UPDATES: Day 3 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 3 – July 17, 2024

Day 3 began with the Consideration of Accreditation Proposals. Carolina Fuentes from the GCF Secretariat and Natalie Understell from the Accreditations Panel (AP) provided an overview of the GCF’s accreditation portfolio and pipeline. They reported that the GCF currently has 128 accredited entities, including 82 direct access entities (DAEs) and 34 from the private sector. Additionally, there are 151 applicants for accreditation, with 108 being DAEs and 33 from the private sector.

The Board was informed that the accreditation strategy adopted in B34 is in full implementation. 25 new applicants are expected to be presented for the Board’s consideration before the end of 2024. Aiming to process more applicants, the Secretariat targets to consider 25 new applicants per year once accreditation-related policies, such as the Partnerships and Access Strategy and the Action Plan Complementarity and Coherence, are adopted. They also assured the Board that the targets outlined in the Updated Strategic Plan 2 (USP-2) for 2024-2027, including the increased number of accredited DAEs, can be achieved if these policies are implemented.

Following this overview, the GCF Secretariat detailed the six (6) accreditation applications for consideration at this Board Meeting. The batch of applications included 4 DAEs and 2 IAEs, and 4 reaccreditation applications. 

Board Members (BMs) from Mali and The Gambia appreciated the efforts of the GCF Secretariat and the Accreditations Panel for considering applications of DAEs from LDCs. However, they expressed concern that international access entities (IAEs) continue to receive a significant portion of GCF funding. The BM from The Gambia added that since IAEs receive over 70% of total GCF funding, there must be more capacity building and ownership for DAEs to access more GCF financing. As a response, the Secretariat assured the Board that the readiness strategy is nearing full implementation and should be able to address the increased funding allocation to DAE projects, including from LDCs and the LAC region. 

BMs from Ecuador and The Gambia also raised concerns about regional balance, noting that no DAEs from their regions are being considered at B39. The Secretariat responded that there are regional DAEs in this batch that will be able to directly access GCF funding and implement projects in their respective regions.

Despite the Board’s appreciation for the increased number of DAEs, Bertha Argueta, the alternate Civil Society Organization Active Observer (CSO AO) from developed countries, shared the GCF Observer Network’s growing concerns about the direction of accreditation. The CSOs highlighted the lack of transparency in implementing the accreditation strategy, particularly the “right-sizing” and “gap-filling” of the GCF’s accreditation portfolio. It was also emphasized that the process should focus on equity, climate justice, and country ownership rather than merely fulfilling the numbers and objectives stated in USP-2.

The GCF Observer Network also urged that information about the entities seeking to access the GCF through the PSAA approach be disclosed and reiterated that the accreditation process be transparent. The Secretariat assured the Board that a progress update on accreditation, including those under PSAA, will be published by B40.

Concerns about the ongoing activities of the Secretariat were also raised by the CSOs, particularly those that involve “active researching legal routes” for IAEs to serve as executing entities for DAEs. They argued that IAEs are expensive project implementers that charge high administrative costs, and should instead help build capacity and knowledge of DAEs rather than foster dependency.  

The Board had no further comments and moved on to consider the approval of each individual accreditation application. The following table provides details on the applicants and upgrades, as well as the Board’s discussions:

Applicant

Discussion and/or Changes to Accreditation

Status

APL133: Center for Implementation of Investment Projects within the Committee for Environmental Protection (CIIP), Tajikistan

Access Modality: DAE, national (Tajikistan)

Size: Small

ESS Risk: Medium (category B)

The Board had no comments. APPROVED
APL134: Development Bank of Nigeria (DBN), PLC

Access Modality: DAE, National (Nigeria)

Size: Medium

ESS risk: medium (category B/intermediation 2)

The Board had no comments. APPROVED
APL135: Fonds Interprofessionnel pour la Recherche et le Conseil Agricoles (FIRCA)

Access Modality: DAE, Côte d’Ivoire 

Size: Small

ESS Risk: medium (category B/intermediation 2)

The Board had no comments. APPROVED
APL136: Indian Ocean Conservation (IOC)

Access Modality: DAE, regional (Africa, based in Mauritius)

Size: Small

ESS Risk: minimal to no risk (category C/intermediation 3)

The Board had no comments. APPROVED
APL137: Islamic Development Bank (IsDB)

Access Modality: IAE (based in Saudi Arabia)

Size: Large

ESS Risk: High (category A/intermediation 1)

There were no comments except for the GCF Observer Network. However, the co-chair failed to notice the raised flag and proceeded to Board decision without calling the CSO Active Observer. It was only at the later part of the meeting when the co-chair realized the mistake and asked the AO to deliver the intervention for documentation. 

The intervention was delivered by Kairos dela Cruz, the CSO AO from developing countries. The CSOs urged the Board  to include stringent conditions in the decision text that  would compel IsDB to cease its fossil fuel financing and loans to developing countries. They also asked the Board to reconsider accreditation of profit-oriented entities like IsDB and reminded that the GCF was established to support projects and programs through grants and highly concessional loans.

APPROVED
APL138: Meridiam SAS

Access Modality: IAE (based in France)

Size: Large

ESS Risk: High (category A/intermediation 1)

The Board had no comments. However, while the GCF Observer Network did not have any issues with accrediting Meridiam, developed country alternate CSO AO Bertha Argueta raised CSO concerns about the prioritization of Meridiam’s accreditation. They noted that Meridiam claims to be well-resourced in its public documents and already partnered with several international development finance institutions (DFIs) and multilateral development banks (MDBs) and therefore will not need additional funds from the Fund to implement climate-related projects. They added that GCF funding and accreditation resources should be reserved for DAEs from developing countries, and urged the Secretariat to ensure the entity is not involved in carbon credit trading activities. APPROVED
Re-accreditation:

Department of Environment, under the Ministry of Health and Environment of the Government of Antigua and Barbuda

Access Modality: DAE, national (Antigua and Barbuda)

Size: Small

ESS Risk: medium (category B/intermediation 2)

Size upgrade: Small to Medium

The BM from Cook Island expressed her seat’s support for the accreditation of the applicant.

APPROVED
Re-accreditation:

Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación  de la Naturaleza (FMCN)

Access Modality: DAE

Size: Micro

ESS Risk: Category C/Intermediation 3

Size upgrade: Micro to Small

ESS Risk upgrade: from Category C/Intermediation 3 to Category B/Intermediation 2)

The Board had no comments.

APPROVED
Re-accreditation:

Ministry of Finance, Government of Ethiopia

Access Modality: DAE, national (Ethiopia)

Size: Small

ESS Risk: Category B/Intermediation 2

Size upgrade: Small to Medium

The Board had no comments.

APPROVED
Re-accreditation:

PKSF Bangladesh

Access Modality: DAE, national (Bangladesh)

Size: Small

ESS Risk: Category C/Intermediation 3

Size upgrade: Small to Medium

Fiduciary Standards Upgrade: To add standards for on-lending or blending (for guarantees)

The Board had no comments.

APPROVED

In addition to the ten applicants, the Board approved the World Health Organization (WHO) application for fast-track accreditation processing. The WHO is an accredited entity with the Adaptation Fund (AF) and GCF policies allow entities already accredited by other UNFCCC climate finance mechanisms to apply for fast-track accreditation processing, subject to the GCF Board’s approval.

While all applications were approved, the Board Member (BM) from Saudi Arabia proposed additions to the decision text on the Consideration of Accreditation Proposals. He suggested referencing a B37 decision that governs the GCF Secretariat and the Accreditation Panel (AP) on the scope of information considered in recommending applicants and their respective accreditation conditions for Board consideration. The BM argued that in the past, information beyond what applicants are required to disclose have led to additional accreditation conditions. He believes that all applicants must be treated equally in the accreditation process and requested for the additional language to be included in the decision text. The Board then adopted the decision reflecting the addition.

The Board also discussed the Status of GCF Resources, Portfolio, Pipeline including the Project Preparation Facility requests. The said agenda item took into consideration 3 information documents that the Secretariat presented as summarized below:

Status of Resource
(as of 30 June 2024)

Status of Portfolio
(as of 30 April 2024)

Status of Pipeline
(as of 30 April 2024)

  • $33.1 billion: total amount of pledges made to the GCF 
  • $18.4 billion: total amount received to date 
  • Iceland, Malta and Belgium announced new pledges
Readiness Programme

  • 796: number of readiness grants approved
  • 563: number of grants under implementation
  • 209: number of grants closed
  • $627 million: total amount approved for readiness
  • $372 million: total amount disbursed for readiness
  • Regional distribution: 33% Africa, 30% Latin America, 32% Asia Pacific and 5.5% Eastern Europe

Project Preparation Facility

  • 94: number of PPF grants approved
  • $57 million: amount of PPF funding disbursed
  • 30: number of PPF-supported projects approved

GCF Funded Activities

  • $13.9 billion: approved funding for 253 projects in 129 countries
  • 87% increase in the number of projects under implementation
  • 36% disbursement rate for projects
  • Regional distribution of approved projects: 104 in Africa, 106 in Asia Pacific, 66 in Latin America, 14 in Eastern Europe
  • Funding allocation:
    54% adaptation, 46% mitigation
    64% public, 36% private
    80% IAEs, 20% DAEs
  • $17.7 billion: approved funding for 73 FPs, 282 concept notes in 134 countries
  • $13.6 billion: concept notes in the pipeline, 15% mitigation, 26% adaptation and 59% cross-cutting
  • $4 billion: FPs in the pipeline, 12% mitigation, 23% adaptation and 65% cross-cutting
  • 120 concept notes from IAEs
  • 140 concept notes from DAEs
  • 50 FPs from IAEs
  • 23 FPs from DAEs

In order to keep track with the targets and goals of the Funds, the Secretariat shared that capacity building measures around Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) both at the secretariat and Accredited Entity (AE) level have been done. Efforts to build stronger engagements with peer organizations were also prioritized together with the development, use and sharing of knowledge products. Although there were delays and challenges in mobilizing co-financing, which can still be traced back to the impacts of Covid-19, the Secretariat said that the Fund’s flexibility in processing changes (e.g. extensions) have been beneficial. Overall, the Fund is considerably on track in terms of the confirmation of pledges, the continuous growth of readiness portfolio, the increasing demand for support in the pipeline, the continued support to DAEs under PPF, and the Fund’s focus on the results as its portfolio matures.

Many BMs were happy to hear the numbers in the presentation and acknowledged the upward trend in the replenishment of Funds in the GCF, which the BMs from Germany and Canada believe should be part of the communications that the GCF put out in public. Adding to the GCF-2 pledges, the BM from Norway also confirmed the country’s pledge of US$305 million. It was welcomed by some members of the Board, however others pointed out the very low funding disbursements to GCF projects and programs. The BM from Egypt believes the slow progress in confirmation of pledges and relatively low funding commitments of contributor countries are key factors for this. He then called for the developed countries, especially those that have unfulfilled pledges dating back from the IRM, GCF-1 to the GCF-2, to urgently deliver and increase their pledges. 

The issue around providing loans for adaptation projects was also raised by the BM from Egypt and echoed by the GCF Observer Network in the CSO Intervention. While the information documents showed how the majority of GCF projects receive grants-based financing, concerns around the fact that many adaptation projects are now supported through loans and other debt-creating instruments have been raised. The Secretariat responded by saying that resource mobilization remains to be the biggest challenge of the Fund, and added that grants-based finance in reality is finite. Given the urgency and the increased demand for adaptation projects in light of the Global Goal on Adaptation discussions, tapping in the private sector and its loan financing is believed to be a viable option.

In the intervention made by Kairos dela Cruz, the Active Observer of developing country CSOs, concerns about the upcoming applications for Project-Specific Assessment Approach (PSAA) that are programmatic in nature were raised. The issue lies in the fact that the Fund has no policy on programmatic approaches yet and compliance with safeguards including but not limited to the GCF gender, Indigenous Peoples and Environmental and social policies might be compromised. For multi-country projects, timely information disclosure and posting of independent mid-term and final evaluations in addition to the annual performance reports of the sub-projects were added. 

The CSOs also reiterated the recurring concern in the Fund portfolio particularly on the notable imbalance between Mitigation and Adaptation projects in nominal terms, and the pronounced concentration of fund access among only five IAEs. Taking into account the projects in the pipeline, and the increase of DAE accreditation, the CSOs argue that the Fund continues to exhibit a bias towards international entities, which runs counter to the GCF’s direct access mandate and potentially hinder the equitable and effective allocation of the Fund’s limited resources.

After hearing the comments, the Board then moved to discuss Matters Related to the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC. This agenda item requested the Board to look at two documents – the COP28 Guidance and the 13th Report of the GCF to the COP. 

Under COP28 Guidance, the Board is requested to take note of the report including the actions to be undertaken by the Board and the Secretariat, and ask the co-chairs and the Secretariat to prepare an overview of action plans referred to in the 13th GCF Report to the COP. 

A number of Board Members expressed their support to approve the decision, including the BM from Switzerland who was happy to note that the programmatic approach, multilingualism, revised accreditation framework, and complementarity and coherence (C&C) are reflected in the report. The BM from Saudi Arabia on the other hand was quite confused how the C&C is relevant as a response to the COP guidance, and argued that the Board cannot take note and endorse something to the COP without a Board decision on the matter. He asserted that the C&C decision included a request to the Secretariat for options that have not yet been presented to the Board, and therefore cannot be part of a plan that will be submitted to the COP. 

The Fund’s vital role in providing guidance and assistance to the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FLD) was also highlighted by the BM from Denmark. This was echoed by the GM from Germany who also expressed appreciation for the inclusion of the Fund’s efforts to implement the Gender Action Plan (GAP) that is believed to be crucial in monitoring progress towards gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls.

Bertha Argueta, the alternate Active Observer from the developed country CSOs, shared the concerns by the CSOs about the insufficient responses of the GCF to encouraging further pledges and contributions, advancing programming through DAEs, and making further progress in gender mainstreaming. They urged the Secretariat to commit to a much more proactive role in reaching out to potential new contributors and encourage those with an unsatisfactory initial commitment to raise their ambition and pledge more. The CSOs reminded the Board that the replenishment does not end with the pledging conference, and in this year of climate finance within the UNFCCC, the Secretariat should fully accept its responsibility to promote additional contributions as a key way for developed countries to fulfill their climate finance obligations.

Having heard all comments from the floor, the co-chair from the UK requested the Board to adopt the draft decision, however many BMs were confused on how to proceed. The co-chair explained that the item was originally opened at B38 but was not adopted to avoid preempting the other items for Board consideration at B39. While the BM from South Africa argued that such an explanation be included in the decision text, the co-chair from the UK suggested adding a footnote in the report instead.

This was then immediately followed by the agenda item 13th Report of the GCF to the UNFCCC, where the Board was requested to take note of the report in Annex 1 of the document and mandated the Secretariat and the co-chair to capture in the report the decisions and progress made during B40. 

The co-chair called upon Kairos dela Cruz, CSO Active Observer from developing countries, to deliver the intervention of the CSOs. They raised how the report failed to include the update on the termination of FP146 in Nicaragua due to the project’s serious impact on people and communities, and information regarding the ESS development of the Secretariat. They also believe the paragraph on Gender is uninformative and unable to include achievements, and gender-disaggregated data. There was also no discussion of the Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (IPAG) recommendations on key policies.

The Board had no comments on the item and was easily adopted. The BM from Saudi Arabia on the other hand, requested to put on record some suggestions that will help the co-chairs and the Secretariat in further improving the report to the COP. He argued that the C&C should not be included in the report and that the GCF should fulfill its mandate in advancing the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) which can be reflected in the Fund’s activities and plans. He also encouraged the Secretariat to engage in the technical work not only around adaptation but also in workshops and discussions involving adaptation finance. 

The Board also looked into the Reports from Board Committees, Panels, and Groups. This started with updates from Nino Tandilashvili, BM from Georgia and Chair of the Accreditation Committee (AC). She reported that the AC had been regularly discussing the rationale for accreditation reform, its process and principles, and the Partnerships and Access Strategy over engagements. The AC has also provided its recommendations on the Partnerships and Access strategy during these engagements, which is generally supportive towards simplifying and speeding up accreditation. Moving forward, the AC asked to be informed on updates on the accreditation reform package. The Chair of the AC also noted the GCF ED’s personal involvement in the AC processes. The AC’s report was noted by the Board with no comments.

Still under the AC, the BM from Georgia also presented the updated Terms of Reference of the Accreditation Panel (AP) for approval by the Board. She reported that the updated Terms of Reference prescribes clearer rules on ensuring the AP’s full capacity, terminating inactive AP members, and appointing AP members to be nominated by the AC with support from the Secretariat and endorsement from the Board. The updated ToR also reflects decisions by the Board on ethics and conflicts of interest, updates to the accreditation framework, and balance of representation in terms of gender, language diversity, and constituency between developed and developing countries, in AP appointments. The BM from Saudi Arabia asked why the ability of the Board to amend the ToR was omitted from the draft text for adoption, despite this authority being specified in previous drafts. The Secretariat clarified that the Board still has the authority, but that it doesn’t need to be mentioned in the ToR. Hearing no further comments, the updated ToR of the AP was approved.

The BM from the Gambia spoke on behalf of the Investment Committee (IC) and updated the Board on the progress of the IC in developing a framework for local currency financing in the GCF. She emphasized the objective of the local currency financing  which is to assist its borrowing DAEs  in managing foreign exchange risks. The IC requested the Secretariat to analyze the GCF’s foreign exchange exposure and develop a foreign exchange management framework, under the guidance of the IC, which will be considered by the Board in B41. The co-chairs then showed the Draft Decision Text on Local Currency Financing recommended by the IC for the Board’s approval. Some BMs expressed their support for the text but flagged their disappointment with its quality, stating that they expected it to illustrate  concrete and comprehensive modalities for local currency financing given the length of time that the text has been in progress and the urgency of the pilot. They also expected the text to be distributed to the Board in a more timely manner. Despite this, the text was approved by the Board.

The IC also provided updates on its mandate from B28 to commission a review on the structure and effectiveness of the Independent Technical Advisory Panel (ITAP) for the Board’s consideration. A report on this was delivered to the IC in 2023, but after several months of discussions, the IC noted limitations in the report and rejected the recommendations. Recognizing the evolution of the GCF since the ITAP was created, the IC proposed in its Draft Decision Text on the ITAP Review a broader inquiry into the ITAP, featuring a more comprehensive stakeholder consultation process which was identified as a gap from the previous study. 

Developed and developing country BMs were divided on the proposal/draft text. Some developing country BMs proposed to include provisions that would revert the ITAP’s mandate back to its original one until the ITAP review has been completed. This meant that the Secretariat would provide the Board with all of its recommended FPs even without ITAP endorsement. However, the ITAP’s assessment and recommendations would still be included in the FP submission, thereby changing nothing from the ITAP’s working modality. Developing country BMs clarified that this proposal is not meant to undermine the ITAP, but because of the need to provide acceptable working arrangements for the Board’s approval of FPs while the ITAP is under review. They added that the Secretariat’s growing capacity should be able to fill the assessment during the ITAP review. 

As a counter proposal, developed country BMs sought to limit the scope of the ITAP review, moving to omit provisions on scrutiny over the function, governance, or role of the ITAP. They were concerned that diminishing the ITAP’s role in the Board’s consideration of FPs pre-judge the outcomes of the review. Lastly, they expressed discomfort about the rushed timeline between this deliberation and the Board’s receipt of the draft text and requested to receive it earlier to comfortably review the contents. After extensive discussions on some of the developing country BMs’ proposed additions to the decision text, the Board instead approved the original text.

The Board then moved to continue discussions under the agenda item Consideration of Funding Proposals (FPs), particularly the 3 FPs pending Board approval.  due to various outstanding issues from the Board.  Below is a table outlining the FPs under contention and the Board’s discussion towards resolving outstanding issues:

 

FP Details

Comments

Status

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

The ITAP originally proposed covenants and conditions for the approval of the FP. Initial covenants required the submission of a strategy for ensuring the participation of women who do not own land before the first disbursement of the project. Additionally, initial conditions required the submission of a satisfactory monitoring and evaluation plan to the Secretariat before the second disbursement of project funds.

The new proposed decision text revised these requirements. The submission of the strategy to ensure the inclusion of women who do not own land is now required before the deadline for the delivery of the Interim Independent Evaluation Report. Furthermore, the requirement for a monitoring and evaluation plan has been changed from a condition to a recommendation.

The Board had no comments on these proposed changes to the decision text, and the FP was approved.

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)

The ITAP initially proposed conditions to fulfill before the first disbursement of funds for the FP. These included requiring a satisfactory monitoring and evaluation plan and an updated logical framework consistent with the theory of change. However, several developing country Board Members (BMs), particularly from Africa, argued that these conditions impose a burden on many, if not all, beneficiary countries. The BM from Sweden defended the conditions, citing the fragility of some target beneficiary countries as justification for greater due diligence.

In an attempt to find a compromise, the BM from Sweden proposed edits to the conditions on the decision text that moves the submission of the monitoring and evaluation plan to a condition prior to the second disbursement, while leaving other conditions unchanged. However, BMs from various developing country constituencies opposed this proposal, arguing that it would shift the burden onto already fragile beneficiary countries and restrict rather than enhance access and capacity. 

Despite extensive debate between developed and developing country BMs, with the former maintaining their stance on the decision text and the later recommending the deletion of conditions and changing them into recommendations, the consideration of the FP remained suspended to allow for additional consultations.

SUSPENDED
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)

The BM from Pakistan initially raised concerns about the Secretariat’s assessment, which were distributed on a limited basis. This led to a closed-door executive session due to the confidential nature of the matters discussed, and the suspension of the FP’s consideration to facilitate further consultations between the Board and the Secretariat.

Upon resuming consideration of the FP, the Secretariat clarified that the disputed issue in their assessment pertained to the maps used to depict the project’s target sites. These maps have since been updated to accurately reflect disputed territories.

Following these revisions, the BM from Pakistan, while satisfied with the changes, issued a statement. They affirmed their support for the project’s objectives but emphasized that their approval did not signify endorsement of the stance on disputed territories, specifically referencing the Kashmir and Jammu regions.

The Board had no further comments on the FP.

APPROVED

Deviating from the schedule in the daily programme, the co-chairs moved to discuss the Report of Activities of Independent Units, which included the following documents that were presented to the Board:

  • Report on the Activities of the Independent Integrity Unit (IIU)
  • Report on the Activities of the Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM)
  • Report on the Activities of the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU)
  • 2023 Annual Implementation Report on the Policy of Prohibited Practices 
  • Report on the Activities of the Information Appeals Panel (IAP) 

The BM from the Netherlands commended the work done by the independent units and asked the IIU if it expects grievance cases to rise as more GCF projects are approved and implemented, and whether cases are actually being reported. The Head of the IIU, Karen Ernst, responded that the increase in number of projects also means more grievance cases are expected, and assured the Board that cases are indeed being directly reported by AEs as a result of capacity-building efforts of the IIU. As there were no further comments, the Board noted the independent units’ reports.

The Board’s last agenda item for the day was Dates and Venues of Upcoming Meetings of the Board. Antoaneta Boeva from the Secretariat opened by presenting the offers of Mongolia, Tajikistan, and Papua New Guinea to host board meetings in 2025.

BMs from both developed and developing countries had issues with the proposed dates and venues. Some BMs requested a change in dates for B40 due to conflicts with CBD COP16 and the IMF-WB Annual Meetings, as well as close proximity to COP29. Others requested a change in dates for B41 and B42 due to conflicts with Ramadan, the Eid holidays, and other national events. Meanwhile, other BMs called attention to the length of the Board Meetings and urged a reduction in the number of days that the Board Meetings are held. Other BMs urged to retain the dates in the text.

In terms of venue, there were BMs who urged all Board Meetings in the Republic of Korea  to reduce staff travel expenses and avoid further overspending. Other BMs argued the added value in Board Members having firsthand experience in the countries that the GCF has approved projects in. Some BMs encouraged the exploration of a virtual Board Meeting to reduce expenses, greenhouse gas emissions, and travel obligations, as well as increase inclusivity for countries with smaller budgets. However, other BMs were strongly against this given the need for personal and collaborative interaction in consensus-building and other technology challenges posed by virtual meetings.

The proposed dates and venues so far are:

  • B40 on October 21 to 24, 2024 in the Republic of Korea
  • B41 on March 24 to 27, 2025 in the Republic of Korea
  • B42 on June 30 to July 3, 2025 in a location outside of the Republic of Korea, to be decided by the Board upon the Secretariat’s recommendation
  • B43 on October 27 to 30, 2025 in the Republic of Korea

The item was suspended as some Board members called the attention of the Board regarding the time. The Co-Chairs will undertake further consultations on the matter.

Day 3 ended 28 minutes past 18:00 KST.

###