In line with the updates on the 28th Board Meeting of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), we inform everyone that Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC) a notorious financier of dirty energy projects, is re-applying for accreditation to the GCF this 28th Board Meeting. More than 400 organizations from around the world have signed a letter addressed to the GCF Board calling for the rejection of SMBC’s application. Allowing a dirty company to access much needed public finance for developing countries entails huge reputational risks and makes a mockery of the mandated objectives of the GCF. We encourage you to join us and continue protesting SMBC’s accreditation to the GCF via social media using the hashtags #NoToSMBCinGCF #FossilFuelFreeAsia and #ActForClimateJusticeNow. Tag the GCF Board Members while we tweet these hashtags, as well.

The Opening of the 28th Board Meeting of the GCF started with a brief speech from the newly nominated Co-Chairs from Mexico and France, representing the developing and developed country constituencies, respectively. Both the co-chairs are new to the GCF and were just recently nominated to the Board after B27 last November 2020.

The Green Climate Fund and Adaptation Finance: How to help climate-vulnerable and fragile states adapt to climate change

by Adrianna Hardaway

The evidence is clear: climate finance is not going to the most climate-vulnerable countries and populations. The majority of the most climate-vulnerable countries received less than $20 per person per year in climate change adaptation financing from 2010–2017.

This is particularly troubling as climate change is already affecting the lives and livelihoods of communities in climate-vulnerable countries, especially in fragile states. For example, from 2004-2014, 58% of disaster-related deaths occurred in the top 30 fragile and conflict-affected countries.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the world’s largest dedicated fund of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and is an essential channel for directing urgent climate change funding to front line communities and climate-vulnerable countries.

The GCF’s commitment to allocate 50% of its funding to adaptation programming, and 50% of those funds to priority countries like the Least Developed Countries (LDC), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and African States, is a commendable goal.

As of November 2020, $2.63 billion (36% of the GCF portfolio) has reached these countries. This is a good start for helping countries affected by climate change.

Adaptation finance is not reaching those most in need

However, if we look at where funds are going within these broad groups of states, there are deep disparities that must be addressed. For example, GCF funding by indicators of climate vulnerability suggests a disturbing trend for the most climate-vulnerable countries. To compound this problem, many of these most climate-vulnerable countries also fall into the category of “fragile states.”

These countries are particularly in need of support to combat the effects of climate change, which overlay and compound existing challenges in terms of governance, security, and poverty. Specifically:

• Within the top-25 most climate-vulnerable countries, as ranked by the ND-GAIN Index (and which overlap closely with highly fragile states, as indicated by the Fragile States Index), only 9 single-country adaptation projects have been approved by the GCF (total of USD $258.1 million). This is out of a total of 60 single-country adaptation projects approved by the GCF globally;
• The average amount of adaptation funding for the top-25 most climate-vulnerable countries is USD $10.3 million, compared to USD $32.5 million within states ranked 26-70 for climate vulnerability.

This indicates that GCF financing is often not being directed to the countries most vulnerable to climate change, including fragile states.

Adaptation finance must be allocated according to vulnerability

In the Updated Strategic Plan, the GCF committed to allocate a minimum of 69% of its resources to adaptation programming. This is an exciting 19% increase. But as we’ve already discussed, allocating adaptation funding to priority countries does not automatically mean funding is going to the most climate-vulnerable countries and by extension, fragile states.

To really address the needs of countries most at risk to climate change, the GCF must allocate its adaptation finance according to climate vulnerability. This will close the gap in adaptation finance directed to climate-vulnerable countries and fragile states.

Why invest in climate vulnerable countries and fragile states

There is a ‘triple dividend’ of investing in adaptation and resilience, which ensures scarce resources create the widest benefits including reducing disaster losses, unlocking development potential, and fostering wider social and environmental co-benefits.

Given the GCF’s emphasis on transformational climate-sensitive investments, investing in climate change adaptation makes economic sense, and will help climate-vulnerable countries build resilience to future crises.

These investments are needed globally, but particularly in climate-vulnerable countries and fragile states, which are not only highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change but also have a low readiness to respond. For example, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) ranks 177 out of 181 on the ND-GAIN index and is plagued by protracted humanitarian crises, particularly in the east, which has experienced more than two decades of violence and mass displacement.

What success can look like: an example from Mercy Corps

Programming in fragile, climate-vulnerable states is possible, but interventions must take local drivers of conflict into account. An example of programming that adopts conflict-sensitive approaches is Mercy Corps’ Food Security and Inclusive Access to Resources for Conflict-Sensitive Market Development Program (FARM). Funded by the Dutch government, the program is designed to improve food security and socioeconomic conditions in 19 villages in North Kivu and alleviate pressures on the local environment.

The FARM program uses sophisticated ecosystem modeling technologies that help communities come together to make strategic investments to improve their local environmental conditions, reducing disaster risk and building social cohesion simultaneously.

A technical partner in the program, EcoMetric Solutions Group (ESG), led an Environment and Ecosystems assessment that looked at environmental issues that lead to climate risks and fuel conflict. The analysis provided strategic suggestions to improve environmental conditions with a clear return on investment identified for all stakeholders, enhancing cooperation and reducing conflict, particularly in the agriculture sector.

The FARM program is a concrete example of building adaptive capacity to climate change in vulnerable countries and has the potential to yield the type of paradigm shift the GCF strives for.

We urge the Green Climate Fund to play its role in the lead up to COP26

Without investment, the most climate-vulnerable and fragile countries have little hope of adapting to the potentially devastating effects of climate change already being felt.

The GCF Board must prioritize adaptation funding to the most climate-vulnerable countries and fragile states during this crucial phase of the Fund. By 2030, 2.2 billion people will live in fragile states, which will represent 26% of the total world population.

Investing in adaptation programming in climate-vulnerable fragile states now will increase the ability of these communities to weather the climate threats they will inevitably face.

On the road to COP26, the global community will debate how to increase climate ambition and support those most vulnerable to climate change impacts. The Green Climate Fund has a critical role to play in helping climate-vulnerable countries and fragile states adapt to climate change, and must step up to meet this moment.

This blog is reposted from the Flood Resilience Portal website.

A short video clip that explains the Green Climate Fund (GCF) Indigenous Peoples’ Policy, developed by Tebtebba, with support from Climate Land Use Alliance (CLUA).

This document has been written to describe and guide Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPO) in Latin America on GCF’s Readiness and Preparatory Support Program (readiness program) and to alert and prepare them to directly access to financial resources of the Fund.

Indigenous Peoples’ organizations in Latin America, as in other parts of the globe, have insisted and have a permanently lobby process on their demand for direct access to the financial resources of the GCF.

This process presents two areas: on the one hand, the high standards and rigorous parameters of the GCF, first, to be accredited and second, to properly access the funds. On the other hand, we have to consider the history and administrative, technical and financial capacities of the organizations of indigenous peoples. These are two very different aspects, however, both the GCF and the IPOs, have to analyze, and get to know each other and, work together to pave the way for the IPOs to access the funds.

1. Background

The term Nature-based Solutions (NBS) was adopted by and popularized by the IUCN members during the 2016 World Conservation asn was defined as “actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits”.[1]

While the NBS concept and term have gained momentum and is now being used by conservation organizations, governments and the UN, many are also critical about how it has increasingly being used to “greenwash” potential false solutions to climate change.

Introduction

The importance of national ownership of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) by the main actors in the climate agenda has been part of the negotiations of the Parties, and among them, Indigenous Peoples, as observers. The concept of national ownership of climate issues is based on ensuring a negotiation process that is transparent and adjusted to the social, economic, environmental and cultural reality in each country. The importance of the level of national ownership in climate issues implies having the participation of those actors who are most affected by climate change and especially by those whose mitigation and adaptation actions may have an impact on their territories and livelihoods. In other words, national ownership implies taking measures of national involvement which, then, means making the commitment as their own.

The concept of national ownership has been used in the development cooperation agenda since the 1990s, when the discussion pointed to a paradigm shift from the donor community towards an empowerment of the recipient countries, which meant higher levels of involvement, participation and collaboration of society. This idea has been taken up with greater emphasis in climate finance actions since the signing of the Paris Agreement.[1]

Indigenous Peoples are faithful Stewards of Nature and Biodiversity

There are an estimated 370 million Indigenous Peoples living in over 90 countries around the world.^[1] Many of the territories in which indigenous peoples live contain critical ecosystems that possess much of the earth’s remaining biodiversity and forests. These same ecosystems, and the resources in them, are vital for mitigation and adaptation to climate change as well as the livelihoods and survival of Indigenous Peoples.^[2]

IPs,  traditional natural resource management systems and traditional ecological knowledge have also been recognized as an important source of resiliency and adaptation, not least by the recent IPCC AR5, a number of UNFCCC COP decisions, including especially the Paris Agreement, Cancun and Warsaw decision; the Outcome document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples Issues (WCIP), including most of the UN development agencies which have established indigenous peoples specific policies.

Indigenous Peoples and the Green Climate Fund – An introduction

Climate change is essentially a question of people-nature relations. This relationship has been such that global natural systems and human’s basic survival have seriously been compromised through unsustainable exploitation of nature in the name of development. The overarching goal for global climate change actions under the UNFCCC is therefore an attempt by humanity to restore the desired positive/sustainable relations with nature.

On the other hand, indigenous peoples of the world have remained relatively faithful stewards of nature despite experiencing historical dispossession of their lands, territories and natural resources, including marginalization and exclusion in the sharing of the ‘goods/benefits’ of development. In addition, as peoples of the land and nature, whose livelihoods support systems are climate sensitive, they’re experiencing the ravages of climate change.

Background

Indigenous Peoples’ clarion call on climate finance under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been establishment of a specially dedicated fund (funding arrangement) to be directly accessed by Indigenous Peoples from developing and developed countries to support climate change response actions undertaken by indigenous peoples within their territories.

It is now an empirically established fact that the last remaining natural forests (which are part of the solution to climate change), are home to many of the world’s Indigenous peoples. Indigenous Peoples traditional natural resource management systems and traditional ecological knowledge have also been recognized as an important source of resiliency and adaptation. It follows that, since their livelihoods are natural resources and climate dependent, IPs are in the frontline of the negative impacts of climate. Access to sustained and predictable direct access resources to mitigate and adapt to impacts of climate change therefore become a critical question.

A fin de fortalecer la capacidad de gobiernos de América Latina para beneficiarse del apoyo otorgado por el Fondo, así como de organizaciones no gubernamentales para dar segimiento a sus operaciones, AIDA distribuye ampliamente resúmenes en español de las decisiones adoptadas por la Junta Directiva de la entidad.

Dear Board members and alternates,

As representatives from civil society organizations (CSOs), Indigenous Peoples’ organizations, and local communities actively engaged in the proceedings of the GCF, we write to express our significant concerns about B.26 and GCF’s organization of work within the COVID-19 context. First of all, the lack of information about whether, when, and with what operational procedures B.26 would take place, especially in light of the previous Board decision scheduling it for this week, is of significant concern. As key stakeholders and collaborators in the GCF, it is extremely difficult to plan and prepare for our active participation (as stipulated in the Governing Instrument) without information on the meeting’s status.

While we understand that the COVID-19 pandemic is leading to significant challenges and causing disruptions in schedules, the failure to provide any information about the discussion of plans for the meeting, even an acknowledgement that the meeting would not occur in June as intended, is a failure to operate the Fund in a transparent manner. While the public at large is entitled to basic information about the next meeting, we are particularly concerned as civil society and Indigenous Peoples who follow the Fund’s activities. While we remain concerned, we recognize the imperative for some of the functions of the GCF to continue during this uncertain time. The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the need to not be distracted from the urgency of the climate crisis and to provide climate finance and support country-driven, human-rights centred and inclusive climate action that builds the resiliency of people, communities, and systems. Thus, in this unusual time, we recognize that steps may have to be taken, including having a virtual meeting, to adapt normal practice to ensure that finance for climate projects flows to local communities. However, we stress that having a virtual meeting should not become the norm for the GCF, but rather a temporary measure to allow the work to continue in light of a global pandemic.

Through a collaboration with Prospera, the International Network of Women’s Funds, who commissioned this vital work, WEDO researched and produced this report and accompanying summary documents on engaging women’s organizations, feminist advocates, and gender-related groups in climate finance. Ensuring women’s organizations are engaged in climate finance and increasing access to funding for gender-responsive climate solutions are key priorities for WEDO.

The report, Women’s Organizations and Climate Finance: Engaging in Processes and Accessing Resources, provides an overview of climate finance mechanisms, including the framework and approach for integrating gender equality across each of the funds the state of gender integration across each of the funds, and the challenges and opportunities to engage for women’s funds and their partner organizations. While the report does include a focus on the Asia-Pacific region, the information and recommendations for engagement are global and serve women’s funds and organizations operating in diverse contexts.

The brief, Enhancing Women’s Organizations’ Role In, and Access To, Climate Finance, presents an overview of the report, reviewing key challenges for meaningful engagement and access by women’s organizations and highlighting the pathways for engagement identified for each of the funds and the key actions for increasing the participation of women’s organizations, feminist advocates, and gender-related groups in the processes of the multilateral climate funds.

This example shares the story of the Mongolian Women’s Fund, MONES, and its experience seeking to engage with the Green Climate Fund (GCF).

This guidebook on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) emerges from the collaboration between the Women’s Environment & Development Organization (WEDO) and Both ENDS, as a member of the Global Alliance for Green and Gender Action (GAGGA), on the initiative, “Participation is Power: Women Demand Gender-Just Climate Finance,” supported by the Wallace Global Fund. Lessons and insights from the GCF Gender Monitors are featured to inform and inspire effective advocacy in this space, where women’s rights activists can and should be influencing the design of projects and flow of funds.

This meeting report was based on conference sessions that were streamed through Facebook Live.

Climate change and its impacts have serious worldwide implications on socio-economic development especially for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) such as Malawi. In response, Malawi has prioritized climate change in its development agenda. Cognizant that effective response to climate change challenge requires collective action from all countries, advanced economies unanimously agreed to jointly mobilize significant financial resources for addressing the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries like Malawi under a fund called the Green Climate Fund. Civil Society Network on Climate (CISONECC) in collaboration with CARE International in Malawi, CARE DL and German Watch is implementing the GCF-CSO Readiness project in Malawi whose objective is to strengthen the engagement of civil society actors and organizations in the GCF processes at national, regional and international level and scale-up existing CSOs’ capacities as well as to ensure accountability of GCF-funded activities by national authorities through a broader societal mobilization for transformation and better impacts.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was created to serve as one of the primary funding institutions of the international climate finance architecture under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. Its overall goal is to promote the “paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways’’ by providing support to developing countries, specifically those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change, to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt of global warming effects. With a portfolio of over hundred projects and programmes across developing countries, the GCF is expected to reduce more than 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases and to improve the life of over 276 million (direct and indirect) beneficiaries across 97 countries.

The Governing Instrument of the GCF, in paragraph 71, recognises the importance of stakeholder input and participation. It requests the board of the fund to develop mechanisms to promote the participation of broad stakeholders in the design, development and implementation of strategies as well as activities financed by the fund. Amongst them private sector actors, civil society organisations, vulnerable groups, women and indigenous peoples and communities.

Therefore, encouraging as well as building civil society readiness for the GCF has emerged as a necessary step in contributing to a successful fund. This toolkit aims to provide civil society actors and their organisations, as well as any other stakeholders interested in the GCF, with relevant information, deeper knowledge, and guidance on how to get involved with the fund. By providing an overview of the GCF and possibilities for CSO engagement, the publication introduces the key structures and policies of the fund and the functioning of project and programme, from their inception and development to their implementation and monitoring. An emphasis on the practicality und concrete usefulness of the toolkit is illustrated through a number of case study examples as well as useful tools, which illustrate civil society roles and provide hands-on approaches on their meaningful engagement with the GCF.

The toolkit is published under the project “CSO readiness for the GCF – focus Africa”, supported by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety and implemented by Germanwatch and CARE with support from PACJA (Kenya), Enda Energie (Senegal), CISONECC (Malawi), AESVT (Morocco), and Kasa Initiative (Ghana).

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) has involved external experts or stakeholders measuring performance of a project or an activity against preset indicators, using standardized procedures and tools. However, with growing emphasis on participatory approaches towards development, there has been recognition that M&E should also be inclusive and consultative. Participation, defined as a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them, could strengthen M&E. Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) is defined as a process through which stakeholders at various levels engage in monitoring and/or evaluating a particular project, programme, activity or policy, share control over their content, the process and the results, as well as engage in taking or identifying corrective actions.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) requires that financed programmes, projects and activities are regularly monitored for impact, efficiency and effectiveness in line with rules and procedures established by the Board. The Fund encourages the use of participatory monitoring involving targeted stakeholders and calls on Accredited Entities (AEs) to include at the project/programme level participatory monitoring approaches. This translates into the expectation that they involve communities and local stakeholders, including civil society organizations (CSOs), at all stages of the project/programme cycle.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the world’s largest dedicated fund for climate action. By the end of this year it will have distributed all USD 10.2 billion of its initial resource mobilisation to over 102 projects in 97 countries, and we hope have raised twice as much again in its first formal replenishment. It is vital that the GCF’s efforts to increase finance for climate change are successful.

Therefore it is essential that the GCF considers new, or ‘innovative’, sources of finance to help developing countries reduce their emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and to address the loss and damage when climate impacts go beyond adaptation capabilities. These new sources of finance must be genuinely new – not simply a replacement for commitments from rich countries, and it is essential that they not increase the debt burden on vulnerable countries.

We suggest that the GCF put in place a work plan to properly address truly new sources of finance beginning in 2020 that includes: establishing guiding principles, such as polluter pays and equity and fairness, and that new sources of finance should not increase indebtedness of vulnerable countries; exploring potential new sources of finance, with an emphasis on the taxation options included in this report, and identifying how much finance each could raise and for what purpose; credible plans of action for how to implement the most promising new sources detailing the steps that would need to be taken; and, identifying any additional architecture that would need to be put in place.

Indigenous peoples are unique and a distinct stakeholder of the GCF. The rights of indigenous peoples are affirmed by international human rights instruments, including binding treaties and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Indigenous peoples have invaluable and critical contributions to make to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Yet they are also facing serious threats to the realization of their rights from climate change actions.

This GCF Indigenous Peoples Policy (hereafter Policy) recognizes that indigenous peoples often have identities and aspirations that are distinct from mainstream groups in national societies and are disadvantaged by traditional models of mitigation, adaptation and development. In many instances, they are among the most economically marginalized and vulnerable segments of the population. The economic, social and legal status of indigenous peoples frequently limit their capacity to defend their rights to, and interests in, land, territories and natural and cultural resources, and may restrict their ability to participate in and benefit from development initiatives and climate change actions. In many cases, they do not receive equitable access to project benefits, or benefits are not devised or delivered in a form that isculturally appropriate, and they are not always adequately consulted about the design or implementation of activities that would profoundly affect their lives or communities.

This Policy will assist GCF in incorporating considerations related to indigenous peoples into its decision-making while working towards the goals of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The Policy allows GCF to anticipate and avoid any adverse impacts its activities may have on indigenous peoples’ rights, interests and well-being, and when avoidance is not possible to minimize, mitigate and/or compensate appropriately and equitably for such impacts, in a consistent way and to improve outcomes over time. These elements of the Policy will be integrated with other business processes and governance frameworks, particularly the ESMS, and will be utilized across the organization of GCF. The Policy will evolve and continue to mature as GCF operations develop.

CSO Update on the 22nd GCF Board Meeting Day 3, prepared by the APMDD GCF Team.

CSO Update on the 22nd GCF Board Meeting Day 2, prepared by the APMDD GCF Team.

CSO Update on the 22nd GCF Board Meeting Day 1, prepared by the APMDD GCF Team.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) recognizes the importance of stakeholder input and participation in the design, development and implementation of its financed strategies and activities to reduce CO₂ emissions and support developing countries that are vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Despite some existing challenges, these stakeholders, including private sector actors, civil society organizations (CSOs), vulnerable groups, women and indigenous peoples, can engage in the GCF at various levels.

Prepared for use in particular by civil society, this factsheet provides clear information about which engagement opportunities exist at the national, regional and international levels for CSOs in the GCF. It enhances understanding on how to interact with the Fund’s Board, its Secretariat, and other relevant actors involved in the implementation of its financed activities. Furthermore, it describes which specific roles civil society can play in order to have a meaningful impact when they engage in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating activities, projects and programmes funded by the GCF. The publication ends by emphasizing a number of the Fund’s policies and guidelines, which are pertinent for civil society’s readiness.

The factsheet is published under the project “CSOs readiness to the GCF – focus Africa” jointly implemented by Germanwatch and CARE International with support from a consortium of African networks and civil society organizations. The project aims to support broader African civil society engagement in the critical early implementation phase of the GCF. Objectives include developing readiness materials which facilitate CSO understanding and engagement, supporting CSO engagement with the Fund in key African countries (with a focus on Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Morocco, and Senegal), and sharing experiences at regional and global scales for expanded CSO engagement in Africa and beyond.

Fiche d’information sur l’Engagement de la société civile dans le Fonds vert pour le climat

Le Fonds vert pour le climat (FVC) reconnaît l’importance de la contribution et de la participation des parties prenantes à la conception, au développement et à la mise en œuvre de ses stratégies et des activités qu’il finance pour réduire les émissions de CO₂ et soutenir les pays en développement qui sont vulnérables aux effets du changement climatique. En dépit de difficultés existantes, ces parties prenantes, y compris les acteurs du secteur privé, les organisations de la société civile (OSC), les groupes vulnérables, les femmes et les peuples autochtones, peuvent participer aux activités du Fonds à différents niveaux.

Elaborée pour être particulièrement utilisée par la société civile, cette fiche d’information fournit des informations importantes sur les opportunités d’engagement avec le FVC qui existent aux niveaux local, national, régional et international pour les OSC. Il permet de mieux comprendre comment interagir avec le Conseil d’administration du Fonds, son Secrétariat indépendant et les autres acteurs qui participent à la mise en œuvre des activités financées par le Fonds. En outre, il décrit les rôles spécifiques que la société civile peut jouer pour avoir un impact significatif lorsqu’elle participe à la planification, à la mise en œuvre, au suivi et à l’évaluation des activités, projets et programmes financés par le Fonds. La publication souligne aussi un certain nombre de politiques et directives du FVC qui sont pertinentes pour une meilleure préparation de la société civile à son engagement.

Ces deux fiches d’information sont publiées dans le cadre du projet « Préparation des OSC au FVC – focus sur l’Afrique » conjointement mis en œuvre par Germanwatch et CARE International avec le soutien d’un consortium de réseaux et d’organisations africains de la société civile. Le projet vise à soutenir un engagement plus large de la société civile africaine dans la phase critique de mise en œuvre des activités financées par le Fonds. Les objectifs incluent l’élaboration de matériels de préparation qui facilitent la compréhension et l’engagement des organisations de la société civile (OSC) ; le soutien à l’engagement de ces acteurs au sein des activités du Fonds dans certains pays africains (notamment au Ghana, au Maroc, au Malawi, au Kenya et au Sénégal), et le partage des expériences aux niveaux régional et international, en vue d’un engagement accru des OSC en Afrique et au-delà.

Green Climate Fund Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme – a Factsheet for Civil Society

Developing countries that are vulnerable to the effects of climate change and/or plan activities to reduce CO₂ emissions can access resources from the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The Fund has established the Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme which is meant to promote country ownership. Since its operationalization in 2014, the Programme has been providing early support activities to enhance ownership and enable access to the GCF resources.

This factsheet is made for civil society and aims to enhance their understanding of the GCF’s Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme. It provides a clear explanation of which activities are supported, how much funding is available and how to access these resources in order to strengthen countries’ engagement with the Fund as well as maximize the impacts of funded projects or programmes locally.

The factsheet is published under the project “Civil Society Organizations readiness to the Green Climate Fund – focus Africa” jointly implemented by Germanwatch and CARE International with support from a consortium of African networks and civil society organizations. The project aims to support broader African civil society engagement in the critical early implementation phase of the GCF. Objectives include developing readiness materials which facilitate CSOs understanding and engagement; supporting CSOs engagement with the Fund in key African countries (with a focus on Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Malawi and Senegal), and sharing experiences at regional and global scales for expanded CSOs engagement in Africa and beyond.

Fiche d’information sur le Programme de préparation et de soutien préparatoire du Fonds vert pour le climat

Les pays en développement qui sont vulnérables aux effets du changement climatique et/ou qui conçoivent des activités visant la réduction des émissions de CO₂ peuvent accéder aux ressources financières du Fonds vert pour le climat (FVC). Le Fonds a établi le Programme de préparation et de soutien préparatoire (Readiness Programme) qui vise à promouvoir l’appropriation par les pays. Depuis l’opérationnalisation du Fonds en 2014, le Programme fournit une aide aux activités visant à améliorer l’appropriation et permettre un accès aux ressources du FVC.

Cette fiche d’information, préparée en particulier pour être utilisée par la société civile, vise à améliorer la compréhension du Programme de préparation et de soutien préparatoire du Fonds vert pour le climat. Elle explique clairement quelles activités sont financées, dans quelle mesure ce financement est disponible et comment accéder à ces ressources afin de renforcer la participation des pays en développement au Fonds et de maximiser l’impact des projets ou programmes financés par celui-ci au niveau local, national et régional.

Being at the table when governments prepare decisions in relation to how they approach the Green Climate Fund (GCF) domestically is important for civil society to play a meaningful role as dialogue partner. As part of a multi-country project advancing civil society readiness to the GCF with a particular focus on Africa, civil society organisations in Ghana have been actively engaging in the national debates on the GCF.

In 2017, the SDG13 platform demanded from Government that CSOs be granted observer rights in the country’s cross-ministerial Technical Advisory Committee. Eventually, Government acceded to our demands – and more. But why did we succeed?

The impacts of climate change are already being felt by many millions of people and communities around the world – but the burden weighs most heavily on the poor and marginalised in developing countries.

That’s why 195 countries came together to create the Green Climate Fund (GCF) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The GCF is expected to play a central role in financing efforts to combat climate change (mitigation) and to help eveloping countries cope with its effects (adaptation).

The GCF agreed on eight initial funding proposals in November 2015, following a five year process to establish the Fund. It has been promised US$10.3billion over its first four years of operation, mostly from developed countries, but only US$6.7 billion has actually been legally committed to the GCF to date. The USA is the most prominent laggard and has yet to deliver any of its US$3 billion pledge.

The private sector – in particular, the role of transnational corporations and financiers – has featured prominently in discussions on the Green Climate Fund (GCF). As in other areas of climate finance, this partly reflects the lack of public money that developed untries provide to help developing countries to take climate action.

Green Climate Fund (GCF) projects and programmes can only take place in countries where approval has been given by a National Designated Authority (NDA) or “focal point,” usually housed within a government ministry (a full list is here: bit.ly/1RY9w1W).

NDAs and focal points are expected to engage in a process of multi-stakeholder engagement before issuing a “no objection” letter approving a project, although it remains to be seen if this will happen in practice. Contacting an NDA or focal point is a good starting
point for finding out about activities that the GCF is considering funding in your area.

Non-governmental organizations may have further information on GCF activities, notably through www.gcfwatch.org.

It is also worth checking the official GCF website (www.greenclimate.fund), which should list projects and programmes three weeks in dvance of their approval by the Fund’s Board.

There are no restrictions on whom or what kind of organization can come up with an idea for a Green Climate Fund (GCF) funding proposal. Activities can be proposed by organizations based in developed or developing countries, but only an approved GCF partner can actually submit a proposal. There are 20 of these “accredited entities” so far (see bit.ly/1ToYWmz), ranging from multilateral banks to government ministries, with dozens more currently considering accreditation. Other organizations must work with accredited entities to develop their proposals. For example, an unaccredited government ministry may work with a GCFaccredited multilateral development agency to develop a proposal, or an unaccredited civil society organization or cooperative may work with a GCF-accredited commercial bank.

The safeguard policies of financial institutions are supposed to ensure that they do not fund activities that harm people and the environment.

The GCF is using the International Finance Corporation’s Environmental and Social Performance Standards on an interim basis. These provide benchmarks covering eight topics: 1) the assessment and management of environmental and social risks and impacts; 2) labour and working conditions; 3) resource efficiency and pollution prevention; 4) community health, safety, and security; 5) land acquisition and involuntary resettlement; 6) biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of living natural resources; 7) ndigenous Peoples; and 8) cultural heritage.

The GCF will develop its own “best practice” safeguards by 2018 through a multi-stakeholder process.

The safeguard policies of financial institutions are supposed to ensure that they do not fund activities that harm people and the environment.

The GCF is using the International Finance Corporation’s Environmental and Social Performance Standards on an interim basis. These provide benchmarks covering eight topics: 1) the assessment and management of environmental and social risks and impacts; 2) labour and working conditions; 3) resource efficiency and pollution prevention; 4) community health, safety, and security; 5) land acquisition and involuntary resettlement; 6) biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of living natural resources; 7) ndigenous Peoples; and 8) cultural heritage.

The GCF will develop its own “best practice” safeguards by 2018 through a multi-stakeholder process.