Assessment Approach (PSAA). The Secretariat is also working with the private sector to increase their involvement in adaptation projects.
The GCF Observer Network raised concerns about the current batch of funding proposals and the direction that the GCF portfolio is taking. Titi Akosa, the CSO Active Observer from developing countries shared that the increasingly complex FPs not only entail additional costs that divert funds from intended beneficiaries, but also risks compromising transparency and accountability given that more intermediaries are introduced. The CSOs also argued that grants should be used to support adaptation projects as opposed to some of the B39 FPs where loans are the primary financial instrument.
Since a number of FPs at this Board Meeting are agricultural projects, the CSOs pointed out that the focus of these projects must be to support food sovereignty and promote effective and sustainable local practices instead of advancing unproven technologies that could be more harmful to the communities. They added that consistently ensuring Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) not only in target project sites but also in surrounding communities, has been a recurring problem in many projects that the GCF must address. The FPs as of late are also showing unimpressive Gender Action Plans, with some multi-country projects not disclosing their GAPs for sub-projects. The CSOs demand this information be shared publicly as with standard practice.
The Board took note of these concerns and recommendations as they continued their deliberations on the individual funding proposals. Summary of deliberations for each FP are below:
|
FP Details |
Comments |
Status |
| SAP038: Climate Adaptation, Resilience & Engagement in Local Governments (CARE-LG)
Proposed by: Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation To be implemented in: Bhutan Adaptation Category C Risk (Low) Total Financing: 10 million USD GCF Financing: 10 million USD (grants) Co-Financing: N/A |
There were no comments from the Board. | APPROVED |
| SAP039: Integrated Climate Risk Management for Strengthened resilience to Climate change in Buner & Shangla Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan
Proposed by: World Food Programme (WFP) To be implemented in: Pakistan Adaptation Category C Risk (Low) Total Financing: 9.85 million USD GCF Financing: 8.78 million USD (grants) Co-Financing: 1.07 million USD (0.20 million USD (grants) from WFP Pakistan; 0.37 million USD (in kind) from WFP Pakistan; 0.5 million USD (in kind) from Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) |
There were no comments from the Board. | APPROVED |
| SAP040: Climate Adaptation & Resilience in Thua Thien Hue Province Vietnam (CARe Hue)
Proposed by: Luxembourg Development Cooperation Agency (LuxDev) To be implemented in: Vietnam Adaptation Category C Risk (Low) Total Financing: 10 million USD GCF Financing: 8.65 million USD (grants) Co-Financing: 1.35 million USD (900,000 USD (grants) from Government of Luxembourg – MECB; 450,000 USD (in kind) from Government of Vietnam) |
Tara Daniel, CSO AO from Developed Countries, asked to be called prior to the Board decision for SAP040, but was not acknowledged by the Secretariat until after the decision. Despite this, she continued with the CSO intervention, beginning with an expression of appreciation toward the AE for reaching out to the GCF Observer Network and assuring that the FP does not intend to facilitate forced land conversion or corporate co-optation.
The CSOs then raised persisting concerns about the FP’s lack of consultation with Indigenous peoples, local communities, and grassroots and non-government organizations within and beyond the project area. The CSOs added the lack of comprehensive safeguards against displacing staple food production and livelihoods, perpetuating farmer debt, and promoting false food and climate solutions. The intervention recommended the Board to suspend approval of the FP until these concerns have been sufficiently addressed, and stakeholders have been meaningfully consulted. |
APPROVED |
| SAP041: ALBAdapt- Climate Services for a Resilient Albania
Proposed by: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) To be implemented in: Albania Adaptation Category C Risk (Low) Total Financing: 34.82 million Euro GCF Financing: 23.07 million Euro (grants) Co-Financing: 11.75 million Euro (3.5 million Euro (grants) from BMZ; 2.58 million Euro (grants) from SDC; 3.17 million Euro (grants) from SECO; 2.5 million Euro (grants and in-kind) from GoA) |
The BM from Georgia welcomed this project, highlighting that there is a similar project in Georgia and expressing confidence that the project will bring favorable and concrete results. | APPROVED |
| SAP042: Building climate resilience by linking climate adaptation and social protection through decentralised planning in Mozambique
Proposed by: Save the Children Australia (SCA) To be implemented in: Mozambique Adaptation Category C Risk (Low) Total Financing: 28.33 million USD GCF Financing: 23.5 million USD (grants) Co-Financing: 4.83 million USD (3.35 million USD (in-kind) from Ministry of Land and Environment; 1.17 million USD (grants) from Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD); 100,000 USD (in-kind) from AEROMAP; 212,815 USD (grants) from Save the Children Italy) |
There were no comments from the Board. | APPROVED |
| SAP043: Upscaling “Naatangue”
Proposed by: Centre de Suivi Ecologique – CSE To be implemented in: Senegal Cross-cutting Category C Risk (Low) Total Financing: 9.32 million Euro GCF Financing: 9.05 million Euro (grants) Co-Financing: 265,000 Euro (in-kind) from ANIDA |
Several BMs engaged in an extensive discussion on the ITAP Assessment which made the AE’s delivery of a monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) plan to the GCF Secretariat a condition prior to second disbursement.
BMs from developing countries opposed this condition in favor of making it a non-binding recommendation, citing resource constraints in many developing countries that would make extensive MEL difficult to perform, and in turn make the conditional disbursement difficult to access. The BMs from the Gambia and Saudi Arabia questioned whether the ITAP has the mandate or authority to impose such conditions on AEs, and interrogated the selective application of this condition toward countries with significant resource constraints. Further, the BM from Saudi Arabia emphasized that, in line with the Paris Agreement, developing countries should receive support for their transparency obligations, and urged the Board to expand conversations on increasing funding to Senegal to enable it to perform transparency functions. The AE agreed and clarified that its MEL plans are meant to be formulated at the start of the project. The AE also noted that it regularly contributes to its government’s data. On the other hand, the BM from Sweden supported the ITAP condition, citing that MEL is a standard requirement for projects. Meanwhile, ITAP clarified that the Board has full discretion over whether they will include the ITAP’s suggested conditions in the decision text. There was also a discussion among BMs about another ITAP condition which required the AE to ensure participation of Naatangué farmers who do not own land. The BM from Mali and the Gambia similarly flagged that it would be difficult for the AE to collect this data, and that ensuring women cooperatives’ access to the program would be enough. The AE echoed this concern, citing that the FP cannot resolve land tenure issues for women but can commit to setting benchmarks and standards for engaging women in food production and security. Titi Akosa, on behalf of the CSOs expressed appreciation for the community-based approaches in the FP, and the leadership of a DAE. The CSOs argued that women’s participation might be hindered by the FP’s eligibility criteria for family farm beneficiaries, as it requires the individual requesting involvement in family farming activities to own the land. It was noted that women in Senegal not only lack direct land ownership, but also own lower-quality land, necessitating support to enhance productivity where feasible. Finally, the CSOs concurred with the Secretariat’s assessment in highlighting the need for a more ambitious Gender Action Plan in the FP. |
SUSPENDED |
| FP232: Jordan Integrated Landscape Management Initiative (JILMI)
Proposed by: UNEP To be implemented in: Jordan Adaptation Category B Risk (Moderate) Total Financing: 60.51 million USD GCF Financing: 44.90 million USD (grants) Co-Financing: 15.61 million USD (1 million USD (in-kind and grant) from Government of Jordan; 14.61 million USD (in-kind and grant) from Consortium of NGOs) |
The BM from Saudi Arabia welcomed the project and expressed eagerness to see more projects seeking to strengthen water security. | APPROVED |
| FP233: Community-based Agriculture Support Programme ‘plus’ (CASP+)
Proposed by: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) To be implemented in: Tajikistan Cross-cutting Category B Risk (Moderate) Total Financing: 79.69 million USD GCF Financing: 39 million USD (30 million (grants); 9 million (loans)) Co-Financing: 40.69 million USD (31.10 million USD (grants) from IFAD; 6.75 million USD (senior loans) from IFAD; 0.90 million USD (in kind) from Ministry of Agriculture; 0.89 million USD (in kind) from CEP; 0.89 million USD (in kind) from SFA; 0.16 million USD (in kind) from FAO) |
The BM from Switzerland expressed support for the project. She noted a similar GEF project by IFAD in Tajikistan, as well as a similar project in Switzerland, and framed this as a good example demonstrating complementarity of funds. She also moved to include the institutions responsible for disaster prevention and hydrometeorological data to be part of project coordination.
Bertha Argueta, Alternate CSO AO from Developed Countries delivered the CSO intervention that strongly urged the Board to reject the project. The FP is likely to fail to achieve its mitigation and adaptation claims, foster increased market vulnerability among communities, and undermine real climate action due to its promotion of false solutions and carbon markets. |
APPROVED |
| FP234: Tonga Coastal Resilience
Proposed by: UNDP To be implemented in: Tonga Adaptation Category B Risk (Moderate) Total Financing: 23.92 million USD GCF Financing: 22.66 million USD (grants) Co-Financing: 1.26 million USD (1.2 million USD (grants) from Ministry of Finance; 0.06 million USD (grants) from UNDP) |
Several BMs across developing and developed countries registered support for the proposal. | APPROVED |
| FP235: Mangroves for climate: Public, Private & Community Partnerships for Mitigation and Adaptation in Ecuador
Proposed by: Conservation International Foundation To be implemented in: Ecuador Cross-Cutting Category B Risk (Moderate) Total Financing: 45.9 million USD GCF Financing: 36.4 million USD (grants) Co-Financing: 9.5 million USD (2.7 million USD (grants) from MAATE; 1.4 million USD (in-kind) from MAATE; 5.5 million USD (in-kind) from CI) |
The BM from Costa Rica conveyed support for the project, citing its multiple co-benefits. The BM from Sweden also conveyed support, and encouraged the adoption of the results-based payments (RBP) model in other projects.
PSO Active Observer, Miles Austin, also conveyed support, particularly for the FP’s adoption of the sustainable shrimp partnership standard and climate-smart shrimp model, which would enable private sector entities to transition to more sustainable shrimp supply chains, and enable private sector entities preferential access to markets. |
APPROVED |
| FP236: Basin Approach for Livelihood Sustainability through Adaptation Strategies (BALSAS)
Proposed by: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) To be implemented in: Mexico Cross-Cutting Category B Risk (Moderate) Total Financing: 90.53 million USD GCF Financing: 39.5 million USD (9.5 million USD (grants); 20 million USD (loans)) Co-Financing: 51.45 million USD (7 million USD (grants) from National Forestry Commission of México (CONFANOR); 6 million USD (grants) from National Water Commission (CONAGUA); 38.45 million USD (loans) from IFAD) |
The BM from Costa Rica highlighted the importance of this project. | APPROVED |
| FP237: E-Motion: E-Mobility and Low Carbon Transportation
Proposed by: French Development Agency To be implemented in: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru Mitigation Category B Risk (Moderate) Total Financing: 210.98 million Euro, 103.90 million USD GCF Financing: 56 million Euro and 40.26 million USD (senior loans); 22.33 million Euro (grants) Co-Financing: 129.64 million Euro and 63.63 million USD (85.5 million Euro and 63.63 million USD (senior loans) from AFD, KfW; 18.31 million Euro (grants) from AFD, KfW, GIZ/BMUV; 25.83 million Euro (grant, in-kind, equity, loan) from national finance) |
Tara Daniel, CSO AO from Developed Countries, began the CSO intervention with a positive acknowledgment of the project’s aims of transitioning from fossil fuel-powered vehicles to electric ones, while promoting public over private transport modes. The CSOs raised the need for provisions on the effective mitigation and management of electric battery waste, and specifications on prioritizing the latest electric vehicle technologies that reduce demand for transition minerals. The concern about the denomination of loans in USD and Euros, which expose participating countries to debt and foreign currency risks, was raised.
The CSOs also echoed the BM from Egypt in raising the concern on the lack of clear details on the subprojects in this multi-country programme. On this note, the AE answered that it is ensuring country ownership through large stakeholder consultations, and assured that there is shared interest on e-mobility across the project region, with electric vehicles reflected in all 7 countries’ NDCs. In addition, the BM from Denmark asked about how the FP will address the lack of co-investment from the national financial sector, to which the AE responded that it will provide technical assistance to public and national development banks in identifying and financing e-mobility deals. The BM from Saudi Arabia inquired on whether there will be any restrictions or qualifications on the vehicle technologies to be used, to which the AE responded that there will be none. The BM from Ireland and the PSO AO expressed full support. |
APPROVED |
| FP238: Ecosystems-based Adaptation for resilient Watersheds & Communities in Malawi (EbAM)
Proposed by: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) To be implemented in: Malawi Cross-Cutting Category B Risk (Moderate) Total Financing: 53.22 million USD GCF Financing: 42.8 million USD (grants) Co-Financing: 10.42 million USD (6.44 million USD (grants) from the MoF; 2.95 million USD (in kind) from the MoF; 1.02 million USD (grants) from FAO) |
There were no comments from the Board. | APPROVED |
| FP239: Building Climate Resilience for Food & Livelihoods in the Horn of Africa (BREFOL)
Proposed by: African Development Bank To be implemented in: Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, and South Sudan Cross Cutting Category B Risk (Moderate) Total Financing: 335.30 million USD GCF Financing: 151 million USD (60.30 million USD (senior loans); 90.70 million USD (grants)) Co-Financing: 184.29 million USD (42.90 million USD (senior loans) from African Development Fund; 123.54 million USD (grants) from African Development Fund; 0.69 million USD (grants) from FAO; 16.03 million USD (in-kind) from governments’ contributions; 1.82 million (in-kind) from beneficiaries’ contributions) |
Similar to the deliberations during SAP043, BMs engaged in an extensive discussion about the ITAP Assessment for this FP which makes the AE’s monitoring and evaluation a condition for disbursement. The BM from the Gambia and Saudi Arabia restated their discomfort toward these conditions disadvantaging, and being selectively applied to, LDCs. The BM from the Gambia urged the revision of this condition toward a non-binding recommendation, and sought the Board’s flexibility for resource-constrained developing countries, many of whom are committed to transparency and are already working on strengthening their monitoring systems. This was supported by several developing country BMs. The BM from Saudi Arabia and South Africa reminded the Board that the GCF is a part of UNFCCC processes and must therefore respect the Paris Agreement, which states that developing countries’ costs for transparency obligations must be financially supported.
The BM from Sweden acknowledged the necessity of providing climate finance for vulnerable countries such as the Horn of Africa, but moved to retain the ITAP condition given the standard procedure of monitoring and evaluation as part of project reporting. The BM from the United States registered an objection to the FP in accordance with certain policies of the US with respect to governments that do not address the trafficking of persons. Titi Akosa, Alternate CSO AO from Developing Countries, welcomed the proposal but concurred with some elements of the ITAP and Secretariat Assessments, such as the need for consistent SEAH risk assessment across countries, for proactive measures ensuring at least 50% women beneficiaries, for qualifications on climate-smart seed varieties and drought-resistant livestock, and for an update on the logical framework to make it consistent with the theory of change. The CSOs also expressed concern that the requirement for smallholder farmers and microenterprise beneficiaries to provide matching funds of up to 10% could risk exacerbating poverty, and contradicts the principles of climate justice. Finally, the CSOs urged the implementation of transparent and accountable mechanisms that would allow CSOs and other stakeholders to monitor sub-projects effectively. Notably, the BM from Mali asked for assurance that the condition to update the logical framework will not delay urgently-needed funding by a significant period of time. The AE responded that it will ensure the implementation of the project as soon as possible. It also committed to tailor-fitting projects according to local capacity and contexts, adopting a multi-stakeholder approach in dialogues, ensuring transparency with communities, and holding periodic meetings to discuss project implementation. |
SUSPENDED |
| FP240: Collaborative R&DB Programme for Promoting the Innovation of Climate Technopreneurship (multiple) (KDB)
Proposed by: Korea Development Bank (KDB) To be implemented in: Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Philippines, and Vietnam Cross-Cutting Category I-2 Total Financing: 221.21 million USD GCF Financing: 104.47 million USD (20.72 million USD (grants); 83.75 million USD (equity)) Co-Financing: 116.74 million USD (2 million USD (equity) from GP; 114.25 million USD (equity) from LPs) |
Tara Daniel, CSO AO from Developed Countries, called for the rejection of the proposal. Speaking on behalf of the CSOs, she concurred with the ITAP’s concerns on the reluctance of the other EEs to risk their own capital, and the potentially exorbitant fees that the GCF could absorb. The FP’s weakened definition of “women-led SMEs” and tokenistic Gender Action Plan, vague criteria for technologies, forbidding selection criteria for participating local entrepreneurs, and likelihood in producing negative to no impact, were also criticized. The CSOs argued that technology transfer as a market instrument is incompatible with technology transfer as an obligation of developed countries to developing countries under the UNFCCC. She deplored that the FP contains provisions promoting special purpose vehicles as a strategy to circumvent taxes, and argued that locally-led climate technology innovation has the potential to be more cost-effective than market-based technology transfer schemes.
The BM from Mali asked procedural questions on the classification of DMA and PSF projects, and the policy on grant components for FPs. Kavita Sinha, PSF Facility Director, responded that the classification between DMA and PSF is based on the kind of product that the recipient of the funding creates (i.e. if the funding recipient produces public goods, they will be under the DMA, and under the PSF otherwise). On grant components for the PSF, Kavita replied that this is decided on a case-by-case basis based on the merits of the project. The BM from Denmark also asked the Secretariat to provide its current assessment on the willingness of local SMEs to participate in this program. Kavita responded that the Southeast Asian region does not face a dearth of capacity among SMEs, but rather an inadequate or misinformed perception of risk for climate technology and innovation. Meanwhile, the BM from Sweden asked the AE about the financial commitments of the different EEs in the project, and encouraged the AE to establish strong linkages with the private sector. The AE replied that it intends to leverage financing from top-tier financiers across Asia, and has already garnered a confirmed 10 million investment in this way. The BM from Sweden urged CSOs to acknowledge this new information given CSOs’ critical remark on EEs’ financial commitments. The BM from the Republic of Korea expressed full confidence in the AE, stated that all government ministries of the Republic of Korea will be supporting the programme, and requested the Board to approve the FP. Note that the Republic of Korea was allowed to intervene even if the AE of FP240 is Korea Development Bank, a public bank. No conflict of interest was declared. |
APPROVED |
| FP241: Financing Mitigation and Adaptation Projects (FMAP) in Indian MSMEs
Proposed by: Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) To be implemented in: India Cross Cutting Category I-2 Total Financing: 3,792 million USD GCF Financing: 215.60 million USD (200 million USD (loans); 15.6 million USD (grants)) Co-Financing: 3,577 million USD (800 million USD (loans) from SIDBI; 2,400 million USD (loans) from NBFCs/PFIs; 377 million USD (equity) from MSMEs) |
Titi Akosa, Alternate CSO AO from Developing Countries, urged the Board to suspend the approval of the FP due to its poor project design which risks placing MSMEs in more debt or bankruptcy; its promotion of “profit-generating” adaptation activities rather than grants-based adaptation; its provision of concessionality to benefit financial institutions rather than the beneficiaries; and its inability to insulate GCF funding from the terms and conditions of other financial institutions.
The BM from Mali supported the programme and congratulated the AEs for its support for MSMEs, large co-financing ratio, and short project cycle taking only 4 months. The co-chairs then closed the meeting to an Executive Session upon prompting by the BM from Pakistan and the Secretariat to discuss a revision indicated in the Secretariat’s Assessment limited distribution document. |
SUSPENDED |
| FP242: Caribbean Net-Zero and Resilient Private Sector (IDB Invest)
Proposed by: Inter-American Investment Corporation (IDB Invest) To be implemented in: Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominican Republic, Guyana, Jamaica, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago Cross-Cutting Category I-1 Total Financing: 527.18 million USD GCF Financing: 118.98 million USD (50 million USD (loans); 25 million USD (equity); 25 million USD (guarantee); 2.5 million USD (reimbursable grants); 18.98 million USD (grants)) Co-Financing: 408.2 million USD |
The BM from Korea mentioned that the BM from China cannot attend B39, thus he will be delivering China’s intervention. The BM from China expressed support for the FP but emphasized that the projects, associated activities of the project, and the recipient countries, should not violate the “One China Principle”.
Although supportive of the project, the BM from Egypt recalled his previous concern from FP237 about the lack of clarity on subprojects for multi-country programmes. This was echoed by Tara Daniel, CSO AO from Developed Countries. The CSO AO then raised the FP’s lack of added value, and the low quality of the Gender Action Plan. The CSOs further noted the inadequacy in relying on the MDB Methodological Principles as the FP only mentioned this as a criteria of selecting sub-projects rather than a complete pipeline of planned sub-projects and activities. The PSO AO expressed complete support and urged the Board to approve the proposal. |
APPROVED |
The Board proceeded to discuss the item Consideration of Restructuring Funding Proposals. There was a question from the floor on whether the agenda should be discussed in a closed session, to which the co-chair from the Dominican Republic replied and confirmed that the item must be discussed openly. This prompted the Secretariat to present the first restructuring case – FP037 Integrated Flood Management to Enhance Climate Resilience of the Vaisigano River Catchment in Samoa. The Board is requested to decide on the request to cancel the construction of flood walls due to inflation of material and transportation costs and the identification of new environmental and social risks once the construction commences. This would also result in the termination of funding disbursement of FP037 amounting to USD 15.3 million. The Board had no objections and the decision was adopted.
There was a request from the Board to temporarily suspend the agenda item and go on a 15-min coffee break. Upon resumption the co-chair from the UK announced the succeeding FPs being considered for restructuring will be done in an executive session, which meant no webcast for observers and only the members of the Board, their alternates and advisers who signed the confidentiality agreement, the GCF Executive Director and selected members of the Secretariat are allowed to join the session.
The said Executive Session lasted for more than 40 minutes and was immediately followed by the agenda item Financing of Results Based Payments (RBP) for REDD+. Benjamin Singer of the Secretariat recalled the B38 discussions where the Board presented 2 alternative options on how to take the RBP of the GCF forward, with option 1 covering the need for further consultations on Requests for Proposals (RFP), using the B37 proposals as the basis, and option 2 to consider option 1 plus additional consultations on alternative options including mainstreaming proposals. The Secretariat also added that the Fund’s mandate to employ results-based financing approaches is reflected in paragraphs 51 and 55 of the GCF Governing Instrument. The BM from Ecuador wanted to emphasize this provision in the GI and requested for it be reflected clearly in the document.
At this Board Meeting, the Board is requested to approve the principles for mainstreaming REDD+ RBP and to allocate up to an additional $250 million to the Pilot Programme funding envelope. The adoption of the document will also take note of the 4 eligible concept notes previously submitted for the Pilot Programme and prompt the Secretariat to conduct open, inclusive and transparent consultations on the development of proposals under RBP for REDD+. A proposed timetable of consultations that the Secretariat aims to undertake was also presented.
When the floor was opened for questions and comments, many BMs expressed support for the principles that will guide the mainstreaming proposal of REDD+ RBPs and the interest in participating in further consultations as outlined by the Secretariat. The BM from Philippines believe that surfacing strategies around REDD will be beneficial in strengthening the implementation of NDCs of developing countries. Other BMs deem the principles will immediately benefit the 4 countries with pending concept notes in order to proceed with developing their REDD+ proposals.
Board interventions that highlight the need to undertake more technical consultations were also evident in the discussion. The BMs from Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Canada expressed the need to ensure and strengthen the Fund’s environmental integrity in the proposed approach, and that the focus of the technical consultations go beyond mitigation to consider other socio-economic benefits of REDD+ projects, especially for women, the Indigenous Peoples and local communities. In terms of ensuring an inclusive approach, the BM from Switzerland suggested the consultations be done in a hybrid format that will allow wider stakeholder participation.
Other BMs raised concerns about the proposed allocation amount to the Pilot Programme reflected in the decision text. BMs from Egypt, Austria and South Africa wanted to get more information on the earmarking of $250 million for the 4 pending concept notes, to which the Secretariat clarified that the lack of information about the total amount needed prompted them to calculate the amount based on the UNFCCC data. While there are various assumptions for calculating and arriving at $250 million, the concern raised was recognized and the Secretariat confirmed that keeping the allocation amount open is also possible.
For the GCF Observer Network, the approval of the principles for REDD+ integration was rushed. The intervention delivered by Tara Daniel, CSO Active Observer from developing countries, emphasized that the creation of a REDD+ window could potentially undermine a necessary review and update cycle. The CSOs argued that the narrow, mitigation-focused approach of REDD+ must not crowd out GCF funding for other broader ecosystem and cross-cutting forestry and landscape approaches. Prematurely authorizing the REDD+ funding will also result in an overwhelmingly high concentration of other mitigation-related funding approaches, eventually leading to regional and thematic imbalance in the GCF Portfolio. The CSO intervention also mentioned the need to ensure that the gender, Indigenous Peoples, ESS and ESP policies are included, in addition to the Cancun Safeguards, not only in the Funding Proposals but also in the use of proceeds.
After several exchanges and noting the additional information requests, the co-chair from the UK proposed to suspend the item. This was the last agenda item for Day 2 of the GCF B39 and the meeting was adjourned at 18:07 KST.
###
