CSO Update on the 33rd Green Climate Fund Board Meeting – Days 1 & 2

Full transcript of GCF Observer Network interventions here: https://bit.ly/GCFB33CSoInterventions


Days 1 and 2

The 33rd Meeting of the Green Climate Fund Board scheduled to run from July 16-20 in Incheon, South Korea, was opened last July 16, 2022 with the Board Members adopting the agenda and welcoming new members of the Board. It was a quick session that revolved around what items should be included in the coming days and what documents should have been circulated in advance. The co-chairs then eventually suspended the session after half an hour to give way for the informal sessions that were conducted so the Board and their advisors, together with the CSO Active Observers and their alternates, can initially brainstorm for the review and update of the GCF Strategic Plan for 2024-2027.

The following day, July 17, 2022, the Board started the day with approving reports. The Report of B32 and the Decisions proposed between the 32nd and 33rd meeting of the Board were easily approved without any comments. It was then followed by presentations from the Secretariat on the Status of GCF Resources, Pipeline and Portfolio Performance. The Board was requested to take note of the information documents about the Status of the GCF Pipeline including the Project Preparation Facility, the Status of GCF Resources and Status of GCF Portfolio. Key points from the presentation were as follows:

  • As of May 2022, the GCF has mobilized a total of USD 20.3 billion worth of pledges. Of this, the total contribution received only amounts to USD 12.1 billion ($8 billion from IRM + $4.1 from GCF-1).

  • The total funding commitment needed to support all GCF approved projects, readiness support and other expenses is USD 12.2 billion.

  • Under GCF-1, the Secretariat reported that all 34 contributors have confirmed their pledges, but it should be noted that not all contributors have delivered or put in their contributions to the Fund.

  • Total commitment authority available for B33 is only USD 97 million, and an additional USD 1.2 billion is expected to come in time for the next Board Meeting.

  • The GCF Portfolio comprises 196 projects in total, in 128 countries, worth USD 10.4 billion. There are also 74 Funding Proposals in the pipeline worth USD 4.8 billion. Of the approved projects, 51% are categorized under mitigation and 49% under adaptation using grant equivalent terms. But it should be noted that in nominal terms, the mitigation and adaptation gap is much larger at 68% and 32% respectively.

  • The secretariat did not elaborate much on the accreditation of entities and instead stressed how the volume of DAE accreditation has increased from 12% in IRM to 18% in GCF-1. But it is important to note that while the GCF portfolio has more DAE partners, the funding allocation is still heavily skewed to favor international access entities (IAEs) at more than 80%.


Noting the issues around delays in approval of FPs and accreditation applications, the Secretariat also presented their initial analysis on what hinders the GCF’s efficiency. Issues around internal approvals, finalization of Funded Activity Agreements (FAAs) and agreements with other stakeholders from the Accredited Entities’ side were noted to have impeded the process. Other factors like delays in finalizing subsidiary agreements between the AEs, NDAs and government agencies, as well as changes in administration of focal points at the national level were noted to be challenges encountered from the recipient countries’ side.

Under the support for Readiness and Project Preparation Facility (PPF), the Secretariat reported that the portfolio continues to grow. A total of 141 countries have received Readiness support to develop and strengthen the capacities of DAEs and NDAs, while 64 countries have become recipients of PPFs to help develop quality FPs.

The co-chair then asked the Board for comments regarding the presentations. As with previous Board Meetings, some members of the Board expressed their concerns how much the GCF is losing from foreign exchange loss (currently at USD 1.2 billion). BMs from Norway and Switzerland fear this will worsen in the coming months as the value of the US Dollar continues to rise. They suggested having a foreign exchange strategy to avoid further losses and explore the use of guarantees to generate cash reserves. The BM from Antigua and Barbuda pointed out the very alarming low value of the GCF Commitment Authority (currently at USD 97 million) and asked the Secretariat what they are doing to ensure the timely delivery of pledges, and at what point does the GCF consider an unfulfilled pledge to be no longer available.

The Secretariat responded by saying a hedging strategy is being explored for the issue around foreign exchange loss. Such strategy is currently at the Budget Committee for review and is aimed to be presented at B34 for Board approval and adoption. As for the delivery of pledges, the Secretariat assured the Board that under GCF-1, all contributor countries have confirmed their pledges and that there is no delay. It should be noted however, that while all the contributors have confirmed their pledges, not all have put in money to the Fund. As presented in the report, of the USD 10 billion pledged GCF-1 commitments, only USD 4.1 billion has been received. The Executive Director of the GCF also clarified that the low commitment authority seen at this Board Meeting is the result of delivery delay that was originally scheduled in December 2021. Due to unforeseen circumstances from the contributors’ side, the GCF expects to receive these between June and September 2022.

Board Members also noted the problems raised by the Secretariat when it comes to efficiency of processes, including the disbursement of PPF and Readiness grants. The Secretariat explained that they are trying their best to speed up the process and proactively reach out to provide capacity building support to AEs and NDAs, but the limited human resource of the Secretariat remains a challenge.

The CSO Intervention, delivered by Erika Lennon who is the Active Observer of developed country CSOs, focused on how the GCF’s portfolio remains mitigation-centric. She also raised the need for the GCF to ensure meaningful consultations from CSOs in the 2nd Phase of the REDD+ RBPs, and information be shared about projects in the pipeline so CSOs can get feedback from partners and people in affected communities. The Private Sector Observer also delivered an intervention to express disappointment by the very low involvement of the Private Sector in the GCF. She mentioned how FPs from the Private Sector remain very limited, how the finance for the Private Sector Facility is still low and called for the prioritization of accredited entities from the Private Sector in the GCF.

This was followed by the presentation of the GCF Executive Director on the Report of the Activities of the Secretariat, which is on how the Secretariat performed relative to the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). One of the glaring issues mentioned is how the lack of resources impede the Secretariat’s work – from the Readiness Program which will run out of funds by the end of July, to project development and funding proposal approval, which explains why the very low number of FPs considered by the Board this year. The Executive Director assured the Board that the GCF is expecting an additional USD 2.7 billion for commitment authority soon, which is enough to cover for all FPs to be considered by the end of the year. But the currency fluctuations against the USD may also negatively affect this, which is the reason why the hedging strategy is expedited.

Another problem mentioned which surfaced even from previous Board Meetings is the limited capacity of the Secretariat with its human resource. The Executive Director shared that they aim to hire 50 new positions, including positions for the independent units, that require at least 120-150 additional staff members. Recruitment is ongoing, but the Executive Director admitted it is very difficult since not all are willing to be relocated to Songdo.

This issue of staff recruitment received concerns from some BMs who sought clarity why based on the survey circulated among members of the Secretariat, many feel that there is “lack of trust” among colleagues. BM from Switzerland suspected the pandemic and limited in-person interaction could be a reason and hopes the Secretariat addresses the issue soon. The Executive Director furthered that compared to previous years, the results of staff surveys have relatively improved. He is also unsure why there is lack of trust, but he confirmed that many of the staff look for “work-life balance” and “career development opportunities” in the GCF. He also added that as his term as Executive Director ends in March 2023, he is urging the Board to start the process of selecting a new person to fill the role as he no longer intends to renew his contract.

The BM from Pakistan sought clarity related to the consistency of paragraph 10 of the document with the Updated Strategic Plan. Para 10 states that all 10 sector guides planned for have been finalized for consultation and that all will be published by the end of June to enable partners to self-appraise their proposals. He clarified that the guides are not intended to be used as self-appraisal tools, and so far the guides are still not available in the website, to which the Secretariat agreed to reformulate the para for clarity.

Since there was an amendment proposed, the co-chair decided to suspend the item and defer the adoption of the report in the coming days.


The Secretariat was then asked to present another information document. In B32, after approving a number of projects worth USD 2.73 billion related to forest restoration and conservation, as well as REDD+ RBPs in the past years, the Board requested the Secretariat to share the Current GCF Approaches to Financing for Forests and Alternative Approaches. The said information document was presented at this Board Meeting, to which the Board was requested to take note.


The Secretariat clarified that under the UNFCCC, discussions on forests are divided into two – the REDD+ and the Joint Mitigation and Adaptation (JMA) alternative approaches. Under the GCF its approach to REDD+ projects is to finance all stages of the project — from readiness, implementation, to the Results Based Payments (RBPs). For JMA and alternative approaches, the GCF would employ the cross-cutting approach, targeting the mitigation component of forest activities as well as the adaptation.

Many BMs seemed happy to hear the presentation and start the conversation about forest financing. BM from Germany underscored the need for transformation in the forest sector and how this is aligned with the Paris Agreement goals. She added the value of synergizing mitigation and adaptation and how the Private Sector can also take part in advancing projects related to forests.


The BM from the US on the other hand clarified that the JMA remains under negotiations in the UNFCCC and suggested changing the term to a joint cross-cutting program related to forests. She also reminded the Board about the need to learn from the lessons from the RBP Phase 1 before proceeding to Phase 2 and noted that since there are very few DAEs with projects related to forests, the expansion of the approach should advance DAE participation. This point was agreed upon by the BM from Pakistan and urged the Secretariat to consider the reflections from the phase 1 review of RBPs in future consultations.

The BM from Antigua and Barbuda was particularly interested in the alternative approaches, particularly projects that will promote blue carbon and its potential to promote sustainable management. The Secretariat agreed to this point and shared that in many countries, mangroves and coastal ecosystems have been excluded in their NDC targets. The GCF can innovatively promote such approaches to meet the targets of developing country NDCs.

The Net-Zero by 2050 target was also mentioned by the BM from Kenya. She believes that the GCF must focus on transforming the sector in order to achieve net-zero, and that the approach should consider financial products that are more innovative. Proper safeguards and standards must also be put in place, and projects can also include land restoration and opportunities for commercial use.

The BM from Pakistan sought clarity on a number of things, particularly when the concept of carbon taxes and levies as part of the GCF approach were mentioned. He believes the concept remains a very sensitive topic in the UNFCCC, and advised the GCF to be cautious in looking at these proposed financing instruments.


Our CSO Intervention delivered by Eileen Cunningham of the developing country CSOs, questioned the purpose of the document and raised our concerns with regards to the direction of the Fund in financing the forest sector. CSOs believe the document failed to look into the approach’s consistency with various GCF Policies particularly the Indigenous Peoples Policy as well as the gender and environmental and social safeguards and how these should be considered and adhered to in the approach for financing forests. CSO concerns as to how the document failed to clarify which activities should not be supported, such as those involving monocrop plantations, GMOs, etc. were also mentioned in the intervention.


Since the document was presented for the Board to take note, the co-chairs concluded the discussion after all comments were heard.

The Board was also able to approve two items that requested additional budget allocation from the GCF. Under the Readiness and Preparatory Support Program: Work Program and Budget for 2022-2023, the Secretariat gave an update regarding the status of approved Readiness requests and those that are still in the pipeline. As of May 2021, a total of 590 requests worth USD 413.9 million were approved, and 113 requests worth USD 126 million are still in the pipeline. The remaining commitment authority of the Readiness Programme is likely to be exhausted by July 2022, hence the Secretariat requested the Board to approve an additional USD 166.94 million for 2022-2023.

While many BMs have no objections with the additional budget request, some BMs highlight the need for continued Readiness support especially for LDCs, SIDS and African states. While they believe the Secretariat is doing their best to improve the disbursement of funds, they think the Board must come up with measures that will ensure the timely and sufficient delivery of readiness funds, and the efficiency of the process.


In line with this, the BM from Antigua and Barbuda proposed the following, which was supported by many developing country BMs:

  • Establish a DAE-specific envelope for Readiness and Preparatory Support with at least USD 1 million per year for each DAE that is new additional to the funds received by NDAs

  • Establish of Pilot South-South Cooperation Program that is focused on provision of technical assistance by DAEs

  • Establish a Loss and Damage Response Plan with a one-time provision of USD 3 million to help affected countries develop a national L&D assessment and response plan which would include development of a national methodology and system to assess and quantify L&D

  • Enhance the National Adaptation Planning envelope from a one-time allocation to a recurring allocation

  • Establish multi-year readiness requests of USD 3 million for 3 years as means of reducing transaction costs for project development

The BM from Bhutan added that one strategy that the Secretariat can bring back to improve readiness is the conduct of Structured Dialogues in order for the Focal Points of NDAs, AEs and EEs to engage and discuss issues around the GCF operations in their respective countries.


The completion of Country Work Programmes (CWP) also surfaced during the discussion that the Secretariat noted to be one of the causes of delay. BM from the US believe the NDC targets can be part of the CWP, to which the BMs from Pakistan and Mali argued against. They feared that CWPs would be used as a condition for Funding Proposal submission and approval, and then urged the GCF to allow flexibility with regards to the measures that can be considered as basis for climate finance priorities of countries.

The CSOs via the intervention delivered by Erika Lennon (Active Observer of developed country CSOs) welcomed the report, but we urged the GCF to further develop existing Fund policies (i.e. Gender, Indigenous Peoples and Environment and Social Safeguards) and include all CSOs in the consultations. We also mentioned the need to clarify the purpose of the No Objection Letter (NOL) as part of country ownership and reminded the Board that securing NOLs should always involve all stakeholders and operationalize FPIC of indigenous people and local communities.


The Board then discussed the agenda item Addressing the Gaps in Portfolio Measurement. The Co-Chair from South Africa requested the GCF Secretariat to provide a brief background on the document. Based on the IEU’s review of the Fund’s Results Management Framework (RMF), several gaps were identified in the GCF projects’ application of results management framework/performance measurement framework (RMF/PMF). The Secretariat conducted a risks-based remediation approach in 2 phases and applied a range of measures to improve results reporting at the project level. The aim was to reduce the tolerance thresholds for the projects and consequently the entire GCF portfolio. The said exercise also provided the GCF and the AEs an opportunity to shift and strengthen results management approaches during implementation for part of the GCF portfolio.


Updates on the remediation activities of both phases are as follows:


  • Phase 1 remediation engaged AEs that have rendered changes to their FPs and discussed their willingness to join the participatory monitoring. The remediation exercise ended with an action and budget plan that is aimed to address any concerns that may arise from the implementation of the projects.

    From the roster of AEs, 13 AEs (6 DAEs, 7 IAEs) have willingly participated in the Phase 1 remediation process. There were also 9 AEs (4 DAEs, 5 IAEs) that have declined participation, 3 of those are multilateral development banks (MDBs). From the FPs evaluated, 68 FPs were identified with low ratings, which is higher than the initial ratings received before Board approval.

  • Phase 2 remediation, which has yet to start upon Board approval, focuses on the implementation. AEs choose whether they want to just receive the budget to implement the remediation determined, or if they want the Secretariat to implement. The Secretariat also launched capacity-building initiatives for AEs that voluntarily participated and established a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Helpdesk to provide practical assistance during the entire remediation process.


In order to commence Phase 2 remediation, the Secretariat requested an additional funding of  USD 1.8 billion. If the request is approved in B33, Phase 2 will be implemented from July 2022 to June 2023.


As portfolio management is concerned, the BM from Fiji asked the Secretariat to further break down the data on climate finance flows based on portfolio targets and outputs to small island developing states (SIDS). The BM from Germany raised concerns on several gaps determined at the portfolio level, as well as the alarming unwillingness of AEs to participate in monitoring initiatives.


Kairos dela Cruz, the CSO alternate Active Observer from developing country, delivered our CSO intervention which focused on the need for DAE capacity building measures that will enable them to comply with GCF Policies. The CSOs also noted the refusal of some MDBs in participating in the remediation activities and asked the Board to make willingness or unwillingness to participate in participatory monitoring a major consideration on the AE’s prospective re-accreditation. While the Secretariat states in the document that they believe that the IRMF and its handbook will lessen the need for participatory monitoring, the CSOs argued that there is an even greater need for active monitoring and stakeholder engagement, given the outcome of the Secretariat’s findings. In response to the intervention by CSOs, the GCF Secretariat promised that CSOs will be engaged throughout the process, but they did not provide concrete measures on how this will be done.


After noting all the comments, the Board adopted the proposed Phase 2 approach, as well as the budget requested towards Phase 2’s implementation.


The Board then discussed the Report from Board committees, panels and groups, which revolved around concerns about the Board Risk and Management Committee (RMC), and the unfilled Board positions from GRULAC countries (Latin America and Caribbean countries). The BM from Germany thought a non-functioning RMC is problematic given the many urgent developments and risks faced by the GCF. Other BMs raised interventions on committee functions, terms of references, and proposed committee changes. After hearing all concerns, the co-chair suggested the Board take note of the report and come back with a more detailed discussion of the issue in the agenda item, Co-Chairs’ Proposal on the existing review of committees and panels.


This was followed by an executive session of the Board to discuss the Updated GCF Salary Structure. As the matter was deemed confidential, active observers were asked to leave the Boardroom and the webcast was temporarily suspended.


After half an hour, the Board resumed to discuss the Co-Chairs’ proposal on the existing review of committees and panels. Under this item, the co-chairs solicited views and opinions of the Board on their proposed changes to Board committees and panels, which may include changes in ways of work of the committees, their composition, and terms of reference, among others.


Coming from the earlier intervention of the BM from Germany, developed country BMs echoed the concern of a non-functioning RMC. They also welcomed the Co-Chairs’ proposed option to merge certain committees (I.e.iInvestment Committee and the Accreditations Committee), which they believe would simplify and speed up committee work. BMs from developed countries also urged the Board to strive for gender balance within Board committees, and within the entire Board.


The merging of committees was opposed by BMs from developing countries, specifically the BMs from Pakistan, Bhutan, Gabon, and Kenya, as these imply major changes to committee TOR, which would require further consultations.


The co-chair then took note of the discussions and assured the Board to include the points raised as they draft the proposed decision text on the item.


The Consideration of Funding Proposals also came up in Day 2 of B33. The Secretariat was asked to provide an overview of about this batch of FPs for deliberation, which is summarized below:


  • Out of 5 FPs endorsed by the Secretariat to the Independent Technical Assistance Panel (ITAP) for Board endorsement, only 4 FPs worth USD 380.7 million were submitted to the Board. The unendorsed FP was sent back to the IAE to which the ITAP will assist in reformulation, and hopefully get it ready by B34.


  • All FPs came from International Accredited Entities (IAEs). As a consolation to the fact that no direct access entities (DAEs) are considered during this Board Meeting, as well as very few DAE-proposed projects have been considered by the Board in the past 2 board meetings, the Secretariat mentioned that in the upcoming board meeting, 7 FPs up for the Board’s consideration are submitted by DAEs.


  • Based on the overall GCF portfolio, DAEs continue to receive a very small share of GCF funding, in comparison to IAEs at only 19% compared to the 81% that are channelled through IAEs. The GCF portfolio also comprises 42% grant finance, 42% loans, 9% equities, 5% results-based payments (RBP) and 2% guarantees.


  • With around USD 10.8 Billion in climate financing and around USD 40 Billion in co-financing, the GCF estimates that it has mitigated 2.1 Gigatonnes of CO2 Equivalents (GtCO2Eq) and have impacted 641 million beneficiaries through the adaptation projects the GCF have financed.


When asked for comments on the presentation, BMs from both developed and developing countries expressed grave and urgent concerns about the fact that no DAE-proposed project was considered for this Board Meeting. They also noted the stark imbalance of fund allocation between DAEs and IAEs in the GCF portfolio.


In order to address these, the BM from Kenya, on behalf of the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) and the developing country constituency, suggested concrete steps to achieve balance in the GCF portfolio. These include the Board deciding for a target number of approved DAE projects at every Board Meeting, and the Secretariat presenting more ambitious DAE programming targets.


BM from Kenya also noted that currently multilateral development banks (MDBs) dominate the GCF portfolio and argued that national and regional DAEs, as well as private sector DAEs, are supposed to be the dominant recipients of GCF funding. These points were echoed by several BMs from both developed and developing countries, namely the BMs from Pakistan, China, Bhutan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States (US).


Many developed country BMs were in favor of approving all 4 FPs, for the reason that most of these projects are in a programmatic approach format. It is to be noted that projects in programmatic approach are funds of their own, with the GCF, its Board, and stakeholders having little to no degree of control or direct line of accountability and transparency to projects.


In our CSO Intervention, Erika Lennon, the Active Observer from developing country CSOs, raised several concerns not only on the programmatic approach itself, but also on the continuing trend of compliance with the GCF’s environmental and social safeguards, gender action plans, and Indigenous Peoples policy that leave little to no degree of direct accountability and control to key stakeholders. As all of the FPs are classified as cross-cutting, the intervention also raised the lack of clarity on how the adaptation components of the FPs were determined, and on how multi-country projects threaten country ownership, which is supposed to be the priority of the GCF under its governing instrument. The intervention also reiterated our demand for inclusive and meaningful engagement of observers in all aspects of these FPs, as well as policies around the GCF portfolio.


The Board then continued to discuss each Funding Proposal as summarized below:





FP187: Oueme Basin Climate Resilience Initiative (OCRI) Benin


Country: Benin

AE: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Total Financing: USD 35.3 Million

GCF Financing: USD 18.45 Million (grants)

Co-Financing: USD 16.86 Million (grants)

Developed Country CSO AO Erika Lennon delivered an intervention reminding the AE that gender assessments and gender action plans are not only measured through quantitative metrics but also, on how gender initiatives are qualitatively experienced by stakeholders. CSOs recommend that the FP improve its gender action plan.


FP188: Climate Resilient Fishery Initiative for Livelihood Improvement in the Gambia (PROREFISH Gambia)


Country: Gambia

AE: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Total Financing: USD 25 Million

GCF Financing: USD 17.2 Million (grants)

Co-Financing: USD 7.9 Million

The BM from Germany, while clearly stating her support in approving the project, asked for clarification on certain technical details of the projects. The BM from Bhutan and Ghana asked about the conditions to be complied with by the recipient country and its NDA given the rigorous project preparations employed by the Secretariat and ITAP. The FAO clarified that the said conditions are already acceptable to the NDA and the Gambian government.


FP189: E-Mobility Program for Sustainable Cities in Latin America and the Caribbean


Countries: Barbados, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Panama, Paraguay, Uruguay

AE: Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)

Total Financing: USD 450 Million

GCF Financing: USD 200 Million (USD 55 Million in grants, USD 145 Million in loans)

Co-Financing: USD 250 Million

The BM from Antigua and Barbuda commended and endorsed the project.

Developing Country Alternate CSO AO Kairos dela Cruz delivered the CSO intervention which concerned several technical and thematic issues and improvements that should be addressed by the FP. As blue hydrogen is proposed to be a major source of energy under this FP, the project should ensure its use will not lead to less fresh water availability. As the transition towards e-mobility will mean displacement of jobs in fossil-fuel dependent industries such as transportation, the CSOs believe a comprehensive just transition component is lacking. Rare earth minerals and supply chains have resulted in several sovereign issues and the FP’s environmental and social safeguards (ESS) need to be clarified. The CSO intervention also raised that the safety of women in public transportation should be a major element in the gender-related initiatives of the FP.


FP190: Climate Investor Two


Countries: Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Colombia Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Maldives, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Philippines, Sierra Leonne, South Africa, Uganda

AE: Dutch Entrepreneurial Development Bank (FMO)

Total Financing: USD 880 Million

GCF Financing: USD 145 Million (in reimbursable grants)

Co-Financing: USD 735 Million

The BM from Germany, while in support of the FP’s approval, also asked for proper implementation of the ESS of the FP, as the project poses high environmental, social, and economic risks.

While the BM from Ghana agrees on the great need of the target recipient countries to access water, sanitation, and ocean projects, he joins the BM from Pakistan on calling for clarification about “reimbursable grants.” They believe approving a project with reimbursable grants will set a dangerous precedent on the use of the GCF’s financial instruments and asked the Secretariat to provide clarification on the policy background, as well as on the appropriateness of reimbursable grants for a private sector project.

The co-chair from South Africa then consulted the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) on the matter, to which the OGC pointed out that a B09 policy allows the GCF to finance grants that are reimbursable. He also mentioned that under the Dutch law, equity financing is not allowed, hence the “reimbursable grants.”

The BM from Pakistan was not satisfied with the explanation and asked that the item be suspended for further clarification.

Developing Country Alternate CSO AO Kairos dela Cruz delivered an intervention raising the CSOs, local communities, and IP’s opposition to the FP. The CSOs believe the programme focuses mostly on the development and construction of big grey infrastructure projects in terms of ports, water utilities, and other water related infrastructure. The programme also does not demonstrate the climate rationale of its adaptation components, since it lacks the site-specific context that would allow an ex ante evaluation of the impacts of climate change and other external factors in the area, to assess whether the proposed responses are appropriate.


FP181: Catalytic Capital for First Private Investment Fund for Adaptation Technologies in Developing Countries

AE: Pegasus Capital Advisors (PCA)

The AE is requesting the Board to waive certain conditions attached to its FP decision document. As the matter was deemed confidential by the Co-Chairs, the Board entered into an executive session to which the CSOs have no idea whether it was approved or suspended.


When the Board resumed from the executive session, the co-chair from South Africa motioned to end Day 2 of B33. There was no resolution or updates mentioned regarding the Board decision on FP181. The session adjourned at 6:30PM Korea time.


You can watch the live webcast and proceedings of B33 from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM South Korea time here: https://www.greenclimate.fund/boardroom/meeting/b33#videos